HC Deb 09 March 1964 vol 691 cc213-22

Motion wade, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Percy Browne (Torrington)

I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing tonight the problem of the lights in the Taw and Torridge estuary.

I always feel that there is something slightly blasphemous about discussing the Elder Brethren and discussing them, as I must do in a slightly critical way, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. As the House will know, the Elder Brethren are responsible to the Minister for any action they may take. I asked for the Adjournment debate because of an Answer given by the Minister of Transport to a Question which was asked by myself and then by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on I2th February. The Minister said: … the lights and signals are provided by Trinity House for the benefit of general navigation and not for the benefit of local interests. Fishermen do not pay light dues,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1964 Vol. 689, c. 371.] This answer could only mean one of two things. Either the Minister and, therefore, the Elder Brethren have no interest in ships that do not pay light dues, or they have no interest if there is purely local concern over any navigational aids.

Perhaps I should explain the criteria which are used to determine whether or not ships should pay light dues. They are, very briefly, that a ship should be over 100 tons unladen, that it should not be in ballast and that it should not be running for shelter. With these criteria it then pays light dues. I suggest that there is one very important local interest which falls outside these criteria and that is the lifeboat. I suggest, furthermore, that this is a local interest which should have been considered and was not considered before the alterations were made to the position of the lights.

In the Question and Answer on 12th February mention was made of fishermen. I do not want to belabour that point tonight, but I would, in passing, say that were it not for the fishermen who fish in the estuary and outside it there would be nobody to man the lifeboat. I also suggest that the owners of ships who pay light dues are only too glad to know that these large lifeboats are available to go to the aid of ships in distress.

The Minister should have considered the lifeboat. He is responsible for safety at sea in general and for safety devices around our coast. I take as my authority Volume 35 of the third edition of Halsbury's Laws, which informs me that the Minister has statutory control over coastguard; and lifeboats, and that the ultimate authority in the two important matters of pilotage and lighthouse control is also vested in the Minister. The first and fundamental question I want to ask the Minister is this. Is it not a fact that the Minister of Transport is responsible, and does he not think that the coxswain of the lifeboat should have been consulted before any decision over the lights was made? I believe that this is a very important point which applies well beyond this particular estuary.

In the event, this is what happened. Experimental lights were installed in December, 1962, at Instow. Not even the harbourmaster at Bideford, who is also the secretary of the Lifeboat Institution there, was consulted. I presume that the pilots were consulted, but there is a great deal of difference between being 60 ft. or more up on the bridge of a merchant ship coming into the estuary on a fairly full tide and in moderate sea—and those are the only conditions under which merchant ships, over 1,000 last year, come into the estuary—tend being 6 to 8 ft. up in a lifeboat in darkness, at low water, trying to get out to help a ship in a heavy sea, as they often do go out, in gale conditions.

These lights have been moved back 1⅓ miles from their original position. This has resulted in certain difficulties which I should like to enumerate. First, There is navy no breaking point, as seamen call it. In other words, the lights were originally quite near the entrance to the estuary on the northern side. When the pilot or master got almost opposite the first light he knew that he had to alter course to starboard or south'ard if he was coming into the estuary, and vice versa if he was coming out. But, these lights being farther back, he does not know when he must turn in the dark. If the coxswain had been consulted he would have said that he wanted the old lights maintained as day markers at Appledore to give a line on which to turn.

The coxswain of the Appledore lifeboat, whom I saw receive by no means his first award in London for bravery last year, has been in the lifeboat service for 35 years and is accepted as one of the best seamen on the Atlantic coast. He makes this request. This is not simply a request by somebody who knows little of the facts. I understand that these lights may be reinstalled perhaps on the Inner Pulley buoy, but they have been in the present position for 15 months and nothing has been done about the matter because the right people have not been consulted.

Secondly, haze and fog often make it difficult to see the lights from the buoy, and I suggest that the old lights should be maintained as day lights only. If there is early fog, they give a guide into the estuary. Thirdly, there is some disagreement as to whether the new leading line is right for ships going in and out over the bar—and here I might add that a ship went aground about a year ago when following the new course.

Before asking specific questions of the Minister, I would make one other general observation. The reason for the change in the lights, and the expense which that has involved, is because of coastal erosion. The lights were built originally on sand but they had to be moved back to the other side of the estuary, one-and-a-third miles from their original position, because of the amount of sand and gravel which had been dredged from the estuary. It is essential, therefore, that the Minister should think most carefully before giving any more permission for the removal of sand and before granting any more licences to the applicants now before him.

May I now ask some specific questions? First, is it not the Minister's responsibility to ensure that all interests are consulted? Secondly, why have the local interests been ignored, when it is known that a large lifeboat is stationed in the estuary? Thirdly, have there been con- sultations with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his Ministry in the usual way? Fourthly, will the Minister ensure that the Skern lights are reinstalled as a matter of urgency? Fifthly, will he ensure that the old lights are maintained as day markers? Sixthly, will he take a very careful look at all the evidence before approving any more sand and gravel extraction licences; and, finally, may I have the assurance that if these new lights prove unsatisfactory from visibility reasons, the Minister and the Elder Brethren will reconsider the matter in six months' time when the lights will have been on full power? I say in six months because until 4th March these lights were experimental. Now that they are on full power, some of the hazards such as fog and haze may not be so difficult.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

I rise to speak only briefly because I want the Minister to have the fullest possible time for a reply, but I want to underline everything that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has said. He has done a very good service for his constituency. I have great feeling about the North Devon coastline, because one half of the entrance to the estuary is in my constituency, and the other side is in his. In reply to a question of mine on 12th February, the Minister, as reported in col. 371 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, said that he would certainly look at the matter again. Therefore, I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he will confirm that the matter will be reconsidered.

This is an extremely dangerous coastline. I will not go into detail, because it would not be relevant, but there has been considerable criticism that there is total lack of a harbour of refuge from Somerset right the way down to Land's End. There is no harbour where a boat may put in in all weathers and at all tides. It therefore becomes all the more vital that we should have the greatest possible degree of safety at the entrance of this estuary, particularly for the lifeboat, which has to put out in all weathers.

I know this bar from personal experience. It is dangerous to go over it if one is going out into the open sea from Instow or Appledore unless there is three-quarters of full-tide. Even by day, it is vital to steer with great care by the buoys which are put there for the convenience of mariners. Certainly, when coming in at night it is crucial to depend upon the lights which are provided.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider the matter. It is astonishing that the coxswain and the harbour master were not consulted. Both of them are experienced men and know the coast better than anybody else. I therefore support the hon. Member for Torrington in everything he has said, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that this matter will be reconsidered and that people who are knowledgeable of the coast will be adequately consulted.

12.22 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) for having aired this subject, although from what the hon. Member for Devon, North said I can say that the shrewd mariner will take the utmost precautions to enter neither of the two constituencies when attempting passage of the estuary.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington said about the Bideford lights and I have also studied the correspondence which he has had with my right hon. Friend about the responsibility in general for lighthouses. I cannot promise to answer all the questions which my hon. Friend has fired at me, because some of them did not seem to me to arise directly from this Adjournment debate. I will, however, begin by explaining my right hon. Friend's position in regard to new lighthouse construction.

It is my right hon. Friend's responsibility under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to sanction expenditure from the General Lighthouse Fund: that is to say, the fund into which light dues are paid and from which the general lighthouse authorities draw. As the House knows, in England and Wales the general lighthouse authority is Trinity House. It is this body which makes proposals for expenditure to my right hon. Friend, and if he approves them it is this body which subsequently carries out the work.

I must, however, remind the House that Trinity House is an ancient institution which has had statutory responsibilities in connection with lighthouses in England and Wales for several generations. It is a corporation whose active members are master mariners with the highest professional qualifications. It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend does not set himself up in judgment on the navigational and technical aspects of proposals which Trinity House makes to him.

My right hon. Friend consults a body known as the Advisory Committee on New Lighthouse Works on every new proposal before he exercises his statutory duty of giving formal sanction. This Committee is chiefly made up of representatives from the Chamber of Shipping. That is a reasonable and satisfactory arrangement, because it is the shipowners who, through the light dues, support the fund. They are the users of the services financed from the fund. It is by means of this consultative procedure that the Minister of Transport for the time being discharges his responsibilities as custodian of the General Lighthouse Fund.

But, having said that, I do not wish it to be thought that either Trinity House or my right hon. Friend is indifferent to the needs of craft too small to pay light dues. That is certainly not the case. In the nature of things, however, the owners of the small craft may not often be automatically consulted. On the other hand, if there are a number of small fishing vessels or yachts known to be involved, I have no doubt whatever that Trinity House would be at pains to consider their views.

In the case of the Taw and Torridge estuary lights, the customary procedure was followed. It was in April, 1962, that Trinity House submitted a scheme to my right hon. Friend to replace the old lights at Braunton Burrows with two new leading lights at Instow, at a cost which was estimated to be £7,600. The reason for the scheme, very briefly, was, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington, that there had been heavy damage to the sea defences of the old lights, due to erosion of the sand dunes, and that had been made worse by recent gales.

As a result, it was estimated that to have repaired the old lights would have cost nearly £10,000 followed by continuous maintenance expenditure to resist erosion. In contrast, the proposed new lights at Instow, about a mile further up the estuary, as has been pointed out, would require no sea defence works at all. I have noted what my hon. Friend had to say about the connection between the removal of sand and gravel from the estuary and the erosion. We will look into this, although I am bound to tell him that the opinion which he has given tonight is contrary to the advice which we have so far received on the subject.

Mr. P. Browne

In that case, can my hon. and gallant Friend tell me why it was that the local authority stopped the removal of sand and gravel from the middle reach between the sea and this part of the land?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

Not without notice. The removal of sand and gravel had not previously been questioned in this connection and I was not given notice that that matter would be raised. All I can tell my hon. Friend is that such advice as we have received so far has been that this was not a material cause of the erosion.

I return to the story of the new lights. Long before the new equipment could be delivered, there was further damage to the old lights and, as a result, Trinity House abandoned them and installed temporary lights—not experimental, but temporary—in the new position at Instow. That was in December, 1962. Until a few days ago, when the permanent lights were brought into use, these temporary lights had, so far as we knew, given a satisfactory lead-in to the estuary. They did, admittedly, have one disadvantage compared with the old lights, the disadvantage to which attention has been drawn tonight. The old lights had the effect of illuminating the Outer Pulley Buoy which, as my hon. Friend said, is the point of turn for vessels approaching Bideford.

It so happened that the old front, or seaward light, although wrongly sited to provide a lead, had the merit that the Outer Pulley Buoy was visible in its loom. It is for this reason that Trinity House had been experimenting with lighting the buoy itself, not technically a difficult undertaking, but one in which it has so far been unsuccessful. Failing this, I understand that it is Trinity House's intention to consider the erection of a pair of transit lights on the Apple-dare side to indicate to inward-bound vessels the point of turn. That will meet one of the comments of my hon. Friend.

However, I must add that from the beginning we have been completely satisfied with the action taken by Trinity House to replace the old lights by a new system which we believe to have added to the safety of a mariner entering or leaving the estuary. A few weeks ago, however, my right hon. Friend became aware for the first time that some of the local fishermen and boat owners were against the changes made and had petitioned Trinity House. My right hon. Friend was further informed that as a result of this petition a meeting had been held at Bideford on 6th September, 1963, to which the petitioners were invited, and which was also attended by representatives of Trinity House and of the Taw and Torridge pilots. The pilots stated categorically at this meeting that the new lights were an improvement, and that there had been no adverse comment from masters of cargo vessels using the estuary.

I had not heard until this evening that the lifeboat was experiencing difficulty. I must say that it rather surprises me that this should be so, because, as the hon. Member for Devon, North said, the old lights were abandoned 15 months ago and, so far as I have been able to find out, throughout that time no representations appear to have been made to my right hon. Friend or to Trinity House by the Royal Life-Boat Institution. That is the body which would normally make representations if a lifeboat were placed in difficulties in a manner such as this, and those who know the Institution will be aware that it is not usually backward in coming forward when the safety of its craft is at stake.

It was for the reasons that I have given in telling this brief story that on 12th February, in reply to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend was able to say that ship- owners and local pilots were satisfied with the new lights. My hon. Friend quite wrongly then said that that was not true. I must therefore emphasise that what my right hon. Friend said was correct. One of our professional officers has since visited the estuary and interviewed the local pilots. He and they are satisfied that the lights provide an accurate lead down the channel throughout the whole of its length from the bar to the point of turn. The same opinion is held by the Chamber of Shipping which has informed us that masters trading into the estuary cannot understand why there should be any opposition to the arrangements.

In fact, the arrangements are opposed by only one master of a small craft which trades to Lundy Island. The other objectors to the new arrangements are a number of local fishermen and boatmen, but our inquiries have established that only two local fishermen regularly go outside the estuary to fish, the remainder being engaged inside the bar.

The situation, then, is that the local pilots and shipowners are satisfied with the new arrangements, while three local owners of small craft who go outside the bar for fishing and trading are not. I hope now that the powerful permanent lights are in use, and once the problem of indicating the turning point near the Outer Pulley Buoy has been resolved, these people too will see how much better the new arrangements are. On the other hand, if they continue to be dissatisfied, and if they so inform Trinity House or my right hon. Friend after a few months, we shall of course look carefully into their complaints again.

Mr. Thorpe

Do we take it from what the Minister has said that when the official went down from the Ministry he did not steak to either the harbour master or the coxswain of the lifeboat? Are we to draw that conclusion?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I cannot answer for the coxswain of the lifeboat. I do not know whether he spoke to the harbour master informally, but I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, in dealing with harbour authorities and consulting them on matters like that, we have to be careful to limit consultations with the harbour master to the area of his responsibility. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility of the harbour master at Bideford stops short of this estuary. Whether it would be better to extend his area of responsibility is a matter which no doubt the Harbour Board at Bideford will consider if and when the Harbours Bill reaches the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.