Antarctic Bill

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.