| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Questions to Ministers
4.6 pm
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I read in the press that the Prime Minister had given the Secretary of State for Health some constitutional responsibilities, so I attempted to table a question at the Table Office. My question was refused. If the Secretary of State has those additional responsibilities, should not hon. Members be able to ask him questions? Should he not be accountable to the House? In the light of the statement we have just heard about the Ashworth scandal, would it not be better for him to stick to the Department of Health?
Madam Speaker: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's points of order and the way that he is able to keep his face straight when he is making the most facetious comments.
BIRDS (REGISTRATION CHARGES) BILL
Ordered,
That the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.--[Mrs. Lait.]
18 Feb 1997 : Column 31
Orders of the Day
Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill will make a major new contribution to the Government's highest priorities for shipping policy--improving safety and minimising pollution at sea.
There has been widespread consultation on the measures in the Bill in all quarters. In line with the Government's policy, the Bill itself was published in draft before its introduction. The consultation revealed a high degree of support as well as some useful suggestions for improvement. The Bill has benefited from extensive consideration in another place, where it received all-party support.
The Bill adds new measures to the existing framework of policies and is wholly consistent with the Government's fourfold approach to safety and pollution policy--first, seeking to prevent incidents from happening in the first place; secondly, mitigating the consequences once an incident has occurred; thirdly, ensuring that timely and appropriate compensation is paid following an incident; and finally, ensuring that the lessons will be learnt to help prevent future occurrences.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On the second issue, does the Secretary of State intend to introduce mandatory provision for port waste reception facilities, with mandatory port waste management plans?
Sir George Young:
I shall reach that section of my speech in a moment. The answer is yes--we are planning to impose an obligation to have waste management plans on the port authorities. We propose to proceed by voluntary methods if we can, and when I reach the relevant section, I hope to say something further on that.
After the loss of the Braer tanker in 1993, the Government decided that the time was right to commission a wide-ranging investigation into the prevention of pollution at sea. Lord Donaldson was appointed to head an inquiry whose remit was
The Government have accepted 9l of the 103 recommendations in the report. More than half of them have already been implemented. In some cases, the Government were able to act without new legislation or international agreement. For example, the United Kingdom continues to exercise a rigorous port state
control regime and has taken the world lead in publishing lists of detained ships. It has become increasingly successful in detecting substandard ships. Flags with poor safety records, as well as certain types of ships--including oil tankers--are targeted for inspection. Expanded inspections on certain types of ship such as passenger ships, bulk carriers and tankers, began from the start of last year. We have also announced our intention to publish a list of ships found polluting in UK waters or committing offences likely to lead to pollution.
My Department is continuing to press hard for early implementation of those of Lord Donaldson's recommendations for which international agreement is needed, through the International Maritime Organisation and other international forums. The Bill will enable us to implement the recommendations that we have accepted, which require primary legislation.
The Bill contains a number of measures that will contribute to our primary objective of incident prevention. Standards are a key weapon of safety policy and a wide range of standards, covering the design, construction, maintenance and operation of ships, are already in place.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
The reality, however, is that another incident has been reported today, with yet more sea birds dying of pollution. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the House will have sufficient time to examine this most complex and technical legislation, by jamming it between a statement lasting until 4 o'clock and a decision at 7 o'clock? Is that an adequate and sensible way of considering legislation?
Sir George Young:
As I said, the Bill was published in draft, there was extensive consultation and many helpful comments were made. It was also debated at length in another place. Of course, there will be a Committee stage and the Committee will have an opportunity of going through the Bill clause by clause. I know that the House will want to give the Bill the serious attention that it deserves.
Flags with poor safety records, as well as certain types of ships, including oil tankers, are targeted for inspection. Expanded inspections on certain types of ship, such as passenger ships, bulk carriers and tankers, began from the start of last year. We have announced our intention to publish a list of ships found polluting in UK waters.
The Bill contains a number of measures that will contribute to our primary objective of incident prevention.
Mr. Dalyell:
My constituency on the Forth is deeply affected--our beaches are filthy because of dumping. Is the lack of prosecutions for the illegal disposal of plastics at sea primarily because the Marine Safety Agency has insufficient evidence to take legal action? Could that matter be dealt with at some point during the Secretary of State's speech or during the debate?
Sir George Young:
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with that when he replies or in Committee. One of the clauses clarifies the powers for dealing with pollution other than by oil. Perhaps action is not taken simply because there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the incident this morning. The marine pollution control unit has arranged for
samples of oil from the birds to be sent for analysis, to find out more details. If it can be shown that the oil came from an oil tanker, as it is attributable to the slick, it should be possible to make a claim through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.
Standards are constantly kept under review and updated by the Marine Safety Agency, often in the context of international agreements. For the majority of vessels in UK waters, the legal powers to update those standards are already in place.
In his report, Lord Donaldson identified fish factory ships, also known as klondykers, as a particular problem. Some klondykers fall through a loophole and are not at present covered by national or international standards. Clause ll would allow requirements relating to safety to be prescribed for such ships. To ensure that those standards can be enforced, the clause provides for a notice to be served prohibiting the ships from carrying on with fish processing if the requirements are not met.
With marine pollution, public attention and headlines often focus on the high-profile single incidents, such as large spills from oil tankers. The Government are no less committed to doing all that is reasonably possible to prevent the equally important problem of illegal discharges of ships' wastes. To that end, my Department announced in January last year a package of 18 measures to combat illegal discharges.
The measures make use of the carrot-and-stick approach. Clause 5 is the carrot. It increases the incentives to ship operators to make proper use of port waste reception facilities. The stick is more effective enforcement measures and the threat of tougher penalties, strengthened by the higher maximum fines in clause 7.
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke):
Why is the maximum fine increased to £250,000 for oil tankers, but to only £25,000 for chemical carriers? The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been several illegal discharges of chemicals that have caused as much damage as an oil discharge to the marine environment. What is the reason for the glaring discrepancy between oil and chemical tankers?
Sir George Young:
When he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with that specific point on clause 7, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, increases the penalty for causing pollution to £250,000--if it is indeed the case that the higher fine applies only to oil.
"to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. Due consideration should be given to the international and economic implications of new measures".
The report of Lord Donaldson's team, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", was welcomed by Government and has since also been recognised internationally as an outstanding contribution to maritime policy on safety and pollution.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |