Railways and Transport Safety Bill
I welcome to the Transport and the Environment Committee, for the last time in this parliamentary session, I suspect, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning and his officials Caroline Lyon, Andrew Maclaren and Derek Willis.
This agenda item relates to a Sewel motion on the United Kingdom Railways and Transport Safety Bill. The Sewel motion is due to be debated on 20 March in Parliament, which will be invited to endorse the principle of introducing alcohol and drug testing for mariners, as set out in the bill, and to agree that the relevant provisions in the bill that impact on devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament. In order to aid that process and inform the debate in the chamber, Lewis Macdonald is here to answer members' questions.
There are no formal procedures in standing orders to allow the committee to report to Parliament our views on the Sewel motion, so we do not have to adopt a position today. Our aim is to ensure that Parliament's consideration of the Sewel motion is aided by members' understanding of the issues. The minister will make some introductory remarks before answering questions.
I am grateful to the committee for allocating time for the consideration of the Sewel motion, which relates to important issues concerning drug and alcohol testing for mariners. I am happy to summarise the key points involved and to recommend consent to the Sewel motion.
We need to bring the issue to the committee's attention because judgments elsewhere in the UK have created some ambiguity about interpreting the legislation. We want to make the position clear and remove those ambiguities. We believe that the principles of the bill will command wide support and that it is right that we should seek to have consistency across the UK on the issue of maritime safety.
The memorandum sets out how the UK Government's policy on the issue has evolved. Alcohol and drug testing was proposed following reviews of river safety after the Marchioness disaster on the River Thames in 1989. Recommendations were made for legislation to introduce alcohol testing for mariners similar to the arrangements that apply to motor vehicle drivers. Those recommendations were accepted by the UK Government and have been included in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, which is currently before the Westminster Parliament.
I will summarise the key points that deal with alcohol and drug testing for mariners. The bill will make it an offence to undertake certain maritime duties while over the prescribed blood alcohol limit and will allow for testing to be conducted. The proposed limit will be set at 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, which is the same limit as applies on the roads. The limit will apply to all on-duty professional mariners and to certain mariners off duty who have a safety responsibility such as for the evacuation of a vessel.
The bill will also apply to recreational mariners who are involved in navigating a vessel. In due course, the UK Government will consult on how narrowly that application should be defined. However, the clear intention is to cover all those whose actions might have an impact on safety.
It is intended that the bill will apply to all sectors and waters in and around Scotland. That means applying the rules to all craft, such as personal watercraft or jet-skis. It is also intended that the bill should apply to inland waterways as well as to coastal waters.
There are two areas where possible ambiguities have arisen from court decisions elsewhere. First, the courts have found that mariners simply messing about in boats on an inland waterway were not strictly speaking involved in navigating as defined in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The bill deals with that by extending the definition of navigation to include any role that relates to the control or direction of the course of a vessel. Secondly, case law has found that not all pleasure craft are covered by the definition of a ship in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The bill deals with that by extending the drink and drugs provisions to cover all types of craft, including jet-skis and personal watercraft.
The definitions of a ship and navigation technically qualify as matters of devolved competence because they are not explicitly covered by the reservations that relate to maritime safety under the Scotland Act 1998. We have therefore come to the view that we should take the opportunity to apply the legislation in Scotland fully. There will be wide agreement that maritime safety is a vital issue and that there is a strong case for the rules to be applied consistently throughout the UK, as happens at present.
It is important to see the devolved aspects of the issue in context. Clearly, the provisions involved apply to all other maritime sectors, such as ferries, merchant ships, fishing vessels and cargo ships. Shipping policy and maritime safety issues, including alcohol-testing rules, are reserved matters.
On that basis, we are keen to avoid any potentially anomalous situations arising about how organisations such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the marine accident investigation branch of the Department for Transport should respond within a UK legislative framework. We also want to avoid any delay to the application of the measures in Scotland, because they will be a useful deterrent to future incidents.
The Sewel motion is the best course of action in the circumstances. I would have liked to have brought the issue to the committee before now, given that the UK bill is currently before the Westminster Parliament, but clearly the priority for our colleagues there was to reach agreement on how the proposed legislation would apply to devolved matters. This is a good example of how we can use the Sewel motion process in a constructive way that does not impinge on the devolution settlement or on the powers of the Scottish Parliament and that introduces provisions that will benefit the people of Scotland. On that basis, I look for the committee's support and I am happy to answer any questions.
I am sure that many people will welcome the bill, which will go a long way towards improving maritime safety. The minister will be well aware of the difficulties with drug and alcohol misuse in some north-east villages and towns. The bill will be helpful in that regard.
However, I would like to ask a few questions. Under what circumstances will the bill be used? Will the process be similar to what happens when someone has a car accident and is automatically tested for the level of alcohol? In what other circumstances might someone be tested for alcohol or drug misuse? Moreover, does the UK Government or the Scottish Executive intend to run a public awareness campaign to promote the legislation and safety at sea and on inland waters?
The answer to your first point is straightforward. The rules will be enforced on the same basis as alcohol testing is enforced on the roads. A person may be tested in the event of an accident or if the police have reasonable grounds for suspicion that that person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There will be no random testing; it will be done on the same basis as for road offences.
How the proposals are advertised will be a matter for the UK Government. However, I expect that the UK Government will be keen to ensure that people are aware of the application of the new rules. I think that the provisions will attract a lot of interest because, although there have been few incidents of late at sea or on inland waters that can be attributed to alcohol misuse, we are all well aware that the potential exists.
The bill reminds me of an incident from my past involving the Ballachulish ferry on new year's day, a bottle of Chivas Regal drunk on the north side and a ferry that could not dock on the south side. The ferry went up Loch Leven and anchored and there was a stand-off with the police. Later, the Oban Times reported that someone had been charged with being drunk in charge of a ferry. The experience was frightening for everyone on board. I had assumed that such legislation was in place and I am rather concerned that we now have to amend the law.
My question is about pleasure craft. At an event such as the west Highland regatta, a fair bit of alcohol is probably consumed as part of the whole experience of racing from, say, Oban to Tobermory. I am aware the legislation could stop people drinking while they are sailing, but what about when they are aboard their boats in the evening? Under the legislation on road traffic, a person is considered drunk in charge of a motor vehicle even if they are not driving it—if someone is simply sitting in their car drunk they can be charged. I would like to think that people could have parties in Tobermory bay on the evening of the regatta without the police coming along and saying, "Sorry, you're drunk in charge of your yacht," and taking them off to the cells. I wonder what you will do in such cases, where the law obviously cannot be applied in the same way. How will you police the situation? Who will patrol the seas, looking out for drunken yachtsmen?
There are a number of questions there. You are right that it would be unfortunate and not the intention if the bill resulted in an end to entertaining times at regattas and people enjoying themselves in harbours. John Spellar, the UK minister in charge of the bill at Westminster, has made it clear that he wants to find a way of making sensible exemptions, so that the law is applied in a way that achieves its purpose, which is to improve the safety of vessels at sea and of those using them. The UK Government's intention is to consult on the means by which exemptions might be made. Mr Spellar has made it clear that his intention is to make exemptions for recreational mariners under certain circumstances. The issue is about finding a sturdy legal definition of what those circumstances would be and whether any vessels—for example, those without engine power or those with low engine power—might be exempted altogether. Those are matters on which there will be consultation in due course in order to reach broad agreement on the way forward.
The distinction is between the kind of case that you mentioned at the outset, in which drunkenness poses a threat to the individual and to others who are using the same vessel or the same waters, and the use of alcohol by recreational mariners in a way that does not pose a threat to anybody. Determining the legal line is a matter that will follow in the secondary legislation. What is important from our point of view is that there is no ambiguity in the primary legislation about the ability of the regulations to cover all types of vessel. That is why the aspect that we are discussing has to be covered in the Scottish Parliament.
Given that the issue is one of criminal law, why has the Sewel motion come to the Transport and the Environment Committee and not to one of the justice committees?
The Sewel motion will be considered by the full Parliament; our discussion of the motion is merely in order to aid that consideration. The motion has come to the Transport and the Environment Committee because it deals with transport safety.
I understand that. However, the issue consists of huge chunks of criminal law. I would have thought it appropriate to give one of the justice committees the opportunity to express a view. It is up to the minister to consider what he might do with that suggestion.
Leading on from what Maureen Macmillan said, we have to consider not only parties in Tobermory bay, but the cruisers that use the Caledonian canal and tie up for an evening, as well as the many people involved in recreational angling in boats throughout Scotland, particularly during the fishing season in trout and salmon areas.
The type of vessel might be important, too. I see that we are talking about jet-skis—I presume that a small motorised fishing vehicle will fall into the same bracket, but will a rowing boat? If so, we are suddenly looking at an all-encompassing piece of legislation. That may or may not be right—I realise that the UK Government will make that decision. However, will groups such as the fishermen who fish Loch Leven—a different Loch Leven, in Kinross-shire—fall under the scope of the bill? Will the bill cover people who cruise on the Caledonian canal?
Lastly, what consultation did the Scottish Executive undertake with various recreational sectors throughout Scotland before the Sewel motion was brought to us? I would like to know what the reactions were.
There are a number of important points. First, to clarify my answer to Maureen Macmillan, the consultation will be on areas of exemption such as for a yachtsman who has anchored in Tobermory bay, goes ashore for the evening and then rows back out to the vessel. Clearly, an exemption should be considered for the process of getting from the harbour to the vessel using another vessel. Where a vessel is moored, there is no question of the legislation applying. The provision will apply to
"a ship which is under way".
That is the key phrase. In other words, a vessel that is moored will not, by definition, be covered by the bill. I hope that that provides reassurance.
You ask about the type of vessel. As I mentioned, the ambiguity in the law arises from a court decision that was made south of the border. Whether a jet-ski is or is not a ship is ambiguous, because the question relates to whether one sits in a vessel but on a jet-ski. That may seem an obscure point, but in that sense there is no ambiguity about the status of a rowing boat—it is a vessel, so it is a ship in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The question whether an exemption should be applied to a person rowing a rowing boat—in other words, when the boat is under way—will be covered by the regulations. Clearly, however, a rowing boat that is not under way would not be covered, just as no other vessel at mooring would be covered.
Finally, the consultation has been conducted by the Department for Transport and I understand that it has been wide ranging. It has included the police, who would be the enforcement agency, as well as those who are involved in the industry.
Did those who were consulted in Scotland include the organisations that are involved in recreational activities on our inland waterways, such as those who use the Caledonian canal and the fishermen who fish our inland lochs? Were the various umbrella organisations consulted?
Andrew Maclaren (Scottish Executive Development Department):
My understanding is that the UK consultation encompassed Scottish organisations. For example, the Royal Yachting Association Scotland is an off-shoot of the Royal Yachting Association in the UK and has hundreds of affiliated clubs and associations. I understand that the UK-wide consultation covered all those interests.
The Royal Yachting Association is one of our standard consultees. I am sure that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is another.
That does not include anglers, however. The biggest participatory sport in this country is angling. Were anglers consulted? They are a key group. We should think about their recreational habit and the way in which—I am trying to be as kind as I can, convener—they tend to enjoy themselves as part of their sport. Will the law suddenly come into conflict with large sections of the community who have been legitimately going about their business for a long time?
I expect that when the Department for Transport consults on exemptions, it will take a commonsense approach. One aspect that it is considering is the exemption of all vessels that are not powered. That would cover most of the cases that, I suspect, were in Bruce Crawford's mind when he posed the question.
Do you have up-to-date figures on the number of accidents caused by jet-skis? Can you reassure us that the intention of the secretary of state under part 4 of the bill is to treat jet-skis as ships?
To take the second question first, yes, it is intended to extend the definition of "ship" to cover that anomalous point. On accidents, I refer to a couple of relevant incidents, one involving a high-powered motor boat and the other involving a jet-ski, both of which occurred in England in 2001. One of them involved a fatality and the other involved criminal charges being brought. Those are the most recent examples. The problem is not on the scale of drug or drink abuse by road vehicle users, but there is nonetheless a problem that needs to be addressed.
If there are no more questions, that concludes our consideration of the issue. There is no provision under standing orders for the committee to report on the Sewel motion. The aim of the discussion was to aid members' understanding of the issue when it comes before the full Parliament. I thank the minister for giving evidence today. I hope that we will be able to avoid a constitutional crisis over the legislation to control jet-skis.