Hansard

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.