| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bradshaw: I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on introducing this debate. I will keep away from the environmental issues, which are quite serious. Although it is unclear whether the science all points in one direction, we should be very cautious about causing further depredations in the Antarctic area. The need for safety and training has been emphasised. Oddly enough, when I was putting my contribution together, the person who helps me in the Whips’ Office said that a friend of theirs was actually on the ship that rescued the people who were cast into the sea when the “Explorer” sank. That incident resulted in a considerable interruption to their cruise as well, in that they were kept in their cabins for three days and all their food was brought to them—presumably so that the two groups of people could be kept apart, I do not know. It is important that people who go into these somewhat uncertain waters are properly trained and that a sufficient number can speak a language
15 May 2008 : Column GC402
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, say that the IMO is doing all sorts of things to avoid risks to tourist ships, and I certainly accept that if people are sending large ships to Antarctica, it is in their own interests to ensure that they are properly prepared for anything they might meet. Tourism is increasing in many fragile parts of the world. Something that the IMO and others ought to take up is the fact that as far as possible, they should ensure that they consume their own smoke, that they should not dump waste, and that they do not interfere any more than necessary with the environment. We must not make things worse.
What I would particularly like to hear from the Minister when he winds up the debate is whether the Government have any intention of reducing the personnel strength or the equipment at the disposal of the British Antarctic Survey. The survey makes a valuable contribution to science, one that we would not wish to lose. In fact, it conducts a lot of vital research. I have been reading about some of its work, and while it does not say that this or that will happen, it does say that we should be careful about this or that and stresses the need for the scientific measurement of what is actually going on. There appear to be quite a few possibly alarmist stories, so we need the facts. If, in his summary, the Minister is able to say something about the funding of the British Antarctic Survey, that would help a lot.
3.19 pm
Earl Attlee: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for asking this Question for Short Debate. The nautical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is unrivalled, and he has not disappointed us today. Before doing any research, I was quite relaxed about this subject, and I thought that I had a grasp of the issue. I assure noble Lords that I am no longer at all relaxed. This is a new topic for me, but I will be following it up in future months. The noble Viscount has done an excellent job in posing the Question, and I will not repeat all his work. While the environmental concerns must not be ignored—they are real concerns—I will confine my remarks to maritime safety.
In January 1975, the motorship “Lovat” sank in a force 8 to 9 gale. The 13-man crew took to the life raft at 06.30 hours. By 07.45, they had been seen by a cross-channel ferry. By 08.00, they had the first helicopter support on scene, and by 08.30, only two hours later, 10 of the 13 crew members had died from hypothermia or drowning. That happened 29 kilometres south-west of Land’s End.
The reason they died was, despite being commercial seamen, they had not been properly trained and they did not understand the need to conserve body heat, keep the covering of the life raft shut and keep bailing water out. All of that is very difficult to do in a storm. I am not convinced that passengers on cruise ships are anywhere near well enough trained to survive in similar circumstances, let alone far more difficult circumstances in the Southern Ocean or Antarctica. Of course in an evacuation the aim would be to have at least one
15 May 2008 : Column GC403
If a human is immersed in seawater at anywhere near freezing point, his survival time is measured in minutes. It is minutes in the water, and it is hours in the life raft, unless you have done everything absolutely correctly. Other noble Lords have correctly identified risks arising from the remoteness and the merciless environment. In one of those disasters in the Southern Ocean, you could easily have to wait 24 hours or more for a rescue ship to arrive. There is virtually no chance of a suitable rescue helicopter—there may be a small utility helicopter—being available, because it is far out of range, and the ships in the area would not be equipped to support the helicopters. It would be extremely difficult, slow and distressing to rescue hundreds, or maybe thousands, of passengers directly from the sea to a ship in the Southern Ocean. In a storm, it does not bear thinking about. A significant proportion of cruise passengers are senior citizens, because that is when people can afford to go on a cruise, or they may be other than fully able bodied. Can the Minister say whether it is legal for a cruise company offering an Antarctic cruise to discriminate on the grounds of disability?
In his reply, the Minister will say that the ships are first class, the crew are specially trained, they have special equipment, they have an Antarctic pilot, and the increase in the number of ships in the area will speed up a rescue if the worst happens. To an extent, all of that is true; but undoubtedly there is an increased risk of this problem occurring.
In his reply, the Minister will tell us that the situation is not out of control and that unreasonable risks are not being taken. He will tell us about the 102 operators in the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, covered so well in his speech. But not all operators have signed up and the ones who are not signed up will be the ones who are not operating to the highest possible standards. In any case, accidents are notoriously difficult completely to eliminate, no matter how big the ship is. Of course, the Minister will not point out that the IMO has some serious problems. Influence within the IMO lies with Panama, Liberia and the Bahamas, and their interests are not absolutely coincident with ours in this matter. It is well known that it is extremely difficult to get safety changes implemented.
I am concerned that life-saving equipment may not be tested under realistic conditions. How is life-saving equipment—life rafts and lifebelts—being tested? Are we using professional divers in a swimming pool at UK ambient temperatures, rather than using lay people in a defined sea state and temperature? I have been briefed that one’s hands become as lumps of rubber and totally numb after only a few minutes when wet at near-zero or subzero temperatures.
I am not qualified to state the probability of having to disembark a ship in the Atlantic or the Southern Ocean, but in my opinion the risk is increasing. Although the problem may be low risk, the impact of such an incident will be absolutely devastating. The international media will be there immediately. As we know, successful
15 May 2008 : Column GC404
What should the Minister do? His problem is that shipping is an international activity, with freedom of the seas an underlying principle. As other noble Lords have pointed out, regulation has to be on an international basis, but the mechanism at the IMO may be flawed. The Minister also knows that national regulation would simply make UK operators uneconomic—a point also made by noble Lords this afternoon. The underlying problem for transport Ministers is how the UN as a whole works. I think that that is slightly above their pay grade but also, I suspect, not a priority for the Prime Minister. My fear is that, one day, it suddenly will be the number one priority for the Prime Minister.
3.28 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for initiating this debate. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and has a track record and history of taking legislation through your Lordships' House on issues relating to the Antarctic, and a strong personal interest in issues relating to Antarctic exploration and travel to it. As he reminded us, last year he initiated a debate on the subject—and prescient that debate was. Recent events have made another opportunity to discuss Antarctic matters very timely, with the issue of passenger safety and the need to protect the marine environment coming very much to the fore.
This afternoon, in this very short but important discussion, we have had some valuable and timely additions to the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who is a great marine expert and who commands tremendous respect on this subject. I confess that this issue is not one on which I have a ready knowledge, nor can I claim any depth of knowledge, but it has been fascinating to work through the briefing material and talk to officials and the noble Viscount. I have learnt something from this and I am extraordinarily grateful to all who have helped me. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I shall try to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as I possibly can. We have the benefit of some time.
The Antarctic is a place of great beauty and wonder—a pristine environment like no other on earth. It is a truism to say that it is an area of global significance due to its profound impact on the world’s climate and ocean systems. With climate change being very much to the fore of our thinking, that significance and its importance are increasing. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, drew attention to that in his concluding comments. It is not going to be far away from our thinking. The land mass occupies something like a tenth of the overall land mass of the globe and has a profound effect on the environment.
The area is attracting an increasing number of tourists, and a number of noble Lords drew attention
15 May 2008 : Column GC405
Not long ago I took a taxi to my railway station. I said to the driver that I had not seen him for a while and he told me “I’ve been very busy”. I asked, “Have you been travelling?”. He said, “Yes, I have been travelling and have recently been to the Antarctic”. I would wager that a generation ago, very few taxi drivers would even have contemplated a trip to the Antarctic and certainly they would not have set their meter running to get there. I was struck by that. It is symptomatic of the way that tourism and cruise tourism is developing.
