PART 4: CROWN APPLICATION, &C. (Hansard, 31 March 2003)

§ Mr. Jamieson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.

§ Mr. Jamieson
We seem to be making progress.
716 The amendments have arisen as a consequence of deliberations in Committee. The Government agreed to consider further the position of military personnel, both UK and visiting from abroad. On consideration, we consider it right to except members of Her Majesty's military forces and visiting forces, as defined in the relevant legislation, when they are acting in the course of their duties. Those forces are already subject to their own disciplinary legislation and procedures and it would be undesirable for the two regimes to overlap. On the other hand, we want the provisions to apply to military personnel, including visiting forces, at times when they are off duty. At such times, they are acting in a private capacity—for example, if they have hired a powerboat entirely as private individuals in the course of their leisure activities.
6.30 pm
The Government are keen to ensure that their civilian operations are also seen to be beyond reproach. It would send out the wrong message if government officials such as Maritime and Coastguard Agency personnel operating agency vessels were excepted from the alcohol and drugs provisions of the Bill. We want to ensure that the provisions catch anyone who is in the service of the Crown other than military personnel acting in the course of their duties. In short, any mariner will be subject to sanctions in respect of alcohol and drugs—subject to the regulations—either as a civilian, in which case they will be covered by this legislation, or as a member of the armed forces, in which case they will be subject to military discipline under other legislation.
Finally, so as not to risk compromising the operational efficiency of ships being used for a military purpose by Her Majesty's forces, as well as ships forming part of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, we do not wish them to be subject to possible detention by marine officials pending the arrival of the police. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is mentioned specifically because such vessels are manned by civilian Merchant Navy crews who would in all other respects be subject to the offences created in part 4. Such vessels are therefore specifically excepted from the provisions of clause 81.
Government amendment No. 29 is a technical amendment pursuant to amendment No. 30 and new clause 9, on Crown application. Amendment No. 29 removes the term "Government ship" from the Bill. There is therefore no need for it to be included in clause 86, which interprets the various terms used in part 4 of the Bill.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) proposed an amendment similar to Government amendment No. 28, although she did not press it. Throughout the Bill's passage the Government have given careful consideration to all the points made and we have therefore tabled our own amendment, which I hope will bring some joy to the hon. Lady and her colleagues.
The Government do not think it necessary to extend to mariners on duty as a whole the medical defence currently available to those on board fishing vessels. However, in the event of an emergency, a seaman who would otherwise be off duty may be required by the terms of his engagement or employment to take action to protect the safety of passengers even when 717 undergoing medical treatment on a ship. In such a situation, it might not be possible for his duties to be taken over by another crew member, and it seems unfair not to provide the medical defence in those circumstances. On other commercial vessels, whose time at sea is comparable to that of deep sea fishing vessels, it should be possible for anyone who might be affected by a medicinal drug to have his or her duties taken over by another crew member. On shorter voyages, when a commercial vessel may operate with a smaller crew, those who are unwell but still working should wait until they go ashore before taking medication that they know will impair performance.

§ Miss McIntosh
The Minister has not lost face or favour with me by accepting that new clause 9 is necessary: despite his comments in Committee, it was a clear omission. I am grateful for his graciousness in accepting that Committee proceedings do matter and that the Opposition have contributed to the Bill.
The Minister described Government amendment No. 28 as similar to amendment No. 49, which was discussed in Committee on 27 February in a debate starting at column 370. I assure the House that the Government amendment is not merely similar, but exactly the same as our amendment—word for word, punctuation marks and all. We are deeply grateful to the Minister for recognising the Opposition's drafting skills, despite the fact that we do not have a large body of men and women on whom to draw. He made one or two churlish remarks in Committee, but having invited me to his constituency, he has now thought better of them.
On a serious note, we appreciate that the Government have seen fit to add the medical defence, although we still do not understand why it applies only to mariners on fishing vessels and is not deemed worthy of being applied to all mariners. Misunderstandings in that respect could have been avoided had the Government seen fit to introduce a proper definition of what constitutes standby. We were minded to table a modest amendment—I thought that we had and I am not sure what happened to it, but perhaps there is an equivalent Government amendment—to define a non-professional mariner.
May I take this opportunity to press the Minister to confirm and assure us that it will be the driver of a boat who is open to prosecution if he is found to have exceeded the alcohol limit or to be in breach of any drugs provisions, not others aboard the vessel? The industry, especially the boating industry, feels that that issue was not cleared up during the Committee debate on amendment No. 74. Our aim is to define a nonprofessional mariner as an individual driving a vessel used for sport or leisure purposes and to confirm that it would be that individual who was prosecuted, not someone who happened to be having a good time on the board, was not performing any safety-critical function, was not qualified and would not be expected to drive the board at any stage.
To test the Minister's patience a jot, he will recall our interesting discussion about the taking of an oral swab. Now that some time has elapsed since Committee stage, I wonder whether the Department has considered 718 providing that evidence taken by oral swab may be taken alongside evidence provided by breathalyser, blood and urine tests.
I end with a message of optimism for other right hon. and hon. Members. Never let it be said that Committee proceedings are unimportant. Even in our humble capacity, we have managed to write a part of the Bill.

§ Mr. Jamieson
I am delighted that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have been able to participate in writing a piece of legislation. It may well be the last time that they do so, but in a genuine spirit of conciliation, we, as a listening Government, accepted that it was right to insert the provision.
The hon. Lady said that our amendment was similar to the Opposition's, but it is clearly not the same. Above our amendment is the name of the Secretary of State for Transport, not the names of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. I hope that she noticed that.

§ Miss McIntosh
As they are not great, perhaps the Minister can explain to the House what the precise differences are?

§ Mr. Jamieson
As I just said, there is a different name above our amendment. The hon. Lady's arguments in Committee were deeply persuasive and, on careful reflection, we decided to table the Government amendment. We are delighted to have been able to do so.
The hon. Lady made a serious point about the driver of the boat. Probably one person would be in charge of a recreational vessel, and we want this part of the Bill to catch that person. I do not think that we would want others on board the vessel—people having a good time and playing no part in the navigation or steerage of the boat—to be similarly included. However, there may be occasions when more than one person is responsible for the safe passage of the vessel. Those other people would be held responsible.
I have not as yet had the opportunity to consider in more detail the issue of oral swabs. However, I am sure that it is a matter that will detain some of the officials in my Department as they give it further consideration. With that, and on a note of cross-party accord, 1 commend the new clause.