Disabled Air Passengers

Lord Addington Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I can tell my noble friend that the discussions highlighted inconsistencies in the way passengers can provide the information to the industry that is needed to get appropriate assistance. It was also noted that the information the passenger has provided is not always accurately recorded and might not be shared with all operators—for example, the airlines, the airport and the assistance provider. Of course, this results in passengers having to provide the information several times during the journey, which can be intimidating or cause anxiety. I know that this, in particular, was an issue that was raised at that time.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have been following this subject for almost as long as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. All Governments have failed to bring the people responsible together, so that a person in a wheelchair cannot rely on a coherent transition through the process. Surely it is time that this House, and possibly the rest of Parliament, got together, banged together the heads of those running airports and airlines and told them that it is unacceptable?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord and suggest that that is under way as a result of the round table of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I feel that this is one of those Bills that makes us ask why we need to do this. The noble Lord has covered that, but, at its heart, it is because when we debate a big subject—such as when we debated the Equality Act, which followed on from the Disability Discrimination Act—we need something that we can grab hold of, and in that case we grabbed hold of wheelchairs. This has never been a definition of disability for people travelling; it is merely about those people who are at the most obvious end, and often, people who use wheelchairs do not use them all the time. The Bill goes to those who have a movement impairment or other form of impairment but are not always in a wheelchair. This is an incredibly important step that we should have taken long ago. I ask the Minister, when she comes to respond, to tell us whether her department will look to see where other changes like this should be made, because it is the gaps that destroy.

When the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, was speaking, he said that it is about the journey for those who have a movement impairment. The only time I have experienced this is with sports injuries—suddenly you cannot walk as fast, walking is much more tiring and you cannot carry a bag. When that type of difficulty applies to somebody, they are often dependent on private hire vehicles or taxis for irregular journeys that they cannot plan that well for—particularly if they are doing something unusual. This Bill gives such people a better chance of fulfilling those types of journeys and of acting with independence, as everybody else does. If we take that on board, the importance of this Bill becomes apparent. I salute all those who are taking it forward. It will make sure that the chain is a reasonable one to plan for.

I also endorse what the noble Lord said about the fact that a polite, reasonably well-mannered person will probably fulfil some of these secondary duties anyway—but not everybody is like that. People have bad days; they get stressed and they make mistakes. The legal duty makes it clear that this is something they should do and that there will be a price to pay if they do not. That is important because we are not all saints: we all snap and we all feel under pressure. There is also a defence in the Bill that it might be unreasonable to expect certain people to do certain things, and that is a very considered amendment.

I understand the Government have given this amendment a very clear path through, but I would like to hear—from the noble Lord who initiated it or the Minister—that they are looking to see where else this legislative change should take place. When you are doing a big Bill or taking a big step forward, little gaps will be forgotten. We have had time, so are we having a look to see what other small changes can be made? Making those changes will mean that the system works better and, in some cases, will mean that it works at all.

Health: Public Health Responsibility Deal

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on bringing this subject before us today. Any initiative by people who take responsibility for public health should be applauded. Whether this is the right model or one for the future remains to be seen. However, trying to get several sectors to address the problem must be applauded for the simple reason that there is no one answer.

Behaviour, social change and the way we take in information and use it would seem to be the underlying message behind this. We have already heard that if you drink too much you put on weight and it affects your body in various ways; and that if you drink far too much at the wrong time you behave badly. Given the history of Gin Lane, Hogarth and so on, that is hardly news; it is nothing that we have not heard before.

Recently we have been dealing with the backlash of the social trend towards binge drinking. This has happened after the binge of taking pills to get oneself out of it. This habit seems to have died out in certain parts of the country but not in others, and people who have got into the habit of binge drinking seem to be carrying on doing so. People are suffering from liver damage earlier, getting stroppier earlier and losing control earlier. Given that our lifestyle today is one which has easy access to high fat, high salt and high sugar foods which can be consumed easily, and the fact that we do not take much exercise, we seems to be creating a world where it is quite easy to sit still for long periods of time, ingest huge numbers of calories and alcohol and damage ourselves.

How do we change that? There are two prongs to this which have worked in the past, of which smoking is a good example. First, you point out to people that it is damaging them; secondly, you take various supporting actions, through government, to encourage them to change. However, voluntary action is equally important. Every bit of information I have on this subject shows that we do not like being preached at. Talking to people may help them to change their minds over time, or preaching to people subtly and well may do so, but we are all politicians and we know how often we get that right and how often we get it wrong. We have got to strike a balance here.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the number of times we have heard about the labelling on food. I have had a number of bizarre meetings, particularly at party conferences, where people have tried to sell their form of labelling to me.

We also resist certain types of activity. I remember during a conference when the previous Government were in power—I think we were in Blackpool but I cannot remember which year—going to a dinner where people were trying to convince me that if we stopped selling what we now call full-fat Coke and other soft drinks in vending machines, children would die in huge numbers because they would cross the roads at lunchtime and, lemming-like, be flattened by cars. You could not make it up. You do not have to after a period of time. The rearguard action by the industries is usually very impressive and creative, but it is possibly one that missed. While we are talking about alcohol, by the third glass of wine I was prepared to say that they had missed on this occasion. Let us not knock everything all the time.

To address the issue of physical activity, the same ideas about what is involved in convincing people that exercise is pleasant must surely apply here. There is also the question of who we are addressing. I shall concentrate my remarks here on people taking low-level, casual exercise. Local government can make our parks and pavements, for instance, pleasant places to walk or take moderate exercise, as appropriate. People can encourage their children to have a game of football using two jumpers on the ground for goalposts while they use the swing. That is very appropriate. I look forward to hearing how we can encourage that.

Organised sports clubs can be only a limited aspect of this, because they are often dependent upon this type of activity. We talk a lot about school sport, but school sport can only do so much. A child must take part in physical education and become reasonably fit before they can be trained to take part in a sport and take it seriously. If a child who at the age of five has never moved, who has been plonked in front of the TV and who is carrying large amounts of fat around their waist and backside, is encouraged to go straight into some form of physical activity, the child will not do it. It will be painful and difficult.

If parents do not have access to a pleasant environment, and are not encouraged to give their child the normal amount of time in which to run around, it will not happen. We must address this. If a child or an adult then thinks that it is terribly difficult to undertake activity, they will chose sedentary leisure activities, which often involve watching something. They will take that hit of sugar and salt from fast foods, as we probably call them now, or high-density foods. How do we balance this? How do we encourage people to get out?

I received a series of briefings from the Ramblers Association, saying that people are 72% more likely to walk and to carry on walking if their local area is pleasant, but they are 55% less likely to walk if their local area is unpleasant. If you get that balance right and make walking enjoyable, then people can get involved in it. What action and assessment are we taking to encourage individuals and groups to make sure that physical activity can be undertaken in a pleasant environment? Unless this casual organisation is encouraged, unless it takes into account the fact of this normal reaction, then it takes away from both the introductory levels of more serious exercise and that low-level maintenance which is so important to health. I could go on for much longer, but the clock has beaten me.

Apprenticeships

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My noble friend makes a valid point. I have been involved for a long time with the livery companies which were the very early providers of many of those old heritage crafts. As he says, many of them are extremely small businesses—microbusinesses. We hope that we will get feedback from the ongoing consultation that will help us to focus on those particular crafts and skills because many of them are extremely important to our heritage. As my noble friend says, with such very small numbers, it is difficult to have the critical mass for them to continue. I hope that he will contribute to the consultation and bring forward ideas on how we can help very small businesses.

[Lord Addington]

I thank my noble friend for the announcement on apprenticeships. I congratulate the Government on expanding the numbers, and on the good publicity for taking on something that is basically skilled manual work and showing it as a valid alternative to the idea of higher education. However, I am afraid that I have to return to my regular song on this. What are we doing to ensure that people who cannot pass the English and maths assessment get through? I mean those who have dyslexia and dyscalculia, which are the two biggest things—a rough estimate is that 13% of the population are in those two spectrums. An English and maths qualification can cause a problem for that group for whom working with their hands would be the natural way forward. As night follows day, if someone does not want to be qualified for a white-collar job, he should be doing something requiring manual skills.

At the moment, universities and the Government, through the disabled students allowance, allow a dyslexic student to take a degree. At the moment there are tremendous problems in getting that same person through the key stage 2 English equivalent test. We have moved in the past few years from, “It can’t be done; it’s very difficult; are you sure it can be done? It’s not my fault”. When will the Government grab this by the back of the neck and make sure that, according to the duties under the Equality Act, this group are through?

In the snappily titled, The Future of Apprenticeships in England: Next Steps from the Richard Review, there are two questions. Question 13 asks:

“What are the specific obstacles to all Apprentices achieving level 2 English and maths as part of their Apprenticeship, and how could these be overcome?”.

Question 14 asks:

“How would a requirement to have all Apprentices achieve level 2 in English and maths impact on employers, providers and potential learners? What are the risks and potential solutions?”.

If those two questions do not give us a chance to have that answered properly, I do not know what does.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My noble friend is right to point to the difficulties for people with dyslexia and other forms of learning disadvantage in passing traditional tests and exams. It has been identified that certain levels of maths and English are important even in very practical areas, but we are looking to the consultation to give us further ideas so that young people, or indeed adults, are not disadvantaged when they have, as he says, very practical skills but cannot meet stringent requirements for maths and English. We will look at the different ways in which these areas can be assessed in order to ensure that young people are not disadvantaged in securing proper, high-quality apprenticeships. The assessment should not make it more difficult for them to demonstrate their skill areas.

Government: Cars

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the important thing is that we adhere to the rules.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, is it not a point of pride that this Government are using far fewer cars and that our Ministers are now travelling on public transport, and thus might be in a better position to make decisions about the future of that transport?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend makes an important point. I do not even use public transport to get to the Department of Transport. I walk; it takes me 10 minutes exactly. The important thing is that we have reduced the size of the ministerial car fleet from about 200 to 92.

Olympic Games 2012: Traffic

Lord Addington Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that there is no contingency plan. There are very detailed contingency plans. For instance, Transport for London has designated alternative Olympic route network roads in case the primary Olympic route network becomes inoperative. As regards the problem that the noble Lord describes, I suggest that he consults the Get Ahead of the Games website. My officials tell me that I have to say “Get Ahead of the Games” in every single supplementary question I answer.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that complaining about having some traffic disruption during the world’s biggest event is a little like someone who has sat on a fire complaining about their backside burning?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The world is coming to London in 2012. Our transport system faces unprecedented challenges, and the Olympic route network is essential to ensuring that the transport system works at Games time and to making the Games a great success, as I am sure they will be.

Olympic Games: Security

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions in order that my noble friend will be able to answer as many questions as possible.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, when my noble friend replied she referred to the fact that two weeks ago we had an inkling that this was not happening. Can she give a better guide to the process of the information that was being fed to and fro, and give the House an idea of what was happening and when? When did we know there was going to be a problem? That is the core of this situation. We have a reserve and are deploying it, but when did we know that we might have to call on it? That is the big question. Secondly, will anything that goes wrong be brought front and centre in a review process of what happened in the Games? A legacy of learning from mistakes will be important.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, as I said before, this has been an ongoing process. The Home Office and other departments have been properly and actively involved in ensuring that the arrangements for security have progressed in line with our expectations, in order that our security needs are met. However, it was only yesterday that it became clear that the right decision to take was for the Government to deploy additional troops so that there would be no question whatever of our security being compromised, as indeed it will not be due to the action that has been taken.

As to my noble friend’s other point with regard to review, of course after any major event such as the Olympic Games there is a process of review where any lessons will be learned. The most significant point is that the Government have acted decisively. We have been able to act decisively because we have been prepared to do so and can do so. As a result, there has not been any compromise of security at the Games.