The rate of growth is currently 17 per cent per annum. Cruising is a success story and the United Kingdom industry and our citizens are benefiting significantly from the opportunities afforded by this growth. It is a benign growth but one with challenges. It is benign because it extends and raises our interest levels and awareness of the wider world and globalisation. The Antarctic region is also becoming a destination of choice for many cruise ship operators. Until recently, few people other than scientists and explorers—certainly not taxi drivers—had ever visited Antarctica. In the past few years, however, the region, particularly the Antarctic Peninsula, has become a common destination on many cruise itineraries.
As concerns about climate change increase, the growth in the number of people seeing for themselves this vital region of the globe is not altogether a bad thing, given that it helps to spread the knowledge about this area and its contribution as a pivotal component of the earth’s ecosystem. The UK recognises tourism as a legitimate activity under the Antarctic Treaty and we support the self-regulatory framework established by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. Nevertheless, we are concerned to ensure that there is proper management of the tourism industry in the Antarctic and to set strict environmental guidelines. We are also concerned to ensure that tourism to the Antarctic is carefully planned and monitored to ensure the safety of those involved as well as to minimise the environmental impact of their activities.
The arrival of more cruise ships in Antarctic waters, some of which are very large indeed, poses certain risks, which were demonstrated by the sinking of the MS “Explorer” near the South Shetland Islands last November and referred to by noble Lords this afternoon. Fortunately, that marine casualty did not lead to any loss of life among the 154 passengers and crew on board at the time of the accident, nor did it have a major environmental impact. But there is, of course, no room for complacency, since there were a number of fortunate factors involved in that incident.
Governments are aware of the potential difficulties arising from operating cruise ships in Antarctic waters, and consideration will be given to how we can learn
15 May 2008 : Column GC406
Safeguards are already in place. The Antarctic treaty’s protocol on environmental protection of 1991, which has been implemented domestically through the Antarctic Act 1994, requires all activities in Antarctica to be planned to minimise the environmental impact. In addition, the UK has also implemented an agreement of the Antarctic treaty parties in 2004 that all tourism activities in that region must be able to demonstrate self-sufficient search-and-rescue and contingency plans.
All treaty-flagged or registered vessels entering Antarctica must have either a permit or licence to do so from one of the contracting parties to the Antarctic treaty. The United Kingdom is one of those parties, and the FCO issues permits, under the Antarctic Act 1994, following a checklist of relevant requirements. In addition, only ships carrying fewer than 500 passengers are allowed to disembark their passengers on Antarctica.
Hydrographic survey work and chart production also make an essential contribution to maritime safety. The United Kingdom continues to make a significant contribution, and the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, supported by HMS “Endurance”, is the most active player in the production of Antarctic hydrographic charts.
Most vessels visiting the Antarctic region are not UK-registered, and therefore we have no statutory obligation to them. There are also a number of UK-based operators which operate ships in the area but choose to register their vessels outside the UK. Whatever the registration of the vessel concerned, they are good ship owners with a strong safety culture behind them. Corporate social responsibility is also a key component in improving the social, economic and environmental standards of shipping. That means doing more than the bare minimum needed to comply with legal requirements. After all, better crew standards lead to safer ships, safer ships lead to fewer accidents, and fewer accidents mean less cost and less damage to the environment.
The requirements for ships operating in Antarctica are underpinned by the Safety of Life at Sea Convention—or SOLAS, as it is more commonly called—the International Safety Management Code and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
15 May 2008 : Column GC407
The stringent SOLAS requirements require the subdivision of passenger ships into watertight compartments, bilge-pumping arrangements and stability requirements to enable the ship to withstand significant accident damage. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, knows better than I, the degree of subdivision varies with the ship's length. Therefore, in this instance we can be enthusiastic about larger ships. There are also requirements covering machinery and electrical installations to ensure that services which are essential for the safety of the ship, passengers and crew are maintained under various emergency conditions.
SOLAS also details requirements for life-saving appliances such as lifeboats, rescue boats and lifejackets according to the type of ship. These provisions are supplemented by the International Life-Saving Appliance Code which provides specific technical requirements for life-saving appliances.
The International Safety Management Code also requires, for example, that ship operators have procedures to ensure the safe operation of ships and protection of the environment in compliance with relevant international legislation and to have procedures to respond to emergency situations.
Noble Lords mentioned that the increase in the number of vessels operating in Antarctica poses a risk to the marine environment. Safety and protecting the marine environment go hand in hand. By enhancing the safety of the passengers and crew, the marine environment is also being protected. Governments recognise, however, the need to protect the marine environment in such an important region. Ships operating in Antarctica must also comply with the relevant provisions of MARPOL. This is the main international instrument aimed at preventing ship-source pollution. The seas and coasts of Antarctica benefit, like all other seas and coasts around the world, from the protection afforded by the MARPOL provisions, and as Antarctica is designated as a special area for the purposes of the MARPOL provisions regulating discharges of oil, noxious liquid substances and garbage, the relevant standards are even more stringent for ships operating in these waters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, passenger ships mainly use heavy grade oil for their propulsion. However, heavy grade oil is a highly polluting substance and can pose severe problems when spilled in icy conditions. Noble Lords will no doubt be pleased to learn that in response to the increasing number of passenger ships entering Antarctic waters and in recognition of the threat which heavy grade oil poses to the pristine Antarctic environment, work has been initiated in the IMO to develop a measure which will very substantially restrict the use and carriage of heavy grade oil in the Antarctic region.
The IMO’s Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases discussed the issue in some detail when it met in February 2008, and it is expected that this subject will be a high priority work programme at future sessions of the sub-committee. But ships can damage the environment in other ways which are much less obvious
15 May 2008 : Column GC408
Of course, we need to ensure that both these environmental protection initiatives achieve their objectives. This brings me to the provisions of Annexe VI of the 1991 Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty. This annex concerns the setting up of a liability regime for environmental emergencies which will impose strict liability for the costs of environmental damage following an accident in Antarctica. The liability regime will be covered by a system of compulsory insurance and the establishment of a fund to provide compensation. At present, only two of the 28 states required for entry into force have ratified the annexe. While this is disappointing, the United Kingdom Government are keen to progress our ratification of the annex and we fully intend to introduce the necessary legislative proposal as soon as parliamentary time permits.
The measures in place are satisfactory to help ensure maritime safety and protect the environment, but we are not complacent, which is why we continue to play a leading role in seeking to strengthen the existing international arrangements.
Questions were raised, many of which I think I have probably answered. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, asked how we might control cruise ships. We take the view that a simple ban is not realistic. Such bans would need global rather than individual action, and it is fair to say that there would be little likelihood that all Governments would agree. We think that the best approach is to continue to develop and raise global shipping standards more generally. We as a nation can be proud of the role that we have played, particularly through the IMO in advancing this.
The noble Viscount also talked about the size of vessels entering Antarctic waters. I referred to that. We recognise that the size of vessels entering Antarctic waters needs to be considered some more. Larger vessels, as I pointed out, tend to be newer. They are also built to a higher specification, with superior safety standards as compared with some of the smaller vessels. We must take a balanced view. There are protections through having larger vessels, but the potential for adverse environmental impacts is greater. We therefore need experts to consider this issue carefully and keep it very much under review.
The noble Viscount also referred to sat-nav. We see immediate benefits to this. The IMO is instituting a system of long-range identification and tracking of vessels. This system, coupled with the use of GPS, will assist in the monitoring of vessels in the region. That
15 May 2008 : Column GC409
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned the rewriting of the Arctic and Antarctic guidelines and the pairing of cruise ships. That is a very important issue. I can confirm simply that the IMO is looking at the existing guidance. We do not quite know what the outcome of those investigations will be, but work is being pursued. The idea of pairing cruise ships to heighten safety is transparently a sensible notion that I understand is under active consideration.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |