| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood): I join the Government in paying tribute to the bravery of the people involved in the salvage operation. Whatever mistakes may have been made, hon. Members will wish to know that the coastguards praised the amazing bravery of the salvors, and said that the Dutch in particular had risked life and limb to save the Sea Empress and to prevent a disaster. I am sure that we all wish to send a message of thanks to all concerned.
I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision and to accept that an inquiry by the Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch is not an adequate response to this disaster. One of the questions that has to be asked is: did Ministers fail to implement the Donaldson report recommendations to ensure that adequate tugs were available? Surely the Secretary of State for Transport can see that it is not credible that a unit of his Department could properly investigate the possible failings of its Ministers.
I also put it to the Secretary of State that the second question is, did Ministers fail to use their powers to ensure the salvage operation was properly conducted? It now seems clear that large numbers of extra tugs were offered and refused by the salvage company employed by the shipowners, on a no win, no fee basis.
The Daily Telegraph tells us:
It quotes the Department of Transport as saying that salvage was
Is that true? Did Ministers have powers to intervene and to take decisions on the calling of other tugs? Did Ministers fail to use their powers, and thus are they partly responsible for the disaster? The Secretary of State must realise that a unit of his own Department cannot answer those questions properly.
I press the Secretary of State to think again, and to recall Lord Donaldson. Clearly, his expertise is such that a speedy, independent investigation is possible. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must find out the truth and learn the lessons? Can the Secretary of State see that his refusal to recall Lord Donaldson will leave many people thinking that the Government have something to hide?
I also press the Secretary of State to make urgent arrangements--I am surprised that it was not announced in his statement--to ensure that all local people who have suffered damage and threats to their livelihoods will be provided with full advice and proper compensation.
Lastly, I put it to the Secretary of State that the continuing decline of British shipping and the British fleet as a result of cost-cutting is part of the explanation of the disaster. Today's edition of The Independent refers to the ship as being
I might add that its rescue was attempted by a Chinese tug, with a local Chinese chef interpreting. Does the Secretary of State agree that such a splintering of responsibility is bound to lead to problems?
I repeat my request to the Secretary of State to establish a high-level working party, chair it himself, and take action to restore the British fleet and the better standards of seafaring that we clearly need.
Sir George Young:
I welcome what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said at the beginning, when she uttered some kind words about those who were involved in the exercise. I hope that she had time to read today's edition of The Independent, which contains a perceptive article by a member of the Donaldson inquiry. He writes:
I turn now to the details of the specific questions posed by the hon. Lady. I do not agree with what she said about the inquiries that I have established. The unit to which I referred is not part of my Department. It reports directly to the Secretary of State; it does not go through my Department--nor has it shrunk from criticising my Department in the past when it has seen fit so to do. It is impartial and independent.
As to the hon. Lady's questions about the refusal of tugs and other resources that were offered to the salvage company, that will be covered by the inquiry to which I referred in my opening remarks. Yes, it is the case that Ministers have powers to intervene, but I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on whether Ministers have the resources, the experience and the skills necessary to second-guess a firm of professional salvors who have all the skills to deal with crises of that kind.
I turn to the hon. Lady's comments about Donaldson. Lord Donaldson did not institute an inquiry into the Braer incident. He provided a thorough, comprehensive and wise review on the general subject of the prevention of pollution and how to make merchant shipping safer.I have that report: the Government have accepted 86 of its 103 recommendations, and we are considering a further 13.
In this case, we have done exactly what we did with the Braer: we appointed an inquiry under the marine accident investigation branch to report on what occurred. We can then test the results of that inquiry and of the inquiry into the salvage operation against the basic parameters set out by Lord Donaldson, which the Government accept. At this stage, there is no case for reopening Lord Donaldson's comprehensive work, most of which is accepted by both sides of the House.
I repeat that the Government have launched an independent inquiry into the three aspects that most concern the House: why the accident happened, how the
salvage operation was conducted, and how the clean-up operations were then implemented. I think that that is the appropriate approach for Government, and that we shall learn the lessons that must be learned.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives):
As president of the sea safety group and sponsor of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, I consider that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing in setting up detailed and wide-ranging inquiries. Will he make sure that those inquiries cover a number of issues?
First, will the inquiries examine the use of language and the inability of some seafarers to understand English--in particular, the recommendation that the International Maritime Organisation should consider making English the recognised language of the sea? Secondly, will he look again at the stationing of tugs, which is undoubtedly a key issue, and the way in which salvage operations are conducted? Although I agree that it is wrong and ridiculous for Ministers to be countermanding people at sea, nevertheless there is a need to examine carefully the mechanism of mounting salvage operations.
Sir George Young:
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. In regard to communication, shipping is an international industry, but if serious communication problems occurred in the salvage operation, they would be a matter for the inspector. As for the stationing of tugs, the Belton report--one of the follow-up reports ofthe Donaldson inquiry--will be published shortly.It confirmed Lord Donaldson's initial findings about the two priorities for locating the tugs. It did not identify west or north Wales as primary or secondary areas.
I should have responded to the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on compensation. People will be entitled to compensation for financial loss, and I shall ensure that they have access to the necessary information to enable them to pursue that.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
Surely the remit for the inquiries announced this afternoon is too narrow. For example, I understand from reports today that the oil slick could threaten Lundy and the west country coast, making the environmental implications even greater.
Let me take the Secretary of State back to the final sentence of his statement, when he said:
Surely there is a much more basic question: why did the accident happen, and could it have been prevented? In that respect, will the Secretary of State examine the role of the coastguard?
As the right hon. Gentleman will know from the debate that I initiated last week, there are real concerns about the manning of the coastguard service. I understand that, when the tanker went aground last Thursday night, the coastguard marine rescue centre responsible for the Milford Haven approaches was undermanned. There was one senior watch officer on duty and one regular, when there should have been at least three on watch. The officer monitoring channel 16 VHF had to listen to that frequency and to landlines for a 12-hour stretch instead of a maximum of two hours.
Will the Secretary of State undertake swiftly--without waiting for the inquiries--to look into whether the coastguards' role in the incident was affected by undermanning?
Sir George Young:
I made it clear on Monday, andI do so again today, that efficiency gains in the two marine agencies and the MAIB have not and will not be made at the expense of safety. Safety is and will remain paramount, as has been made clear to the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency and the other agencies.In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, of course we shall look at the environmental impacts, wherever they occur. If pollution spreads to the area that he mentioned, the assessment to which I referred in my statement will examine the impact on that area as well.
"the disaster has exposed how little control the Government has over salvage."
"essentially the responsibility of the firm contracted by the ship's owner."
"Built in Spain; owned by a Norwegian; registered in Cyprus; managed from Glasgow; chartered by the French; crewed by Russians . . . carrying an American cargo."
"The immediate issue is too important to be turned into a tug-of-war between political parties. In my view, the salvors pursued the only course they could."
"The Government are determined to find out exactly what happened, to publish the results and to learn and apply the lessons."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |