| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Merchant Shipping
8. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has received to consultation on the draft Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill. [583]
Sir George Young: Fifty-four replies were received to the consultation on the draft Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill.
Mr. Ainger: Is not the United Kingdom coastline the most vulnerable in Europe to oil pollution? Are not urgent measures needed to deal with that? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the intervention measures included in the draft Bill are welcome, but unless they are backed up with the necessary expertise--the expert individuals who can provide advice to the Secretary of State and give him the powers of command and control of operations such as the Sea Empress--they will be useless?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that we need those command and control measures in the national interest, so that we are not dependent on private salvors which, at the end of the day, have only their commercial interests at heart? Is it not about time that experts were put in place to take command and control of operations such as the Sea Empress?
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning of his question. The Bill was widely welcomed when it was introduced in another place last week. Its measures are aimed at improving safety at sea and minimising marine pollution. I hope that they will consolidate the considerable progress that we have already made.
On the point about intervention, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a parallel consultation exercise on the powers needed by local and harbour authorities, on which the Government have not yet reached a conclusion.
I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about expert advice. However, it is my view that I and my Department have access to the best advice available to enable me to discharge the responsibilities that fall on my shoulders.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
I welcome the fact that the Government have finally decided to implement the majority of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report. However, it is deeply disappointing that they have not used the opportunities provided by the draft Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill to address some of the more fundamental problems--such as the fact that over the past 15 years the British merchant fleet has been reduced to a quarter of its former size; that 50,000 seafaring jobs have been lost; that maritime overseas earnings have been halved; and that there has been an increase in flagging out and the use of cheap, unskilled labour forces. Is it not the case that two thirds of accidents involve vessels sailing under a flag of convenience? We hope that the Government will expand the possibilities under the draft Bill to begin to redress the downturn in the British merchant fleet.
Sir George Young:
We have accepted 91 of the 103 recommendations in the Donaldson report and we have already implemented half of those accepted. The maritime Bill, which is now before the other place, will implement even more.
On the broader question, I should be interested to hear exactly what proposals the hon. Lady is making from the Opposition Front Bench and exactly how much they will cost if she intends to put money behind the suggestions that she has just made.
The Government have helped our Merchant Navy. In two successive Finance Bills, we have given the roll-over relief much wanted by the shipping industry. We have given specific help with the training of officers. The industry also has a national insurance regime that is preferential to that enjoyed by many other industries. If the hon. Lady has any concrete proposals, she should put them forward, cost them and tell the House exactly how she proposes to pay for them.
9. Mr. William O'Brien:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on asthma and air pollution from road transport; and if he will make a statement. [584]
Mr. Bowis:
The Government have commissioned and evaluated a range of research related to health and air pollution. The report of the expert advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution", was published in October 1995. Copies are in the Library of the House.
Mr. O'Brien:
The Minister must be aware that air pollution exacerbates, and in many instances causes, asthma. Why, therefore, does he continue to pursue policies
Mr. Bowis:
We are setting targets to reduce pollution levels, and, in particular, emission levels. I should correct the hon. Gentleman on his first point. The report makes it very clear that there is no evidence that air pollution causes asthma. There is evidence that, to a small extent, asthma may be exacerbated by air pollution, but the causes are unknown and unproven.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about what we should be doing. As he knows, we envisage a package of proposals composed of tax proposals and powers for local councils. The package also includes Government proposals on vehicle emission levels, unleaded fuel and cleaner diesel fuel and discouraging car and lorry use by encouraging public transport, cycling and rail freight. Those measures will help. If we can meet emissions targets, the hon. Gentleman will see results in the nation's health and the public's quality of life.
Mr. Harry Greenway:
What damage to health, if any--I presume that there is some--comes from diesel vehicles? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people switched to diesel vehicles because we thought that, by doing so, we were reducing air pollution, but that we have now been told that we are not?
Mr. Bowis:
While petrol emits gases that affect the ozone level, diesel emits gases--particularly nitrogen oxide, which affects local air--and particulates. That is why it is so important that industry looks for cleaner diesel fuels, that vehicle operators use them and that we implement ever-higher emissions standards for lorries, taxis and buses. Those vehicles are checked frequently, regularly and randomly by the Vehicle Inspectorate.
Mr. Bradley:
The Government must accept that the most effective way to reduce air pollution would be to reduce car usage and to invest in high-quality public transport. Therefore, why did the Government not allow Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and others identified in the National Audit Office report to bid for passenger rail services on a revenue-sharing option basis, which would have allowed extra resources to be invested in public transport and not caused taxpayers to be ripped off further by rail privatisations?
Mr. Bowis:
One of the measures that I mentioned in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was our effort to reduce car use by promoting public transport. The Government have a proud record of investing in public transport in London and in our other major cities. We are also attempting to persuade people to leave their cars at home more often and to use bicycles and their feet. We have strategies to achieve all those measures to promote non-car use, and I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will support them--to achieve the ends that he claims to want.
Mr. Forman:
In an earlier answer, my hon. Friend conceded that one of the causes of these problems are particulates from diesel engines. Will he assure the House that enforcement measures taken by local authorities and others are sufficiently stringent and based on roadside action? My impression from travelling round London is that that is often not the case, and that air pollution levels probably would not satisfy the standards set by the World Health Organisation.
Mr. Bowis:
I note what my hon. Friend is saying and asking. The Government, scientists and technologists are hunting constantly for better methods of preventing diesel pollution--such as by the use of particulate traps, which are being developed. However, there is not yet sufficient evidence that traps are an effective method to achieve our aim.
I take on board my hon. Friend's point about ensuring that local authorities have not only the duty but the power to tackle pollution. We have already given powers to reduce volumes and types of traffic in some areas. We have imposed the duty to designate air-quality management areas in areas where that is appropriate, and we shall soon consult on the provision of new local powers to check vehicle emissions. Another matter to be addressed is vehicle idling.
10. Mr. Hanson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [585]
Sir George Young:
Over the past few weeks, I have received representations about privatisation of National Air Traffic Services from representatives of airlines, general aviation, NATS trade unions and other air traffic control service providers. I have also heard from a number of individuals, who wrote directly or through their Members of Parliament.
Mr. Hanson:
Is the Secretary of State aware that, in a consultation held in 1994, 114 of the 188 respondents opposed privatisation? Is it not simply a matter of dogma for the Government to proceed? Will he outline to the House the representations that he has received on safety? There are genuine concerns that safety will be compromised by privatisation.
Sir George Young:
There will be no compromise on safety. NATS will continue to be regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. The main concern expressed by those whom we consulted was that they should be fully involved in the process of working up legislation. We are committed to that. Many of those whom we consulted supported the objective of freeing NATS from public sector financial and management control.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |