Post-legislative scrutiny
4. The Government has recently proposed that Acts
of Parliament should be subject to post-legislative scrutiny by
the relevant Commons committee.[3]
Each Government department will supply the relevant select committee
with a memorandum on each Act of Parliament for which it is responsible,
usually between three and five years after Royal Assent. Each
committee will decide what kind of scrutiny to undertake based
on the department's analysis. The Liaison Committee has broadly
endorsed this approach.[4]
5. The Law Commission, in its 2006 Report on post-legislative
scrutiny, emphasised the importance of establishing at an early
stage what it is that a Bill is intended to achieve:
The prelude to any system of post-legislative
scrutiny must be the clarification of policy objectives […]
.[5]
The Commission argued that criteria against which
the effectiveness of the Act could be judged should be set out
in the Impact Assessment, though it acknowledged that the statement
of policy objectives was "likely to be quite general"
and suggested that the body undertaking the scrutiny should "formulate
its own benchmarks" against which to judge the Act.[6]
6. We do not consider that the policy objectives
as stated in the current version of the Impact Assessment will
be helpful in formulating benchmarks for post-legislative scrutiny.
They are:
Confidence in the port industry and incentives
to maintain best practice.
Ensure [lighthouse authorities] are properly
equipped to carry out their statutory functions.
Enable the UK to ratify the [International Convention
on the Removal of Wrecks] and benefit from its provisions.[7]
Mr Clark, the Bill Manager, explained that the Department
would develop the Impact Assessment further before the Bill was
presented to Parliament but he felt that it would be "very
difficult to identify precise measures" because of the inherent
unpredictability of the number and location of accidents.[8]
Nonetheless, he undertook to identify criteria against which the
success of the Bill might be judged in subsequent versions of
the Impact Assessment.
7. We welcome the undertaking from officials to
identify more detailed criteria which we or our successor committee
might use at the appropriate point in the future to formulate
benchmarks for post-legislative scrutiny of any Act resulting
from the draft Bill. Although it is important to reduce accidents,
we acknowledge the difficulty in formulating precise outcome measures
in relation to something as inherently unpredictable as marine
accidents. We look forward to seeing a revised Impact Assessment
when the Bill is presented.
Mortality and accident statistics
8. The Evidence Base for the Impact Assessment of
the draft Bill refers to 540 deaths in the UK Search and Rescue
(UKSAR) Area in the five-year period from 2002 to 2006.[9]
This figure seemed to us to be very high and it became clear when
we spoke to witnesses representing the ports industry that it
bore little relation to the number of fatal accidents in UK harbour
authority waters.[10]
Mr Snelson of the UK Major Ports Group (UKMPG) explained that
the UKSAR area extended 1,000 miles into the Atlantic and south
to the Bay of Biscay;[11]
only a small proportion of the accidents recorded in the SAR are
therefore likely to have occurred in harbour authority waters.
The Department subsequently supplied us with more detailed figures
which showed that, of the 540 deaths, 376 were related to recreational
activity, including swimming (80 deaths), sub-aqua diving (53
deaths) and cliff-climbing (38 deaths).[12]
9. After the Minister gave evidence to us, the Department
supplied more precise figures for the number of accidents in harbour
authority waters, which showed a total of 75 deaths in port limits
or approaches during the period in question.[13]
We have previously taken issue with the quality of the Department's
information on port safety.[14]
We accept that the mortality figures provided in the Evidence
Base are accurate overall, but they do not specify the accident
figures for harbour authority waters. If the Government is to
conduct effective assessments of the need for, and effectiveness
of, additional port safety measures, they must be based on a clear
understanding of the scale of the problem and robust figures that
will allow meaningful comparisons to be made over time.
1 Draft Marine Navigation Bill: Consultation
Document, Cm 7370 (Department for Transport, May 2008). Back
2
Consultation on: The UK Implementation and Ratification of
the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks,
2007 (Department for Transport, May 2008). Back
3
Post-legislative Scrutiny: the Government's Approach, Cm
7320, (Leader of the House of Commons, March 2008), paragraph
9. Back
4
The work of committees in 2007, Third Report from the Liaison
Committee, Session 2007-08, HC 427, paragraphs 63 & 64. Back
5
Post-legislative Scrutiny, LAW COM No 302, Cm 6945 (Law
Commission, October 2006), paragraph 3.7. Back
6
Ibid., paragraphs 3.13-3.17. Back
7
Cm 7370, p. 77. Back
8
Qq 189-193. Back
9
Cm 7370, p. 80. Back
10
Qq 12-21. Back
11
Q18. Back
12
Ev 66. Back
13
Ev 69. Back
14
The Ports Industry in England and Wales, Second Report
from the Transport Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 61, paragraph
97, and the Government's response thereto, Ninth Special Report
from the Committee, 2006-07, HC 954, pp. 10-11. Back
