| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may assist my noble friend if I intervene at this stage. I believe that the fines to which he refers relate to deliberate rather than accidental discharge, although the two may come together. The provision is designed primarily to address circumstances in which people make a deliberate decision to discharge oil. There is a compensation regime in place to take account of oil that is discharged by accident. I hope that that helps my noble friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. However, as I read Clause 7(1), if oil is accidentally discharged and does damage that is greater than the worth of the figure prescribed in the Bill, it will not be possible to impose a fine on those responsible for the discharge above that figure. Will my noble friend consider whether there is any need for a
limit to be imposed in the Bill when it could simply provide that there was a liability for whatever damage was shown to be effected?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps it is more appropriate for me to pick up that point in my concluding remarks. I understand that the fines relate specifically to the magistrates' court, but if a case goes to the Crown Court there is no limit to the fine.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, contrary to all traditions of the House, perhaps I may try to assist at this stage. One is considering fines, not compensation. There is no simple limit to compensation. Compensation may run to millions of pounds. Nothing about the size of the fine will affect the amount of compensation. The fine goes to Her Majesty but the compensation goes to the people who are injured.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, who knows more about this subject than anyone else in the House. I am considerably relieved to hear that if more than £250,000 worth of damage is done, that higher amount can be recovered from those responsible for it. In that case there seems to be even less point in imposing a limit on the other aspect. I hope that that will be carefully looked at again.
Clause 16 makes very proper arrangements for the provision of discharge books to British seamen employed on foreign ships. That is an extremely helpful proposal and can mean a great deal to individual seamen. Unfortunately, foreign ships now carry a good deal of our trade. Sadly, many of them have a large number of British subjects serving in them as seamen. If that is so, it is right that they should be entitled to discharge books when they leave that employment.
Finally, Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State power to require that the insurance of ships covers, inter alia, any damage that they do. That seems to me to be of the greatest importance. If it means that ships using certain waters must be insured for damage that they do up to any amount, that is extremely reassuring. But on my reading of the Bill I am not sure that that is the fact. When my noble friend comes to wind up I should be very grateful if he would confirm that.
Meanwhile, it is a very great pleasure to see a Bill of this kind tabled in this House. It is also good to see that the Opposition support the Bill, as the Opposition spokesman made clear in his excellent speech. The best we can do is to make such suggestions as we can, as I have ventured to do, for minor improvements but, on the other hand, to speed the passage of the Bill into law, because the sooner it is law the better.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have welcomed the Bill, which seeks to give legal effect to a further raft of recommendations in the excellent report of the noble and learned Lord, who sits behind me, and his consorts. I am not quite so happy about the funding arrangements in Clause 12, but I will return to those later.
Speaking generally, all of us are appalled by maritime disasters such as those involving tankers that have affected our coast recently. All of us have good reason to be highly concerned about this matter. None of us can fail to be moved by pictures of oil-covered seabirds dying and all the rest of it. However, I am delighted that the Government have sought to go down the road of careful consideration of the implications of those incidents rather than legislate on the hoof, as was the case in America following the "Exxon Valdez" incident where the Oil Pollution Act 1990 turned out to be a real disaster. I welcome the measured response of the Government in reaction to these disasters.
It is inevitable and understandable that those most affected by the disasters who live in the locality should be the loudest protesters, but it must not be forgotten that we are an island race and we live by trade. Ships are vitally important to us. I cannot help feeling that the same people who are so quick to protest would also be the first to complain if they got into their motorcars to fill up at the local petrol station and found that none was available. These matters must be kept in context.
Referring to pollution and oil pollution in particular, one tends to forget that in global terms a very large percentage arises from natural sources. I believe that the figure is approximately 70 per cent. That is also something of which we should not lose sight.
As I have said, we are an island race and we trade by the sea. I am as concerned as other noble Lords who have voiced fears over the decline of the Merchant Navy. For years we led the world, and I believe that we did a very good job. Inevitably, matters decline after a certain time. The shipping industry is by nature cyclical. Therefore, I think one must accept in some part the decline that has taken place. My hope is that we have now reached a point where we can build upon what is left. Far from the merchant fleet being a poor measly skeleton that is about to disappear--as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested--at present it is extremely efficient. Indeed, in some ways we lead the world. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, is not in his place today. When I spoke to him last night he said that he hoped to be here. The recent tie-up that he has engineered between his own P&O container company and that of Nedlloyd, the Dutch container company, astounded the rest of the container shipping world and is a pointer to the way ahead; they have taken the lead. Therefore, I believe that our shipping industry is far from dead.
The measures that we are taking to deal with the oil disasters are proceeding slowly and, by and large, effectively. Obviously, we cannot get it right straight away; it will take time. I understand that there is widespread concern that the existing arrangements for compensation through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund are not working as well as had been hoped. I know that many of the fishermen at Milford Haven feel dissatisfied that they are not being adequately compensated. There is a general feeling that the fund in its dealings is not being as just as insurers generally are.
Before turning to the Bill, I must declare an interest in that I am a director of a company which carries out a certain amount of consultancy work in European marketing for Associated British Ports. Speaking on behalf of British ports, perhaps I may touch certain aspects of the Bill. I know that, generally, the proposals are welcome and that the Government have listened to what the ports have said during the consultation process. The proposals in Clause 1, dealing with temporary exclusion zones, are most welcome and go some way towards offsetting a weakness in the existing arrangements in the areas outside port limits. However, the ports believe that where temporary exclusion zones are set up within the harbour areas they should be made by the harbour master, using his existing powers of direction. I believe that the coastguard is strongly in support of that point of view.
As regards waste reception facilities, I know that ports welcome the Government's acceptance of a flexible voluntary approach in preference to a mandatory system. I know that there are moves elsewhere in the Community to make the discharge of waste mandatory in ports and therefore that means mandatory reception facilities. If we are to come to that in due course, I seek an assurance from the Government that the principle of mandatory discharge of waste will only be pursued in such a manner that port authorities do not require to take over liabilities which properly rest between the shipowner and the waste reception industry. I realise that that route would require close consultation between the Departments of Transport and the Environment, which are not noted for getting on too well with each other.
Clause 6 deals with indemnities in connection with counter-pollution measures and that is important as regards ports. One of its main uses might be to indemnify a port authority where, by reason of circumstance, it is appropriate for a harbour master to use his resources to deal with an incident which is technically outside the harbour limits. The proposal is a welcome step forward.
As regards Clause 20, there is an element of disappointment that the Government have not taken the opportunity in the Bill to address the problem which exists for harbour authorities when the owners and insurers of a vessel simply abandon it as a wreck. I understand that the Government intend to address that problem and will be consulting. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, not necessarily tonight but later.
I turn to the concerns regarding Clause 12 and funding. When the Bill was published it came as something of a bombshell to the general lighthouse authorities. I refer to Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commission for Irish Lights. Again, I must declare an interest as a younger brother of Trinity House, albeit a non-pecuniary interest.
The general lighthouse authorities were not consulted in the initial consultation process in February which dealt with charges for maritime services. It was consulted when the draft Bill was published in June. Indeed, some of its recommendations have brought forth Clauses 17 and 18, which are very welcome. However,
there was no mention of funding in the draft Bill. The General Lighthouse Authorities were not consulted on the funding aspect until it saw what the Bill contained.As we have heard, Clause 12 provides enabling powers for extending the scope for charging for maritime services. They also empower the Secretary of State to terminate the General Lighthouse Fund and to amend, modify or repeal provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 relating to general light dues or general lighthouse authorities if, in the view of the Secretary of State, the levying of general light dues becomes incompatible with the UK's obligations under Community law or international agreement. The Minister has referred to that and has struck a slightly apologetic note for the fact that the consultation process was not quite as it should have been. I accept that and hope that he will comment further on it at the end of the debate.
I understand that as regards international agreement discussions have been taking place in Europe with the idea of persuading other European countries to follow our system of light dues, which we believe is the best and the fairest. Shipowners pay in proportion to their use, no cost is imposed on government and the system works very well. Therefore, it is right that the Government should seek to persuade the rest of Europe to follow our example. I also understand that those discussions still have a long way to go and that certain countries do not like the idea. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that that can be used as a reason for inserting a provision into the Bill at the last moment without consulting with those who are most directly affected. Of course, one must not forget that the General Lighthouse Fund is shipowners' money. It also includes Trinity House pensions--I shall only touch on that because it is a complex subject--and the Secretary of State is, in effect, trustee of those moneys.
