| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have only a few words for the Minister: go on, upset the Treasury a bit; accept the advice that has been given; it makes sense. The whole thing is otiose to requirements. It may be that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer fears that he may be cut out of any consultation with his colleagues; that might be the real reason for the inclusion of the words.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are those who say that compared with solving the problems of navigation, changing the mind of the Treasury would be an extremely simple task. However, we have not heard that argument from anyone in the House today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has come back to his guns on his impressive campaign for deleting these words from all Bills, and particularly he has taken the opportunity of this Bill to wage his battle. I am advised that the need for an express requirement for Treasury consent or Treasury approval arises whenever Parliament, by placing a responsibility on a departmental Minister, might otherwise appear to reduce the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in matters of finance. Granting the Secretary of State for Transport the power to make decisions on the levying of fees and charges clearly falls into that category.
I would be more than slightly surprised if the noble and learned Lord stood up and said that I had entirely convinced him and that he would now retire from the fray a happy man. I do not suppose he will do that, but perhaps he will accept that this is not necessarily the choicest battleground on which to conduct his final campaign.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Viscount is quite right. I am not satisfied. I have heard those words before. It is not one of those vintages that improves with being laid down or with age. He did not answer my question. Does he really think that if these words were not there the fund could be transferred to the Consolidated Fund other than with the consent of the Treasury? No doubt he did not answer that question because he did not feel he had sufficient command of his features to give the answer that is implied in his brief. If so, I sympathise with him. I am sorry but I shall not stop. However, on this occasion, as we want to get on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Compulsory insurance]:
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 17, line 45, at end insert--
Insurance or security against fines or other penalties.
192B. Any insurance contract or other security which purports to indemnify a shipowner in respect of a fine or other penalty imposed by or under this Act shall be illegal and unenforceable."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to insurance indemnifying a shipowner for a fine or other penalty imposed in the Bill. We believe that there are grounds for saying that that should be illegal and unenforceable. I do not propose to go over the entire ground because as I understand it from the Minister, he is consulting with insurers about the matter. He has indicated that he is not satisfied with the position. I am grateful to him for responding to the debate which I initiated in Committee. I recognise that it is not an easy matter; it is a highly complex and international one. Fines for which shipowners are indemnified generally relate to foreign situations. It is right that discussions should also take place in international fora.
It is my understanding that under common law a plaintiff cannot maintain an action for indemnification for a fine or other punishment imposed for the commission of a crime and that probably insurance for such loss would be unenforceable or void. It is doubtful whether under English law a shipowner could recover through an action based on an indemnity which was provided under its club's liability cover if the club refused to pay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, dealt with this matter in his report. He and his colleagues cast some doubt whether the practice was in all circumstances undesirable. I do not propose to go into that at the moment. The issue of compulsory insurance is high on the IMO agenda. I wish the Minister success in being able to move that forward.
I did not intend--the Minister knows this because we had discussions the other day--to push the matter further forward at this stage beyond giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us what is happening in the IMO and what the Government are doing. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. We too should be concerned if insurance cover were available for fines imposed under the Merchant Shipping Act. However, the provision proposed is unnecessary and unworkable.
It is unnecessary because existing UK legislation already excludes from insurance cover any loss attributable to the misconduct of the shipowner. I understand that most other maritime states have equivalent legislation. As a result, we have been given assurances that all major marine insurers do not provide cover for fines arising from wilful or reckless acts or misconduct on the part of the shipowner.
The amendment is unworkable because of the international nature of the shipping and insurance industries. This means that UK legislation is not applicable to the vast majority of insurance contracts between shipowners and marine insurers. My officials are therefore pursuing this important matter at an international level, through the International Maritime Organisation. I was pleased that the noble Lord felt that that was an appropriate forum to push this issue.
As a result of proposals put forward by the UK last year, the IMO has established a correspondence group on marine insurance. One of the issues which the group is considering is what are acceptable conditions of cover. We shall strongly argue to this group that insurance should not cover fines. The specific issue of insurance cover for fines is to be discussed later this year by the relevant IMO committees, including the legal committee and the marine environment protection committee. We shall play an active role in these discussions.
I hope that this work within the IMO will help us to work towards the elimination of any practices within the insurance industry which might harm the effectiveness of enforcement action carried out by governments. In particular, I believe it is unacceptable if insurance cover reduces the deterrent effect of fines. That would run counter to our policy of taking tough measures to combat marine pollution. We shall therefore press for the elimination of any practices which could have this result.
Broadly, the noble Lord and I are of much the same mind in believing that the international forum is where this has to be solved. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue, but I hope that he can now withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that the signals he has given will be important in the discussions that take place within the IMO and other fora. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Retention of documents by Registrar General]:
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 44:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that records are available to deal with the arbitration, accident investigation and welfare needs of seafarers for the natural life of those seafarers. The figure of 85 allows for a person of 100 years of age who first went to sea at 15 years of age. The records of the seafarer would then be available in the vast majority of cases not only until he or she passed away but until any claims in respect of that person through the next of kin might be pursued. I have no doubt that the Government would not wish to abuse an open-ended clause such as that offered by Clause 21. However, without any crystal ball to hand, we feel that the individual has a right to know that his or her records will be available to him or her whenever required. Such a clause might assist the registrar general in his arduous task and reduce the amount of recording and preserving without prejudicing the individual.
The cases that have demonstrated a need for access to documents that may become important over time concern, for example, asbestosis, where it is not possible within even a normally reasonable period of time to ascertain that someone has contracted the disease. It might take 30 years. There is a social interest in these matters as well but I think that is dealt with in the next amendment.
The Minister was good enough to discuss this matter with me. I understand that he is prepared to discuss the matter further with those concerned. If that is his reply, I shall be delighted. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Clause 21 replaces the requirement for the registrar general to record and preserve all documents transmitted to him with a requirement to hold all such documents as required by the Secretary of State. The recording and preserving of all documents is an onerous task. In practice, the majority of records are infrequently accessed. This clause reduces the burden of document storage and subsequent cost to the department by allowing the Secretary of State to limit the period of storage.
I do not believe that an amendment on the face of the Bill is necessary. There would be no question of material being lost which is either of interest to historians and archivists or which can be of use or of interest regarding the career records of seamen. To allay any fears about this I am happy to give an undertaking that relevant parties, including such bodies as RMT and UMAST--those concerned with representing seafarers--would be consulted, and also those with an interest in historic archives when the criteria are drawn up for what is retained and what is destroyed or passed on to other bodies. Documents which are no longer of use to the Registrar General will be made available to the Public Record Office or other institutions, provided
Page 19, line 41, at end insert--
("(5) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen records and preserves all documents transmitted to him for a period of at least 85 years.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page