Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Marland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 March 2011. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011.


Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I did not realise that such an SI would have so many incisive questions associated with it. I shall do my best to plough through them in the technical scope that they require. I will not take them in any particular order, but I shall immediately turn to the Gulf of Mexico. It is not a subject for discussion under these regulations. Clearly, a lot of future consideration needs to be taken into account as a result of the event. We are not at that point yet, but in various debates we have readily established that the UK has a safety record which is second to none. Moving on to who is responsible for overseeing these regulations, in DECC we have our offshore environmental inspectorate which reviews and assesses all spills and reports to ensure that the operators take action where appropriate to respond to any spill. It is very much within our own department and we work closely with Oil & Gas UK and the various trade associations. The point behind these regulations is that there obviously have been discharges. They were provoked by a modest discharge in the north North Sea from a chemical pipeline where an element of leakage and spillage was found that was not technically covered by the regulations. We have acted accordingly to embrace that sort of incident to ensure that the excellent environmental safety record that we maintain continues. Perhaps I may provide the statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, wants in writing rather than go through them now. I think that they are a slight sideshow to the real effect here, which is to make sure that we have got all the areas of concern covered. I apologise for jumping around the questions a bit. The noble Lord also asked whether these regulations refer to carbon capture and storage, for example. I can confirm that they do. Now that I am in the middle of negotiating the demonstration project, it is very important that this is taken into account as, indeed, are gas storage and pipelines. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly asked about Ospar’s decision. It must be unanimous. North Atlantic states are involved in that decision, and it is then transposed into UK law. He also asked recently these regulations extend previous ones. They do because we are broadening the scope. In answer to the question on the Marine Management Organisation, it is DECC inspectors, as I mentioned earlier. This is a very technical clause—as you can it is imagine far too technical for me—but I hope we have dealt with a number of the questions, but because of the technical nature there might be one or two areas I have not covered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is a great technician in this area. I am happy to answer in writing—actually I prefer my officials to do so because I do not have a clue what I am writing about—and I hope noble Lords will support the two sets of draft regulations. I commend these two instruments to the Committee. Motion agreed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c123GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Chemicals Oil Pollution control Offshore industry Seas and oceans
Legislation
Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011
Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk