HC Deb 05 March 1990 vol 168 cc632-3
Ms. Ruddock

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 36, line 35, at end insert— (2A) An authorised person may require the owner, charterer, manager or master of a ship, the harbour authority or occupier, to provide him with such information as shall enable the authorised person to assess whether any special conditions should be included in a direction issued under this Act.'. Clause 36 gives the Secretary of State powers of inspection to enable him to decide whether to make a direction under clauses 21 to 24, or to ascertain whether any direction or enforcement notice has been complied with. In carrying out inspections under clause 36, the authorised person will clearly need to have in mind the powers set out in those clauses—powers to search people and property, to detain ships if necessary and to carry out modifications or alterations in harbours or on ships. No provision exists, however, to take account of the terms and conditions of work for people who will be on the receiving end of those security measures.

Let us suppose that an inspector is concerned about security on a ship, and that it is clear to him that the person or persons responsible for security is, or are, suffering from gross fatigue. Is it not more than probable that he will consider that crew members—and the master himself—are unlikely to be vigilant about security if they are suffering from fatigue?

In our view, good security depends on people being viligant, alert and able to make quick and accurate decisions. Our amendment seeks to give the inspector power to require information, so that he can assess whether special conditions should be included in any direction that he is to issue. He should, for example, be able to ask how long people have been on duty: that could apply not only to personnel working on the ship, but to security guards at harbours. He should also be able to take into account the fitness of the people involved in ensuring that security provisions are as effective as possible.

In Committee, we discussed private security services at some length. We identified many deficiencies in their organisation, and in the personnel that they sought to recruit; we also referred to a report by the National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers— NUMAST—about fatigue on ships. The report states: Fatigue can be deadly. Its effects and dangers are well-known and acknowledged in many transport industries by controls on employees' hours—yet there are no effective limits on the hours worked by seafarers. Ships … carry a range of cargoes, some capable of causing massive environmental damage. Ferries and cruise ships carry passengers, specialist ships service North Sea oil and gas installations. In all these sectors, the shipping industry has clear responsibilities to provide safe services"— and, of course, to have regard to security.

NUMAST has extensively researched the problems posed by fatigue at sea. Consultations with members have produced evidence of excessive working hours throughout the shipping industry. Evidence of breakdowns in personal performance as a result of excessive hours has also been given to NUMAST. Increasing commercial pressures—including reduced crew levels, greater reliance upon new technology and faster turnround times in ports—are exacerbating the problem faced by our members"— that is, members of crews and masters of ships.

Changes in relationship between shipowner, managing company and charterers can distance shipowners from masters and officers. Demands of oil and gas operators in the North Sea override seamanlike judgement on safety factors, including hours worked. For all those reasons, we thought it necessary to table amendment No. 12 to enable all the relevant factors to be taken into account when inspections are being conducted. There is ample evidence that in the shipping industry—which places no limits on the number of hours that can be worked—people are working excessive hours, with the result that their ability to cope with difficult circumstances is affected dramatically. That must have a major impact on their ability to handle security matters.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has already given notice of a related question that I wish to ask the Minister. Is he aware of an incident that occurred at the end of last year on a P and O ferry using Dover harbour? A report has reached us recently of a bomb being found on board such a ship. My hon. Friend has written to the Minister and we shall expect a reply in due course, but I should like to know now whether he knows of such an incident.

If inspectors are given the necessary information, and consider that it has a bearing on the implementation of the Bill, we believe that they should have the power to make special conditions to rectify what we consider to be a glaring omission in maritime law—the lack of regulation of working hours.

Mr. McLoughlin

Let me deal first with the hon. Lady's question about the report of a device being found on a ferry. I have not yet received the letter from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), although I understand that it is on its way, and I shall carry out a thorough investigation when it arrives. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on a report that I have not yet seen, as I have had no opportunity to check it.

Ms. Ruddock

With respect, my question was not whether the Minister had received the letter or was in a position to reply, but whether he was aware of such an incident. He does not need to have received the letter to answer the question.

Mr. McLoughlin

I thought that I made it clear that I know of no such incident.

The Government are unable to accept amendment No. 12, for two reasons. First, it is always for the Secretary of State to decide which requirements should be included in any direction. It would be wholly inappropriate for an authorised person to have such a power, especially as the amendment provides that that should happen after the Secretary of State has made his initial direction. Secondly, under clause 19(1), the Secretary of State already has wide-ranging powers to require information, these being in connection with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his functions under this Part of this Act. We therefore cannot accept the amendment. I ask the House to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to