| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: I thank the Minister most sincerely for accepting the new clause and for underlining the spirit of openness and eagerness to ensure that the Bill completes its passage through the House which all of us who had the privilege to serve on the Committee have enjoyed. We all benefited from the great expertise on particular subjects that resided in more than one member of the Committee.
It was not our intention in tabling the new clause to place an enormous burden on the Secretary of State or his Department, necessitating consultation with absolutely everybody with any association, however remote, with the maritime industry, whether at sea or on land. It is undoubtedly the case that practical experience is usually the greatest teacher, and no classroom is more severe than that of the sea. Much expertise and experience can be brought to bear.
It is important to note that the Bill will place new requirements on various parts of the maritime industry. Consultation and the sharing of knowledge and experience can bring benefits to all concerned. Information technology is making inroads in what have been the traditional methods of navigation and it is important that training should keep pace with the scientific and technological advances.
Once again, I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance of the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Mr. Ainger:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 5--Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution--
Mr. Ainger:
New clause 4 developed from the clause stand part debate in Committee, in which I said that clause 2 was in the Bill because the marine accidents investigation branch made three separate recommendations in its interim report published on 22 November 1996: to give legal status to the marine pollution control unit's national contingency plan; to give the Secretary of State additional powers to direct harbour authorities, harbourmasters and pilots; and to give the Secretary of State or his officials the right to charter vessels, aircraft and equipment in the commercial sector to carry out an anti-pollution operation.
It is worse than useless to give the Secretary of State those powers if he cannot sensibly exercise them. I am glad that he is here. I remind the House of the meeting that he and I had at 11 o'clock on 20 February, the day after the Sea Empress made her final grounding and spilled about 30,000 tonnes of oil on the falling tide. I asked him why he had not intervened and exercised his considerable powers under the current legislation between 15 February, when the vessel first ran aground, and the day of our meeting.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm my precis of our conversation. He said that he felt that he could not intervene, because the salvors were acknowledged as being world class and he had no expertise with which to countermand their policy and decisions, and that he was afraid that if he exercised his powers the salvors' tugs, equipment and expertise would be removed.
That is the key issue. We all want the risk to be reduced wherever possible, and if an accident occurs we need to be able to handle it as best we can, with all the technology
at our disposal, to reduce the impact on the environment, but if, with the best will in the world, we give the Secretary of State those powers, we must also provide him with the independent expertise that could advise him if a salvage or towing operation were going wrong.
In Committee, the Minister tried to reassure us that measures had already been taken. He said that the contracted emergency towing vessels based at Dover, Falmouth and Stornoway had salvage experts attached to them. That assurance does not bear close examination. If we need all-year-round expertise, and its source is on the emergency towing vessels, those vessels would have to be on charter all year round, which they are not: they are chartered for only six months of the year; so for six months of any year there is no contracted salvage expertise available to the Secretary of State.
The three emergency towing vessels cover only the three sectors identified by Lord Donaldson and by Captain Belton, so if a casualty were to occur well up the east coast, in the middle of the North sea, it would be a significant distance from the existing covered sectors and the expertise would not be readily available.
Perhaps the most important point is how independent and objective any salvage expert who is part of a salvage operation will be. The Minister has told us that salvage experts will be on the vessels. The House will be interested to know that, under the current contract between the salvage or towing companies and the Coastguard agency, 60 per cent. of any proceeds from a successful salvage operation will automatically go to the salvor and only 40 per cent. to the Department of Transport. Again, there is a question mark over the independence of the people who are attached to the emergency towing vessels.
How do we give the Secretary of State that day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out, objective and independent expertise so that he can exercise the powers that previous Acts have given him and the Bill would give him? The Sea Empress disaster has clearly shown us that he did not have expertise in which he was confident and could place his trust. That is vital. If one lesson has to be learnt from the Sea Empress, it is that the Secretary of State must have independent and objective advice constantly available to him. That is why I tabled the new clause, which would put into the Bill the requirement for the Secretary of State to have such marine salvage expertise.
The Government were generous on new clause 2. I hope that they will show similar generosity on this important issue.
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro):
I shall speak to new clause 5, which is in my name and would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to carry out regular assessments of the availability of emergency salvage capacity in United Kingdom waters--an issue that I raised in Committee. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure the provision of adequate salvage capacity based on the information obtained through such a review.
It is not a question of who funds the capacity--it is likely to be done through the private sector--but of the role of the Secretary of State in ensuring that such provision is available. I want to put an end to the considerable delays in ensuring that emergency salvage tugs are available in areas that are at risk from shipping. In Committee, the Minister argued that the question
concerns the extent to which the Government should provide or ensure such salvage facilities. Lord Donaldson was in no doubt that the duty of ensuring that adequate cover was available lay with the Government. The fact that he also considered that tug ownership should remain primarily a private sector service was not intended to allow the Government to leave areas exposed to an avoidable pollution incident while they considered funding options.
In Committee, the Minister was reminded of the relative costs of salvage provision and of an oil spill, not all of which can be recovered from the ship's insurers or oil pollution compensation funds. Oil spills cost tens of millions of pounds, and it is highly desirable that the polluter should be asked to pay for the cost of pollution prevention, but coastal communities should not be left at risk while the issue is resolved.
When a similar amendment was discussed in Committee, the Minister questioned the meaning of "adequate". The new clause would give the Secretary of State the means of assessing what would constitute adequate emergency salvage tug cover. The Minister may argue that that already happens, but by making it a duty the new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State responded quickly to such assessments--certainly in less time than it has taken to implement some of Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
The Minister might question the meaning of "regular". He might suggest an interval that he would recommend for such a review and which is current practice, so that should not be a concern. Reviews should not be triggered solely in response to accidents. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would be charged with ensuring that adequate salvage capacity was available in the period between reviews.
In Committee, the Minister also argued, in relation to a similar amendment, that a function of the Secretary of State
'.--In section 137 of the 1995 Act (shipping casualties), after subsection (5), there is inserted the following subsection--
"(5A) The Secretary of State shall appoint such persons as he thinks fit to advise or assist him in connection with marine salvage and other matters relating to the exercise and performance of his duties under this section.".'.--[Mr. Ainger.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
'.--After section 293 of the 1995 Act there is inserted the following section--
"Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution
293A. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State--
(a) to carry out regular reviews of emergency salvage capacity in United Kingdom waters, including need, availability and potential funding sources; and
(b) to ensure that adequate emergency salvage capacity is provided in United Kingdom waters, as identified in reviews carried out in accordance with paragraph (a), above.".'.
"did not impose an obligation."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 March 1997; c. 116.]
The new clause has been redrafted to take that comment into account. The Minister's comment raises some concerns, however, about other provisions in schedule 6, which I had understood would place an obligation on the Minister. If his comment is correct, they would not do that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |