| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, with the introduction of the congestion charge, the Treasury recognised the term for the first time after about 100 years of discussion, although we have not seen too much of the benefit, and I hoped that the idea was catching.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a significant point and we shall see what progress can be made. I merely indicated that there is a framework within which we can progress these discussions, but he will forgive me if I do not anticipate 100 per cent success at this stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, emphasised aspects of the relationship between traffic officers and the police. I hope that I have given him some reassurance on that point. Perhaps I may say again that, both in the context of this group of officers and others, the crucial question has arisen of what calibre of people they will be. Noble Lords are right: we shall need to train people effectively. They will not be police officers or have the enforcement powers of police officers. Nevertheless, it is important that we identify clear areas of responsibility which the traffic officers will hold. They will need to understand the parameters of their power and how they should conduct themselves.
I take fully on board all the points made in the debate. We shall need a comprehensive training programme for traffic officers; they will need full accreditation; and they will need to be checked by the Criminal Records Bureau. I am looking particularly at the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, because I believe that he emphasised those points in relation to traffic officers. I also want to assure him that there will be a full complaints procedure should any officer transgress the boundaries of his power when dealing with a member of the public who will have the right to contest the position.
A number of noble Lords raised questions about the regulations. They asked about the timescale and how we are to obtain sight of the regulations. We shall do our best to make progress on them. However, it will be recognised that those which relate, in particular, to local authorities will be the subject of considerable consultation. I cannot promise that the regulations will be fully drafted in time for the Committee stage of the Bill or even for the Report stage in the way that noble Lords would wish. However, we have clarified some matters today and, as we move through the Committee stage, we shall identify key issues which impact upon the regulations, and that will aid the process of getting them right.
My noble friend Lord Borrie and other noble Lords raised the question of the utilities. We are not intending that local authorities will have their roads resurfaced on the cheap by exploiting the position of the utilities. That is an important area in which we must get the framework right with regard to the
relationship between the two. The proper costs involved will need to be identified, and it is clear that we shall need to ensure that they are shared fairly between the local authorities and the various undertakers involved.However, I stress again that our objective in the Bill is to seek to ensure that we are able to use our road space to maximum advantage. That is why co-operation will be necessary and why we shall need to ensure that progress is made on effective consultation in those terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked me a number of precise questions, some of which I shall hope to deal with in Committee where we shall be able to air the issues further. I mentioned the question of the definition of a "road". I am not sure that I can follow the noble Lord to quite the extent that he would wish on the subject of trails and other aspects of byways, highways and rights of way. But I have no doubt that he will be active in Committee and that he will explore that matter further then. We shall need to discuss the enforcement of rights of way more fully.
On the use of blue badges, the power in Clause 90 for civil enforcement officers to inspect blue badges will help to reduce improper use. Many noble Lords were shocked the other day by the information indicating how badges for the disabled are the subject of abuse. In parts of the country, particularly in London, there is considerable trafficking in the badges. This clause will ensure that the person to whom the badge has been issued is in the vehicle when the badge is displayed.
The new power will not prevent the forging of badges, but the fact that they will be subject to close inspection should take us some way down the road towards dealing with what we all recognise as a shocking abuse of a facility that we offer to the disabled, but which is used by others to evade parking restrictions.
We have not made as much progress as we would have liked in regard to bus lane enforcement in authorities outside London. That is partly because we have legal restrictions on the ability to make progress. I assure the noble Viscount that we are considering the matter actively. I have no doubt that he will return to it in Committee.
The major point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was his anxiety about whether the introduction of traffic officers would reduce the emphasis on law enforcement. The opposite will pertain. We expect the introduction of the traffic officer service to mean that the police will spend less time managing traffic, and therefore have more time to deal with crime. If some of that crime relates to rapid get-away transport used by criminals on our motorways, the police will have an important part to play.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but my main point was that there had been a reduction of 17 per cent in the number of traffic police between 1997 and 2000, which presumably had resulted in a certain amount of crime going
undetected, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned. I am doubtful whether putting in place traffic managers will result in any change in that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it will free up police time. We all know the demands on the police and that they have to concentrate on their priorities. The noble Lord will recognise that a major purpose of the Bill is to try to free up essential police time.
In general, views have been expressed about consultation on the issue of control of local roads. I want to reassure noble Lords that we expect full consultation on such processes with regard to the utilities and others affected adversely by work on the roads. That may mean, for example, that passenger transport executives need to be aware of and consulted on such issues so that they can provide the best service to the community.
We have had an interesting debate. I give way to the noble Lord, although I shall be exceeding my time limit.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, sadly, the Minister may be right that I should not be ambitious about hypothecation. Perhaps I can look forward to a government amendment on who will deal with the London lorry ban.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, powers in regard to that already exist and so the matter is not strictly related to the Bill. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, with his ingenuity, will be able to press us a little in Committee on the matter. He will see how we are able to respond.
We have had a most interesting debate. It has taken me 21 minutes to respond in very general terms just to the points that have been raised. I look forward to a lively Committee stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.
Merchant Shipping (Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims) (Amendment) Order 2004
7.4 p.m.
Lord Triesman rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the order is to enable the United Kingdom to enact the 1996 protocol to amend the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims as intended in the Merchant Shipping (Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims) (Amendment) (Order) 1998. There is a small, but important, error in the 1998 order, which must be corrected before the protocol enters into force internationally on 13 May of this
year. The order aims to correct the error. The enabling power for the order is provided by the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997.The 1996 protocol to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, which is commonly referred to as LLMC, was negotiated at the International Maritime Organization in 1996. The 1996 LLMC protocol increases the amount of any limitation fund, which is set up by a ship owner to meet liabilities for general maritime claims arising from a shipping incident. The limitation limits are a significant increase on those set by the 1976 convention. Such increases are necessary to reverse the effect of nearly 30 years of inflation.
The UK ratified the 1996 LLMC protocol in 1999, and became only the second state to do so. However, it has taken another five years for the entry into force requirements of the protocol to be met.
The 1996 LLMC protocol entitles ship owners to limit their liability for certain general maritime claims. The applicable limit depends on the type of claim and the gross tonnage of the ship.
Overall, the order will increase the limitation amount that a ship owner will be entitled to seek in respect of general maritime claims by about two and a half times. Higher increases will be made for small ships. These increases, like most of the provisions of the order, are determined by the terms of the 1996 LLMC protocol. There are three areas, however, where the 1976 convention and the 1996 LLMC protocol give states discretion. The 1998 order has enabled the United Kingdom to take advantage of these three freedoms. The most important relates to passenger claims. This is where the error exists that the order seeks to amend.
The 1976 convention sets a global limit on all passenger claims arising from any particular incident. A separate international convention—the 1974 Athens convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea—sets a per capita limit; that is, a separate limit for each passenger.
The 1996 LLMC protocol provides an opt-out from the limit set by the 1976 convention. The 1998 order gives effect to that opt-out for seagoing ships, ensuring that such claims will be subject to limitation of liability under the Athens convention. The 1998 order will continue to apply limitation of liability for passenger claims for other ships.
That ensures flexibility to make appropriate changes to the legislation implementing the Athens convention in future. These changes could result from the international work on the revision of the Athens convention. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted a protocol to the Athens convention in 2002 that provides for increased financial protection for passengers through increased limitation of liability of the carrier for death or personal injury claims and a requirement on the carrier to maintain insurance cover, with a right of the claimant to take direct action against the insurer.
The Government are currently considering the options for the implementation of the Athens protocol. However, the 1998 order could have the unintended consequence of depriving a ship owner of the right to a limitation limit for death and personal injury claims in the event of a collision between a passenger vessel and a non-passenger carrying ship. This is contrary to the intention of the 1996 LLMC protocol of applying limitation of liability for such claims, and could result in unlimited liability of the ship owner in such instances. This order will correct that error, and ensure that limitation of liability continues to apply for such claims on all sea going ships, as originally intended.
Consultation with interested parties undertaken at the time for the 1998 order indicated that the implementation of the 1996 LLMC protocol should not, in itself, increase insurance premiums paid by owners whose ships were engaged in international trade. Ship owners' insurers set their premiums according to the quality and track record of the insured ship, and not by reference to the liability limits or limitation rules established under the national law of any one state. The consequence of the existing error in the 1998 order, if it is not corrected by the order that is in front of your Lordships this evening, may affect ship owners' insurance cover because of the difficulties in seeking insurance cover where unlimited liability would apply.
The Government believe that the long-standing principle of limited liability for general maritime claims remains valid, as it has been over a long period historically, as long as the limits are set at appropriate levels, and the right to limitation is covered by the ship owner maintaining effective insurance cover. Entry into force of the 1996 LLMC protocol is good news for both the maritime industry and for those who may have claims arising from shipping incidents. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 24 March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page