| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Greenway: I am in general agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on the amendments he has moved this afternoon, but here I feel I must part company with him. This new clause would, in general terms, mean that instead of general lighthouse authorities having the discretion to transfer to harbour authorities any lighthouse, buoy or beacon which it appears to them is only used for local navigation, and which therefore should be the responsibility of the local harbour authority, there would now be an obligation on the general lighthouse authorities to do so.
A general transfer of local lighthouses from the GLAs to local harbour authorities was effected, as the noble Lord has just said, by Section 202 and Schedule 9 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which gave effect to the regime set out in the Ports Act 1991. This general transfer took place in April 1993, and accordingly Section 202 is repealed by the current Bill as a spent provision.
My understanding is that Trinity House and the other general lighthouse authorities wish to retain their discretion as set out in Section 203 of the 1995 Act, which is itself specifically intended to deal with cases where circumstances have changed since the general transfer of lighthouses to which I have already referred.
It is fully consistent with the overall responsibility which the GLA has had under the 1995 Act to decide which aids to navigation are to remain as general navigation aids and which should properly be transferred to the local harbour authority's jurisdiction. I submit that is not a matter for the local harbour authority to decide.
Viscount Goschen: I rise to speak to the amendment with much the same view as that established by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I, too, am slightly mystified by the amendment in that it removes a discretion and replaces it with an obligation, and I wonder whether that was possibly not the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment. I originally thought that what he was seeking to do was seek a duty of consultation, but of course consultation already occurs and is a major part of the system, and indeed
representations could be made to the Secretary of State. I believe that perhaps we are talking at slightly cross purposes. If I am wrong, I apologise to the noble Lord, and recognise that his intention was to create a duty, an obligation, rather than giving the general lighthouse authorities discretion as they have at the moment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I would like to thank both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord for what they have said, which I will take away and consider. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Retention of documents by Registrar General]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have chosen to promote a debate in relation to this clause, which refers to removing a requirement which currently exists for the registrar general to retain documents transmitted to him. It replaces that with a requirement to retain documents at the Secretary of State's discretion. Many of the documents, I believe, are useful in terms of settling disputes, and the registrar is in a position to act as an arbiter. Consequently, I question whether in fact the action which the Government desire to take in relation to this clause is right, and whether the registrar general should in fact keep documentation to assist him in this particular process.
The 1995 Act requires the registrar general to record and preserve all documents. It is not very long ago that the House debated that Bill, and the Government have themselves come forward with that proposition. It enables archive records to be available for investigation of incidents and accidents so that blame can, where appropriate, be apportioned and lessons learned for the future. I believe, therefore, it is conceivable that an archive which is incomplete could prejudice that purpose.
It is useful to have records of the kind to which I have referred located in a central place. It is important for the seafarer, and personal details can be verified if the seafarer should require assistance from the welfare organisations. I would therefore not be remiss in calling for retention of something that has existed for 75 years, because it is usually the case that reference to records for such purposes is necessary, particularly in later life.
I do not know what has motivated this change. Is it the sweeping aside of unnecessary regulation, which I support? I question it in this case, however, because the deregulation Bill was in fact being discussed by this House at much the same time as the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. So they must have had some other reason. Is it that there is a lack of storage space? I know very little about CD-ROMs, scanners and things of that kind, but I understand that storage space is not at such a premium these days. New records are stored electronically, old records can be disposed of annually if they are unnecessary. Surely, the registrar general's duty to
record and preserve could be interpreted to mean that retention of the original is not required in all circumstances.I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question so that the Minister could respond to what is an important probing debate. I have some suspicion about the Government's motivation here, for the reasons I have sought to explain in this short speech and I hope the Minister will be able to allay my anxieties.
Lord Greenway: I share some of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has just mentioned. I am connected with all sorts of maritime organisations, some of which delve into history, and I know that there has been concern in the ranks that it is getting more difficult to get hold of some records which are potentially very useful to would-be historians of the future. I know storage is a problem, but if some of these records are to be disposed of, as I think was hinted at by the noble Lord, I am sure that there must be some way that we can guarantee that they are handed over to some other organisation with the space and the willingness to preserve them for future posterity.
Viscount Goschen: I have listened extremely carefully to the debate. Clearly, maintaining proper records is an important objective. It is an important thing to do but we must all agree that there has to be a limit somewhere here. Clause 21 replaces the requirement for the registrar general to record and preserve all documents transmitted to him with a requirement to hold all such documents as required by the Secretary of State. The recording and preserving of all documents is, indeed, an onerous task and in practice the majority of records are accessed infrequently. The clause reduces the burden of document storage and subsequent cost to the department by allowing the Secretary of State to limit the period of storage.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, summed up the argument by saying that many of the documents are useful, and I emphasise the word "many". The noble Lord also recognised the spirit of deregulation and that just because something has been happening for a very long time and is a very intense bureaucratic task it does not necessarily follow that we should seek to perpetuate it unless we can find good reasons for doing so. The important documents, as specified by the Secretary of State, would continue to be held.
The question was raised as to whether the registrar general would destroy the documents that he no longer requires. The answer to that is "not automatically". In consultation with the department's record officer in the Public Record Office, records would either be passed to an official place of deposit or be destroyed. Listening to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I am sure that it would not be beyond us to have the records preserved in some manner if it was felt sufficiently strongly that there was a real desire to have that done.
One might suggest that we transmit them to the office of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and see how he gets on with cataloguing them all for electronic storage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes, for an appropriate charge.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord has identified the value of his time. We all agree. Seriously, it is important to keep proper records. However, we do not want to perpetuate a highly bureaucratic task which results in a huge amount of documentation, most of which is never looked at by anyone. I would be happy to continue to have discussions (perhaps with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway) to see whether there is any other solution. I am not sure about the position of the Public Record Office. It would depend on whether it wanted to accept the volume of documentation. Perhaps someone else would. We would have to make checks with regard to confidential material. The Government have no intention of destroying useful documentation; we are merely trying to streamline the burden. I hope the Committee will accept that Clause 21 makes a valuable contribution to that end.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: What appears unimportant to a Secretary of State may not appear unimportant to a seafarer with a particular problem. That constitutes a real anxiety. What consultation was undertaken by the department in relation to this issue? What parliamentary control would there be? It is very difficult to imagine that Parliament would be able to control this situation any better than the Secretary of State. Why, I repeat, was this issue passed by in the 1995 Bill? I would be very interested to know whether the Secretary of State or the Minister would care to let us examine a document which, I hope, has not been destroyed--the Notes on Clauses which support the 1995 proposition that this right should be retained. The Minister has not explained that.
How would the Minister or his officials know what should be kept? Would not seeking to distinguish between what should be kept and what should not be kept impose as bureaucratic a burden as keeping the present system? If the Minister can persuade the Committee that there is a real need for this provision, that masses of documents have accrued which are of no interest to anybody at all, and that nobody's rights will be submerged as a result of this destruction of documents, I would accept it, but I am suspicious.
I am more confused by the Minister's explanation than ever, particularly with regard to what happened in that year. Why was this issue not noticed at that time? Was it considered to be something which ought not to be challenged? I suspect that the Government did not want to challenge it at the time. I repeat that it was when we were contemplating the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill--it cannot be separated from that--so the Minister's attention, and that of his officials, must have been drawn to that point in relation to all legislation going through the House at that time.
I am not in favour of keeping undue and unnecessary regulatory processes which ought to be swept aside. However, I am deeply concerned that some rights, some
ability to be able to look at and to scrutinise documents which may be of great relevance to an individual but of no relevance of anyone else and to seek assistance in certain circumstances, should be maintained.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he is prepared to consider this with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. However, I think that others are involved too. It would perhaps be right to consider it with the seafaring unions which are more concerned than anyone about the situation regarding individual rights. It may be that at the end of those discussions the Minister will feel that their anxieties are not real. However, I am not persuaded at the moment that that is so. I will listen with great interest to the Minister's reply to, or rebuttal of, what I have said, but so far I am not persuaded.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page