Light Dues (Hansard, 23 February 1987)

§ 6. Mr. Stott
asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost to the shipping and ports industries as a consequence of the 14 per cent. increase in light dues he announced on 5 February.

§ 8. Dr. Godman
asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following the announcement of an increase in light dues.

§ Mr. Michael Spicer
Well over 80 per cent. of light dues are paid by foreign registered ships. The proposed increase will result in an additional charge to United Kingdom registered shipping of about £500,000 a year. Light dues impose no direct costs on the port industry. I have received several representations for and against the new charges.

§ Mr. Stott
The Minister's reply was extremely complacent. Are he and the Secretary of State aware of the immense damage that the measure is likely to cause to United Kingdom ports and shipping? The British Ports Association estimates that light dues could increase container costs by 50 per cent., add £20,000 to the costs of each ship entering United Kingdom ports, and cost one ship owner £1 million per annum.
The Minister must be aware that Britain alone in Europe charges shipowners this levy for entering and embarking from United Kingdom ports. The levy is directed at the industry and is one that the industry can ill afford to bear. The Minister should consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him, if he has money to give away in this year's Budget, to give it to ports and shipping— an important part of British industry— instead of levying this 14 per cent. increase on them, which will cause great damage.

§ Mr. Spicer
The increases are necessary to cover costs. Before the hon. Gentleman gets completely carried away, he should remember that since 1981–82 light dues have decreased by 18 per cent. in real terms, even taking into account the new rates. He should further remind himself and some of his hon. Friends that light dues were at their peak in real terms in 1975, after Labour had increased them three times in 19 months by 10 per cent., 12 per cent. and 41 per cent. respectively.

§ Mr. Godman
What types of fishing vessels are likely to pay dues in the future? Would it not make much more sense to rescind than to extend light dues to fishing vessels?

§ Mr. Spicer
We are considering proposals to extend light dues to some fishing vessels. It follows the inclusion earlier this year of the cost of operating the United Kingdom navigator transmitters in the general lighthouse fund. I cannot discuss the details, because they have not been finalised.

§ Mr. Squire
Although I do not endorse the hyperbole of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), will my hon. Friend recognise that there is genuine anxiety in the shipping industry about the effect of light dues? Will he undertake to listen most carefully and sympathetically to any representations that that industry makes to him?

§ Mr. Spicer
Of course there are anxieties about increases, even if the charges are coming down in real terms. We shall see whether any restructuring between different types of vessels and what they pay should be undertaken.

§ Mr. Wallace
What steps has the Department of Transport taken to set up user consultative committees to extend consultation to people who do not necessarily pay light dues? Will the Minister confirm that light dues are not charged by any of our EEC partners, with the exception of Greece and the Republic of Ireland? Does he agree that if a vessel has a choice between Rotterdam and a British port, Rotterdam is likely to be more attractive because increased light dues will now have to be paid in the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Spicer
We consult all elements of the industry. The cost differential between average ports on the Continent and in Britain is explained by light dues only to the tune of one seventh.