| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about consultations within the EU. Does he agree that it would not be sensible for the UK to rely for the provision of tugs or air-sea rescue helicopters on the good will of other countries, irrespective of the organisation to which they belong?
Mr. Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It would not be sensible to rely on others, but that should not preclude sensible co-operation, which Donaldson specifically recommended.
The relative level of costs of using port reception facilities involves not just the EU, but the Baltic states and others. I ask the Minister to let us know what progress the Government have made in their international discussions.
On the provisions in clause 11 for local authority contingency plans for clean-up operations, what timetable does the Minister envisage for consultation with local authorities, and how does he believe compliance with a statutory duty to clean up oil spills is to be paid for? Will he examine, in conjunction with insurers, possible ways in which councils can get better and quicker reimbursement for insurance?
We should take this opportunity to praise the many coastal authorities throughout Great Britain that are currently carrying out such work on a non-statutory basis. If the Government are to impose the ends, they must say how they intend to provide the means.
We shall also press the Minister for assurances on the impact of the Bill's enabling powers of charging in clause 13 and schedule 2 on the general lighthouse fund, to which the Secretary of State referred. From the notes on clauses and ministerial responses in another place, it seems that the Government are at best anticipating European legislation, which by all accounts is some way off. As the Minister is aware, fears about the possible wider implications have been expressed in the industry and by Trinity House. He would do well to make the situation clear in his reply.
We want to examine the effect of the relative level of fines on shipowners and masters, for which clause 7 provides. It raises the magistrates fine that can be levied on each to £250,000. No one would question the need for swingeing penalties for those responsible for the illegal discharge of oil. It is right that the court should take into account the fact that a master holds an extremely responsible position on a ship and has ultimate responsibility for its day-to-day operations, but we should not forget that the master is responsible to the owner, who is his employer and who can bring considerable pressure to bear. If the fine is intended to impose on each an equal measure of responsibility, it is questionable whether the same sum is applicable, as hardly any master could pay the maximum set down in the clause, whereas some owners could. We shall pursue the matter in Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis):
Will the hon. Gentleman explore his thinking a little further? The amount of the fine takes into account ability to pay. If the fines were equal, as
Mr. Smith:
We do not seek to encourage that. The question is whether it is right that the maximum should be the same in each case, or whether there should be a higher maximum for shipowners, taking account of the ability to pay. The matter is probably best pursued in Committee.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, as well as questions to be answered and issues that we want to press further. The Bill will be a step forward in maritime environmental protection, and we want it to be on the statute book before the general election. Legislation, however, is only a start. Implementation and effective enforcement will make the difference.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
When the Secretary of State for Defence came to tell the House about the provision of a new royal yacht, he made a great speech, saying what a maritime nation we were. His ringing words were supported by the previous Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). We were told what a noble history of maritime involvement we had and how proud we were of it, and that the new royal yacht would demonstrate our tradition and our commitment.
That is an astonishingly hollow statement from a Government who have presided consistently over the loss of tonnage and the loss of jobs in the maritime industries, which amount to a haemorrhage. It is important to understand that, although the Bill covers many complex areas of legislation, it does not begin to replace those losses.
Many of my hon. Friends will speak about environmental protection and about aspects such as port state facilities, charging and the development of action at an international level, which is essential if we are to police the seas. Before I deal with the Coastguard, a matter of grave concern to me, I want to make a wider point.
It is embarrassing for Ministers to say at the Dispatch Box that it is important for us to have cover from tugs and air-sea rescue facilities from air-sea rescue services, without making it clear that because of specific Government policies, we are becoming increasingly dependent on the good will of other nations.
One must be careful how one phrases one's views in the House of Commons. We are told, "Little Englander--you do not approve of support from any other European nation." In reality, however, the nationality of the helicopter coming to the assistance of someone in the Irish sea off the coast of west Wales may not be of material interest to him, but the time that the helicopter takes to get there and the place where it begins its journey are of enormous importance. It will not do if Belgian helicopters are the only ones available to cover many of our vital sea lanes or to have only Irish helicopters on standby when
many individuals desperately need assistance. That has happened consistently throughout the past year and is becoming more common.
More and more people are taking to the seas. As we get rid of our commercial involvement and cease to be a maritime nation--if we have not already done so to all intents and purposes--more and more people turn towards the sea for their leisure activities. They are at risk, and many of them will need assistance. It is therefore bizarre that in areas like west Wales, where RAF Brawdy was closed, the Government found themselves dependent on facilities provided not from Cornwall, as they originally said, but from Ireland and Belgium. I am happy for my grandchildren to be taught English and Welsh at school, but I did not expect them to need to be taught English, Welsh and Flemish. The Government have a direct responsibility and should make their intentions clear.
In terms of providing both tugs and air-sea rescue, the Government seem to be falling down badly on the job. One reason for that failure is that we are losing coastguards--we are losing nearly one third of the Coastguard service. Under the guise of reorganisation, coastguards are being asked to consider radical changes in the way that they work. Anyone else planning rescue services would not assume that at a time when people were using more maritime facilities, the safeguards offered to them should be cut. But that is what is happening every day.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)--who is sitting on the Front Bench and who is a most courteous and gentle gentleman--told me that the Government thought it sensible to spend £1,101,768 on accountants who were being used to privatise the six trust ports. I do not know how accountants support the Coastguard service or those who need assistance at sea, or how they help the training of officers or improve facilities for our seamen, but they are being paid more than £1 million. Lawyers are cheap: they cost only £8,817 and other professions cost only £38,295. Yet we are told that there is not enough money to train, expand, or even maintain at its existing level the Coastguard service. In those circumstances, ordinary families and the ordinary constituents of every one of us will pay the price. Only when the facilities are found wanting shall we be told, "We are terribly sorry but unfortunately, owing to reorganisation, it has not been possible to provide the same level of care or cover."
If the House thinks that I am exaggerating, I should make it clear that what is being proposed will lead to a 30 per cent. change in what are called sector posts, which will downgrade maritime rescue sub-centres. It would not normally be important to talk about nomenclatures, but this is a material change. We are being asked to consider a two-tier system in the Coastguard service.
Will the Minister tell us exactly how response times will be calculated? It is clear that in the Coastguard service, unlike the ambulance service, response times are calculated in an unusual way--only from when the rescuer receives the information, not from when the call is received. We are being told that there will be a two-tier service that will consist of an initial assessment--a response to an accident--and a second provision: a rescue team. Clear evidence has already been provided from a case in Cornwall. The rescuers arrived on the scene; rescue equipment was not available to them--they had been sent to give an assessment of the situation--and a
tragic accident occurred in which people lost their lives. That may have happened anyway, but one worries about policy decisions that can put people at risk.
A Coastguard instant response team may not be supplied with rescue equipment and can only report back to a rescue centre. Is that how the Minister intends to provide care in the future? What happens to response times and the care provided at incidents if a second back-up response team is required? Is the Coastguard method of calculating 999 calls unique to that service? If so, why? How many rescue vehicles are there around the countryside? Is it the Government's intention to downgrade at least four rescue stations at vital points of the United Kingdom that already have a considerable amount of work placed on them and that may be essential to the safety of human life?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |