Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I hope the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that Sir Humphrey would have been proud of the statement he has just made. I
had no doubt at all that the Bill was defective and did not have the powers which are now to be put into it and which were so necessary. The Bill is now making explicit what was previously implicit. That is a remarkable achievement.Suffice it to say that I very much welcome the additional words. They will achieve what is required. It is difficult to see exactly what form the regulations will take at the moment, but they are sufficiently general and explicit to give the Minister all the powers that he will need. I thank the Minister for moving the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. He is quite right: we had a long debate yesterday on this issue and the matter was left in a fairly satisfactory position. We agreed that it would not be inappropriate for this House, at a later stage of the Bill, to ascertain by means that are available what progress has been made in the discussions with the insurance industry about making effective the assurances that the Government make.
We hope that the Minister will find through his officials that the consultations that go on will secure the objective that he has set out both yesterday and today. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is quite right. I am so used to moving amendments, but these, unusually, are his!
Viscount Goschen: We all have to have a go at moving amendments every now and again. We feel that these government amendments achieve the purpose that was identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, at Second Reading, and I am pleased to hear his welcome and acceptance of them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 73:
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 75:
The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat different point. The idea underlying Amendment No. 75 is to enable a claimant to acquire a direct right to enforce the policy or security against the insurer or the surety. The creation of rights in third parties against the insurer or surety would clearly require a careful examination of
Apart from domestic legal issues, there may be private international law issues where the security is provided by a foreign insurer or surety, and so on. In this draft amendment we are seeking to introduce an enabling provision to the Bill so that these issues can be addressed and the mischief identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, can be properly resolved.
In alluding to this issue during the Second Reading, and also in the debate yesterday, I said one has to worry a little about a situation where the benefits thought to accrue to creditors which arise directly out of the damage involved should be paid to those creditors. We should not have a situation where that money is utilised by the shipowner to be discharged to other--perhaps many--creditors who had nothing to do with the accident concerned. I am not suggesting that we have exactly the right wording, but it is important that the issue should be addressed. It is a matter which may also be included in the discussions which the Minister and his officials propose to have with the industry to discover how workable this proposal is. This is not an easy matter, but it needs to be addressed with some degree of urgency. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: The amendments under consideration would allow the regulations to make provision for direct action against the insurer. This could include a foreign insurer. Our view is that we could not introduce such a requirement unilaterally. We opposed the United States' recent Oil Pollution Act which provides for such action. The US has since experienced difficulty in securing marine pollution cover from overseas insurers.
We believe that direct action can only be achieved through international agreement, as has already been done for oil and HNS. Discussions are continuing at the Legal Committee of IMO on a possible international scheme for compulsory insurance. These discussions will all cover the possibility of direct action by third parties for claims other than for oil and HNS damage. We will strongly support such proposals.
I hope that, with an explanation of our support for this type of approach in the international forum and of our difficulties and the potential breach of international law obligations, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment, bearing in mind that we support what he is trying to achieve.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, not for the first time. This is not an easy matter, and I readily agree that it is an issue which needs to be confronted on an international scale. Perhaps the Minister could inform the Committee what action has so far been taken to address this issue at the instance of Government, at the IMO or some other organisation. It is a matter of urgency.
The Minister is right that the United States have experienced difficulties in regard to their own problems. I wonder whether the Minister could therefore indicate
Viscount Goschen: We consider the whole issue of insurance to be very important. Not only do we give it that importance within this Bill, but also in the international forum, and in particular the IMO. We have made it very clear that this is a priority. We had this agreed by the IMO Legal Committee in September as the next priority after HNS. I understand that the situation is that the United Kingdom representatives at IMO made it very clear that we consider this a high priority. The view that it is a high priority has been accepted by IMO. I hope that provides the indication the noble Lord is seeking.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It will encompass this issue?
Viscount Goschen: The discussion is primarily about compulsory insurance, but the point that the noble Lord has raised is important and we would strongly support this type of approach. I hope that that, combined with the priority that we give to the insurance as a whole, gives the noble Lord a proper explanation of the position.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that explanation and am satisfied that that is the appropriate approach. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 16, line 41, leave out ("may be") and insert ("satisfies requirements").
Page 17, line 43, at end insert--
("(7) Regulations under this section may provide that any claim for compensation for damage against the person or persons so insured or secured may be brought directly against the insurer or other person providing security and such regulations shall provide for the rights or defences or limitations of liability, or all of them, to which the insurer or other person providing security shall be entitled."").
6 p.m.
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause--
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to continue the effect of Section 202 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is expected to be repealed by Section 27(2) (Schedule 7) of this Bill, and to require the transfer of local aids to navigation to port authorities where appropriate.
Section 202 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 originated in the Ports Act 1991 and required the transfer by the general lighthouse authorities to port
From time to time new cases will arise where transfer would be appropriate, due, for example, to changes in users' navigational patterns, or changes in port authority or geographical limits. In these circumstances transfer should also be compulsory. The principle of compulsory transfer was established by the 1991 provisions. Such transfer would be consistent with the principle of user pays, since the users of individual ports should pay for all appropriate infrastructures through conservancy dues or charges. General light dues should fund only aids to general navigation. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page