Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 2, page 4, line 19, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 1, in clause 15, page 12, line 19 , at end insert—
‘( ) This section shall apply to designated Historic Sites and Monuments anywhere in Antarctica.’.
Mr Nuttall
I am conscious this morning that families throughout the nation might be tuning into our proceedings expecting to hear us talk about the tragic developments in Algeria, but as Members will know, and as you will know, Mr Speaker, under the Standing Orders of the House, a statement is to be made at 11 o’clock. It is appropriate, then, that we deal now with the private Members’ Bills, the first of which is the Antarctic Bill, and my new clause.
I am grateful that new clause 1 has been selected for debate this morning, because it gives the House the opportunity to consider in more depth the likely consequences of the Bill. This straightforward new clause simply calls on the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House, within three years of the Bill’s coming into force, a cost-benefit analysis of the measures in it. Of course, it is in no way a wrecking amendment and will in no way undermine the basic purpose of this excellent Bill. The only purpose of the new clause is to try to improve the Bill and give the House the opportunity to revisit it in three years to check whether what was intended is actually happening. Assuming that the Bill becomes law later this year, I would anticipate that such a review would take place at the beginning of 2016.
We hear a lot in the House about pre-legislative scrutiny, but sometimes an equally important case can be made for post-legislative scrutiny. Some of the Bills we pass never see the light of day. I was amazed when I was elected to this place to find out that some Acts had lain on the statute book for years without ever being brought into force. I hope that that will not be the case with this Bill.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend’s analysis that post-legislative scrutiny is a good thing, but on this amendment, which calls for a cost-benefit analysis—I have no problem with that in principle—will he make it clear whether the analysis would be for the Government alone or take into account the costs of other people as well?
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because I realise that it might be unclear. I anticipate that it would be both. It is right and proper that the Government review and explain to the House the costs of the Bill to them and, perhaps more importantly, its effects on private companies, research in the Antarctic and those who want to visit the Antarctic or have their livelihoods there. I anticipate that the cost-benefit analysis would apply to both the Government and private individuals and companies.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. I think that a more wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis would be more appropriate, given the nature of the Bill. Will he confirm that his cost-benefit analysis would not simply be financial, but would take into account other costs and benefits as well?
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful for that intervention, because it is important not to look at the Bill just in financial terms. We need to look at it more widely. The whole purpose of the Bill is to protect the environment of the Antarctic continent. We cannot assess the value of the Bill just in pounds, shillings and pence, as we used to say—I suppose we would say “pounds and pence” nowadays. We have to look at the overall impact of the Bill and ask whether it is achieving what it set out to achieve, which is to protect the environment of the Antarctic. The thrust of the Bill is to bring into UK law the environmental protection provided by the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, so the analysis should be wider than simply a financial analysis.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Further to an earlier intervention, can my hon. Friend explain exactly how we would measure the benefits under his new clause?
Mr Nuttall
That is a very good point. It would be up to the Secretary of State at the Foreign Office to consider what would be the best way. My view is that we would have to consult the scientists who are there now, at the Antarctic bases, and ask the travel companies that want to carry out tourism in the area. We would also need a wider consultation, because others may be put off from carrying out scientific experiments or visiting as a result of the Bill. We are therefore talking not just about those who are doing good, but about those who might be put off, and whom we will have to contact in other ways. In effect, there might have to be a call for evidence towards the end of the three-year period, so that we can assess whether people have been put off—although I will mention that later.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am slightly concerned that the cost-benefit analysis will be so complex that it will itself have a considerable cost. Then we will need a cost-benefit analysis of the cost-benefit analysis. I hope that that will not be the case.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful for that intervention. Let me immediately put my hon. Friend’s fears to bed. I do not envisage the report being a weighty tome, involving dozens of civil servants conducting a detailed analysis. Clearly there will be a cost involved—that is patently obvious—but in the long run it is better to have the wider benefits of a cost-benefit analysis than not to conduct one, because the important thing is that the Bill is effective in its purpose. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, we cannot really put a price on that. If the Bill turns out not to be effective, we need to know about it as legislators.
Mr Nuttall
I give way to my constituency neighbour from Rossendale and Darwen.
Jake Berry
Did my hon. Friend consider specifying a longer period than three years? Being a lawyer, like me, he will realise that if an environmental catastrophe was not caused by a third party, things could conceivably still be grinding through the courts after three years. Did he consider having perhaps a six-year period or a rolling cost-benefit analysis? It is not beyond conception that in three years no catastrophe would have happened—we certainly hope it would not—so did he consider other time periods?
Mr Nuttall
Yes, I did. Indeed, I am grateful for that intervention because it gives me a chance to say that I was tempted to have a longer period. If there are problems with the Bill putting people off visiting or carrying out scientific work in the region, we need to know about them sooner rather than later. There might be a case for conducting a further review, because—I will touch on this later—there may well not be an environmental emergency in that three-year period. I sincerely hope that there is not, but that would mean that we were unable to assess the effectiveness of some of the provisions in the Bill, because they are relevant only in the event of such an emergency.
My new clause 1 would give the House the opportunity to check whether the expected benefits of the Bill had become a reality. For example, has there been an increase in the effectiveness and appropriateness of the measures being taken to prevent damage from being caused to the precious Antarctic environment? On the other hand, as I said in response to an earlier intervention, have the measures in the Bill proved so onerous in practice that there has been a reduction in the level of interest in the region, in terms of either the number of tourists visiting or the amount of scientific investigations and study of the Antarctic region? I think we can all agree that we do not want the obligations on the scientists studying in the area to be so burdensome that they reduce the valuable work they do there.
Clause 6 requires organisers of activities in Antarctica to secure adequate insurance cover or provide other financial securities, such as bonds or guarantees from a bank or similar institution, to cover the cost of taking the response action set out in clause 1, together with any liability to another party to annex VI to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty who takes the response action to an environmental emergency in the event that the organising party does not take such action. It is worth noting that “environmental emergency” in this context means
“an accidental event that results in, or imminently threatens to result in, any significant harmful impact on the environment of Antarctica.”
Fortunately, the schedule to the Bill provides for financial limits to the amount of the liability, which varies depending on whether the environmental emergency arises from an event involving a ship. Unsurprisingly, given the international nature of the agreement, the amount of liability is fixed by reference not to pounds sterling, but to special drawing rights, which is the international currency fixed by the International Monetary Fund. Even allowing for those limits, however, given that the nature of such an environmental emergency is almost unlimited and given the understandable caution of the insurance companies, the cost of providing such insurance might be very high indeed. It could be so high that it prohibited visits from taking place and scientific study from being carried out. I appreciate that that is not the intention of the Bill, but new clause 1 would give the House the opportunity to revisit the matter and assess whether the costs involved in obtaining insurance or bonds were proving an insurmountable hurdle for those affected by the Bill.
As I said in response to an earlier intervention, I am sure we all fervently hope that no environmental emergency would arise during the initial three-year review period. Nevertheless, if such an emergency did arise, the cost-benefit analysis would enable the Secretary of State, and subsequently this House, to assess whether the duty-to-inform obligations contained in clause 7 are effective. Although they are backed up by criminal sanctions, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the Antarctic environment, not to give criminal records to scientists. While we need the criminal sanctions to be in place, more importantly we need the reporting obligations to be effective and to work in practice.
In the event of an emergency, the notification must be prompt. New clause 1 will enable the House to assess the effectiveness of a section 7 duty. I reiterate the point that we all hope that no emergency occurs, so that we will not be given the opportunity to test whether that provision is right.
The Bill is intended to prevent accidental environmental damage from occurring in the first place by imposing on individuals organising activities in Antarctica an obligation to take reasonable preventive measures designed to reduce the risk of an environmental emergency. These requirements are set out in clause 5. They are fairly onerous. They set out in some detail what is required of a party organising work in the Antarctic, and costs associated with the carrying out of these measures are inevitable.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend will be aware that I have tabled an amendment seeking to delete clause 5 from the Bill. If I were successful in persuading my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael)and the Minister that clause 5 should not be in the Bill, would that negate the need for the cost-benefit analysis?
Mr Nuttall
I appreciate that if the House decided to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, clause 5 would be deleted. It is not often that I find cause to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but having considered whether it would be appropriate to delete clause 5, I am not at this stage minded to agree that it would. Having heard my hon. Friend’s persuasive arguments later, I might change my mind—
Mr Nuttall
The reality is that the duty in clause 5
“to take preventative measures and make contingency plan”
is at the heart of what the Bill is all about. It makes sense for someone visiting the Antarctic region to do some forward thinking and sit down with a pen and paper to produce a plan relating to what might happen if something goes wrong, bearing in mind that the general thrust of environmental protection legislation in this area is to leave the Antarctic environment completely pristine. Nothing should be left behind at all.
Harriett Baldwin
My understanding is that as a result of this Bill, which I sincerely hope will become an Act during today’s proceedings, we will preserve the British heritage in Antarctica, including the historic huts built by Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton. Surely such heritage is priceless; for the purposes of the new clause, how can we put a price on that?
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I think I made it clear in response to an earlier intervention that although we will need to assess the financial costs stemming from the Bill, I anticipate that the review should go wider than the financial effects alone. As she rightly says, we cannot put a price on the Antarctic environment. We need to look at much wider matters; indeed, she touched on the historic sites on Antarctica. I shall return to this issue when we look at my amendment 1, which is designed to protect “Historic Sites and Monuments” that are indeed part of this nation’s heritage and need protecting.
Philip Davies
I want to press my hon. Friend. My last intervention encouraged him to say how much he disagreed with my amendment, but I was not asking him whether he agreed with it. I simply asked whether, if I were able to persuade the House of the merits of my amendment—notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend would be in the opposite Lobby on any Division—it negated the need for a cost-benefit analysis. Is clause 5 the reason why we need a cost-benefit analysis? That is the point of my probing question.
Mr Nuttall
I think the answer to that question is simply this: clearly, clause 5 would add to the size of the cost-benefit analysis, but it would not negate the need for such an analysis. Without clause 5, a whole chunk of the analysis would be swept away. As I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention—again, I may be wrong, and he may be able to persuade me and the House that there are very good reasons for getting rid of clause 5—it seems to me that clause 5 goes to the heart of what the Bill is trying to achieve. While it remains part of the Bill—I hope it continues to do so—there will clearly be associated costs for those who have to sit down, carry out these measures and prepare the contingency plans. Sensible as I think that is, it is also sensible for the House to assess whether it is having an adverse effect on those who want to visit Antarctica and carry out their work there. We do not want the Bill to be counter-productive.
