| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.48 pm
Sir James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): The Bill goes a long way towards attaining the objectives of the Donaldson report. It was considerably amended, and improved, in another place, where debate on it was greatly helped by the expert knowledge of many who participated. Indeed, the same is true of today's debate.
However, success will be achieved only when a much higher percentage of ships entering British waters are British-owned and, to a great extent, British-manned.
The Secretary of State's Department at all levels is only too well aware of the difficulties, for example, in communicating with foreign ships that do not have on the bridge one officer who is capable of understanding English. I concede that the Department is to a great extent denied the power to change that position in regard both to ownership and to manning, but power does lie elsewhere.
The Capital Allowances Act 1990 contains provisions concerning what is called "first year allowance". All that is now required is a new provision establishing a 100 per cent. first year allowance for expenditure in regard to investment in ships. That modest change would begin to reverse the current position, in which more than 80 per cent. of ships entering British waters are foreign-owned. Their owners not only disregard the rule book, but do not even bother to read it. There is widespread support for such an amendment to the Finance Bill, giving effect to that modest concession in the present Parliament, and then we can get on with it.
While such a change is taking effect, safety at sea could be enhanced by the compulsory provision of transponders on all ships entering British waters. Something of that nature was suggested in the Donaldson report. It is reflected in the Department's thinking.
There is reference in Donaldson, I think, to large identification signs. I cannot believe that they were seriously meant to give 24-hour coverage, given the hours of darkness and inclement weather, with which my honourable colleague, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), was so concerned, particularly in relation to preserving what is left of the Coastguard organisation. The transponders would be much more effective and much more in line, when we think about it, with aircraft tracking systems, which are accepted nowadays as absolutely essential.
The provision in clause 1 for placing an exclusion zone around a shipping casualty is to be welcomed. I hope that the exclusion will apply also to the news industry, because the intrusion in a crisis of aircraft, helicopters and non-authorised vessels can and does hamper rescue operations, and, in those circumstances, greatly increases the risk of fire. After all, such exclusion need be only brief, because the news industry usually becomes bored in a short time with any sensation, even one of its own manufacture.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) touched on another Donaldson recommendation--which is included, I think, in clause 12--laying on local authorities certain responsibilities. It is a vague phrase, and I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would like to be clear whether it also involves financial responsibilities. If so, it would seem unfair that a local authority covering a very vulnerable part of our coastline should be saddled with financial responsibility when, for example, another local authority in the midlands would get off scot free; so there is surely a strong case for financial liability to be a national responsibility.
Clause 10 is an essential element. The Department's powers should not be in doubt. Mention of that gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Transport, his Ministers, his Department, the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard for the very effective
co-operation on the Sea Empress after the two spillages. I also pay tribute to the Department for its sound decisions in regard to the subsequent removal of the seriously damaged vessel--and seriously damaged it undoubtedly was.
I had the horrifying experience of standing in the dry dock underneath the Sea Empress when she was completely pumped out. It was like looking up into a vast cathedral with nothing obstructing one's view in the way of a hull. The wonder of it is that the ship was able to be moved at all. It is a tribute to the sound judgment--there is more to this than the general public would know--of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, who ensured that there was not a third disaster in connection with the vessel.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives):
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) did not feel it necessary to declare a constituency interest, but I feel it necessary to do just that, for three reasons.
First, my constituency is almost completely surrounded by sea, sticking out, as it does, into the western approaches. Secondly, I happen to be the president--a paid job, I hasten to add--of the Sea Safety Group. Thirdly, I was also the sponsor of predecessor legislation, the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994. But perhaps the biggest interest I have to declare is the first one, as my constituency is by the sea and is the site of perhaps the first of the great environmental disasters, the Torrey Canyon, which foundered off the Isles of Scilly in my constituency in 1967.
I suppose that we have learnt many lessons since then, but, as the experience of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has shown, perhaps we have not learnt all the lessons from the years between the Torrey Canyon disaster and the foundering of the Sea Empress. During the passage of the Act that I sponsored, Opposition Members somehow had the idea that we could construct measures that would cure the problem for all time, and remove all risk. Of course, sadly, it is not like that.
We learn from each succeeding disaster, and try to prevent others. We will never, however, achieve a perfect state of legislation. Even if we did, many disasters are the result of human failing, so we can never legislate with compete satisfaction to remove the risk of such disasters. We must, however, continue to do our best, so I welcome the Bill as another attempt to do that, which helps to implement some of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's weighty report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
The Donaldson report describes the geographical position of the Isles of Scilly:
As Lord Donaldson said, the Isles of Scilly need added protection. The council of the isles has for some time urged that there should be some exclusion zone around the islands, to prevent another Torrey Canyon. While the Donaldson committee was deliberating, there was something of a near-miss involving a tanker. Fortunately, it did not result in disaster, but the risk is always there.
Some hon. Members will know that, ever since I became a Member of Parliament, I have deplored the way in which Coastguard stations have been removed--in fact, I made my maiden speech on the issue. I can claim that I managed to hold on to the last of the visual watch Coastguard stations in the country, which were in my constituency. Alas, they were also removed a few years ago. I was a founder trustee of National Coastwatch, which was set up to put in place on a voluntary basis a number of visual watches around the coastline. Those volunteers are doing excellent work.
As the hon. Member for Pembroke said, if we are to implement the measures outlined by Lord Donaldson, it is necessary in the areas concerned to have a very close watch by radar, and, I suggest, a visual watch. We cannot afford to allow these accidents to happen, and sometimes they can be prevented when coastguards or volunteers see a vessel literally heading for the rocks. That has happened in the past, and warnings have been given. One of my fears about the removal of visual watches is that we will deny ourselves the opportunity of preventing accidents in that way.
"The Isles of Scilly are another group of beautiful and ecologically sensitive islands located at a shipping crossroads."
18 Feb 1997 : Column 58
He referred to the weight of shipping that passes the islands. He went on to say that his committee was
traffic separation schemes--
"not convinced that the TSSs"--
"and ITZs"
inshore traffic zones--
"between them provide enough protection for the Isles of Scilly".
He said that the islands were "an obvious candidate" for marine environmental highrisk area status, and added:
"The Department of Transport should consider the options."
It is a matter of great disappointment to me and the islanders, my constituents, that no action has been taken to follow up that recommendation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |