View report page

Although it is true that the new statutory provisions are of more help to the Port Health
Authority in suppressing smoke from all classes of vessels than the Public Health (London) Act,
1936, which because of its relatively unwieldy procedure has enabled many of them to escape,
it would be unwise to imagine that they will be easy to apply. Indeed, suggestions that they are
complicated and not easily understood have been made in debates in the House of Commons and
the Minister has said that he would be willing to consider amendments to them after they had had
a fair trial by Port Health Authorities.
A sound practical knowledge of shipping operations as well as of fuel and marine installations
is essential to success in administering the new Regulations, particularly in estimating the
gravity of the offence, and in judging it in relation to the allowed 'defences'. It is quite obvious
that these are capable of abuse, especially if claimed by an outward bound ship that cannot be
intercepted and boarded by the observing Port Health River Inspector, even while it is still
within his normal district range. This unhappy position can be the more aggravated when
offending ships are in the outer Estuary, still within the "official" limits of the Port Health
Authority, but remote from the normal range of the Inspector's district. However, should the
vessel be inward bound, there is the opportunity to take suitable action at the terminal berth and
there is the consolation that most ships return to London.
There is another troublesome aspect of these 'defences' particularly for the casual observer
(e.g.-from Riparian Authorities) who may make invidious comparisons between the Dark Smoke
emissions of different vessels and may even level unfair criticism of the Port Health Authority's
administration in relation to the functions of the Clean Air Act. The same attitude has been
adopted by the Master of a ship when taken to task by the Port Health Inspector for a proven
offence.
Rightly or not, one of these 'defences'is applicable for the next seven years. The Clean Air
Act provides that an Owner of a vessel can apply to a Port Health Authority for an 'exemption
certificate'to protect him from prosecution on the grounds that the installation cannot be improved
and the Authority may grant it for a specified period. Further, it is recommended that all Port
Health Authorities should accept these certificates. The adoption of this policy could give a
ship a relatively free hand and could quite unreasonably lead to abuse of the privilege through
indifference and carelessness in respect of fuel and operational behaviour. No such certificates
have yet been produced in this Port and none have been granted. It would appear that they could
cause confusion in any particular port and would certainly lead to unhealthy criticism between the
ports. (This particular point about the danger of applying different standards at various ports in
the issue of 'exemption certificates' has been referred to the Association of Sea and Air Port
Health Authorities.) Without an 'exemption'certificate, the ship can be held responsible for every
offence and, unless a satisfactory defence is proved, legal proceedings have some chance of
success against the offender. Thus on ships without an exemption certificate more care is
likely to be taken to prevent unnecessary smoke emission.
At present there is every indication that the policy adopted by the Port Health Authority in
respect to vessels is achieving satisfactory results and the shipping industry is co-operating
generally. The reduction in the amount of black smoke emitted has been very encouraging and it
has been found necessary on one occasion only in 1958 to take legal proceedings for this offence.
Other incidents of black smoke emission have occurred from time to time but for short durations
and no legal action has been considered.
On the credit side there are positive cases of progress in relation to boiler installations,
diesel replacements, and more smokeless fuels. These include the introduction of the supplementary
air furnace door, diesel engines for locomotion and ship propulsion, coal to oil conversions
on harbour craft, and coal to coke where practicable.
Experience confirms that unless Port Health Inspectors are conversant with the details of
stokehold practice and are intelligent in respect of boiler installations and fuels, implementing
the Act and the Regulations will be more difficult. So far a great deal of effort has been spent
wisely and it remains to press forward relentlessly if results convincing to the public are to be
achieved.
PROSECUTION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT, 1956
The first prosecution taken under the Clean Air Act, 1956 was heard at Grays Magistrates
Court on the 16th January 1959 when the Corporation of London as the Port of London Health
Authority prosecuted Clan Line Steamers Ltd. under Sections 1 and 20 of the Act, for the emission
of black smoke from ss. "Clan Mackinlay" in Tilbury Dock on the evening of 2nd October
1958.
Evidence was given that black smoke and 'sooty smuts' were emitted for a period of nearly
an hour, which not only drew the attention of a Sergeant of the Essex County Constabulary to
what he thought was a fire, but also resulted in complaints from 31 local residents of damage
done to washing, clothing, etc.
24