Passenger Boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Robert Courts Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I very much enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I am not entirely sure I can follow it; it was a very good speech that I listened to intently. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today. I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s Day and Montserrat Day, and wish my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) a happy birthday. We have paid tribute to everyone in those diverse communities across the UK today, from Romford to Strangford, and it is an honour to be a part of that celebration.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on securing this important debate about passenger ship operations, particularly on the tidal River Thames. He is quite right to refer to it as a “liquid highway” connecting the country together. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for having rightly pointed out to the House that it connects Oxfordshire. In fact, it forms the southern border of my constituency and is an artery through the entirety of southern England.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romford in supporting the announcement of the Thames freeport. Given its location, it has the potential to become a national hub for international trade and commerce, and to attract business and jobs to the region. It reconnects us with our vibrant maritime history and reinforces our position as an outward looking trading nation.

My hon. Friend mentioned the competitiveness points that fall within the responsibility of the Mayor of London. Those matters are for the Mayor and Transport for London to address. I know he will continue to engage with the Mayor and he may question his management of London’s transport system, which has left a lot to be desired. My hon. Friend asked about scrutiny; he is doing a good job in providing that scrutiny himself, but I am happy to join him and write to the Mayor to raise those concerns as well.

I turn to the subject of passenger boats. I associate myself with the comments made by all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who paid tribute to maritime workers across our wonderful United Kingdom and everything they have been doing to connect communities, particularly in the difficult circumstances of the pandemic.

I am sure the House will agree that safety must be a top priority for the Government when it comes to ship operations. Operators must ensure that ships are not only built but maintained and operated to maintain the safety of their passengers, their crews and other ships. There is a balance to be struck between safety and the right to trade and remain operationally viable. Ultimately, this is a matter of judgment of risk, and it comes down to having proportionate and appropriate safety measures. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and I would entirely agree on that statement of principle. It is just a matter of where the balance falls.

It may be appropriate to spend a moment looking at the origins of the legislation that is proposed, which, as my hon. Friend points out, was the Marchioness incident. I hope the House will pardon me if I reflect on the tragic events of 20 August 1989, as the background may be helpful. Hon. Members will remember the deeply harrowing scenes of the Marchioness party boat after its collision with the Bowbelle dredger on the Thames around Southwark bridge. Tragically, 51 young people lost their lives that night. That tragic event prompted 30 years of debate about the general safety of passenger ships on our inland waterways, particularly those on the tidal River Thames. The proposals that we are considering spring from that tragic incident, rather than seeking to address an incident that had already taken place. That is an important distinction to make.

There were a number of drivers of change. There was a Marine Accident Investigation Branch recommendation. After Lord Justice Clarke’s Thames safety inquiry in 2000, he conducted an exercise and enhanced security arrangements were proposed. A number of improvements have taken place since 1989 to the emergency response and the operation of small passenger ships. For example, Her Majesty’s Coastguard now has a presence on the river, with the Port of London Authority, at the Thames barrier, the RNLI now has a presence on the river, and additional rescue equipment and safety aids are placed along the banks of the Thames to support people who may find themselves in the water.

Ship movements are closely monitored by the Port of London Authority, which is responsible for safe navigation using modern tracking systems. Ships have adopted better look out arrangements to reduce the risk of collision and training is better, as is the certification of crews. Additionally, ships built after 1992 must meet modern ship damage survivability standards. That is to keep them afloat in the event of an accident, either to get them back to shore under their own steam or to give time for passengers and crew to be rescued.

However, those modern standards have not thus far been applied to the older ships, which retain what are called grandfather rights, and that of course is the subject of today’s debate. But as waterways have become busier, so the concern about the safety of these ships has also grown. Some of the ships are very old and are heritage boats. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford is right to say that they should be treasured. The hon. Member for Strangford has paid tribute to them as well. I think his phrase was that the old can sometimes be the best. I think we would all agree with that sentiment. I totally understand the special place that these ships have in the hearts of many Members of this House and of the other place. I feel a lot of that sentiment myself.

Significantly, I also appreciate the concerns and representations from operators, who are concerned about being unable to continue in business if they are compelled to modify their ships to bring them into line with modern safety standards, particularly the damage stability requirements, which I will come to in a little more detail in a moment. Of course, that is all amplified by the pandemic. Therefore, we come to looking at the point of balance, which is perhaps the real issue in the debate today. There is an argument for saying that the safety record of the old passenger ships on the River Thames is good and therefore there is no need to introduce the new requirements. It is true that we have not seen an incident with loss of life similar to the Marchioness tragedy since that dreadful night in August 1989, but the difficult question is whether that is by design or whether it is simply a matter of good fortune, and it is that difficult question that we must ask ourselves when we are considering this matter.

Safety experts at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Port of London Authority are of the clear view that there has been too much reliance on continuing good fortune, and I would like to spend a moment or two explaining why that is. It is of note as background that, as I understand it, to this day the sister ship of the Marchioness continues to operate on the tidal River Thames. Evidence is inconclusive as to whether the measures proposed in the legislation would prevent an identical incident. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford may well be right; I think he made the point that perhaps they would not prevent an identical incident. But what I ask the House to consider is that that is not the right question, the question that we should be asking, because the relevant comparator is how quickly a vessel would sink were something—not necessarily that type of accident—to happen to it.

The Port of London Authority says that between 2010 and 2018 there were 1,192 accidents or incidents of varying severity along the Thames. I would like to give one example of what may have been just such a near miss. It is very appropriate: in 2008, the Millennium City hit Westminster bridge, literally outside this window here. It was pushed, as I understand it, by the tide and sustained an 8-foot gash to its side, below the waterline. We can never know what would have happened if a different vessel had been involved in that incident, but the expert opinion of the MCA is that, had it been one of the older passenger ships that did not meet the modern standards, it might well have sunk rapidly, with a considerable risk to life. Similarly, with regard to the Millennium Time collision in 2014 with the tug Redoubt, there would have been significant risk of an older vessel, covered by the grandfather rights, foundering.

