| Railways and Transport Safety Bill
|
|
Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman and I are as one on the issue. We are specifically addressing the question of alcohol and any excess of alcohol in those who are charged with the safe operation of a ship or the safe passage of a ship. I do not know whether the Minister's lack of response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath was wilful or accidental, but there is still time for him to respond. I should like explore further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about whether a professional mariner should be identified by someone who has qualifications to sail. It could also be said that a professional mariner is a person employed or engaged in any capacity aboard a vessel, whereas a non-professional mariner—presumably a recreational mariner—would be an individual driving a vessel used for sport or leisure purposes. I should like to elicit from the Minister the difference in emphasis between a professional member of staff and a non-professional. It is a little silly of the Minister to say that we are looking to extend the provisions of this clause to a comedian or a lecturer on board a ship. We want to identify those who fall under the Bill and whose responsibilities and duties may be impaired through drink or drugs. Most of us would accept that a comedian's responsibilities and duties will be enhanced by the intake of alcohol, but I hope that none of us would expect a comedian or a lecturer Column Number: 369 on board a ship to undertake any safety-critical functions.Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury): I tend to agree with my hon. Friend that entertainers cannot possibly be regarded as professional seamen, but presumably the contract under which they were employed would reflect that. I imagine that such a contract would differ substantially from that of a professional seaman. The crux of the matter is, however, the definition of a professional seaman. Would the hon. Lady agree with me that a steward, for example, should be included in that definition? I was, briefly, a steward in the Merchant Navy, and I would have regarded myself as being a professional seaman, because in an emergency I would have been required to steward passengers to lifeboats. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more clarification? Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that the Committee will benefit from the experience that he has brought to bear in that regard. That is the reason why we tabled the amendment; it would make the definition more precise. If the Minister is not minded to accommodate the amendment now, we shall return to it at a later stage. We offered assistance with the proposal that a professional person is someone carrying passengers for a fee. We did not hear whether it was fruitful. The bad news for the Under-Secretary is that the Minister chose not to come to his defence about the serious allegation that he has not met the august body NUMAST, its members, or its executive council for nigh on a year. The Bill was drafted during that period, in a not fully comprehensive and satisfactory form. Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Lady will dwell at more length on the point made by her hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who said that his job while on board ship might have included taking action for passenger safety in the event of an accident. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the recommendations of the Hayes report on the proposal, which she will have read in great detail, specifically referred to that issue and talked about any member of the crew, including bar and catering staff, being called to assist in an emergency. Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance, but his remarks did not hit the target, which was to persuade the Government to elucidate on the measure. We were told on Second Reading that off-duty professional mariners will be included if they are on the vessel, as stewards most surely are. They may be needed in an emergency to ensure passenger safety. It may help the Committee to know that I take pride in the fact that I served very briefly—six days—as a lieutenant commander on HMS Cumberland in the Gulf. I understood that the role of a steward in the Merchant Navy was similar to that of a guard on a train: in the event of an accident or a disaster, the Column Number: 370 guard on a train or the steward on a ship, is called upon to attend to the passengers.I hope that the Minister will see the logic of the amendments in seeking to differentiate between ''professional'' in clause 75 and ''non-professional'' in clause 77. A comedian and a lecturer clearly fall within clause 77, although that is subject to the debate on that, which I do not want to pre-empt. Opposition Members, including the Liberal Democrats, agree that the Hayes report and the recommendations of Justice Clarke and the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading all point to the clause being defective. In the most helpful way, we seek to assist the Government in that regard. We will not press the amendment to a Division as we shall return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 49, in
(a) he took the drug for a medicinal purpose on, and in accordance with, medical advice, or (b) he took the drug for a medical purpose and had no reason to believe that it would impair his ability to carry out his duties.'.
We believe that that defence should be available regardless of the type of vessel. The amendment is intended to probe why a fishing vessel has been singled out and whether the Government intend that the defence will still stand. I do not think that that is a natural shadow of what is happening in the sporting world, but do the Government intend the defence to pertain to other vessels? Amendment No. 49 is consequential and self-evident. It would clarify the situation, on which we felt that the Bill was unnecessarily silent. It raises the question of what type of drug and alcohol testing will be used. Will the Minister share with us the Government's conclusions about the most efficient way of testing? He will be aware that a large debate is taking place in all transport sectors about whether urine or blood testing is the most efficient. A sample of oral fluid—saliva for example—collected on a swab cannot be divided into two so that the donor can challenge the result by having the stored half reanalysed. What method have the Government deemed the most efficient in drug and alcohol testing? By way of probing amendments, we seek first some justification for why a fishing vessel is specifically referred to. Does that mean that a fishing vessel is not deemed to be a vessel for the purposes for the other Column Number: 371 subsections of clause 75? Secondly, we want confirmation that the traditional defence will still stand, which is set out in amendment No. 49.Mr. Spellar: Section 117 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is repealed by schedule 7 of the Bill. That section currently makes it an offence for a seaman employed or engaged in a United Kingdom fishing vessel to be under the influence of drink or drugs while on board the vessel if his capacity to fulfil his responsibility to the vessel or carry out the duties of his employment or engagement is impaired. The section allows fishermen a defence if they have taken a drug for medicinal purposes. We want them to keep the defence, and clause 75(5) preserves the existing situation without adding to it. The amendments would extend the medicinal defence to on-duty professional mariners as a whole, which we view as unnecessary. Commercial vessels whose time at sea is comparable to that of deep sea fishing vessels are likely to have larger crews. That would enable another crew member to take over the duties of anyone affected by a medicinal drug. Commercial vessels with smaller crews are likely to be operated on shorter voyages. In those circumstances, crew members who are unwell but still working should be able to wait until going ashore before taking medication that they know will impair their performance. Not doing so would risk not only their own health, but the safety of the vessel. In that light, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
3 pmMr. Randall: I am not certain that I heard the Minister correctly. Did he say that someone should wait before going ashore if they had reason to believe that it would impair their ability to do their job? Let us deal with fishing vessels first and move on to others later. The key point is what happens if someone does not realise that his ability will be impaired? The defence would be that the person taking the drug for medicinal purposes might not have been aware of any effect. Some medicines state, ''Caution, may cause drowsiness: do not drive or use machinery''. The person taking such a drug would have to prove that they did not know about its detrimental effects. I do not understand why the provision should apply specifically to fishing vessels. I understand the importance of the size, but some vessels might have a crew comparable to that of a fishing vessel, so is it not unfair that a person cannot use that defence simply because he has not gone fishing. I am making the point rather crudely, but it seems odd that a defence for someone on a fishing vessel does not apply elsewhere. The person taking the drug might not be aware of its effect. Such is my main concern, which has not yet been fully dealt with.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 27 February 2003 |
