Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Lords Chamber

I share the concerns of other noble Lords. It sounds to me as though we have two different conventions, each bearing legal weight, that our maritime industry is supposed to operate under. The chances of dissatisfied elements seeking a judicial review must be extremely high, and I ask the Minister whether any assessment has been made of the cost to the taxpayer of the sort of judicial action that could be taken by parties trying to prove their point. Not to have a clear answer before the House about the legal opinions that the Government have on this issue is incredibly risky.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I do not want to get into European law, but we are talking about definitions. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has referred to them. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley refers to,

“proposals to allow junior ratings to hold pilotage exemption certificates”.

There is nothing in the Bill that suggests that junior ratings should hold a PEC. It refers to deck officers, not junior ratings.

I failed the Board of Trade eyesight test to go to sea as a deck officer cadet, so I have lost out on some of the expertise, but my father was a Merchant Navy officer, I have two relatives who are master mariners, masters of Northern Lighthouse Board vessels, and a stepson who is a senior officer in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and I think that they would all say to me that a rating on a ship is a support worker. He may be an able seaman, an ordinary seaman, perhaps a carpenter, or a coxswain, but not a deck officer. A deck officer is someone who will have passed the examinations for STCW—Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping—on board a vessel.

I therefore say with the greatest of respect to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that the amendment is defective in talking about junior ratings when the Bill has nothing to say about junior ratings. We are talking about giving deck officers the possibility of having a pilotage exemption certificate. The PEC will be given only by a competent harbour authority, and I cannot imagine any competent harbour authority giving a pilotage exemption certificate to anyone who is not properly qualified, because the risks of doing that would be immense: blockage of a channel or harbour or a ship running aground. The risk to that harbour authority would be pretty immense, and I cannot see for the life of me any of these harbour authorities giving a PEC to someone who is not properly qualified and examined with a STCW. I hope that my noble friend Lord Berkeley will not press his amendment, because it is quite clearly defective in its wording.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, invites the Government to take a particular action before the House goes into Committee. It may be unusual, but it is order. I must confess that I am surprised by the move by the noble Lord to delay debating the Bill today. It was, after all, his express wish at Second Reading, only a fortnight ago, that the Bill reach the statute book. He said:

“I wish the Bill well. I hope that we can get it to Royal Assent without too many delays”.—[Official Report, 18/1/2013; col. 911.]

I have no problem with the noble Lord wanting to debate the Bill properly, but he knows that any amendment is fatal to nearly all Private Members’ Bills. He must be aware that if the Bill is to achieve Royal Assent as he desires, it is necessary for this House to debate it today. A week’s delay is not available. I, too, hope that the Bill will achieve Royal Assent—it contains measures that our valuable maritime industry has been seeking for many years—but if it does not, I would rather that it fell as a result of the clear will of this House rather than of a move to delay discussion.

The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asked me about legal advice. I assure the House that my department has plenty of lawyers who delight in constraining me in what I can say to your Lordships. Noble Lords will know that it is a long-standing convention that Ministers do not release legal advice. Furthermore, the noble Lord has indicated his concerns about the legality and desirability of Clause 2. I understand that he is very content with the other clauses. That being the case, it might have been more appropriate to table an amendment to provide that Clause 2 can be commenced only after the report that he desires has been published. I have certainly tabled many such amendments in my time.

Having said that, I understand the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that the Bill does not conflict with international agreements that this country has entered into freely. I am happy to give the assurance today that nothing in the Bill conflicts with the Standards for Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, the STCW. I am not convinced that a report stating the same would have any more effect than me, as a Minister of the Crown, doing so at the Dispatch Box.

A ship must comply with the applicable requirements of the code; there is no doubt about that. On some ships, the crew structure will permit another deck officer to act as pilot, using their pilotage exemption certificate, while remaining fully compliant with the code. The noble Lord refers to junior ratings being allowed to hold pilotage exemption certificates if this Bill passes. I do not think it right that I should pre-empt discussion on Clause 2, which I hope that we can have today, but I will say now that this clause does not propose such a thing. I may be able to satisfy the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Eames, at this point. A junior rating is not a deck officer, though a rating might,

“also help deck officers with navigational and watch duties, and anchor the ship when coming into port”,

to quote the National Careers Service.

What we envisage, and what I believe that the industry understands by the term “deck officer” is much more substantial. A deck officer capable of satisfying the pilotage exemption certificate requirements will have had several years of experience at sea and have responsibility for navigation of the ship, which is somewhat more advanced than a junior rating.

I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment and enable us to move on and use the time that we have for important Committee debates which we need to have before the House can be sure that the legislation is sound.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I am very pleased to welcome this Bill and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for taking it forward in this House. A number of matters are covered in this Bill, and it will not be surprising to noble Lords, given my background as a fourth generation lighthouse keeper, that I will concentrate on the parts of the Bill dealing with the general lighthouse authorities.

The measures in this Bill relating to the GLAs are long overdue. Representations about these issues have been made for some considerable time, and it is good that these are now at long last being taken forward. I was sorry that the Marine Navigation Bill of 2008 did not get beyond the draft stage, and I am delighted that both the Government and the Labour Opposition supported this private Member’s Bill in another place.

First, Clause 8 provides for the first time clarity on the area of geographical responsibility of the lighthouse authorities. As is often the case, legal experts do not agree on meanings of Acts of Parliament, and it seemed never to be possible to get agreement on the meaning of the expression “adjacent seas and islands”, as set out in the Merchant Shipping Act. Notwithstanding the lack of agreement on the precise meaning of present legislation, the GLAs provide aids to navigation, including marking hazards outside the 12 nautical mile limit, as well as lighting internationally recognised sea lanes for the purpose of traffic separation. Added to this is the need to light buoys or beacons on potentially hazardous wrecks outside that limit. This Bill will give legal certainty by making it clear that the responsibility of the GLAs includes the area beyond the territorial seas and up to the outer limit of the UK’s pollution control zone—in other words, 200 nautical miles. It is not new that hazards are marked outside the territorial limit. The iconic Bell Rock lighthouse was built, with parliamentary approval, some 200 years ago, and was outside of the then three nautical mile limit.

Over the years that I have spent in your Lordships’ House, I have quite often taken part in debates where there was understandable concern about the costs to shipowners of light dues and the need to keep these as low as possible. I do not have an issue with that, provided always that the safety of the mariner and the environment is not compromised. So secondly, I welcome the measures in Clause 9, which will provide for more opportunity for GLAs to generate more income for the General Lighthouse Fund. The Merchant Shipping Act, as the noble Baroness said, allows for any spare capacity to be utilised for third-party commercial work, provided such work is not outside the scope of the statutory responsibilities of the GLAs. In reality, the GLAs are constrained in that they are limited to using ships or property assets. One example of that is that the Oban base of the Northern Lighthouse Board is now utilised by small cruise vessels for berthing.

In the period 2011-12, some £4 million was raised by the GLAs from commercial activities. There is little doubt that the measures in this Bill will allow for greater opportunity for commercial work by allowing the purchase of ancillary assets and services which, while not necessarily required for statutory duties, nevertheless can and indeed must be used for exploiting spare capacity.

These past few months, the NLV “Pole Star” has carried out quite a bit of interesting contract work, including recovery of waverider buoys, their guard buoys and seabed frames. The last-mentioned part of that work is extremely delicate due to the fragile nature of the instruments on these seabed frames. No doubt that was greatly assisted by the dynamic positioning capabilities of this very versatile ship. The commercial work carried out by the “Pole Star” included multibeam surveys, camera tows and grab sampling of the seabed. Those are the sort of skills that are available and can be brought to bear whenever there is spare capacity available. That can now be enhanced by the purchase of assets to enable that additional work to be undertaken.

There are a lot of clever people in the employ of the general lighthouse authorities and the Bill will allow for consultancy work and other services which can provide a greater possibility of increasing commercial income and so alleviating some of the costs of the General Lighthouse Fund. It is important to point out that none of these additional activities will prejudice the statutory role and responsibility of the general lighthouse authorities. Purchase of assets from the General Lighthouse Fund for contract work outside of statutory responsibilities will require the consent of the Secretary of State, as has been said, and, clearly, will be given only where the benefit outweighs the costs.

Thirdly, and finally, for the GLAs, I refer to Clause 11. This will provide an extension of the ways in which the GLAs can mark a wreck where there is a danger to navigation. The amendment proposed to the Merchant Shipping Act would allow the wreck to be marked by a non-physical device such as the relatively new automatic identification system as well as the more traditional buoys or beacons. The beauty of marking by electronic means such as AIS means that a hazard can be quickly marked before it is possible for a lighthouse tender to get out to a wreck to lay buoys, beacons or other physical markers. This must enhance the safety of the mariner and provide better protection of the marine environment.

As an aside, I hope that nautical colleges are teaching that the AIS is used not just for tracking other vessels by the watchkeeper on the bridge of ships or by coastal vessel traffic services stations, but is used increasingly as an aid to navigation. I was on the bridge of a ship recently and was talking to a deck officer cadet in his final year who was adamant that it was dangerous to use AIS as an aid to navigation. Clearly, he had never been taught about the concept of virtual AIS, either at Warsash Maritime Academy or on board the ships on which he had served as part of his cadetship.

I again welcome the measures in this Bill which will assist the GLAs to better carry out their good works and at the same time help keep down costs to the shipping industry. I know that other matters are covered in the Bill but I hope that nothing will get in the way of it having a safe and speedy passage through this House and on to the statute book.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, I have looked at the amendments and issues relating to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may be technically correct, but it occurs to me that if we get away from the fact that people will break the law and you make law only for people who will comply with it, what does the noble Lord think will be the political cost of a Government who went to an authority—whether the harbour authority or the general lighthouse authority—and said, “Do something you can’t do or we’ll bankrupt you for functions that are important”? You would be asking a Minister to pay an almost suicidal political price. The House and another place would rip that person apart. How real is that danger? That is the only thing that comes to mind. The noble Lord may be technically correct, but I wonder how real that danger is in the world in which we actually live. No one will leave in place a dangerous provision that restricts commercial activity and endangers people. I leave that sitting there, because it should be mentioned in these discussions.

[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.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in this Second Reading of the Wreck Removal Convention Bill and I warmly support it. I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, on taking charge of the Bill in this House.

Coming from a family that includes past and presently serving merchant marine officers, not to mention four generations of lighthouse keepers, I have an interest in this legislation. Indeed, I asked questions of the previous Government on the progress, or lack of progress, in the implementation and ratification of the Nairobi convention.

The Bill should not be contentious. It will allow the UK Government to ratify the international convention on wrecks. At present, there are no uniform international rules under which coastal states have a proper legal basis to remove, or have removed, shipwrecks which are a hazard to navigation and/or the environment. The convention, when it comes into force, will fill that gap.

I am strongly of the view that there can be little or no argument against the need for the relevant UK authorities responsible for dealing with shipwrecks to take action, where safety of navigation is at stake, outside our territorial waters. The Bill will resolve that present lack of legal clarity in recovering costs where wrecks occur between the 12-mile territorial limit and the 200-mile pollution control zone. It does that by giving the Secretary of State power to deal with wrecks up to the 200-mile limit.

Secondly, and importantly, is the convention requirement that all vessels of more than 300 tonnes, with a very few exceptions, will be required to have wreck removal insurance cover or some other security in place. That is not an added-on cost to reputable shipping companies—by far the vast majority—which will already have insurance in place. But we all know that, at present, there is always a possibility that owners of some vessels will not have the necessary insurance cover. We need only to see the poor state of some of the ships detained by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that are reportedly referred to as “rust buckets”, and to see the poor crewing—sometimes crews are not paid—to realise that wreck recovery insurance must be compulsory. It is only right that, as proposed, ships without wreck removal cover in place are not allowed to enter or leave a United Kingdom port.

The convention will also allow direct action for recovery from the insurer of a wreck of the costs incurred by general lighthouse or other authority in marking or, as set out in Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the convention, recovering wrecks. There have been occasions in the past when the relevant protection and indemnity club uses a device to reimburse the owner of the wreck only—I emphasise only—if that owner meets the cost to the lighthouse or other appropriate authority in the first instance. That so-called “paid to be paid” rule may be thought of as a clever device on the part of the insurer to avoid it paying up when a ship owner, who might own just a single vessel, does not have the funds or the desire to remove that vessel, particularly if it is a non-UK-registered ship. Thus the costs of marking and, if necessary, recovery have to be met from the General Lighthouse Fund. Like others, I do not think that that is acceptable, and I hope that the convention, by making insurance compulsory and allowing authorities to go direct to the insurer, will resolve that matter.

I understand that some shipping interests, as has already been said, are concerned that the convention may have the effect of increasing costs to the General Lighthouse Fund and thus lead to higher light dues. I do not think that that will be the case because, as the noble Lord, Greenway, said, the General Lighthouse Authority has been doing its statutory job of marking wrecks that are a danger to navigation for a long time—something like 150 years. It has that considerable knowledge and the expertise to make decisions about marking and the removal of wrecks, if necessary. It is right that it should continue to provide a seamless service rather than have multiagency involvement.

The costs to the GLF where incurred at present—again this has been said in the debate—represent a fairly small proportion of the overall costs of provision of safety of navigation in our waters. If the convention comes into force, there should be fewer costs not recoverable given the new rules on insurance and strict liability. I hope, therefore, that it should be possible to reduce quite significantly the reserve for wreck recovery, which I think stands at some £5 million in the GLF. That, I should have thought, will be some relief to the light-dues payer.

It is right, too, that where the General Lighthouse Authority recovers containers washed overboard or other detritus that might now be defined as a wreck in the convention, it should be able to recover these costs. I do not think that it can be some relief to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that GLA ships will be chasing yellow ducks round the ocean, even though that might technically be defined as a wreck. I hope therefore that the Bill has a smooth passage through this House. It will allow the United Kingdom to ratify the convention which is a necessary contribution to safety and will clarify a number of areas of responsibility in matters of safety in navigation and in the protection of our precious maritime environment.

In conclusion, I will pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about whether the Nairobi convention was originally included in the Marine Navigation Bill. Other important matters are included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is the Government's intention to bring forward these matters as soon as parliamentary time is available. The remaining matters in the Marine Navigation Bill are unlikely to be contentious or time-consuming and I hope that they, too, can be brought forward.

Marine Navigation Aids Bill [HL]

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Berkeley should be congratulated on his persistence in introducing this Bill again. It gives us a further opportunity to look at the important matter of the safety of seafarers and the maritime environment. We can, as has already been done, note the progress made since we last debated this matter on 5 February last year.

It is a pity that we could not have had this debate in a few days’ time, because we could then have marked a very important anniversary in aids to navigation: the lighting of the Bell Rock lighthouse, the oldest sea-washed lighthouse still in commission anywhere in the world. Now, like all UK lighthouses, it is automated, but tonight, as on every other night apart from some nights in both world wars, it will give one white flash every five seconds. It will have done so for 200 years on 1 February.

I have a long interest in shipping and aids to navigation. I was born and brought up in the lighthouse service. I was for a few years a fourth-generation lighthouse keeper. Before joining the service, my dad was a merchant navy officer. I have a stepson who is a senior engineering officer and a cousin who is a deck officer in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I can say to my noble friend Lord Berkeley that I know a little bit about Australian lighthouses as well. My brother was a serving light keeper for the Northern Lighthouse Board and then, for most of the rest of his career, a lighthouse keeper in Australia. From what I gather from him, there is little or no comparison between looking after Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and the Pentland Firth and looking after Australia, except perhaps for the Bass Strait. You can go along almost the whole coast of the south of Australia and see not a single light anywhere.

My noble friend’s Bill seeks to abolish the three GLAs and replace them with a new commission and a regulator. The role of the Secretary of State will be replaced in relation to his responsibilities for the lighthouse authorities and the General Lighthouse Fund. It also seeks to cast adrift the Republic of Ireland, which has always been an inherent part of the present tripartite GLA structure.

There is no doubt that shipping companies complain about light dues. They did it when I was a light keeper all those years ago; they have complained about the size of light dues for most of the history of the general lighthouse authorities. They would prefer Governments to abandon the principle of user pays and for the taxpayer to pick up the bill. As has already been said, that would not be terribly popular, particularly among parties opposite. I do not think that it would be popular with anyone else either, except for the shipping companies.

Shipping is a tough business—I understand that—and one which is of great importance to this country. Clearly, ship owners and charterers have to have a close eye on their financial bottom line. However, as has already been well said in the House, they have enjoyed a long holiday from increases, which has included substantial reductions in light dues. For people who enjoy holidays, there is always a day of reckoning, as I, as a pension fund trustee, know to my cost, having not persuaded employers to keep on paying in the good times so that we might have avoided the sudden problems that crop up.

If memory serves me correctly, there was not an increase in light dues for some 15 or 16 years, until 2008 or 2009, with dues being about one-third lower in real terms than in 1993. Of course, that has led to a deficit in the General Lighthouse Fund and to the consequent and recent increases about which there has been so much complaint. However, as we have also heard, there is to be no further increases in light dues for the next three or four years, which should bring some stability.

No doubt ship owners will continue to have issues, and not just about light dues. I know that they have issues about other charges such as port costs, ship dues, mooring costs, conservancy costs and pilotage—you name it and ship owners will have something to say about it; for example, discharging and loading costs, including craneage. In reality, light dues are a relatively small part of the whole in terms of inward and outward trade to and from this country.

My noble friend seeks to deal also in his Bill with the so-called subsidy of the Commissioners of the Irish Lights. That has, I agree, been a running sore for a very long time and is happily on the way to being resolved. We now know that it has been decided that the funding of the Republic of Ireland aspect of the CIL will cease by 2016 at the latest. That work has been going on for many years and I agree that the Shipping Minister should be commended on the agreement which has been reached. It is good to see that the British Chamber of Shipping has welcomed the agreement. It will be interesting to see in the fullness of time whether the campaign to end the Irish subsidy will lead to an increase in trade into the UK, which the shipping industry has promised.

The new intergovernmental agreement destroys any further argument about the disbanding of the Commissioners of the Irish Lights as presently constituted. The CIL has always been a cross-border body and responsible for Northern Ireland coasts as well as those of the Republic. I am pleased that the Shipping Minister confirmed this week that the existing structure of the three lighthouse authorities is to be maintained. That is sound common sense.

What has changed since we discussed this matter last year? I suggest that there are two big issues. The first has been discussed already: the Atkins review, which was published in March and has brought forward a whole host of recommendations, many of which are already in train. The most important of them are: the establishment of the Joint Strategic Board to drive far greater co-ordination between the GLAs; the recommendation to centralise monitoring and to look at the rationalising, as my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd, said, of the number of buoy depots, of which there are presently four—Trinity House has two, at Harwich and Swansea; the Northern Lighthouse Board has one at Oban; and the Irish Lights has one at Dun Laoghaire; to reduce running costs in real terms using the RPI minus X formula; and to look at the GLF funding of costs incurred by the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

The Atkins report did not recommend any amalgamation or change in the present structure. As I said on 5 February last year, the review found that financial costs would outweigh any benefits of a merger of the lighthouse authorities. It also stated that the operation was too small to justify a separate office of regulation.

The Joint Strategic Board has been set up. It is relatively early days but it now appears to be working well and includes, for the first time, the close questioning and examination of each other’s corporate plans. It would seem, therefore, that the Joint Strategic Board can do much or all of the job that my noble friend envisaged for his Office of Marine Navigation Aids Regulation.

The three monitoring centres will be centralised for out-of-hours working and at weekends. This has been found to be a better alternative to complete centralisation. As my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd said, the buoy depot issue is under close examination to see what further savings can be made. The three GLAs have worked out what their X is in the RPI minus X formula which will lead to reductions in running costs in real and absolute terms over the next four or five years.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the Shipping Minister sought a reduction of 17 per cent—I thought it was 25 per cent—over the next three or four years. If that cannot be done, the GLAs will have to tell the Minister why it cannot be done. That will concentrate minds at all three headquarters. So the GLAs are not being spared the scrutiny of this Government despite the fact that the savings will not accrue to the public purse.

I have no doubt that these savings can and will be made through further developments in technology, such as e-Loran and the potential of the Galileo system to name but two. The GLAs will move forward, review and desperately try to be more efficient, but that must be done in a way which must not compromise the safety of the mariner or the marine environment. It is always wise to recognise that there is a tension between safety and costs, which is why, of course, we have the international SOLAS conventions, and it is our obligation as a state to adhere to these.

There is a view among many ship owners that costs can be reduced by the decommissioning of more and more lighthouses because of the use of global navigation satellite systems, electronic charts, AIS and so on. I agree that the continued development of e-navigation represents much of the way forward, but if you talk to the masters of the ships rather than the owners, they will tell you that for the foreseeable future there have to be lighthouses as a back-up, as a secondary system, as a failsafe. Reduced manning on ships in recent times has led to very poor watch-keeping practices on far too many vessels. There is too much reliance on GPS. There is no such thing as a completely safe radio-based navigation system. For example, GPS can be interfered with and readily jammed—cheap jammers can be obtained which can readily jam GPS signals and make them unavailable for many kilometres; and, beyond a 30 kilometre range, can interfere with a signal with potentially disastrous results—and so it is necessary to keep the secondary system of lighthouses, certainly for the foreseeable future.

GLAs do not exist in a vacuum; they work with shipping interests. There is a continual review by all three GLAs as to what lights may be decommissioned or have their ranges reduced. In some cases even today, new hazards are being lit. That process has continued since we last debated the Bill at Second Reading last year, with a further number of lighthouses being decommissioned, including one not terribly far from the territory of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Clythness lighthouse was decommissioned a few months ago. Costs are continually being reduced through more reliable technology, less maintenance and fewer visits by ships and helicopter. Other stations are now subject to review, many where, only a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable for that part of the coast to be unlit. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is no useful purpose in a merger of GLAs and a new regulator, which will not and cannot produce anything more than is already being done in the existing structures.

I hope the Minister will also acknowledge that, as a result of the Atkins review, there has been considerable progress in terms of more co-ordination, closer working, achievable savings being made and a positive response from the GLAs to the Government’s requirement to shadow the CSR and the working of the RPI minus X formula. These, together with the road map to resolve the Republic of Ireland subsidy issue, go much, if not all, of the way to meeting the concerns and outstanding issues raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.

I hope that my noble friend will recognise this and not seek to take the matter further. A more useful way forward would be to concentrate our energies and try to persuade the Government to bring forward the draft Marine Navigation Bill. It has received pre-legislative scrutiny and has been considered by the Transport Select Committee in another place. That draft Bill has been gathering dust ever since, with neither the previous Government nor the present coalition Government seeming to find time for a Bill that is non-contentious but very useful legislation. I hope the Minister will say something about the possibility of it being brought forward in the near future.

I again thank my noble friend for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important matter. It may be esoteric to some, but it is of significant importance to all who use our seas for business or pleasure.