| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, throughout this disaster, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Goschen, appears to have been camped out on a promontory, providing information not only to the nation but to the Government? Does my right hon. Friend wish to divorce himself from the racist and snobbish remarks about the Chinese gentleman, who chipped in his translation skills in addition to his culinary skills to help out in a very difficult situation?
Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend's final remark. I also pay tribute to my noble Friend, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who went up to Milford Haven on Tuesday and returned only this morning. He took a personal interest in the responsibilities that my Department have with the marine pollution control unit. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's kind words to him.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: (Crewe and Nantwich): Does the Secretary of State agree that the removal of air-sea rescue from Brawdy, cuts to the coastguard and changes in the marine accident investigation branch have had any affect on what has happened? Does he seriously suggest that this incident should be investigated by a branch of his own Department, which is also suffering considerable cuts?
Sir George Young: I am satisfied that the MAIB has all the necessary resources to produce the type of report that I announced at the beginning of my statement. I have made it quite clear--I shall do so again--that safety is our paramount concern, and that it will remain so. The chief executives of the agencies have that message from Ministers clearly in their minds.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Why is it that everything that goes right is a result of the work of Ministers, while anything that goes wrong is the fault of someone else? The Secretary of State has blamed the weather, the press and the judgment of the salvors.
Has not this accident turned into a catastrophe because the tugs did not have enough pulling power, and because they were not pulling the vessel, but the vessel was pulling the tugs--back on to the rocks? Is not that the Government's responsibility, because they failed to carry out the Donaldson report recommendation that big tugs should be located at five centres, and that three of those tugs should have been set in place as an interim measure? The tug at the western approaches has not been set in place, and that was the Government's responsibility. Why does not the Secretary of State say the word that the whole country is asking him to say: sorry?
Sir George Young:
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I did not attribute blame in my opening statement. I said that I was setting up inquiries and reviews to find out exactly what happened. That is the right way to approach the matter. It may be that the MAIB apportions blame differently from the way in which the hon. Gentleman has, but I do not know. We must await the report.
In relation to the tugs, I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the article in The Independent, because the matter is not necessarily as simple as many people might think. The author of that article makes the point that, at a key stage, more tugs and more pulling power might have done more damage to the hull when it was impaled on a pinnacle.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):
To what extent has the environment recovered--and how long did it take to do so--from the Braer disaster? Did my right hon. Friend read the article by Matt Ridley in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week, in which he said that, mercifully, things recover from such incidents in a shorter period than most people fear?
Sir George Young:
I read that article, as well as several other articles that have made the same point. There is a robustness in the marine ecology, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention. One must, of course, take all the necessary steps to minimise such accidents, but one should not over-dramatise the long-term consequences.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
"Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" has a hollow ring about it today. Those of us who know and love that part of south-west Wales care very much about the environment that has been severely damaged--we cannot underestimate the damage to the environment. How many such disasters is the Minister willing to put up with--one a year as an annual event, one every two years, or one every three years? Is he aware that the oil industry itself believes that tougher regulation of the industry is the only answer, and that will only come from the Government's initiative?
Sir George Young:
One accident is one accident too many. This country takes the lead in driving through the International Maritime Organisation higher standards, not least on ferry safety. There is a meeting on the subject this week designed to achieve higher standards of safety.
Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East):
Bearing in mind the fact that people's livelihoods are at stake, will the Secretary of State give the House some idea of the criteria for compensation? Will it embrace fishing interests,
Sir George Young:
Compensation is available for property damage, economic loss and reasonable preventive measures. Claimants should initially discuss the matter with their solicitors or with the fund I mentioned to assess whether their claim will be eligible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries(Sir H. Monro) said, so far claims have been met promptly by those involved.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
As the hon. Member who represents Hound point in the closed waters of the Forth, may I ask what the time scale is for the discussions on double skins?
Sir George Young:
The IMO has decided that single skins should be phased out over a period. That period varies from country to country--for America, I think that it is about the year 2013. Discussions are continuing, not least in the light of evidence about whether or not double-skinned hulls are the only answer. It is important to aim at improved safety. Double hulls may be an answer, but there may be other ways of achieving the same safety.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
Lord Donaldson was wrong when he suggested that, in exceptionally heavy weather, very large crude carriers and other big vessels should use the Minches. The dreadful event in Wales has caused serious concern to fishermen who fish the Minches. I shall tell the Secretary of State, as I told his predecessor, that, in heavy weather, such big vessels should stand well to the west of the Western Isles. I urge the Secretary of State to take advice from our fishermen.
Sir George Young:
I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point. He asks me to bring his comments to Lord Donaldson's attention, and I shall of course do so.
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle):
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, on the night of this tragic accident, he was not personally on the bridge of the Sea Empress,as, listening to Opposition Members, one would think that my right hon. Friend drove the ship on to the rocks himself?
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that the Government did not own the ship and were not on board the ship. The Government's responsibility is to set the parameters, which we are happy to do. But ultimately, the responsibility for many such accidents rests with the individuals involved.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross):
In his statement, the Secretary of State said that we must not
Sir George Young:
On the first question, I can answer for the tug cover provided by my Department, but Donaldson's point is that other tugs are available and must be taken into account. I will send the hon. Lady a reply to that question. On Milford Haven, the salvors' reaction was that they had enough tugs available to turn down the Government's offer of one of their tugs, either from Dover or from the Minches.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central):
Tug availability is central to this matter. Was the Secretary of State aware by the weekend that the only powerful tug available was crewed by Chinese--none of whom could speak English--and could not be used effectively? If his office was not aware, why not? If it was aware, why did it not intervene to send a powerful vessel with an English-speaking crew from Dover to Milford Haven, or an even closer vessel in Brest, which had a French-speaking crew but presumably someone on it could speak English? He had the power to intervene. He should have known. Why did he not?
Sir George Young:
I am not in the business of second-guessing professional salvage firms. The Chinese tug was in Falmouth. Initially, it looked like a valuable resource, but, when it was used, it was found that it was not a salvage but a towing tug, that the crew lacked expertise, and that the tug was not suited to complex salvage work in confined but highly tidal waters.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |