PREVENTION OF POLLUTION OF THE SEA (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a very simple Bill which makes consequential amendments to the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, 1971, as a result of the repeal of the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, 1981.

There are no now provisions in this Bill but certain sections of the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, which when repealed will be re-enacted in this Bill. These provisions include those which enable the Port of Singapore Authority to recover from the owner of a vessel or the occupier of a place the cost of any measure taken by PSA to remove any oil discharged into Singapore waters. Other minor amendments have also been made but these are mainly consequential in nature.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the explanatory statement states that "This Bill seeks to make consequential amendments to the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, 1971, as a result of the repeal of the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act, 1981." Just now, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister mentioned that this is a very simple Bill. But let me refer him to the amendments.

I notice that clause 3 has been re-enacted with amendments and whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the new sections 14 and 15, contained in this new clause, pertaining to "Recovery of costs for removing oil" and "Recovery of costs from occupier of land" which he has just mentioned that PSA must recover whatever money spent as a result of such work performed, a pertinent question can, therefore, be asked. Besides this reason, what other reasons are there for the re-enactment of this clause? It must be really a painful experience gained, and how much money has been spent in this direction?

Sir, clause 4 is also being re-enacted with amendments, and it gives the Authority, in this case the Director or Port Master, the power to detain vessels. The question is how will he deal with the situation mentioned in my statement earlier in the debate on the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, as a very large number of ships traverse our waters? I am more concerned with the adequacy of the staff and facilities although he has given the House the assurance that there are adequate manpower and facilities needed to carry out enforcement efficiently. If he can reassure this House, then I would give my support to the Bill.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new sections 14 and 15, contained in clause 3 of the Bill, are not new provisions as far as enforcement of the port operation is concerned. The provision has already been in existence in the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, which will be repealed and replaced by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill which has just been passed by the House earlier. However, it is considered that this provision is more appropriate for inclusion in this Bill rather than in the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill which deals only with oil pollution. It is perhaps due to the extraction of these two sections from the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, which is to be repealed, and including them in this Bill instead of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill which replaces the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, that causes this confusion. I hope this explanation makes the matter clearer.

The hon. Member is concerned about the facilities and manpower to deal with the situation in detaining vessels as pan of the enforcement action. I wish to reassure him again that this enforcement action is not now as far as the Port Authority is concerned. It has been part of the Port Authority's day-to-day operations to ensure that all vessels before leaving our port have obtained clearance. If not, the Authority's patrol boats will intercept and prevent the vessel from leaving the port. Therefore, the enforcement machinery is already there and it has been in operation satisfactorily over the years. I assure him that the Authority has adequate staff and facilities to carry out enforcement efficiently.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Ong Teng Cheong].

Bill considered in committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and possed.