| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.19 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I also ought to declare a constituency interest as I live in and represent an area on the south bank of the Forth, in closed waters. When I listened to the powerful and detailed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and his description of the Sea Empress, I could not help but feel that there but for the grace of God might we have gone. There was a near accident at Aberdour and, in closed waters, the results would have been catastrophic.
When I listened to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), it occurred to me to ask why, in the past 30 years since the Torrey Canyon, we seem to have made so little progress. It is not as if British Governments have been run by people who were uninterested in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will recollect that the Prime Minister of the time had his holiday house in the Scilly Isles. Indeed, so much did he love those islands that he is buried there. Harold Wilson cared enormously about this issue. His Conservative successor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), is not exactly uninterested in things maritime. Nevertheless, successive Governments--not only those under the leadership of those two Prime Ministers--have not made the progress that one might have expected.
The Bill--indeed, any Bill on the subject--is particularly welcome, therefore. I must point out to the Minister, without antagonism, however, that in such a debate Ministers should listen to their parliamentary colleagues when they are saying more or less the same thing. We are saying--the Opposition Front Bench, my colleagues and the hon. Member for St. Ives--that there should be mandatory provisions for port waste reception facilities, with mandatory port waste management plans.
I should like to hear in the reply to the debate, or in Committee--preferably in the reply--what on earth is the objection to mandatory provisions. When I intervened on the Secretary of State--he will forgive me if I have got him wrong--he said that he was against mandatory legislation. Equally, he seemed to be against mandatory discharge of waste by visiting ships coupled with charging for reception facilities by an inclusive fee system.
Such mandatory provisions are the considered view of a number of those who know a lot about such things, not least the Marine Conservation Society, of which I am a member. Indeed, I took part in its "Beachwatch 1996" survey and cleaned up a great many plastics and other things under the Forth bridge on that rather cold and windy autumn day.
Can the Minister tell us what the objection is and why the Government are unwilling to accept mandatory provisions? There must be some objection, but we cannot divine it. Have they been given some legal advice? What is it?
On 28 January, I asked the Secretary of State
For the register to act as a reliable and effective pollution deterrent, it should be comprehensive, regularly and routinely updated and available for public scrutiny at all reasonable times and at reasonable cost. That is a pretty reasonable proposition. I hope that the Government will reconsider a public register before the Bill goes to the Standing Committee.
I also hope that the Government will reconsider having garbage record books. There is a lack of prosecutions for the illegal disposal of plastics at sea primarily because the Marine Safety Agency has insufficient evidence to take legal action. Evidence to bring a case to court could be obtained if there was proof that a vessel did not have the appropriate amount of waste on board for its size and the length of time spent at sea. It is for that purpose that the use of garbage record books should be implemented as soon as possible.
Garbage record books would record each day the volume, description and type of garbage arising from the normal operation of the ship. They would record the date and time, and the volume, description and type of garbage placed into reception facilities at named UK ports. They would also record the date, volume and the method of disposal of any garbage from the ship, by whatever means. Every garbage record book would be made available to the relevant authorities in subsequent ports visited. The books could be inspected and copied on to a public register. Easy access to that register would allow public scrutiny of the environmental practices of ships and ship operators going through UK and other ports. In turn, that would act as a deterrent to bad environmental
practice, while allowing ships that operated in an environmentally sensitive way the opportunity to profit from the good publicity provided by good environmental practices.
That is the view of the Marine Conservation Society and others, but it is also my deep, personal conviction. Unlike almost all other hon. Members, I spent two years at sea as a seconded employee of P and O. Going into ports, and at sea, one sees exactly what happens: crews are casual and take the easy way out; blind eyes are turned; skippers are not all that fussy; and even the most rigorous captains cannot be on top of the situation all the time.
Something must be done if we are to be at all effective. As my hon. Friends have said, it costs a great deal less to nip the problem in the bud than to clean up the beaches afterwards. I emphasise the importance of easy-to-use reception facilities. Waste management plans should be introduced as primary legislation in the Bill and not in the form of its current enabling powers, to ensure that all ports prepare adequate plans without further delay.
The Department has stated that the problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process. In Committee, we should like to hear more details of precisely what the Department has in mind for that process. The initiative is a welcome first step, but the Bill does not deliver the system of certification of all waste reception facilities that was called for in recommendation 27 of the Donaldson report. People in the Marine Conservation Society who have considered the matter would be keen for the Environment Agency to be given the responsibility for reviewing and deeming adequate those waste management plans.
I mentioned the inclusive fee during the Secretary of State's speech; he was most courteous about giving way. While the inclusive fee system is probably most appropriate for garbage and non-cargo oily waste, such as bilge water, oily waste from cargo tanks is likely to be more voluminous and specialised and therefore to cost more than an inclusive fee system could easily cope with. However, the need for an inclusive fee system is highlighted by Lord Donaldson in recommendation 27(e), and it is clear that a shipowner or master is more likely to use the facilities for which a fee has already been paid. That is human nature.
I hope that something will be said in Committee about the impact on wildlife. The full impact of marine debris on marine species is difficult to assess because of the limited research and the fact that sampling is largely confined to land-based observations. Research so far has primarily measured frequency of interaction rather than assessing the proportion of a species that is affected.
Marine debris can directly harm wildlife as a result of entanglement and ingestion. It is estimated that more than 1 million birds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles die each year from entanglement in, or ingestion of, plastics. Of the 115 species of marine mammal, 47 are known to become entangled in or to ingest marine debris. In Committee, we can discuss the various hazards presented to marine life by such debris.
"what assessment he has made of the impact of the Merchant Shipping Regulations 1988 in reducing marine debris."
His answer was:
"Surveys by and on behalf of the Marine Safety Agency have shown that the waste reception facilities provided by harbour authorities pursuant to the Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 are generally adequate."
10 Feb 1997 : Column 63
Frankly, they are not adequate and they never have been. They were not adequate 30 years ago, when I was a member of the Mikardo committee. My best advice, in preparing for the debate, was that they are still not adequate. The Minister should not have continued:
I also asked whether the Secretary of State would
"It is therefore difficult to make a specific assessment of the effect of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1988 in isolation from other legislation relating to pollution of the marine environment from both shipping and land-based sources."
"set up a public register of legal notices, offences and fines relating to pollution of the marine environment from shipping."
The departmental reply was:
"The Government already publish details of vessels prosecuted for marine pollution offences and vessels which have been reported to their flag states for suspected pollution offences. We do not intend to introduce a public register."
That course of action has not been effective and it is not sufficient to say:
"We do not intend to introduce a public register."--[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 128.]
There is a good case for such a register. Legal notices and details of offences and fines relating to pollution of the marine environment by shipping should be kept on a public register and so be subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The combination of requiring records to be kept, and the prospect of public scrutiny, would secure greater use of port reception facilities for oil and rubbish by visiting ships. The pollution regulation of the shipping industry would also be brought into line with terrestrial industry in terms of access to environmental information.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |