| Home Page |
Column 589
Points of Order
3.32 pm
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Oh, dear. I shall take the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) first.
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the current edition of The House Magazine?
Mr. Speaker : But I do not have responsibility for that.
Mr. Holt : I know that, Sir, but you do have responsibility for your instruction on taxis at the Members' entrance. Consequently, I should like to draw your attention to an article written by Simon Heffer, in which he threatens Members of Parliament. He says that journalists are keeping a "list of offenders" of Members of Parliament who exercise their right to take precedence at the taxi rank.
Mr. Speaker : It does not seem to be a matter of great parliamentary moment.
Mr. Holt : I am sorry that you, Mr. Speaker, do not see this as important, but then you do not have to queue up for a taxi. The article says that at least one of the journalists
"is keeping a list of offenders, some of them occasionally look to the press to report uncritically their views on certain important matters. Should they be concerned about the future quality of that reporting, a little less urgency"
will be required.
There is an order at the Members' entrance in your name, Mr. Speaker, stating that Members will take precedence. In the light of the threat in that article, will you kindly look into this and let us have your views?
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. There is such a notice. I hardly think that the hon. Member needs my protection in a matter of this kind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker--that one.
Mr. Skinner : I think that you could have responded to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who referred to not being able to get a taxi, by saying that, if he hangs around a little longer, he will find that some ministerial cars are empty. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman makes inquiries of the Secretary of State for Wales and asks the Prime Minister how many more Cabinet Ministers whispered in her ear last September, "Give it a few months--I shall be leaving."
Mr. Speaker : There are many things that I might have said to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). The House knows that the Services Committee has reported on this matter and that precedence is indeed given to Members who require a taxi.
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : It cannot really be further to the point of order.
Column 590
Mr. Speaker : Is it really? Very well.
Mr. Haynes : I do not know whether you are aware of the all-party cycling group. I suggest that you tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to join it, and get some of that weight off.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : May I raise a serious and genuine point of order with you, Mr. Speaker? I know that that sounds unusual. On the proper day laid down for questions to the Department of Trade and Industry, I tabled a question to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give the trends in manufacturing industry productivity over the past 12--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Was the question transferred, or disallowed?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : It was transferred. None of my questions would be disallowed--all my colleagues know that. I came to the House today in my usual innocent manner and found that my question had been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not mention interest rates, where the Exchequer always likes to get its hand--
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Surely I can finish my question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member must have heard dozens of times--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Member has, because he is in the Chamber regularly. This matter has been put to me dozens of times. I have no responsibility for the transfer of questions ; that is entirely a matter for the Goverment.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : May I continue once more, Sir? I hate to bore you, but surely you, as Mr. Speaker, are in charge of allowing Members to ask questions of Secretaries of State without them, as in some kind of Russian roulette, changing them so that no one has to answer. If a Secretary of State does not want to answer a question, he can transfer it to someone else, which means that the Member concerned will not have a chance to ask that question for another month. We must have some protection against this transfer system.
Mr. Speaker : It has ever been thus. Ministers who believe that they have no responsibility--
Mr. Skinner : The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is getting desperate. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will listen to me, not to Members across the Gangway. It has always been a fact that Ministers transfer questions if they are not within the responsibility of their
Column 591
Department. I feel sorry for the hon. Member, because this occasionally happened to me, but he must take up his complaint with the Department concerned.Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No doubt it has been reported to you that there was a bit of bother in the Chamber on Friday, because we did not reach the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill, which would have given pensions to veterans who had taken part in nuclear tests. During the filibuster on the Planning Permission (Demolition of Houses) Bill, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) failed early in his speech to declare his interests. It was only after the intervention of about five Opposition Members that the hon. Member said :
"I shall eventually come on to the part of my speech in which I declare that interest."--[ Official Report, 2 March 1990 ; Vol. 168, c. 551]
I then quoted, at column 552, "Erskine May" :
"A Member will normally declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks."
Later--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member is quite right : I was not present on Friday. However, I always look at Hansard . I see, in column 551, that this very matter was dealt with by Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that ; there is nothing more to be done about it now.
Mr. Boyes : If an hon. Member, on either side of the House, has an interest to declare, the person in the Chair must at some time determine whether or not that Member has spoken for long enough to have declared his interest. On the basis of Friday's interpretation, a Member could make a one-hour speech and declare an interest only in the 59th minute. Before his declaration, a number of points affecting the whole debate might have been made. "Normally" has to have some specific meaning.
Mr. Speaker : Order. We cannot go back on this matter. However, later this week there will be a debate on the whole matter of Members' interests. The whole House knows the rule : that if an hon. Member on either side of the House--
Mr. Skinner : That debate is about John Browne's body.
Mr. Speaker : Order. The whole House knows that, if a Member has a personal interest to declare, he should always declare it.
Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker, not a bogus one. It is very relevant, and I am sure that you will be able to give a decision on it. Last Thursday--St. David's day--we debated Welsh affairs for six hours. During that time, the Secretary of State for Wales had an opportunity to announce his impending retirement. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received from the Government any notification concerning a statement regarding--
Mr. Speaker : No. I am afraid that points of order do not come much more bogus than that.
Column 592
Orders of the Day
Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 1
Compensation in respect of certain measures taken under part III
".--(1) The provisions of this section have effect where, in compliance with a direction under section 24 of this Act or in compliance with an enforcement notice, the person to whom the direction was given or on whom the notice was served takes any measures consisting of the construction, execution, alteration, demolition or removal of a building or other works on land either within or outside a harbour area.
(2) If the value of any interest in that land to which a person is entitled is depreciated in consequence of the taking of those measures, or the person having such an interest suffers loss in consequence of them by being disturbed in his enjoyment of any of that land, he is entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or loss.
(3) If any land other than the land on which the measures are taken is injuriously affected by the taking of those measures, any person having an interest in that other land who suffers loss in consequence of its being injuriously affected is entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the loss.
(4) Any compensation to which a person is entitled under this section shall be payable to him by the person by whom the measures in question were taken.
(5) The provisions of Schedule (Provisions relating to compensation) to this Act have effect for the purposes of this section ; and subsections (1) to (4) above have effect subject to the provisions of that Schedule."-- [Mr. Portillo]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.42 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker : With this, we are to discuss Government amendment No. 10.
Mr. Portillo : This Bill is a serious measure dealing with serious matters. I think that every member, from which ever side of the House, of the Standing Committee would agree that it was considered very seriously in Committee and that Government, Official Opposition and SLD Members made their best contributions to try to improve its wording. For that, I pay tribute to all concerned.
New clause 1 is accompanied by Government amendment No. 10, which relates to the schedule that would go with the new clause. The schedule relates to compensation procedures for third parties whose land interests are affected by security measures. This matter was raised in Committee, and the Government indicated that they would introduce appropriate legislation. Both the clause and the schedule parallel existing provisions available under aviation security provisions.
Although, when the Bill was drafted, it was not envisaged that such compensation facilities would ever be needed--indeed, experience of the aviation provisions supports that view--it seems right to have a system available to ensure that no third party would ever be unduly penalised by security works. The compensation will be paid by the person who carried out the work required by a direction. It would be for him to decide how
Column 593
to finance the cost of the compensation, although, in all likelihood, it would be treated in the same way as any other security provision cost.Despite the probably infrequent use of this clause, I commend its addition to the Bill as a necessary safeguard for, and help to, those people indirectly affected by the Bill's proposals.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) in particular was worried about how disagreements on levels of compensation might be settled. The proposed schedule in amendment No. 10 is modelled on a schedule that is already available in the Aviation Security Act 1982, which provides that the values will be calculated in accordance with rules laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1961.
In the event of any disagreement, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal for settlement.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was also concerned about how the costs might be applied to certain people who were affected. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 28(2), which allows that any person given a direction requiring works that affect a third party can object to it because the measures are excessively onerous. The onerousness could come from the level of compensation being sought. The minimum objection period of 30 days could be lengthened by the Secretary of State while the issue is resolved--probably by reference to the Lands Tribunal.
I hope that the new clause, which we discussed in outline in Committee, and the accompanying schedule commend themselves to the House.
Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, South) : I thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the new clause, which, as he made clear, deals with points that we raised in Committee.
I seek clarification of one or two aspects of the new clause. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping led us to expect that, under the new clause, the harbour board would be responsible for all compensation but it now appears that the party who is subject to the notice will be liable for his own compensation. That is obviously progress, although the Opposition remain concerned about a number of matters.
We have a now elaborate system of direction and enforcement notices, set out in legislation and backed by severe penalties but, as I understand it, where no compulsory powers are attached to the operation of the directions, any third party can stifle the operation and intention of a direction or enforcement notice served by the Secretary of State. That is a cause for concern not in respect of the more mundane changes that may be required in security
arrangements--day-to-day changes, which are subject to negotiation--but in respect of urgent circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly what will happen in such urgent cases.
I also seek clarification of the effect of the notices and directions. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the circumstances in planning law under which property can become blighted. Is it possible that property will become blighted as a result of the service of directions, and what are the implications of that?
Column 594
On the broader issues, we accept and welcome the new clause, because it takes account of the serious points made in Committee.Mr. Portillo : With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps Ministers' explanations in Committee were not as clear as they might have been. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has correctly understood that the directions can apply to any party, and that it is the party to whom the directions apply who will be responsible for awarding compensation to third parties who are affected ; it could be a harbourmaster, it could be a shipping line or it could be another party.
I hope to go a long way to answering a number of the hon. Gentleman's questions by explaining that it seems likely that in many cases the works that need to be carried out will be works in the harbour area. In circumstances in which the works fall within the harbour area, the Bill settles the matter clearly because the directions within the harbour area overrule any other Act or rule of law--that is made clear in clause 34--and will apply irrespective of anything that might be in contract. If the works are in the harbour, it is clear that the direction takes precedence. The party to whom the direction has been addressed is responsible for ensuring that the works are carried out and can compensate a third party. In other words, the third party may well be within the harbour area. For example, a harbour authority may be given a direction which required it to construct a wall. That wall may impinge upon a third party--for example, a shipping line which has property within the harbour area. The direction within the harbour area would take precedence over any other Act or rule of law or contract, but the harbourmaster would arrange compensation with the third party in that case.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : My hon. Friend will be aware that we have discussed the concerns of the British Ports Federation on this point and the requirement on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the Bill to order harbour authorities to demolish or alter buildings. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the new clause has the agreement of the British Ports Federation and also meets the precise point with which the federation has been in consultation with the Department of Transport?
Mr. Portillo : I have no further information about what discussions may have continued about that since we last spoke about it. Perhaps I will receive more news during the course of the debate and I will come back to my hon. Friend about that if I do.
Mr. Field : So far as I can understand the new clause, it appears to meet the precise point that the British Ports Federation asked me to make in Committee.
Mr. Portillo : I realise that my hon. Friend made his intervention in a helpful spirit, and I hope to give him some confirmation about that.
In response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I believe that it is rather unlikely that a third party outside the harbour area would be affected. If we were considering the construction of a wall along the boundary of the harbour and the adjoining area, the rules governing party walls, which I understand are general rules to be found in planning law, would apply.
If we were considering a matter that took the harbour authority considerably outside its own terrain, the hon.
Column 595
Member for Aberdeen, South would be right to say that there was nothing in the new clause to force the third party to grant that the necessary works be carried out. On the other hand, in such an unlikely event, there is a method in the new clause to settle the compensation.To show how unlikely that event is, I should say that, during the time that the equivalent provisions have been in operation for aviation security, there have been no cases in which such compensation has had to be paid. Whereas most cases are likely to be within the harbour area, it is likely that the parties would agree among themselves on compensation. If a direction was given to the harbour authority and perhaps a corresponding direction to a shipping company and each must carry out works, I imagine that they would probably agree between themselves on appropriate compensation, although there is a fallback, in that it can be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
Mr. Doran : What about blight?
Mr. Portillo : It seems most unlikely that blight will arise. The probability is that the works would be within the harbour area. I cannot see blight occuring within a harbour area, and that would not be blight in any commonly accepted way. I find it hard to imagine, except perhaps through the building of a wall along a boundary, what works would go far outside the harbour area. That is why the question of blighting does not arise. If, on reflection the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South believes that there is a point to pursue on that, perhaps he can take it up with me in correspondence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 2
Responsibility of owners, charterers and managers
.--(1) Any direction under section 21 or 24 of this Act shall be given first to the owner, charterer or manager of a ship in respect of which such a direction may be given.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under section 21 or 24 of this Act to the master of a ship only after the Secretary of State's best endeavours have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager with a similar direction in respect of that ship.'.-- [Ms. Ruddock.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following : Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
Amendment No. 11, in clause 29, page 32, line 7, after Act)', insert,
provided that the best endeavours of the Secretary of State have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager of a ship with the direction to which such an enforcement notice relates, '.
Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and Government amendment No. 15.
Ms. Ruddock : The new clause follows on from the debate in Committee, in which we sought unsuccessfully to remove "master" from clause 17 and to insert "master" in subsequent clauses. Our purpose, then as now, was to recognise the reality of the world in which shipmasters operate.
Column 596
In the Bill as originally drafted, the Government had implicitly recognised the difference between masters and the other three categories of persons, namely, the owners, charterers and managers, to whom directions might be given or from whom information might be sought. A distinction was made between foreign and British-owned ships. It was clear to us, and the Minister admitted in Committee, that the master of a foreign ship was being drawn into the provisions of the Bill simply because he was thought to be more accessible than the owners, charterers or managers. Opposition Members argued then and we still maintain that the onerous responsibilities and penalties that are imposed by the Bill should fall on those who have the resources and authority to comply.Our new clause is an attempt to recognise those realities while accepting the Minister's intransigence. In new clause 2, we propose that when a direction is given, it is
"given first to the owners, charterer or manager".
In a consequential amendment, No. 11, we provide for an enforcement notice to be served on a master only when
"the best endeavours of the Secretary of State have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager".
The National Union of Maritime, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers complained bitterly that misconceptions about the power and authority of a shipmaster abound and that the law is being framed as though a master has complete control of his ship and can call on unlimited financial, technical and human resources. The union feels strongly that the Bill would place responsibilities on masters that legislators would not dream of placing on captains of aircraft. A recent article on masters by Michael Gray in Lloyd's List states :
"Rich in responsibility but poverty stricken in authority would seem to sum up the wretched modern master and his miserable life afloat. in port after port come the legions of those earnestly requesting the master's signature to sign his life away, to commit himself to all manner of circumstances over which he cannot possibly have any control whatsoever. He is required to take responsibility for matters well beyond his actual minimal authority. And no matter how energetically he notes protest, how carefully he seeks to absolve himself from the consequences of his actions, it is his signature that is on the document, it is he who is ultimately liable." According to the article, at a recent conference, Captain Colin Evans, the secretary general of the International Federation of Shipmasters' Associations, said that he believed that
"the burden on shipmasters had increased beyond the bounds of reason.
He saw a combination of factors conspiring against the master's peace of mind--tight manning, the multi-cultural crew, ever increasing pressure to sail, to stand on, to arrive in time. The master, said Captain Evans, was just not given the resources or the authority to enable him to do his job properly."
It is in recognition of the facts as presented to us by NUMAST that we move new clause 2. Without that clause, Government amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be justified.
Briefly, the amendments would ensure that the same duties are imposed on masters of British ships as are imposed on masters of foreign ships. That is a retrograde step, because the real responsibility, whether they are British ships or foreign ships, lies with the owners, charterers and managers. We seek to place responsibilities on masters of British ships. It was previously acknowledged that the inclusion of "masters of foreign ships" was
| Next Section
| Home Page |