| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we on this side have no dispute with the purpose and aim of these two orders. But perhaps I may clarify one or two relatively minor aspects. I understand that the orders extend relief to the International Labour Organisation and to the International Court of Justice, thereby bringing from 35 to 37 the number of international organisations to which we extend these reliefs. As the noble Baroness said, they give freedom from paying insurance premium tax and air passenger duty.
I believe that the general principle, which is one of complete common sense as well as being established, is that states do not go around seeking to benefit fiscally from international organisations which happen to be based on their soil. The principle is a large one, but I believe—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that the revenue implications of this are extremely small.
I believe that the figures of £3,000 for immunities for ILO officials and £2,000 for International Court of Justice officials have been mentioned in another place. Perhaps I may ask whether that is right and whether that money is now to be returned from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to those organisations, having been removed from them previously, or whether it relates to future revenues foregone. Secondly, do we know approximately how many personnel are covered by the orders? Does the total also include expert consultants who may be employed by those two organisations or by their representative offices in the UK?
Those are small queries. If the noble Baroness does not have the answers to hand immediately, I shall fully understand that, and perhaps she will write to me later. Those are the only queries that I have.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, these orders seem to be very much in line with standard practice, and we have no objection to them.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall try to respond to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. IPT was introduced from 1st October 1994 and APD from 1st November 1994. The tax and duty have already been collected and therefore should be refunded. The money has been allocated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for that purpose.
With regard to the amounts involved, we estimate that the figures which the noble Lord quoted are correct. The amount will be in the region of £3,000 per annum for the United Nations and £2,000 for the ILO. I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question concerning the number of personnel covered or whether consultants would be included. I shall be happy to write to him on that point.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is possible that I am confused, but the orders refer to the "United Nations" as a type of generic label. They also refer to the International Labour Organisation and the International Court of Justice, which I am not sure the noble Baroness mentioned. Are we dealing with three organisations here or simply two?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, one order with which we are dealing is the draft United Nations and International Court of Justice order. The other deals with the specialised agencies of the United Nations. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 23rd May 2002, together with an explanatory memorandum now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. It confers full diplomatic privileges and immunities on the permanent representatives, or acting permanent representatives, of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) member states and on the holders of five posts at divisional director level. Members of their families forming part of their households will enjoy the same privileges and immunities.
The draft order is the culmination of a lengthy dialogue with the IMO, which is the only specialised agency of the United Nations based in this country. It brings the United Kingdom into step with accepted practice for UN specialised agencies based elsewhere in the world and will allow senior representatives and officials at the IMO to enjoy the same status as they would enjoy if attached to UN specialised agencies in, for example, Paris, Geneva, Vienna or Rome.
The IMO is an important international body that plays an invaluable role in promoting the safety of life at sea and preventing pollution from ships. All major shipping nations are members of the IMO, and we are very pleased and honoured to have the IMO headquarters based in London. We should accord the senior representatives and officials of the IMO the status that is recognised internationally as being appropriate for them to carry out their duties effectively.
The legal basis for the order and the legislative context and existing legal position are set out in the explanatory memorandum laid before the House. The order will enable the Government to give effect to the agreement contained in an Exchange of Notes with the IMO (command paper 5473) and to accept the revised Annex XII to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, which was approved by the IMO Assembly on 22nd November 2001 (command paper 5474).
The order also consolidates and updates five previous orders made under the International Organisations Act 1968. Those orders are revoked and are listed in the schedule to the present order. I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As before, in principle we have no dispute with the perfectly sensible and straightforward proposal in the order. It does, indeed, confirm full diplomatic privileges and immunities on the personnel of the International Maritime Organisation.
The organisation is extremely valuable and we applaud the dedicated work that it does and the vast responsibilities that it carries in relation to maritime
affairs and, in particular, to aspects of pollution and safety on the high seas. Therefore, we have no wish to stand in the way of this proposal.Again, perhaps I may ask two small questions. Am I right in saying that the order covers only an additional seven officers of the International Maritime Organisation and that all the other staff of the organisation here in London already have immunity from other sources? If that is so, this is a very modest extension. Is seven the right number? Again, is there any figure for the loss of revenue involved? I should be grateful for answers to those questions, if not now, then in due course; otherwise, we have no difficulty with the order.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we, too, are obviously very happy that the International Maritime Organisation is based in London. We believe that the order is entirely appropriate and are happy to support it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I shall deal with the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The noble Lord is absolutely right. An extra seven people are involved. Five are in the IMO Secretariat at divisional director level and two are permanent representatives, or acting permanent representatives, who do not already enjoy such status from accreditation to their London diplomatic missions.
Three countries are involved: Russia, Liberia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which maintain independent missions to the IMO. The Liberia permanent representative is cross-accredited to the Liberia Embassy. Therefore, we are talking of Russia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea plus the five divisional directors.
I do not have the answer to the noble Lord's second question but I shall be happy to write to him. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002
8.49 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations before the House today implement the recommendations of the review by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, of salvage and intervention and their command and control in so far as they relate to the UK oil and gas industry. The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, which followed the grounding and subsequent salvage of the "Sea Empress" in 1996, was presented to Parliament in March 1999. The report was thorough and comprehensive. It made 26 recommendations, five of which related to offshore oil
and gas installations, and which these regulations cover. Those of the remaining recommendations which have not yet been implemented and which require legislative change will be covered in a Bill to be introduced by the Department of Transport.Specifically, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the regulatory control of offshore installations, should be given powers to intervene where there is significant pollution or the risk of it. Furthermore, those powers should be delegated to the nominated representative of the Secretary of State, or SOSREP for short. The noble and learned Lord also recommended that there should be provisions for the payment of compensation in certain circumstances. The powers for offshore installations would be similar to those which exist for shipping under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and which are exercised by the Secretary of State for Transport.
The regulations before the House today will give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the necessary intervention powers, which will be exercised by the SOSREP. They also make appropriate provision for the payment of compensation. For reasons of achieving clarity and clear communication in what could be difficult circumstances, the SOSREP for offshore installations will be the same person who exercises the power in relation to shipping. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will therefore appoint, on the day the regulations come in to force, Mr Robin Middleton as her representative. Mr Middleton is currently the SOSREP for the Department of Transport, and is based in the offices of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Southampton. He has an extensive background in salvage, enforcement, emergency planning and response.
A full consultation process was undertaken and a regulatory impact assessment prepared. Industry raised concerns over the cost of implementation, but those will not be large and are estimated at £500,000 for the industry as a whole, which equates to an average cost of less than £16,000 per operator.
Greater concern was expressed over the potential conflict between the health and safety of personnel and the protection of the environment. I make clear that health and safety will always be paramount, and industry has been assured of that. The nature of incident response is such that priority is always given to human safety over pollution control. The DTI has had detailed discussions with the Health and Safety Executive on that issue and a small amendment to the regulations was made to make the position clear. Another concern has been over the claiming of compensation. Should such a claim be made, it will be a matter for the courts to decide in accordance with the tests set out in the regulations. While the industry has asked for firm guidance, it is not possible to prejudge such an event.
I take into account the concerns of industry. However, I believe it will ultimately benefit from this legislation. The first priority after health and safety is
to safeguard the public interest in a pollution, or potential pollution, situation by bringing to bear the resources of government. The DTI has kept the industry fully informed and involved in the progress of the regulations through individual discussions, by holding a national exercise and by a workshop with the industry and other government departments.In presenting his thorough report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, who I am glad to see in his place, recognised the excellent record of the offshore industry in limiting the size and number of spills, and that the likelihood of a major incident was low. But he also recognised the need to reflect the balance of the public and national interest against commercial pressures. I do not believe that the regulations will be a burden on the offshore industry but rather, in the event they are ever activated, will facilitate the setting up of a partnership for dealing with a major oil spill, which will reduce or prevent pollution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page