Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

After that comedy of errors, it is appropriate that it is red nose day today. I will open with a quick question. What do you find lying on a seabed shivering? The answer is a nervous wreck. Perhaps I am a bit of a nervous wreck because I finally get to speak to the Bill that stands in my name.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill. In my constituency, which contains the premier port of Felixstowe, large ships, including many cargo tankers, as well as container ships, are a feature on the horizon looking out across the North sea. However, they also bring to mind the risk of the greatest possible casualty for any marine vessel and any mariner—a shipwreck. Although the seas can be a dangerous place, we are justly proud of our record in this country in preventing accidents and dealing with those that do occur.

However, complacency is no place to be, and we have an opportunity through this Bill to implement the International Maritime Organisation’s international convention on the removal of wrecks. The underlying principle of that convention is that the liability for removing wrecks is placed firmly with the shipowner rather than the British taxpayer. The wreck removal convention is a new international instrument negotiated by the previous Government, and primary legislation is required to implement it. I commend this to my hon. Friends because it is not a European competence; the powers of this House are required to initiate this important law.

The Bill’s provisions will be enacted only if nine other nation states ratify the convention. One state has already done so, and eight have proceedings under way. I believe that the United Kingdom Parliament, by enacting this in due course, will lead as an example to other nation states in encouraging them to get on with it and put this important convention in place.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having found a piece of legislation that is not a European competence.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. One can imagine that I picked my Bill carefully so that it was not a money Bill and required our primary competence.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Is it not correct that if my hon. Friend were to take all the possible provisions that she could have promoted in the House on a random basis, there would be a seven out of eight chance that she would pick something that was not a European competence?

[Dr Coffey]

That may well be true, but when I came to choose my Bill I wanted something that was relevant to the people of my constituency and to the United Kingdom, and I am proud to have done so.

Why does this Bill matter? A wreck can cause a number of problems. It may constitute a hazard to navigation, potentially endangering other vessels and their crews. It may block a port, which would be highly damaging to our country’s trade, as well as to offshore infrastructure such as oil rigs, buoys, wind farms and similar. It may cause substantial damage to the marine and coastal environments, both of which are precious. It can also be exceptionally expensive to deal with. Currently, there is no requirement for a shipowner to remove a wreck or pay for its removal, except in specific cases of pollution, where the Secretary of State can already act. Even then, however, the cost of recovery is not guaranteed. The UK has no powers to act on UK and non-UK ships outside its territorial seas, except in circumstances of pollution within the UK’s pollution zone.

Let me offer in support of the Bill two examples of recent incidents. In 2007, MSC Napoli, a UK-registered container ship, suffered flooding in her engine room during severe weather conditions. Due to the risk of pollution, SOSREP—Secretary of State’s Representative—an agency of the UK Government, in conjunction with the French authorities, used its emergency powers to intervene. To date, the Government’s costs in dealing with this wreck are approximately £2.8 million, which they do not expect to be able to recover in full. If this convention had been in place, we could have done so.

A second example, which is a bit closer to home for me, is that of the Lagik, a non-UK registered ship that was grounded on the River Nene in 2000. A combination of the weight of the ship and the cargo of steel broke the ship’s back as the tide ebbed. It was declared a total constructive loss. That incident closed the port of Wisbech for 44 days. I dread to think what would happen if the port of Felixstowe was closed for a similar length of time. The Lagik was abandoned by her owners, so the task fell to the Government and their agencies at a cost of about £1.25 million. Despite attempts to recover the costs through legal action, not a single penny has been recovered. Again, that would not have been the case if the convention had been in place.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. It clearly has the potential to save the taxpayer a great deal of money. Does it extend as far as covering the costs of consequential damage caused by a shipwreck, such as that caused by the escape of its cargo, which could be oil and would thereby have a tremendous, adverse environmental impact?

[Dr Coffey]

I understand that consequential costs could also be recovered. There are already powers to deal with pollution, including oil spills.

The purpose of the convention and of the Bill is to lay primary responsibility for the removal of the wreck and subsequent clearing costs with the shipowner, while providing powers to the Secretary of State to act if the shipowner does not do so expeditiously.

The Bill requires ships of 300 gross tonnage and above to maintain insurance for this liability, which will be enforced through a wreck removal insurance certification scheme. I assure hon. Members that as soon as 10 nation states implement the convention, that will effectively become a worldwide requirement, so it will not deter boats from coming to UK ports. Importantly, the UK authorities will be given the power to take action to recover costs directly from insurers.

It is a great privilege to take a Bill through this House and I am happy to be doing so in my first Session. I hope that it will progress well in the Lords, and indeed in this place. My predecessor, Lord Deben, was never fortunate enough to be called in the ballot, so this is one small achievement that I now have as the Member for Suffolk Coastal. This is an important Bill and I commend it to the House.

Coastguard Service

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I shall do away with the niceties, apart from congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this exceptionally important debate. However, I will say something else that is a bit of a nicety—I do not want to suggest that the Minister is in any way committed to increasing risk for the people of this nation. He and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) both served in the fire service, and they are absolutely committed to the safety of one and all in a far stronger way than I have ever been.

I welcome several of the proposals and believe that change is required. I recognise that changes in technology and the evolving nature of our seas mean that the status quo is not always necessary. I was surprised to discover, as a result of the consultation, that most of our coastguard stations are linked only to each other, and particularly that Thames and Yarmouth are not linked. Those are the two coastguard stations that cover my constituency, with the Yarmouth centre covering down to about Southwold, and the Thames centre at Walton-on-the-Naze coming up the other way. I welcome changes that mean that coastguard centres will be working together, regardless of numbers. I also welcome the changes that will enhance the volunteer side, and I understand that aspects of pay might be being looked at, so that we can invest in the people who remain in the coastguard service.

I want to point out a few issues that relate to my constituency and to try to get some clarity from the Minister. The consultation document discusses how the seas are becoming more congested and how ships are getting larger. It talks about oil carriers, a busier coastline and extreme weather conditions that lead to increased coastal flooding. All those issues apply fully and squarely to my constituency, where we have the largest container port in the country at Felixstowe and, as of April 2011, the only area within inshore coastal waters where ship-to-ship oil transfers are allowed. I recognise that 70% of incidents involve leisure vessels—a high proportion of activities up and down the coast, and in and out of the creeks and estuaries, are leisure based—in addition to incidents in the shipping lanes around Felixstowe.

I am interested to understand how the decisions about which centres should remain open were made. Yarmouth and Thames both respond to a large number of incidents, of which there are more than in Dover. Dover also has responsibility for the Dover strait and the Channel Navigation Information Service. I would have thought that the number of incidents handled by each centre would have come into the review, but I do not see how that has been addressed. On a broader point about the Border Agency, I would have thought that the coastguard service would be one of the links in trying to ensure that we have safer borders. In the consultation, there is a focus on allowing senior managers to free up time to have such a relationship with other partners. The police are specifically mentioned, and I assume that that relates not only to people’s safety but to crime and other such activities.

The narrative from my constituents includes the assumption that the closure of the coastguard centres means that there will be no full-time paid coastguards delivering the service. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify whether in areas where coastguard centres are to be closed, we will rely solely on volunteers. If that is the case, I will be genuinely concerned. I share the coastguard at Lowestoft, and its branch at Southwold, with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), and the teams there are about 60% full. Southwold has five vacancies and Lowestoft seven, which means that we have only three people on the Southwold team.

The consultation document also mentions some of the roles that the coastguard will have in the future—vessel traffic monitoring, for example. It talks about how automatic identification systems provide

“precise real time data up to about 30 miles from the coast”,

which is welcome, but it also states:

“In the coming years the development of Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) will mean that ships can be tracked over much longer distances”.

It would be interesting to understand the time scale for that, and how it will fit into the role of vessel traffic monitoring. There is also the creation of counter-pollution officer roles, which all seem to be based in Southampton, and an understanding of some of the risk assessments undertaken would help us to see which parts of the country are perceived to have the greatest pollution challenges.

I come back to ship-to-ship transfers. I do not seek to use the debate to open up that issue, but when it was mentioned, Yarmouth coastguard agency was identified as the monitoring body.

I will finish here, Mr Hancock.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much.

[Dr Coffey]

I appreciate that. I was one of the hon. Members who submitted a letter requesting to speak before the debate.

I would be grateful if the Minister were to clarify whether the response to incidents will be solely from volunteers, so that instead of having to resort to freedom of information requests we could provide more detailed information, by centre, on timing and number of incidents. I would also be grateful if he were to refer to the monitoring of ship-to-ship transfers.

Winter Weather

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The point I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to make is simply not valid. The problem last year was that domestic suppliers could not keep up with demand. Local authorities ran down their stocks, in some cases to nil, and during the summer they needed to rebuild those stocks. To have had the Highways Agency trying to build a strategic stockpile in competition with them would have been deeply unhelpful. We took the decision to import the large part of the strategic stockpile, even though that means paying very considerably higher prices, so that local authorities could restock and the strategic stockpile could be built in parallel.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State talk to his departmental colleagues, and also to the Prime Minister, about emphasising to people the importance of checking on their neighbours? I acknowledge the work that has been done on ensuring that there is grit, and we have learned the lessons of last winter, but it is essential that we do not forget our communities locally.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend reminds the House of a very important message. We have talked about people struggling to get to work and wrestling with the transport network, but many people, often the elderly, are stuck in their homes and they may be getting into difficulty—they may be unable to shop, for instance. It is very important that we keep delivering the message that those who are able to get out should check on their neighbours and see if there is anything they can do to help.