DOCSLIB.ORG

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Friday Volume 494 26 June 2009 No. 100 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Friday 26 June 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; Tel: 0044 (0) 208876344; e-mail: [email protected] 1043 26 JUNE 2009 1044 House of Commons Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill Friday 26 June 2009 (CHANGED FROM Holocaust (Stolen Art) restitution Bill) The House met at half-past Nine o’clock Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee PRAYERS The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took Third Reading the Chair as Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No. 3). 9.47 pm Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163). I am grateful for the support that the Bill has The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 28. received from both sides of the House. At the outset, I Division No. 166] [9.34 am would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for AYES Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member Robathan, Mr. Andrew Mr. Andrew Dismore and for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), her predecessor and Willie Rennie her officials—especially Hillary Bauer—for their help Tellers for the Ayes: in bringing the Bill to this stage. I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned for it, especially Anne NOES Webber of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies and my noble Beith, rh Sir Alan Kidney, Mr. David Brazier, Mr. Julian Knight, rh Jim Friend Lord Janner, who has been a stalwart on the Chope, Mr. Christopher Lait, Mrs. Jacqui whole issue of holocaust restitution and who has Clark, Paul Lewis, Dr. Julian agreed to take up the Bill in the other place if it receives Eagle, Maria Neill, Robert a Third Reading today. Follett, Barbara Pearson, Ian The Bill has changed its appearance somewhat since Francois, Mr. Mark Penrose, John its Second Reading, through amendments made in Gardiner, Barry Rammell, Bill Committee, but its effect and the policy behind it remain Hanson, rh Mr. David Seabeck, Alison the same. It is now supplemented by explanatory notes Heath, Mr. David Spellar, rh Mr. John and an impact assessment produced by my hon. Friend Hope, Phil Vaizey, Mr. Edward Howarth, Mr. Gerald the Minister’s officials. Its new title—the Holocaust Whittingdale, Mr. John Irranca-Davies, Huw (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill—better describes its Jackson, Mr. Stewart Tellers for the Noes: purpose, which is straightforward: it is to meet our Johnson, Ms Diana R. Steve McCabe and moral, if not legal, obligation to provide a mechanism Keeley, Barbara Kerry McCarthy for the return to their rightful owners of cultural objects held in national collections that were looted during the The Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was Nazi period. not decided because fewer than 40 Members had participated I have taken a particular interest in this issue since in the Division (Standing Order No. 41). first being elected to the House in 1997. On 17 February 2000, in response to a parliamentary question from me, the then Arts Minister—now my noble Friend Lord Point of Order Howarth—announced the setting up of the Spoliation Advisory Panel under the chairmanship of Sir David 9.46 am Hirst. He said that the panel would consider and advise Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): On a on claims from anyone who had lost possession of a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Wednesday, cultural object during the Nazi era, when such an object Mr. Speaker said that was now in the possession of a UK national collection “when Ministers have key policy statements to make, the House or gallery. Since then, the panel has adjudicated on a must be the first to hear them”.—[Official Report, 24 June 2009; number of claims. It does so in detail, and shows Vol. 494, c. 797.] fairness to both sides. Its most recent report, published Today, in clear breach of that ruling, the Secretary of only on Wednesday this week, concerned eight drawings State for Children, Schools and Families has announced, in the Courtauld collection. It did not uphold that through The Guardian and the BBC, that the Government particular claim, although it dealt with the case extremely have abandoned their literacy and numeracy strategy. sympathetically. The Secretary of State is either illiterate or contemptuous The system provides an alternative to expensive and of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, or both. What power do you long-drawn-out legal proceedings, but it does not preclude have, Madam Deputy Speaker, to require the Secretary that remedy if someone wishes to use it. The panel of State to attend the House today to apologise? makes recommendations, including for compensation or for restitution, to the Secretary of State. So far, so Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I will bring to good. The problem is that the law does not allow Mr. Speaker’s attention the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, restitution for works held in some collections, as there is which will of course now be on the record. no power to de-acquire—the current term—items. In 1045 Holocaust (Return of Cultural 26 JUNE 2009 Holocaust (Return of Cultural 1046 Objects) Bill Objects) Bill [Mr. Andrew Dismore] being passed, on to the Order Paper. I think he had to get up early in the morning to get this opportunity; it other museums, the situation is different, leading to was time well spent. unjust, unfair and sometimes downright ludicrous outcomes The best way of getting a private Member’s Bill where one of a pair of objects held in different collections passed is to pick up a subject that the Government are can be restituted while the other cannot. The Bill seeks committed to advancing, but have failed to do. The to remedy that problem. Government can then breathe a sigh of relief and use The best estimate is that there are about 20 looted the vehicle provided by the private Member’s Bill. That items in UK museums, but there could be more. The is exactly what the hon. Gentleman’s Bill does. This process of research by families is ongoing, and it can country has long been committed to amending the law take quite a while to locate an item and document a to allow the restitution of artefacts and artistic objects claim, but not every rightful owner may want restitution. that were plainly looted. It has been an embarrassment Some might, but others might settle for an ex gratia that we have not done so. compensation payment or might simply want a public My Select Committee considered this issue a couple acknowledgement of rightful ownership by the gallery of years ago and called on the Government to make the or museum concerned. It should be possible for the necessary change. We were just one of a long list of rightful owners to have the object back, once the matter bodies to have done so. I thoroughly support the Bill has been decided to the satisfaction of Spoliation Advisory and I am delighted that it is likely to succeed. Panel, on its recommendation to the Minister; and that One has to accept that the Bill is largely symbolic. We should not be prevented by the unintended consequences amended provisions in Committee to cover Wales, although of the current law. there are no national institutions in Wales that would My Bill will provide a process, with appropriate benefit from the Bill. It is nevertheless plainly right that safeguards, to achieve that outcome. It aims to work by we should extend it across the country. Equally, the one agreement and by consensus. If there were a huge object—the Beneventan missal—where there is clear dispute, it would not work and the item would not be evidence that it should be returned will not be covered returned. The process is straightforward. The item claimed by the Bill, unless another application is made, because is referred to the panel; if the panel finds the object to it has already been considered. It may well be that the be spoliated, it makes a recommendation for restitution Bill’s provisions are never used. The Spoliation Advisory to the Secretary of State if it thinks that is the proper remedy. Panel has met very few times and the Bill may well pass If the Secretary of State accepts the recommendation on to the statute book and lie there. In my view, however, that restitution is appropriate, he or she can trigger a that does matter. It is the fact that we have made the power, not a duty, of de-accession to the museum change that matters. concerned, which can then transfer the object to its Many terrible atrocities were committed during the rightful owner. holocaust, and the looting of art is very minor in The Bill contains a series of safeguards. It does not comparison with some of the horrific events that took override any special conditions or trust under which an place. The difference is that this issue is one that we can object may be held. That would require complex legislation, do something about and put right.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals January 2010
    Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals January 2010 London Borough of Newham CONTENTS PART 1: CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..2 The Planning Context……………………………………………………………….....4 Summary of Special Interest……………………………………………………….....6 Location and Context……………………………………………………………….....7 Topography and Landscape Setting… …………………………………………......7 Geology……………………………………...……………………………………........7 Historical Development…………………………………………………...................8 Townscape Analysis………………………………………………………………….12 Analysis of Key Buildings and Spaces………….………………………………….16 Negative Features and Issues………………………………………………………25 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...…..26 PART 2: CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN A Vision for Sugar House Lane……………………..……….………………………27 Future Development…………………………………………………………………..28 Planning Controls……………………………………………………………………..29 Council Functions………………………………………..……………………………29 Enhancement and Funding…………………………………………………………..30 Community Engagement…………………………………………………………… 30 Public Realm……………………………………………………………….……….....30 Boundary Review……………………………………………………………………...31 Public Consultation and Monitoring…………………………………………….…...31 MAPS Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Boundary…………………………………..3 John Roque 1745………………………………………………………………………8 Ordnance Survey 1867………………………………………………………………..9 Ordnance Survey 1894…....................................................................................10 Views to and from Sugar House Lane………………………………………………13 Analysis
    [Show full text]
  • CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM to the BOARD [Redactions Below Relate to Commercially Confidential Information] REGENERATION REPORT – JANUARY 2010
    INFORMATION & DECISION REPORT BWB 3392 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO THE BOARD [Redactions below relate to commercially confidential information] REGENERATION REPORT – JANUARY 2010 Report by Director of Regeneration 1. PURPOSE: 1.1 To update the Board on key regeneration activities across England and Wales 1.2 To seek Board approval to increase expenditure on Three Mills Lock project to £ [ ] (£ [ ] previously noted), to cover risk of additional costs being awarded against BW following Adjudication process. 2.0 NEW REGENERATION DIRECTORATE: 2.1 The new Regeneration Directorate is now fully operational. The transition of regeneration/external funding functions from the former Business Units into the four geographical teams has been a smooth process with project continuity and the need to maintain key external relationships being uppermost in our minds. 3.0 REGENERATION SECTOR COMMENTARY: 3.1 Regional Development Agencies: The future of the RDA’s continues to be debated with the Conservative’s seemingly backtracking on previous pledges to scrap them, in favour of a more flexible approach dependent on whether respective local authorities valued them or not. It is suggested that where LA’s might opt to remove a RDA, the agency would be replaced by a partnership of Councils around real economic regions. These Local Enterprise Partnerships would closely resemble the ‘Leeds City Region’ model although with a smaller number of councils – maybe seven to eight. The Labour Party has however reiterated its support for RDA’s stating recently that they would remain central to Govt plans for economic recovery. 3.2 Conservative Party Policy on Regeneration: The Tory green paper, which was expected to be published in the New Year, has been deferred.
    [Show full text]
  • Carpenters Road Lock Heritage from the Shadow of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park
    Carpenters Road Lock Heritage from the shadow of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Conservation Management Plan Florence Salberter Heritage Adviser Canal & River Trust May 2015 CONTENT 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and scope of the document 1.2 Authorship 2.0 Understanding the historic asset 2.1 Historic context: a changing waterscape 2.2 Carpenters Road Lock: Why the lock was built and how it works 2.2.1 A unique lock design 2.2.2 A 1930s project 2.2.3 Dual function: Flood protection and navigation 2.2.4 Hygienic improvement 2.3 The Olympics’ legacy and the lock restoration 2.3.1 Abandoned waterways: how the lock fell into disrepair and is being recovered as part of the Olympics’ Legacy 2.3.2 Parallels between Olympics led regeneration today and the regeneration scheme of the 1930s depression 3.0 Statement of Significance and conservation principles 3.1 A lock with dual functions in response to local conditions 3.2 Conservation principles 4.0 Vulnerability and Risks 4.1 Threats to the heritage 4.1.1 Funding shortage 4.1.2 Inappropriate design intervention 4.1.3 Lack of maintenance 4.2 Interpretation 4.2.1 Content quality 4.2.2 Design and Vandalism 4.2.3 Sharing of information 5.0 Conservation Management aims and objectives 5.1 Broad aims and objectives for safeguarding heritage significance 5.1.1 The Lock 5.1.2 Interpretation 5.2 Environmental Appraisal 5.3 Stakeholders’ engagement Carpenters Road Lock Conservation Plan Page 2 of 20 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of the document This Conservation Management Plan has been prepared by the Canal & River Trust to support the second phase of the HLF Heritage Grant application to restore and interpret Carpenters Road Lock.
    [Show full text]
  • Bath Avon River Economy
    BATH AVON River Corridor Group BATH AVON RIVER ECONOMY FIRST REPORT OF BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET COUNCIL ADVISORY GROUP SUMMER 2011 Group Members The Bath Avon River Corridor Economy Advisory Group held its Inaugural Meeting in the Guildhall in Bath on 29th October 2010. Group members were nominated by Councillor Terry Gazzard or John Betty, Director of Development and Major Projects and North East Somerset Council, for their particular skills and relevant experience. Those present were: Michael Davis For experience in restoring the Kennet and Avon Canal Edward Nash For experience in urban regeneration and design management Jeremy Douch For experience in transport planning David Laming For experience in using the river for boating James Hurley Representing Low Carbon South West and for experience in resource efficiency Steve Tomlin For experience in reclamation of materials John Webb Representing Inland Waterways Association and the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and experienced in Waterways management Nikki Wood For experience in water ecology Councillor Bryan Chalker For experience in Bath’s heritage and representing the Conservative Political Group Councillor Ian Gilchrist For experience in sustainability issues and representing the Liberal Democrats Political Group Melanie Birwe/ Tom Blackman For Bath and North East Somerset Council – liaison with Major Projects Office Steve Tomlin stood down in early 2011. CONTENTS 1. Introduction 9. The Role of the River in Flood Resilience 2. Executive Summary 10. Renewable Energy and Spatial Sustainability 3. The Problem and Its History 11. Creating Growth Points for Change a) The Geographic History b) The Challenges and Opportunities Now 12. Drivers of Economic Development c) The Regeneration Model • The Visitor Offer • University Sector 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterways Framework Olympic Legacy Waterways Framework Foreword 3
    OLYMPIC LEGACY WATERWAYS FRAMEWORK OLYMPIC LEGACY WATERWAYS FRAMEWORK FOREWORD 3 Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park straddles a previously hidden and derelict network of waterways known as the Bow Back Rivers. Shaped and adapted for over 1,000 years, these 6km of canals and rivers are finally re-connected to England and Wales’ 2,000 mile inland waterways network owned by the Canal & River Trust. They now lie at the heart of one of the biggest regeneration projects in Europe. Across the country waterways are playing a vital role in revitalising our cities in an attractive and sustainable way. The restoration and transformation of the Bow Back Rivers through London’s Olympic plans and through the construction of Three Mills Lock has created a living legacy for London’s people and wildlife, and will form the backbone for a world class water city. The Olympic Legacy Waterways Framework developed by the London Legacy Development Corporation in partnership with the Canal & River Trust looks at how the rivers’ potential can be unlocked so that they are not just a visual backdrop to the surrounding developments, but a leisure and commercial resource in their own right. This strategy expands beyond the 6km within the Park to encompass the River Lee Navigation from Three Mills Island to Hackney Marshes and the lower end of the Hertford Union Canal – a length of 11km in total. TONY HALES QUOTE Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse aliquam, arcu quis vestibulum facilisis. BORIS JOHNSON QUOTE Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse aliquam, arcu quis vestibulum facilisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Risk Assessment
    Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Assessment of Water Impacts Technical Report Cross London Rail Links Limited Appendix H: Flood Risk Assessment 203357/31/Final/February 2005 Appendix dividers H.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited Cross London Rail Links 1 Butler Place London SW1H 0PT United Kingdom Crossrail Line 1 Flood Risk Assessment – Surface Water Crossings Crossrail Reference: 1E0321-GOE00-00006 February 2005 Mott MacDonald Demeter House Station Road Cambridge CB1 2RS UK Tel : 44 (0)1223 463500 Fax : 44 (0)1223 461007 203357/31/Final/February 2005 AppH_1.doc Crossrail Line 1 Mott MacDonald Flood Risk Assessment - Surface Water Crossings Cross London Rail Links Limited Summary The proposed Crossrail route extends from Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. The route crosses a number of watercourses ranging from minor brooks to substantial main rivers. There are concerns that the proposed works may increase the potential for flooding at the crossing sites and in surrounding areas. There are also concerns that the Crossrail route may itself be affected by flood events at the crossings. Flood Risk Assessments have therefore been carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 (PPG25). These have been set out in this report, with the exception of Pudding Mill Lane (Route Window C13) where, because of the extent of the works proposed within watercourses, a more detailed Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out and is reported separately. In carrying out the required Flood Risk Assessments, reference has been made to the ‘Flood Map’, which is shown on the Environment Agency (EA) website as of 7 October 2004, and is the primary source of publicly available flood risk information.
    [Show full text]
  • The Zoological Society of London's Citizen Science, European Eel
    The Zoological Society of London’s Citizen Science, European Eel Project Report 2013 Joe Pecorelli, Emily Humble, Jo Barker, Stephen Mowat, Alison Debney 26th November 2013 Contact: [email protected] ZSL in partnership with Kingston University, The Wandle Trust, Medway Valley Countryside Partnership, North West Kent Countryside Partnership, Ham United, The Thames Rivers Trust, London Wildlife Trust, Friends of The River Crane Environment, Thames 21, The Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, The River Chess Association, Historic Royal Palaces, The Spelthorne Natural History Society and The Thames Anglers Conservancy. Kindly funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the Environment Agency. 1 Contents Executive Summary Page 3 1. Introduction Page 4 1.1. Background Page 4 1.2. Eel populations in the Thames River catchment Page 4 1.3. ZSL monitoring programme Page 5 1.4. Citizen Science monitoring programme Page 6 2. Methods Page 7 2.1. CS and ZSL staff monitoring Sites. Page 7 2.2. CS Trap Design Page 8 2.3. Licensing Page 8 2.4. Health and Safety and Volunteer Training Page 8 2.5. Catch Handling Page 9 2.6. Data Entry Page 9 2.7. Outreach, CS Recruitment and Feedback Page 9 3. Results Page 9 3.1 Catch totals Page 10 4. Discussion Page 10 4.1. Site summaries Page 13 4.1.1. River Brent –Stoney Sluice Page 13 4.1.2. River Chess- Chenies Bottom Weir Page 14 4.1.3. River Crane-Crane Park Page 15 4.1.4. River Cray- Hall Place Page 15 4.1.5. Hogsmill River-Middle Mill Page 15 4.1.6.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.5 Hackney Wick and Fish Island
    Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance MAYOR OF LONDON 3.5 Hackney Wick and Fish Context This sub-area forms the western part of the OLSPG area and extends as Island far as Clapton, Homerton and Bow. It contains a wide variety of land uses. Clapton, Homerton and Bow are primarily residential areas whilst Hackney Wick and Fish Island retain a concentration of industrial activities and a growing cluster of artists and creative businesses. Vision The sub-area includes large areas of open space including Hackney Marshes, Mabley Green, South Mill Fields, Clapton Park and the eastern half of To create a vibrant new part of east London that builds on the area’s Victoria Park. After the Games these will be supplemented by the Queen unique heritage, open space and waterside character and Olympic Elizabeth Olympic Park, in turn linking to the wider open spaces of the Lee inheritance to create a diverse range of new employment and housing Valley Regional Park. The Olympic Handball Arena at Hackney Wick will opportunities. A new mixed use hub will be created around an improved provide a further leisure facility as a multi use arena for activities ranging Hackney Wick station and the MUA to provide new employment, retail, from international competition to community sports. community sport and housing offers for the area’s growing communities, The sub-area has many waterways and is crossed by the River Lea, Lee and the reuse or redevelopment of the IBC/MPC will support and Navigation and the Hertford Union Canal, whose towpaths provide develop the area’s cultural and creative industries.
    [Show full text]
  • London Waterway River Lee & Stort Fisheries and Angling Action Plan
    River Lee & Stort Fisheries & Angling Action Plan London Waterway River Lee & Stort Fisheries and Angling Action Plan 2015 Authors National Fisheries & Angling Team London Waterway Team Local Fisheries & Angling Stakeholders 1 River Lee & Stort Fisheries & Angling Action Plan 2 River Lee & Stort Fisheries & Angling Action Plan Introduction In September 2013 the Trust launched a new angling strategy, ‘Be Inspired; Go Fishing’, which set out how the Trust intends to work more closely with angling clubs to change perceptions of angling, encourage more people to try the sport, encourage communities to play a leading role in keeping the tradition alive on their local waterways as well as maintaining and improving the local water and bankside habitat. The strategy also outlines how the Trust wants to work with communities to improve facilities, access for anglers, and in particular to grow the numbers of people involved in the sport by attracting more young people as well as improving the environment in which fish live. Fish are at the heart of angling and the aquatic environment. Good fishing relies on having healthy fish populations. Fish are a key indicator of water quality in a piece of legislation called the Water Framework Directive. We will work to achieve the targets set out in the directive to achieve good ecological potential (and status) for our waterways. Context Many angling clubs feel marginalised in their relationship with the Trust and want to feel more valued as a customer. This action plan will serve to identify the priority issues that need to be addressed locally to strengthen relationships with existing clubs, to attract new clubs and lapsed and new angling customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 505 10 February 2010 No. 41 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 10 February 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 893 10 FEBRUARY 2010 894 that a cull of badgers would do anything to help farmers House of Commons or the farming industry? Will he encourage his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, especially in the Wednesday 10 February 2010 light of the today’s report from Imperial college, to study the evidence again? The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock Mr. David: I am aware of the press report to which PRAYERS my right hon. Friend has referred but, of course, nobody is suggesting that there should be a cull, full stop. We need to use a range of measures, with that mixed [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] approach being required in south-west Wales in particular. BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): The Labour-led Administration in Cardiff bay have ELECTORAL COMMISSION come up with a positive programme to eliminate TB in The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported cattle in Wales, which includes better biosecurity, progress to the House, That the address of 15 December, praying on the vaccination programme and a limited cull of that Her Majesty will appoint Anthony Hugh Burton infected wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mayor's Transport Strategy, 2010
    We can all think of small cities that are lovely to live in – tranquil and green and blessed with efficient public transport. And then we can think of big cities that are global economic powerhouses – teeming with the noise, energy and ambition of millions of people. I want London to have the best of both worlds. I want London to be the best big city on earth. That means a place that brims with opportunity and talent and economic activity of all kinds, but also one where the pace of life can suddenly slow from one street to the next; where children can grow up in safety – where people can be seen walking or cycling with no purpose other than enjoyment. That is why we have developed this transport strategy in tandem with the London Plan and the Economic Development Strategy, because taken together they help to outline my vision for the Capital. What is our objective for transport? As I said when I launched ‘Way to Go!’, it is very simple: to help people get from a to b as quickly, safely and conveniently as possible. That’s not just because I want to make people happier in their daily commuting, it’s also because I want London to be the world’s number one location as a place to visit, do business and invest. London is a growing city and I am determined we support the employment and population growth expected here over the next 20 years. I want all Londoners to know that we at City Hall and Transport for London, together with the boroughs and our railway colleagues, are working flat out to keep our city moving, both now and in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Nearshore Automatic Identification Systems
    E.F.Read - Page 1 of 10 Nearshore Automatic Identification Systems Edward F.Read MRIN - Director, Ohmex Ltd., Lymington, U.K. General Introduction to AIS Marine Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) were first developed to allow ships and coastal stations to accurately locate and identify each other, it is a marine technology based on positions and timing derived from the GPS satellite network, commonly described as “the most significant development in navigation and safety since the introduction of radar”. Figure 1 - Typical AIS ship to shore and ship to ship scenario Primarily it is used as a form of visual tracking whereby a vessel transmits its position and basic self information while at the same time it can view all other vessels transmitting their information within its reception range, the information is usually presented on electronic navigation chart (ENC) displays. An auxiliary application of AIS technology is as an Aid To Navigation (ATON), this is normally a transponder transmitter/receiver device or system, E.F.Read - Page 2 of 10 external to vessels, that is designed to provide information to enhance the safe and efficient navigation of vessel traffic. These ATONs consist of a variety of platforms such as buoys and shore based stations which are designed to transmit a variety of messages to aid the safety and efficiency of navigation. The functions described in this document explore the potential and actual applications of AIS technology applied to marine civil engineering, in particular the provision of binary messages such as the type 8 TideMet message with an embedded weather and tidal data payload.
    [Show full text]