I believe that those are proper concerns and I hope that in winding up the Minister will be able to give us a little more confidence that the funds will not be used for other purposes. We have already heard calls from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson that the money should be ring-fenced. I believe that we must ensure that the money must not be used for other purposes.
Perhaps I may make a general comment touching on training and seafarers, mentioned by two noble Lords. I believe that the training of personnel is fundamental to increasing safety at sea. During the course of visits to the Missions to Seamen and other organisations, I have seen many ships. There is no doubt that conditions on some ships are appalling and I do not know how the crews manage to survive. On the other hand--and this is part and parcel of the great changes that have taken place in shipping--modern container ships carrying 6,000-plus containers are run by 14 people. That may be very efficient in economic terms but it is a far cry from the days when a 10,000 tonne cargo ship had a crew of 60 or 70 people. There was a community on board, a community of spirit. You could find people to talk to. On some of these modern ships, you are very
lucky if you can find anyone at all to talk to. That does not make for good conditions at sea. It is a very lonely life today compared with what it used to be; added to which, ships do not stop in port for weeks on end where the crew can go and enjoy themselves in the fleshpots. Modern ships are in and out of port in a matter of hours.Therefore, we must not forget the enormous changes which have taken place in shipping. They are not always for the better. One looks towards the human element involved in running those ships. I make that a passing comment to wind up my remarks. But I welcome the Bill and I know that we shall have further deliberations on it, to which I look forward.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very proud to follow my noble friend Lord Greenway, who speaks with such great authority on matters maritime. Like my noble friend, I must decare an interest and, indeed, it is the same interest because we share membership of the Brotherhood of Trinity House.
Your Lordships may remember an occasion when Winston Churchill, wearing a strange uniform, was seen by a French military attache. On being asked what it was, he said that it was that of the Le frere aine de la Trinite. Although I do not appear in that garb, it is in that capacity that I have to declare an interest. But my objections to the provisions to which my noble friend drew attention in Schedule 2 are based not in any way on membership of that lighthouse authority but on the fact that they are grossly offensive on constitutional grounds.
I share in the general approbation and admiration expressed for my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson and his masterly report. I certainly share the general approval of the main provisions of the Bill. That being so, it makes it more extraordinary that there are these provisions in Schedule 2.
Your Lordships may remember a story, almost certainly apocryphal, but widely believed, which goes back to the days when a divorce could be obtained only by an Act of Parliament. That was before the Family Law Act of last Session, whereby a spouse can be repudiated without cause on the giving of 18 months' notice. But before that it required a parliamentary provision.
The story goes that a town clerk, having tired of his wife, was promoting a local Private Bill and slipped into the schedule a provision divorcing his wife. I thought of that immediately when I saw this admirable Bill which has tucked into the schedule a piece of gross bureaucratic aggrandisement.
What does it do? In the first place, it is a Henry VIII clause. It gives the Secretary of State power, by delegated legislation, to amend primary legislation. But it is a particularly virulent Henry VIII clause which calls to mind the unpleasant old age of that monarch. Not only does it give power to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument but it does more, as my noble friend pointed out. It gives power to transfer and to wind up the General Lighthouse Fund which, as my noble friend
said, is the shipowners' money, and convey it to the Consolidated Fund. And it does that, as I said, without recourse to primary legislation.But it does even more. It gives future powers dependent on the view of the Secretary of State that the law requires to be brought into line with some as yet unknown, undefined European provision or provision of public international law.
As my noble friend pointed out, those provisions have not been discussed at all with the lighthouse authorities. The Secretary of State is not necessarily the last word in legal wisdom. There have been all too many cases in the past few years when the Government have been reversed not only in the municipal courts but in the European and international courts. Why then should we vouchsafe to the Secretary of State power to alter the law to transfer other people's funds on the happening of some unspecified future event?
Of course, that provision being a Henry VIII clause, it will go before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. But I beg the noble Viscount not to try to brazen out the case before that committee, but with graciousness to withdraw those objectionable provisions which have no real relevance to the Bill.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for the way in which he introduced this important piece of legislation. It brings back many memories. It seems that I was working on this only yesterday, but it was some years ago. I am glad that the Government have found time to introduce this Bill. It is worthy of a speedy passage through both Houses of Parliament because there has been a great deal of consultation on much of the Bill and that consultation has been taken into account.
However--and this has not yet been said--we must not lull ourselves into a false sense of security and think that, because we have this Bill, all accidents will stop and that the Government can do everything. Shipping is not that type of industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, much of the pollution which comes from the sea arises through natural causes. But moreover, there is a huge responsibility on the flag states and the IMO because shipping is such an international business. The more we tighten the screw at this end, and quite legitimately, the more it will mean that certain ships and certain owners will move from this country and go overseas. Because we have tighter controls in this country, some will be tempted to take their cargoes to the Continent where they will not be subject to such strict port state control--at least, they hope not. They will then break bulk and bring their goods over here in smaller vessels. That will probably not do our merchant fleet or our ports any good.
However, we are right to commend the Government on not moving from the point that they have strongly upheld; namely, that there should be the right of innocent passage and the right of transit. I remember that after the "Braer" incident there was an immediate outcry from all quarters that we should automatically close the international right that we had entered into for
an innocent right of passage. I am glad that the Government did not give way to that outcry then and I am equally glad that they have not done so now.It was as a result of the "Braer" incident that my right honourable friend John MacGregor asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to look into the whole issue of safety at sea around our coasts. I, too, should like to thank the noble and learned Lord and his team for the very hard work that they undertook and accomplished so quickly and effectively. From my experience, many such reports which have been prepared at the request of Secretaries of State--and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be aware of this--have gathered dust on shelves without having been implemented or even read. But this report has been most widely and, indeed, internationally read. I hope that it will become a benchmark for other countries as well as our own.
I should like to take up one point which arose in the preamble of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am sorry that his preamble took so long and he was unable to get to the Bill, or indeed most of it. The point that I should like to raise refers to the reduction in the number of seafarers. Of course shipping has changed and the number of seafarers in ships has reduced, but my concern is for the future. As the noble and learned Lord points out in his report, port state control is probably our most effective barrier. The reason that we administer port state control so well in this country is that the majority of our inspectors have been at sea, have lived in the conditions which exist on boats and can, therefore, argue with the captain from their experience. I hope that we shall continue to produce inspectors of that calibre, not just inspectors who know it from the book and from diagrams but who have not actually worked at sea, survived the storms and learnt from experience what ships can take. That is my main concern in regard to seafarers.
I turn now to the Bill. I should like to mention a few points just briefly. Most of what I had intended to say has already been covered, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, so I shall not repeat those points. As regards Clause 7, I very much took the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. It is all very well having a large fine, but how are we to get the magistrates to impose it if they will not impose a smaller fine effectively? Does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department intend to issue a circular to magistrates asking them to take particular note of the provision in that clause?
Clause 15 deals with insurance. It brings me back to an earlier point that I made; namely, that where we tighten the screw in this country there is likely to be an effect on shipping and shipowners. Can my noble friend the Minister please tell me what is happening in Europe with regard to insurance? Are they going to insist on the same rigorous standards as we do, especially as regards the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, concerning the need to have effective insurance and the money to substantiate the claim? Alternatively, are we going ahead of the pack? Finally, what are the other states doing in that respect?
I turn now to the controversial issue regarding Clause 12 and Schedule 2 to the Bill. It does not surprise me that I find myself on the opposite side of the fence to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I thoroughly support both the clause and the schedule. I understand the concerns about enabling powers, but I believe that it is quite right that the polluter and the user should pay. The maritime industry, like any other industry, should indeed bear the full cost of what it incurs. At present, we cannot claim back some of the costs that we use for port state control and the inspection of ships. That has always seemed to me to be rather ludicrous. It seems to me to be even more ludicrous now as a result of the report of the noble and learned Lord. I am glad that the opportunity has been taken to include in the Bill provision whereby that could be increased. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page