Antarctic Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Neil Carmichael

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that intervention. The Bill looks into the marine aspects of Antarctica as well. Obviously we would be building on such measures in different ways, and although the Bill is specific about the provisions that the hon. Lady has already outlined, I take note of what she has said. Indeed, my interest in this area will lead me to discuss later the matter of promoting the protection of the Southern ocean.

Let me emphasise the value of clause 5 in connection not just with preparation, but with contingency planning. That is where clause 5 comes into its own, because it makes it clear that contingency planning is necessary, and it is easy to justify in connection with the rest of the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point, but surely he would accept that under the current arrangements, with the 1994 Act and annex V, people are already required to produce a management plan, which, as I see it, is not greatly different from what is proposed in clause 5. Does he therefore accept that there is still some doubt about whether clause 5 is as necessary as he says?

[Neil Carmichael]

Clause 5 extends the preparation from simply producing a management plan to contingency planning. Contingency planning requires one to assess risk—to be well aware of what the risks are and how great they can be in the Antarctic. I believe we are extending something that is already good, and I am grateful for the suggestion, which we have heard today, that we are building on existing good practice. Clause 5 is a significant step in the right direction in ensuring that contingency measures are taken, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) noted, we have had accidents. Those accidents have involved shipping and they have been significantly damaging to the ocean, and we do not want to see more of them, especially on Antarctica.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Neil Carmichael

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)).

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Neil Carmichael

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and, as he knows, I share his horror of the European Union sticking its nose into our affairs. His question might be best answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, as this is his Bill, but I think that provision is intended to allay the concerns of universities who might have foreign nationals on teams wanting to carry out research in the Antarctic. At present, the required process is quite difficult, and involves having to get foreign nationals’ own countries to sort things out. The idea is that it would be a lot easier for research institutions in this country if the British Government could sort everything out. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is, however, always wise to be on the look-out for encroachment by the European Union, the consequences of which are hardly ever in our favour.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this speech in support of my Bill, and I can assure him that the EU is not involved in this in any way at all.

[Philip Davies]

I think we are all grateful for that clarification. My hon. Friend may be disappointed that the EU is not involved in some way, however, as I know his views on Europe are somewhat different from mine. It is a great pleasure to me and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that the EU has not got its grubby little hands all over this Bill.

Before discussing the details of the Bill, it is important to look at where we are now and how we got there. The Antarctic treaty was ratified on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC and came into force on 23 June 1961. It established international co-operation to protect and preserve Antarctica. The UK enacted its obligations through the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967. There were 12 original signatories of the 1959 treaty, including the Governments of the UK, Australia, Belgium, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union—as it was then—and the USA. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made clear, the other signatories were Argentina and Chile.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am not sure the demand would justify making the research available in the Library, but I am happy to send it to my hon. Friend. He can do with it what he wishes. I would not want to trouble the House of Commons Library with it, although it is interesting.

The extremely cold and dry climate does not allow rich vegetation, but some flora exists on the continent, which creates the Antarctic tundra in some parts of the continent, particularly the Antarctic peninsula, which has areas of rocky soil that support plant life.

The protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty is of great importance to the Bill. A ban on mining was imposed in 1998. The protocol, which was introduced in 1998, will be reviewed in 2048.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces a number of new statutory duties on those operating in Antarctica, relating to appropriate response action, preventive measures and contingency planning and information. It will come into force when it is officially approved by all the consultative parties which signed up to annex VI in 2005. I would imagine that this would be quite a difficult and lengthy process as there are 28 separate signatories and it is hard to envisage that they would all be content with every single part of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress has been made in getting agreement with all the consultative parties that signed up, because that could be one of the most difficult parts of bringing this into operation. In 2009, the previous Government launched a consultation on a draft Antarctic Bill, and the version that we see today deals with issues raised by that consultation and includes some of the subsequent recommendations.

Clause 1 says that

“the person who organised the activities must take reasonable, prompt and effective response action.”

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has something precisely in mind on what would constitute such action—whether that would be left for the courts to decide, or whether the Government have formulated any definitions. At the moment, it is not particularly clear. The clause also says that the costs that would have to be incurred

“are the costs that the person would have incurred had the person taken reasonable, prompt and effective response action.”

That seems to be rather difficult to determine, and it would be helpful to know exactly how it would be done. How would we know exactly what the costs would have been if people had taken such action in the event that they are before the courts because they have not done so? I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to deal with those matters now or in Committee.

[Neil Carmichael]

I think that they would be more appropriately dealt with in Committee. The definition of

“reasonable and prompt response action”

has to be seen in the context of the difficult and unpredictable circumstances in the region that we are talking about, and that should be borne in mind.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point. Legislation of this kind is problematic in that it is easy to be too vague and easy to be too specific. I understand that he is trying to leave enough flexibility for individual circumstances to be taken into consideration. Perhaps he had in mind the similar provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which asks employers to make reasonable provision without specifying what “reasonable” means so that it can be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, it would be helpful if at some point we had a better understanding of what might be considered to be reasonable and who might decide that, or whether it would be left to a court to decide.

The liability annex obliges state parties to take preventive measures and to establish contingency plans for responses to incidents with a potentially adverse impact on the Antarctic environment. It imposes strict financial liability for the polluter to pay the costs of response action. Concerns may well arise about the level of liability that might be incurred by smaller expedition operators who do not have the financial muscle of some of the big corporations. In the case of commercial fishing operators, for example, would the expedition organisers or their employees be liable for any damage? Would there be corporate or individual responsibility for these liabilities if the corporation concerned could show due diligence in what they expected of their individual employees?

The potentially heavy burden that the sanction might place on individuals might not be realisable. Would individuals have to pay or would the sanction be limited to companies? Would the ability to pay also be factored into any costs and fines incurred? The Bill makes it clear that the money taken would be based on the costs of cleaning up or the costs that would have been incurred had the people concerned acted properly. Will there be a provision to cover circumstances in which they do not have the money? I urge my hon. Friend to address this issue in Committee. Rather than accept that they do not have the money and that, therefore, nothing can be recovered, it might be worth while to have a provision stating that the company or people concerned have to be able to afford the payment; otherwise, the big hammer with which we hit them might end up being meaningless and worthless.

According to the Library research paper, part 1 also has measures that

“enhance contingency planning to reduce the risks of ‘environmental emergencies’ in Antarctica i.e. accidents with significantly harmful environmental impacts such as oil spills.”

I have mentioned that Antarctica does not have great natural resources sufficient for exploration, so it is hard to imagine environmental emergencies such as oil spills in Antarctica. Not only are the temperatures extremely low for oil to sustain its qualities—in contrast with extracting it elsewhere in the oil-rich world—but there is also a deficiency of oil for adequate extraction. Drilling would be totally ineffective and economically unfeasible for oil companies due to the remoteness and hostility of the climate and related conditions, which would make it exceptionally difficult for any such businesses to operate. How big an issue will that be?

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is making some interesting points. He is right that these matters are likely to be considered in Committee, but the Bill does mention insurance for expeditions as part of their preparations. On oil, I commented in my speech on 600,000 litres of diesel being spilled by a ship. That also needs be borne in mind.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend’s point about insurance is a good one. We need to encourage people to take out the relevant and necessary insurance before they start and the Bill considers what happens if they do not do that. Perhaps that should be explored in more detail in Committee.

The explanatory notes state that the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, which was signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1998, already

“provides for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment. Its Article 7 prohibits any activity relating to mineral resources other than scientific research. Until 2048 the Protocol can only be modified by unanimous agreement of all the Consultative Parties to the Treaty and, in addition, the prohibition on activity relating to mineral resources cannot be removed without a binding legal regime on Antarctic mineral resource activities being in force.”

It is important to state that considerable protection is already in place in the Antarctic. I accept that my hon. Friend is seeking to strengthen that protection in order to address unforeseeable future circumstances, but will the Minister explain what additional protection the Government think the Bill necessitates that is not already covered by the international treaties?

The British Antarctic Territory is the UK’s largest overseas territory and is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as an overseas dependent territory—an arrangement that dates back to 1908. Rather than dwell on that point, I take this opportunity to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford. I think it is fair to say that he is the leading authority in the House on the British overseas territories and does a fantastic amount of work to defend and speak up for them, often when very few other people are prepared to do so. We should commend him for what he does, and particularly for what he said today about the British Antarctic Survey and the Natural Environment Research Council. I endorse everything that he said. I do not want to go over old ground, but his points were particularly well made.

The BAS operates its research stations in the Antarctic throughout the year, and it should also be commended for its fantastic work in South Georgia, Adelaide Island and Coats Land. We were right to be concerned about the merger that my hon. Friend discussed at length, and everybody welcomes today’s statement about it.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Neil Carmichael

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend asks a useful and important question, which, ironically, lies at the heart of the Bill. We have a treaty relationship which effectively controls our relationships with other nation states and our activities in the Antarctic. By ensuring that the treaty is applied to domestic law and is strengthened, we are strengthening our own British presence, and thus issuing a challenge in any dispute that we might have with the Argentine Government. That is one of the key reasons why the Bill should be allowed to proceed.

There are two more general points to be made in connection with the Bill—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, this is probably my fault rather than his, but I am unclear as to whether the Bill will have any real impact, given that there are all these other international treaties. How will it make any impact whatever on our current structure of international obligations?

[Neil Carmichael]

That is an important question, and there are two points to make in response. First, by showing British leadership and demonstrating that the existing treaty arrangements are important to us and should be important to the other signatories, we will signal that we mean business in respect of international control, ownership and responsibility in the Antarctic. That will make dealing with the challenges we face easier. Secondly, we must be aware of other nations, notably China and Korea, becoming interested in the Antarctic for obvious reasons. We therefore need to protect and enhance our international structures to deal with that.

Prisons (Property) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Neil Carmichael

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend might well be right. That is the point I want to get to, because although I absolutely support what the Bill would do, I contend— I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to this—that we absolutely need to do more to stop such material getting into prisons in the first place, and perhaps the Bill can be amended in Committee to reflect that. Some of the checks are not what they should be. For example, there are what are known as BOSS chairs in prisons—body orifice scanners—that are used to try to stop prisoners bringing stuff into prison with them at the time they are sentenced by secreting it in ever more ingenious and, it seems to me, painful ways. The prisons have these body orifice scanners to try and detect that, but occasionally they will not be working properly or have not been working for a few months and no one has bothered to have them repaired. Alternatively, the prison officers may not have confidence that the scanners can pick up everything that they should. We should do much more to stop the stuff getting through in the first place.

Things also get into prison by being thrown over the wall for prisoners to collect on exercise. Lots of prisons have nets to stop that happening, but the nets should be more extensive.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Would he extend his comments to drugs, which are a serious issue in prisons? If someone who is not on drugs becomes a prisoner, they have a good chance of getting on them while they are in prison. We have to tackle that.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey made clear, drugs getting into prison is a massive issue. They damage the people there, and the fact that so many people take drugs for the first time while they are in prison should appal us. There is also the intimidation among prisoners as they trade this contraband stuff.

I made a point about nets, which should perhaps be mandatory around prisons to make sure that things cannot be thrown over walls. All that is quite easy.

We know that prison staff are sometimes responsible for stuff getting into prisons. That happens for a number of reasons. There is the normal reason of financial corruption: some prison officers are tempted by the money they can make from allowing things into prison, which is always very sad. Lots of prisoners, particularly long-term ones, can be very manipulative and find ever more ingenious ways of manipulating prison officers into doing things and ensnaring them into traps. If a prison officer goes out of their way to do a prisoner a favour, which may seem small and innocuous in the scheme of things, they have broken with procedure. The prisoner then feels that the officer is trapped and asks them to do ever more unacceptable things knowing that if the officer says anything they will be reported to the authorities and may lose their job. Manipulative prisoners sometimes lead prison officers astray in that way.

The Minister will know that, in an untypically timely manner, I have already been bombarding him with parliamentary questions. On one of his first days, I bombarded him with one that asked how many mobile phones and drugs were seized from prisoners in every prison in each of the past two years. I have the list here. Although the Ministry of Justice and I have gone our separate ways on many issues in the past two years, it is without doubt one of the most helpful Departments in giving proper answers to questions; I say that in all seriousness.

Typically, the Ministry gave a very full and thorough answer to my question. I can bore everybody rigid anyway without any props, but I shall resist the temptation to bore the Chamber by reading through how many things are confiscated from each prison. However, if anybody has a particular question about their local prison, I shall be able to help them.