---

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 27, leave out lines 27 to 36 and insert--
("3.--(1) If--
(a) any Community obligation, or
(b) any international agreement made between any three or more countries including the Republic of Ireland and ratified by the United Kingdom,
requires the United Kingdom to provide for any of the costs incurred by general lighthouse authorities in respect of lighthouses, buoys and beacons to be recovered otherwise than by means of the levying of general light dues in accordance with section 205 (as it has effect on the commencement of this Schedule), regulations under this Schedule may make provision imposing charges for the purposes of recovering all or any part of the costs so incurred.
(2) In this paragraph "buoys and beacons" includes equipment which is intended as an aid to the navigation of ships and, subject to that, expressions used in this paragraph and in Part VIII of this Act have the same meaning as in that Part.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with a previous group. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 29, line 36, at end insert--
("(2) Regulations made under this Schedule by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above may in particular confer on general lighthouse authorities functions relating to the collection and recovery of charges.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 39. The Government have considered the best way to collect any new maritime charges. The GLAs currently undertake the collection of light dues, as we heard. They have developed a most efficient collection system which involves a collection contract with the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers. This might be utilised to collect any other charges.

Amendment No. 31 would permit the GLAs to collect any new charges under Schedule 2. Amendment No. 39 would permit the Secretary of State to pay for this service. But I stress that any such arrangement between the Secretary of State and the GLAs would be voluntary and therefore by agreement. It seems sensible to make

13 Jan 1997 : Column 72

provision for what could be, in the event of a new charging regime coming forward, an effective and indeed cost-effective means of collection. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, if the matters that we have been discussing could be referred to as the lottery, I feel that this provision could be called the bonus. It is something which was not foreseen in our initial discussions. It is a provision that the Government have brought forward only recently. I say only that it is most welcome and I thank the Government very much for it.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am always more than happy to hear such sentiments. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 32, I should advise the House that if this amendment be agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 33 to 38.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 38:

Page 30, leave out line 7.
Page 30, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert--
("(b) provide for payments which, apart from the regulations, would fall to be made out of the General Lighthouse Fund to be made by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament,
(bb) provide for amounts which, apart from the regulations, would fall to be paid into the General Lighthouse Fund (other than general light dues levied in accordance with section 205) to be paid by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund,
(bc) provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament into the General Lighthouse Fund of amounts representing the whole or part of any charges imposed by virtue of paragraph 3, and").
Page 30, line 12, at end insert ("or").
Page 30, line 13, leave out ("or general lighthouse authorities").
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary or expedient").
Page 30, line 16, leave out ("(a) or (b)") and insert ("(b), (bb) or (bc)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 with the group relating to Amendment No. 27. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 30, line 16, at end insert--
("12A. If regulations under this Schedule make any provision by virtue of paragraph 9(2) above, regulations under this Schedule may also provide for the making by the Secretary of State to each general lighthouse authority out of money provided by Parliament of payments in respect of expenses incurred by that authority in connection with the collection or recovery of charges.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 31, to the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

13 Jan 1997 : Column 73

7 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 40:

Page 30, line 24, leave out ("with the consent of the Treasury").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises a point that I raised in Committee. As the noble Viscount with his habitual accuracy and honesty pointed out, I have raised it on other occasions as well. However, I do not apologise for raising it again.

The paragraph says that:

"Any sums received in consequence of regulations under this Schedule"--

that is, from the General Lighthouse Fund--

"shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund".

Subsection 15(1) states:

"Regulations under the Schedule shall be made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury".

The point is that in this context the consent of the Treasury does not have to be expressly stated. The general background is that in 1975 the Renton Committee remarked on the prolixity of the statute book. Within a few years the statute book (which was then in three volumes) had grown to five volumes and contained no more general statutes--in fact, it contained less. As a result of that the format was changed. That was highly inconvenient because the new format did not fit the bookshelves that had been made for the old one. However, it enabled the volumes to be reduced once again from five to three. But within a few years they were back again at five in a larger format.

The amendment refers to those six words only, but they occur again and again in statute after statute and cumulatively involve a fantastic waste of material, time and money. The first question I ask the noble Viscount is: if those words are omitted, what difference does he think it would make? Does he think that the Treasury should not in any event be consulted when the question arises of transferring funds to the Consolidated Fund?

I have two specific reasons for raising this matter again in the context of this Bill. The first is that in Committee we had the wise counsel of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has had experience in many offices where he served with uniform distinction and in the office which is responsible for this Bill. He bore out that the Treasury would be concerned in this sort of transaction whether or not the words appeared in the statute. He bore out that there is a department or body of officials in the Treasury which is in close liaison with every government department and in close touch and almost daily communication with it. The noble Earl went on to say, "and very valuable that is, too".

That is my first reason; that it leads to a great waste and the words are entirely unnecessary. The second is that it seems appropriate to raise the point in connection with a merchant shipping Bill. On two occasions in the past in the context of merchant shipping legislation official obduracy has, in the end, yielded to common sense and reason.

The first occasion that will occur to your Lordships was when the ascertainment of longitude arose. Latitude was early found to be ascertainable; but for centuries longitude could not be ascertained with any accuracy.

13 Jan 1997 : Column 74

As a result, there was great loss of life and materials. So much so that in the event the Admiralty offered a large sum to anybody who could solve the problem of finding how to ascertain a ship's longitude. It was an obscure provincial clockmaker who found the answer by devising what is the predecessor of the present nautical chronometer. But that was not acceptable to officialdom. It took decades before they finally gave way to the great saving of life and materials.

The second occasion that will occur to your Lordships was the loading line on vessels. Merchant vessels were frequently overloaded by greedy owners and charterers with the result again of loss of life and materials. Samuel Plimsoll proposed the loading line. Was that acceptable to officialdom? No, it was not. Time after time in Bill after Bill he urged what is now called "the Plimsoll line". In the end he lost his temper on the Floor of the House of Commons. I do not propose to lose my temper on this occasion, though it is extremely irksome to have the same stonewalling answer put forward.

With those two examples, plus the testimony of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I raise the matter again and I end as I began. Can the noble Viscount really stand at the Dispatch Box keeping a straight face and assure your Lordships that money can be transferred into the Consolidated Fund other than with the consent of the Treasury? I beg to move.

---