| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. He is giving a very positive response to the debate and I am sure the whole House appreciates it. With regard to the question of insurance, which is a very basic issue, does he propose, in the light of this debate and prior to the Committee stage, to enter into further consultations with experts on this issue? I feel that it is tremendously important.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, experts via your Lordships' House, and indeed Members of this House are experts on this matter as well, have given opinions. But we would welcome receiving other opinions. I am sure that this is something that will be discussed
in considerable detail at Committee stage, which I understand is to take place using the Moses Room procedure. The Government are very grateful to the House that that has been proposed. Nonetheless, we shall certainly be open to consideration of that matter.The level of fines was discussed by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As has been widely acknowledged, it is not appropriate for the Government to tell magistrates the level of fines that they should impose, beyond setting the maximum. It is for the courts to determine the appropriate penalty for each individual pollution offence, having considered all the relevant information. My noble friends recognised that point.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Caithness who asked whether we would promulgate information on the subject. We shall provide information on the aims of government policy on marine pollution. We shall write to the Magistrates' Association to explain why we have decided that increases in the maximum fines are needed. The proposed increases have already been drawn to the attention of the working group on the enforcement of financial penalties.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, described the work of the National Trust and its responsibilities, voicing his concerns at maritime pollution. He spoke briefly on the "Sea Empress" incident. Those issues have been considerably rehearsed but there are some important points that I should like to take up, not at this point but perhaps at a later stage of the Bill or in another forum, where we can talk at greater length about the specific "Sea Empress" issue.
The substantial clean-up work following the "Sea Empress" incident has been completed. However, recent storms resulted in some oil reflecting dramatic and unexpected movements of sand on beaches. Oil has been uncovered and recovered. It came ashore at Tenby and was cleaned up as it did so. There are now four people in a single hit squad and three engaged on beach walking. At the peak of activity, around 220 people were engaged in clean-up operations, though the total number involved was very much higher than that. While it is considered that the clean-up operations have gone well, their effectiveness will be considered by the committee established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to see what are the environmental implications of the incident.
Comment was made by a number of noble Lords on compensation. We should recognise the valuable work done by the P & I Club and the IOPC Fund in reacting as quickly and efficiently as they could. However, I recognise that there are anxieties in relation to the level of compensation and the agreement or otherwise of some claims. The position is that £5 million has been paid to date in compensation, mainly to fishermen. It is too early to assess the total financial effect of the incident. The 75 per cent. limit on compensation payments remains but we hope it will be lifted at the next meeting of the international fund's executive committee. However, that is a matter for the members of the committee. In the meantime, arrangements for the payment of additional moneys in cases of genuine financial hardship remain in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, commented specifically on compensation for financial losses with regard to birds and general amenity. I can advise him that the IOPC Fund provides for reasonable measures to restore the natural environment following an oil spill and the proposed HNS Convention about which we have heard will do the same. The IOPC Fund also provides compensation for the costs of bodies such as the RSPCA to clean oiled birds. We do not subscribe to the notion of punitive damages per se as applies in the USA oil pollution Act of 1990.
The noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, among others, discussed the issue of marine environmental high risk areas. Concern was expressed that the Bill contained no specific provisions regarding their establishment. We do not believe that such provisions are necessary as we consider that we already possess adequate powers to declare an area as high risk. However, any interference with or restriction of rights of innocent or transit passage would have to be submitted to and approved by the International Maritime Organization.
I turn to what has perhaps been the uniquely controversial part of the Bill; that is, the provisions with regard to charging and in particular with relation to the General Lighthouse Fund and any changes to it. On the wider point of charging, I understand the anxieties put forward by the shipping and other industries affected by the costs imposed concerning our national competitiveness. I seek to re-emphasise that our preferred approach is to react to international agreements and to take forward our charging proposals on that basis.
More specific questions were raised with regard to the General Lighthouse Fund itself. I listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, had to say on the subject. Ministers before me have quaked in their boots upon hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on the subject of Henry VIII clauses. I hope the House will tolerate my speaking in some detail on the thinking behind these provisions, though I feel sure that even with the no doubt eminently satisfactory explanation that I shall attempt to provide there will be further questions which I hope we will be able to address further at a later stage.
The Bill contains a proposal in Schedule 2, paragraphs 3 and 12, which provides for contingent powers to amend light dues and the consequent operation of the General Lighthouse Fund. Those provisions are explicitly contingent on other events, which I shall set out. They were not included in any detail in the consultation document, mainly because the relationship between the GLF and any fund established to meet the costs of a marine emergency had not been fully evaluated at that time. However, there was reference to light dues in the February 1996 consultation document. I acknowledged before and am happy to do so again that it would appear that communication was not adequately taken forward in terms of fully explaining the Government's plans and for that I apologise.
The Government believe that it would have been unwise to contemplate the creation of new arrangements for funding maritime services without also considering the potential effects on the existing GLF. Including contingent proposals for the GLF in the Bill raised some questions in regard to the Government's intentions, many of which we heard this evening. I contend that ignoring the GLF would have been an unsatisfactory approach.
The current initiative within Europe to develop a "user pays" principle in regard to the funding of maritime services carries full government support. I was urged by at least one noble Lord to reinforce our commitment to see more development within Europe towards the application of "user pays" and I can more than happily re-emphasise that at this Dispatch Box. Indeed, we raised the issue at the Council of Transport Ministers in Luxembourg at the beginning of October, arguing that a system of funding and charging ought to be developed. Such a system may require changes to the GLF so as to integrate current UK arrangements into a broader system. The nature of any European arrangements has not yet been settled but it seemed sensible to make provision for that on a contingent basis.
I offer a further assurance that nothing in the Bill changes the statutory position of the responsibilities of the three general lighthouse authorities to provide aids to navigation. Any possible change in their role is in connection with light dues and that is purely a consequential development of the contingent proposal in Schedule 2 to amend or replace light dues. I am advised that the provision at Schedule 2, paragraph 5, is narrowly drawn to deal only with the precise function of collecting light dues.
In summary, the proposals in the Bill with relation to the GLF are not based on any proposal to reorganise the three authorities as some people--though not in the course of tonight's debate--have said. Proposals deal with the possible implications for the General Lighthouse Fund and the introduction of a more broadly-based funding system for maritime services. Such a system does not yet exist but it seems sensible to make contingent provision for it. There is no provision for a funded pension scheme which would cost a considerable amount to create. Therefore, raiding the GLF, as has been put forward as being the Government's intention, would be a significant cost on the Exchequer because of the large liabilities attached to it that have to be met.
I hope that those remarks about the funding arrangements with particular regard to the GLF will have given some comfort to noble Lords who are understandably concerned about that. Nonetheless, I certainly undertake to read extremely carefully what has been said about these matters. When we come to future stages of the Bill, I am sure that they will be heavily debated.
I am well aware of the clock and that I am going on at some length this evening. I hope that the House will tolerate that. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, made a remark about the Liberian flag. It is often seen to be an
inadequate flag, but we certainly wish that many other flags achieved and maintained the same standards. It is commonly, and erroneously, said to be a very poor flag.I have trespassed considerably on the patience of the House in giving such a long response. Nonetheless, I hope that I have been able to address at least a number of the concerns that have been put forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept from us that we have not only tolerated it well, but we welcome the fact that he has dealt with the matter at length and answered many of the points raised by noble Lords, or at least given the Government's version? We do not believe that that was wrong on his part. He has done the House proud tonight.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful for those words. It is kind of the noble Lord to say so.
There are a couple of other points that I was asked. One referred to the RNLI. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the request came from the RNLI, with its full support.
I believe that this is an important Bill. The provisions have been soundly and widely welcomed this evening. There is still some detailed work to be done and we look forward to that.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
- House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |