| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Regulations 1997
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that my speech on these regulations will be even less controversial than my previous speech and certainly a lot less controversial than my answers to the fourth Question at Question Time.
It may help if I begin our discussion of the register regulations by noting that in the past similar regulations, which introduced criminal penalties, were subject to the negative resolution procedure. Such regulations are, however, now subject to the affirmative procedure. The change was made to ensure that your Lordships' House could give appropriate consideration whenever a criminal penalty was being introduced. That reflects concerns expressed by the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers and in the House of Lords itself during the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill.
Perhaps I may give some background information about the register and its operations. The register was established in 1991 and the records detail both occupational and personal pension schemes. The registration process provides basic information on individual schemes. That enables the registrar to provide a scheme-tracing service. The registrar also collects the pension schemes levy.
The tracing service is particularly important. Many individuals with preserved pension rights tend not to focus on them until they approach retirement. Someone who has lost contact with their scheme can contact the registrar and have the scheme traced through the register database.
The Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Regulations 1990 govern the register's operation. In practice the register works well, but while
we have retained most of the existing provisions we have also taken the opportunity to simplify the registration process. We are extending the time limit allowed for schemes to report changes to the registrar from six months to 12 months. This should mean that schemes will be able to notify changes at the same time as they make their annual levy payments. That keeps the administrative burdens for both the scheme and the registrar to the minimum.The regulations also need to be amended because of changes introduced by the Pensions Act. First, we need to appoint the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) as the new registrar from April 1997 in place of the Occupational Pensions Board. Secondly, we need to amend the regulations because of the introduction of the new general and the compensation levies. The regulations also change the requirements about disclosing information from the register. At the moment, those engaged in research are allowed direct access to the register database. That has raised concerns about confidentiality, particularly in relation to the data protection legislation.
We propose that in future only the registrar's staff will have the right to inspect the register. However, we recognise that the register is the only source of information of its kind about pension schemes and it would not be right to limit the dissemination of this information where there is a legitimate reason for it to be provided. So the registrar will now be able to provide information for statistical analysis direct to any organisation or individual.
As well as offering the free tracing service for scheme members, the registrar will continue to provide information free of charge to the pensions ombudsman and to trustees about their own schemes, if requested. We also consider that the register is an important source of information for other bodies. The regulations therefore prescribe that information can be given to OPRA, the Pensions Compensation Board, insolvency practitioners and the official receiver.
At the moment a breach of the requirements to provide information to the registrar can result in a criminal sanction. A court can impose a fine up to level 3 on the standard scale, which is a fine of up to £1,000. As a result of the Pensions Act and these regulations, the maximum fine will now be level 5, which is a fine of up to £5,000.
OPRA also has the power to impose a medium-level penalty for anyone who uses information from the register for commercial purposes. This carries a maximum civil fine of £1,000 for an individual or £10,000 for a corporate body.
There are also minor changes to the items of information which are required for the register, including one completely new piece of information about the nature of benefits that a scheme provides. These regulations have been subject to extensive consultation with practitioners and others who have an interest in these matters. We have addressed their concerns and the comments received. I believe that the regulations provide an effective and sensible way forward and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) Regulations 1997
5.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994 and further enhance the safety of roll on-roll off ferries serving UK ports by implementing an international agreement negotiated last year in Stockholm.
Roll on-roll off ferries provide essential services. They account for around 50 million passenger journeys each year. Businesses and the general public rely on them and rightly expect to travel safely. The Government have long recognised their responsibility in the international community to set the framework to enable this expectation to be met. Our aim has been to seek and secure the highest practicable safety standards for these vessels.
This has been a developing process, the tragic catalyst for which was the "Herald Of Free Enterprise" disaster in March 1987. We must never forget, particularly as we approach the tenth anniversary of Zeebrugge, the 193 lives which were lost. That memory has fuelled the Government's determination over the years to secure further improvements in ferry safety where necessary. The court of inquiry into the "Herald" recommended many safety improvements, both in the short and longer term. We acted quickly to introduce measures such as the installation of closed-circuit television to monitor the car deck; indicator lights on the bridge to show that the bow doors were closed; new requirements for emergency equipment; a new code of practice for vehicle stowage, and many others.
We have also taken steps to improve enforcement of standards. Inspections of ferries have become more rigorous. All ferries serving our ports are subject not only to a thorough annual survey, but also to at least two further inspections a year. Unannounced operational checks are also carried out, whereby inspectors travel incognito, only making themselves known to the master if needing to inspect a restricted area. And further checks on the operation of ferries are now coming into play as the European Community's early implementation of the International Safety Management Code begins to bite on ro-ro ferries. We now inspect not just the ferries themselves, but also the shore-based operation and the operating company's whole system of safety management.
Many of these improvements have focused on operational and safety management aspects. But we have also been determined to address any structural issues, which might affect the likelihood of capsize in the event of a collision. While there is a low statistical chance of such an accident, we have worked over the years to try to ensure that even this small risk is reduced as far as practicable.
Shipping is, of course, an international business and its safety depends on international agreement. In the early 1990s we pressed hard in the International Maritime Organisation for agreement on a higher worldwide survivability standard. The SOLAS 90 standard was a significant improvement, but it applied only to new ships built after April 1990. Despite a vigorous campaign by the UK, other IMO members failed to agree that the SOLAS 90 standard should also be applied to older ships, for which a much lower standard, the SOLAS 92 standard, was agreed.
We found this situation unacceptable. We therefore decided to take the virtually unprecedented step of brokering an agreement with neighbouring states outside the IMO framework. In 1993 we reached agreement with 13 other European maritime administrations to apply the SOLAS 90 standard to all ro-ro ferries operating internationally to ports in north-western Europe. That agreement was implemented in UK law by the 1994 regulations which these regulations will supersede.
Ferry safety issues were subsequently and tragically brought again to the world's attention with the loss of the "Estonia" in September 1994. It is to the credit of the Secretary General of the IMO that he immediately responded to the enormity of that disaster by establishing a panel of experts to review fully and quickly all aspects of ferry safety.
In early 1995, research carried out in the UK and Denmark demonstrated that in those ships where the basic survivability was already high, additional measures, such as transverse bulkheads, could limit the destabilising effect of water entering the car deck and so further enhance the chances of survival. But the key issue was the basic robustness of the ships' design. This research significantly informed the panel of experts' recommendations which were considered at a specially convened SOLAS Diplomatic Conference in November 1995.
The UK gave strong support to the whole package of measures proposed by the panel and particularly to a new survivability standard, which required ships to meet not only the SOLAS 90 standard, but also to resist capsize with up to half a metre of water on the car deck. Given the circumstances, we were very disappointed when the Diplomatic Conference failed to adopt the new survivability standard. It could agree only on the worldwide application of the SOLAS 90 standard which the UK and other parties to the 1993 agreement had already adopted.
But the Diplomatic Conference did allow administrations to enter into regional agreements to apply a higher survivability standard if they wished. The United Kingdom Government took a leading role in the
negotiations which resulted in the Stockholm Agreement three months later. This agreement will apply a higher survivability standard, developed from the panel's original proposals using further detailed research, to all ro-ro passenger ferries operating on international journeys in north-western Europe and the Baltic Sea.The timescale for action, which is set out in Regulation 6, is a demanding one. Those existing ferries which are further from the standard must be modified sooner than those closer to it--all will have to meet it by 2002. New ferries must be built to it. The vast majority of UK ferries are already close to the new standard. Regulation 4 reflects our decision that the Stockholm standard shall apply not only to all ferries operating on international routes but also to those on UK domestic routes where conditions are comparable to international journeys. Regulation 9 requires all ships covered by the regulations to carry a certificate of compliance with the new standard.
I should also explain some of the other key regulations. Regulation 7 allows an established operator, who will therefore generally be bound by the Stockholm standard, some flexibility to provide additional services to deal with seasonal demand. The standard applying to any ferries operating such services will depend upon the prevailing sea conditions during the period of operation. Those conditions must be agreed between the Secretary of State and his counterpart in the country in which the second port is situated. A very limited exemption from the standard is also allowed under Regulation 10 to enable the Secretary of State to agree that a ferry may make a single voyage to or from a UK port. This allows a ship which would otherwise be required to meet the standard to be moved from one port to another for a particular purpose, such as for repair or for sale. Adherence to the regulations is enforced through Regulation 11, which sets out penalties for non-compliance and through Regulation 12 which provides for the detention of a non-compliant ship.
The Stockholm Agreement is a significant achievement to which we are totally committed. We were the first country to sign it--on 1st July 1996, the day it became open for signature. The important point is that now we must implement it rigorously. The Government are grateful to those other nations which have co-operated with us to enable higher standards to be applied to ferries serving our ports. We acknowledge the co-operation of the ferry industry, which we have consulted extensively throughout. Compliance with the higher standard will not be achieved without significant cost. I welcome the industry's positive attitude in recognising the need for further action. We are also grateful for the constructive role played by those representing users of ferry services, and most particularly for the supportive attitude of the Herald Families' Association, which has done so much to increase awareness of these issues since the tragic loss of that vessel, and to which I pay tribute.
The regulations before the House today implement the agreement. They will ensure that ferries serving our ports will enjoy a survivability standard significantly higher than that in force outside north-western Europe
and the Baltic. They will enhance further the already very high level of safety which we have striven to achieve. I commend the regulations to the House.Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Viscount Goschen.)
6.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister first for recounting some of the history underlying the issues which we are considering and, secondly, for properly paying tribute to the Herald Families' Association. Those families have undergone terrible trauma and have been most constructive in their attitude since that terrible event some years ago. I very much remember it because I was the transport Commissioner in Europe at the time. I shall always remember the appalling situation which afflicted so many people when I visited the walking wounded (both physically and mentally) in the hotel where they were staying outside Bruges, seeking from that tragedy a haven which they could never obtain.
Although I welcome the steps which the Minister outlined, it is sad that in so many instances one sees international regulation only by catastrophe. Both the "Herald of Free Enterprise" and the "Estonia" disasters involved substantial loss of life which triggered this response. Why cannot we deploy more effectively--not simply in the environment but in the field of transport in particular--the precautionary principle which is all too rarely invoked?
Although these are important mitigating measures, and I commend the Government on the action that they, together with other governments, have taken, the Minister spoke of the highest standards for ro-ro vessels. I do not think that we have yet achieved that. I remember vividly at the time of the "Herald" and, more recently, the "Estonia" disasters that serious doubts were expressed about the stability of ro-ro ferries. Those doubts were expressed not only by the press and by politicians, but also by naval architects experienced in these matters. Indeed, such doubts have been expressed over a long period of time. We have to take into account the fact that accidents involving ro-ro vessels occur all over the world and that literally thousands of lives have been lost because of the instability of those vessels. I do not know whether we have yet managed to achieve the right answer. Undoubtedly, these measures and other steps which have been taken have done much to help to solve the problems. But are they sufficient?
There can be no doubt that the international community responds to such problems far too slowly. Perhaps difficult economic factors stand in the way of anything like a rapid and effective response. I am not criticising the International Maritime Organisation. It is not the IMO's fault; it is the fault of member states. However, I think that the Government are entitled to be acquitted of any such blame in this regard. I say at once that I greatly admire the work of the present secretary-general of the IMO who has been outstanding.
I have had the pleasure of working with him and with his predecessor over many years and there is no doubt that he would have liked a far speedier response to these tremendous problems. However, he is inhibited by virtue of the facts to which I have just alluded. When action is demanded in the wake of disasters such as those of the "Estonia" and the "Herald", it is to the credit of the IMO that, although it would certainly prefer to have agreements brokered within the framework of the IMO, it has recognised that public opinion frequently demands much swifter action, at least on a regional basis. I applaud the fact that without doing damage to the integrity of the IMO or to its influence in international shipping councils, certain regional agreements have now been undertaken.All who participated in the consultations and deliberations leading to the Stockholm Agreement merit the highest commendation. Both sides of industry contributed. Indeed, governments and everyone concerned should be applauded, but there can be no room for complacency, especially if we are to anticipate, rather than to react to, any such disaster in the future--and I believe that there will be further shipping disasters. They will not necessarily occur in this area--one hopes not--but we need a far more proactive attitude on the part of the international shipping community.
The Minister spoke of the British Government's work within the IMO to cause others within the wider shipping community to adopt these regulations. What form does that encouragement take? What success are the Government enjoying in that exercise? Clearly, if I can treat that as something of a rhetorical question, to enjoin in every way possible the support of maritime-interested countries in the IMO and in the European Union is vital. I gather some success in this context has been forthcoming. For example, France and Spain have different problems and, as I understand it, do not want separate levels of regulation in law. To have one level applicable to northern maritime countries and another applicable to those of the Mediterranean they would regard as inappropriate. Nevertheless, I understand that they have given support to this measure. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that; if it is right, I applaud the decision they have made. In addition, I ask the Minister to say what progress is being made in the IMO to secure the wider application of this type of measure in the international shipping community.
I turn to the question of simulated exercises dealing with evacuation. I understand that the exercises carried out by the Stena Line were of great value. Of course, it is impossible to substitute with precision the real conditions that apply at sea in an emergency. Evacuation in a crisis needs constant training and upgrading of techniques so that, as best as possible, lives can be safeguarded. Perhaps the Minister can say something about such exercises and about the improvement and upgrading of techniques. Incidentally, I ask whether in his view ferry design is kept under satisfactory review and, in particular, what is happening in that regard.
The Minister mentioned the fact that some, if not most, UK ferries meet the new standards. That implies that some do not. Perhaps he can indicate the number of UK ferries that are not likely to meet the new standards.
Clearly, improving safety at sea is imperative. The regulations are thoroughly to be welcomed in that context.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page