The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Chairman:
Mr.
David Wilshire
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Brazier,
Mr. Julian (Canterbury)
(Con)
Brown,
Lyn (West Ham) (Lab)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Clapham,
Mr. Michael (Barnsley, West and Penistone)
(Lab) Cousins,
Jim (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)
(Lab)
Cryer,
Mrs. Ann (Keighley)
(Lab)
Davies,
David T.C. (Monmouth)
(Con)
Davies,
Philip (Shipley)
(Con) Dorrell,
Mr. Stephen (Charnwood)
(Con) Jones,
Mr. Kevan (North Durham)
(Lab)
Khan,
Mr. Sadiq (Tooting)
(Lab)
Ladyman,
Dr. Stephen (Minister of State, Department for
Transport)Leech,
Mr. John (Manchester, Withington)
(LD) Milburn,
Mr. Alan (Darlington)
(Lab)
Roy,
Mr. Frank (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Slaughter,
Mr. Andrew (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
(Lab) Frank Cranmer, Committee
Clerk attended the
Committee First
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationMonday 10
July
2006[Mr.
David Wilshire in the
Chair]Draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Automatic Identification System) Order 20064.30
pm The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen
Ladyman): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft General Lighthouse Authorities
(Beacons: Automatic Identification System) Order
2006. I
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Wilshire. The order under section 223(3)
of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 will permit the three general
lighthouse authorities to operate the automatic identification system
as a marine aid to navigation. It empowers the GLAs to make proposals
to the Secretary of State for Transport to operate AIS installations
and to sanction systems with costs met from the general lighthouse
fund. The general lighthouse authorities provide marine aids to
navigation services around the British
Isles. The GLAs are
Trinity House for England, Wales and the Channel Islands, the Northern
Lighthouse Board for Scotland and the Isle of Man and the Commissioners
of Irish Lights for Northern Irelandthe CIL is, in fact, an
Irish body based in Dublin. The order will apply to the CILs
operations in the north, and similar powers are available to it in
Ireland under Irelands Merchant Shipping Act 1894, as
amended. The
Department and the GLAs are promoting the international development of
marine e-navigation systems, and the United Kingdom has secured a
commitment by the International Maritime Organisation to develop a work
programme to make it a reality at the global level. It requires a move
away from the heavy reliance on traditional aids to navigation to an
integrated electronic system comprising satellite navigations systems
supported by a separate ground-based, radio navigation system. We
envisage that that will comprise the United States global positioning
system, plus the European Galileo system with enhancements such as the
AIS and the enhanced Loran C long-range radio system, which is
currently under trial and
development. All
commercial vessels in excess of 300 tonnes undertaking an international
voyage are required to transmit an AIS signal, which shows the
ships name, next port of call, course and cargo details. The
system can be interpreted by other vessels and from the land in either
graphic or alpha-numeric displays. It offers security data and allows
ports to assess well in advance of normal reporting times when vessels
are likely to
arrive. The purpose of
the order is to support the use of AIS as an aid to navigation. A
lighthouse, light vessel or buoy can transmit its location and other
details using AIS, and that information will appear on the
ships display. The GLAs have been experimenting with
AIS, and they have concluded that it will allow them to reduce the size
and range of a number of physical aids to navigation. For example, a
light vessel might be replaced with a cheaper buoy plus an AIS signal,
and a lighthouse might still maintain a light, but with a reduced
range, which, again, would be enhanced by an AIS signal. Ultimately,
some of the traditional aids might be replaced altogether by an AIS
signal. Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con):
The Minister has mentioned the figure of 300 tonnes.
As an hon. Member who represents a fishing constituency that contains
several boating organisations and organisations that represent pleasure
craft, will he say what discussions have taken place with organisations
that represent vessels which are below that size and which might not
have such advanced technological systems on
board? Dr.
Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the nub
of a long project. If we are to rely entirely on e-navigation, the
vessels that he has identified must ultimately have all the technology
that is necessary for e-navigation. We are in discussions with
organisations that represent smaller craft and with the International
Maritime Organisation. As time goes on, we shall introduce further
proposals to deal with those issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that
we do not intend to do anything in the short term or as a result of the
order that will lead to a reduced level of safety for the smaller
vessels that he has
identified. As I have
said, some of the traditional aids might be replaced altogether by an
AIS signal. The aid to navigation would not have a physical presence,
but the ships AIS display would show the aid, with the AIS
signal being transmitted from the
land. David
T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): The explanatory notes do not
make it clear whether the measure is about improving safety or saving
costs. Dr.
Ladyman: The measure is ultimately about improving both
safety and the navigation of our waterways. It may well have a
long-term impact on costs, because we will not have to maintain some of
the very expensive traditional navigation aids that we currently
provide. The main thrust for making the changes is a thrust towards
safety. It seems odd that in the 21st century we are still totally
reliant on physical lights and buoys as the only aids to safe
navigation on the waterways. The developments will take many years, but
they give an indication of the systems capabilities, if it is
developed in full. The
Department for Transport and the general lighthouse authorities
envisage that the system will ultimately make a major contribution to
safety while reducing expenditure and providing essential aids to
navigation. Transitional costs, which are estimated at £3
million, will be met from the general lighthouse fund in the first
instance. Savings will come from reducing the scope of traditional
aids, although we do not envisage that they will disappear
completely. The
Chairman: I apologise to the Committee, and particularly
to the Clerk, for nearly giving him a heart attack by arriving exactly
on time, or a whisker late.
4.36
pm Mr.
Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Welcome to your place,
Mr. Wilshire. I came through the door only a few seconds ahead of
you. The
Chairman: Thank goodness for
that. Mr.
Brazier: The measure is basically welcome, as, obviously,
bringing modern technology into the equation could significantly
enhance safety, but several questions need to be asked.
I was
particularly pleased by the Ministers answer to my hon. Friend
the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) because I am
conscious, as a former offshore sailor, that traditional aids are
important to people who might not have the latest equipment. What
timescale does the Minister envisage for the run-down of traditional
aids to navigation? Presumably the systems that we are discussing are
extremely robust, as they are all based on existing technologies, but
have the implications of freak electrical storms and other extreme
conditions, which could include terrorist activity, been thought
through? There might be a catastrophic failure of the new technology,
in which case the loss of traditional systems would be dire
indeed. My next point
concerns the Ministers comments last year about the European
maritime Green
Paper: The
bridge of a typical merchant ship is cluttered with all sorts of
different navigation technologies - but they're neither standardised
nor complementary. Even
when good equipment is available, one cannot guarantee that a crew will
know how to use it. Sometimes an over-reliance on computers can be very
dangerous, as with the Berit incident of 5 January. The marine accident
investigation branch report into that incident, which was released this
week,
stated: Berit
was also fitted with an electronic charting system (ECS). In this case,
too great a reliance was placed on the basic information provided by
the ECS, and the full functionality of the system was not
employed...The paper charts did not have regular positions marked, even
though they were the primary means of navigation onboard. Fixes were
recorded in the log, but these positions were only derived from the
GPS. Good navigational practice requires that positions are
cross-checked by independent
sources. As that great
man Douglas Adams once
said: The major
difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot
possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong
goes wrong, it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or
repair. Even if
the Minister can guarantee that all UK seafarers have sufficient
training to ensure that they can work AIS, how can he be certain that
those from other states, such as flag of convenience states and others,
have been suitably trained? There are nearly 9,000 holders of
certificates of equivalent competency on UK ships, many of which come
from countries where English is, at best, a second language. Foreign
flagged ships cannot be expected to have crews with a sufficient
working knowledge of English in every case. The safety incident on the
Pilgrim 2, an extract about which I shall read out, if I may, Mr.
Wilshire shows how dangerous the situation can be aboard some of the
ships in our waters. I use this by way of analogy, because we are
clearly talking about a shift from fairly basic navigational skills to
the use of a different system.
When a port state control officer
visited Pilgrim 2, his report
stated: The
PSCO noticed a heavily corroded extinguisher at the gangway, and found
several more CO2 extinguishers with the horns missing. An
accommodation fire damper was found lying on the
deck. He then ordered a
fire drill. I hope that you will indulge my quoting a little, Mr.
Wilshire, because this indicates the difficulties that can arise when a
vessel is not adequately
crewed: It took
considerable effort for the crew to understand, as the master and
officers spoke almost no English. The Inspector had to write
Fire Drill on a piece of paper in large letters and
hold it up. The drill was not up to the required standard, as was
displayed by the fire team. The team leader showed up in a fire suit
wearing trainers and donned the breathing apparatus upside down with
the waist strap around his neck which proceeded to choke him. The
second member of the team, without a breathing apparatus set, grabbed a
length of hose and dashed into the engine room, the scene of the fire,
which was supposedly ablaze. His progress came to an abrupt halt
halfway down the first ladder when he ran out of
hose. I shall not go on
quoting. My penultimate question to the Minister is: do the Government
accept that less trained crews may still need the traditional
navigational aids, even if they have all the right equipment on
board? I am also
concerned to hear that the introduction of AIS is being used as an
excuse to phase out the use of pilotage on the Princes channel
in the Medway. The plan, currently being consulted on by the Port of
London Authority, is to offset the costs of additional dredging of the
entry points by reducing the area in which ships must have pilots.
Furthermore, we all know that there will be many more ships after the
Shallhaven complex is
opened. As I wrote to
the Minister on 14 June, it is surprising that just as we are expecting
a significant increase in the usage of
this The
Chairman: Order. You asked me to indulge you, Mr. Brazier,
and I have done so, but there is a limit to my
patience.
Mr.
Brazier: Indeed, Mr. Wilshire. You are right to reproach
me. Finally, can the Minister guarantee that the introduction of this
system will not be used by other bodies as an excuse to cut necessary
traditional aids to navigation?
4.43
pm Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I am
delighted that we are discussing this order. Unlike you, Mr. Wilshire,
and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), such was my
excitement that I was uncharacteristically a few minutes early for the
commencement of proceedings.
I am one of a handful of Members
who has a significant number of lights in their constituency. I have
taken close interest in the workings of the Northern Lighthouse Board
since my election, and its chairman and chief executive recently
confessed to me that in the past five years I am the only hon. Member
to have been in correspondence with them about their workings on any
sort of regular basis.
I was
interested to hear the remarks made by the hon. Member for Canterbury,
who described the operation of non-English speaking crews. Of course,
it was not always thus: until the Conservative Government in 1979, the
provision of officers and masters from this country was the norm rather
than the exception. Indeed, it was as a result of the merchant shipping
policies of Conservative Governments throughout the 1980s and the early
1990s that we find ourselves in this situation today. I say that merely
so that I, too, can have my share of your indulgence, Mr.
Wilshire.
David
T.C. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way? Mr.
Carmichael: Well, it will be difficult for the hon.
Gentleman to stay in order, and it will be impossible for me to do so,
but I shall give
way. David
T.C. Davies: I am grateful for that confession. Is the
hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should do everything possible to
prevent people in third world countries from having
jobs? The
Chairman: Order. As predicted, that question was not in
order.
Mr.
Carmichael: Not only was it not in order, but it was not
relevant to my point, Mr. Wilshire, so I am grateful to you for
intervening.
The general
lighthouse authorities are to be commended on how they have adapted
their operations in recent years and achieved a significant reduction
in the dues that they levy. Indeed, todays order will give them
a further opportunity to continue that modernisation process. It seems
nonsensical to continue to deny the general lighthouse authorities the
ability to operate and maintain AIS, when the Maritime and Coastguard
Agency has that ability. The change will make a considerable and
significant contribution to maritime safety, particularly in inshore
waters. I am told that
the Northern Lighthouse Board would like an AIS-fitted buoy to be
deployed at Milleur point at the entrance to Loch Ryan, which would
transmit, via Corsewall lighthouse, actual sea state and wind speed at
the entrance. That would be of huge benefit to the high-speed craft and
other ferries that operate out of Loch Ryan. That is an excellent
working example of what can be achieved with the powers that the order
gives to the general lighthouse
authorities. In answer
to a Conservative intervention, the Minister said that it was intended
ultimately to rely on e-navigation, which is, perhaps, a little on the
optimistic side. If what he means by ultimately is
at some time in the distant future, I might agree, but
I do not think that it will happen in my lifetime. There will surely be
a need in the foreseeable future to maintain traditional aids to
navigation, such as lighthouses and lit
buoys. I have only one
substantial question for the Minister: how long has it been since the
GLAs first sought the power in question, and why it has taken the
Government so long to give it to them?
4.47
pm Mr.
Bellingham: The Commissioners of Irish Lights is an
all-Ireland body. Obviously, most of the money that goes into the
general lighthouse fund comes from dues, but as I understand matters
some money comes from the Department, and some comes from the Irish
Department of Transport, too. What level of discussion has the Minister
had with his Irish counterpart and when does he expect that they will
next meet? Is there an arrangement for a pro rata contribution from the
Irish Government to that part of the operation of the Commissioners of
Irish Lights that covers the Republic of Ireland? Furthermore, the
order makes major changesare the Irish Government perfectly
happy about them?
4.48
pm Dr.
Ladyman: I can start by answering that question straight
away. I have regular meetings with my Irish counterpart at the European
transport council. I do not have specific meetings scheduled with him
on this issue at present, but it is something that we
discuss. The hon.
Gentleman and the hon. Member for Canterbury have been particularly
inventive in getting issues into the debate that have nothing to do
with the order, but the question of the dues of the Irish Lights is
thorny, and it is regularly debated in the House. The Irish
Governments contribution is, of course, set by treaty, but
there are many complaints that they do not contribute the full amount
that they should to the provision of the Irish Lights. The Irish
Minister and I regularly discuss that matter, and industry regularly
raises it with me. I shall continue to press the view of industry that
there should be a greater contribution from the Irish
Government. The hon.
Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has said that
we will not be able to rely on e-navigation in his lifetime, and he
might be right. I did not say that we had any short-term plans to turn
off the traditional aids to navigation, but we will do so as we prove
that the system works.
The hon. Member for Canterbury
asked about the time scale that we envisage for such work. It will be
some 20 to 30 years before we see significant reliance on e-navigation
across the whole of the fleet, so we are not talking about something
that will happen tomorrow. However, one starts a long journey with the
first step, and if the destination is 20 to 30 years in the future, it
is better to start now than to wait another 10
years. I have been
asked how long it has been since the general lighthouse authorities
first sought the power. I think that the answer is 2004, when there was
a problem in drafting the appropriate regulations. The British
Government have led the efforts to try to get the world to move to
electronic navigation, which have really begun in the past 12 months or
so. Our strategy to
try to get the world to adopt e-navigation answers most of the other
questions asked by the hon. Member for Canterbury. The effort must be
made through the IMO, because it sets the training standards. The IMO
must ensure a clear standard for equipment on bridges, so that the
proliferation of different equipment is dealt with, so that standards
are set for manufacturers, so that equipment is simplified
and so that training standards are set to ensure that the mariners of
the world can use all those pieces of
equipment. I reiterate
that it was never our intention merely to turn off the lights and pick
up the buoys. However, as we improve the systems and see those
improvements flow through the rest of the marine fleet, we might be
able to change some of the systems. For example, when all the large
ships have e-navigation and AIS systems, the lights will not need such
a long range, because they will be used by smaller vessels that are
closer to the shore, in which case we might be able to reduce the range
of some of them. It might be possible eventually to turn off some of
the lights, but nobody is suggesting doing anything to compromise
safety. While there are vessels that cannot navigate without lights and
buoys, lights and buoys must remain, but we need to start moving into
the 21st century at some
point. I
was struck by the thought that the speech made by the hon. Member for
Canterbury was probably the same speech that one of his predecessors
made a couple of hundred years ago, when it was suggested that we move
from dead reckoning by stars to a system of lights. We must modernise
from time to time, and when we say that we will not compromise on
safety, it is not the same as saying that we will always do things in
the future in the same way as we have done them in the past.
Mr.
Brazier: May I say to the Minister, with whom I have
always had a good personal relationship, that he knows perfectly well
that I support the measure? I made it clear at the outset that there is
nothing inconsistent about supporting new technology on the one hand
and being strongly in favour of a long-term transition from old
technology on the other, given that the adjustment by some crews has
been slow.
Dr.
Ladyman: Since I have given the assurance that there will
be a long transition, and that it will be done with all due diligence
and the appropriate training and standardisation, I hope that the hon.
Gentleman is suitably reassured and can join us in the move
forward. The
Chairman: It might be of assistance to the Committee in
deciding whether Mr. Carmichael will live long enough to see
e-navigation to know that he is 41 next
week. Question put
and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Automatic
Identification System) Order
2006. Committee rose
at five minutes to Five
oclock.
|