| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Greenway: I certainly support the thrust behind this grouping of amendments because in many ways it echoes what I am trying to achieve in Amendment No. 69, which we shall come to later. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said, I spoke at Second Reading on the question of the General Lighthouse Fund and admitted my interest as a Younger Brother of Trinity House, which I do again willingly.
As the noble Lord said, the main problem here is that feathers were ruffled because somehow, somewhere there was a slip-up in the consultation process. The Minister apologised for that at Second Reading and I take that very much in the spirit in which it was offered. Nevertheless, there is still a considerable degree of upset among the general lighthouse authorities and indeed the Lights Advisory Committee. As I shall explain later when I come to move my amendment, we would prefer the whole schedule dealing with raising charges to be left as it was when it was discussed earlier this year. It is the additions to the schedule that have upset everyone, and included in that is the contingent proposal to move the General Lighthouse Fund, if need be, into the Consolidated Fund at a later date.
I remain to be convinced that these powers which the Government seek are necessary at the moment. They are looking for powers to cope with a different system of funding which may have to be introduced because a new method of funding may be created by our European partners. We are looking some considerable way into the future. I know discussions are going on, and the present Government are very keen to persuade our European colleagues that our system of user pays--the light dues system--is the best one, and I would be delighted if they could indeed persuade our continental friends to go down this line as quickly as possible.
However, we all know what happens in matters European. They tend to be very convoluted. They take an extremely long time, and we are looking at something here that may happen one day or may not happen, and I cannot see the necessity of including these contingent provisions in this Bill for something that may never happen. It was not something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned in his excellent report. This is going somewhat wider than his recommendations. I remain very much to be convinced
on this, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us more on the Government's thinking behind these provisions, which have been added since the consultation process took place earlier this year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I want to raise one or two matters. I promise to remember that I have raised them when the Minister comes to reply. Incidentally, I say parenthetically that the reason I asked for a change as far as the Dispatch Box was concerned was that I could not see noble Lords opposite, and in particular my old sparring partner Lord Caithness, and I thought that was a disadvantage.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.26 to 4.36 p.m.]
Lord Clinton-Davis: As I was saying, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said at the very beginning of his remarks that the provisions we are considering here were not included in the February consultation paper on maritime charges, nor in the draft Bill which was published in July. There was, indeed, a very short period of consultation of about four weeks as far as that was concerned. Whatever the merits of the argument may be, the Government did slip up by not providing for consultation on that matter with the Chamber of Shipping and indeed others who had a direct involvement in the issue. Included in that would be the LAC (Lights Advisory Committee). The Government therefore owe an explanation to the Committee as to why that occurred. It may well be that there were good reasons for it, although I cannot think of any. If there was a mistake, it would be as well to acknowledge it.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to discussion within the European Union about the user pays principle. As I understand it, the Government have power under current legislation to widen the scope of light dues, so how would the new powers assist in the process if, in fact, that provision is already embodied in existing legislation? Is it, on the other hand, the Government's desire to widen the scope of lighthouse dues? This is relevant, and I rose at this stage because I thought it important that the Minister should have the opportunity to reply to those additional points.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I rise to support Amendment No. 60 and particularly to support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Greenway. I have already been caught out by the noble Earl straying into this area when discussing the previous amendment, which in fact has the following number. I was rather encouraged to do that because the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the arch intervener, allowed me to go on. The noble Baroness on these occasions sits there rather like an oriental goddess of destruction--in one hand the Bill, in a second hand the list of amendments, in a third hand the groupings, and in the fourth hand a thunderbolt. As it was not hurled at me, I went on!
I need only add this. As my noble friend has pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has pointed out on another point, this provision is completely unnecessary. It gives the Secretary of State power to adopt the draft financial provisions which your
Lordships last considered if he thinks it is necessary to bring our provisions into line with the European regulations or international law.The first thing to be said about that is that it is highly unlikely that there will be any such conflict in the code. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out at Second Reading, at present it is proposed that the user pays and, as I understand it, that is the way the Community thinking is tending. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who knows both sides of this business, nods, but perhaps the noble Viscount can confirm that.
What is being done is to take a power to be operated in the unlikely event of it being required. Secondly, the Secretary of State is not a fountain of all wisdom when it comes to a legal judgment. I do not refer particularly to the Secretary of State of the department, because there is only one Secretary of State in law. We have seen time and time again in recent years how the Government have been mistaken in their view of the law. That is the second reason why this sort of provision is undesirable.
The third reason is this. It will be used as a precedent even if it is not used for the purpose for which it is designed. Last century, the poets spoke of freedom broadening down from precedent to precedent. What we have seen this century is bureaucracy broadening down from precedent to precedent. It is highly undesirable to establish such a precedent, particularly since it is unnecessary, as has been pointed out, and, thirdly, because in no way does the Bill depend on this provision.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on this very important subject. As I said at Second Reading, I feel that the provisions of the Bill have generated considerable anxiety, not least among the general lighthouse authorities. Perhaps part of the reason was the fact that there was not extensive consultation on these provisions of the Bill. I regret that, and feel it is my duty at this stage to attempt to allay the fears that have been voiced around this table, and indeed by people concerned with the General Lighthouse Fund and authorities outside the chamber.
At the time of consultation on the draft Bill in June we thought that it would be possible to bring in any necessary consequential changes to light dues using secondary legislation under the European Communities Act. We have since concluded that we could not do this because the particular financial measures need primary legislation. That is why the draft Bill said one thing and the final Bill said another. However, that does not mean that we should not attempt to put the position right. That is essentially what we have sought to do with this Bill.
I listened very carefully, also, to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on the subject. The one point which I did not accept was that because the courts have occasionally found against the Government it would be unwise to write anything into a Bill which meant that the Secretary of State would have to interpret
the law. I have not expressed that very well, but I thought that was the thrust of what the noble and learned Lord was saying.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: If the noble Viscount would allow me, surely Ministers and the Executive are not the people to interpret the law. Our constitution vouchsafes that to courts of law.
Viscount Goschen: I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord, and it would be very unwise of me to enter into a legal argument with such an authority on the subject of the constitution as the noble and learned Lord. Nonetheless, Ministers continually have to take decisions that involve being presented with legal advice by our legal advisers, and Ministers have to take decisions on the basis of that advice. Those decisions are occasionally challenged in the court; sometimes the Government win and sometimes they are found against. Nonetheless, Ministers have to take decisions, and they are advised by competent legal advisers. If people seek to challenge those decisions then of course the court is the authority which decides whether the Ministers acted correctly or not. I do not suppose I have expressed that in a very concise manner, but I understand that that essentially is the situation.
Going beyond that specific point, I would like to explain again the Government's thinking on this issue, and where we feel we are now. Schedule 2 makes provision for a range of new charges to recover the cost of maritime services. But such a system already exists for the more limited purpose of paying for aids to navigation, and we have heard some of the history from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Briefly, ships pay light dues when they enter British and Irish ports, and those dues are paid into the General Lighthouse Fund. The fund is managed by the Secretary of State and disburses revenue to the three GLAs. These three GLAs maintain lighthouses and other aids to navigation out of this revenue. The General Lighthouse Fund is separately accounted for, in effect it is ring-fenced and there is a transparent account of these transactions.
In drafting the Bill, we needed to consider the position of the General Lighthouse Fund as it was a living example of the sort of system which Schedule 2 envisages. That is why the two issues of seeking to generate a wider charging system and the charging system on a much more limited basis, already in place in the UK are linked. Let me say at once that we are content with the present operation of the GLF, but we did not wish to decide now to exclude the light dues from being considered when a new international agreement had been developed. So it seemed sensible to make provision on the face of the Bill for contingent powers to amend or to abolish the GLF. At the same time we wished to be as clear as possible on the circumstances in which it might become necessary to alter the GLF. There are references in paragraphs 3 and 12 of Schedule 2 to show what would happen and the mechanics thereof when a new charging system came into being. To address some of the earlier concerns, the important point here is that these provisions leave unaffected the constitution and main responsibilities of
the three general lighthouse authorities. Indeed, the only mention of the GLAs in the Bill is in their capacity as collectors of light dues.Paragraph 3 of the schedule makes clear that the Secretary of State will have no power simply to incorporate the General Lighthouse Fund into any new arrangements. Two preconditions are set out on the face of the Bill. First, there must be a European Community or other international obligation which envisages the incorporation of lighthouse expenditure with other marine services within a new payment structure. Secondly, those obligations must be incompatible with continuing the present lighthouse fund arrangements under Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. If the new international arrangements were compatible with continuing the present arrangements, the present arrangements would continue, and that is a very important point indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, felt that it was unlikely that such wider agreement would come forward. In that case, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has no need whatever to be concerned about this part of the Bill, because that precondition would not be met. Therefore, there would be no triggering of the consequential provisions about which there has been considerable discussion.
There is a third precondition before the Secretary of State can act, which has already been perceived. In introducing a new charging system by regulation, the Secretary of State would need to subject his proposals to the affirmative resolution procedure, so requiring parliamentary debate on specific proposals. There is no question of the Secretary of State, under these provisions, being allowed to amend the present arrangements at will. As was mentioned during Second Reading, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has looked at the powers in Schedule 2 to amend the primary legislation. It has concluded that the affirmative resolution procedure, which is stipulated in the schedule, provides:
- "the appropriate degree of Parliamentary control".
Paragraph 12 makes consequential provisions for the General Lighthouse Fund, and it is subject to the same constraints or preconditions. Occasionally, we have heard the point made that paragraph 12 would allow a "raid" on the General Lighthouse Fund by the Exchequer. This is not realistic. The fund is prudently managed, indeed with the advice of the shipping industry as the Lighthouse Advisory Committee. It does not represent a huge reserve, and it has definite obligations, both towards expenditure on maintaining and replacing aids to navigation, and also towards paying the pensions of employees and former employees of the three general lighthouse authorities. I would like to deal with that point, as I was asked specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, at the end of my remarks.
If, therefore, the preconditions set out in the Bill were met, and if in those circumstances, the Secretary of State decided to bring forward proposals for the abolition or merger of the General Lighthouse Fund, it is evident that he must also make arrangements for the continuation of the obligations now falling to the fund's resources. The point is evident, but if it would reassure the Committee, I would be quite happy to repeat that assurance.
If, however, we accepted these or similar amendments we would perpetuate a division between, on the one hand, lighthouse expenditure and the General Lighthouse Fund and, on the other, the funding arrangements to support the other maritime services with which Schedule 2 is concerned. The point of view that we have taken is that we already have an existing system which achieves part of what we are trying to achieve within Europe and wider; that is a user pays system, but we are trying to take that wider. We do not feel that we could ignore what we already have when we were considering proposals to bring about a wider system.
Several noble Lords, during the Second Reading debate, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, during the course of your Lordships' Committee stage, raised the question of prematurity. It certainly is the case that there are no existing European or international obligations which would trigger these provisions. However, as we have heard, there has been some support in the European Community and we have initiated the call for studies which would bring such an arrangement about. In other words, it is not just a theory but it is an active proposal and it is something for which we felt we had to make provision.
On the specific question of pensions activity, the GLAs' collective pensions cost some £10 million per annum. The GLF published accounts include a statement that the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that annual reserves are maintained at sufficient levels to meet the pension liabilities. The Government's view is that this is a secure and sensible way of paying GLA pensions. We are effectively charging pensions through light dues against the maritime trade of Britain and Ireland, a population of 60 million. Since 90 per cent. of our trading requirements are met by sea, there is a very secure base indeed for sustaining pension liabilities.
Our forecasting obviously relies heavily on the GLAs themselves, but the current view is that the pension liability will peak in the year 2001 at about £10.5 million and will decline thereafter. The duty already falls on the Secretary of State to specify matters of funding under Section 214 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. It is clear that any arrangements under this Bill which may imply a contingent change to the GLF do not change the duty on the Secretary of State to determine the form of pensions. At present--again quoting from the GLF accounts--the Secretary of State must determine that the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme shall apply.
In summary on the pension question--which is important and was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont--we would expect, if it proved necessary to activate Schedule 2, paragraphs 3 and 12, that the normal rule of no worsenment would apply in respect of pensions, while the details of funding would obviously depend on the detail of international agreement, as we have heard. That is a powerful assurance with regard to the important matter of pensions, and I hope it will be considered.
I have listened very carefully to noble Lords who have argued that such preparatory legislation is wrong in principle, but I do not believe that to be the case. We have had to make provision for what might happen as a result of a wider agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, drew attention to the GLF issues. A number of noble Lords have commented on them. I hope what I have been able to say this afternoon has given further assurance to noble Lords and others who are concerned about the GLF. I hope I have been able to reassure the Committee about the specific points on which there have been concerns and, therefore, the specific reasons why we have brought forward the proposals. However, I feel that this is again an important issue and one on which the discussion will continue. If the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, wishes to withdraw his amendment, the discussion can certainly continue at another stage of the Bill. I have no doubt that between now and that stage further discussions can occur beyond the precincts of your Lordships' House.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page