| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.34 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, the Bill is vital and welcome, and the Labour party supports its measures.
We regret the fact that it has taken not one but two serious marine pollution disasters finally to convince the Government of the need for the legislation; a need underlined yet again today by the incident in the English channel that was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
We also regret the fact that it has taken the Government almost three years to bring before the House Lord Donaldson's highly praised and respected inquiry into the first of those disasters. We accept that, despite the apparent complacency and the delays that have preceded its publication, the Bill will go at least part of the way towards creating the safer ships and cleaner seas that were the aim of Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
However, many aspects of the Bill still require further explanation from Ministers, who will also have to justify a number of omissions. Many of those aspects and omissions were highlighted not only by my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich, for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux).
In addition, many informed and probing interventions from my hon. Friends were courteously allowed by the Secretary of State, in the most marked contrast with the fact that, with the exception of those on the Front Bench and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), no Conservative Member has been present to hear, let alone contribute to, this evening's important debate.
The Bill was a golden opportunity for the Government at least to begin to address the appalling decline in Britain's merchant fleet that has characterised their 18 years in office. The figures have been well rehearsed, but they are none the less staggering.
Since 1979, the United Kingdom merchant fleet has declined by 24 million tonnes, or approximately 65 per cent. of its former size. According to Lloyd's, Britain now ranks 22nd in the table of world trading fleets, behind nations such as Malta, Turkey, Italy and St. Vincent. Under the present Government, more merchant tonnage has been lost from the British fleet than was lost by all the allied forces in all theatres in the second world war.
The figures are damning in themselves, but they are also directly related to the issues that we have been debating today, because the dramatic decline in the United Kingdom register has been matched by an equally dramatic increase in the use of flags of convenience.
Opposition Members are proud to acknowledge that British shipping has one of the best safety records in the world, but as more and more of our vessels are forced to flag out and more and more of our goods are transported by vessels over which we have only limited jurisdiction, that safety record is undermined and the threat to our coastline increases.
The decline of our merchant fleet also has serious economic implications. According to the Chamber of Shipping, since 1979, the gross earnings of the British
merchant fleet have declined from £9.8 billion to £4.7 billion per annum. In 1975, the sea transport account of the UK balance of payments was in surplus. Under the present Government, that surplus has been allowed to slip into deficit. That decline in earnings represents lost investment not only to the nation but to the maritime industry, which could have a serious knock-on effect in terms of pollution and safety.
It has been well documented that the majority of maritime casualties involve vessels of 14 years or older, with more than 90 per cent. of vessels lost at sea being 15 years or older. Similarly, poor maintenance of vessels is widely agreed to be a major contributory factor to shipping accidents. The 1995 European port state control report states:
The Bill's measures to protect the environment and tackle pollution are welcome, but we have several concerns about pollution prevention matters. It is disappointing that there appears to be nothing in the Bill to address the problems surrounding the detection of vessels responsible for pollution. According to the latest figures that I have been able to obtain, which relate to a survey conducted by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers between June and September 1995, in the 139 oil pollution incidents reported around the UK, only three of the offending ships were detected. Similarly in 1995, only 37 vessels were detained in UK ports on suspicion of involvement in illegal discharges of oil and hazardous chemicals; of those, only 11 cases were referred to the Treasury Solicitor for possible prosecution, while 19 were reported to their flag state.
While we accept that unilateral action on the inspection and detention of foreign-flagged vessels is difficult because of the impact on competitiveness and on British seafarers forced by the decline of the British fleet to serve
on such vessels, what action is being taken at European and international level to agree tighter regulations for the frequency and thoroughness of port state control inspections?
Equally, we believe that the Government should take a strong stance to protect Britain's fishing grounds from the problems of fish transhipment in the form of the so-called klondykers. We welcome the Government's proposed measures to tackle the problem and the Secretary of State's reference to it. However, we are not yet convinced that those measures go far enough and we shall explore the matter in Committee and on Report.
As I said, many of the Bill's measures respond to Lord Donaldson's report, which was itself a response to the Braer grounding of January 1993. Since then, the Government have been somewhat overtaken by events. We welcome the fact that Ministers have been flexible enough to insert several measures that clearly respond to the Sea Empress disaster. The details of that, and the continuing concerns, were graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. We welcome the measures as far as they go, but we seek further assurances from Ministers. In particular, we want an assurance that the process of salvage by committee which allowed an accident to turn into farce and then disaster will never be repeated. We shall certainly seek assurances that Ministers will never again place responsibility for the co-ordination of a major maritime rescue operation in the hands of a chef from a local Chinese takeaway restaurant.
I reiterate the request of my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East, for Pembroke, for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Crewe and Nantwich that the Minister here and now confirm or deny reports that the Government are considering the removal of winter tug cover from our coastline. He could also explain how they can afford to spend £60 million of taxpayers' money on a royal yacht to safeguard the leadership ambitions of the Secretary of State for Defence, but cannot afford the £3 million a year that it costs to protect Britain's coastline.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis):
To continue where the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) left off, we can join hands across the Chamber in seeking to build on the work of Lord Donaldson. I think she said that she thought this a good Bill. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said the same, as did all hon. Members who spoke. That was also the view of all parties in the other place. Lord Clinton-Davis wished the Bill well and described it as good. I am happy to accept that accolade as we take it into this House.
Several hon. Members mentioned personal experiences. As the Member of Parliament for the landlocked constituency of Battersea, my memories reflect the
Marchioness tragedy, after which I introduced a Bill to improve river safety. Many ideas have been flagged up for the Committee and we shall no doubt enjoy discussing them in detail.
I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) who, from the days when he had to cope with the impact of the Sea Empress incident on his constituents, drew a vivid picture of why the Bill is important. His picture was endorsed and reinforced by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who described standing beneath the Sea Empress in dry dock and seeing a gaping hole. I must be careful not to prejudge the marine accident investigation branch investigation and inquiry, but the interim recommendation to extend the power to issue a direction to harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots has been accepted, as has the statutory basis for the national contingency plan. Both are dealt with by the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was kind enough to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I pass that accolade swiftly to my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. He and my right hon. Friend are grateful for that tribute. It is in tribute, above all, to the work of Lord Donaldson that we introduce the Bill.
Many of the matters that have been discussed will come up in Committee, for which we have had many volunteers. I shall canter through some of the points. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked about pilots. He is right that the captain retains charge of the vessel, even when the pilot may have conduct of it. I hope that that is a helpful clarification.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Minches. We have undertaken a radar survey of the traffic there. In bad weather there may be circumstances in which it would be better for vessels to use sheltered waters, otherwise vessels should be in the deep water to the west of the Hebrides. He also referred to survival equipment and survival suits. Our tugs carry the equipment necessary for the conditions in which they operate and we encourage fishermen to make similar provision on board their vessels. I can confirm the Scottish legal process in terms of the procurator fiscal and the sheriff courts. I hope that that, too, puts his mind at ease.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to the problem of klondykers. We are aware of it, and I am grateful to them for their support for the relevant measures in the Bill. No doubt we can examine the issue in some detail in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) asked particularly about the Scilly Isles. Lord Donaldson mentioned them, as well as Skomer, as possible marine environmental high risk areas--MEHRAs. We have undertaken radar surveys of both locations, the results of which will be published shortly. They are part of our examination of MEHRAs and I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Scillies are very much in our mind as we consider that issue.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the importance of a knowledge of English. It may be of some comfort to him to know that we are about to introduce regulations--the minimum standards of safe communication--on which we have already consulted. They require a person on a United Kingdom ship or any
foreign ship in territorial waters to have on board a person capable of communicating with the shore. That implements in part an EC directive on the training of seamen. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the reasonable costs of the clean-up following an oil incident. They will be met by the intergovernmental oil pollution liability and compensation system. The costs of planning and preparation will be considered as part of the review of the national contingency plan that my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has announced, and before any regulations are made under clause 12.
If I may, I shall leave the issue of charging for further discussion in Committee.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) raised a number of points, including some that suggested a degree of gunboat diplomacy in Liberal policy. I must tell him that the United Nations convention on the law of the sea prohibits measures that hamper innocent passage in the territorial sea or other measures on the regulation of maritime traffic that do not conform to international law. We cannot take unilateral action, which he urged, that is mandatory on ships. We can take advisory measures, but mandatory action needs prior approval by the IMO.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke will understand that I cannot comment on some of his remarks relating to the Sea Empress because they are a matter for the investigation. I have already mentioned the review of the national contingency plan to which he referred. The powers of the Secretary of State to intervene will be discussed in Committee.
The example of the Sea Empress occupies our mind, and the hon. Gentleman referred to compensation claims being dealt with too slowly. We are conscious that we need to look carefully at that matter. At the moment, we have no evidence to suggest that there have been any significant delays in the payments of claims, although that may not be the impression of the person who is waiting. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund is required by its establishing convention and rules of procedure to seek documentary evidence of the validity of claims. In some cases, payment can be delayed if that evidence is not provided by the claimant. There is no evidence to suggest that many are suffering financial hardship. There are procedures for claiming hardship payments but, as I understand it, so far, just five people have applied for them.
Various issues were raised about the Marchioness and public inquiries. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to those queries during his speech, but perhaps we will discuss the matter again in Committee. In broad terms, the Secretary of State has discretion to hold public inquiries that are known as formal investigations. We need to judge the circumstances of each incident when deciding how to proceed.
"Most of the defects discovered could have been avoided if proper maintenance had been carried out."
The decline under the Government of Britain's merchant fleet and the ascendancy of flags of convenience that has accompanied it cannot be divorced from maritime safety and pollution. Those issues constitute an omission from the Bill that we intend to address both in Committee and on Report. Equally worrying is the Government's reluctance to confront crewing and crew training. The Donaldson report concluded that human factors are responsible for almost 80 per cent. of maritime casualties. Similarly, the 1992 National Audit Office study concluded:
"Operational failure and human error are the main cause of the majority of accidents to ships".
Despite the importance of highly trained seafarers to securing high standards of maritime safety, British shipping faces a manpower crisis. The number of British officers employed by British shipping companies has declined by 75 per cent. since 1979. According to the Chamber of Shipping, it is set to decline by a further 30 per cent. over the next decade. Despite warnings about the disastrous impact of falling numbers of seafarers and seafarer cadets, the Government spend less on support for seafarer training than on their ministerial car fleet. We believe that it is impossible to confront the issue of maritime safety without examining crewing. Again, we shall press the Government on that in Committee and on Report.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |