Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Report for Information

1) Introduction

1.1 This report provides an update on the key issues currently receiving attention by the Marine Director. It also includes a proposed response to a Department for Transport consultation on alcohol limits for non-professional mariners.

2) Recommendations

It is recommended that the River Hamble Harbour Board:

a. Approves the proposed response to the Department for Transport's consultation on exemptions from alcohol limits for non-professional mariners.

b. Notes the remaining items.

3) Department for Transport consultation on exceptions from alcohol limits for non-professional mariners

3.1 The Department for Transport has recently launched a consultation on exemptions from alcohol limits for non-professional mariners. The consultation document can be accessed at http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/exceptionfromalcohol/

The consultation closes on 6 May 2009.

3.2 The proposed Harbour Authority response is at Annex A and should be read in conjunction with the consultation document. It is recommended that the Harbour Board approves this response.

4) Section 31 Objection - Warsash Sailing Club

4.1 In November 2008, the River Hamble Harbour Authority replied to the

Department for Transport (DfT) regarding Warsash Sailing Club's

objection under section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964. Warsash Sailing

Club responded to this in January 2009. After taking legal advice, it

was decided that the Harbour Authority should make a formal `Request

for Direction' to the DfT. This has now been submitted. In simple terms,

the Harbour Authority has asked the Department for direction regarding

the extent of any further information which is required by the Secretary

of State before he can reach a decision. His reply is still awaited.

5) Updating of the Municipal Ports Review

5.1 The Marine Director recently attended a meeting of the British Ports Association Municipal Ports Group to discuss updating of the Municipal Ports Review and the Leading Lights award. Representatives of the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) were also in attendance. The Review was published in 2006 and has been used successfully by many ports and harbours, including the River Hamble, particularly on corporate governance and finance issues.

5.2 On the Leading Lights award the group discussed the possibility of re-issuing the certificate to local authority ports every 4 to 5 years, subject to their continued compliance with the award criteria.

5.3 The DfT and the DCLG will now do some re-drafting of the original Review. This will not be a particularly onerous process and it is likely to be completed this year.

6) CCTV - update

6.1 At their last meeting, members of the Harbour Board requested an update on the status of the CCTV system. The system is fully operational, working as intended, with all three cameras providing remote pictures to the Harbour Office which are recorded and archived for 30 days. The power supply problems associated with the camera at Bursledon Bend have now been resolved by the installation of a mains supply fed from Swanwick Marina. There have also been problems as a result of a gradual degradation of the wireless network, since its original installation five years ago. These have been resolved by replacing defective parts with more up-to-date technology. The budget for the CCTV system for 2008/09 was £10,000 (including the routine maintenance contract). Actual expenditure amounts to £10,258.

7) Impact Assessment

7.1 The contents of this report do not have a direct impact on the services

provided by the River Hamble Harbour Authority and have not therefore been subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment.

ANNEX A to

Marine Director's Current Issues

Proposed response to the Department for Transport's consultation on

alcohol exemptions for non-professional mariners.

Q1. Do you agree with the parameters of the exception stated in the draft Regulations, ("(a) a length overall less than 7 metres; and (b) a maximum design speed not exceeding 7 knots") and that they will except smaller vessels, including rowing boats, paddle boats and sailing dinghies from the application of alcohol limits and the associated tests?

No

Q2. Do you agree that the combination of parameters for the exception will ensure that most of those vessels which pose a high risk in the water are subject to the application of alcohol limits?

No

Q3. Do you agree that the proposed exception is clear and understandable to most non-professional mariners, the Police and other enforcement agencies?

No

Q4. Do you agree that the combination of parameters for the exception are sufficient to minimise any health and safety risks linked specifically to alcohol consumption in this environment?

No

Q5. Are there any additional comments you wish to make?

Yes. The River Hamble Harbour Authority does not condone the combination of recreational boating and excessive consumption of alcohol, in any circumstances. However, we are not aware of any compelling evidence to suggest that there is currently a problem which requires a legislative solution. Bye-laws already exist which make it an offence to navigate a vessel whilst under the influence of drink (the exact wording of the River Hamble bye-law is "A person shall not navigate any vessel in the River whilst under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of taking proper control of the vessel."). Whilst it might be difficult to achieve a successful prosecution under this bye-law, it does have merit as a means of deterrence. In any event, the need for new legislation should be based on evidence of need, and be proportionate to the risks involved

If, however, the decision in principle to introduce new legislation has already been taken, then the Harbour Authority would argue very strongly that there is no requirement for any exemptions in terms of the size or potential speed of a vessel. There seems to be too much emphasis on the potential of the vessel `causing death or injury' (presumably through a collision or grounding) and not enough on the other hazards associated with the consumption of alcohol (falling overboard, capsizing, impaired balance, impaired judgement, irresponsibility, increased bravado etc). If it is to be an offence to navigate having exceeded the prescribed alcohol limits, then the law should apply equally to all types of vessel, in all circumstances. A vessel does not have to be either big or fast in order for it to pose a high risk - indeed it is arguably rather easier to find oneself in difficulties in a small tender or dinghy than in a larger, more robust vessel. Speed is only relevant where reaction times are impaired by alcohol, increasing the risk of collision or grounding and the likelihood of damage (to property and persons), and size is only relevant because of the potential extent and cost of damage resulting from a collision or grounding. Neither exemption makes any sense in terms of the full range of potential risks to the occupants of the vessel.

A further argument in favour of adopting a solution without exemptions is that the enforcement authorities would find it almost impossible to determine easily whether a particular vessel is just under or just over the size threshold, and they would presumably need to refer to the manufacturer's documentation in order to establish the maximum design speed of a vessel. This would, potentially, be even more difficult where a boat has been modified post-manufacture (a common occurrence). Indeed, it could be argued that those who believe that their vessels are exempt (either rightly or wrongly) may be tempted to flout the law `because they can'.

If non-professional mariners will continue to be subject to bye-laws which make it an offence to navigate whilst under the influence of alcohol, without exemptions, it is nonsense to allow exemptions from the more stringent limits proposed by this legislation.

Personal Water Craft (PWCs) present another difficulty. If they are to be exempt under this proposal because they are not classed as `ships' or `vessels' then it would surely be a simple matter to re-draft the legislation so that it applies to all `recreational and leisure craft' (which would automatically include PWCs).

The Harbour Authority is also concerned about who is going to be responsible for the enforcement of this proposed legislation. If Harbour Authority staff are to be involved, how are they to be trained? Who will pay for their training and who will pay for the time which they spend on such matters? At present, River Hamble Harbour Authority patrols frequently operate alone and would not therefore normally be in a position to take any enforcement action. If Harbour Authority patrols are to be involved in the enforcement process, will they have to operate in pairs in future, in order that they are ready to cope with these situations, and, if so, who will pay for the extra manpower required? There is a clear requirement for further consultation before the whole subject of `marine officials' is decided.

Finally, there are real practical difficulties involved in detaining a vessel on the water, particularly if it is against the will of the occupants. How is it envisaged that this will be achieved? And how will those `involved in navigation' be identified once the vessel has been stopped and detained? If these problems are not considered from the outset, the legislation will quickly become totally unenforceable and thus ineffective.