There is another matter for the House to reconsider—
Jake Berry
Before my hon. Friend moves on to that other matter, I would like to put a point to him. There has been some discussion about the necessity of clause 5, which is at the heart of protecting this pristine environment. Times move on. I remember my grandfather telling me how he used to have snowball fights with asbestos fibre and think it was a good thing to do. Given that times move on, would not the cost-benefit analysis provide us with the ability to revisit clause 5 to ensure that we have the strongest possible protection for this pristine environment, to look at the effect of modern technologies and to update the provisions where it was felt necessary?
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not just about whether the Bill is being too effective in the sense of putting people off visiting; it is also about whether it is effective enough in protecting the environment. Indeed, my hon. Friend has presciently looked at my next point. One measure in the Bill is the exclusion of fishing for profit. By virtue of clause 9(3)(a),
“the activity of fishing for profit”
is specifically excluded. A review would give us the opportunity to reconsider that matter and decide whether it is right to exclude it. Under clause 9(3)(b), the
“activities carried out…on a vessel or aircraft travelling to an immediate destination outside Antarctica”
are similarly excluded. I am sure there are very good reasons for these exclusions, but bearing in mind the tenor of the debate, I find it odd that they should continue to be in the Bill.
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend has identified a key issue. Fishing for profit does not, of course, cover all fishing activities: the Japanese whaling fleet, for instance, fishes for “scientific purposes”—if we believe that. I wonder whether a blanket exclusion of all fishing, whether for scientific purposes or for profit, would provide more protection. Perhaps when we return to the matter in three years’ time we could consider updating the provision if the position changes.
Mr Nuttall
That is a very good point. The House may well need to reconsider. Every visit to Antarctica carries a risk of environmental damage. Every time a sailing ship visits the Antarctic waters, for whatever purpose—tourism, carrying scientists into the area, or fishing—damage is likely to occur. Not many years ago, I think in 2007, a ship sank in Antarctic waters. I may say more about that later. It cannot be said that such things do not happen. Ships do sink in Antarctica, because although they have been specially strengthened, the ice is still powerful. It can still penetrate the defences of ships and cause them to sink. We may well have to look again at these provisions to establish whether they are strong enough.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend appears, whether deliberately or inadvertently, to be moving on to the issue of whether the cost-benefit analysis should focus only on UK nationals and the UK Government or cover anyone who visits the Antarctic, from whatever country, right across the globe. Has he had any thoughts about how wide its focus should be?
Mr Nuttall
My own view is that the cost-benefit analysis would be relevant only to the UK. I think that it would be beyond the scope of the review that I have in mind to deal with matters on a worldwide basis. It might be necessary to adopt a wider perspective, but I thought it appropriate for the analysis to be confined to the effect on British citizens, British-led expeditions and British scientists.
Philip Davies
I understand that, but surely my hon. Friend appreciates its relevance to the international treaties and international obligations that we expect other countries to implement. From a purely UK perspective, the costs might well outweigh the benefit, but if we take account of the obligations taken on by other countries, the benefit would outweigh the cost. Surely we should view this from as wide a perspective as possible.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend has made an important point. Given that the Bill’s origins lie in international treaty obligations, the answer may well be for all the contracting parties to the Antarctic treaty to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The other contracting parties might use the UK’s review as a model or precedent for a cost-benefit analysis applying to the overall use of the Antarctic.
Philip Davies
Surely the danger of allowing each country to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis is that it would take only one country to feel that, for it, the cost was outweighing the benefit for all of them to start trying to wriggle out of their international obligations, and to be deterred from entering into any future such obligations. Might it not be better for the UK Government to conduct an analysis across the piece?
Mr Nuttall
I understand what my hon. Friend means. There is always the risk, with any international agreement, that at some point in the future one of the member states will decide that it wants to leave. I can think of a situation closer to home in which one of the parties to an international agreement wants to leave, but we will not go into that.
The Antarctic convention is, in many respects, a model of international co-operation. It is many decades since the signing of the original treaty, and over the ensuing decade the number of contracting parties, which I think was initially 12, has grown considerably. More countries are now interested in protecting the Antarctic environment. I would hope that the cost-benefit analysis would be conducted in the right spirit, and that it would be a question not just of cost, but of the benefit to the world of continuing to protect Antarctica as it is protected at present.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made an interesting point about the wider obligations of third-party signatories to the Antarctic treaty. We may have rather lost sight of the fact that the Bill rests on treaty obligations created by the UK, and that it imposes obligations on UK signatories only. Is it not a step too far to require the UK Government to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of all the other countries’ obligations under the Bill if they have absolutely no chance of commanding, or persuading, the other legislatures to do anything other than what is provided for in their own legislation? It seems to me that Government expenditure on a cost-benefit analysis relating to matters that the Government cannot control would not be not a good use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr Nuttall
I believe that if we conducted a cost-benefit analysis in the right spirit, it might serve as a model for other countries, which could look again at their obligations and decide whether they too could improve their interpretation of what was agreed in annex VI, although of course the matter would have to be dealt with on an international basis. The fundamental question is this: is annex VI working? Are we achieving what we thought we were achieving? That would be the purpose of a cost-benefit analysis.
Let me now turn to amendment 1. For reasons that I hope will become apparent, I think it vital for the Bill to make absolutely clear that clause 15 does not apply only to historic sites and monuments on the British Antarctic territory. The clause seeks to amend section 10 of the Antarctic Act 1994, which is very short. Subsection (1) states:
“No United Kingdom National may damage, destroy or remove any part of a site or monument designated by regulations as an Antarctic Historic Site or Monument.”
Subsection (2) states:
“Any person who contravenes sub-section (1) shall be guilty of an offence.”
That is very straightforward and very clear, but unfortunately it is so straightforward and clear that there are no provisos, and there thus is no possibility of permits for repair and conservation work.
The prohibition is based on the provisions of article 8 of annex V to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, which deals with sites and monuments. It states:
“Sites or monuments of recognised historic value which have been designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas or Antarctic Specially Managed Areas, or which are located within such Areas, shall be listed as Historic Sites and Monuments.”
Any party could propose a site or monument of recognised historic value that had not been designated as an Antarctic specially protected area or Antarctic specially managed area, or which was not located within such an area, for listing as an historic site or monument. The proposal for listing may then be approved by the Antarctic treaty consultative parties, through a measure adopted at an Antarctic treaty consultative meeting. The provisions also state:
“Unless the measure specifies otherwise, the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved 90 days after the close of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it was adopted”.
Over the years a number of countries have proposed their monuments, and there are now several dozen sites protected under this legislation.
Unfortunately, the section 10 prohibition may have had the unintended consequence of preventing the appropriate conservation and effective management of these historic sites. For example, it may be necessary for part of a monument, or an object within a site, to be removed in order for it to be repaired. Clause 15 allows for a new system of permits to be introduced that would facilitate the necessary conservation or repair work.
It may be of use to the House if I give some details of the types of site that the clause would cover. They range from simple rock cairns with plaques attached to what are, perhaps, the most famous sites of all: the huts used by Captain Scott in his expeditions of the early-1900s. Crucially, these huts are located not in the British claim area of the Antarctic territory, but on the north shore of Cape Evans on Ross island, which is in the New Zealand claim area. There is often some confusion between Scott’s hut and the Discovery hut. Scott’s hut at Cape Evans was erected in 1911 by the British Antarctic expedition which took place between 1910 and 1913, which was often referred to as the Terra Nova expedition. When Captain Scott was selecting a base for that expedition, he could have returned to his previous hut erected during the Discovery expedition between 1901 and 1904, but he did not do so, first because it was incredibly cold, and secondly because his ship got stuck. He looked for a different site, and established the second Scott’s hut, which is the one to which I am referring now.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday was the 101st anniversary of Scott’s arrival on the south pole before his first expedition, so this is an historic time?
Mr Nuttall
No, I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to the attention of the House. It is, perhaps, appropriate that we are discussing these matters today. It is almost impossible to imagine the conditions Scott and his companions had to endure, but the hut still standing today gives us some idea, and it seems amazing that they were able to carry out these expeditions.
Mr Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt—we would not want to mislead anyone outside the House—may I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that this debate coincides with that anniversary is a matter of serendipity, not parliamentary organisation?
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend talks about the unintended consequences of the 1994 Act. That point highlights why we should discuss this amendment in some detail, in order to ensure that historic monuments are protected. Does he agree that if a cost-benefit analysis of the 1994 Act provisions had been conducted, we might have avoided the need for this amendment as we might have changed the legislation in good time, thus ensuring that we could preserve our historic monuments in the Antarctic?
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes a very good point that supports both my new clause 1 in proposing that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted, and my point about having a review. Section 10 of the 1994 Act did not work as intended. We found that in practice it was counter-productive and had unintended consequences. The historic huts, which are enormously important in the history of our nation, could not be protected as intended.
Scott’s hut at Cape Evans was abandoned in 1917. However, there are, of course, consistently sub-zero temperatures there. We can get some idea of what that might be like by simply stepping outside this morning; it was, perhaps, appropriate that it was snowing when I walked into the House today. Because of those sub-zero temperatures, the hut’s contents are remarkably well-preserved even to this day. The hut remained untouched until 1956 when American explorers excavated it from the snow and ice. Although, sadly, some items were removed—perhaps as mementoes—most of the artefacts remain in place. At various times since the 1970s the United Kingdom and our friends in New Zealand have undertaken to restore the hut. Unfortunately, however, bacterial decay is still occurring and there are concerns that the fabric of the hut is being affected by fungal decay. Both Scott’s hut and Shackleton’s hut are included on the watch list of the 100 most endangered world monuments.
There is evidence that these huts need to be repaired. As I have said, they are not all in British Antarctica; they are spread over the entire Antarctic continent. Permits need to be granted, therefore. I am grateful that my amendments have been selected, and I hope I have persuaded the House to agree to them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I will be as brief as possible, as there are other Bills that we want to debate today, and this Bill has already been fully discussed on Second Reading and passed through Committee with no amendments. The Bill has the full support of the Opposition. It builds on the work of the previous Government, who published a consultation and draft Bill in December 2009.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on his new clause 1 calling for a cost-benefit analysis of the measures in this Bill. His response to an intervention asking which costs and which benefits he proposed to measure was unclear and vague, however. As the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has said, the Bill implements the annex to the Antarctic environmental protection treaty. It is important that we are committed to doing that and putting it in place as soon as possible. There is a danger of sending out completely the wrong signals if we are already questioning, at this stage, whether this Bill is really of benefit.
I am in some ways reluctant to encourage the hon. Member for Bury North to speak at any more length during today’s proceedings, but does he think that the analysis would be conducted with the possibility of repealing the Act? As I said, the UK has made a commitment to the treaty and it is important not only that we are among the first to ratify the annex and to incorporate it into domestic law, but that we send out the signal that the UK is absolutely committed as a responsible guardian of the environment. We should not be seen as weak on this issue.
Mr Nuttall
I want to make it clear that I do not envisage, in any way, a cost-benefit analysis leading to the repeal of the Act—far from it. If anything, the legislation might need to be strengthened. The last thing that any of us would want would be for the Act to be repealed as a result of such analysis.
Kerry McCarthy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
Obviously we have to keep a close eye on the costs that are incurred in any legislative measure, particularly at a time of austerity, but I am not sure how quantifiable these costs and benefits would be. Immeasurable environmental benefits arise from this move; the benefit for future generations of protecting the natural environment in the Antarctic and preserving the continent for scientific research cannot be reduced to a simple cost-benefit analysis on a financial basis. So, again, I question whether the hon. Gentleman is going down the right path in suggesting that we should have one. Nor can we measure the effect of this Bill on the UK’s foreign relations, but it is clear that the Falkland Islands Government and others believe that the Bill, once passed, will help to uphold the UK’s position in the region and the UK’s tradition of strong leadership in respect of the Antarctic. Again, we need to send out a strong signal in that regard.
I have a few questions about the other amendments. It is entirely sensible that the Bill should contain a requirement that people organising activities in Antarctica should take reasonable preventive measures and make contingency plans to avoid an environmental emergency. I do not see why the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) does not think that such a provision is appropriate, but we will hear from him in a moment. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect these people to take preparatory measures, and I simply do not understand why clause 5 should be removed. Preventive measures are included in article 3 of the liability annex; the subsections requiring contingency plans relate to article 4. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify whether he does not want the UK to implement the annex in full. Alternatively, does he not believe that any party should sign up to this?
I would also be grateful if the Minister would advise us on the extent to which organisers already comply with the preparatory measures. In Committee, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) explained that the existing permit process includes an environmental assessment and contingency planning. I would be grateful if today’s Minister would clarify that.
Philip Davies
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on getting his Bill to this stage, as it is no mean achievement to get a private Member’s Bill through to Report. He should be commended for the customary skill he has deployed in ensuring it has got this far. I do not think anybody in the Chamber today wishes to bury or scupper the Bill; everyone’s motive is, if anything, to improve the Bill. We all wish the Bill well and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing such an important piece of legislation, which is particularly appropriate for the private Member’s Bill route.
I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for once again giving us his insightful views. I also commend the way he critically looks at pieces of legislation. The absolute role of people in Parliament is to scrutinise legislation and make sure that what we put on to the statute book is fit for purpose. To be perfectly honest, without my hon. Friend, many private Members’ Bills would fail the test of proper scrutiny, so he should be once again commended for the way he introduces amendments.
I have tabled only one amendment to the Bill, which, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made clear, relates to clause 5. I intend it to be a probing amendment, and I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister will be able to explain exactly why the clause is necessary. I should make it clear that the reason I propose leaving out clause 5 is not because I do not agree with what it contains; the necessity for the clause is the point of dispute.
I am certain that if the Bill were starting from scratch in terms of protecting the Antarctic, clause 5 would be an essential part of it; my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said that clause 5 went to the heart of the Bill. But what we are doing in this piece of legislation is, as is stated at the back of the Bill, making
“provision consequential on Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty”
and amending the Antarctic Act 1994 in the process.
Clause 5 implements articles 3 and 4 of annex VI—the liability annex. Subsection (2) places a requirement on people who are organising activities to be carried out in Antarctica and which are connected with the United Kingdom to take
“reasonable preventative measures designed to reduce—
(a) the risk of environmental emergencies arising from those activities, and
(b) the potential…impact of such environmental emergencies.”
The requirement must be fulfilled before the person carrying out the activities enters Antarctica, as is set out in subsection (6). Subsection (7) makes it an offence not to comply with the requirement, while subsection (9) establishes that any offence under subsection (7) is punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both if the person is convicted on indictment. On summary conviction the person may be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, which is £5,000 at the moment but that could be amended. Subsection (3) gives examples of preventive measures that could be taken, including specialised equipment, procedures or training.
Subsection (4) places a further requirement on people organising these activities to make contingency plans for responding to environmental emergencies and other incidents with potential to have adverse impacts on the environment of Antarctica that might arise from their activities. Again, the requirement applies only to activities that are
“connected with the United Kingdom”,
as is made clear in subsection (1). That requirement must also be fulfilled before the person carrying out the activities enters Antarctica. Subsection (8) makes it an offence not to comply with that requirement and subsection (9) establishes that any offence under subsection (8) is punishable by a maximum of two years’ imprisonment, a fine or both if the person is convicted on indictment. The same statutory maximum £5,000 fine applies on summary conviction.
Subsection (5) provides examples of what a contingency plan may contain, including plans for taking response action to an environmental emergency or other incident and for informing the Secretary of State of its occurrence. Clause 13(9) defines activities connected with the UK as activities that are
“organised in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or a British overseas territory”
and are to be
“carried out on a British expedition, within the meaning of the Antarctic Act 1994”
or require a permit under that Act.
Mr Nuttall
All those matters to which my hon. Friend has just referred are taken almost word for word from annex VI. The whole purpose of the Bill is to enact in UK law what is said in articles 3 and 4 of the annex. If we removed clause 5, we would destroy a substantial part of the Bill and its whole purpose.
Philip Davies
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I ask him to allow me to make a little progress. He might well be right; he is absolutely right to say what he does about the Bill implementing annex VI. Nobody can doubt that. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in some detail why the Bill is necessary, given the requirements that are already in place under the 1994 Act. The whole point of that Act was to implement the previous five annexes. We are not starting from scratch; we are building on what is already in place.
The 1994 Act already makes it an offence for a British expedition to enter Antarctica without the approval of the Secretary of State and a permit is required for any member of a British expedition unless they have one from another contracting party to the treaty. A British expedition can include non-UK nationals, but to be British it needs to be organised in the UK or to have the UK as its place of final departure. I believe that would include places such as the Falkland Islands, of course. Specific permits are issued for particular activities, such as the taking of flora and fauna and the introduction of non-native animals or plants. Permits are not needed for ships or aircraft travelling on to an immediate destination outside Antarctica or fishing vessels unless they are linked to an expedition. The permit requirements for British expeditions entering the Antarctic were introduced through the 1994 Act, which implemented the Antarctic treaty’s protocol on environmental protection and its various requirements, covering matters such as waste disposal and marine pollution.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides a comprehensive guide to the requirements for an expedition to Antarctica on its “Planning an expedition” page. What is more, it states:
“All permit applications must be accompanied by a completed Environmental Impact Assessment.”
That is already on the FCO website, which I have taken the liberty of looking at and printing off for the benefit of this debate. It makes it quite clear that:
“All permit applications must be accompanied by a completed Environmental Impact Assessment.”
It has a whole section on environmental impact assessments.
Mr Nuttall
Is it not the case that the FCO has included those provisions on its website and ensured that visitors abide by them because the UK signed annex VI and we have regarded ourselves as being bound by it since 2005?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend might well be right and I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say on that point. I do not doubt that the Minister is a good man, and very sensible, and I am sure that there are particularly good reasons why the clause is necessary. I am not saying that the Minister has got this wrong and that we should delete clause 5 as a result. My amendment is a probing amendment, as I suggested at the start of my speech, to identify why we need the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is more of an expert on these matters than I am—I am a mere layman, but as a layman it was interesting to me that these provisions already seemed to be in place and it seemed that we were, in effect, double legislating and reinventing the wheel.
The advice on environmental impact assessments that is already on the Foreign Office website states:
“Please note we will not normally authorise activities for non-scientific purposes which are likely to have more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment.”
The thrust of my argument is that the measures in clause 5 are perhaps already in place. Let us look at what is already in place. Annex I to the protocol is already in legislation as part of the 1994 Act. It is all about environmental impact assessments. When we talk about how important they are and say that that is why clause 5 is necessary, it seems to me that that argument is based on the fact that we are starting from scratch when we are not.
I do not intend to read out annex I—I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you would neither wish me nor allow me to do so—because it would take an awful lot of time, which I would not want to take. If anyone were to read annex I to the protocol on environmental protection, they would see that it is pretty comprehensive. It states that itself and I am not in a position to doubt it.
George Hollingbery
I am not a lawyer, unlike a good many colleagues in the House today. Are the offences specified in clause 5, particularly the penalties detailed in subsections (8) and (9), already specified in a previous Act or are they enactments of punishments that may be used if the Bill is passed that would otherwise not be available?
Philip Davies
To be perfectly honest, my hon. Friend has got to the heart of my amendment. That is not particularly clear. The Bill might go further or the provisions might already be covered—I am not entirely clear. That is the purpose of my amendment: I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what is covered by existing legislation and what, if anything, is new and necessary. It might be the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North suggested, that what we are putting into legislation today is needed to encourage all the other signatories to catch up with the UK Government. I genuinely do not know, which is why I think that amendment 2 is a useful probing amendment to allow the Minister to make it abundantly clear why we need this clause.
Annex V to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, which is already in place, is about area protection and management. That seems to me to be covered by clause 5. Annex V contains several definitions, including (a), which is of an appropriate authority, (b), which is of a permit, and (c), which refers to a management plan. That seems to me to encroach totally on the territory of clause 5. Annex V states:
“‘Management Plan’ means a plan to manage the activities and protect the special value or values in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area.”
It seems to me, particularly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North was saying, that that is exactly what clause 5 seeks to do, yet the provision is already part of the 1994 Act.
The objectives in annex V—I reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I am only picking out highlighted parts of this, and I do not mean to go through the whole thing, but it is relevant to the point I am trying to make about why we need this clause—
Philip Davies
Absolutely, and Mr Speaker is very capable of making those decisions without the hon. Gentleman’s help.
Article 2 is about the objectives of annex V and states:
“For the purposes set out in this Annex, any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area.”
It goes on to state:
“Activities in those Areas shall be prohibited, restricted or managed in accordance with Management Plans adopted under the provisions of this Annex.”
Article 3 goes on to discuss Antarctic specially protected areas and article 4 is about Antarctic specially managed areas.
Mr Nuttall
My reading of annex V is that it refers to the protection of areas, rather than to the planning of visits to the area. That is the difference between annex V and annex VI.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right in that regard, but as I said, the 1994 Act already requires environmental impact assessments and people require the permission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before they are allowed to go to the Antarctic. My hon. Friend is right in the detail of what he is saying but, as a layman, I do not see how that affects the current arrangements because, I would contend, the FCO already has the relevant powers.
