| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: It was right to put down the amendment, again simply to probe. I know concerns were expressed by, among others, the Marine Conservation Society, but I am persuaded that in this instance there would be no commensurate benefit compared with the actual saving of environmental damage that might arise.
As to the question of duplication, I note what the Minister has to say, and he is also probably right about that. I am persuaded that it would not be right to proceed with the amendment and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 38:
The noble Lord said: This is not altogether dissimilar, although here we are dealing with oil record books. The regulations of 1996, the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations, required oil record books to be provided to ships and they are also required to record a range of information about ballasting, discharging, disposing of oily residues, and so on.
The situation at the moment, as I understand it, is that there is power vested in the harbour authorities to inspect these but there is no duty so to do. In parenthesis so to speak, I ask to what extent these powers have been exercised since the merchant shipping regulations came into effect. I would imagine it is probably too early to judge, but perhaps the Minister could indicate whether
There is no provision--again, as I understand it, and I stand to be corrected--for the inspection of the oil record books, nor is there any provision by way of a public register to make sure that there can be legitimate scrutiny of the ship's environmental records. I do not think there would be any great practical problem as far as ships are concerned in that connection because many of them are in port for some considerable time and, therefore, adequate time could be provided for such inspection and copying to be undertaken.
I should have added that under the 1995 Act discharges of oil into harbours are required to be reported to the harbour authority as well, so, to some extent, the ground is traversed but not wholly.
We believe that this is not a point that was answered in the previous debate, but I thought in the context of garbage it was not quite so significant. There is provision affecting land-based industry, where public scrutiny through the availability of public registers has been set up - again, the Water Act 1989, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and so on. Perhaps the Minister would address the argument, because this is more significant, as to why there is a distinction between land-based industry and the regulatory regime which applies and the shipping industry and the much less stringent regulatory regime which applies there. It is a point worth making and noting and answering. Perhaps the Minister has an adequate answer and I look forward to hearing what it is. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his acceptance of the arguments with relation to the previous amendment concerning garbage. The arguments are very similar here, and it is for that reason, and the additional burdens that this would create set against the benefits, that the Government do not feel that we could support this amendment.
The noble Lord commented on the role of harbour authorities with regard to inspecting the record books. I am not sure that he is right in his analysis, but that is a point I would like to check and come back on, and perhaps write to the noble Lord on the subject. Needless to say, I would of course copy it to all noble Lords who have spoken at the Committee stage of the Bill.
The important other distinction that the noble Lord made about ships versus land-based installations is, first, one of number--that there are very many more ships than there are land-based installations, and we must consider the volume of ships that come in and out. The second point is that it is easier to measure the discharges with land-based installations. A ship by nature is mobile and travels around to a number of different areas, so there is more uncertainty over the location of the discharge if it were to occur.
Essentially the arguments here are very similar to the arguments put forward in the previous Amendment No. 37 relating to garbage. The burden would be considerable and it is difficult to see that the environmental benefits would match.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not quite so satisfied about that response. There is a disparity with land-based industry and the regulatory regime which exists there, which has been carefully thought out by the Department of the Environment in introducing its statutory provisions. I am not convinced that it is so difficult to establish the sort of regime that we have in mind here. Indeed, as I have said before, ships are required to provide a range of information about a whole variety of things, and the only aspect that is missing is that there is no duty on the part of anybody to inspect the records that are supposed to be maintained. One has to ask: what is the purpose of the records?
I repeat: have the harbour authorities given any indication to the Minister about how they will go about exercising the power that was vested in them this year, because that is highly germane? If they are not doing anything very positive about it, it would seem to me that the power is somewhat redundant, and I would deeply regret that. When the regulations were propounded there was a great deal of force in the argument that they were necessary; I believed that they were necessary and the Minister clearly did. But if powers are necessary, they should be capable of proper exercise. That is the point I am making. It may be that a duty is going too far, but the Minister will, I hope, be able to satisfy me on that point. I certainly do not want to impose additional bureaucracy for no purpose on the port authorities, but it is much more important, I would have thought, to deal with the question relating to oil than to the garbage issue which we were discussing before.
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said and I propose to withdraw this amendment in due course, but before I do so perhaps he would respond to the two points which I made.
Viscount Goschen: There is first the point about whether there should be a duty of inspection, whoever it is by. Of course port state control inspectors can inspect the records. One is always rather loath to draw comparisons with a rather different situation, but the noble Lord might be under a duty to have insurance for his car but there is not necessarily a duty on every policeman whom he passes to inspect it. The point is that the record must be kept and it can be inspected by port state control inspectors.
The other point is with regard to the comparison--and I am interested in pursuing this because I believe it is an important point--between land-based installations and ships. The point that I was trying to make is that the information is in a different category. It is not quite as meaningful as for land-based sources. You would not know for instance whether a ship had discharged at a different point, whereas a land-based installation of course is fixed and does not have the opportunities for disposal elsewhere that a ship has. I hope I have not
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister has not dealt with the second leg of the argument concerning what discussions had taken place, because presumably when the 1996 regulations were introduced they must have been subject to some consultation with the port authorities. What indication have the port authorities given as to how they will in fact go about dealing with the enabling power that is vested in them? This seems to me to be rather important. I tend to go along with the Minister down the route that he has decided to chart because I do not want to impose unnecessary bureaucracy. On the other hand I want to feel sure--as I am sure he does--that this power will be exercised responsibly. Do the port authorities feel that they have inadequate resources to deal with this power? If so, how would the Minister deal with that issue?
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) It shall be the duty of each harbour authority to inspect all oil record books having been issued to, and completed by, all visiting ships under Regulation 10 of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996.
(2) It shall be the duty of each harbour authority to maintain a register containing--
(a) copies of any oil record book inspected under Regulation 10(5) of the said Regulations; and
(b) written record of any reports to the harbour authority made under section 136 of the 1995 Act.
(3) It shall be the duty of each harbour authority maintaining a register under this section--
(a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge;
(b) to afford members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the register, on the payment of reasonable charges;
(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
(d) to ensure that all documents defined in subsection (2) are placed on the register within two weeks of their being brought into existence.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page