Grand Committee

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

Thursday 13 January 2022

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

Announcement

13:00

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking.

If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes—or earlier if agreed.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (Airspace Change Directions) (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2022

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

13:01

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (Airspace Change Directions) (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2022.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, which I will abbreviate as “ATMUA”.

Part 1 of ATMUA grants the Secretary of State powers to direct a person involved in airspace change to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal, or ACP, where doing so would assist in the delivery of the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy. These powers are delegable to the Civil Aviation Authority, or CAA, as I have already mentioned. These powers will help deliver quicker, quieter, and cleaner journeys for the benefit of those who use UK airspace and are affected by its use. If the directed party does not comply with a direction, the CAA can issue them with a contravention notice, which may be followed by an enforcement order. If that enforcement order is contravened, this may result in a financial penalty consisting of a fixed amount, not exceeding 10% of the person’s turnover and/or a daily amount not exceeding 0.1% of the person’s turnover. A person’s “turnover” is to be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, which is the draft instrument being considered by the Committee today.

Airspace has to be managed so it can be used safely and efficiently. ACPs can include proposals to, for example, amend airport flight paths or change the classification of particular airspace. In 2018, the CAA published its Airspace Modernisation Strategy, which set out the ends, ways and means of modernising airspace. The CAA is currently consulting on a refresh of its strategy, and I encourage those with an interest to put forward their views. The programme of airspace modernisation is under way, and includes the wholesale redesign of the UK’s airspace to unlock the benefits of modernisation. It is being delivered by the aviation industry, with support from the Department for Transport and the CAA, which provide joint leadership and oversight of governance as co-sponsors of the programme.

Airspace change usually relies on individual sponsors, airports and air navigation service providers, or ANSPs, to bring forward their own proposals and choose when, if and how, they progress them. Previously, when a sponsor declined to participate in an ACP on a voluntary basis, neither the department nor the CAA had the powers to ensure co-operation and co-ordination. This meant that one sponsor could hold up another or several others, thereby delaying the modernisation programme and the benefits associated with it.

With the recent passing of ATMUA, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct progression or co-operation in an ACP, once Part 1 of ATMUA comes fully into force. Where there are difficulties for a sponsor to overcome, the CAA will seek to help it in finding solutions—for example, in terms of resources. Our intention is that the direction-making powers will be a last resort and will only be issued where they can be practicably carried out. Before any direction is made, consultation would take place as required by ATMUA. These regulations are required to ensure that the legislative framework can operate as intended, and therefore their commencement will be aligned with Part 1 of ATMUA, so far as that is not already in force.

The draft instrument enables the CAA to enforce directions effectively, when imposing a penalty, by setting out how a person’s turnover is to be calculated. The amount of penalty must in all cases be appropriate and proportionate. These regulations have been drafted to take account of the diverse nature of persons involved in airspace change. Maintaining an appropriate level of penalty for all organisations will deter non-compliance and support ACPs to take place in a co-ordinated manner, which will contribute to a more effective airspace modernisation programme. It will also ensure that, where penalties are imposed, they are both transparent and proportionate.

The department consulted on the enforcement powers within ATMUA in 2018. Respondents, including airlines and airports, were broadly supportive, provided that application is proportionate and used as a last resort. The CAA would, of course, have regard to the requirement of proportionality in using the power to fine, in accordance with its statutory duties and the better regulation agenda.

A person’s turnover is determined with reference to the sum of all amounts received in the course of their business, as shown in their published accounts. If the person has not published accounts, the accounts prepared by that person will be used. Turnover includes loans from public or local authorities, but it excludes capital receipts and loans made by a third party. The annual turnover considered is for the most recent business year, ending on or before the last day of the period specified in the enforcement order for complying with the requirement, the contravention of which is subject to the penalty. Only one year of turnover is used in the calculation.

The use of this 12-month period is in line with the Civil Aviation Act 2012 and Part II of the Transport Act 2000, which both specify calculations based on the “last regulatory year”. We are using the same period here to ensure consistency of regulation across the aviation and wider sectors. Amounts are to be calculated according to generally accepted accounting principles and practices in the UK. Provision is also made for situations where a person does not have 12 months of accounts. The turnover period to be used in determining the level of penalty is decided according to the compliance date for the relevant requirement in the enforcement order.

This instrument is being made so that the Government can ensure effective and proportionate enforcement by the CAA against airspace change sponsors who put the delivery of the airspace modernisation programme at risk. I commend these regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate on this statutory instrument, and I shall be very brief. I note that this is the first use of the power in paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 to the Act, and I simply want to ask my noble friend a couple of questions.

First, could my noble friend give some examples as to why it is felt necessary to bring this forward now, since this is the first use of the power in the Act? Equally, I listened carefully to what she said, and she said that the power would be used only in extremis, but I am not clear how the rate of fine will actually be applied. She talked about it being proportionate, but proportionate to what? Who will decide what that proportionality is? Crucially, what will be the appeal process for any fine that is imposed?

My real concern is about the relationship with the Ministry of Defence, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could outline that relationship. Clearly, the MoD operates a number of airfields across the United Kingdom, most of which happen to be out of the main flight paths in Lincolnshire, but of course some are not—such as RAF Northolt in London. As the CAA moves forward with the Airspace Modernisation Strategy, can she outline what the relationship with the MoD will be in the implementation of that strategy? Crucially, what will be the resolution process if there is a disagreement with the MoD about the implementation of that modernisation strategy?

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome very much this SI today. By way of background, I have had the privilege of reading the CAA publication Airspace Modernisation Strategy, and I have had the chance to look at the Airspace Change Organising Group’s work so far. From my background as a former pilot in the RAF who takes an interest in aviation, my stance is that I certainly do not accept the view put forward as a result of COP 26 that aviation is in decline mode; I think that aviation is absolutely fundamental to the future success of our country and our economy. I welcome enormously the work that the CAA is doing alongside the department involved, because it is absolutely vital for our exports trade and for internal trade that we use to the maximum possible the airspace that is available.

Having said that, I have just a couple of short questions. One of our previous problems, particularly with unmanned aircraft—in other words, drones—was that people claimed that there was not proper awareness, the publicity was not adequate and somehow or other they had missed out on this, that and the other. Given the nature of these penalties, which are absolutely justifiable, we need to take particular care to ensure that there is proper publicity in depth and to check, by way of research, that people are aware of the changes being made.

Other than that, I just ask my noble friend, because I do not quite understand, why, according to paragraph 7.4,

“Public consultation on some of the airspace change proposals is likely to commence in 2022.”


From reading the material I referred to, it is a package in toto, so I am not quite sure how you can regulate just a section of the airspace—unless it is felt that you can do Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland separately. I am not quite clear why it should be just “some”, as opposed to a complete package. I look forward to my noble friend’s responses.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this regulation. On first reading, I thought that it was a bit of a sledge-hammer to crack a nut, but when you start reading the Aerospace Modernisation Strategy—127 pages of it—you can see why it is necessary. I question whether the strategy will not need some amendment as a result of Brexit, but I shall come on to that.

I have one interesting suggestion, which relates to paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the regulations. It seems to me that, having cancelled EGNOS—which I shall come on to—the Government could be seen to be contravening the notice in those paragraphs. Could the CAA instruct the Government to reintroduce EGNOS or face a fine of 10% of the Government’s turnover? That is a pretty stupid question, but it is a consequence of the way it is written. I hope we will never get to that, and I am sure we will not. My interest in EGNOS is that I live on the Isles of Scilly and spent three days waiting to fly out after Christmas, because it was a bit foggy and there are no ships, so we rely on aeroplanes. I think that some of the Scottish islands are in a similar position.

I have been following EGNOS over the years, which, as we all know, is a satellite-based system that is a great deal cheaper than the ILS that they have in Heathrow, Gatwick and other places. Originally, the Government were enthusiastic about EGNOS, and I understand that the Secretary of State wrote to the CAA just after he became Transport Secretary to direct it to prioritise the airspace change proposals necessary to put EGNOS in place. Sadly, of course, in May last year, it was cancelled, and the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government could not agree terms with the EU for continuing to use EGNOS, saying:

“I recognise that it nonetheless remains a disappointing outcome.”


I certainly agree with him there.

I have had discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who played a major part in setting up the Galileo satellite system when she was in the European Parliament. She is very surprised about this decision, which I do not think she knew about. There has been very little comment about it. In April, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, put down a Written Question, which did not really get much of an answer from Ministers, but they did say that they agreed to cancel EGNOS because

“it was not considered value for money.”

13:15

It is extraordinary, really, that a decision such as that is based on value for money. I ask the Minister, when she comes to respond, on what basis the Government calculate the cost and benefit of having airports—particularly in remote, lifeline situations—that do not have the latest navigation aid because it has been cancelled. There is no other solution at the moment; the answer is that you just do not fly. I am not particularly asking the Minister to answer this today; I gave her notice that I was going to make some comments about this.

I would like to know what the ongoing cost of continuing with EGNOS would be. If the Government insist that it cannot continue, what are the alternatives, especially for small, lifeline airports? It is no good putting in a Heathrow-style ILS; that would be ridiculous. How long would it take to develop and install these? I was told that, if it needed a new satellite system—I do not know why we should have to have a new satellite system for just one very small piece of air traffic control —it might take 10 years, which is a very long time without proper transport.

Thirdly, will the Government compensate those airports, airlines and others that followed the Secretary of State’s encouragement to develop EGNOS and were suddenly told in June, “Sorry, you can dump that; you can’t use it”?

I hope the Government can find a solution to this—and fast. To help take things forward, will the Minister agree to set up a meeting for interested Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and any other noble Lord who is interested —maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—with BEIS and the Department for Transport to see what the situation is at the moment and how it can best be revolved in future?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I follow up that final comment by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised some important issues, and I would really appreciate being copied into any correspondence that flows from his comments. Indeed, I would like to be invited to any meetings that the Minister chooses to hold.

Although this SI is evidently very technical, it allows us a useful opportunity to ask some important questions, as noble Lords already have, about the progress of airspace modernisation and its implications. This legislation flows from a policy implemented at a time when our skies were busy and there was an expectation of further expansion.

I want to make clear that it is obvious to me that airspace modernisation is a good and vital thing. It is very important environmentally, but it comes in the “Good but difficult” category because, once you develop new air corridors for an airport, you are concentrating flights over one set of people, who, not surprisingly, will be unhappy at that, whereas all the other people who no longer have those flights going over them are relieved that that is the case. It is balancing upsetting one set of people against pleasing others.

Of course, there is also the balance between the benefits to one airport and another, which has sparked this SI. That issue is probably most acute in the south-east of England, but it can and does occur in other parts of the country.

We are now in a very different situation with aviation, so my first question to the Minister is: how have the Government adapted their policies in relation to airspace modernisation, if at all? Have they slowed down the pace of change as a result of the impact of Covid? Whatever emerges as aviation regrows, and I share the view that it inevitably will, there will be a change in pattern in the short and medium term as various parts of the world recover from Covid more rapidly than others. But there will also be a change in pattern of the type of traveller. I venture that business flights will never recover to the level at which they once were. That, of course, spells trouble for any airport that concentrates on a lot of business travellers. They will have to adapt, and I am sure they will, but it means a change in pattern of use and direction for the traffic.

The crucial point of difficulty in the airspace modernisation process is the consultation with residents. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that this is planned to start in 2022. I would be pleased if the Minister could explain that to us in a little more detail. What proportion of the consultation with the public will take place in 2022? Will just a few pioneer airports do it, or will most of the public consultation take place then?

It will take time for competition to shift, change and adapt to the new patterns. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether it is wise to go ahead to the point where, in extremis, we start fining airports for lack of co-operation when the whole new pattern of competition is still settling down. The aviation industry has had a very tough time. Airports have suffered badly and had relatively little alleviation from the Government. Therefore, anything that adds a burden by fining them for a lack of co-operation could be the last straw for some of them.

I am, of course, attracted to the idea of penalties for non-co-operation being based on the resources and size of the company concerned, but will this take account of the different treatment of airports in the last couple of years? Aviation has not benefited from total alleviation of business rates in England but it has in other parts of the UK, so there has been a patchwork in the way airports have been treated.

Once again, we are in a situation where the CAA is being given additional powers. The Minister used the phrase “in extremis”. What discretion will the CAA have when taking into account the financial difficulties of an airport as a result of airspace modernisation and the implications for its future business?

The EM says that 71 or 72 organisations are affected, yet there is little assessment of the financial impact of this measure. The process of modernising airspace and consulting the public is very expensive; the cost of familiarising yourself with the legislation is really marginal. I am therefore surprised that there is no full impact assessment. I ask the Minister whether perhaps that should be reconsidered. The whole process could, or will, have a significant impact on some individual airports, because modernisation will disadvantage them. That surely needs to be taken into account at this point in time, which is very difficult for those in the aviation industry.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of these regulations, which help to determine the financial penalties for those who do not comply with airspace modernisation directions. The Minister will recall that during the passage of the Act, these Benches supported the aims of airspace modernisation; we therefore support these regulations, which assist that process. The aviation industry is critical to the UK economy, and it is in everyone’s interests that we redesign UK flight paths to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys. On this, can the Minister update the Committee more generally on the process of airspace modernisation and the timetable that is currently being worked towards?

On the specific legislation before the Committee, can the Minister explain why this formula for calculating turnover was not included in the original Act? Can she also confirm how the department determined this formula? The instrument has the support of the Opposition, but I would be grateful if the Minister could provide answers to these questions. I would be quite content to receive a letter in response. On my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s issues, I would be grateful to be copied in if there is to be a meeting or correspondence.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

That was a surprisingly short speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for which I am grateful. I hear his comments about wanting to be included in correspondence on any meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about EGNOS. I also note the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on being included in that.

The noble Lord has raised a very important point and I am therefore pleased to take that forward. As he said, the UK’s participation in the EGNOS programme ended on 25 June 2021 and, since that date, no UK airports other than the three Channel Islands airports have any arrival procedures in place linked to the EGNOS working agreements or should be preparing to use them. The Government continue to assess the impact on the aviation sector of the UK’s withdrawal from the EGNOS programme but have yet to determine whether there needs to be a UK-led EGNOS replacement.

I am very happy for a meeting to be arranged for the noble Lord and others. I will go one better than a meeting with me and ensure that it is with the Aviation Minister, so that he can hear the concerns directly. I will be happy to attend too but he will be more useful than me on the topic, I fear.

I turn to other issues raised by noble Lords in the consideration of the regulations before the Committee—and I am grateful for all contributions. A number were raised around the airspace modernisation programme as a whole. It feels like a little while since we have discussed airspace modernisation, and it is quite good to return to the topic. The Government remain committed to the airspace modernisation programme; we believe that, despite the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the aviation industry and air traffic levels, the need to modernise the UK’s airspace design remains clear.

13:30

I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for his positive comments about aviation and the CAA. I agree with him: we want our aviation sector to bounce back, as it is a hugely beneficial sector for our country and our ability to reach out overseas. We are very much focused on taking the airspace modernisation programme forward. As noble Lords will have discussed with me before, it is a complex and long-term challenge, and one that is done in a very deliberate fashion. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, called it “good but difficult”. It is exceedingly difficult and we need to go step by step. That is why the decision by the CAA to call for evidence on refreshing the strategy, which as I mentioned in my opening remarks is under way at the moment, is a good thing. We need to ensure that we are headed in the right direction, and engagement with the industry and the wider sector with an interest in this is very important.

I reassure noble Lords that this issue is not going to be swept under the carpet as too difficult, and something that, in the light of the Covid pandemic, we should just not do anyway, because we are very focused on taking it forward. To that extent, we have had conversations with the Treasury and in March 2021 the DfT and HMT agreed a Covid-19-related funding support package of £5.5 million for the FASI programme, to allow the programme to restart. FASI, as I think noble Lords will recall—in fact, I cannot remember what it stands for, and I shall write. But the point is that we wanted it to restart, because a number of the airports and airspace change sponsors were asking what they could do—so we have £5.5 million to make sure that it goes ahead. That means that we can progress that important project. Funds were made available to support the ACPs in the programme, which will assist airports to reach the end of stage 2 of the CAA’s CAP 1616 process—that is, the develop and assess gateway—by the end of 2022.

We continue to engage with the Treasury on a funding request for 2022-23 to allow sponsors to complete stage 2 of the process, and hope to make a decision on that very shortly. We understand that, for some in the aviation sector, finding funding for this may be a challenge—and I thank my officials for telling me that FASI stands for future airspace strategy implementation. Finding funding for this, particularly for smaller airports, is very difficult, and the CAA will work closely with sponsors to make sure that they are able to progress as appropriate. The CAA’s airspace modernisation oversight team is always there to help sponsors work together, to work through problems—because anything that is alluded to in the regulations today about fining people millions of pounds is an absolute last resort.

We want this to progress in a way that is collaborative and co-operative. Noble Lords know, because we discussed this during the progress of ATMUA, that very occasionally people dropped out of the process previously and it has all fallen apart. The CAA will be given an advisory role by the Secretary of State in monitoring the progress of ACPs as part of this airspace modernisation strategy; it will be set out in a Section 16 letter, an official agreement between the department and the CAA. The department wrote to the CAA on 15 November, setting out the advice that the Secretary of State will require, and that will ensure that the programme progresses in a way that is appropriate.

Lack of resources is likely to be a potential issue for the very smallest of airports. We expect about five of them to be in scope. As previously noted, we will work closely with them. It might sometimes be the case that a direction is issued for a third party to work on behalf of an airport, particularly if the benefits of an airspace change are not immediately visible to the smaller airport.

I turn to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Naseby on making sure people know. He is absolutely right. The number of people involved in airspace change directly, rather than the general public, is not huge. It is probably about 72 organisations and we work incredibly closely with them. We consulted them on the powers that compel airspace changes and had lots of very positive responses. The negative responses were from community and environmental groups, which were generally opposed for other reasons. Obviously, we were able to assuage their concerns by reassuring about the good outcomes for noise in general aviation and military, which I will come on to.

I assure my noble friend that we are in constant contact with the industry. Indeed, last month, on 8 December, the CAA published its Enforcement Guidance and Draft Statement of Policy on Penalties. I recall discussing this during the passage of ATMUA. This very important document sets out to these 72 organisations what they can expect in terms of enforcement and how it really will be an absolute last resort if we get anywhere close to fines on turnover. We really do not want to go there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, discussed costs and impact assessments. As I noted, we believe that 72 organisations are in scope of needing to get to grips with this. We reckon it will cost each of them £1,333 to get to grips with these regulations, so, as can be understood, any impact from these regulations per se is de minimis and an impact assessment is therefore not required. Obviously, the noble Baroness is referring to the broader project, which is out of scope of an impact assessment for these particular regulations.

I will finish with the very important issue raised by my noble friend Lord Lancaster. I recall having some discussion about the MoD when we took the Bill through. The CAA is very focused on ensuring that its enforcement approach is absolutely reasonable. It is always informed by information received from dialogue with the recipient of the direction, from ACOG and other stakeholders.

More broadly, the relationship with the MoD has been of long standing and it is very involved in the airspace modernisation strategy. Technically, it can be a person involved in airspace change, as one would expect. There are different types of airspace change. Level M changes, which are airspace changes sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, follow different environmental rules from other proposals, but the MoD is currently participating in FASI South, as he will know, from RAF Northolt.

It is very unlikely that a situation would ever arise where the Secretary of State would make a direction to the MoD. I suggest that matters would have severely broken down if that were the case, as many layers of co-operation exist to prevent an issue escalating. CAP 740, the CAA’s UK airspace management policy, sets out how airspace management is structured in the UK and the expectations around how the MoD and the CAA work together. This is known at the joint and integrated, or J&I, approach. Section 70(2)(e) of the Transport Act 2000 requires the CAA to exercise its air navigation functions in the manner best calculated to facilitate the J&I approach. There is a memorandum of understanding between the CAA and the MoD that dates back to 2017. It set out details and expectations on all the parties. As stated in CAP 740:

“The UK ASM Process is so heavily integrated between Civil and Military participants that it is considered inconceivable”

that a breakdown of the process could occur. But I will certainly write to my noble friend to make sure we have provided him with all the reassurance he wants.

I will arrange for a meeting to happen on EGNOS. If I have missed out anything else, I will certainly write to fill in any gaps; otherwise, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she clarify further how much progress the Government expect to be made this year on the public consultation? I ask that because I am very aware that there is pressure on airports and the services that they run at this time, and to expect them to be doing public consultation effectively and efficiently at the same time might be rather too complex.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I deliberately swerved that question, yet did not advise her of the fact that I was doing so, because I do not have the answer—it was also raised by my noble friend Lord Naseby—but I will respond precisely on that matter. How the public will be involved, which ACPs are going forward and where, and all those sorts of things, I will put in a letter. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Order 2022

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

13:41

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Order 2022.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of this order, which was laid before the House on 4 November 2021, is to give the Government the powers to implement the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments—or “the convention”, as I shall now refer to it—into UK law. The order relies on powers in Section 128(1)(e) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which I shall refer to as “the 1995 Act”. This order, if approved, will contain powers to make a new statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure this year.

As noble Lords will be aware, shipping is essential to our global economy. In fact, it is estimated that it transports around 90% of the world’s commodities. In doing so, it transfers 3 billion to 5 billion tonnes of ballast water every year. This makes ballast water one of the most effective vectors for the transport of species around the world. For example, noble Lords may well have heard of the Chinese mitten crab, which is native to eastern Asia but was first discovered in the Thames estuary in 1935. It is one of the most destructive examples of invasive non-native species, as it preys on native populations, burrows extensively, causing damage to flood defences and riverbanks, and causes commercial losses in fisheries.

I should like to give some background about what the Government have done regarding the convention and outline the Government’s reasons for wanting to ratify it. In doing so, I remind noble Lords that our purpose today is to discuss the use of this draft order as a mechanism to provide the powers for the implementation of the convention, rather than to discuss the detail and implementation of the convention itself, which remains in progress.

The convention was adopted at a conference convened by the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, in 2004, and it entered into force internationally on 8 September 2017. It aims to prevent, minimise and ultimately eliminate the transfer of invasive non-native species through the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments. It does this by prohibiting the discharge of ballast water and sediments unless they have been managed in accordance with the convention requirements. The United Kingdom has not yet ratified the convention.

Noble Lords will note that the convention entered into force internationally four years ago, and it is quite reasonable to ask why we are only now seeking powers to implement the convention. The reason is that the UK had concerns regarding the availability of the equipment required for the sampling and analysis aspects of the convention. Delaying the UK’s ratification of the convention has allowed for these concerns to be addressed.

Subsequently, the UK rescheduled ratification and implementation of the convention to wait for amendments to the convention to enter into force, thereby ensuring that the UK implementing legislation, which is coming down the track, reflects the most up-to-date version of the convention. The Government made a public commitment to accede to the convention in 2020. This was again rescheduled to avoid placing extra burdens on the industry during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government consider that the implementation of the convention into UK law is an important step to ensure that UK waters are protected.

13:45

The convention was negotiated at the IMO by representatives of Governments, the shipping industry and environmental interest groups. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, or MCA, played an active role in the negotiations at the IMO throughout the development of the convention.

The MCA has issued a frequently asked questions document to assist industry in understanding the requirements of the convention. The Government’s proposals for implementing the convention through the new statutory instrument, in the form of regulations, have also been the subject of a 12-week public consultation. The MCA has refined the proposals based on the comments received.

The convention cannot be implemented into UK law unless the Government have the power to do so. That is what this order addresses; it provides those powers, such that we can ratify the convention and then implement it in due course.

I will now briefly explain the powers we are relying on to make the instrument. We are relying on Section 128(1)(e) of the 1995 Act, which provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provision as she considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom and relates to the prevention, reduction or control of pollution of the sea or other waters by matter from ships.

This order will authorise the making of the regulations by the Secretary of State to give effect to the convention. The United Kingdom has not yet ratified the convention. This is due to the procedure set out in both Section 128 of the Merchant Shipping Act and the convention. It is a little complicated, but it all makes sense if you think about it.

The key thing here is that we will end up with domestic law, once the set of regulations comes through, that absolutely meets our international obligations and reflects recent amendments to the convention. I have highlighted the importance of this Order in Council so that we can get on and ratify this convention and then get on and get through the regulations that implement this very important convention. I commend this draft order to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this fascinating draft order. It is interesting that the Government blame everything on things coming from the Far East, be they Chinese or Japanese knotweed or Japanese oysters. I expect that equal blame goes in the opposite direction.

This needs doing—I have no problem with ensuring that ballast water is sampled and tested—but I wonder whether the Minister can just help me. How is this sampling done? It is presumably done when the ship is in port, then sent away for analysis—that seems quite clear to me—but what happens if some of the samples are found to be non-compliant with whatever regulations we are coming up with? Will they nail a writ to the mast of the ship, the next time it comes in? Will they send our Navy out on to the high seas? How will these things actually be enforced?

It is wonderful having regulations. These have been coming for a long time. The IMO worked very fast to get them ready by 2017. It probably takes 10 years to do these things, and now we are taking another five. It is important to understand how these regulations will be enforced. They need to be enforced around the world. We can do only our bit, but we can set an example. I hope there is a way of doing it without us spending too much money on it.

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. As she said, the convention dates from 2004 and was not ratified until September 2016 by 30 states, representing 35% of the world’s merchant tonnage. By the time it came into force a year after that, over 60 countries had ratified it, representing over 70% of the world’s shipping.

The Minister mentioned the delay in bringing forward this order. I am not certain that I entirely buy her explanation. It seems to me that when so many other countries, representing so much of the world’s shipping, have already ratified it, it does not do our reputation as a so-called maritime nation much good when we are seen to be dragging our feet over these conventions.

She also mentioned in passing the Chinese mitten crabs. When I went through the list, it read more like something out of a science-horror movie, since we also have round goby, North American comb jelly, zebra mussels, toxic algae and even cholera, which has been transported on micro-organisms such as plankton. There are some very nasty things going around, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, just said, and this convention was brought in for very good reasons.

There is one thing I would like to ask the Minister. What has been the position with our ships? This measure does not mean that an awful lot of ships, in the general sense of the word, would be affected because our Merchant Navy is a shadow of what it used to be. But what has happened to those ships to enable them to continue trading? Have they been, on their own accord, taking the actions necessary to comply with the convention in order to trade? If they were seen to be operating under the flag of a country that had not ratified, they would quickly be picked up by port state control around the world and forbidden to trade. I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on that.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this important environmental measure and thank the Minister for her explanation. In particular, I was fascinated by paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which explains the complexity about which comes first: the ratifying of the convention or these regulations. However, that does not explain why it has taken since 2004 for us to get to this stage.

I realise that we were not alone because, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, just explained to us, it took until 2017 for 30 countries representing 35% of the world’s tonnage to ratify the convention. But it is a serious matter of concern and shame for us that the nations with 70% of the world’s tonnage have now signed up and we have not yet managed to do so, although it will happen soon. It is depressing that, as a once-great maritime nation, we yet again have been slow to adopt international and environmental measures that were a matter of urgency.

Perhaps the Minister can clarify, but am I right that our slowness has simply been because of the huge backlog of maritime measures that the Department for Transport managed to build up? Was it simply overlooked, or has it been a lack of enthusiasm by successive Governments to sign up that has been the problem?

There is a key point, not explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. I am sure that noble Lords will forgive my ignorance, but do ships need new technology to manage their ballast water in the way that will be prescribed, or is it just a matter of better management? I am not clear whether it is that all modern shipping would have the correct equipment, and so on—but I am surprised that there has been no impact assessment. I would assume, whether it is better management or modern equipment, either way there will be costs for ship owners as a result of this SI. However, I welcome the fact that we have finally got round to it.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the introduction of this order to implement the 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. The convention ultimately aims to eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, which is why the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediment is so crucial. However, given that the UK played a pivotal role in negotiating the convention, it is a shame that it is only now being brought forward. I note that the Minister gave some explanation on this delay but, clearly, it is a matter of concern on all sides of the Committee. I hope that she will produce a full answer and, if there are areas on which she cannot answer today, write to us all.

On the legislation itself, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer three questions. First, are the Government already fully in compliance with the convention? Secondly, what engagement has the department had with the shipping industry over the implementation? Finally, how many countries have ratified the convention, and how many further are in the process of ratification?

We support the introduction of this order and the implementation of the convention, but this is only one step in cleaning up the seas. I hope that the Minister can offer the Committee a brief explanation of the other steps that are being taken by the Government.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate to consider this order. I shall provide a bit more information, if I can, on the timeline to getting to this stage. We probably all wish that we had got here earlier, but there were some reasons behind that. I hope that the next SI will cheer up noble Lords, because we are certainly ahead of the game on that one.

There are several reasons why the UK did not ratify the convention earlier. As the convention was new, equipment availability was limited both to treat ballast water management systems and to sample and analyse the discharged ballast water, which is integral to its enforcement. The industry was not confident in the equipment and was concerned that it would be unfairly penalised. Those concerns were eased by the development of the experience-building phase, which established a period of implementation and review during which ships would not be penalised due to non-compliance with the discharge standard if operating a type-approved ballast water management system.

Secondly, the UK’s ratification was rescheduled to allow time for the latest amendments to the convention to come into force and thereby ensure that the UK’s implementing legislation reflects the most up-to-date version of the convention. These amendments were adopted during the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee meetings held in April 2018, and accepted in April 2019. That introduced a phased approach to implementation, which also alleviated the concerns around equipment availability. At that point, it was very much full steam ahead until Covid arrived.

It is true, and noble Lords will have heard me say before, that we have had to delay some of our statutory instruments, which is not ideal. Although I do not think this SI falls under the definition of backlog as set out by Minister Courts when he went to see the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it is certainly on our list of things to do, so I am really pleased that we are able to do it today. I reassure noble Lords that we are actually making quite good progress on our maritime backlog. I have a little note here to say that a couple of others with very long titles are also heading their way through Minister Courts’s office now, and no doubt we will be returning to this Chamber to debate them in due course. I reassure the Committee that we are very focused on our maritime SI backlog.

14:00

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned enforcement and, as with other similar legislation, any potential maritime offences are investigated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and sanctions applied as appropriate. Sanctions could be an improvement notice, a prohibition notice, detention or, as last resort, prosecution. The person liable will depend on the offence in question, but liability will mainly rest with ship owners and masters. The MCA primarily prosecutes shipowners or managers, and only prosecutes individual ship officers when they are personally culpable.

On industry consultation, there have been lengthy discussions with industry during this entire process. As I mentioned, there is a 12-week public consultation which relates to the implementing regulations that will be coming down the track. We received 11 responses from the shipping industry, environmental groups and ports to that 12-week consultation, and they are broadly supportive of the convention aims. The concerns fell into three main areas: to suggest that the regulations did not go far enough or that clarity was needed on behalf of ports, harbours and statutory harbour authorities and responses highlighting the practical difficulties for some sections of the shipping industry. Obviously, we are very grateful to all who responded to that public consultation, and the Explanatory Memorandum which will go alongside those regulations will set out more about how the convention will be implemented in the UK.

That brings me on to the point about the impact assessment raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because this order is just for us to have the power to accept the ratification of the treaty, then we have to implement it. There is no impact assessment for today’s instrument, but there will be for the next regulation. I am sure she will read it with great interest. Detail on new equipment and everything that relates to the convention and how it will impact the shipping industry will be set out in the Explanatory Memorandum that will be coming in due course, later this year. We will try to get it done as quickly as we possibly can.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned ships trading beyond the UK. I have an answer here, but I would rather write to him to ensure that my response is as absolutely correct as it can be, and I am absolutely clear. I have a response involving the experience-building phase, and I am not sure that I have fully got to grips with it, so I will check it out and write.

On the number of countries that have signed up to the convention, there are currently 88 contracting states to the convention, which amounts to 91.2% of global tonnage. That is a good thing; it is clear that the UK needs to be on that list. That is why I commend the order.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, could she write with a list of prosecutions that the MCA has done on these issues? She mentioned that, for non-compliance, the MCA would be the prosecuting authority. Has it done any yet?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

It would not have done anything against the convention, because, obviously, the convention is not implemented yet. So that would be a difficult list to compile at this stage. Perhaps I will send the noble Lord some nice information about the MCA and its enforcement, shall I? Excellent. We will do that. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (Legal Capacities) Order 2022

Thursday 13th January 2022 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

14:05

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (Legal Capacities) Order 2022.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, this order will allow the UK to recognise the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities, or IALA, and assist in the completion of its transition from a non-governmental to an intergovernmental organisation. The IALA may not be familiar to some noble Lords, but its work is fundamental to maritime safety and, given that 95% of all of our import and export tonnage is transported by sea, the wealth and prosperity of our island nation. The IALA is and will remain a technical, not-for-profit body whose key aim is to co-ordinate

“improvement and harmonisation of marine aids to navigation and related services to the benefit of … navigation, efficiency of shipping traffic and protection of the environment.”

It brings together marine aids to navigation authorities, manufacturers, consultants and scientific and training organisations from all parts of the world, providing a vital forum for the exchange of views, expertise and experience.

The UK was a founding member of the current organisation when it was first established in 1957. Our illustrious maritime heritage and continued leadership on aids to navigation through the work of our general lighthouse authorities—Trinity House, the Northern Lighthouse Board and Irish Lights—means that we have played, and continue to play, a significant role in all its achievements. These include the introduction of a single buoyage system, which replaced the more than 30 different types in use worldwide as late as the 1970s. Many of these had confusing and, worse, often conflicting rules. As a result, many ships were wrecked and lives lost simply because there was no consistency and mariners were often unable to fathom intended meaning.

This represented a significant barrier to the improvement of navigation safety and was the biggest challenge faced by the IALA when it was first formed. Although there was a clear need for consolidation and an internationally recognised consistent method of marking and wayfinding at sea, agreement on the details remained difficult. The IALA managed to navigate a path through these problems and created the IALA maritime buoyage system in 1976, adopted by the IMO in 1977. It remains a fundamental cornerstone of maritime navigation today, and has had an immediate and long-lasting impact on maritime safety.

The IALA continues to set international standards for all marine aids to navigation, make recommendations and deliver guidance. It has been instrumental in facilitating the delivery of enhanced navigation safety—for example, in facilitating the introduction of purely electronic aids to navigation, the transition from filament bulbs to LED lighting and the delivery of new power sources, such as solar. It also advises on challenges to navigation safety, such as offshore windfarms, and new technologies, including autonomous vessels.

The UK’s maritime heritage, although at times painful and tragic, means we have an obligation to others to incorporate and share our learning regarding safety in all of the IALA’s outputs. This is vital if we are to prevent the reoccurrence of the mistakes and tragedies that litter our history. That is why this order is so important. It will facilitate the IALA’s richly deserved transition to intergovernmental status.

The order is a very simple SI that confers the legal capacities of a body corporate on IALA in the UK. Article 1 provides that the order may not come into force until the future intergovernmental organisation comes into existence for the UK. If the UK is one of the first 30 states to ratify, this will be 90 days after the date of the deposit of the ratification instrument of the 30th state. If the UK ratifies after the convention is already in force, it will be on the 30th day after it deposits its instrument of ratification. This article also provides that the order’s provisions extend to the whole of the UK.

The UK was a founding member of IALA when it was first established in 1957. We are very keen to be at the forefront of its transition to an intergovernmental organisation. As I have noted, there is a process that things have to go through, and we need this order for the process to really get going and for us to be able to recognise IALA. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as an Elder Brother of Trinity House, the general lighthouse authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar. As the Minister said, Trinity House has been closely involved with the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation since its formation in 1957 under its previous name, the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, which is where the acronym IALA comes from.

At a meeting in Spain in 2014, IALA agreed that the best way forward to develop and improve marine aids to navigation for the benefit of the maritime community and the protection of the environment would be to seek international intergovernmental organisation status as soon as possible through the development of an international convention. Three subsequent diplomatic conferences were held to thrash out a draft convention, and it was finalised and adopted at a fourth conference held in Kuala Lumpur in February 2020. Just under a year later, the convention was opened for signature in Paris, where IALA is headquartered, and some 20 countries have now signed. Five of these—Singapore, Norway, Japan, Malaysia and India—have since ratified.

The convention will lead to increased international acceptance of standards, enhancing harmonisation, and will raise IALA’s status at the International Maritime Organization from merely consultative to equal partner, facilitating direct links with the experts working at the sharp end of research and development and thereby obviating difficulties that have arisen in the past when dealing with some governmental bodies.

Despite the huge technological strides that have been made in the aids-to-navigation sector over the past 20 or so years—here Trinity House has played a major role—the importance of such aids is as great now as it ever was, arguably more so due to the greater emphasis being given to environmental concerns. Bearing in mind our close association with IALA, I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to ratifying the new convention at the earliest opportunity.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this order. As the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, it is well overdue but is certainly going to happen. It appears to be going at a faster rate than on ballast water, perhaps because it will be based in France; we can conjecture on that. However, that is not really what I want to ask the Minister about.

As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, Trinity House is responsible for the lights and other navigation aids in England. It must have been more than 10 years ago that the shipping industry got very upset because it was paying its light dues for when ships use British ports—the light dues go to maintaining the lights—and we discovered that the lights being maintained included all the lights around the Irish Republic as well as those around England and Scotland. I recall that at the time my noble friend Lady Crawley, who was a Minister, was having great trouble negotiating with the Irish Government on the rather simple idea that they should pay for the maintenance of their own lights. She said, “They’re not very keen to negotiate”. That was not a very good answer from the Irish Government.

It was finally sorted out, and the other thing that was sorted out was that Trinity House and the Government together found a way of becoming much more efficient, as they are now, and therefore reducing the light dues applied to ships coming into this country. I am very pleased with the way it has gone, but can the Minister confirm, if not today then in writing, that there is no question that any of the money from ships coming into UK ports and paying light dues goes towards funding anything to do with lights in the Irish Republic?

14:15

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this important measure on maritime safety. I am very pleased to see that someone in the Department for Transport has been much more enthusiastic about signing up to this new convention, opened to signature by the French Government only a year ago, than was the case with the previous convention. It is good to see the UK in an enthusiastic leadership role after recent years when we have been—from the perspective of an internationalist, as I am—withdrawing from our international responsibilities. The development and maturing of international organisations is always good to see, especially one as practical and useful as this one.

I had written down two questions, one of which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has partly answered for the Minister—but I shall still ask it in part. Can the Minister update us on the progress on the other signatories? Are we in good company? The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, gave us some names, but is this regarded by the Government as good progress for something that they clearly support? Since this is a French-based organisation, does the EU join as a group, as one organisation, or do the individual EU countries join—and, if so, what is the progress with that?

I note that IALA will remain consultative. I move on to paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“Membership of IALA … will allow the United Kingdom to continue to play an active role”,


et cetera. This question is linked to my previous question. Did our withdrawal a year ago from the EU mean that we were put at a disadvantage in relation to this issue of international maritime safety? Did our previous relationship link in any way with our membership of the EU, and therefore leave us out in the cold somewhat? Was that an important—and very good—reason for wishing to join this convention as soon as possible?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this instrument to help to facilitate and recognise the new International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation. The Committee will be aware that this new organisation is a transition from the previous International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities, which has functioned since 1957. First, given that only five other nations have ratified the related convention, can the Minister provide the House with an estimate of when the transition will be completed? Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether the support and resources given by the UK to the new organisation will in any way differ from the support and resources given to its predecessor? Finally, can the Minister briefly explain the UK’s strategic aims for engagement in the organisation, as well as related bodies such as the International Maritime Organization?

We fully support the work of the new International Organization for Marine Aids for Navigation, and I am therefore pleased to welcome this order.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate on this order. I particularly welcome the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. It is very good to have somebody in the Room who has such expertise.

I will give a little more information on the timeline from the UK’s perspective. All being well and subject to the agreement of your Lordships’ House and it being passed at the other end—I cannot recall whether it has yet—this order will go to the Privy Council in February. This would be the ratifying document that will then go off to Paris at the end of February or in early March.

I am really pleased that the United Kingdom will join a good list of people—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has already mentioned the countries that have ratified or accepted the IALA convention. The other point to note about that is that it has also been signed by 20 different countries, too. The process is therefore well on its way. Looking down the list of countries that have already signed it, there are a large number of heavy hitters—ones we would really want to be associated with. The EU does not really have a locus here. There is no impact of EU withdrawal on this. Looking at the countries that have signed, we have Belgium, France, obviously, the Netherlands, and all sorts of different countries. I do not think that is a fruitful or relevant area to discuss further.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we need to make sure we have an enthusiastic leadership role in the maritime sector. I know that the Maritime Minister is very keen that we do. We have a lot of expertise on maritime aids to navigation. The general lighthouse authorities will continue to represent the UK at the intergovernmental organisation when it is established. Any member state obligation, should it arise, will be met by the Department for Transport in the first instance with FCDO input. In essence, our involvement will not change too much in terms of resources. Indeed, we will save ourselves around £15,000 a year on subscription costs. That is clearly beneficial.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether the Irish pay for their own lighthouses. Yes, my Lord, they do. The Governments of the UK and Ireland have an agreement that all work by Irish Lights in the Republic of Ireland is paid for by the Irish Government.

If there is anything else I will write further, because I am at the end of what I have been briefed to say, but I will check back through Hansard to make sure that there is nothing else. Otherwise, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 2.23 pm.