| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gareth Wardell: To be fair, must not my hon. Friend accept that Lord Donaldson made it clear that he
could not give a convincing answer to the question whether all vessels should be double-hulled? More research needs to be done, because in certain cases double-hulled vessels are worse than single-hulled vessels.
Mr. Ainger: My hon. Friend is correct, but Lord Donaldson was not saying that we should carry on with single hulls. He said that more research should be done, and criticised the United States for saying that nothing but double-hulled vessels would be built after the year 2003, and that all others would be phased out by the year 2015.
The International Maritime Organisation has said that it wants far greater protection, so only vessels with double hulls or their equivalent should be constructed after the year 2000. But it also says that it would take 25 to 30 years to phase out single hulls, which would mean an unacceptable delay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower is right that Lord Donaldson says to the United States, in effect, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket". He was not arguing in favour of single hulls, by any stretch of the imagination. Lord Donaldson was trying to suggest that perhaps the mid-deck design, with ballast in the space between the cargo and the outer skin, is better. It is sometimes far safer, especially when there is an explosion.
Already two companies have declared that they will use nothing but double-hulled vessels. The first is Conoco, which manufactures Jet petrol, and the second is Bitor, which imports orimulsion all over the world, using only double-hulled vessels.
Salvage law, too, must be examined. The Sea Empress disaster is the first major incident since the passage of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, which was guided through the House by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on his work, and so should the Government, on the fact that they picked up the idea and ran with it.
However, sadly, the fact remains that in the present incident the new legislation, which was intended to ensure that the environment was given far greater consideration, obviously did not work. We should review salvage legislation, in the hope that two things may happen. First, the environment must always be put before the safety, or rather the salvage, of the vessel. Secondly, if we had a proper full independent inquiry, the fact would emerge that the Government should step in immediately there is a major threat of pollution, and start managing the salvage operation. The salvors should be the contractors, not, as happens now, virtually become the owners of the vessel and the controllers of the operation. That is a lesson that we should learn. Only someone with the experience, and particularly the judicial background, of Lord Donaldson could address that issue. It certainly could not be addressed by the marine accidents investigation branch.
Milford Haven port authority must be fully investigated. I must declare a retrospective interest--if that is possible--because, from 1977 to 1992, I was, ultimately, an employee of the port authority: the company for which I worked was wholly owned by it. Over the years, I and many others, particularly pilots, have been saying that safety margins are being continually squeezed.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Milford Haven was a model port. People from all over the world visited it to see how a port should be run. They would ask, "How can you run an oil port in the middle of a national park, surrounded by these important environmental areas?" It was possible to do so because the port invested in safety margins and oil pollution techniques. In a number of spheres, it was a world leader. Sullom Voe, which is now the biggest oil port in the UK, based its methods of operation on those of Milford Haven.
Those safety margins have, sadly, disappeared. Instead, we have the farce of a port that annually has more than 3,000 vessel movements in and out of its entrance, which is not covered by radar. For six months, the radar covering the port's entrance has been out of action, which shows that something is seriously wrong with the authority. When the Borga ran aground on 29 October, the radar was not working and it had been out of operation for weeks.
When the radar was first installed in 1984, it was state of the art. It had not an old-style radar sweep screen but television screens that were touch sensitive, and the operator could see what was moving on it. It cost nearly £1 million, but it is no longer operable; only an old sweep screen is operating at the port. The port authority says that the radar is operational, but it is using pre-1984 technology.
In his final meeting with the port's board, the previous harbour master recommended that it should invest£1 million in a new radar system. The board decided to defer the decision until the new harbour master took over in late 1994 or early 1995, and no decision was taken. It was only after the understandable furore when the Borga had run aground that the board announced that it would replace the radar with £100,000 worth of equipment. But that was to cover only the entrance to the port; no full replacement for the rest of the system was proposed.
The number of tugs has been reduced. When I first started berthing super-tankers in the port, it had six fully manned tugs. We are now down--admittedly with two fewer terminals--to only three fully manned tugs, with one on standby. If a fifth tug is required, Swansea, Liverpool or another port must be asked to supply one. Flexibility has been reduced; safety margins have been cut.
