HL Deb 13 May 2002 vol 635 cc80-4

7.35 p.m.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations before the House today apply the provisions of a decision by the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. This decision covers a harmonised mandatory control system for the use and reduction of the discharge of chemicals employed in the offshore oil and gas industry. It was adopted in June 2000 and represents an international commitment which we propose to meet through these regulations under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.

Under the regulations, operators of offshore oil and gas installations will need to apply to the Secretary of State for permits covering their use and discharge of chemicals. A major component of each application will be a risk assessment of the effect on the marine environment of the discharge of chemicals from the installation. These risk assessments will be examined by my department's technical advisers who will make recommendations about the acceptability of what is proposed and, if necessary, recommend particular conditions in permits. All offshore operations involving the use and discharge of chemicals will be covered—daily production, the drilling of wells, discharges from pipelines and discharges that may occur during decommissioning activities.

These regulations will build on voluntary arrangements that have been in place for many years. Under the voluntary offshore chemicals notification scheme, offshore operators notified my department of chemicals use and discharge which enabled us to provide advice on those chemicals and on the amounts that could be discharged. In applying the voluntary scheme, offshore operators have adopted a sensible and pragmatic approach to safeguarding the marine environment. The time has come, however, for a more comprehensive regime for chemicals used by the offshore industry.

The stated purpose of the OSPAR decision is to, ensure and actively promote the continued shift towards the use of less hazardous substances (or preferably non-hazardous substances) and, as a result, the reduction of the overall environment impact resulting from the use and discharge of offshore chemicals". It seeks to achieve this through the screening of chemicals against specified criteria to identify ones that might be hazardous and for which substitutes should be sought. It also calls for the ranking of chemicals according to their potential hazard to allow informed selections to be made by operators and the appropriate issuing of permits. The Government support these new requirements and believe that they will ensure even greater protection for the marine environment.

There has been wide and extensive consultation on the regulations, on the accompanying guidance notes and the regulatory impact assessment. We are therefore aware of and have taken into account the views of stakeholders to ensure that introduction of the regulations will go as smoothly as possible. In addition to the mandatory consultation, my department has held a number of workshops with the industry as well as carrying out informal consultation on various aspects of the regulations such as the charging scheme and the regulatory impact assessment. The responses to the various consultations have supported the introduction of these new controls and virtually all the comments received related to points of clarification rather than points of real substance.

Inevitably, these comments have raised among other things the question of costs. As the regulatory impact assessment shows, the costs to the industry will arise from two areas—the administrative costs to government which will be subject to full cost recovery and the additional costs to industry of preparing permit applications. Over the first two years of the regulations, the costs to government are estimated to amount to £1.2 million and the additional costs to industry £2 million. Obviously, those are not insignificant sums, but I do not believe them to be excessive, particularly in the context of the overall costs of offshore operations—in 2001 the offshore industry spent a total close to £8 billion—and the benefits they will bring in ensuring that the environment is further protected. The offshore industry has acknowledged that once it has become more familiar with the permitting process, those costs will reduce.

We have sought to keep to a minimum the burden that the regulations pose. For example, we accepted the industry's suggestion that only one permit should be issued to the operator of an installation where there are fields tied back to that installation. We have also accepted the industry's suggestion that permits covering daily production should be open-ended, with a review every three years. That means that operators would, in effect, have to apply for permits only once. We have also accepted their request that only in certain circumstances should applications for permits be subject to public notice. We appreciate the constructive nature of those comments from the industry and I believe that we have arrived at a set of regulations that strike a sensible balance between enhancing protection of the marine environment and the concerns of the offshore oil and gas industry. I commend the regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these technical regulations and for the clear guidance notes that were provided by the department. Not only do we on these Benches welcome the proposals and accept the need for them, but we also note the wide consultation that has taken place with the industry and with other interested parties such as the Atlantic Frontier Environmental Network.

When these draft regulations were discussed in the other place last week, my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury asked the Minister for Industry and Energy a number of questions. Although the Minister responded sympathetically, I am not certain whether he replied to some of them definitively. 11 shall repeat some of them.

The guidance notes refer to representations being made by members of the public on applications for licences. There seems to be no provision for such representations to be made electronically, even though the industry is going to be required to make its applications by that means. The regulations do not seem to require the applicants to advertise their applications on a website.

It is all very well for an oil company to advertise in the West Highland Free Press, but there may be parties living in other parts of the country for whom that worthy journal is not part of their regular 'weekly reading.

In his response, the Minister in the other place told my honourable friend: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about electronic responses". Has that consideration yet taken place, and if it has what conclusions have been reached'?

I am also a little concerned about a further observation of the Minister in another place to the Committee that: we must protect the right of people not equipped to respond in that way". I hope that that does not mean that the Government will refuse to allow that form of response in order to cater for the lowest common denominator. That is apart from the fact that e-mail is becoming an increasingly common form of communication, as the Post Office is finding out to its cost. Facilities are available at commercial outlets—the so-called Internet cafés—or at public libraries for members of the public who do not own a PC. Will the Minister assure us unequivocally that the public will be able to respond electronically and tell us where and how that will be made clear to the public? This is an important precedent for future regulations.

The other point raised by my honourable friend concerned the possibility of the use of chemicals at very short notice, when it may be impractical for the operators to apply for permits within the prescribed time limits. That possibility is referred to in the guidance notes. Presumably, that would be as a result of an unforeseen and unforeseeable emergency. The Minister told the Committee that, operators should consult my Department as soon as possible". He went on: We have experts available at all times to respond throughout the year. I should perhaps clarify whether that is at all hours of the day and night". I should be most grateful if the noble Lord were able to give us that clarification now.

The Minister also assured the Committee: we will apply these provisions sensibly and flexibly. There is also a defence in the regulations available to operators about what to do if they had made best efforts to inform".—[Official Report, Commons Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8/5/02; cols. 9–10] He concluded that passage by saying, "We will clarify that". I assume that he was referring to Regulation 18(2)(b), which says that it shall be a defence to prove that the contravention was due to something done as a matter of urgency for the purposes of securing the safety of any person". I should appreciate that clarification from the Minister today, because I wonder what defence is to be available in an emergency that does not affect the safety of any person, but affects the environment—a major oil spill, perhaps—which might occur totally outside the department's office hours, perhaps at 2 a.m. on Christmas Day.

I repeat that, even with those questions, we welcome the regulations.

Lord Razzall

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I welcome the regulations and the Government's decision to introduce them to reflect their obligations under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. I look forward with interest to the Minister's responses to the noble Baroness and I shall not repeat some of her questions, which were raised in another place.

Geography obviously plays a significant part in the effects of an oil or chemical spillage. The United Kingdom will be affected not only by what happens off our waters, but also by what happens in other adjacent territories. What action are other relevant countries on continental Europe taking to comply with their obligations under the same convention?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the regulations. I shall try to deal with the points that they have raised. The format of the public notice has to cover the use of newspapers, because not everyone has websites, but there is no reason why the company cannot put it on their website. I think that the noble Baroness's point was about the response of people to that. As I understand it, responses to those applications can be made to an official named in the notice by letter, by fax or by e-mail. Only for the notice do we think that newspapers should be used.

The noble Baroness also asked about unforeseen events. We will have experts available at all times, day and night, 365 days a year. That covers the point that she raised. We are prepared to move quickly on that issue.

Other countries are moving on the issue. It has taken a long time to put measures in place. Other countries are moving at a similar pace. Different countries are doing different things. Some can use current legislation and others will need to introduce new legislation.

The point of the regulations is that the permit will be installation-specific. The fundamental point is that the marine environment is not the same throughout. There are different water depths, different currents and different life forms, so the permits will be specific to particular installations.

I hope that that answers the main points that have been raised. I believe that the regulations will add to the protection of the marine environment in a manner that is compatible with the continuing success of this country's oil and gas production. They will fit in well with enhanced existing offshore environmental practices. They have been framed to meet the legitimate concerns of the offshore oil and gas industry and consequently strike a proper balance between those concerns and our international commitments.

Lord Razzall

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have the answer to my question about what our continental neighbours are doing to comply with the convention?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville

My Lords, I hope that I covered that in general terms. If it would be helpful, I shall write to the noble Lord setting out specifically what individual countries are doing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.