Mr.
Carmichael: Like the hon. Member for Harwich, I am not a
member of the Committee. It seems to be a peculiarity of the way in
which we order our business in this place that those who attend as
members of a Committee rarely have much to say, whereas occasionally we
find ourselves in a situation where those of who are not members feel
the need to
contribute. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury on bringing this matter
before hon. Members today. It is a timely ventilation of a genuine
issue. There are never enough opportunities for Parliament to discuss
lighthouses. This is the third time that there has been a debate on
lighthouses in my eight and a half years as an MP, and I am proud to
place on the record the fact that I have contributed to all three
debates. That
said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the mechanism by
which the matter has come before us for debate today is something of a
nuclear option, and that if the Committee were minded to follow his
suggestion and revoke the increases order, that would have dire
consequences for the general lighthouse authorities. The hon. Gentleman
heard the quote that I read out from the chief executive of the
Northern Lighthouse Board, who is not a man given to overstatement.
When he says that the revocation of the increases would leave his
organisation unable to cover its core functions relating to the safety
of mariners, we must take that warning very
seriously.
Mr.
Brazier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I
hope that he will acknowledge that the Government brought us to this
option, both by their failure in negotiations with Ireland and by their
failure to introduce legislation that all our parties would welcome.
Will he also accept that a steady reduction in traffic coming to the UK
will have the same effect on the budgets of the lighthouse
authorities?
Mr.
Carmichael: To deal with the first question first, yes, I
accept that the Government’s record is less than exemplary. We
have been talking about the Irish question for as long as I have been
in the House and, no doubt, for decades before that. I fervently wish
that somebody somewhere someday would take hold of it and deal with it
properly, but that is not available to us today. We are talking about
the here and now for the lighthouse authorities, and the here and now
is that they need the money to cover their core functions and in
particular to meet their pension fund obligations. If hon. Members were
minded to refuse to increase light dues in the way proposed, that would
have serious consequences.
The hon.
Member for Canterbury is a fair-minded gentleman. I hope that, having
given us the opportunity to ventilate the concerns, he will not
consider it necessary to divide the Committee—subject, of
course, to anything that we may hear from the Minister, which may
change our minds. The fact is, however, that there is a serious problem
with the funding and operation of the GLAs. The regulations must be put
in the proper context, which is that since 1993, light dues have been
drastically and repeatedly reduced but they now need to be increased.
However regrettable that may be, it is a bullet that has to be
bitten. Let
me take this opportunity to say to the Minister we are trusting him to
tackle the Irish question seriously, because that continued subsidy
must be tackled. We know that that will not be done in time for the
start of the next financial year—the problem has been with us
for more than 80 years, and we must be realistic about the opportunity
of solving it before 5 April. However, serious efforts must be
made. There
is also the question of the Atkins review of the operation of GLAs.
Touching on the point made by the hon. Member for Canterbury,
I want to place on the record my concern that the official Opposition
spokesman appears to be suggesting a merger between Trinity House and
the Northern Lighthouse Board. That way lies madness. The idea that
Muckle Flugga lighthouse, north of my constituency, will be operated
from Trinity House—it probably would be from Trinity
House—is utter madness. The manner in which the existing boards
have been able to work together to share some of the costs and to
achieve significant economies through joint working shows that there is
an opportunity to have the best of both worlds, and that simply
creating one behemoth GLA for the whole of the United Kingdom would not
be desirable or effective. Any cost savings would be outweighed by the
disbenefits.
Mr.
Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving
way once again. That was not a commitment on our part; it is simply an
option that we think is worth looking at in the light of the huge
advances that have been made in technology. It is something which could
not have been considered 10 years ago but may well be, and certainly
should be, looked at
now.
Mr.
Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman can look at whatever he
chooses to look at. My confident prediction is that if he looks at the
situation in the objective and fair way for which he is known, he will
in fact see, given the willingness of the lighthouse boards to work
effectively together and to make shared economies where they can, that
no real benefit would attach to merging the bodies as he has suggested.
I am sure that the Conservative candidate for Orkney and Shetland would
be delighted to hear that the proposal is not yet a Front-Bench
commitment. In
his intervention, the hon. Gentleman also talked about the reduction in
shipping. Again, that is a possibility that we have to take seriously,
but I have to say to him and to the Committee that the case for
abolition of light dues is one that the shipping industry has been
making for as long as I can remember—certainly long before the
current economic downturn and any decrease in traffic. I do not
discount completely the dire predictions that we have heard, but I urge
the Minister and the
Committee to treat them with a measure of caution. It seems to me that
the industry is taking advantage of the economic downturn to pursue a
goal that it has pursued for long
enough. The
point is that if we abandon the present set-up, many people will be
brought into the equation for paying light dues. The Atkins review is
looking specifically at that. Is the hon. Member for Canterbury or the
Minister seriously suggesting that leisure boats, fishing boats,
warships and other seagoing vessels that are not currently liable to
pay light dues should be brought into the scope of having to pay them?
Once one takes the shipping industry’s line, a range of factors
have to be considered. The Government’s approach in setting up
the Atkins review is broadly right and they are to be
commended. My
final point is that the Northern Lighthouse Board was described to me
recently as a pension fund with a few lighthouses attached. Given how
the boards have operated in recent years and the fact that nearly all
our lighthouses—if not all of them—are now automated, the
Committee will understand how that position has arisen. The scope in
the overall budget for further efficiencies must be limited, but the
boards cannot avoid their commitments to the pension funds. The
commitments that they have some flexibility over are their core
functions, but they provide safety to those who use the sea around our
coastlines and island communities. That is something that we should not
play with without the most careful
consideration. 5.4
pm Mr.
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Before the
Minister responds, I would like to make an observation and ask a
question. The observation is based on my being a member of a large
family of merchant marine seafarers, and on an involvement of 25 years
or more with the successful Mersey Docks and Harbour
Company. I
have never in all my time in politics or, indeed, in life come across a
bigger bunch of whingers and whiners than the shipowners. They will
whinge and whine about anything and everything, yet, when it suits
them, they will flag their vessels away and prevent British crews from
working on the ships. For many of us, there is no love lost towards the
ship owners, who must make a better case than the one I have heard
today.
Page 7 of
the memorandum mentions a cap of 35,000 tonnes, for which
£12,250 must be paid. Will the Minister explain the rationale
for that, given that one company uses the port of Liverpool—and
it is not alone—for a combined ro-ro container ship that
provides a regular service between Europe and the eastern
seaboard of the United States? Is it correct that that 66,000 tonnes
deadweight vessel will pay only the same as a vessel nearly half its
displacement?
5.6
pm Mr.
Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): I apologise to the
Committee for failing to be present for the opening statements of the
Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. I was
unavoidably detained at the defence statement.
I do not wish
to detain the Committee long, but I wish to place on record my
concerns. I endorse every word uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for
Harwich. As Member of Parliament for the neighbouring constituency, I
also have constituents who are employed by Trinity House, and they have
taken the trouble to brief me with their perspective. Trinity House is
an admirable organisation, a technological world leader with a great
deal to contribute.
I speak also
as chairman of the newly formed all-party group on homeland security.
There has been talk in Government of the huge expense of trying to
construct a maritime picture of all the movements of shipping and
vessels around the United Kingdom. Trinity House will tell you,
Mr. Cummings, that this is a very achievable task and that
it has all the radars and the necessary information. All that is
required to ensure the massive increase in maritime security that is
required in a world of modern threats is the will and a limited amount
of money to provide interfaces between the different radar systems.
That would provide a central facility or facilities necessary to
provide much better maritime security around our island
kingdom.
The
contribution of Trinity House and the other lighthouse boards to
maritime safety is unquantifiable. We are not just talking about the
merchant shipping industry; we are talking about the profusion of
medium-sized and small craft that use our coastal waters. I believe
that we need the review that the Minister has mentioned today; we need
to look at ways of expanding the resources available to Trinity House,
in order to improve the service it provides. As a yachtsman, I would
volunteer that the leisure marine industry, with relatively low annual
contributions, could make quite a significant contribution to the
annual budget of Trinity House. It is not surprising that Trinity House
subsidises other parts of the United Kingdom, given the concentration
of shipping around the south-east of England, particularly through the
English channel. Hundreds of thousands of leisure craft are registered
for a fee every year. A small levy attached to that would be a very
modest increase in the cost of yachting, but it would be willingly paid
by the vast majority of leisure marine users on the basis that they are
intensive users of the services and facilities provided by Trinity
House.
Mr.
Carmichael: On the question of Trinity House subsidising
other parts of the UK, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the level of
light dues paid does not necessarily reflect the use of aids to
navigation? The dues tend to be paid to Trinity House because it is the
first port of call, but there may be later calls, within either NLB or
CIL areas, for which no payment is made, even though those aids to
navigation are
used.
Mr.
Jenkin: I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s
point. I am merely pointing out that it is entirely natural that the
vast majority of revenue is collected in the south-east of England. To
that extent, the south-east of England subsidises the other parts of
England and Wales, so to look for some kind of equitable and neutral
flow of funds between the lighthouse boards would be a little
unrealistic. I feel that I have placed on the record the points I
wanted to make. I respect the position adopted by my hon. Friend the
Member for Canterbury, but I think that the right way forward is a
proper—
Mr.
Brazier: As he came in late, my hon. Friend may have
misunderstood my position. Neither I nor anyone else in the debate has
suggested a more equitable flow of funds between the lighthouse boards
on the basis of geography. All we have suggested is that
Ireland—an independent state—should pay its share of the
costs, and that has been a refrain throughout the time I have been in
this job. The independent republic of Eire should pay its 85 per cent.
of the Irish
dues.
Mr.
Jenkin: That is a separate point. I was picking up a
different point from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and, of
course, apologise to my hon. Friend, because I was in ignorance of what
he said earlier. I have some sympathy for his point about Ireland,
which is another matter that must be addressed. I am grateful for your
indulgence, Mr. Cummings, and that of the
Committee.
5.12
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul
Clark): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship
this afternoon, Mr. Cummings. We have certainly had an
interesting debate. Several points have been made, to which I wish to
respond as succinctly as possible.
Although the
Opposition Front Benchers rightly recognise that the sea channels are
our arteries as a seafaring nation, it appears that they wish to apply
a tourniquet to those arteries, which would cause problems and
potentially threaten safety, for which we are renowned, in some of the
world’s busiest shipping channels; those channels are critical
to our well-being, as around 95 per cent. of all goods come by
sea. I
am acutely aware of the challenges and difficulties faced by all
stakeholders in the shipping and ports industry. During the summer
recess, I took the opportunity to visit a number of the ports to have
discussions with shipping industry participants, and I visited both the
NLB and Trinity House to see the work that they have done. I recognised
the substantial commitment, to which hon. Members referred, and hard
work undertaken by all three lighthouse authorities to reduce costs in
several ways. They have used new technologies, reduced staff, adopted
better working practices and made better use of their equipment and
resources, and I congratulate them on that. However, the overriding
concern is that safety is not compromised in the delivery of those cost
reductions. Otherwise, that would do us no good
whatever. Mr.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): Does the Minister plan to
address the imbalance in revenues so that Trinity House revenue is not
subsidising Irish lighthouses?
Paul
Clark: With due respect, Mr. Cummings, I wish
that I had not given way. Obviously, I have only just started; of
course I will deal with the financial position and the reason why we
believe that it is right that light dues should increase. I make no
comment on the colourfully descriptive words used by my hon. Friend the
Member for Liverpool, Walton, other than to say that it is right that
the light dues were last increased in 1993, and then cut in 1997, 2002,
2004 and 2006, because we listened to what the industry said about its
requirements and did not wish to burden it unnecessarily.
I will deal
with three points: the structure, the Irish question and light dues. We
are considering carefully how the service can be more efficient and
effective with a different structure. I do not need to tell right hon.
and hon. Members that the structure has developed over a period of
honourable history for all three lighthouse boards. That historical
legacy is partly the cause of some of the criticisms levelled at the
authorities. However, there is no problem with tradition as long as it
does not interfere with efficient delivery of services.
We have
appointed WS Atkins as consultants, and I have asked the firm to report
by March 2010. The consultants will consider many of the issues raised
by hon. Members today, and will examine the structure to see whether
there are any potential synergies in the delivery of services. However,
that does not necessarily include the amalgamation of authorities by
any means; because of distinctive coastlines and regional requirements,
individual authorities’ roles and knowledge are required to
ensure that navigation remains safe. The consultants will also consider
the management of the aids to navigation services, the management of
the general lighthouse fund and the issue raised about co-operation
between the UK and Ireland. I will deal specifically with the Irish
question in a
moment. I
have asked for the report to be delivered by March next year. I do not
want to speculate on its findings, as I do not want to prejudice what I
have asked the consultants to do, but we need the advice. I know that
the firm has made an excellent start on consulting, discussing and
undertaking talks with interested parties on the range of issues to
which I have
referred. The
second point involves the Irish question. It is right that the Irish
lights and their funding should be part of the Atkins assessment.
Equally, as Members are aware, my predecessor, the hon. Member for
Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), undertook discussions with
his counterpart in Ireland, and it was agreed after a report and a
review that the split should change from 70:30 to 85:15. That is a step
in the right direction, but we continue to hold dialogues to see how
much further we can take that, recognising the issues raised. The
Atkins report will continue to do its work in parallel with the work
that we are undertaking. I am in consultation with my Irish
counterpart, Noel Dempsey.
| 
