Swing Bridges

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, my department has a fund that exists solely to encourage freight off the roads and on to waterways. It is top of mind; we encourage our own delivery bodies to ensure that they use a variety of modes to transport construction materials. That includes inland waterways, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. If it is not in the maritime strategy, that is not because it is not a priority; perhaps it simply did not fit.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister feel that, when it comes to funding, she has a conflict of interest between being Minister for Maritime and the spokesperson for roads in this House?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Not at all. As the former Roads Minister, I am very grateful that I have that background of knowledge. I am perfectly able to want to transfer freight from the roads to inland waterways, because it is good for carbon.

Midlands Rail Hub

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Unfortunately, there is never sufficient funding for all the positive business cases the department has in its filing cabinet at any given time. That is why priorities must be considered. We must look at the strategic case and think about how the different enhancements work together. But where positive business cases are submitted to the department, we of course look at them with great interest.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Midlands Rail Hub, which is designed to dramatically improve the east-west and local and regional services in the area, which are pretty awful at the moment, should be a much greater priority than getting to London a few minutes faster by HS2?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that the Midlands Rail Hub would indeed do some of the things he outlines. He may also be interested to know that it would improve the integration to HS2 and therefore make HS2 ever more valued.

HS2: Wales

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As I tried to explain, the Government take an overarching approach, as heavy rail infrastructure is the responsibility of the Government in England and Wales. But if one looks at rail investment in Wales, one can see that we are investing record amounts already. In CP6, we have invested £2 billion in Wales alone, which includes £1.2 billion in renewals and upgrading infrastructure and £373 million for rail enhancements.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, Ministers have said that all trains from south Wales to Paddington will stop at Old Oak Common, the station of HS2 in London. That will add 10 minutes to the journey. How much will that station cost and how many years of delay will there be while it is constructed on the Great Western main line?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The noble Lord and I have had many conversations about Old Oak Common in the past. The Government remain committed to the construction of Old Oak Common; we believe that having trains stopping there will mean that the station becomes a vital integrated transport link in west London, which would lead into many other parts of London and beyond.

Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, back to his rightful place. There were quite a number of questions there, some of which I definitely cannot answer but some of which I will do my best so to do. I will of course write, particularly on his wider question about the impact of anti-fouling systems on human health and the maritime environment. I will make sure that we can bring together all the evidence we have to show the harm that this convention has prevented.

The noble Lord also asked a number of questions on the number of offences, convictions and penalties to date relating to regulations that have already been passed and are on the statute book. I will certainly have to write with the details of that because it would extend back many years.

The noble Lord asked for a typical example of which route a recalcitrant ship owner might end up going down. That will depend on the regulations which are yet to be made. He also asked whether there is a precise date next year when these regulations will be in place. There is not yet because there needs to be a public consultation. My priority is to get the public consultation kicked off to see what the industry and other interested parties have to say, but we will certainly be working rapidly to get the regulations in place once we are satisfied that the public consultation has drawn out all the issues that need to be drawn out.

Some noble Lords may rightly say, “Hang on a minute, isn’t this the substance?” Cybutryne is the substance that will be under consideration for this order. It will be banned from anti-fouling systems from 1 January 2023, but that applies to brand-new ships only, and there is a limit to how many brand-new ships come out of shipyards. Therefore, although I accept that we will not quite make the 1 January deadline, I do not feel that we will be missing many ships. If a ship is brand new, this anti-fouling substance is already banned so I doubt that it would have it painted on the hull. Existing ships will need to replace their current anti-fouling systems in accordance with the new requirements when they next undergo a survey, which would need to take place within 60 months of the last application of an anti-fouling system.

Enforcement of this order, as is the case with so many maritime instruments, comes under the remit of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which applies sanctions as appropriate. There is a range of sanctions and it depends on the severity of any contravention. I will write about circumstances in which a ship would be detained. That is, of course, towards the more radical end of interventions. There are also prohibition notices, fines and, as a very last resort, prosecution. I will write with more information on how many contraventions have occurred.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

When the Minister writes to my noble friend—it is great to see him back in his place—will she also say whether there are any geographical differences in where these ships might be used in relation to whether they have to comply, such as rivers, coastal waters or mid-Atlantic?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I will certainly ensure that all that is included. As for the impact of the EU, I suspect we could quibble all day about whether this is because of the UK leaving the EU. The simple fact is that we had no mechanism for putting these amendments into place, and that is the nature of the order that we are putting into place today.

On the impact assessment, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was right that this order has no impact per se because no subsequent regulations have been made. Indeed, in future other substances will probably be banned. Each one should clearly be taken into consideration and its impact assessed individually; otherwise we cannot see what will happen in future. At this time, no impact assessment is associated with this order as there are no costs. A de minimis assessment will probably be prepared for the implementing regulations, but work will have to be done by our analysts to confirm that that would be the right way forward. I have committed to write. I accept that there were some questions that I should have known the answer to, but I did not. I commend the order to the House.

Drivers’ Hours, Tachographs, International Road Haulage and Licensing of Operators (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

That this House regrets that the draft Drivers’ Hours, Tachographs, International Road Haulage and Licensing of Operators (Amendment) Regulations 2022 introduce a requirement for new tachograph equipment in goods vehicles weighing more than 2.5 tonnes on international journeys without providing evidence of the availability and cost of that equipment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive introduction to this SI. My reason for tabling this amendment is that, when the SI was tabled in July, I came across quite a lot of evidence of a lack of availability of some of the tachographs, lack of information about the costs, and lack of general information and, possibly, training for the people who would have to make this work.

I do, of course, support the regulations, and I congratulate the Government on them, but they have to be workable. Maybe things have moved on since July, but I have a few questions for the Minister which I am sure she will be able to answer. Most of the comments that I heard came from a magazine called Roadway, which comes from the road freight industry. It comments that, since January 2022, the DVSA has changed its approach and is—as the Minister said—enforcing these regulations at the roadside and during operator investigations, which is good. It is interesting that the traffic commissioners are now getting involved, which is also something quite new. Could the Minister say whether there have been any prosecutions yet, and outline how many investigations have been going on?

Secondly, what has the DVSA done to raise awareness of these requirements? I suggest that the Government have an obligation to ensure that these very complex regulations are widely known and understood. Have the drivers been trained to meet these requirements? If they have not, it is not going to work.

Regarding some of the comments in the Explanatory Memorandum, can the Minister give some idea of whether the smart tachographs—version 2—are available, whether they will they fit into all the types of vehicles that they are supposed to fit into, and how much they will cost? If there should be a supply shortage, the whole thing will not work and the Government will get a very bad reputation over it. I assume that the cost of installation is possible. It is often found that some of the bits of equipment that people are required to use do not fit into the vehicle concerned; it also applies to ships, but I will not bring that up today. I know that it is in the future, but light goods vehicles are going to be brought into scope in 2026, which, again, is probably a good thing but will make the equipment more difficult to install.

The next issue—I do not have very many more—relates to what is called triangulation, and cabotage. Paragraph 7.20 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to

“removing the triangular rights of EU hauliers and the cabotage rights following unladen entry”

into the UK. It says that because this is the same as the reverse on the EU it is probably all right, but is there any intention of trying to renegotiate some of these things? One reads quite often of vehicles, maybe small ones used by theatre clubs or orchestras taking their equipment across when they want to tour many different member states. We have had debates in your Lordships’ House about that, but it is a complex consequence of leaving the EU. It is not a very big problem except for those who suffer it and I hope that the Government will look at that again.

Paragraph 7.22 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to excluding combined transport. I question why combined transport is excluded, because if the truck happens to be loading or unloading a container from a ship or train that should be included, along with everything else.

Finally, the usual question from me and other noble Lords: if there is going to be a bonfire of EU regulations, are we going to have to go through all this again or will there be a new lot? I am sure the Minister will want to write to me on that, rather than answering today, but I beg to move my amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly raise some points that follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said. They were raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and are just to put my mind at rest.

In particular, on page 16 of its 10th report the committee raised a number of questions in paragraph Q2. The department seems to agree that these questions are causing some concern, and has confirmed that industry raised these concerns. The committee asked:

“What are industry’s concerns, is it the cost of the new equipment or are there supply issues that will make compliance by the deadline set difficult?”


In its answer, the department says that it is both: the cost of the new equipment and meeting the deadline. Can my noble friend the Minister put my mind at rest on whether the cost issue has now been resolved? Given that the department realises that there will be “only a few months” before the supply and installation “into newly registered vehicles”, can she confirm that the deadline will be met, or will the department be fairly flexible and allow them more time in this regard?

The department says:

“If there is a supply issue it would be felt at European level not just in the UK.”


But obviously the House is concerned about how that is to be addressed in this country. I therefore ask for confirmation: how does the department expect to address this issue of supply? Are we perhaps getting a little ahead of ourselves and should the deadline for when they should be fitted be a little more flexible than it has been?

The department says in its concluding paragraph on question 2:

“The Department will work with industry to raise awareness of the new requirement.”


Perhaps my noble friend will be good enough to tell us how that is to be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It has been really good to hear so many questions to the Minister, and I am grateful to her for the answers she has given—most of them, anyway.

I still find it extraordinary that although we have this legislation which requires tachographs to be installed, she could not seem to tell us how many suppliers there are. In this country, we have some pretty good examples of monopoly suppliers of large volumes of things that have gone horribly wrong, particularly in the health service. This kind of equipment should be available from many manufacturers, and I am not quite sure why we can have only the ones that the EU says. We obviously have to comply, but there we are. I think that a cost of £1,200 plus installation is pretty high for many operators. I am sure they will be able to do some financial wizardry with it, but it is still quite a lot of money, though it is for a good purpose.

I worry about the cabotage issue, because we still have traffic problems at Dover and many other places quite often. The freight industry is short of drivers. We used to have a situation in which probably only 10% of cross-channel road freight was done by British drivers. Whatever we think, we have to find the drivers somewhere if we cannot find them here, otherwise we will not get the goods across.

I hope we will keep this under review and I look forward to the Minister’s letter, which may be quite long. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Motion.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

At the end insert “but that this House regrets the delay of up to 20 years in the introduction by His Majesty’s Government of these Regulations, which affect just over 600 vessels requiring safety related changes to fire protection equipment, life raft and lifejacket requirements.”

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and, I thought, excellent explanation of why these regulations are necessary. She has given some very good reasons for them. My concern tonight is, first of all, to express concern at the delay—it is over 30 years now since the “Marchioness” accident—and to explore a little bit further what changes are covered by these regulations and where they apply. I note that, even at this late stage, the sister ship of the “Marchioness” is still sailing around, I believe, without some of the protection that the Minister has outlined and which I shall come to. I was pleased to hear her emphasise the need that the first stage must be to protect human life and to ensure that there is nothing in these lovely historical old ships that will excuse the provision of proper life-saving equipment and other things. I also congratulate the Minister on the documentation that has come with this SI, which is very impressive and detailed. I am also pleased that there has been a lot of quite good consultation—I have met some of the people who have been involved in some of it, and I think that it is really good that we have got to this stage.

As the Minister said, this standard covers life rafts, lifejackets, lifejacket lights, the fitting of fire detection and extinguishing equipment, bilge-pumping arrangements, bilge alarms for alerting of water ingress, and vessel stability. I find it extraordinary that this has not been a requirement for ships for many years. I am very pleased, of course, that it is in today, but the idea that you did not have to have enough life-raft capacity for all passengers on board is quite extraordinary. Whether we are talking about the upper River Thames, the tidal Thames or, in the other extreme, out to the Solent or something, the expectation from passengers must be that there is proper equipment and everything aboard. I think it is very good that the things we do not see in a ship, like fire detection, machinery failures, and bilge pumping—we discussed bilge pumps a few years ago in your Lordships’ House—are all here.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions about this damage stability issue. It is clearly important. In simple terms, in the event of a collision, will the boat fill up and sink? What is the risk of the collision happening, and what is the risk of it sinking or being damaged after the collision? I think that this is mainly to do with ships covered in these regulations in class C. I was also interested in her statement about the number of ships involved. Paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about “mitigating factors” for some ships which the MCA and Ministers will allow to continue to operate, because they have presumably taken the risk assessment which says that their existing design is satisfactory under the new regulations. The figure quoted is 120 vessels. It would be good to know the sort of areas where these vessels operate, whether they operate at day or night, and how big they are, et cetera.

But I think what is probably even more important is how many vessels are not covered by the mitigating factors, and who will have to actually go through the process of compliance, which may involve quite a few internal works, a lot of dry-docking and things like that. In certain circumstances, as is alluded to in the Explanatory Memorandum, it may be uneconomic for these vessels to continue the way they are.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I want to try to make my noble friend Lord Hodgson happy. First, I intend to continue the fine work of Robert Courts, who was a superb Maritime Minister. We will continue to fight the backlog. These regulations are not in the backlog; they are slightly separate, but I know that we are making good progress, and my noble friend will have seen a couple of SIs go through recently. Nine statutory instruments remain out of the total of 13; two have been approved by Parliament and will be made shortly, and another has been laid in draft. We are getting there, and I again commit to him that we will get there by the end of 2023. We will clear the maritime backlog where those regulations relate to the International Maritime Organization’s III instruments. We will then be in the SLSC’s good books and I, for one, will be very grateful. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her response. She has given me a lot of confidence that in her new role, on which I congratulate her, she will be robust in ensuring that there is no backsliding on these new regulations. As she has alluded to, collision is of course one of the greatest risks, and it happens on the Thames and on other major rivers, but there are probably more passenger services on the Thames than on many others.

I hope I understood her correctly in saying that the let-out that it was too expensive to make changes, for example, would not be acceptable. I am afraid I got the impression that the commercial side would have to give way to safety whenever there was a debate as to which was more important. I think she also said that whatever changes are possible for the 120 or so, everybody would still be required to comply with the new rules on lifejackets, bilge and life rafts, and all the other rules that apply across the board.

I look forward to the Minister writing to us about anything else that she has not covered, and I congratulate her again. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

1: Clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “the harbour” and insert “a harbour in the United Kingdom”

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as honorary president of the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association and a former harbour commissioner for the port authority in Cornwall.

In moving Amendments 1 and 2 I will reflect on the purpose of the Bill. Although it was created, as Ministers have said, to avoid a repeat of the frankly disastrous attempt by P&O Ferries earlier this year to change all their seafarers, it was the process that I felt was abhorrent. Clearly, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the national minimum wage legislation applies to all seafarers when working in UK waters but not within the UK.

We debated the two issues in Amendments 1 and 2 in col. GC 102 of the Grand Committee on 12 October. I would like to start on Amendment 1, which is linked to Amendment 2. The question is: what is a harbour?

My Amendment 1 would leave out the words “the harbour” and insert

“a harbour in the United Kingdom”.

We understood what the Minister told us in Committee, but then it got a bit confusing. She kindly wrote a long letter to us, which was helpful, but she said in the letter:

“A service is defined … as being ‘for the carriage of persons and goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the United Kingdom and a place in the United Kingdom’”.


The word “a” is interesting. If it were “the”, as in the Bill, that would be just one harbour, but my argument is that “a” place can be any harbour. This comes into the scope of whether the Government are trying to protect all seafarers who are, shall we say, based in the UK—those who work in UK waters but are not necessarily employed on UK land—or whether this provision just sorts out the P&O Ferries problem. It is my contention that as the Minister referred in her letter to “a” place, that is what should be in the Bill.

I also want to explore why this needs to be confined to Dover to Calais. Many noble Lords will recall that a previous Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling, created a new ferry service between Ramsgate and Zeebrugge to try to sort out the traffic jams at Dover. Of course, that ferry service did not actually exist; I discovered that the head office was in an office owned by a very large manufacturer of construction equipment in the City, but there was no ship or ferry. But Ramsgate is a perfectly good ferry terminal and I can see that ferries might operate between Dover and Calais one day and between Ramsgate and Calais the next; it could effectively be the same service. It is not right to confine the service included in the Bill to just one service, when ships can go round the country. I believe that the seafarers, in all these things, need similar protection.

We then move on to the question of having 52 or 120 days a year where the ship would have to come into a UK port in order to be included under the Bill. Ministers have said that the key is that the service must have close ties to the UK. I suppose I would question how you can define close ties—it is a bit of a woolly concept. I am not going to give any examples, but if you are a seafarer and want to be included, you might wonder whether the company employing you has those close ties. It is a difficult question to answer.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am very grateful for all contributions on this first group. I appreciate the support from Members on my own side; it is always good for the Minister to know that there are a range of views and that people are thinking about the Bill and taking it seriously—it is a very serious Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the welfare of seafarers. He is absolutely right and there are mechanisms, which the UK is deeply embedded in and has been for a very long time, which work internationally, as many noble Lords will know, to try to improve the conditions and pay of seafarers. However, that is not under discussion today. As pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, this is an important part of the nine-point plan that Ministers set out earlier in the year, but the Bill is narrow in scope and effect. That is for many reasons but a key one is that we have to be mindful of the extent to which we are legislating; we have to be mindful that we do not overreach, because that might have some very serious unintended consequences that we would later regret. That is why, throughout the drafting of the Bill, we have had at the front of our minds not only international law but our international obligations; that is critical. Although I accept that there are many things that noble Lords would very much like to do for seafarers—and that, probably, on the face of it, I would like to do too —the reality is that, as a Government, we have to be sensible and potentially a bit boring. We must stay in our lane and make sure that we do not overreach, because the consequences would be very significant.

There are two amendments in this group. The first brings back the old chestnut of “the harbour” versus “a harbour”. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for enabling that discussion once more. I cannot go much further than I went in Committee; I just state that it is absolutely important that unless we say “the harbour”, we cannot define what a service is. A service is from one point—the point—to another point. It is of great regret that the word “a” crept into the letter, but noble Lords can imagine that that was the overarching ambition: from a point overseas to a point in the UK, but “the harbour” within a place overseas and a place in the UK. Because we have defined it that way, from “the harbour” to “the harbour”, we capture the high-frequency services that, let us recall, can be serviced by any vessel—you can put another vessel in when one is off being maintained or whatever—but it is always between two specified harbours.

The second part of that definition—the harbour to the harbour—that is very important is

“120 occasions in the year”.

That, essentially, defines a service that has close ties. The second point about this is that unless you define it as “the harbour” to “the harbour”, it would be incredibly difficult to enforce the Bill, because the Bill relies on one harbour authority being responsible for monitoring and enforcement. Individual harbours may be able to anticipate that a particular service will call in its harbour 120 times a year, perhaps because that service has been doing so for years, if not decades. That harbour authority may not be able to anticipate whether a particular operator has services to other ports, so how would the enforcement and monitoring work in those circumstances?

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, brought up an example about, I think, a former Transport Secretary and ships that could be brought in to operate services, but he reinforced the point I am trying to make: it is not about the ships or the specific seafarers on a particular service; it is the service itself that we must make sure falls within the Bill’s scope.

I am content that we have defined the scope well. I am a little disappointed that I have not given sufficient explanation such that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is content, but I feel that we are there and have clarified exactly what would happen. In response to concerns raised about services suddenly deciding to go to another port so that they do not have to pay seafarers a fair wage, as I said in Committee, I do not think that would be commercially viable. I do not think operators would play switcheroo with UK ports because, frankly, their customers would not put up with it. I do not think that point works.

I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment to change “the harbour” to “a harbour”. It would make the entire Bill not worth the paper it is written on, and it would not function in the way that I know the noble Lord wants it to function.

I turn now to Amendment 2, which seeks to decrease the threshold frequency from 120 times a year to 52. The figure of 120 was arrived at following very thorough and extensive consultation and bilateral discussions with industry and other stakeholders. We have looked incredibly carefully at the patterns of services, noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and at maritime traffic data by type to reach the figure in the Bill. The scope of the Bill captures services calling 120 times a year on purpose. It is a very specific number that balances the need to maintain close ties with wanting to do the very best we can for seafarers.

The rationale is clear. It covers the vast majority of passenger ferries, including ro-pax, non-passenger ferries and ro-ro services calling at the UK. Critically, it focuses the Bill on short sea services, which justifies the connection to the UK and therefore the UK-equivalent level protection of pay. We do not want to bring into scope some of the high-frequency deep sea container services. That would not be our intention at all and, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, would completely change the scope of the Bill and would go against the Government’s intention.

For the UK to impose pay requirements for seafarers on foreign-flagged ships that call at its ports only once week would risk being seen as an overreach by international partners. It would weaken the justification for the UK taking legislative action. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, we must tread with care. I appreciate that the noble Lord’s intention is to protect as many seafarers as possible, but the Government can justifiably legislate only for those with close ties to the UK. To seek to do more could risk making the Bill inoperable and could damage the UK’s reputation internationally.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and to the Minister for her reply. To some extent, these issues were discussed in Committee and many of us suggested to the Minister that there were questions, which the Chamber of Shipping has clearly raised with other noble Lords, about the legality of this from an international shipping point of view. The Minister convinced us—well, she said there was no problem and she thought it would be all right and within scope. The only difference, therefore, is how many times a service goes into a port before it ceases to cause an international problem? I do not know the answer to that, but I cannot believe that, if it is all right to have 120 visits a year, it is somehow illegal to have 52.

The noble Baroness also raised the question of foreign-flag ships. I thought we had established that it applied to any ship, regardless of what flag, so I do not think the foreign flag comes into it at all.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting out in more detail what the RMT has sent us, but seafarers who are operating on a service where the cook gets paid £2 an hour might look askance at sea- farers who are getting the national minimum wage because they happen to be going on a short sea crossing where P&O had caused some problems earlier this year. It does not seem logical to me.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

2: Clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “120” and insert “52”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reduce the number of visits by a ferry service to one particular port needed to qualify and bring further services within the scope of the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I stand to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott: Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9 in this group. We are pleased to see that the Minister has responded to comments from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that her amendment addresses some of the issues that it was concerned about. Our amendments also address their comments, and the Government do not seem to have taken all of the committee’s comments on board. That concerns us.

Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State power to give directions to harbour authorities, requiring them to do—or not to do—a number of things. The DPRRC concluded that this was

“a completely open-ended power”

and pointed out that this could modify the whole Bill by directions which are not subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government accepted this argument in relation to Clause 3 and put in an amendment, so my question is this: why is the same principle not applicable to Clause 11? I made the point earlier this afternoon that the Bill is, in my view, poorly constructed. I genuinely think that it is quite possibly an error, rather than a considered decision by the Government, that has led to their failure to rectify Clause 11, because there is no logic to making the effort with Clause 3 but not making the effort with Clause 11.

As the Bill stands, the Government are hiding behind harbour authorities by expecting them to do the enforcement work. I understand the points the Minister made in the various debates in that regard, but at the same time the Government want to retain all the ultimate power. That is not satisfactory. It overrides Parliament’s role and parliamentary democracy. It is an abuse of government power and it is bad law.

So my question to the Minister is: will the Government consider responding to and taking on board the rest of the DPRRC’s comments and, at a very late stage—at the last moment—ensuring that there are amendments in line with its comments? If she feels that the Government really cannot do that, will she give an undertaking in this House that they will not depart from the Bill’s basic script and intention—because there is a fear that that could happen, given the very wide-ranging power they are giving themselves in the Bill?

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 10, which is designed to do exactly the same thing as the amendments from the noble Baroness. All I can say is that I entirely agree with what she said. It is really not acceptable that the Government can instruct or direct ports to do something, direct them not to do something, and then basically fine them, take them to court or whatever if they do not do what they say. It is all wrong and I support the noble Baroness’s statement. I hope the Minister will consider this and possibly come back with changes, as she did with the earlier recommendations.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I support all these amendments. The Government accepted the committee’s recommendation in relation to Clause 3 and introduced Amendment 3; they should also concede Amendments 6 to 9, and preferably Amendment 10.

The problem is that the Government have made harbours the enforcers of the Bill, in particular by way of imposing surcharges. That reveals the flawed structure of the legislation. The arguments are by now familiar so I will outline only three of them.

First, the national minimum wage equivalent for seafarers should not be enforced by harbours, some of which are wholly conflicted since they share ownership with the shipping lines they are to police. I do not understand how the noble Baroness could say in her letter to us of 21 October:

“The Government is confident that there are no conflicts of interest.”


Instead, the declaration of compliance should be received by, and the prime enforcement body should be, a state authority. The obvious candidate is the MCA.

Secondly, there should have been provision for seafarers or their unions to enforce the national minimum wage equivalent, not least by making the entitlement to it contractual.

Thirdly and lastly, enforcement by way of surcharge is, with respect, inappropriate. It is a penalty and the noble Baroness’s letter to us, of 21 October, says of surcharges that

“Rather than being a punitive measure, its purpose is to make it not worthwhile for an operator to underpay their seafarers.”


Of course that is so, but then there is no distinction of purpose between a fine and a surcharge. One suspects that the real reason that a surcharge is preferred to a fine is that it avoids the stigma of a criminal sanction, which is, if that is true, an unattractive justification given that we are all here seeking to prevent repetition of the disgraceful behaviour of companies such as P&O Ferries. Such companies should be stigmatised by criminal prosecution if they underpay their seafarers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, relates to the refusal of access. The refusal of access is one way in which we establish the provision of national minimum wage declarations as a condition of access to ports. If this were replaced by a power of detention by the MCA, this would become a punitive measure and go beyond the voluntary mechanism envisaged by the Bill. Detention of vessels is a disproportionate and inappropriate mechanism in these circumstances. Detention of ships can also carry a significant cost to the port by blocking a berth, which is not the case if they are refused access.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has previously expressed concerns that refusal of access is unworkable as it might result in ships mid-passage being unable to dock, but this is not how the Bill will work in practice. By virtue of the high-frequency requirement, all services captured are almost certain to be on short routes, and access refusal would take place before a ship has set sail from the origin port. As set out under Clause 9, we will set out in detail in the regulations how the harbour authority is to communicate refusal of access, which will ensure that sufficient notice is given to prevent this possibility happening and to provide notice for users of the service to make alternative arrangements. We will of course be consulting closely with the ports on these draft regulations.

As an additional safeguard, the Secretary of State has a power to direct the harbour authority as to how or whether it discharges its power to refuse access, which will ensure that access is not denied where it would cause damage by disrupting key passenger services and supply chains critical for national resilience.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister but I have a quick question. She said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who moved this amendment, that if the amendment were accepted it would cause a significant cost to the port. If there is significant cost to the port in Dover by this not happening, what about the cost to the port in Calais, or do we not worry about that because it is foreign? It is the same issue, just at the other end of the route.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. It would be costly to the ports and disruptive to passengers.

Doncaster Sheffield Airport

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The question is more relevant to regional connectivity, which is absolutely key for growth. As we set out in our 10-year strategic framework for aviation, we are very much focused on regional connectivity. Anybody who knows the geography of the area around Doncaster Sheffield Airport knows that it is not the only airport in the area. Other airports are easily accessible from many of the places around there, so it has quite a limited, unique catchment area, which may have contributed to Peel’s decision that it was not viable in the medium term. I understand that other consultants have looked at it, potentially, for the local authorities and reached the same conclusion.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that Doncaster has a very long runway, and my noble friend said that it was like Prestwick’s. Manston in Kent has an equally long runway, or maybe longer, and so does Newquay in Cornwall. Newquay is being used by Virgin to get the first rocket into space, I believe. Do the Government think that long runways are important, or are they quite happy for all these to be sold because we have short take-off and landing and do not need long runways any more?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Of course, they do not get sold. These runways are in private hands or the hands of local authorities. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of Newquay. It just goes to show what airports can do. By adding a spaceport to the airport, it is broadening its revenues and looking to the future. The Government very much hope that the launch of the Virgin Orbit rocket will take place as soon as possible.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 3) Regulations 2022

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. Slot alleviation has become routine in the last couple of years. I have always accepted it as an important aspect of ensuring that we do not have unnecessary flights. “Half full” would be an overstatement; “almost empty” would be more accurate during Covid. However, I have got to the point where I question whether it is justified any longer in the current terms that the noble Baroness presents.

The Explanatory Note refers to an expansion of the list of reasons for slot alleviation, but that expansion is still in terms of Covid. Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to demand being at or around 80% to 85% of 2019 levels during May to July. Does the Minister now have access to figures for August and September?

The irony is that the reduction in demand over the summer was significantly affected by the cancellation of flights because airports instructed airlines not to fly, not because of Covid but because they did not have the ground-handling capacity. That happened at both Gatwick and Heathrow. The impact was, of course, to reduce the number of flights, but it also suppressed demand beyond those who thought that they had booked flights. I am sure we all know people who found that their flights were cancelled or deferred, and people who simply gave up trying to fly abroad as a result of the congestion at airports. There was suppressed demand over the summer, so the alleviation of slot rules could be said to be no longer appropriate for those reasons. It is time the Government reconsidered it, because it distorts the market.

Finally, I point out that there is no impact assessment for this. The grounds given for this are that it is for less than 12 months, but this has actually been going on for years, as the Minister pointed out in her explanation. I draw the Committee’s attention to the 12th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Losing Impact: Why the Government’s Impact Assessment System Is Failing Parliament and the Public. At this stage, now that we appear to be through the immediate emergencies of Covid, it is important that the Government restore the standards they once had in legislation, in terms of impact assessments.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on taking over full responsibility for air—until the next reshuffle anyway. I think that happened last week.

These are very interesting regulations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, I can see that in the Explanatory Memorandum there is a sort of conflict between wanting not to lose slots at airports, wanting to preserve monopolies and wanting to encourage competition. We do not really like running ghost flights if that is the only way to do it.

The question I would like to ask the Minister relates, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, to some of these lists of reasons, which could become cop-outs for just about everything an airline or airport does not want. The noble Baroness mentioned shortage of airline or airport staff and strikes, which have been happening and will probably continue.

Then there is slot limitation. The noble Baroness mentioned Heathrow Airport limiting slots. I looked at the website for Schiphol Airport and it has similar limitations on slots, I suspect for similar reasons. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what is happening to these limitations on slots, certainly at Heathrow, because I think the present one finishes at the end of October. Is that matched with Schiphol and other regional or local airports in Europe? Presumably you have to have similar restraints at either end of a flight, and an awful lot of them go to Schiphol and places such as that.

The other interesting item in the list of reasons, for me, is in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is to do with the

“closure of airports or hotels”

and the effect that it might have on the passenger. That is a very subjective way in which to decide on slots, if one is relying on the number of people who are complaining, or what you think the solution is. I am not sure that the regulations will help matters much, in that way.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has made the case well. This is from somebody who, I imagine, has not spent her whole life in maritime as I have, so I congratulate her; her points were made well.

We have the IMO close to us here in Parliament. It is just across the way, up the river and on the other bank. We are privileged to have it. If we do not abide by, for example, UNCLOS resolutions and agreements, it will be damaging to our position. I am sure that many maritime people would agree. It is extremely important that we do not behave irresponsibly here, particularly at a time when Britain is open for business. With all the other splendid slogans we have heard, it is important that we abide by international agreements. These were carefully worked out over a long period involving all parties, so I support the amendment.

I say in passing that I also support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which is in the same space but on a more restricted, faute de mieux basis and also holds good in that situation.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have any amendments in this group but I think it is appropriate for me to speak to some of the clause stand part amendments I have tabled. Basically, they result from a discussion during the International Chamber of Shipping’s briefing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred, about whether this Bill is compatible with international law.

Last night, I had the pleasure of joining many people from the maritime sector at an event in Greenwich. I must have spoken to more than a dozen experts in the field who questioned why the Government are doing this at all. They said, almost to a person, that the Bill will not deliver what the Government want. I certainly support its purpose—to protect the employment and remuneration of seafarers—but all the experts said to me that it will not do that.

One useful comment has come from Nautilus about the Insolvency Service work on assessing whether P&O had acted in a criminal manner when it did. Basically, the Insolvency Service is not going ahead with the criminal case while the civil investigation is still under way, but what it is really saying is that it does not think this Bill will deliver. This is from a union that represents many seafarers. It is worth quoting the information from the British Ports Association to put on record that it and other associations are not convinced that the Bill is compatible with the international commitments under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If we take this uniliteral action, we risk other people who are possibly less responsible than the UK—I do not know whether that is still the case these days—doing the same thing and providing justification for doing things that adversely affect our ships, our seafarers and everyone else.

I hope the Minister can explain why this is being done at all. I will go into details on some later amendments, but will finish on this matter of principle. Presumably, the Government believe that this is compatible with international law, because Governments should not be breaking the law; I am sure the Minister agrees. But two people said to me last night that, within a few weeks of this Bill receiving Royal Assent—if it does—judicial reviews will start flowing. That is a terrible thing to say at this stage of the debate, and I hope it does not happen.

As a matter of principle, whether the Government think that this Bill complies with international law or not, it would be good to hear the Minister tell us about this and particularly about Articles 21, 38 and 42 of UNCLOS, in which the British Ports Association is particularly interested. I look forward to her comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 9 in my name, which cover the same ground that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, outlined so well. I still get confused—I know that some associations are also confused—as to whether it is one ferry or a service. As the noble Baroness said, how do you define a service? For example, does it matter where the ship is registered? I do not think it does, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. Where the contract of employment with the seafarers is concerned, does that make any difference?

I suppose my purpose in putting down the amendment to change the number of visits to a harbour—or the harbour—from 120 to 50 was also to probe whether it matters which harbour it is and what a harbour is. I know that this Bill is designed to support ferry workers, which of course I support, but a lot of other ships go around the coast. Coasters, for one, move china clay, cement, aggregates and other things. I am a former member of the harbour board of the port of Fowey in Cornwall. These ships go backwards and forwards; their crew are probably employed in UK contracts but they might not be. Are they included? If not, should they be?

Ditto with cruise ships. We read about many employees on cruise ships not being well paid. Most cruise ships probably move internationally; they certainly do not come to a particular port even 50 times a year. On the other hand, some smaller ones go around more often. Why should those employees not be protected in the same way as ferry operators? I asked one or two people why they thought it was so important to protect ferry operators. The answer was, “Well, they’re a particular type of crew who usually go home after their shift”. That is an odd definition. I am sure that it is not true when you look at the services to Spain and up to Scandinavia; they certainly do not go home every night. It is important that the Minister sets out the limits of this clause, why it is that way and whether it relates to the ships or the crews.

In relation to ships going across the channel—P&O might have three or four going across; I am sure that the crew get moved from ship to ship—is it a matter of making sure that the ship or the captain produces the documents? How is it recorded that crews who have gone from one ship one week on to another ship another week are covered by this Bill? It is a pretty complicated solution, but it is terribly important for people who may be on one side of the fence or the other. I am sure the Minister can give me a wonderful answer on this; if not, she can write to me.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 8, which is simply an elaboration of the points that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has already made. The proposal here is to delete “the harbour” and insert “a harbour”. What lies behind that is catching those vessels that might do what I understand is referred to as harbour-hopping, where, in order to decrease the frequency with which they are recorded in any particular port, they go to a nearby port every so often to reduce the number.

My second point, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley and I have addressed, and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has a slight variant on, is whether 120 occasions a year is far too high. It will exclude a lot of vessels that do weekly ferrying, which we would want to catch. If I may speak for my noble friend Lord Berkeley as well as myself, the reason we think it should be 50 is that, quite often, a ship may be serviced for a couple of weeks a year and it may not therefore achieve the full 52 occasions, even if it is running a weekly service.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, looks as though he wants to ask a question.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I just want to comment on the Minister’s last statement, which was very helpful. I think she needs to recognise that the maritime industry has probably got very good PR, but some of what goes on on the ships is highly dubious. I have been honorary president of the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots’ Association for about 25 years—heaven knows why so long, it is very nice of them—and I hear stories about what pilots find when they get on the ships. It is not just that the pilot ladder might break, which sadly does happen occasionally, but that there is a language problem within the ships, or that the master sometimes cannot control the crew and that they will do anything to save tuppence ha’penny. So, I appreciate what she is saying, and in a normal business, she is probably right, but in this sector, it may not be the ferry or the short-haul freight services, but we have to recognise that every penny seems to count and usually it is very bad for some of the crew.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Of course, the noble Lord has much more experience aboard such vessels than me, and I will take his word about some of the conditions on ships. Indeed, we heard during Covid how what happened on ships was very distressing for some people and extremely disappointing. I take all of that on board but I go back to: I cannot fix the entire world today but what I can fix is what is before the Committee in terms of the scope of this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned specific types of services, such as coasters—which apparently take English clay around the coast, et cetera—and cruise ships. This is why it is so important to do this based on the service and its frequency rather than what it is actually providing. Coasters might be caught but if they are doing only domestic work they will be caught anyway because they are in UK waters and they are caught if it is port to port within the UK, but if they are doing a run frequently—say three times a week across to France—they will be caught, and I do not see why they should not be. I have no problem with that. Let us catch them. The people working on such vessels most likely have close ties to the UK and those vessels clearly have close ties to the UK because they dock here so frequently, so it does not matter where the ship is flagged or where the employment contract is. It is the fact that it spends a lot of its time in UK waters and enters UK ports on a very frequent basis. This frequency is important.

I note that two noble Lords have tabled amendments to go down to 52 occasions from 120. We looked at this very carefully during the consultation. My current view—and of course we are going to go away and consider this—is that 52 would catch too many vessels that we did not intend to catch and would be overreach in terms of the current settlement with the international shipping community. Again, we might be entering the sort of territory where the unintended consequences would be quite significant. I go back to the fact that this is a narrow Bill, it has a narrow scope, it does a very specific thing, and I would like it to do that specific thing on services which dock here 120 times a year.

Amendments 7 and 8 refer to this issue of “a harbour”, “the harbour” or “harbours”. We have established what “a harbour” is—so that is done—and we are very clear that the service is to a particular harbour. It is not to “a harbour” within the UK because Calais-Dover is not the same as a service running from Calais to any other harbour. The route is specified. It is the same route, not using the same ships, high frequency to a specific harbour. We think that is quite clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked for a definition of “close ties”. I do not think I will ever be able to get to that but we have been able to define what a “service” is. Those services have close ties. It is descriptive language to define what these services are, but it is merely that. It is not something that will be legally defined and taken forward.

--- Later in debate ---

I would make it “at least” equal to the national minimum wage equivalent in order to preclude ship operators simply confining wages to the national minimum wage equivalent, although I accept that that will be the general practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak briefly to oppose Clauses 4 and 9 standing part of the Bill. Again, this goes back to what I spoke about earlier in terms of the legality of this legislation. It comes from the International Chamber of Shipping, which says:

“The vessel declaration requirements envisaged in the Bill … contravene the international frameworks and principles governing seafarers’ remuneration, which confer jurisdiction to the flag State. Notwithstanding the fact that NMWe”—


national minimum wage—

“payments and declarations would be limited to work done while a ship is in UK waters / ports (to address ‘extraterritorial reach’ concerns), this would still amount to an excessive claim to prescriptive jurisdiction, contrary to the fundamental principle of flag State jurisdiction, i.e., that a vessel’s flag State has overall responsibility for the employment conditions aboard a vessel. UNCLOS Article 94 (Duties of the flag State), specifies that the flag State shall ‘exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag’. It would further be contrary to the universal norm that port States will not regulate the ‘internal affairs’ or ‘internal economy’ of visiting foreign vessels (a principle that includes employment conditions).”

This may seem a long way away from ships going between the UK and close waters, but it indicates that what vessels from further afield—which may or may not get tied up in this—will do may be something that the UK finds unpalatable. In other words, if they start doing this to show up the UK as not complying with the UNCLOS requirements, it could be difficult. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on this; indeed, we may need a meeting with our legal experts to see how important this is and what can be done about it.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, we do not have any amendments in this group, but I take this opportunity simply to make the point that we share the concern of those noble Lords who do have amendments in this group. These are important issues that reflect the reasonable fear that employers could use tactics that circumvent the measures in the Bill.

One thing that has been speculated on is that seafarers could be paid at a lower rate when they are outside UK waters to compensate for the higher rate that they must be paid in UK waters. There are things about which the Government can do nothing, but it is really important that the things that can be got right are looked at carefully to ensure that they are absolutely on the nail. I point in particular to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to emphasise the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of this legislation and engaging with the trade unions. P&O’s tactics—the audacity with which they were announced surprised everyone, I think—exposed the weakness of the current safeguards. However, if the Government attempt to plug the loophole but fail to do so effectively, I fear that P&O would not be alone and other owners would attempt to do something similar—perhaps not as blatantly as the way in which P&O did it, but it certainly could undermine legislation further if the Government’s efforts here are not fully effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, including some clause stand part notices, but first I must say that I support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about these issues. It will be very hard for ports to be responsible for setting tariffs when they are in competition with the ports next door—it does happen. The other thing that worries me about the ports being involved in this is that, again, it is not unknown for crew members to disappear off a ship or come on to a ship when they are in harbour. We do not need to go into detail, but it is all part of the competition, the regulation and the enforcement, which is terribly important.

On the question of conflicts of interest, again, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a number of ports are owned by shipping lines, but of course there are also other parts of ports—different quays or wharves—that are owned by a shipping line or by a different company that owns the actual harbour. My question then is, who will be responsible: the competent harbour authority or someone else? Take the Port of London Authority, which is the authority for the whole port, and Thamesport, which now has two or possibly three massive quays there: will the PLA be responsible, and would it like to be seen to be going in, interfering and getting information? I do not know the answer, but there is a conflict there.

Retaining vessels, as the noble Baroness again said, is actually quite common. It happened to us in Fowey about five years ago when a Russian vessel came in. It sat there, the tide went out and I suppose it probably ran aground on the bottom. Somebody went by in a small boat and found a hole in the side of the ship, well below the waterline, into which a dirty rag had been stuffed. The harbour authority, with the MCA’s support, quite rightly prevented that ship leaving until it had blocked up the hole with something better than a rag. Okay, that is not something you see every day, but it does happen.

Things happen to affect the proper management of a port. Sometimes ports are in competition, but they do not want to get into the position where they act as policeman to their own possible part owners, possible customers or anything else. I am sure the MCA and HMRC, as necessary, ought to be involved, so I support the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled as well as my own.

I shall finish, again, on the legal questions and the scope of the UK port state control powers, which is to do with the ability to levy surcharges—these, as the noble Baroness said, are like a fine—or issuing suspensions via the SHA. The advice from the international chamber is that the Government could potentially be exceeding the powers conferred on them under the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implement the UK’s international obligations under the IMO’s Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control in UK law. It suggests that the enforcement measures contemplated in the Bill should be aligned with and adhere to title 5 of the ILO MLC convention, which relates to “compliance and enforcement”. That is the third of what might be called my legal challenges to the Minister, which I hope I have put correctly. I can send her the briefing if she would like it; I am sure it would be useful to have a discussion about this when she has had a chance to read it.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, the case for the Secretary of State being responsible for surcharges was very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. To summarise, it sits much better with the Secretary of State. We have a situation in which the port authority is normally providing a service to the owner; the owner-operator is therefore a customer. To be, in effect, levying a fine on your customer is an unnatural state of affairs. In the interests of transparency and consistency, we should have one entity in the land deciding these things. They can vary from port to port and there may be special circumstances, but it is desirable to have one authority making the surcharge across the land.