| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Powell: My hon. Friend mentions the agreement of 11 December between the SIB and the West Bromwich building society. Several other building societies which backed home income plans--such as the Chelsea building society--are not party to that agreement,
and are offering terms even less generous than those that the West Bromwich building society is offering as a result of the agreement of 11 December. Will she therefore use her position to try to ensure that all building societies are covered in similar terms to those laid down in the 11 December document?
Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention; I will look into that matter as soon as the debate is over. I understand that the West Bromwich building society is now explaining to every individual borrower what the terms mean and how they apply to them. The Building Societies Commission has launched a separate investigation into several issues that fall within its responsibility as a prudential supervisor, arising from the FIMBRA material about the activities of the West Bromwich building society in connection with home income plans.
Legal actions are pending. Their conduct is for the courts, but I hope that there will not be too many delays. I deplore heel dragging by any group, organisation or individual. It would inevitably have detrimental effects on borrowers who are already in a difficult position. We must wait to find out what happens in the courts, but I sincerely trust that no one will delay the cases or impede their reaching court as soon as possible.
I am told by the West Bromwich building society that hon. Members especially concerned about the activities of the society have not taken advantage of an invitation to visit the society for a discussion with the directors. Obviously, I do not know the ins and outs of invitations that may have been made, but it might be a useful avenue. In a time when annual general meetings provide an opportunity for shareholders to question companies' policies, it is open to members--including borrowing members--of building societies to express their views and anxieties to the board. That avenue is worth considering.
Where does that leave us? Several other building societies have been, and still are, negotiating settlements with individual borrowers. I commend their efforts to help home income plan victims to reach acceptable solutions to their problems. It worries me that cases are still coming to light. Perhaps it does not surprise me, because it is often difficult for people--especially members of the generation involved--to acknowledge that they are in difficulty.
Lenders can take action only if they are aware of the problems. Therefore, I reiterate the advice that has been given on many occasions: borrowers who are in difficulties should approach their lenders to discuss ways in which they can resolve them.
I take this opportunity to welcome the proposed code of mortgage practice about which the Council of Mortgage Lenders is consulting currently. The scheme will enable an ombudsman to oversee the affairs of members who are not parties to existing schemes. The code's form has not yet been worked out, but extending an existing code seems to be a practical way forward. It will certainly assist people in future.
I sincerely sympathise with the difficulties faced by home income plan borrowers and with the views expressed during this brief debate. I will continue to do all within my power to push matters forward and to see the issue resolved. Leaving aside the strict legal argument,
I add my voice to those urging all building societies and other lenders to follow the route of those who have agreed settlements, and to consider seriously--
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke):
At the outset, I put on record my tribute to those individuals who were involved in the struggle to save the Sea Empress and to limit the pollution that resulted from her grounding. I pay tribute also to those who have been involved in cleaning up the significant oil pollution affecting not just my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and those of other hon. Members who represent West Glamorgan.
The debate is about the need for a wide-ranging inquiry--independent of the Department of Transport--into how 70,000 tonnes of oil was allowed to pollute probably the most sensitive and environmentally important marine habitat in the United Kingdom. The Government have asked the marine accident investigation branch to conduct an inquiry, but we do not accept that the inquiry is independent, as Ministers, officials and agencies of the Department of Transport were involved in the disaster, either directly or indirectly. It is the first time that the MAIB has been asked to investigate the actions of Ministers and of civil servants who were operationally involved in an accident which resulted in probably the most damaging oil spillage ever to affect United Kingdom shores.
To appreciate why the marine accident investigation branch inquiry is inadequate, one must understand the events leading to the grounding of the Sea Empress at 20.07 on Thursday 15 February, its subsequent grounding on the night of Monday 19 February, and its final refloating from that position on Wednesday 21 February. The vessel ran aground at seven minutes past 8, and she was refloated within three hours. It is now accepted that less than 2,000 tonnes of oil--possibly as little as 250 tonnes--was spilt in the initial grounding, as the vessel was rapidly refloated by harbour tugs.
On Friday morning, the salvers, Smit Tak--in consortium with the towing companies Cory and Klyne--were appointed. A strategy was apparently agreed early on with the salvers, the marine pollution control unit, the Coastguard Agency and the Milford Haven port authority, that the vessel should be lightened using a small tanker, and held in position in deep water from where she could float safely. It was then planned either to bring the vessel into port or to take her elsewhere for repairs. In the press conferences--fronted by an official from the marine pollution control unit--that were held regularly over the weekend, the media were informed that the situation was under control.
On 15 March, Lloyd's List International published an interview with Mr. Geert Koffeman, the salvage master working for Smit Tak. When asked about the strategy and the decisions that were taken, he replied:
It is patently obvious that the marine pollution control unit and the Coastguard Agency were involved in the decision-making process regarding the salvage operation.
Sadly, the expert knowledge of local pilots was ignored, and two opportunities were lost to take the vessel away from what is probably the most dangerous stretch of coastline in western Europe. On Saturday afternoon,
an opportunity was lost to move the vessel from its position, when a pilot with more than 20 years experience suggested that he could take the vessel out to sea safely at high tide. The harbour master informed him, "I'm in a room full of men, and they are all saying no." I believe that the strategy was fundamentally flawed, because the tugs available were not powerful enough to hold the vessel safely in position.
