| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I do not believe that today the report can be questioned because it is not yet complete. Is it not a fact that for a number of years the south and south-east coast of England, the northern coast of Scotland, the Shetland Islands and now the South Wales coast have endured massive oil spills as a result of accidents that have done enormous damage to those areas and the seas bounding them? Further, is it not a fact that when investigated most of these so-called accidents are proved to have resulted from neglect of those in command of vessels having entered areas that perhaps they should not have entered? Irrespective of the date when the report is completed, can the Minister guarantee that where such negligence takes place the full cost of any remedial treatment is borne by the culprits involved?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly believe that often human factors are to blame for serious accidents that have occurred. We will take the final recommendations of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch very seriously indeed. But it is worth noting that the whole area of maritime safety has moved forward considerably since the publication of the report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and that the vast majority of those recommendations have been accepted by the Government.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is my understanding that the inquiry has recommended that all in bound vessels under pilotage for Milford Haven shall take a preferred route. Can the Minister inform the House whether or not that recommendation has been agreed with the Milford Haven pilots who, after all, have immense knowledge of local tidal conditions in the entrance to the Haven?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly the pilotage issues are of considerable consequence. An interim recommendation relating to pilotage was made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and addressed to Milford Haven Port Authority on 20th September. The port authority issued a press notice which stated that it would initiate discussions with pilots and shipowners about the proposed change to the approach arrangements.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, am I correct to conclude from the Minster's answer that the recommendation has not been agreed with Milford Haven pilots?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord should conclude exactly what I have said. This is a complex recommendation contained in a detailed document issued by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. It is not a simple matter. We welcome additional information provided by the pilots themselves and consultation with them. It is important that we get the matter right in the first instance, and that is what is being attempted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister continue to set his face against reconvening the Donaldson Committee to consider the wider implications following the "Sea Empress" incident than would be within the remit of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch? Is he aware that the noble and learned Lord accedes to the suggestion that I have just made and believes that it is desirable so that the issue can be looked at in a much broader way than is currently happening?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have discussed this in detail before. The position has not changed since then. It is only a short time since the noble and learned Lord completed his inquiry and published his report. The Government have accepted some 91 out of 103 recommendations. That report has received widespread international agreement. The Government have said that they will look very carefully at the final recommendations of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and the recommendations of the report of the noble and learned Lord and consider whether further examination is justified.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that when such incidents occur either minor or massive spoilation of the coastline occurs, very often the local authorities and people of the area face the job of carrying out remedial treatment. Is there any criterion by which the Government can provide help quickly with the very heavy cost that falls on local authorities or the people in the area as a result of an incident for which they are not remotely to blame?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the marine pollution control unit of the Coastguard Agency maintains stockpiles of equipment to deal quickly with oil spillages at sea. Indeed, there are contracts under way with a company to provide airborne spray of dispersants into the sea. In addition, there is an agreed international compensation scheme, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, under which clean-up costs can be reclaimed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am referring to the possibility of resources being made available to remedy damage to activities such as fishing and other matters on which the people in the area rely for their livelihoods. Is there any medium by which the Government can provide aid immediately to the area,
not just to get rid of the oil--that is a separate job--but to reconstitute industries that have been severely damaged?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. Under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund fishery claims can be, and indeed have been, made. It is for fishermen to put forward and justify their claims and the fund then processes them. At the moment it is paying out claims at the level of 75 per cent.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, have the Government reached a view as to whether double-skinned tankers would be significantly safer and reduce the level of spillage, offset against the higher cost involved in converting tanker fleets?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is one of the issues that is being examined by the MAIB inquiry. However, double hulls were looked at by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He concluded that they were not necessarily a panacea and had considerable disadvantages in terms of gas collecting between the hulls, increased risk of corrosion and difficulty of inspection. There are advantages and disadvantages, but the issue is being considered.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of United Kingdom Pilots (Marine). Bearing in mind a Question raised by one of my noble friends a short time ago, can the Minister give an assurance that pilots will be consulted before the carrying out of any tests such as those recommended by the MAIB concerning the use of a large number of tankers to prove the practicability of making an approach to the west channel entrance from the sea along the line of the 022 outer leads? In future will there be clear consultation with the pilots? Pilots came to the conclusion that the ideas advanced then were impracticable and unsafe. With respect, to fail to consult the pilots seems to me to be a serious omission.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not at all sure about the accusation that the noble Lord makes. In answer to a question from one of his noble friends I believe I said that the port authority had already confirmed that there would be consultation with pilots on the interim recommendation.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that local people are deserving of great credit for the way that they cleared up the pollution on the Pembrokeshire coast following the "Sea Empress" disaster?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. There was a massive operation in which some 600 people were involved in the clean up. That was incredibly successful. One has only to visit those beaches now to see how clean they are. I believe that the receipt of a blue flag award is a major achievement in the
personal endeavour of the people of that area to bring those beaches back to the condition in which they were before the incident.Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Bill
3.30 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In moving the Motion perhaps I may take the opportunity to draw your Lordships' attention to the guidance on the speakers list that speeches in both debates should be limited to 14 minutes.
Moved, that the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl Russell set down for this day shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Dahrendorf to two-and-a-half hours.--(Viscount Cranborne)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties
3.31 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Motion relates, as your Lordships have already discovered, to financial assistance for opposition parties and seeks to establish in your Lordships' House a scheme similar to that which another place has enjoyed for some 20 years under the name of Short money, so-called because it was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. Your Lordships will already have spotted that we specialise in illogicalities in this House.
It has been the practice for the opposition parties to make some contribution from their Short money to their colleagues in this House, but I believe that the time is now right to provide noble Lords opposite with some support, as of right, which does not depend on the generosity of their colleagues in another place.
In formulating the proposals, I should like to pay tribute to the advice and assistance which has been given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in what I believe has been a happy co-operation in this matter. I should like to place on record my gratitude to him for that.
Paragraph (1) of the Motion establishes the principle of making financial support available to the opposition parties in carrying out their parliamentary business. Paragraph (2) specifies the maximum amounts that the parties may claim. What the Government propose is that in a full year the Official Opposition should be able to claim up to £100,000 and the second largest opposition party up to £30,000. Those amounts are to be uprated on 1st April each year by reference to the increase in the RPI. The commencement of the scheme is to be back-dated to 1st October this year. Accordingly, the Motion provides for half a full year's money for the six months from October this year to March next year, and for the full rate to apply with the appropriate RPI enhancement from the start of the next financial year.
Paragraph (3) imports into the scheme the tried and tested safeguards which are to be found in the Short money scheme itself. Any party claiming assistance will have to tell the Accounting Officer--that is to say, the Clerk of the Parliaments--on what it has spent the money and certify that the expenses have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's parliamentary business. It will also have to have its accounts audited each year.
I should emphasise that payments will be made to parties not to individuals. It is not the purpose of this scheme to introduce by the back-door any system of payments for Front Bench spokesmen on the grounds that while the House is composed as it is, the central part of the character of your Lordships' House is that of an amateur assembly.
Paragraphs (4) and (5) make the necessary provision for a year in which a general election takes place. Paragraph (6) defines a number of expressions used in the Motion. I should like to make it clear that the establishment of this scheme will make no difference to the existing Short money scheme. If the parties which are eligible to claim Short money choose to allocate or to continue to allocate a proportion of it to their colleagues in this House, they are of course entirely free to do so. That is, as has always been the case, a matter for them. It is certainly not a matter for the Government.
The essential requirement is that any money claimed under the scheme, or under the Short money scheme, must be spent on carrying out the parties' parliamentary business. I should not wish to pretend to your Lordships that the figures contained in the Motion are the result of any precise mathematical calculations, particularly after this afternoon's performance of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. Unlike the calculation of Greenwich Mean Time, they are round figures. Modest though they are, I believe that the sums are large enough to meet the costs of a small research staff to support the work of the Front Benches opposite. I believe also, and hope that the House will
agree, that we have struck a fair balance between the claims of the Official Opposition and those of the second largest opposition party.I have to say, if noble Lords opposite do not find this remark too patronising--it is not proffered in that spirit--that I move the Motion with a degree of trepidation, because those of us on this side of the House fear greatly what will be the effect on the effectiveness of both opposition parties, which we feel to be quite effective enough as they are.
I invite your Lordships to support the measure, because it will assist in ensuring an even more efficient and well-informed opposition, and that is in the interests of your Lordships' House. It will enhance the value of our deliberations, and will, I hope, enable this House to make an even greater contribution to our parliamentary system.
Moved, That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of this Resolution should have effect in relation to the giving of financial assistance to opposition parties in this House:
(1) Financial assistance shall be available to assist the Opposition and the second largest opposition party in carrying out their Parliamentary business.
(2) The maximum amounts of financial assistance which may be given to the Opposition and to the second largest opposition party respectively shall be--
- (a) for the period beginning with 1st October 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997, £50,000 and £15,000;
(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1997, £100,000 and £30,000, but increased in each case by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and
(c) for each subsequent year, the maximum amount for the previous year but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound.
- (a) furnish that Officer with a statement of the facts on which the claim is based;
(b) certify to that Officer that the expenses in respect of which the assistance is claimed have been incurred exclusively in relation to the party's Parliamentary business; and
(c) as soon as practicable after each 31st March following the passing of this Resolution, furnish that Officer with the certificate of an independent professional auditor to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party claimed financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.
- (a) the period ending immediately before the date of the Election and the period beginning with that date shall be treated as separate periods;
(b) the maximum amount which may be given to each party for each of those periods shall be a proportionate part (rounded to the nearest pound) of the maximum amount for the year in question; and
(c) in relation to the first such period, paragraph (3)(c) above shall have effect as if a reference to the last day of the period were substituted for the reference to 31st March.
- (a) "the Opposition" means the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons;
(b) "the second largest opposition party" means the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government (other than the Opposition) with the greatest number of Members of this House amongst its members;
(c) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index); and
(d) "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.--(Viscount Cranborne.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |