Airports (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Friday 16th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I start by declaring two interests. First, I think that I live in a more remote part of the United Kingdom than anybody in Northern Ireland. It probably takes me longer to get home than is the case with any of the Northern Ireland Peers. Secondly, I declare an interest as a former Minister of aviation. The slot problem at Heathrow used to appear regularly on my desk.

I have huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who introduced this Bill but I part company with him on the reasons for it. I take a totally different view. I think that what he is arguing for represents pure self-interest rather than national interest and is against the commercial interests of the United Kingdom.

Let us look at other areas. What about the Channel Islands? They do not have flights to Heathrow; they have flights to London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton. What about the Isle of Man? That does not have a flight to Heathrow. You can fly to Gatwick, London City or Luton from the Isle of Man and you can fly to Heathrow—but you use Edinburgh. According to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, Edinburgh would become a hub airport because, in Clause 1(5) a hub airport,

“means an airport used as a transfer point for passengers from one flight to another in order to complete a route”.

Edinburgh completes that; if you fly from Ronaldsway to Edinburgh, you can fly to London. So that would be good.

If the Bill is introduced, could the noble Lord really envisage that Flybe would have to reinstate the Inverness flight to London Heathrow? I remember when that was cancelled. It would serve a number of us who live in the far north a lot better in some instances, although I have to admit that, while I was against the abolition of that flight, I find flying into Gatwick more convenient to attend your Lordships’ House than flying into Heathrow, as it is closer. Why cannot we have a flight direct from Wick? That would suit my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, John Thurso MP and me very well. There is a very good airport there; it has a long runway and is certainly a regional airport.

Belfast is rather spoilt for choice, as two different airlines fly into Heathrow—BMI and Aer Lingus. At Inverness, BMI at one stage flew into Heathrow, but it does not do so any more. From Belfast you can fly to Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick or Luton, so it has access to all the London airports.

There is also, with regard to the Bill, the question of judicial review. If the Secretary of State,

“may give to any airport operator”,

what about the case for Exeter, if it felt that it had been prejudiced by a decision of the Secretary of State? I would hate to be Aviation Minister and have that clause to deal with.

When the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment in the Northern Ireland Executive, he would have raised his voice considerably against any restriction on the companies that he was trying to promote in Northern Ireland. The Bill tries to restrict the commercial decisions of those who operate the slots at Heathrow and, quite rightly, the Government are not involved in that. It was the saving grace for me as Minister that the Government did not interfere with slot allocation at Heathrow. Woe betide any Government who have to take on that responsibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised the question of what was happening in Europe, but under EU regulation 1008/2008 you can fly to a region but not to a specific airport. The current system is right and to take it any further would give every excuse for the French, who are far more in favour of protecting their interests than we are, to restrict Charles de Gaulle. I remember as Aviation Minister having huge battles with the French to try to open up Charles de Gaulle to our flights. So let us beware that trying to protect one area of the United Kingdom could have unforeseen repercussions. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that, however well intentioned the legislation might be, it is wrong and impractical.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, in short, these amendments are about leaving the obligation for the removal of wrecks by default with the Secretary of State. That effectively means leaving the taxpayer with the liability. Clearly, ship operators have to be concerned about costs—and rightly so. However, the Bill—unless I have misread it and I do not think I have—is not, as was recently alleged in the shipping newspaper Lloyd’s List, about shifting the financial burden for the removal of wrecks to shipping. As I understand the Bill, it is about maintaining the status quo as regards unrecovered costs. If the Bill becomes an Act, it will not make any difference so far as unrecovered costs are concerned. An uninsured ship could go down in a conservancy area or a harbour authority area and there would be exactly the same situation as that which pertains at the moment.

As the Bill provides that there will be a mandatory requirement, for the first time, that all vessels over 300 gross tonnes have wreck removal insurance and there is strict liability on the ship owner to remove that wreck, it is highly unlikely that there will be any increased costs to the General Lighthouse Fund or to harbour conservancy authorities. I know that my noble friend Lord Berkeley is understandably concerned about the cost to a small harbour authority if an uninsured vessel requires removal after an accident, but Section 255J states clearly that the UK ship or a foreign-owned ship may not enter or leave the UK port. In default of that, the master or operator of a vessel is guilty of an offence.

So it is more likely in future, that that requirement will be widely known by all ship owners and operators and much less likely that uninsured vessels will seek to enter our ports. I agree that it would be useful if the noble Earl could say something about small harbour authorities, which unlike, for example, Southampton, Felixstowe or Clyde Port, may not have the funds to effect removal in the unlikely event of an uninsured casualty which is a hazard to navigation. Overall, it is much more likely that the introduction of the convention will lead to reduced costs, to the benefit of the General Lighthouse Fund and, thus, to ship owners.

While some wrecks and strandings are beyond the control of any ship operator or ship master, far too many of them are a consequence of negligence. Casualties arise from one or more of causes such as poor navigation, poor watchkeeping practice, and underqualified officers. We know that it is possible to have people with fake qualifications on the bridges of ships. We have undermanned bridges. There are problems with alcohol and fatigue and, not least, inadequate maintenance. In that connection, in 2009-10, the Marine Coastguard Agency found that 1,265 vessels had safety issues and had to detain 59 of them until matters were put right. Sir Alan Massey has reported that there was insufficient rigour in some of those investigations. He is in a position to put that right. If the Bill is enacted, I hope that he will do so and that there will be proper examination of certificates. Of course, that would ensure that ships without those certificates do not come into our ports.

However, where maritime accidents occur in the circumstances that I described, it is quite wrong that the taxpayer should be expected to be the insurer of last resort, and therefore wrong to seek dilution of the clause, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment. It is for shipping operators and owners to be properly insured and for them to arrange prompt removal of any wreck that is a hazard to navigation. I have not the slightest doubt that most shipping companies—good ship operators—will be properly insured.

The requirement for mandatory ship insurance is long overdue. It is a valuable addition to maritime safety and should be supported. I recognise my noble friend's concerns but I hope that, having listened to the debate in Committee, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment so that we can give the Bill safe passage.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not being here for Second Reading, but I have read Hansard carefully. Having just listened to the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, should be a great deal happier than he appears to be. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said nothing new in moving his amendment today to what he said at Second Reading. Anyone who reads Hansard will see that, at Second Reading, he said that he was very satisfactorily answered by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and, in particular, by my noble friend Lord Attlee. If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, cares to refresh his memory of the Second Reading debate, he will find the words of my noble friend Lord Attlee, who said that,

“the Bill maintains the status quo”.—[Official Report, 13/5/11; col. 1134.]

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants to do nothing more than transfer existing liability on to taxpayers, as the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, has pointed out. He has wrapped it rather cleverly with harbour authorities this time, but we know that the real beef of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is the GLAs. He does not like them, and we are all used to that. I do not think I am alone in getting slightly concerned about this. It reminds me of the wolf story; he has been going on about GLAs for so long. He has been answered very properly and correctly, but I am no longer certain when he is being serious or when he is playing another agenda that I do not know about. That slightly perturbs me. If my noble friend Lord Attlee could comment on the MOU, which was mentioned at Second Reading, that might help to reassure the noble Lord. An update on that would be helpful.

Marine Navigation Aids Bill [HL]

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, that is an interesting question. When I quoted the chief executive of the Harwich Haven Port Authority, I quoted only part of what he said. He also said:

“This action by four major carriers has already deprived the General Lighthouse Fund of £2.4M in annual light dues”.

He did not estimate the reduction in business for the Haven ports, but the noble Lord will appreciate that, if four major container lines cease coming into the UK but go to the continent—Rotterdam, Antwerp or Hamburg—and feeder across, there will be a serious and significant reduction in jobs. Of course, shipping lines take extremely seriously even small changes to the amount that they have to pay.

[The Earl of Caithness]

The noble Lord mentioned making amendments. Will he tell us in precise detail what parts of the Bill he proposes to remove?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to make his Second Reading speech without interruption at this stage of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I declare my interest as Minister for Shipping from 1985 to 1986 and from 1992 to 1994. I did not take part in the Second Reading debate last year because I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was wasting the time of the House. At that time a major report into the lighthouse authorities was due and it would have been a much more efficacious use of the House’s time had he waited for the report to be published before putting his Bill before the House for Second Reading. I fear that this year the noble Lord is abusing the House. He has told us that he will substantially revise his Bill—and that he is entitled to do. The Bill comprises 14 clauses and one schedule. From what I managed to elicit from him a moment ago, only one of the clauses will remain, Clause 12, on the pensions funding, and he will introduce some other clauses. Those of us taking part in this debate have spent a lot of time doing preparation on the Bill as it is before us, but that time has been completely wasted.

The noble Lord had the courtesy to write to my noble friend Lord Attlee on 14 January advising him what he was going to do. He did not write to me until 19 January, and I got the letter only this morning. I was very lucky to receive a copy of the letter that he sent to my noble friend Lord Attlee. Why did the noble Lord not write to those of us who are taking part in this debate at the same time as he wrote to my noble friend Lord Attlee, on 14 January? Why has he allowed us to waste our time in this fashion? I fear that this is an abuse of the House. Perhaps he should do the right thing, withdraw this Bill and bring forward for Second Reading a Bill that he actually intends to pursue through the House. I do not dispute that his proposed amendments will make the Bill a lot better, because there are amendments that I would wish to put forward anyway, but I feel that I have wasted a considerable amount of my time, as has everyone else taking part in the Bill, because the noble Lord has not had the courtesy of letting us know exactly what he is going to do.

When the noble Lord spoke he repeated much of what he said last year, and of course he told only one-half of the story. He mentioned the increase in light dues. What he did not tell the House is that the light dues are the same in absolute terms as they were when I was Minister for Shipping in 1993, and that it is a 32 per cent reduction accounting for inflation. So, far from a massive increase, there actually has been a substantial reduction. He wants a 50 per cent reduction; well, he has got a 32 per cent reduction since I was Minister for Shipping. So the situation is not nearly as bad as the noble Lord has tried to portray to the House.

What was wrong—and what I fear my honourable friend the Minister of Shipping is wrong to do—was to freeze the light dues. That is why there was such a substantial increase. There was no increase from when I was Minister for Shipping until the increases were made in the past couple of years, and the Minister for Shipping has said that he will not increase light dues for the next three years. I think that that is unfair on the shipping industry. It is far better to have gradual increases—or, one hopes, reductions—rather than having a period of a freeze. Labour Ministers were very wrong to do that, because it then catches up with you: you get a deficit and you suddenly have to have what appears to be a substantial increase.

I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in congratulating my honourable friend the Minister for Shipping on getting an agreement with the Irish Lights. This is an old problem which I tried to deal with in 1985-86 and in the early 1990s, but that was not a sensible time to try to negotiate that sort of agreement with the Irish. It is very good that the Irish Lights cover the whole of Ireland—I think that it is the Irish rugby team, the Irish Lights and a third organisation which I cannot remember that cover the whole of Ireland. I agree that the partial subsidy that we gave towards the Commissioners of the Irish Lights will be phased out by 2015-16.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also said that there ought to be a continuing reduction in light dues. Of course he probably has read the Atkins report; and he probably knows that all the lighthouse authorities are currently working on a reduction and that, this year, all the running costs in real times will be decreased by at least 3 per cent. They have to meet, over a five-year period, an RPI-X formula, and they are well on their way to doing that.

There is now a joint strategic board at non-executive director level which is a result of the Atkins report and I think that it is a sensible way forward. This board is for the first time looking at all the corporate plans for the three separate lighthouse authorities. It is interesting to recall that the Atkins report did not recommend that the three GLAs should be merged into one, but said they would operate much more efficiently as three individual bodies. That is certainly beginning to prove the point.

The strategic board has a lot more to offer in the running of the lights. When something as new as that is introduced, of course it takes a bit of time to settle down. The Northern Lighthouse Board, Trinity House and the Commissioners of the Irish Lights are trying to get together. I think that there were some difficulties early last year but they seem to have worked their way out of the system and the board is now doing a very good job. I wish that I had been able to do something like that when I was the Minister for Shipping.

With the work that has taken place with the lighthouse authorities since the Atkins report—the reductions in the light dues and the continuing RPI-X indices—the running costs are coming down. In fact, the running costs will be reduced over the next four years by more than 17 per cent. That is not quite the 25 per cent that some would have liked, but it is very good over four years. That is fairly comparable to the Department for Transport’s CSR outcome of 14 per cent.

I hope that given perhaps a more balanced view of where we are with light dues, the noble Lord will not pursue this Bill. I would repeat only that, as far as I am concerned, he has behaved extremely badly towards the House and all of us who are taking part in this Second Reading debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill. I am also grateful for one or two interventions, because it was a slightly unusual way of proceeding after I decided to change it. However, I thought very carefully and consulted quite widely on this. I was advised that it was quite in order to do it like this. I felt it was therefore important to inform as many noble Lords as I could see on the list beforehand of my intentions. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, did not receive it; I sent them all by e-mail but I could not find his e-mail address. Perhaps that is an opportunity for thinking again. I am very sorry; I apologise for that.

[The Earl of Caithness]

If the noble Lord had scrolled down to “Caithness” he would have found my e-mail address.

[Lord Berkeley]

We can have a talk about that afterwards.

We have had a great variety of comments, some of them complimentary, some of them not. I have learnt a great deal from different people’s views today. I should of course have mentioned the Atkins report in my opening remarks. It has made progress. I still believe that more progress could be made. If one reflects on this, the key issue, when one is talking about RPI-X, is probably what X is. We can debate that, and I am sure that we will.

The key is what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, suggested as the answer to having two concurrent Private Member’s Bills and the draft Marine Navigation Aids Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, did not really comment on the Government’s intentions on that in his summing up.

I could go through and thank all noble Lords who have spoken and comment on what they have said, but it would take a little bit of time. I know that one or two colleagues are waiting to get on with the next debate. However, I cannot resist responding to my noble friend Lord MacKenzie who complained, quite rightly, that we have got the date wrong for the Bill. If it had been on 1 February, it would have been 200 years from the start of the Bell Rock Lighthouse, which was a fantastic piece of civil engineering construction in its time.

Whether I want to take the Bill forward is really a question of whether we can somehow incorporate, or get moving on, the navigation aids Bill that the previous Parliament was unable to take forward. I have been talking to some people, and Clerks, about whether much or some of the content of that Bill could be incorporated into a Private Member’s Bill. It could be within the Long Title. I am advised of that for this Bill, but I do not think that it could be with the one in the Commons, because that is called the Wreck Removal Convention Bill—apart from the “wreck” bit of it.

There has been much discussion of how much the present Government want the Bill to go ahead, but in draft form it had a lot of support in the previous Parliament. As the Bill stands, I do not think it is appropriate to take it forward, even with the amendments I have tabled and much further thought. We have progressed and I have heard many useful comments today. However, it would be useful to keep it open for Committee stage to see whether the contents of the Marine Navigation Aids Bill could be incorporated. That is in the absence of any commitment from the Government to find time for it; I would not expect them to do so anyway.

My inclination, therefore, is to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading but, clearly, I would not take it forward in its present form or with these amendments without a discussion as to what else could go in and whether it is necessary to take it forward at all. On that basis, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.