The tidal Thames, the stretch of the river from Teddington Lock to the east, is complex in nature. It has varying depths and varying width. Other issues are its density, the make-up of the traffic on it, navigational hazards and environmental conditions. It is a tricky bit of river. The significant amount of large commercial traffic that operates on the Thames makes the risk of a collision unacceptably high, particularly in terms of a catastrophic collision between vastly different size ships, where the impact of the larger one overwhelms the smaller one. That mixture of heavy and light vessels also leads to congestion around bridges on the Thames. There is a mixture of tugs and barges with passenger ships and smaller craft. There is competition for berths at piers. That combination of risk factors necessitates the highest safety standards in ship construction, because if one of those older, unmodified ships were involved in an accident, it is likely that it would sink and lives would be lost.

It is against that background that the MCA legislation has been developed over several years. It has been the subject of a number of consultations and intense scrutiny, and there have also been a number of industry workshops. I accept that there is controversy surrounding it, and I totally accept that there is cross-party objection to it. That is why I met my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, as he kindly said, and others, so I have a first-hand understanding of it. The intention behind the legislation is to update the standards so that they are closer to those expected of modern ships. Passengers have a right to expect safety standards that appertain to the 21st century. That is probably what they expect, without a second thought, when they step on to a ship. My hon. Friend has asked for flexibility. I will come to that in a moment, but it is right to note that even under these revised proposals, older ships will have flexibility in how they comply.

It is important to note that, in addition to survivability in the event of damage, the proposals also cover safety improvements to life-saving equipment, firefighting and detection, bilge pumps and associated alarms. The most challenging part is the damage stability requirement and flexibility—better referred to as “damage survivability”, because that it is really means—and even there we have introduced a facility for an exemption. Owners will need to demonstrate, through a risk assessment, that their ships are operating in an area that presents a lower risk profile. That risk assessment will need to be agreed by the MCA and must not be opposed by the relevant navigation authority. My hon. Friend quite rightly mentioned the details. Some consultation has already taken place, but there will be time, between the laying of the legislation and its coming into force, to make clear the steps that those operators that wish to apply for an exemption will have to take.

I totally recognise that it may not be possible to modify some of the older ships to comply with modern stability standards. As I have said, we will undertake a risk-balancing exercise, whereby risk to life will be assessed alongside the safety standards—it is all a balance of risk, as hon. Members well understand. It seems to me that that is in the right place. Operators can either comply with the standards by modifying their ships, or apply for the exemption. I would suggest that that represents the flexibility referred to my hon. Members, and it is a compromise of sorts.

There has, of course, been a request for further compromise. I am hugely grateful to all hon. Members and Members of the other place for their constructive and expert engagement. I recognise the strength of feeling and thank them for that engagement. It is precisely because of that engagement that the MCA and the Department have considered in great detail whether there is a case for further compromise.

The MCA has carefully evaluated the option of not applying the damage stability requirements to ships that keep their operations to the west of Westminster Bridge, which it judges as being not acceptable from a safety perspective. That decision is based on ship numbers, movements and incidents upriver of Westminster, particularly in Lambeth Reach. My hon. Friend asked me to write to him with details, and I will of course enter into correspondence with him on the basis for that decision.

Although the level of maritime traffic may be less, the balance of risk means that it remains unacceptable to rely on a blanket exemption for small passenger ships. And it is, of course, the blanket exemption that my hon. Friend is asking for today. It is important to stress that that does not mean that exemptions are not possible, because operators can apply for an exemption, using the risk-assessment process to demonstrate that the arrangements for individual ships are safe and will protect the ship, its passengers and crew in the event of an accident. Proposals will allow operators an exemption from the new damage stability requirements if they demonstrate that they operate in an area of category C waters, which pose a lower operational risk. That risk assessment must be agreed by the MCA and not opposed by the relevant harbour authority.

I would not want to prejudge any risk assessment outcomes, but it may be that operators will struggle to show evidence that there is a lower operational risk in the vicinity of Westminster, for the reason I have outlined. There may be more scope to demonstrate a lower risk upriver of Chelsea, although of course everything will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

To sum up, the level of maritime traffic may be less in this part of the river, but the balance of risk means that it remains unacceptable to have a blanket exemption for small passenger ships. However, I believe that the flexibility and proportionality that my hon. Friend asks for is there, because it does not mean that no exemptions are possible; they just have to be approached in the right way in order to protect safety in the way that I have outlined.

I thank all hon. Members who have made representations about the safety of older passenger ships. My hon. Friend made a powerful speech. He spoke hugely compellingly on behalf of his constituents, those who use the river, and all the people who have raised the issue with him. They could ask for no better advocate. He has made powerful points, and I have great sympathy for many of them. However, as I have said, the question ultimately comes down to a matter of judgment on the basis of risk.

The Government’s position is that, when we look at the risk-assessed exemption present in the proposed legislation, we believe that it is no longer sufficient to rely on good fortune when dealing with the safety of life on the river. The MCA has made efforts to take account of as many as possible of the matters raised in the consultation and elsewhere. As I say, there are routes to exemption from those damage stability requirements, subject to developing that risk assessment.

The MCA will consider all cases on their own merits, and will be as pragmatic and flexible as possible, provided of course that safety is not compromised. Although I have sympathy for many of the points that my hon. Friend makes, I feel it is right that we continue with the legislation simply because of the risk to life, which is, as I say, unacceptably high without the new legislation. I thank all hon. Members for their support for, and interest in, today’s critical debate. I am very grateful to everyone for their time.