I was staggered to learn that, in the week before the Sea Empress ran aground, a ship of similar size, the Star of Westminster, approached the port in bad weather. The pilot went out to the ship, but it was too rough to board. He told the ship to turn round and to try again in a few hours. The vessel ignored his advice. Someone on the ship sent a message that said, "I'm coming in". It carried on through the entrance of the port and was berthed--without a pilot. That vessel was subject to compulsory piloting; it had to have a pilot. I know what will happen: a bill will be sent for the pilotage and it will be paid although the pilot was not on board. That should not be allowed to happen.
The problem that the oil refining sector faces is that everything is cost driven, and I am afraid that safety is falling victim to that. In Milford Haven, we are witnessing the oil company tail wagging the port authority dog. We are also witnessing the loss of port safety and conservation of the environment as priorities. The port's focus has shifted from that--its prime responsibilities under the legislation--to commercial activity. I do not
criticise it for developing derelict areas and trying to improve and create jobs, but it must not be done at the expense of the prime responsibilities of port safety and environmental conservation. I am afraid that that is what has been happening over a number of years.
I return to the point that I was making to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. The most worrying thing is that a spin is starting to take place over this tragedy, in which the finger is being pointed and the focus is being concentrated on the first accident on Thursday night. We are in the middle of an inquiry--I do not believe that it is sufficiently extensive or, certainly, sufficiently independent--that has been instituted by the Secretary of State and is being conducted by the MAIB.
Yesterday, the port authority attempted to suspend the pilot who was on the bridge when the vessel ran aground on Thursday night. It is outrageous that, in the middle of an inquiry, the port authority has suddenly decided who is guilty and pointed a finger. It is also making statements such as, "It was a pity that we pulled the vessel off the rocks on Thursday night." In other words, the port authority thinks that the fault lies not with the salvors, because they were not there on Thursday night, not with the marine pollution control unit, because it was not there on Thursday night, and not with the coastguard. The fault must lie with the first tug crews who got there, the pilot who was on board and the master who called for help. That is outrageous and extremely worrying, and can be addressed only by a full independent inquiry.
In relation to compensation, I do not want to talk up the disaster or the losses that will be made by the tourist industry, but let us be realistic right from the word go. For a far smaller incident and with a far smaller tourist industry, Braer has already paid out £47 million. There is only £57 million in this pot. There are many tragedies related to this incident. If it had happened in two months' time, under the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, the pot would have been£125 million; at present, it will stop at £55 to £57 million, depending on the exchange rate.
Let us be realistic and face the problems as we see them now. We are not talking up the disaster. We are saying that if Braer, in an area with a smaller tourist industry and, arguably, a smaller fishing industry--it is certainly not much bigger than Milford's--has already cost£47 million, what on earth will this one cost?
Mr. Ainger:
My hon. Friend says double, and I would not disagree with him. We should be putting pressure on the oil industry--on the international oil pollution compensation fund--and saying, "If this had happened in June, you would have had to pay out £125 million. You do not want your reputation sullied any more than it has been." One of the ways in which it will be sullied is if the industry does not pay full compensation to the innocent victims of this disaster. Those words should be coming from the Secretary of State.
I welcome everything that the Secretary of State said tonight. The £2 million bridging fund is an excellent idea, for which I am grateful. I discussed it with one of his Conservative colleagues in the other place at theSt. David's day lunch. I am glad that it has been implemented.
On a personal note, I have been accused by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping of trying to make political capital out of this disaster. I understood that one of my jobs as a Back Bencher was to try to make the Executive accountable. I asked whether the Select Committee on Transport would be willing to hold some sort of independent inquiry, but I was told, "There is an inquiry going on and we cannot get involved." So Parliament seems to be negated and cannot go ahead with an independent inquiry. If we cannot get an independent inquiry within Parliament, Lord Donaldson is the only person to conduct one because he is an expert in this sphere. Why cannot we do that? It would give the Government credibility. It would give confidence to the people who have suffered and do not want it to happen again. They want to ensure that there will be no cover-up and no whitewash. The only way to do that is to call in Lord Donaldson.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |