Merchant Shipping (Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea) Order 2014

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, I think the Minister was perhaps a bit premature in thanking noble Lords who are taking part in a rather rare maritime exercise in the House. I do not want to disabuse her, but I was not going to say anything at all. This order is a natural follow-on from what has happened before. I have no problems with it at all. The UK Chamber of Shipping also had no problems with it, so it is generally to be welcomed.

We have been fortunate in this country in that we have not had a major accident with a passenger ship since the “Herald of Free Enterprise” some 27 years ago. That was responsible for beefing up the amounts of compensation that can be paid to passengers for loss of life and luggage in those circumstances. Let us hope that that record continues although, as the Minister said, we are still suffering from these problems. We saw one in South Korea the other day, and the unfortunate incident with the “Costa Concordia” was another example. I welcome this order and wish it well.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in the same position as the Minister. Debates on maritime matters are all too rare. I do not think the Minister was expressing the view that she is a particular expert in this field, and I would certainly not claim to be. That may become horribly evident in the contribution I have to make.

As the Minister said, this order amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 in the light of our ratification of the International Maritime Organisation’s 2002 protocol to the Athens Convention 1974 relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. Ratifying the 2002 protocol ensures that UK-flagged passenger vessels can be issued with correct international certification and enables the protocol to be extended to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, should they so wish. When the order was discussed in the other place a question was asked about what the Government’s accountability and jurisdiction would be if ships that are not UK-based, but are part of the Red Ensign group, chose to opt into these rules. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.

As the Minister said, the key provisions of the protocol have already been introduced into EU law—I think from the end of 2012—and implemented by the UK, but this order is needed to ratify the protocol, which came into force internationally on 23 April and incorporates the international elements. The 2002 protocol applies to international carriage only, but the order ensures the application of the Athens convention to domestic journeys within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The 2002 protocol increases the liability limits for carriers that have been applicable in the event of accidents involving loss of life or personal injury and also requires carriers to maintain compulsory insurance on a strict liability basis, as well as providing claimants with the right to take direct action against the insurer. Under the order, the new limit of liability is, I think, the 400,000 special drawing rights. The Minister said that a special drawing right is currently equal to approximately 92 pence. It certainly fluctuates marginally since earlier in the year when it was being debated in the House of Commons the figure was given as approximately 93 pence.

The Government have also said that the further policy objective of the order is to revoke some redundant legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out which legislation is being revoked, bearing in mind that the Government’s objective appears to be that, for every new order introduced, two should be revoked. I am not clear what the two orders are that are being revoked.

The Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 10 that, although,

“external stakeholders were invited to contribute to the IA, the available evidence base continues to have a number of limitations”.

It then goes on to say:

“Given the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of this measure”,

relating to,

“the number of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that … choose to ratify the … Protocol … and the limitations of the available evidence base, it has not been possible to monetise any of the costs and benefits in this IA”.

At least, that is my understanding of what it says. Yet when the order was discussed in the other place, the Minister described it as “short and highly technical”. I have always construed the reference to “highly technical” to mean “incomprehensible”. He said that not least because the,

“key provisions of the 2002 protocol have already been introduced into European Union law … and … implemented in the UK”.

The Minister in the other place said that the order therefore had,

“little practical effect on UK shipowners”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 3.]

I simply ask which is the correct version—that the order is short and highly technical with little practical effect on UK ship owners, as per the Minister in the House of Commons, or that, due to the significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of the measure and the limitations of the available evidence base, as per the Explanatory Memorandum, monetising any of the costs and benefits of the order in the impact assessment is not possible and, by inference, would represent something of a voyage of discovery. Perhaps the Minister could indicate which horse of those alternatives she is backing, or, alternatively, say why what would appear to be two somewhat different views on the clarity and scope of this order are in fact saying precisely the same thing.

A further issue raised in the House of Commons was about the ships to which this order applies. In his response, the Government Minister said that,

“the classification of ships is determined by the area in which they operate and not necessarily the gross tonnage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]

However, because he was unable at that particular moment to give a definition of classification A and B vessels as referred to in the impact assessment, he undertook to write to the Committee. Can the Minister here provide that information and say whether the provisions of this order might be extended to other classes of ships?

A further question raised in the other place was about what steps the department was taking to ensure that information about the impact of the order was made available to ship owners and their passengers and customers. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what is happening on that issue. Of course, the answer to that may depend on whether she agrees with the Minister in the House of Commons that it is short and technical with little practical impact or with the Explanatory Memorandum, which appears to suggest otherwise. Finally, the Minister in the other place said that he was concerned to reduce the costs of the legislation around sulphur for UK shipping and, in particular, for the UK ferry industry. He went on to say that he had,

“asked the IMO to undertake an early review of the 2020 regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/4/14; col. 8.]

What exactly are the Government pressing for in that review?

We welcome the objectives of this order but would appreciate responses to the points to which I have referred.

Shipping: Passenger Safety

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I do not have the answer to the noble Lord’s question but I will obtain it. I want to make it very clear, however, that the exemption being sought is not for a boat like the “Costa Concordia”. We are talking about something much smaller in benign waters very close to shore.

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, is not this application one of a number which have arisen from the formal safety assessment by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency which I as a mariner regard as entirely practical?

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord is exactly right. I think that this is regarded by almost everybody as a practical, reasonable and sensible measure. It has withstood over many years a reputation of providing sufficient safety in the relevant circumstances.

Republic of Ireland: Aids to Navigation

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is getting at, but it is important to understand that the specification for aids to navigation would, I imagine, come under IMO auspices rather than EU auspices.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, in commending the Commissioners of Irish Lights on reducing its costs, can the Minister confirm that after 2015-16 the joint strategic board set up by the Atkins report will continue the interoperability arrangements for ships, as exist at the moment?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord raises an extremely important point. One of the ways in which we have managed to reduce unnecessary expenditure is through the work of the joint strategic board to set the modalities so that assets can be shared and facilities are not duplicated.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Greenway]

75A: Clause 22, page 22, line 39, leave out “Sections 128 and 129” and insert “In section 128”

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 75B, 77ZA, 77ZB and 77ZC. The amendments are to do with safeguarding port land.

Amendments 75A and 75B to Clause 22 are intended to preserve the possibility of special parliamentary procedure in relation to compulsory acquisition of land of certain types of transport statutory undertakers. Clause 22 relates to Section 128 of the Planning Act 2008, which provides for development consent orders authorising the compulsory acquisition of land of local authorities and statutory undertakers to be subject to special parliamentary procedure. As currently drafted, Clause 22 would repeal the whole of Section 128. The amendments would instead remove the reference to local authorities and the general reference to statutory undertakers in that section and restrict its application to land of harbour and railway undertakers. These are providers of infrastructure for public benefit, and it is important that land required for these purposes should continue to enjoy the additional level of protection which this procedure confers. Since Section 128 is not to be repealed in its entirety, Section 129 of the Planning Act, which relates to the operation of Section 128, will continue to need to apply. Amendment 75A would also remove its repeal.

Amendment 77ZA would delete subsection (4) of Clause 22, which repeals provisions which also relate to Sections 128 and 129 of the Planning Act. The proposal that these provisions remain makes repeal unnecessary.

Amendments 77ZB and 77ZC follow on from the previous amendments. Clause 23 modifies and limits the scope of special parliamentary procedure in relation to compulsory acquisition of land in certain cases where the Bill is not removing the process altogether; that is, in cases where special parliamentary procedure is triggered under what the Bill describes as a “special-acquisition provision”. It is accepted that if special parliamentary procedure is still to apply under Section 128 of the Planning Act in relation to land of transport undertakers, it should be subject to the same limitations. These amendments would include Section 128 in the definition of special-acquisition provision. This means that the modifications to the procedures would apply to any case in which special parliamentary procedure was triggered by Section 128.

These are in the way of probing amendments. I am seeking assurance that the Government realise the importance of safeguarding port land. If the Minister can give me reassurance on this, and says that the amendments are unnecessary and that the Government are content with the status quo, I will be happy with that. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Ministers—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—for taking the time to see me with their officials last Thursday to talk about the amendments I have tabled to Clause 23 in the next group and also about my objections to the inclusion of Clause 22 in the Bill.

Your Lordships may recall that I spoke about special parliamentary procedure—SPP—at Second Reading. That was based on my experience of serving on the Rookery South Joint Committee. I shall not repeat the arguments that I used then, other than to repeat the point that SPP has been triggered very rarely—only three times since 1990. While the eventual majority decisions of the Rookery South Joint Committee were not ones I supported—both the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and I felt that the promoters of the resource recovery facility had a case to answer in terms of demonstrating the need for such a large project—I believe that the public interest was served in our deliberating in a Joint Committee. Had this Bill been an Act last year, with Clauses 22 and 23 contained within it, the Rookery South Joint Committee would not have taken place.

Since Second Reading, I have been sent two pieces of briefing on why Clause 22 should be removed from the Bill. The first relates to a battle against road-builders in High Wycombe in 1965. The redoubtable Kate Ashbrook, general-secretary of the Open Spaces Society, has described what happened on her blog, from which I shall quote some extracts:

“Wycombe Rye is a stretch of public open space on the east side of High Wycombe, Bucks, extending alongside the River Wye … The rye is a treasured spot, 68 acres of land vested in Wycombe District Council and its predecessor body … since 1927 … Looking at it now you might think it had always been safe. Not so. In 1962 part of the land was threatened with a compulsory purchase order, to enable the inner-relief road to be built across it”.

That road had been approved following a public inquiry. She goes on:

“There was a further inquiry into the appropriation of 2.4 acres of open space, but on the inspector’s recommendation, the minister”—

of the day—

“confirmed the appropriation order, under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, on 5 February 1965. Fortunately no land was offered in exchange, so the order was subject to special parliamentary procedure … That meant that objectors could petition parliament and present their case to a joint committee of both houses ... Magnificently, the committee ruled that the orders be annulled. The rye has remained intact to this day, saved by legislation which gives parliament the final say on the theft of open space where no suitable alternative is provided”.

However, that protection will disappear if Clause 22 remains in the Bill because,

“instead of such cases being referred to a parliamentary committee, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government himself can decide the fate of open space. In future, when compulsory purchase of open space is proposed for development which the government thinks should go ahead quickly, and there is no suitable exchange land or that land is considered to be too expensive, the minister can cast aside SPP and rule that the development proceeds without regard to the open space”.

Powerful arguments in favour of retaining SPP have also come from the Inland Waterways Association, which makes the point that the Canal & River Trust, the body set up following the passage of the Public Bodies Act, holds the waterways it cares for in trust on behalf of the nation in perpetuity. If the CRT is threatened by a compulsory purchase proposal, it has at present the option to go down the SPP route. This, says the Inland Waterways Association, makes the authority threatening compulsory purchase treat the CRT with greater respect and encourages constructive discussion. It claims that if the Bill is passed, the CRT will lose the right to request an SPP. Will the Minister confirm whether it is right in that assertion? If it is, how does he explain the anomaly whereby the National Trust retains the right to call for an SPP on its own land but the Canal & River Trust is denied that? It appears to be the case that the Government are, by their amendment to Clause 22, strengthening the position of the National Trust but at the same time doing nothing to give protection to other bodies with heritage responsibilities. As the Inland Waterways Association puts it, how can the Minister justify the situation where the River Wey Navigation, which is owned by the National Trust and dates back to the 17th century is protected, but the River Lee Navigation, which is five centuries older, is not?

Finally, if Clauses 22 and 23 stay in the Bill, a decision, which was vested in Parliament, will now be taken by the Executive. I caution the Minister to take care in what he wishes for. One advantage from the Government’s point of view about SPP is that it cannot be subject to judicial review and does not apply to decisions taken by the Secretary of State, which can be challenged by JR and will take far longer to resolve than SPP. Certainly, if the Government are threatening open space, they should anticipate the possibility of numerous judicial reviews. I suggest that the Government should now drop Clause 22, take it back for further consideration and perhaps come forward with fresh suggestions on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have just two points. First, the Minister said that it was important in the national interest to get big infrastructure projects going. Clause 24, which we will discuss shortly, relates to business and commercial developments that may or may not be thought to be infrastructure, but which many people will think are not. This new provision for fewer special parliamentary procedures will apply to that clause also.

Secondly, when we were discussing Clause 1 some time ago, the Government were adamant that it was necessary to have such provisions in the legislation in order to make sure that planning authorities that they thought were not performing got up to speed and organised themselves. The Government said that they hoped that no planning authorities would ever come under these provisions, but they were nevertheless a necessary back-stop. However, if there is to be no back-stop of special parliamentary procedure in these cases, is it not the case that the incentive for developers to provide alternative land or open space when necessary will be less because they can simply apply to the Secretary of State, who can say, “No, you do not need to do so”? They can then do absolutely nothing about it. Surely the fact that there have been so few examples of special parliamentary procedure is because applicants for development consent have done their business and found appropriate alternative open space to replace any that they are using. The current system is working and there is a danger that there will be far less of this happening, simply because the back-stop SPP procedure will not exist.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, there has been a fairly wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, covering ports, canals, plots of land and so on. As far as I am concerned, I am grateful for what the Minister said about ports—in particular, for his latter remark concerning the letter from the Shipping Minister in another place, which I very much look forward to seeing. I will take on board what the noble Lord said and ruminate on whether to take this matter any further but, in the mean time, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75A withdrawn.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I did not take part in the earlier debate, because quite clearly it was of a species known as the “Berkeley herring”, which is a close relative of its cousin, the red. I wanted to get on and talk about the Bill.

Let me first chide the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, again—I do so with the best of intentions—for his discourtesy to the House in having every single amendment starred. We had Second Reading two weeks ago. It was not beyond the bounds of possibility to have the amendments so that we could consider them before coming in on a Friday and finding them there on the Marshalled List.

On the noble Lord’s request for a definition, he mentioned that there would be different harbour authorities, that there might even be competing ports and a commercial benefit for one port. He forgot to mention, of course, that there would be pilotage error as well, sadly. We cannot get rid of human error. That is one of those things; we saw it with the “Sea Empress”. The only way of having totally safe waters is to ban every single vessel from them, which of course is a totally impractical way of proceeding. Human error will always be a factor, both on land and particularly at sea. I know that full well from my experiences as a Shipping Minister.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, came up with a definition. It was given to him by the Minister. It happened to be the definition that I quoted at Second Reading. As a result of quoting it at Second Reading, a circular letter was produced by the pilots condemning me for quoting it. I suppose it is not entirely appropriate that any Member of this House should quote a Secretary of State or a Minister from another place. It did not add to the pilots’ arguments one bit. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was very brave to quote it. Doubtless he will also get a letter condemning him for doing so.

I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, looks again at the Explanatory Notes. The definition is helped by the words there, which I also quoted at col. 915 on 18 January. The key words are:

“capable of piloting one or more specified ships”.

I know that the Government will have taken full legal advice; no Minister would dare go to that Dispatch Box without having done so. The wording in the Bill is safe. It will work. I commend the Bill as it stands, and do not support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, I follow the same line as the noble Earl. In the previous debate, a noble Lord referred to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, as a “diamond” and “dogged”. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is certainly dogged. If he is as good as his word and lets this Bill go through, I might even describe him as a diamond.

We have been talking semantics here about “deck officer”. “Deck officer” is a term that has been used for many years, as the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, said. Everybody at sea knows what a deck officer is.

My worry is about the future. I attended the City of London maritime dinner last night, where the lord mayor and the noble Lord, Lord Green, the Trade Minister, made excellent speeches about the great importance of our maritime business right across the board, from shipping to insurance to arbitration to lawyers, and in maintaining the City of London as the world centre for these operations.

On the issue of pilotage exemption certificates, a real problem is looming, certainly in the ferry industry. The demographic graph shows that a lot of the officers are within five years of retirement. Where are the younger officers going to come from? The Bill would enable young and upcoming officers to advance up the tree perhaps rather more quickly by gaining pilotage exemption certificates. It will not happen across the board. There will be a few here and a few there; it will not be widespread. They are our seed corn for manning our ships in future. More importantly, we hope that some of these people will in time become pilots, so it will benefit the pilotage business in the longer term. That is a very important point to make.

[Lord Berkeley]

I hear what the noble Lord says and generally support it, but I have not quoted many letters from pilots, although we have heard a lot of them today. One touched on this subject. A number of British shipping companies, including some ferry companies, are taking on and training young people. However, once the trainees have got to a certain stage and the government grant that goes with them is finished, they find that they cannot get a job because on the whole the shipping lines try to recruit young, cheaper officers from abroad. Does the noble Lord have a solution to that?

[Lord Greenway]

My answer to that would be that young, well trained British officers are highly thought of elsewhere in the world, so jobs are available for them.

PEC examinations can be seen by both individuals and their employing companies as an important rung in the advancement of their professional careers. They involve commitment and academic effort. Those sitting the exams need both professional experience and proven competence in ship-handling. They must also be highly motivated. Therefore, I think that a lot of these concerns have been overstated. To me, there is no doubt that the extension of PEC eligibility will be of benefit to UK seafarers.

Finally, I will say that if the Bill passes, a lot of these concerns can be dealt with by the steering group of the Port Marine Safety Code. That would involve the UK Chamber of Shipping, the various ports groups and the pilots’ association. They can sit down and work out the details of how this change is to be implemented.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, eloquently set out the concerns that he and maritime pilots have about Clause 2 when he gave notice of his intention to oppose the question that the clause should stand part. I understand perfectly the desire to ensure that marine safety is promoted and that nothing is done to undermine it. I believe that this desire is felt all around the Committee and across the maritime industry. Therefore, I will try as hard as I can to meet noble Lords’ concerns.

The sole purpose of Clause 2 is to remove the limitation in the Pilotage Act 1987 that restricts the issuing of pilotage exemption certificates to the master or first mate of a ship, and instead to allow any deck officer to apply for a certificate. It does not grant one; it merely allows a deck officer to apply to the competent harbour authority for a PEC. It changes none of the other provisions in the Act relating to the demands made on an applicant for a certificate: namely, that the applicant must be a bona fide deck officer of a ship. The clause does not open up the possibility of unauthorised pilotage services being established. I know that that is a concern of pilots and of the noble Lord.

The applicant must be a genuine member of the crew of the ship named on his PEC. No doubt if the pilots in a harbour knew something was going wrong in this regard, they would take it up with the competent harbour authority. If the authority did not listen, they could take it up with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. If the agency did not listen, they could take it up with the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley or Lord Rosser, with me or with the shipping Minister. There are plenty of routes for aggrieved people to take up this problem.

Furthermore, under the Bill, the competent harbour authority could immediately revoke the PEC if it becomes aware of any problems. The competent harbour authority must be satisfied that the applicant has the skill, experience and local knowledge sufficient for them to be capable of piloting the ship named on the certificate. The PEC applies only to one ship and one harbour. To my mind, this is the crucial safeguard that restricts the issuing of a certificate only to those mariners competent to use one. It is much more relevant than a job title in determining whether someone can safely navigate in specific waters.

The certificate applies to a specific harbour or part of a harbour as appropriate. If anyone seeks to be certified elsewhere, they must demonstrate their skill, experience and local knowledge for those waters to the appropriate competent harbour authority. The competent harbour authority may decide, in the interests of safety, to satisfy itself that the applicant has a sufficient knowledge of the English language. The competent harbour authority decides the method by which it will satisfy itself of an applicant's qualifications, which may be through examination or by reference to other requirements. The certificate remains in force for no longer than one year and it can be renewed only if the competent harbour authority remains satisfied about the foregoing points.

I mention that to demonstrate that the clause in no way reduces the standards of competency required of PEC holders. Stephen Bracewell, the chief executive of Harwich Haven Authority, made this point succinctly to the Transport Select Committee on 17 December 2012, saying that the Bill would do,

“nothing more than add a few people to the list of people who can knock on the door and ask to start the process of being assessed and examined”.

He rejected the idea that a harbour authority would lessen the standards by which they assess and examine people stating:

“We are not going to do it”.

Having outlined what this clause does not change, I turn to what it would do. The clause would permit a competent harbour authority to award a PEC to any deck officer who meets the criteria that I have outlined. The desire for making this change comes from the shipping industry, which has identified a number of potential benefits to several factors, including roll-on roll-off passenger ferries, small domestic ferries and aggregate dredgers.

The clause would permit increased flexibility for shipping companies in the rostering of deck officers, especially in the event of disruption and staff sickness, which currently can be problematic. The additional flexibility would also assist when supplementary or release sailings are chartered, increasing the call on deck officers. Though a comparatively small sector, the change would allow improved flexibility for vessels such as dredgers to operate in piloted waters for extended periods and mitigate the risk of fatigue for certificate holders on these ships.

The industry also wants to respond to demographic trends affecting certificated deck officers, which is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. A large proportion of officers are approaching retirement within the next five years and the industry needs to train younger officers to be capable of fulfilling senior roles in the near future. Although it varies between competent harbour authorities, qualification for a PEC may require around 10 to 18 berthing operations to be conducted under the supervision of a pilot. This could reasonably form part of the training for deck officers who have reached a suitable stage in their career development, but who are not yet employed as a master or first mate.

On the terminology of a deck officer, I want to be clear: we are not talking about junior ratings. We are talking about those officers who have navigational responsibilities. It usually takes between three and four years to qualify as a junior deck officer, so potential applicants will have experience at sea. Even then, it is most likely that only the more senior deck officers will be able to demonstrate the skills, experience and local knowledge required by a competent harbour authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggested that there should be a stricter definition of eligibility tied to definitions in the international standard of training, certification and watchkeeping code. However, mariners on domestic routes do not need to seek certification on this code. Such an approach would be unduly restrictive and certainly tighter than current arrangements. The national association for ports and shipping has agreed that it is preferable to use the definition of “deck officer” in this clause and provide guidance to the competent harbour authorities on the attributes and skills that might be sought in the Port Marine Safety Code’s guide to good practice. The guide already recommends that a competent harbour authority should seek a certificate of competence from applicants. The Port Marine Safety Code steering group, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, composed of representatives from industry, trade unions, the pilots’ associations, the Government and other maritime experts, has agreed to establish a subgroup to consider and recommend any enhancements required for the guide. This will enable competent harbour authorities to have access to the best advice about the qualifications that could be expected of a successful applicant.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the unwelcome aspects of competition. This is always a concern, but the noble Lord will know perfectly well that it arises in many areas of commercial activity. However, I would also be very surprised indeed if the regular pilots did not report any concerns regarding the inappropriate grant of a PEC to the MCA, as I have already said.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, sounded as if he is supporting the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his amendment. I would remind the noble Lord that this Bill has been in gestation for many years, as he well knows. The provisions in Clause 2 were clear Labour government policy, and no doubt responsible and experienced Labour Ministers were satisfied about its legality. Indeed, Jim Fitzpatrick MP said in the other place that the Opposition would look foolish if they opposed the Bill and that,

“it would be churlish of us not to support it. It contains many positive elements”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill Committee, 7/11/12; col. 4.]

However, I fully accept that noble Lords opposite are testing the policy and making sure that we have got it right. I am sorry that the letter to the noble Lord did take rather a long time to arrive, but there were quite a few questions to answer.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who said that the regulations should not be unduly onerous. It is important to remember that a PEC can be limited to a specific ship and a specific harbour, or even a specific portion of a harbour. The noble Lord asked about training and talked about the Port of Liverpool. The Committee will understand that the Port of Liverpool is a very complicated port with all sorts of difficulties. It is not surprising, therefore, that the training requirements to be a pilot for the Port of Liverpool are extensive. However, smaller ports will need less training. It is for the competent harbour authorities to determine what is required, as they do now. There is no change in the training requirements, only a proposal to change the eligibility, and training for a PEC will be similar to that for a pilot.

The noble Lord asked about the number of PEC holders that can be on a ship, which is a good point. He suggested that there could be numerous PEC holders on a ship, but that they would not have sufficient experience. It is not clear to me why a shipping company would want to incur the cost of PEC training and go to the effort of training officers if there was insufficient opportunity for them to exercise the certificate. Furthermore, if the competent harbour authorities believe that a PEC holder was a bit rusty and did not have enough experience, they may pay greater attention to the reassessment process. There will always be the alternative for a master to take on board a maritime pilot if circumstances mean that none of the PEC holders on the ship are available to pilot it because of hours worked or if the structure of the crew does not permit it. If a suitably qualified person is available, there is no justifiable reason to prevent them from holding a PEC and piloting the ship simply because they do not have the right job title.

Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We have crossed swords many times on these matters. I am delighted, in declaring an interest as an older brother of Trinity House, to hear him say something complimentary about the lighthouse authorities. He is normally on the opposite tack.

One of the delights of marine Bills—which, let us face it, do not come up very often—is that we go off on different tacks in all sorts of different directions, and we have some very interesting history lessons from various noble Lords. I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey said, because I live just over the hill from Watchet and I know it well. It is probably not realised that Watchet was a commercial port until just a few years ago. There was a local shipping line called the Willie line—I hasten to say that it was spelt with an “ie”—that regularly ran a large vessel in and out of Watchet. You never know what is going to come out of the woodwork in these debates. Accordingly, my noble friend Lord Selsdon always entertains us in a most delightful way.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for introducing the Bill, which, as she and others have said, relates to matters that have been sculling around for some considerable time. This gives us an opportunity at least to put these various measures on the statute book.

I will not say much about the general lighthouse authority provisions because they have been exceedingly well covered by the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein. Needless to say, they are very much welcomed. I think that the original right of the general lighthouse authorities to use vessels for commercial purposes, when time allowed and they were not required for their statutory purposes, goes back to when the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was Shipping Minister in this House. I was in a meeting with him and he suddenly came up with this out of the blue, which delighted me and indeed the general lighthouse authorities. That was in 1997, so the GLAs have been able to do that for some time. This extends that right and allows them to act as consultants and to use various moneys out of the General Lighthouse Fund, if required, if they need to buy some specific equipment that is going to assist their ships being hired out to someone else. As I understand it, the proviso is that there still has to be a profit for the General Lighthouse Fund in the longer term. That will certainly please the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because I am sure that he will greatly welcome anything that will lessen the burden of ship owners.

With regard to the wreck-marking side, even this week one of the Trinity House ships had to steam at high speed down the Channel to Torbay, where a Greek tug was towing a dead ship to Turkey for demolition. The tow overtook the tug and holed her, and she was leaking oil. Eventually the larger ship sank so Trinity House had to go and mark that wreck, which it has now done with four buoys just off Torbay.

The Bill is welcomed by a wide range of people, including the British Ports Association, the UK Major Ports Group and the UK Chamber of Shipping. The two bones of contention, if I may refer to them as such, concern yachtsmen’s fears about the new harbour directions and pilots’ fears about extending the licensing of pilotage exemption certificates. I have spoken on behalf the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation in this House over many years. Consultations with the yachting fraternity have been going on widely since the Bill started in the Commons. As we have heard, there is a new code of conduct on harbour directions, which I understand will be more or less completed next week. This will be overseen by a national directions panel which is made up of representatives from the two major ports organisations, the UK Chamber of Shipping, the Royal Yachting Association and various fishery organisations. It is expected to meet at least once a year—or more if necessary—and to oversee this whole business of harbour directions, which are a great step forward from the old, expensive and time-consuming process of harbour revision orders.

Pilots play a vital part in marine safety. They are rightly proud of their profession. I can remember deliberations here on the Pilotage Act 1987, which I think was one of the first occasions when the Moses Room was used for Grand Committee. That removed pilotage from the pilotage associations, one of which was Trinity House, which was responsible for some 40% of pilotage in the country. Since then, it has been a bit of a curate’s egg: good in parts, some not so good. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, about the sacking of all the Humber pilots. My understanding was that the pilots, who completely ran their own show, were demanding too much money which was making is commercially difficult for the port authority to operate. Pilots are not infallible. I have only to remind the House of the “Sea Empress” incident off Milford Haven, where the initial cause of the accident was pilot error, which led to the grounding.

Pilots have to move with the times, as do we all. Today, shipping is very different from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. Some ships—for instance, ferries—now have three crews. They are used 24 hours a day. It is not like the old situation where a ship had a master and a first mate, and they stayed there, often for some considerable time. Regrettably, I am afraid that manning standards have also been a huge cause of concern. Ships are operating with fewer and fewer people. This means that those officers who have pilotage exemption certificates may have been on watch for God knows how many hours, and they have, statutorily, to take rest from time to time, so somebody else may be required when the ship is coming into harbour.

When this first arose, there was a lot of hoo-hah and stories that cooks could put themselves forward to get pilotage exemption. Of course, that could never happen. It is up to the ports to issue these certificates There is absolutely no way that a port is going to issue an exemption certificate to someone who is not properly qualified. I remind your Lordships that it has been common practice in the Merchant Navy for years for younger officers to be overqualified for the actual job they are doing on a ship. On some ships, you may have a third officer who actually has a master’s—or certainly a mate’s—ticket. They are also operating on ships which come in and out of harbour regularly, so they know the waters of the harbour. The pilots’ fear is perhaps slightly overstated on this. It will not result in fewer jobs for pilots. They should be far more concerned over something that is coming up in 2015 when, under new EU regulations, the sulphur limits allowed in fuel will be reduced even further, to the point where, fuel being as expensive as it is—around 30% of the overall costs of a ship’s operation—it will be impossible for them to remain in business. There may therefore be fewer ships around, especially on these regular routes and particularly those going up into the Baltic.

Concerns have been raised and that is absolutely right. They have been discussed and looked at, and some concessions have been made. However, I detect from most corners of the House—perhaps not the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—that this is a welcome Bill. It should be given a fair wind.

Isles of Scilly: Helicopter Services

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the problem we face is that we have lost the helicopter service to the Isles of Scilly for the time being. I understand that the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company, which operates a fixed-wing air service, has now made arrangements with the local primary care trust to take over some of the transportation of patients and medical supplies, including blood products and samples, which were previously carried by helicopter, having secured the appropriate CAA licences. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, identified that there were only a few days in the year when helicopter services could go to the Isles of Scilly but fixed-wing aircraft could not.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, is it not the case that the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company also operates two cargo vessels, one of which sails three times a week during the winter, and which carries a few passengers?

Shipping: Towing Vessels

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord makes some quite sensible points. However, it is important to understand that one of the recommendations of the Donaldson report was the SOSREP, the Secretary of State’s representative, and he has extensive powers to direct that ships will assist other ships in difficulties. It is also worth pointing out that the emergency towing vessels have not yet been decisive in rescuing any super-tanker because none has come to grief.

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that the greatest risk occurs in the Dover Strait, which is one of the most heavily trafficked maritime areas in the world? The French have somewhat reluctantly moved one of their two large ETVs up from La Rochelle to cover the gap left by the withdrawal of our “Anglian Monarch”. Would he also agree that the Dover Strait is special because many of the ships transiting are deep draft vessels operating in comparatively shallow water? This leads to the danger that, if there were an accident, there would be a motorway pile-up situation—as last happened with the Norwegian car carrier “Tricolor”, which was run into by two other ships after she had sunk, and over 100 other ships passed within the clearly marked exclusion zone.

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point and his analysis is correct. However, although the Dover Strait is an area of higher likelihood because of the concentration of ships in the area, experience indicates that the consequences of a grounding are likely to be lower because the seabed is flat and sandy rather than rocky. Regarding his point about the motorway pile-up, the coastguard, with automatic monitoring of ship movements, will be aware immediately a ship stops moving and can warn other ships of the difficulties.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenway]

I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has just said. Having debated these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for many years, we all know where his concerns lie, particularly in regard to expenses put on the ship owner through the payment of light dues.

The convention is quite clear, as has been said, in that it will require ships over 300 gross tonnes to carry wreck removal insurance and the onus of wreck removal is firmly placed on the registered owners of those ships. The instances where a ship might fall through the net, so to speak, will be very much reduced in future. As has been said, I think the possible cost to the General Lighthouse Fund will certainly be lower.

As far as I can make out, the amendments limit the options open to the Secretary of State, compared with what he has today. The Secretary of State and his representative—SOSREP—are well known to the general lighthouse authorities. They have worked together over many years and those authorities have been marking and removing smaller wrecks for 150-odd years, so they have some experience in this matter. It would be wrong to try to bypass that experience by getting the Government to appoint independent salvers to do a job; for example, they would not necessarily have the experience of marking the wreck in the first place. There is an argument for maintaining continuity in dealing with the marking of wrecks and their possible removal by one source that is used to dealing with them.

The memorandum of understanding was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. That is certainly something where I think many of these concerns can be thrashed out. I echo what the noble Earl said in asking the Minister whether he can give us an update on how that is proceeding. As I said before, there is already close co-operation between the Government’s representative and the general lighthouse authorities. The harbour authorities are perhaps slightly different. Some of the smaller ones would not have the necessary vessels to cope with removing a wreck, but there is absolutely no question of the general lighthouse authorities using this Bill to extend their fleet with newer and larger ships. I think that that is a red herring.

I emphasise that the cost to the General Lighthouse Fund, over quite a number of years of removing wrecks, is very small. I have a figure of 0.004 per cent, and that went up to 3.2 per cent only as a result of the one-off exercise of the removal of the German First World War U-boat from the Dover Strait, when the Government required Trinity House to do that and it had to appoint separate salvage contractors.

I will mention one final point. The point of the Secretary of State being able under the Bill to direct harbour authorities or general lighthouse authorities to remove a default wreck is so that they can recover their costs. Without that direction, which in effect makes them agents of the state, they cannot recover them. That is an important point.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will make only one or two comments about the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I do so in the context of repeating that we welcome the Bill.

My noble friend raised again the issue of the possible high level of costs that might have to be borne in the event that, contrary to requirements, a ship is not insured, the insurance does not cover the full costs or there is a lengthy delay in the insurance money being paid after the costs have been incurred. I sense from what my noble friend said that this could be an issue particularly for some harbour authorities because of their financial reserves. I am aware that in the Second Reading debate, the Minister said that the Government were of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill would ensure that the risks of a shortfall in expenditure would be significantly less for bodies such as harbour authorities than they are now. The Minister referred later in the debate to a memorandum of understanding between the respective parties that would be agreed prior to the entry into force of the International Maritime Organisation's International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks.

There have been discussions already between my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston. I am sure that those discussions have been both appreciated and useful. I simply ask the Minister and the noble Baroness whether there is scope for further discussions with my noble friend Lord Berkeley on the issue that he has raised, and in particular whether any wording could be incorporated in the memorandum of understanding that might at least mitigate or lessen the concerns that have been expressed on this issue by my noble friend.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Lord Greenway Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenway]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, for the clear and concise way in which she introduced this small but important Bill. At the outset I must declare an interest as an unpaid Elder Brother of Trinity House.

I welcome the Bill, which incorporates the wreck-removal provisions from the draft Marine Navigation Bill, which has been waiting on the shelf in some dark and dusty government corner for a while, but which neither the previous Administration nor the present coalition have so far seen fit to bring forward. As the noble Baroness said, the Bill paves the way for the Government to ratify the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, which was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation some four years ago. The convention will come into force, as the noble Lord has just said, one year after 10 states have signed up to it. My understanding is that so far just one state has signed up, though I may be wrong about that. However, within the first year at least six states signified that they agreed with it, as they are entitled to do.

The present situation regarding wreck removal within our territorial waters—the 12-mile limit—is covered by provisions in Sections 252 and 253 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 which empower Trinity House and the other two general lighthouse authorities to mark, raise, remove or destroy any vessel,

“sunk, stranded or abandoned in any fairway, or on the seashore or on or near any rock, shoal or bank”,

in England or Wales,

“or any of the adjacent seas or islands”,

where there is no harbour or conservancy authority with power to do so, if in the opinion of the general light house authority,

“the vessel is, or is likely to become, an obstruction or danger to navigation or to lifeboats engaged in lifeboat service”.

Factors affecting safety of navigation include the clearance depth over the site at lowest astronomical tide; the depth of water in the area; the type, size and construction of the vessel; traffic density and frequency; the proximity of shipping routes; the type of traffic; and the topography of the seabed. Decisions about wreck removal or dispersal are inextricably linked to the danger presented by the wreck in terms of these factors, about which Trinity House and the other general lighthouse authorities have significant knowledge and expertise.

The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to deal with wrecks in a greatly expanded area up to 200 miles from the UK’s territorial waters. This is most welcome because it clears up an area of uncertainty that previously existed regarding the interpretation of “adjacent seas and islands”. Many an expert legal opinion has been sought on this without any true result. The legal position is now made clear, and that is certainly to be welcomed. Until now, Trinity House, with the agreement of the Department for Transport, has marked wrecks within this expanded area when they have been a danger, but dispersal has not ordinarily been carried out if the wreck is a foreign-flagged vessel due to a number of legal difficulties, including obtaining flag-state consent.

I welcome the fact that the onus of locating, marking and removing wrecks is now placed firmly on the owner of the vessel. I also understand that a state may extend the convention to its territory and territorial sea and that the present Government have indicated their wish to do so. This is to be welcomed because it will clear up any possible confusion between the present arrangements and those obtained in the convention.

I also welcome the expanded definition of wreck. It includes:

“any part of a sunken or stranded ship, including any object that is or has been on board such a ship”,

and,

“any object that is lost at sea from a ship and that is stranded, sunken or adrift at sea”.

In the past, Trinity House has, where necessary, dealt with such objects, such as floating containers, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in the interests of safety of navigation, but hitherto has not been able to recover its costs.

Another welcome development is a draft memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the general lighthouse authorities, setting out how they will exercise their respective roles and responsibilities under the convention and the Merchant Shipping Act. The general lighthouse authorities have been working for some time with the Secretary of State's representative. They know each other well; they know each other's capabilities. It is a great step forward to have that set down properly in a memorandum of understanding, which will certainly help to progress matters.

Several noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, expressed concern on behalf of ship owners that the convention could result in a greater call on the general lighthouse funds as a result of the cost of removing wrecks of uninsured vessels. At the moment, within the General Lighthouse Fund there is a contingency to deal with uninsured losses, so ship owners should be aware that there is already provision to cover such losses, although, as we have heard, with the new compulsory insurance provisions in the Bill, it is likely that calls on the General Lighthouse Fund should reduce over time.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also mentioned passing ships that are not coming to UK ports. From 1 January next year, a new EU directive will require all ships weighing more than 300 gross tonnes belonging to member states or visiting EU ports to have insurance to cover the limits of their liability under the international Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, as amended by the protocol of 1996. All the time, more measures are coming into force that are making it more difficult for ships sometimes referred to as rogue ships to operate on our high seas.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also queried whether the Secretary of State or his representative should direct the general lighthouse authorities to deal with wrecks. My reading is that that has to be done for them to recover their costs. That is how it works under the convention. The general lighthouse authorities or harbour authorities are not party to the convention, so they have to be appointed by the Secretary of State or his representative.

Trinity House and the other general lighthouse authorities have a long history of dealing with wreck matters—about 150 years. They have great experience. The area that Trinity House is responsible for covers one of the busiest waterways in the world, the English Channel, where the waters are not very deep. Wrecks off the west coast of Scotland and Ireland tend to be in deeper water; if they sink, they go down a very long way. In some ways, Trinity House has more experience of dealing with such matters.

Several wrecks have been mentioned, but noble Lords may remember that back in December 2002 the Norwegian car carrier “Tricolour” collided with the container vessel “Kariba”, resulting in the Norwegian vessel sinking just as it was about to enter the north-south shipping lane through the English Channel. Two days later, the wreck was struck by another vessel, which was towed off; and two weeks after that, a tanker carrying 77,000 tonnes of gas oil also struck the wreck. As a result of that incident, the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities put in place a plan to provide emergency wreck buoys. Trinity House was very involved in their development. These are new buoys which can be taken out fairly quickly and have vertical red and yellow stripes. Trinity House also came up with a new form of lighting—an alternating blue and yellow flash which is highly visible and should go a long way towards alerting other ships of a wreck until such time has been found properly to survey it and mark it with normal, proper wreck buoys.

With regard to floating wreckage, such as containers or even timber, there were two incidents not so long ago in which large amounts of timber were washed off ships and floated up the English Channel, with most of it ending up on the beach. I believe that work is in hand to come up with some sort of floating wreck mark that would float up the Channel with any such mass of cargo. That would be a very sensible way of marking that sort of thing. However, to allay some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I can say that the general lighthouse authorities certainly know their limitations and there is no way that they could be made responsible—

[Lord Berkeley]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I said that I thought that the GLAs were very competent to do that, and they have long experience of doing so. My concern is that they may end up having to fund the salvage.

[Lord Greenway]

I was just coming to the fact that they are well used to marking wrecks, although, when it comes to the salvage or removal of wrecks, such incidents are very few and far between. Over the past 10 or 12 years the GLAs have been involved in dealing with perhaps a couple of small fishing boats. Therefore, there is no way that the general lighthouse authorities would be involved in something like the MSC “Napoli”. The removal of larger ships is totally beyond their powers, and negotiations between them and SOSREP would very quickly sort out the best way of dealing with a wreck and deciding who should do the work.

I conclude by summing up where the Bill takes us. As I said, it introduces measures that Trinity House very much welcomes. It empowers the GLAs to locate, mark and remove wrecks which are a danger to navigation beyond the territorial sea, clarifying an area of legislation where there has been uncertainty. It makes registered owners responsible for reporting wrecks or for loss of cargo and for the costs of locating, marking and removing wrecks. It requires registered owners of all vessels over 300 gross tonnes to maintain insurance to cover their liability under the convention. It provides for any claim for costs arising under the convention to be brought directly against the insurer or other person providing financial security for the registered owner’s liability, therefore reducing the risk of non-recovery and, in so doing, also reducing the exposure of the General Lighthouse Fund to the cost of dealing with wrecks.

I very much welcome this small but nevertheless important measure. I wish it a speedy passage and look forward to what I hope will be ratification of the convention in the not-too-distant future.