House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Apr 1994

Home Page

Column 535

House of Commons

Friday 15 April 1994

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- -- in the Chair ]

Points of Order

9.34 am

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret not having the proper opportunity of giving you notice of this point of order, but I was not able until now to cancel a morning engagement to allow me to be here.

I wish to refer to the points of order that were raised last night about my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I am glad that some food and drink was provided to her overnight. However, I understand from the Press Association tapes that the National Coal Board, which is funded by taxpayers and in theory remains accountable to the House, has again renewed its instruction that no food or drink should be supplied to my hon. Friend.

Obviously, the discharge of parliamentary duties involves proceedings in the House as well as our responsibilities in our constituencies. I would ask the National Coal Board urgently to reconsider its position, because in the past you have deprecated any action that seeks to intimidate a Member of Parliament or prevent them from discharging their duties. In this case, the action that my hon. Friend is taking is democratic and entirely peaceful. Also, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which I hope does not become law, the action that she is taking could be held to be a breach of the law. That matter should also be noted.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : While I wish to associate myself with the views expressed by my hon.

Column 536

Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I urge you, Madam Speaker, to inquire whether a statement on this matter will be made by the Coal Minister, in view of the fact that there is a chain of command between Parliament and British Coal, in view of the deprecatory statements that have already been made by the Coal Minister about the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and taking into account the fact that, in October 1992, the then leader of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers went down a coal mine in Nottingham to a great blaze of publicity. He was supported by Tory Members ; he was not condemned by the Coal Minister or any Tory Ministers. He was fed continually. The press and television were there constantly. He was sent food from Harrods. Other Tory Members of Parliament visited the mine.

The sharp contrast in the treatment that is being meted out to my hon. Friend as compared to Roy Lynk, the well-known scab, is a matter which should be debated in the House and the Minister should be brought to account. If it is good enough for the scab leader, it is right for a Member of Parliament who is representing her constituents to be treated in a proper fashion, not in the way in which British Coal is meting out such treatment.

Several hon. Members rose

Madam Speaker : Order. I think that I have heard enough points of order on the matter--we also had some last night. As I explained then, the hon. Lady has elected to take this voluntary action. She is not there on the instructions of the House or a Select Committee of the House and therefore cannot claim the privileges of the House. She is there in the capacity of a citizen who has elected to take this action. However, I certainly hope that her welfare is not neglected by the Coal Board, and I hope that my words will have been noted by the Coal Board this morning.

Column 537

Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Nursery Education (Assessment of Need) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.--[ Mr. Spearing. ]

Hon. Members : Object.

Madam Speaker : Leave refused.

9.39 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will agree that there is a rather unusual procedural situation this morning in respect of that motion and the objection. Item No. 8 on the Order Paper shows that, at 2.30 pm or thereabouts, a Question may be put that the adjourned debate on the Bill be put to a Question.

If there is an objection then--even after a debate has taken place on 18 February for three quarters of an hour--that Question cannot be put. The motion that I have just attempted to move would have no such effect and--if carried without objection--would have allowed debate upstairs in Committee, without any time being taken on the Floor of the House from the Government or from any hon. Member. It would have that effect without a decision necessarily being taken in its favour at the end.

Can you confirm that the objection that has just been raised by the Whip on the Government Front Bench prevents further debate on the merits of the Bill without its necessarily being approved, and therefore prevents further debate ?

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the Standing Order, and he needed leave to proceed as he wished. If one voice is raised in opposition, I must accept that. The hon. Gentleman has an item further on in the agenda, and he may have better luck as we proceed today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. What representations have you had, or would you be prepared to receive, concerning objections by one hon. Member to private Members' Bills ? That stifles debate and it cannot be said to be acting in the interests of Parliament or democracy in any way.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is already a report on the matter from the Procedure Committee, and perhaps I may refer him to that report.

Column 538

Orders of the Day

Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1 --

.--(1) The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 shall be amended as provided in Schedule ( Extension of strict liability for oil pollution by ships ) (amendments imposing in respect of non-tankers liability for oil pollution).

(2) In Part I of that Schedule "the 1971 Act" means the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 without the amendments made by Part I of Schedule 4 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

(3) In Part II of that Schedule "the 1971 Act" means the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 as amended by Part I of Schedule 4 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") and section 5 of this Act.'.--[ Mr. David Harris. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.41 am

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 1, to move the following Schedule :

Schedule

Extension of Strict Liability for Oil Pollution by Ships

Part I

Amendments of the 1971 Act

1. After section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

"Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.--(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies (that is to say a ship carrying a cargo of persistent oil in bulk), then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape ; and

(b) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken after the discharge or escape for the purpose of preventing or minimising any damage so caused in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape ; and

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable (a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom ; and

(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken ;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where

(a) as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but

Column 539

(b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable,

each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. After section 2 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

"Exceptions from liability under section 1A.

2A. No liability shall be incurred by the owner of a ship under section 1A of this Act by reason of any discharge or escape of oil from the ship, or by reason of any relevant threat of contamination, if he proves that the discharge or escape, or (as the case may be) the threat of contamination

(a) resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon ; or

(b) was due wholly to anything done or omitted to be done by another person, not being a servant or agent of the owner, with intent to do damage ; or

(c) was due wholly to the negligence or wrongful act of a government or other authority in exercising its function of maintaining lights or other navigational aids for the maintenance of which it was responsible."

3. After section 3 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

"Restriction of liability for oil pollution.

3A.--(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence

(a) any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship to which section 1A of this Act applies, or

(b) there arises a relevant threat of contamination,

then, whether or not the owner of the ship in question incurs a liability under section 1A of this Act

(i) he shall not be liable otherwise than under that section for any such damage or cost as is mentioned in it, and

(ii) no person to whom this paragraph applies shall be liable for any such damage or cost unless it resulted from anything done or omitted to be done by him either with intent by him to cause any such damage or cost or recklessly and in the knowledge that any such damage or cost would probably result.

(2) Subsection (1)(ii) of this section applies to

(a) any servant or agent of the owner of the ship ;

(b) any person not falling within paragraph (a) above but employed or engaged in any capacity on board the ship or to perform any service for the ship ;

(c) any charterer of the ship (however described and including a bareboat charterer), and any manager or operator of the ship ; (d) any person performing salvage operations with the consent of the owner of the ship or on the instructions of a competent public authority ;

(e) any person taking any such measures as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (2)(a) of section 1A of this Act ;

(f) any servant or agent of a person falling within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) above.

(3) The liability of the owner of a ship under section 1A of this Act for any impairment of the environment shall be taken to be a liability only in respect of

(a) any resulting loss of profits, and

(b) the cost of any reasonable measures of reinstatement actually taken or to be taken."

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A."

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)

(a) subsection (1) shall be omitted ; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 1A of this Act."

Column 540

Part II

Amendments of the 1971 Act as Amended by the 1988 Act

1. After Section 1 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section

"Liability for oil pollution in case of other ships.

1A.--(1) Where, as a result of any occurrence, any oil is discharged or escapes from a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable

(a) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by contamination resulting from the discharge or escape ; and

(2) Where, as a result of any occurrence, there arises a grave and imminent threat of damage caused outside a ship other than a ship to which section 1 of this Act applies by contamination resulting from a discharge or escape of oil from the ship, then (except as otherwise provided by this Act) the owner of the ship shall be liable (a) for the cost of any measures reasonably taken for the purpose of preventing or minimising any such damage in the area of the United Kingdom ; and

(b) for any damage caused outside the ship in the area of the United Kingdom by any measures so taken ;

and in the subsequent provisions of this Act any such threat is referred to as a relevant threat of contamination.

(3) Where

(a) as a result of any occurrence, a liability is incurred under this section by the owner of each of two or more ships, but (b) the damage or cost for which each of the owners would be liable cannot reasonably be separated from that for which the other or others would be liable,

each of the owners shall be liable, jointly with the other or others, for the whole of the damage or cost for which the owners together would be liable under this section.

(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 and, in Northern Ireland, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 shall apply in relation to any damage or cost for which a person is liable under this section, but which is not due to his fault, as if it were due to his fault.

(5) In this section "ship" includes a vessel which is not sea-going."

2. In section 2 (exceptions from liability), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A."

3. In section 3 (restriction of liability)

(a) in subsection (1)

(i) for the words "to which section 1 of this Act applies" there shall be substituted the words "(whether one to which section 1 of this Act applies or one to which section 1A of this Act applies)" ; and

(ii) after the words "under section 1" there shall be substituted the words "or 1A" ; and

(b) in subsection (2)(e), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A."

4. In section 9 (extinguishment of claims), after the words "section 1" there shall be inserted the words "or 1A."

5. In section 15 (liability for cost of preventive measures where section 1 does not apply)

(a) subsections (1), (1A) and (1B) shall be omitted ; and (b) in subsection (2), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 1A of this Act",

6. In section 20(1) (definitions), in the definition of "ship", after the word "ship" there shall by inserted the words "(subject to section 1A(5))."'.

No. 2, in schedule 3, page 16, line 38, at end insert

Column 541


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1971 c. 59.                                 |Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971.|Section 15(1).'

No. 3, in schedule 3, page 16, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert

Mr. Harris : The new clause and the amendments would improve the compensation available to victims of marine pollution. At the moment, there is a clear anomaly in the treatment of different kinds of vessels. Only owners of laden oil tankers are strictly liable for marine pollution from oil spillages, but other ships can also pose a threat of oil pollution.

Indeed, it is perhaps not generally realised that a large container ship or cruise ship could in fact have on board about 1,000 or 2,000 tonnes of fuel of one sort or another. Of course, this type of oil can be thicker and more polluting than most types of oil carried in bulk as cargo.

The amendments would extend strict liability to the owners of all types of ships. Strict liability means that owners are liable to pay compensation for marine pollution whether or not they were at fault. The provisions I am proposing will not affect small ships. You know of my own interest in fishing matters, Madam Speaker, and fishing vessels use light diesel fuel which poses relatively little environmental threat because it disperses quickly. I am pleased to say that they are not at risk as a result of the amendments. Pollution from laden oil tankers is already covered by the current compensation regime. The international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage in 1969, which was implemented in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971, places strict liability on the owners of laden oil tankers. This liability covers oil carried in bulk as a cargo, as well as fuel oil that is usually called bunker oil.

Bunker oil carried by other kinds of ships is not covered by the convention. Compensation for spillages may be available through common law, but experience has shown that it can be difficult to establish owners' liability through this means. The House will appreciate that common law is very expensive, and a risky businesses for claimants.

Accidents involving oil tankers always hit the headlines, but all vessels in difficulties pose a threat of pollution because of the fuel oil they carry. Hon. Members who follow these matters will know of a number of recent incidents.

In February last year, a Danish-flagged ship, the Freja Svea, ran aground off the north Yorkshire coast carrying over 1,500 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. Rescue and salvage operations were hampered by severe weather, but fortunately the vessel was refloated. Although there was some spillage, it was relatively minor and most of the oil dispersed naturally. A small amount came ashore and eight tonnes was manually removed from the beach by the local authorities. The incident, however, could have been far worse.

In November last year, two fish processing vessels ran aground in the Shetlands carrying large quantities of fuel oil. I know that that caused a lot of consternation in the Shetland islands. The Russian-flagged Borodinskoye Polye ran on to rocks near Lerwick harbour, and the

Next Section

Home Page