On Monday afternoon, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House, in which he said:
Within two hours of the Secretary of State's resuming his seat, the salvers had put the Sea Empress on to the rocks in calm weather, during one of the highest tides not just of the year, but of the decade. Despite claims to the contrary, the incident occurred in good weather. That night, I asked pilots who were involved in the operation what had gone wrong. They said that the vessel had been towing the tugs and not the other way round. That is a very important point.
The Government have accepted 80 of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas"--including those relating to salvage. In chapter 20, paragraph 127 of the report, Lord Donaldson says:
He is referring to placing powerful salvage tugs at key positions around the United Kingdom coast.
Lord Donaldson continued:
Only two salvage tugs were put in place--one in the Dover strait and the other in north-west Scotland. No tugs were placed in the western approaches. Lord Donaldson also recommended that five powerful salvage tugs should be stationed around our coast.
As a result of the failure to control the Sea Empress, 70,000 tonnes of oil was spilt. Eye witnesses allege that, following the second major grounding on Monday evening, oil was forced from the cargo tank in order to increase the vessel's buoyancy and refloat it. It had been planned to force water from the tanks, but it is alleged that oil was also forced from the vessel in order to allow it to float free. In other words, oil was discharged deliberately--which we know is an offence--and it is claimed that that was done with the agreement of the marine pollution control unit.
The damage caused to the coast of south-west Wales, to the Bristol channel and to the Irish coast is quite appalling. More than 3,000 seabirds were killed. A similar number were cleaned, but, unfortunately, many of them will not live very long. Two marine nature reserves, Skomer and Lundy, were polluted, and 26 sites of special scientific interest were affected. Many forms of wildlife have suffered, and we believe that one--a rare species of starfish, the asterina phylactica--has been wiped out. It was only discovered in 1979 in West Angle bay, and that bay was the one most polluted by the spillage.
Miles of holiday beaches have also been heavily polluted. The whole fishing industry operating between St. David's head and Port Eynon point has been put on stop, as well as all angling on the rivers leading into that sea area. In addition to the massive environmental damage, from which the area will take years to recover, there is likely to be long-term economic damage.
The main holiday beaches have been cleaned and other beaches are being tackled. I pay tribute again to all the people who have done that excellent job. There is no reason for tourists not to return to those beaches. The intention is to have all amenity beaches fully cleaned by Whitsun--but the damage has been done. It is impossible to cost the environmental damage. What price a rare starfish or oiled scotes? The estimated clean-up costs are in the region of £10 million, and compensation for the fishing and tourist industries is likely to run into many tens of millions of pounds.
No wonder such anger is felt in my constituency, in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. Last night, I presented a petition to the House signed by 25,000 people, calling for an independent inquiry. This morning, I was part of a deputation that delivered to 10 Downing street pledges and petitions signed by more than 80,000 people, calling for the protection of wildlife and an independent inquiry. More than 100,000 people have expressed their outrage at the environmental damage done, and the need for a truly independent, comprehensive inquiry.
Not only individuals but literally every organisation directly or indirectly connected with the environment--including local councils, community councils, district councils, new unitary authorities, the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds--is calling for an independent inquiry, which should examine not just why the Sea Empress grounded and the salvage operation, but why Lord Donaldson's recommendations were not fully implemented.
The inquiry should also examine salvage law and the operation of Milford Haven port authority, which did not have an operational radar covering the entrance to a particularly dangerous stretch of water. That inadequacy is almost beyond belief, and that radar is still not fully operational.
It is clear from evidence already available that the current marine accident investigation branch inquiry is perceived as an inquiry by the Department of Transport into itself. How can we ask civil servants--at the end of the day, that is what they are--to investigate and comment on the decisions of their political masters, Ministers, in relation to whether Donaldson's recommendations were implemented? How can we ask civil servants to investigate their colleagues in the Department of Transport who were directly involved in the salvage operation?
The MAIB inquiry cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be perceived as independent. It is like the arms to Iraq scandal, which Lord Justice Scott was rightly appointed to investigate. What would have been the public's response if civil servants from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office had been asked to investigate the actions of Ministers and other civil servants? Such a proposal would have been laughed out of court, yet that is the situation in relation to the Sea Empress incident.
I do not cast any aspersions on the integrity or expertise of the marine accident investigation branch, but it is totally unfair of the Secretary of State to make it undertake such an inquiry. The Secretary of State has told me that nobody questions the independence of the air accident investigation branch. However, as far as I am aware, the AAIB has never been asked to investigate an air crash in which civil servants from the Department of Transport were in the pilot seat and the Secretary of State was in the air traffic control tower--which was the comparable situation in the case of the Sea Empress.
The Government fail to understand that the Sea Empress incident was different in its size and impact from any other major pollution incident. It was also more complex, and, most importantly, Ministers and civil servants were directly or indirectly involved in the whole operation. It is vital for my constituents, the rest of Wales and everyone concerned about the environment that the inquiry and its report has credibility and the confidence of the individuals and organisations affected directly or indirectly by the pollution. The inquiry's recommendations must carry weight.
1.30 pm
"We did not make this decision alone. All parties, from the owner, to the coastguard to everyone involved, contributed to the decision".
"Every effort will be made to prevent any further release of oil."--[Official Report, 19 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 34.]
"We therefore propose that there should be interim arrangements during the winter months until the new system is fully operational."
"the UK Government should be prepared to bear the full cost of such interim arrangements. We cannot specify just what interim arrangements will be needed, but they should concentrate on the three key areas we identified: north west Scotland, the Dover Strait and the Western Approaches."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |