| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not have any particular difficulties with the explanations given as regards the history of consulting local authorities on this subject, the importance of consulting fully and reaching a decision at the end of that process. As I said, the initial consultation did not produce a firm result. It is important that it dovetails with the review of the national contingency plan. The noble Lord asked me two specific questions about approval
by the MPCU and about oil handling at terminals and the like. My understanding is that the answer to both those questions is in the affirmative.I trembled when I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, refer to detailed drafting issues, on which he is infinitely more experienced than I. I have difficulty in venturing an opinion, and my opinion on the subject may not coincide with his. However, I am advised that new Section 128(3A) is needed because Section 128(1) gives general powers to implement conventions. This provision clarifies its extent. I do not know whether that detailed explanation meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lord! Perhaps he will indicate whether that is the case. I sincerely hope it does.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, all I ask is that the matter should be looked at again in the light of what I said.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have asked for advice on the points that the noble and learned Lord made. I have been advised that it is necessary to take the action I have described. I hope it will meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord if we accept this amendment tonight, but if on further examination a problem arises between now and Third Reading, I undertake to remedy it. I hope that approach meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Viscount consider arranging a meeting at which the matter can be discussed with the draftsman and I can express my point rather better than I think I have this afternoon?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe there is anything wrong with the noble and learned Lord's explanation of his point. However, I do not know whether the same can be said of my explanation. Certainly I can arrange a meeting. Would it meet with the noble and learned Lord's approval if we accepted this amendment this evening, held the meeting subsequently, and if there was a problem we could return to the matter on Third Reading and amend the amendment? I hope that would be acceptable to the House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, that seems to be entirely appropriate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I suggest that we take that course of action on the understanding that I shall arrange a meeting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and any other noble Lord who wishes to attend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Funding of maritime services]:
Lord Greenway: My Lords, to save time, I shall not move this or the following group of amendments for reasons which will become clear when we discuss the two following groups of Government amendments.
Schedule 2 [Funding of maritime services]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 27:
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 33 to 38. This group of amendments represents a package of revised proposals for the contingent treatment of the General Lighthouse Fund in Schedule 2. At the Committee stage I envisaged that we would seek to improve these provisions. I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of meetings that have occurred in the intervening period with the general lighthouse authorities, and with great assistance from the noble Lords, Lord Greenway, Lord Clinton-Davis and others, we have produced a group of amendments which to a considerable extent, I trust, bring us to a common position and allay the concerns that the general lighthouse authorities expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. I thank most sincerely those who have been involved in this matter. I also thank the general lighthouse authorities for the constructive attitude they have adopted to finding solutions to the concerns they have voiced.
At Second Reading concerns were expressed that the measures proposed in this Bill as published would permit the Secretary of State too wide a power to amend the operation of the General Lighthouse Fund. Fears were expressed that there were wide-ranging implications for the operation of both the GLF and indeed the general lighthouse authorities themselves. I have given extensive assurances both in the House and in correspondence that there is, and never was, any intention to interfere with the operation of the general lighthouse authorities.
We recognise the way in which the General Lighthouse Fund is managed. We are content with the current arrangements. We see the GLF as likely to remain the main source of future funding for the main activities of the general lighthouse authorities unless and only in so far as the fund became incompatible with Community or international obligations. I am happy to repeat those assurances this evening.
A package of measures has been brought forward some of which have complexities associated with them. Therefore I shall attempt to describe in a little detail the effect of each and how it works.
I focus my remarks in particular on Amendment No. 30 which considerably tightens the test which must be satisfied before the whole arrangement could be operated, and on Amendment No. 33 which removes from the Bill a provision which might have permitted abolition of the GLF in certain circumstances. The arrangement therefore envisaged in this group of amendment is that the general lighthouse authority powers and duties remain unchanged, but in certain circumstances its single source of funding, the General Lighthouse Fund, would be replaced by dual funding, in part from the GLF and in part from arrangements which
The Bill as published provided in Schedule 2, paragraph 3, that if it appeared to the Secretary of State that light dues under Section 205 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 could no longer be levied because they had or would become incompatible with a Community or international obligation, then the Secretary of State could make regulations to make appropriate adjustments to the coverage provided by the General Lighthouse Fund.
Amendment No. 30 substitutes a much more explicit test in paragraph 3, which must be satisfied before the operation of the GLF might be changed. The element of judgment formerly accorded to the Secretary of State has been withdrawn. Instead, the test proposed in Amendment No. 30 would require the existence of a European Community obligation, or of an international agreement which included the Republic of Ireland and at least one other country, before changes could be made to the current funding arrangements for the GLAs. The reference to the Republic of Ireland is significant as of course it has direct interest in the operations of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, which are funded from the GLF.
Further, the reference to GLA activities has been made more explicitly operational, referring to lighthouses, buoys and beacons, so making clear that other expenditures of the GLAs would continue to be funded from the GLF, even if the contingency envisaged in paragraph 3 were activated.
An international agreement on user charges does not yet exist, and our point at the October Transport Council of last year was to seek practical studies of how an equitable charging system should be developed. In particular, we see the need for mature maritime nations such as those in Europe to take a view on this, as there is evidence elsewhere in the world of the development of such systems, which might in time come to affect our ships. We therefore see a twin track, developing the basis of the principles but also a practical mechanism.
Amendment No. 30 defines precisely the circumstances in which such a mechanism could be introduced in the UK, while the remaining amendments in the group describe the mechanical effects on the GLF. But it is worth repeating at this stage that if the tests set out in the revised text of paragraph 3(1) are not met, the Secretary of State cannot act. The new powers are strictly contingent on satisfying the tests set out, and the regulations envisaged in paragraph 3 must themselves be subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 2.
I turn now to Amendment No. 27. There was earlier discussion on the definition of "maritime functions" in Schedule 2. This amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of Schedule 2, paragraph 2, functions
Amendment No. 33 deletes from the Bill a power to abolish the GLF. This results from the narrowing of potential effects on lighthouse business, as envisaged by Amendment No. 30. Their expenditure potentially affected is more closely defined and cannot amount to the total of their spending. So it follows that in the circumstances envisaged by Amendment No. 30, there must be dual funding, first from the GLF for much, perhaps most, of GLA spending, with international agreement funding restricted to particular services. That being so, there is no need, even contingently, to take powers to abolish the GLF, and since the issue has caused some concern I am happy to remove the provision from the Bill by Amendment No. 33.
In Amendment No. 34, we set out in more detail the financial mechanics which would need to be put in place if we made regulations under paragraph 3 of the schedule. The amendment replaces the existing wording of Schedule 2 paragraph 12(b) with more explicit provisions allowing the system of dual funding to operate in the circumstances I have described. All present GLA expenditure would be covered, but from a combination of sources. The GLF could fund many existing GLA activities, act as a pension fund and receive income from asset sales and investments. The new international or EU agreement could pay for certain activities now funded from the GLF, but only if paragraph 3 could be activated. The replacement for paragraph 12(b) allows a strictly consequential transfer of parts of the duty of funding, at present solely on the GLF, to the new international source of funding, while leaving the rest of the GLF in place. The next sub-paragraph allows for the related splitting of receipts between the GLF and the international agreement via the Consolidated Fund. The next sub-paragraph allows for the first time for the Secretary of State to pay money to the GLF, so permitting the accounts to be balanced.
The new paragraph 12(bb) does not conflict with more general provision in paragraph 14 of the schedule, which requires payments in consequence of regulations to be made into the Consolidated Fund. The intention in the revised paragraph 12 is to provide a self-contained financial mechanism to allow for the particular financial consequences of making regulations under paragraph 3. Paragraph 14, as your Lordships will recognise, applies more broadly to the charges in Schedule 2, to which the contingent nature of paragraph 3 charges does not apply. So we do not see any need to amend paragraph 14 by a cross reference to the new paragraph.
I hope that the House will agree that the revised wording, though perhaps complex, meets earlier criticisms that the paragraph as published was rather too broadly sweeping.
Amendment No. 35 is a drafting amendment in consequence of Amendment No. 36. Amendment No. 36 deletes from paragraph 12(c) a reference to the general lighthouse authorities. Having made the whole system more explicit, and in particular defining more closely which GLA activities might be affected by paragraph 3 regulations, and also having made more explicit by Amendment No. 34 the financial transaction envisaged, we accept that there is no longer a need to refer even contingently to the general lighthouse authorities in paragraph 12(c).
In the same spirit Amendment No. 37 tightens the circumstances in which the powers of the Secretary of State might be exercised by regulation. In making amendments and repeals consequential upon paragraph 3 of the schedule, it is no longer necessary to allow the Secretary of State the judgment about whether such consequences are "appropriate". As part of the drafting of regulations, it will be necessary for him to demonstrate that they are "necessary" or "expedient" consequences of the decision to make regulations envisaged in paragraph 3.
Lastly, Amendment No. 38 is a drafting amendment in consequence of the changes envisaged in Amendment No. 34.
In summary, this group of amendments does three things. First, it tightens the tests which the Secretary of State must satisfy in producing regulations under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. Secondly, it restricts to certain operational activities of the GLAs the scope of expenditure over which paragraph 3 regulations might have effect and therefore makes explicit the need to continue the General Lighthouse Fund to cover other expenditures. Thirdly, it seeks to make the whole operation more explicitly mechanical, and thereby underlines assurances previously given on the limited and restricted nature of the powers now sought. I commend this group of amendments to the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me for providing a very long and detailed explanation of the purpose of this package of amendments. I wanted an opportunity to repeat assurances that I have given before and to stress that in the opinion of the Government--I hope that we shall hear the opinion of the GLAs as well and that of noble Lords who have received their advice--it constitutes an appropriate response to the issue of the contingent effect of a European or other agreement on the issue of light dues.
Page 27, line 20, at end insert ("or Part VIII").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page