| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very lengthy explanation of an extremely complex batch of amendments. Perhaps I might take up a point made at the outset of our proceedings this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The Minister and his department were extremely helpful during the Recess. I had meetings with him, and the Government also talked to the general
lighthouse authorities. As a result of those discussions we now have the set of amendments read out by the Minister which go a long way towards allaying the fears that were originally in the minds of the general lighthouse authorities at an earlier stage of the Bill. I express my thanks to the Minister for what he was able to do to help our case.Perhaps I may make a few remarks on behalf of the general lighthouse authorities, as, I know, will other noble Lords. I know that the authorities are greatly gratified by assurances given by the Minister that their functions are not to be unduly tampered with and that the General Lighthouse Fund will continue to exist in its present form. We are also extremely pleased that the Secretary of State's previous wide discretion has to a great extent been removed in regard to making new regulations under Community or international obligations.
As the Minister said, relations over the years between the general lighthouse authorities and the department have been extremely good. We have a system that works very well. Our expertise is widely regarded throughout Europe. Anything which might have disrupted that good working arrangement would have been a shame. In the course of our deliberations we have come up with a measure that allays those fears.
I also point out how important it is for the general lighthouse authorities to maintain this particular means of funding. It gives them the most important freedom to plan ahead. That is not always possible with other countries where lighthouse and buoyage functions are centrally funded. It is an enormous plus point so far as our operation is concerned. We certainly want to see it preserved.
I do not intend to go into detail. The Minister gave a very adequate explanation of what is proposed. It has certainly taken the place of the amendments that I originally tabled. I do not ask for any more. However, there is just a niggling fear on the part of the lighthouse authorities that the General Lighthouse Fund could be marginalised if any international obligation were to trigger a disproportionate reduction by setting up an alternative fund which would deal not only with the international obligation but also with the existing responsibilities of the General Lighthouse Fund. I know what the Minister said, and the thrust of the other amendments allays many of those fears. However, a further possible assurance might bear repetition by the Minister and would go a long way towards getting rid of that final niggling point.
I repeat my broad welcome for these amendments. I thank the Minister for his efforts and those of his officials in relation to this matter.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who has immense experience in this field, in congratulating my noble friend on the great improvements that he has achieved. I welcome them and am glad that all the matters under dispute, which were of great anxiety, have
now been disposed of so elegantly and with such good will. Accordingly, my noble friend is greatly to be congratulated on his achievement.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I wish to join with noble Lords who have just spoken in congratulating the noble Viscount the Minister on the manner in which he has handled Schedule 2. When the schedule was first printed it started alarm bells ringing in Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It was difficult to understand how the provision was ever thought up. It threatened the core of the GLAs' operations, their method of funding and fund management. It is therefore a matter of relief that the Minister tackled the problem after the Committee stage. All of us who had to deal with it, and with the Minister, thank him most sincerely for the great attention he paid to the representations. He has very cleverly managed this group of amendments. They tie the whole matter up and completely change the meaning of Schedule 2.
The Minister has improved the situation with Amendments Nos. 31 and 34. Amendment No. 31 allows the GLAs to collect funds for other purposes than light dues. Amendment No. 34 deals with a mechanism of financing which could be useful outside the main purpose of the schedule in dealing with international agreements. The GLAs are a resource of marine skills and experience which is becoming increasingly scarce. That is because of the much reduced opportunities for young people to enter into a marine career as a result, I am sorry to say, of the decline of the British merchant fleet. It could therefore become advantageous, and perhaps economic, for related work around these coasts to be undertaken by the GLAs. These two amendments make that possible.
I assure the House that the GLAs welcome the amendments and thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken. I have specific instructions from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to express their gratitude to the Minister for the way the matter has been handled.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was among those who were not particularly against Schedule 2 at the beginning. The wording of my noble friend's amendment is nevertheless an improvement.
However, where does that leave us in regard to charging for certain activities for which the GLAs do not presently charge? It is money that cannot presently be recouped. Do we have to wait for an international agreement with three or more countries; or, with the help of this Bill, can my noble friend introduce regulations to allow all charges to be made where costs are incurred and for which charges are not recouped at the moment?
I should also like to pay tribute at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for the enormous amount of work that I know he has done and reiterate the respect with which he is held not only in this House
but outside for his knowledge of these matters. It is greatly due to him that we have the changes that are before us.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Earl has just asked the question that I intended to put. I look forward to the Minister's answer. I should like to join noble Lords who complimented the Minister on the way in which he has listened to the representations that have been made. I am not sure that I entirely follow his explanation but it seemed basically all right to me. It seemed to be on the right lines. But I shall ponder that and, after several sleepless nights, hope to come to the conclusion that he was absolutely right.
I join the noble Earl in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. He conducted a formidable and diplomatic campaign which has had the desired results. It is an example that I hope will be followed in many other respects.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the kind words of many noble Lords this afternoon. It was never our intention to bring forward any proposals that would cause the general lighthouse authorities particular alarm. I have sought to reassure them. I am very pleased indeed that this package of measures, which addresses their specific concerns, does just that.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, inquired whether any response that we would make to an international agreement would be proportionate. I can give him that assurance. That is certainly our intention and not to go beyond that. I hope that that gives additional assurance to the noble Lord, the House and indeed the general lighthouse authorities.
I was grateful for the view of my noble friend Lord Caithness that these proposals represented an improvement. I say that very genuinely indeed. Essentially, they allow what was originally envisaged by this schedule but they do so with added protection for the GLF. So in essence everybody is happy.
The point raised by my noble friend about wider charging is quite right. During our discussions on the Bill we have concentrated on the GLF side of things. But there are provisions in the Bill to charge for a number of counter-pollution services. It is our clear aim to seek international agreement for that. Our clear preference would be to take this forward on a multilateral approach. I certainly understand very clearly what would be the effects on the competitiveness not just of UK shipping but also of industry in the UK in a wider sense if charges were raised unilaterally. I certainly take that strong point made by my noble friend. We should certainly have to consider any implications for the competitiveness not only of UK ports and shipowners based in UK ports but also of exporters and importers using those ports. Certainly, I can assure the House that the Government would not introduce charges unilaterally without first carrying out a full evaluation of compliance costs for business and the adverse effects on competitiveness. Again, I re-emphasise that our
preferred approach remains to achieve international agreement and we are making every effort to achieve that.Again, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, especially those who have entered into the arena on the issue of charging of lights. I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, my noble friend Lord Cochrane and, of course, my noble friend Lord Caithness who contributed to this debate. I am very pleased that we now have an agreed solution. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page