When annex V, which is covered by article 5, refers to management plans, it states in some detail what a proposed management plan should include. I certainly do not intend to take lots of time reading out what is covered, but I recommend that people look at annex V, as my hon. Friend clearly has, and read article 5 on management plans. I think everyone would agree that it is pretty comprehensive and detailed.
Seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is in his customary place, I certainly would not want to argue for unnecessary legislation, and I am sure he would berate me if I did not try to point out that this clause may be unnecessary. That goes to the heart of my reason for tabling my amendment. It may well be that there are very good reasons that make it necessary; but equally, it may well be covered by the existing legislation.
Jake Berry
Earlier, my hon. Friend referred to the new clause including places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Has he made any inquiries of the Government about whether the existing legislation would cover those? The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, of course, popular places to base holiday companies because of their beneficial tax status. He will be aware that in 1993, fewer than 9,000 people visited the Antarctic area on holiday. Now the figure is approaching 26,000. Does he think that the clause is necessary to pull in those holiday companies who are attempting to exploit the Antarctic for commercial gain?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. That may well be an alternative explanation for why we need clause 5. My understanding is that those places are covered by the existing legislation, but my hon. Friend may well be right and I am sure we all wait with eager anticipation to hear what the Minister will tell us, so that we can all satisfy our curiosity on that point. I have no doubt that he has a good explanation.
Hon. Members may well conclude that because all these provisions are already covered, it does no harm to put them in again, because they are already in there anyway, and if this chivvies other countries along to fulfil their obligations, no harm will be done. That may well be the case. If that is the explanation, I would not have a problem with that; but it has not been made clear to us exactly why the clause is necessary, which is why I tabled my amendment.
I briefly want to touch on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. I certainly do not intend to talk about amendment 1, which he went through in considerable detail; his expertise on that clearly exceeds mine. It seemed to be a rather technical matter, and certainly above my knowledge level. But I do want to discuss new clause 1, which would require a cost-benefit analysis.
There are issues, which emerged during my hon. Friend’s speech, about what we mean by a cost-benefit analysis. Would such an analysis reflect the Government’s costs and benefits? Would the costs of individuals from the UK be covered? Should it be more internationally based? There might be a negative cost-benefit analysis to the UK, but a different result might be produced if everyone else’s costs and benefits were taken into account. Although there are issues about that, I do not believe they are insurmountable. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was uncharacteristically defeatist in thinking that the cost-benefit analysis could become so bureaucratic that it would need its own cost-benefit analysis in order to be justified.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is on to something, because what the Bill sets out clearly, and the reason for this legislation, is that the Government know exactly what they are trying to achieve, so it is not unreasonable for someone to review it a few years down the line. My hon. Friend said three years—I do not know whether that was an arbitrary figure, or whether there was any science behind that choice. I took his point that if there is a flaw in the legislation, it is better to know sooner rather than later. I thought that was a fair point. I do not know whether every three years might have been a better amendment in the sense of the ongoing point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made, which I think was fair. Anyway, it should not be beyond the wit of people to take a look—it need not be bureaucratic or expensive—at whether the Bill’s aims and objectives have been met, and without prohibitive cost. That would be perfectly reasonable, and I do not think it should be confined to the legislation before us. The Bill might set a trend for conducting that level of post-legislative scrutiny.
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend is talking about a cost-benefit analysis. Would it not be better to talk about a benefit analysis? The shadow Minister asked, “How can you put a price on protecting the most pristine, unspoilt environment we have?” I think that is a valid point; I do not think that we can. But my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said that the 1994 Act had not done what it set out to do, which was to protect historic monuments. Should we not focus on the benefit test, rather than pricing up environmental protection, which I do not think is possible?
Philip Davies
That is a fair point. I do not have a strong view. I do not see the harm in doing a cost-benefit analysis. It may well be that people wish to focus on the benefit part; I would not have a problem with that. But that is not my point. My point is that if we are passing legislation for a specific purpose, there should be a duty on the Government to review it at some point in the future; whether it is three years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North suggests in his new clause, or whether it is a different time scale is a matter for debate, opinion and judgment. I would prefer to talk about the principle, which is that when the Government pass legislation and tell the House that its purpose is to do such-and-such and this is why it is important and so necessary, there should be a mechanism to see at a future date whether they were accurate in their analysis—whether it has done what it said. I know that Ronseal is a topical metaphor to use at the moment, but Governments should check more often whether the legislation does what it says on the tin. I see no great harm in that. I do not see why the Government should rail against it.
Oliver Colvile
Does my hon. Friend think that we could look at introducing sunset clauses into legislation much more readily, so that we can identify whether something has been successful? If it has not been successful, then get rid of it and start again.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are different ways of doing these things. Perhaps there should be a combination of both. The Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, which passed through this House not long ago, had both, owing to an amendment that I tabled. It had a review that took place after three years; it also incorporates a sunset clause whereby, after five years, the Act would expire and would have to be brought back again if it was seen to be worth while. So I think my hon. Friend is on to something. But of course, it would be difficult to justify a sunset clause without a cost-benefit analysis to help us decide whether we wished to extend the legislation or wished it to expire.
Jake Berry
May I caution my hon. Friend against overuse of the Ronseal test? Of course, Ronseal is based in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield. May I remind him that we have Crown Paints in Darwen in my constituency, which are more than capable of doing what they say on the tin? So there is not just Ronseal; other paint types are available.
Philip Davies
As a south Yorkshire boy originally, my allegiance is more to Sheffield than it ever would be to Lancashire. The wars of the roses never ended, in my book. I am afraid my hon. Friend is on a loser with me on that point, but I give him every credit for plugging his own constituency. It is not his fault that it is on the wrong side of the Pennines.
I know that we are coming up to the statement and I do not want be cut off in my prime by the Prime Minister, who has to come to the House on a more sombre matter to go through something that is far more serious and important. Our hearts go out to everybody who has been affected by that incident.
There are some legitimate points for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud or the Minister to take on board and respond to. I urge them both to set out why clause 5 is necessary. They may say that it is not necessary but it does no harm, which I will accept, but if their point is that clause 5 simply does no harm, perhaps they could explain what harm would be done by encouraging a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out, as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in new clause 1. Either these things are harmful or they are not. If they are not harmful, let us do them both, and if neither is necessary, let us do neither. It would not be right for the Government to cherry-pick one and say, “Let’s do it because it does no harm,” but also to say, “We won’t do the other one that does no harm because it is not necessary.” That would be a contradictory step for the Government to take.
On that note I conclude my remarks. I hope I have reassured people about the motives behind my amendment. It is not to seek to destroy the nature or detail of the Bill, but to question in a probing fashion why it is necessary. I expect the Minister will be able to reassure me so that I am able to withdraw my amendment.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
First, I should tell the House that I have been to the Antarctic through the British Antarctic Survey and the Foreign Office. That should be noted as an interest.
I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friends for tabling some useful amendments so that the Bill can be properly scrutinised and tested. It is an important piece of legislation and requires appropriate parliamentary consideration.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. With reference to my amendment, it would be interesting to know whether he had to do an environmental impact assessment when he visited the Antarctic, so that we can tell whether this is already a requirement.
Neil Carmichael
That is something I shall have to consult on. I personally did not have to do an environmental assessment, but I shall come to an aspect of that in connection with clause 5.
It is slightly ironic that my constituency, Stroud, is covered in snow, as other constituencies will be, and here we are, discussing the Antarctic.
I shall comment briefly on each amendment and put on record my own views. I tend to think that cost-benefit analyses are unnecessarily bureaucratic at the best of times, but the Bill is financially neutral anyway. That is the first point to make. Secondly, the thrust of the Bill is to encourage operators to behave properly, especially in planning for their activities. The idea is therefore to avoid problems, rather than counter them. The Bill’s overall direction of travel is to encourage that additional responsibility. I know that many operators are already responsible, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) noted, there have been some accidents, when ships collided with one another or sank completely.
Philip Davies
Surely my hon. Friend would accept that if a cost-benefit analysis took place, we could see whether the Bill had had the impact that we all hope for. If it had not had that impact, that could encourage further measures to be taken much more swiftly than if no cost-benefit analysis took place.
Neil Carmichael
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, but the idea is to ensure that people behave responsibly, and we will be checking that. Clause 5 contains various punitive measures if people do not conduct themselves in an appropriate way. That is likely to be a more effective measure of the outcome of the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill sets out a large number of measurement structures, and these are well addressed in the annexes, to which our attention has already been drawn, so I do not believe that new clause 1 is necessary.
Mr Nuttall
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. Does he not accept that, as I said in my remarks, the issue is not just about pounds, shillings and pence? It is also about ensuring the Bill’s effectiveness. Does he not agree that it would be sensible to review the Bill to see whether it is as effective as both he and I would like it to be?
Neil Carmichael
The real demonstration of the effectiveness of the Bill when it is enacted will be when other nation states implement similar legislation. It was an implicit part of the original treaty that we should all enact legislative measures to ensure that the measures agreed in the treaty are enforced through domestic law. The real success of the Bill is the leadership role that it demonstrates. Britain is taking a leadership role and saying to other nation states, “We want you to do the same.” When they start doing the same, that will be the real measure of success.
Mr Nuttall
On that point, is my hon. Friend able to update the House on how many of the other contracting parties have ratified the treaty?
Neil Carmichael
Indeed. Seven parties have already done so, which is exceptionally good news. They include countries as diverse as Peru and the Netherlands, so we are making good progress. Our action is the right one to ensure that we are not just building on, but underlining our leadership role. That is why I believe new clause 1 is not necessary, although I accept the sentiment. It is right to make sure that the Bill is scrutinised and tested in the future.
I shall turn my attention now to amendment 2 and the future of clause 5. One of the reasons why I mentioned my trip to Antarctica through the British Antarctic Survey is that while I was there and in preparation for the journey, I noted just how difficult the processes are to cover all the risks that one could encounter. That is why clause 5 is necessary. We have to insist, through legislation, that preparations are properly made and that people understand the risks involved in visiting Antarctica. By insisting that clause 5 remains in place, we are effectively saying, “Look, this is a matter of some importance. The necessary legislation is in place, and if you don’t do what is required of you, measures will be taken against you.”
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend accept that under the 1994 Act and the measures already in place, that can already happen? The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has the ability to give permission or otherwise to people going to Antarctica, and environmental impact assessments must be carried out before they travel. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but it does not explain why we need the clause when those provisions seem to be part of the 1994 Act.
Neil Carmichael
That is a good point. However, environmental assessments are one thing, but making preparations to visit a continent as brutal—pristine and vulnerable though it is—as the Antarctic can sometimes be is quite a different matter. Although an environmental assessment is necessary in many cases, including for such visits, it is very important to make sure that operators, visitors and others make every preparation in the proper way.
Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).