Olympic Games 2012: Disruption to Businesses

Lord Addington Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we recognise the importance of this issue. We accept that there will be serious consequences if we get the planning wrong. There may be some severe disruption to a few businesses in certain locations, but the overall policy objective is business as usual. There will be impacts on businesses, most of which, overall, will be positive. However, there are potential adverse impacts. They can be mitigated by timely information and good planning. The website, Get Ahead of the Games, provides both the necessary information and the planning tools.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that having the greatest sporting festival in the world on our doorstep is something for which we should be prepared to tolerate a little delay? Can he further give us assurances and guidance about where we have looked for examples of how best to deal with any confusion?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend makes an extremely important point. It is quite clear to me that those planning for the Olympics have carefully studied the experience of other nations when they have put their Games on, which is one reason why I think that we are on track to deliver an excellent set of Games.

Airports (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Friday 16th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, when I first looked at this Bill, I thought that it contained an interesting power and I was surprised that we did not already have it. Having listened to the speeches made today, I think that I am still in the same place in that regard. The main point that has been raised is that we have one hub airport. Before the previous election, I spent a great deal of time delivering leaflets in Richmond to promote certain candidates, unfortunately, unsuccessfully as it turned out. Anybody who lives in that area is not keen on expansion of Heathrow, with the exception of a Member of this House who is shaking his head. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, does not get much support when he raises this issue in his local pub, but I leave that on one side.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I, too, support Heathrow expansion.

[Lord Addington]

If we are entering anecdotal territory, I should say that as a former London Scottish player, I remember occasions when large planes flew over the pitch down in Richmond and the referee was reduced to using sign language. Therefore, I suggest that people have grounds for disagreeing with the noble Lord.

To return to the Bill, the idea that we should guarantee that our infrastructure works for the whole nation is not the most radical one we have ever heard in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to the infrastructure of different places. Northern Ireland has particular problems in that regard. It is incredibly difficult to build railways over the sea, to put it bluntly. Inverness may struggle in providing the necessary infrastructure and Aberdeen will have problems in this regard but Northern Ireland, particularly Belfast, has the worst problems to overcome. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure us in relation to where government thinking is on this matter. Everything has a cost but are we prepared to pay the cost of this provision? Everybody has a right to hear what that cost will be, and what we cannot expect to be provided. Who has been consulted on this matter? I am not sure whether the Air Transport Users Committee is still functioning.

[Noble Lords]

It is.

[Lord Addington]

I am told that it is. Was that committee properly consulted when the Bill was drawn up? Who else was consulted who could have had an input? I stress the importance of that to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the Minister. The Bill seeks to address the problem that we are discussing. It offers an answer to that problem. Some people may not think that it is the best answer but it is an answer. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say on the matter.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 2 for the convenience of the Committee. Before I start on the substance of the amendment, I record my thanks to the Minister and his officials for a very useful meeting yesterday. I look forward to continuing discussions and this debate today.

I remind the Committee that I am a harbour commissioner of the port of Fowey in Cornwall. At Second Reading, we had a good debate. I said that I supported the Bill in principle; I think it is a very good Bill. I want to focus on one issue, that of wreck recovery: who does it and who pays for it. As the Bill says, as the wreck occurs, it is generally marked by a harbour authority or a GLA. However, under the Bill, dealing with the wreck is now the responsibility of the Government, who can instruct—and I mean instruct—the harbour authority, conservation authority or GLA. The idea is that the costs incurred in doing it can be recovered from the ship’s owners or insurance. That also seems fine and complies with the wreck conventions that the Bill is designed to incorporate into legislation.

We are told by the Minister that all ships will be insured because the insurance documents will be inspected at UK ports. The first question one has to ask is how robust the arrangements for this inspection are. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who sadly cannot be with us today, asked a Written Question to which the Answer from the Minister stated that in 2010 there were 12 instances where an inspection of the insurance documents revealed a deficiency in them.

Rather more serious is a recent statement by Vice-Admiral Massey, the chief executive of the Marine and Coastguard Agency, to an all-party parliamentary group, as reported in Lloyd’s List of 28 March. He said that the agency is,

“missing some ‘high priority’ ship inspections”,

particularly at night and at weekends. Therefore, one could argue that there is a certain lack of robustness about the inspections, which could mean that some ships which are not insured will not be caught by these inspections. There is also the question of the ships that go round our coasts but do not enter our ports, which will not have to show their certificates to anyone.

On Second Reading, the Minister said that all ships will be insured and therefore the costs can be recovered, but what happens if the harbour authority or GLAs cannot recover them? As the Bill stands, they cannot refuse an instruction from the Secretary of State. The trouble is that the instruction is not accompanied by a commitment to fund a problematic wreck removal. On Second Reading, noble Lords said that this would not happen very often, it was very unlikely to happen and the cost would not be very high. However, I do not know what would happen if the cost was high. If the cost was high, it could cause severe financial problems, or management problems, for small harbour authorities or GLAs. Of course, they will do their best in this regard but it could put them in financial difficulty. The British Ports Association supports these amendments and strongly opposes a requirement which would mean that the harbour authorities were financially liable for cleaning and removing uninsured, or even occasionally unowned, wrecks. Ports have a problem with small boats the world over, but the association is saying that ports authorities would possibly be less willing to accept boats which are in difficulty into their harbours if they thought that in so doing they would be liable for a big financial penalty. One should take that into account.

We have heard that Trinity House supports the Bill in its entirety, but I argue that it would do so as its job is to mark wrecks. That is part of its work, and it does it very well. However, if it were called on to manage and undertake a major salvage operation, the problem is that it would probably have to pass on the costs of doing so to ships in the form of light dues, because that is the way Trinity House is financed. Trinity House could even argue that—I hope that it would not—it needed to buy bigger and larger ships to undertake this new responsibility, but I trust that it would not do that. The Chamber of Shipping in particular is rightly concerned that the measure puts an extra cost on insured ships that comply with the regulations, and that some of that cost is to cover ships which do not comply, and have not complied, with the regulations. That body has asked whether the Crown will indemnify the General Lighthouse Fund against costs that cannot be recovered, given that the costs arise as a direct consequence of the Government’s decision to sign the convention. We could discuss that for a long time.

We should note that the Transport Select Committee in another place investigated this matter in 2008 and stated that,

“if the General Lighthouse Authorities were to be directed, under new powers in the Bill, to undertake activities other than those which they would have undertaken in the past, there is a possibility that the liability of the General Lighthouse Fund for unrecoverable costs could increase. This legislation should not be used by the Government to transfer further the financial risk resulting from uninsured ships to other shippers through the General Lighthouse Fund”.

Therefore, a lot of people do not think that this is a terribly good idea.

Finally, the Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning MP, said that the Bill enshrines the principle that the polluter pays. He is wrong, because while it certainly makes the polluter pay, in making the GLF pay, it achieves the opposite effect, because the owner of the uninsured wreck will not have contributed to the GLF, but is being saved.

These amendments would remove the requirements for the harbour authorities, conservation authorities and GLAs to comply with a Secretary of State’s instruction to deal with a wreck. If the amendments were accepted, these organisations could still be asked to do so, and in many cases they would accept. However, without the amendments, they could not refuse. Without some financial assurance, those organisations, or the legally operated ships paying light dues, could on a few occasions be put at severe financial risk. It would not happen often and it may not happen for 10 or 20 years—but it still could happen. It is not the polluter paying but the good ones paying for the bad ones.

There is a strong argument for the Government to accept these amendments on the basis that it is a more equitable arrangement for the very few occasions when somehow the costs of dealing with a wreck cannot be recovered from the insurers or the owners. If the Minister and the noble Baroness who has put her name to the Bill do not accept the amendments, it would be important for the Minister to provide some assurance that the Secretary of State will not direct GLAs, harbour authorities or conservation authorities to remove a wreck, unless that can be carried out using their normal vessels and personnel as part of their normal business. That would give comfort to the harbour authorities in particular that they will not be exposed to a small risk with a very high cost. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, I have looked at the amendments and issues relating to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be technically correct, but it occurs to me that if we get away from the fact that people will break the law and you make law only for people who will comply with it, what does the noble Lord think will be the political cost of a Government who went to an authority—whether the harbour authority or the general lighthouse authority—and said, “Do something you can’t do or we’ll bankrupt you for functions that are important”? You would be asking a Minister to pay an almost suicidal political price. The House and another place would rip that person apart. How real is that danger? That is the only thing that comes to mind. The noble Lord may be technically correct, but I wonder how real that danger is in the world in which we actually live. No one will leave in place a dangerous provision that restricts commercial activity and endangers people. I leave that sitting there, because it should be mentioned in these discussions.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, in short, these amendments are about leaving the obligation for the removal of wrecks by default with the Secretary of State. That effectively means leaving the taxpayer with the liability. Clearly, ship operators have to be concerned about costs—and rightly so. However, the Bill—unless I have misread it and I do not think I have—is not, as was recently alleged in the shipping newspaper Lloyd’s List, about shifting the financial burden for the removal of wrecks to shipping. As I understand the Bill, it is about maintaining the status quo as regards unrecovered costs. If the Bill becomes an Act, it will not make any difference so far as unrecovered costs are concerned. An uninsured ship could go down in a conservancy area or a harbour authority area and there would be exactly the same situation as that which pertains at the moment.

As the Bill provides that there will be a mandatory requirement, for the first time, that all vessels over 300 gross tonnes have wreck removal insurance and there is strict liability on the ship owner to remove that wreck, it is highly unlikely that there will be any increased costs to the General Lighthouse Fund or to harbour conservancy authorities. I know that my noble friend Lord Berkeley is understandably concerned about the cost to a small harbour authority if an uninsured vessel requires removal after an accident, but Section 255J states clearly that the UK ship or a foreign-owned ship may not enter or leave the UK port. In default of that, the master or operator of a vessel is guilty of an offence.

So it is more likely in future, that that requirement will be widely known by all ship owners and operators and much less likely that uninsured vessels will seek to enter our ports. I agree that it would be useful if the noble Earl could say something about small harbour authorities, which unlike, for example, Southampton, Felixstowe or Clyde Port, may not have the funds to effect removal in the unlikely event of an uninsured casualty which is a hazard to navigation. Overall, it is much more likely that the introduction of the convention will lead to reduced costs, to the benefit of the General Lighthouse Fund and, thus, to ship owners.

While some wrecks and strandings are beyond the control of any ship operator or ship master, far too many of them are a consequence of negligence. Casualties arise from one or more of causes such as poor navigation, poor watchkeeping practice, and underqualified officers. We know that it is possible to have people with fake qualifications on the bridges of ships. We have undermanned bridges. There are problems with alcohol and fatigue and, not least, inadequate maintenance. In that connection, in 2009-10, the Marine Coastguard Agency found that 1,265 vessels had safety issues and had to detain 59 of them until matters were put right. Sir Alan Massey has reported that there was insufficient rigour in some of those investigations. He is in a position to put that right. If the Bill is enacted, I hope that he will do so and that there will be proper examination of certificates. Of course, that would ensure that ships without those certificates do not come into our ports.

However, where maritime accidents occur in the circumstances that I described, it is quite wrong that the taxpayer should be expected to be the insurer of last resort, and therefore wrong to seek dilution of the clause, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment. It is for shipping operators and owners to be properly insured and for them to arrange prompt removal of any wreck that is a hazard to navigation. I have not the slightest doubt that most shipping companies—good ship operators—will be properly insured.

The requirement for mandatory ship insurance is long overdue. It is a valuable addition to maritime safety and should be supported. I recognise my noble friend's concerns but I hope that, having listened to the debate in Committee, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment so that we can give the Bill safe passage.