§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)I welcome this opportunity to raise the issue of the lighthouse service in the United Kingdom, because it must be many years since there was a substantive debate on this important subject. This opportunity is timely, given the number of issues that have recently caused some public debate and controversy surrounding the cost and provision of lighthouse services.
The orders for increasing the light dues and extending them to cover fishing vessels over 10m in length have not yet been debated in the House, although they were debated in another place. That is regrettable, given that the motions praying against the orders have attracted a considerable amount of support; more than just the usual formal notice of opposition that one sometimes gets. Nevertheless, the orders increasing the level of light dues have attracted considerable opposition from those involved both in the shipping industry and in the ports.
It is widely accepted that our merchant fleet has been facing a worrying decline for many years. Although this is not the occasion to go into that, obviously there are concerns that the increase in light dues is a further imposition of a burden upon an already beleaguered industry. It will affect our ships more than it will affect foreign vessels, because British ships come into British ports more often than do foreign vessels and will more often have to face the increased charges.
I believe that the increase will make our ports less competitive, not least with those ports immediately across the Channel in western Europe. Of all the countries in the European Economic Community, only Greece and the Republic of Ireland—which to some extent is bracketed with the United Kingdom when we talk about lighthouse services and charges—have lighthouse charges.
It has been argued by the Department of Transport that only one-seventh of the difference in costs between a European port and a British port can be attributed to light dues. This does not appear to square with the figures put forward by the General Council of British Shipping, which suggests that in Antwerp the cost per container is about £25, yet in the United Kingdom that cost will be about £90 once the new light dues provisions are put into effect, £40 of that being attributable to light dues. The difference amounts to about £65, more than two-thirds of which would appear to be due to light dues.
I ask the Minister, in replying to the debate, to give an indication of how his Department arrived at such a relatively small proportion of the difference between the costs and charges of British ports and those with which we are in considerable competition in western Europe.
Looking forward, we would like to see our ports, not least on the west coast, being able to take up some of the advantage of having a Channel tunnel, once it is built, and to become the terminal ports for western Europe for traffic from North America. It would be regrettable if a further increase in light dues were to put them at a competitive disadvantage and not allow them to take the opportunities that may open up for them in the next 10 years.
The extension of light dues to fishing vessels is viewed by the industry as being exceptionally unfair. They were imposed with little or no consultation. Admittedly, once the previous Secretary of State said that he intended to do 882 it he consulted, but prior to that there was little or no consultation with the industry. They have been imposed on fishing vessels over a certain length, and do not relate to their activities or to their ability to pay. Not taking into account the ability of individual vessels to pay the dues could be said to be the fishing industry's version of the poll tax. It has caused considerable resentment in the industry.
This is another burden on our fishing fleet that is not borne by those with which it is in most competition. I think especially of Danish and Norwegian fishing vessels, which do not have to pay the charge. Our fishing fleet will have to pay it at a time when so much effort is being made to bring European nations into line. We are putting our fishing fleet at a deliberate disadvantage by expecting it to pay that additional amount.
The argument for imposing dues on the fishing fleet has not been convincing. In fact, it is riddled with inconsistencies. On the face of it there is some logic in saying that the user must pay, but not by any stretch of the imagination has that been taken to its logical conclusion. There is no provision for yachts to pay. I can well understand the great practical difficulties involved, as there is not a register of yachts as there is for fishing vessels. Nevertheless, if the charge is to be imposed on the logic of user pays, immediate resentment is caused if we cannot fully follow through the logical consequences of that policy.
I understand that there is no charge on the Royal Navy, although it uses the Racal-Decca navigator system. Whereas previously it paid an estimated £800,000 per annum to Racal-Decca for the system, that charge is now being imposed on the general lighthouse fund. The Royal Navy is being relieved of that cost and it is being imposed on those who have to pay light dues. That is not the proper way to resolve any problems in the defence budget. It brings home to us the basic unfairness of the system as a whole.
When writing to the fishermen's associations, Mr. Battersby—the assistant secretary of the marine directorate at the Department of Transport—said, when referring to general lighthouse authorities:
The navigational aids they superintend and manage (which now include Navigator) are used by a great variety of shipping, much of it passing our coasts and not calling at our ports.He is quite right. The general lighthouse authorities are providing services to shipping that goes around our coasts but does not come into our ports and does not pay. It is a fundamental problem, because people are using but not paying. The Government must face that problem. If, for understandable reasons, they are not prepared to accept the logical consequences of their policy, they should be prepared, out of general taxation, to make at least some contribution to the lighthouse authorities to help them to fund their services and to ensure that the whole burden is not placed on relatively few people. If other EEC countries can do that, with the exception of Greece and the Republic of Ireland, perhaps it is time that we consider that option.As the orders have now taken effect, does it follow that by extending the charge of fishing vessels representatives of the fishermen's associations are now automatically to be included on the Lights Advisory Committee? The Department of Transport should be taking steps towards encouraging the setting up of a users' consultative committee. That was recommended in Arthur Young's report of 1984. I understand that the Northern Lighthouse 883 Board consults far more widely than those who pay, and that would be a good example to follow. It is my impression and understanding that over the past three or four years the Department of Transport has been reluctant to extend the ambit for consultation, taking the view that it is only those who pay who should be consulted. The Northern Lighthouse Board's view is that all users have an interest, regardless of whether they pay, and that as consumers they have a worthwhile contribution to make when the subject of navigational aids are under discussion. By including only those who are paying, the general lighthouse authorities are subjected only to the views of those whose prime objective is to keep down expenditure. I am not necessarily criticising that approach, but that seems to be the sole thrust of the views of those to whom the GLAs are expected to listen.
I understand that the British Ports Association is invited to the consultations, even though it does not have a direct interest. It would be encouraging if the Minister were to say that the scope of discussion and consultation is to be extended far beyond those who come within the category of payers, to those who are also users.
The reduction of expenditure is uppermost in the minds of many, not least the General Council of British Shipping. There seems to be a notion that with the advancement of technological aids the need for the type of safety aids that are provided by LHAs is diminishing substantially. A report was commissioned by the Lights Advisory Committee and undertaken by Dr. Strange, who, having made studies and examined the passage of certain ships between Portland Bill and the Thames estuary, suggested that if ships were fitted with modern electronic position fixing equipment there was scope for a significant reduction in the number of aids provided by the lighthouse authorities. I am not sure what status that report has, and I do not know what credence will be given to it, but it has some clear limitations. It cannot be assumed that all foreign vessels will use the Decca navigator system. It cannot be assumed either that ships under 500 tonnes will be similarly equipped. The report does not take account of occasions when equipment breaks down or of the position of yachtsmen and lifeboats.
Despite the provision of electronic aids, a number of ships have collided this year. In late January, or early February, in fog off Felixstowe there was a collision between Townsend Thoresen's Nordic Ferry and a Spanish cargo ship. On 1 May there was a collision off Dover in poor visibility between the Cambridge Ferry and a French operated vessel the St. Eloi. On 30 May, in the Channel in fog, there was a collision between the Skyron, a Liberian tanker, and a Polish cargo ship, the HEL. Despite the great advancement of modern technological equipment, collisions still take place. We are not able to say that we can dispense or readily reduce the visible aids that the lighthouse authorities have been providing over many years.
In a report on navigational aids by Dr. D. Kieley, which was published this year, reference is made to the numerous people who still rely on such aids. The Royal Navy has said that reliable and proven methods of visible fixing are always used whenever possible and the Scottish fishermen say that even the most modern electronic and technical devices can fail from time to time for unaccountable reasons and that as not all vessels are new, it seems clear that any future system of navigational aids should retain much of the existing shore-based facilities. I hope that 884 there will be recognition of the fact that, albeit that technology advances, for some time to come there will be an important reliance on the more traditional types of aid that have been provided effectively over many years by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Northern Lighthouse Board and Trinity House.
Another area of recent dispute is that relating to sound fog signals. Following a resolution of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities that sound fog signals were no longer a general requirement, steps have been taken to discontinue a number of sound fog signals around our coasts. Indeed, a number of assistant lighthouse keepers in my constituency have recently received their redundancy notices.
I believe that there has been too much haste and anxiety in trying to follow the IALA policy decision. I have studied the roll call of nations that supported that decision and I suspect that many of them have not had to contend with the problems of fog—at times thick fog—with which we have to contend around our coasts. In pursuing that policy decision I believe that insufficient account has been taken of the apparent proviso in that policy:
Some low power fog signals may still be required to assist fishing and pleasure craft.What consultations took place before the IALA reached that decision? What consultations took place with the various industries and users involved? Since that policy decision, what consultation has there been with the fishing industry and those who might be using pleasure craft about the consequences of the discontinuance of sound fog signals?As an example, I think particularly of North Ronaldsay, an island in my constituency. It is basically a crofting island, with many transport problems. It has a small population, but it has a lighthouse. That lighthouse is an important source of employment. The island also has a very small fishing industry—a number of local people fish in the local waters. Indeed, one of the few opportunities for increased employment is in fishing. The fishermen of the island wrote to the Northern Lighthouse Board protesting about the proposals to discontinue the sound fog signal on the island. Although I have not seen the reply, I have been advised that the board suggested that if things were that bad, perhaps they should not go to sea. It also said that if 30 boats had been involved, rather than three, it might have made a difference. On North Ronaldsay, given its population, three boats represent a sizeable part of the working sector. It would be regrettable if it was the decision of the Northern Lighthouse Board to discontinue the sound fog signal, as that would have an adverse effect on the promotion of the fishing industry. This industry could not only improve people's livelihood, but could be a useful source of future employment.
The decision of the Northern Lighthouse Board also suggests that at times economic rather than safety reasons are the guiding criteria. Indeed, when considering the minutes of the Northern Lighthouse Board, one realises that, despite the emphasis on the fact that each lighthouse has been considered on its own merits and that safety is paramount, the tenor of the discussions is about whether money can be saved.
If we consider Sumburgh Head in my constituency, we see that the minutes state:
The decision to retain Sumburgh Head fog signal could he justified by the high incidence of fog and although there 885 was little passing traffic there was some fishing activity in the area. The Engineer-in-Chief outlined the potential savings from possible keeper reductions and running costs and eventual discontinuance of the fog signal on automation although a stand-by generator would still be required to power the Radio Beacon. It was eventually decided, however, that the fog signal should be discontinued.It is clear from that that the savings to be made outweighed the advantages that there would still be for fishing activity in the area.As regards Cantick Head in my constituency, the minutes reported:
There was no case to retain this fog signal as there would be savings from the reduction in keepers and possible future capital expenditure.My contention is that this is not an area in which savings should be the guiding principle, but one in which the provision of the service and safety should be the overriding principles. It is a matter of considerable concern that there has been such a rush to adopt the IALA policy, not with any substantial regard to the service provided by the sound fog signals, but as yet another way of trying to meet the financial targets set for our lighthouse authorities by the Department of Transport.The same pressures are undoubtedly being applied with regard to the future of the lighthouse tender vessels. I understand that the report that was prepared by Arthur Young reached the Department during the past week or two. It has still to be published for public consumption, and perhaps the Minister will suggest when that is likely to be. I do not think that it will be helpful if, without having seen that report, I were to indulge in too much idle speculation as to what it might contain. However, we know that to a considerable extent the report was commissioned with cost-cutting zeal and with an eye to trying to improve the balance sheet.
It is important that the Minister recognises—I am sure that he does—that those currently engaged in the service have, over the years, built up considerable expertise on the various navigational aids that they service and maintain and also of the various shores and approaches to the lighthouses that are supplied from the tender vessels. I wonder whether we are facing a position where that expertise might have to be dissipated. Is it indeed in the best interests of the operation that we should have—this may well be the case—one vessel trying to cover the entire service from Muckle Flugga to Spurn Head? Indeed, can one vessel do that? I should be interested to know exactly what the Department of Transport's interest is in this case.
I am sure that much of the detail will have to be worked out by the lighthouse authorities themselves. If the Minister will give some suggestion of the division of interests and responsibilities between his Department and the lighthouse authorities that will be useful to those of us who may well have constituency battles to fight on this issue. I am especially aware that many of the crew of the Pole Star are constituents of mine and, of course, the number of vessels and the crewing that will be retained is vital.
I am also aware that the town of Stromness on Orkney is the base for the Pole Star and it would be affected critically if the new configuration of ships were to remove the Pole Star from Stromness. The families who are based there and who live there are an important part of the 886 population and shop in the town. Most of the services and the supplies for the boat are purchased from local shopkeepers. Any decision to move the vessel away from Stromness could have important economic consequences for the town. I give notice to the Minister that this issue will be debated at great length if the outcome of the report is not satisfactory for my constituents.
There is a fear that getting rid of a number of ships will inevitably lead to the contracting out of some services to private operators who do not have any knowledge, and who have not had the opportunities to build up the knowledge, of the special needs and of the duties that have been undertaken for many years by the lighthouse authorities. We do not want privatisation by the back door simply to massage the balance sheet. What is most important is that we maintain a good service, which is what we have had up to now. Why upset that?
My concluding remarks relate, first, to savings. I ask the Minister what the position is now regarding the contribution made by the Republic of Ireland towards the cost of the lighthouse authorities? Receipts from the Republic are less than expenditure. I understand that there is an arrangement whereby the Government of the Republic make up so much of the difference. How has that worked out, and is there scope for more to be contributed from the Republic? We are in the unusual position of one sovereign nation appearing to subsidise the services that are supplied to another sovereign nation, when there might be competition between the two.
Secondly, what is being done to try to monitor the administrative efficiency of the lighthouse authorities? In its response to the increase in light dues the General Council of British Shipping suggested one lighthouse authority instead of three. I would certainly advise against that. The Scots would not readily accept any attempt to take over the Northern Lighthouse Board. It is a question, not just of national pride, but of economics, because with more lights than Trinity House the annual cost has been consistently less than half those of Trinity House. I am well aware that Trinity House has much greater responsibilities than simply the lighthouse service, but I would have thought that that would provide it with an opportunity to develop economies of scale. Yet, the cost of general lighthouse administration appears to be greater.
Similarly, between 1980 and 1986 the head office of Trinity House increased its staff by 20, whereas those engaged on other locations were reduced by 228. The Northern Lighthouse Board increased its administrative staff by three, whereas those in operations were reduced by 103. Therefore, it seems that more chiefs are administering fewer field workers. Perhaps a timely review of the administration of the service would not go amiss.
The lighthouse service is important in remote rural areas and problems follow from the reduction in the number of those who work for the service and from automation. Now there are threats of discontinuing the sound fog signals and fears for the future of the lighthouse tender vessels. When there are closures in the coal industry, for example, when many redundancies are pending and particular areas are hit, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is there to relieve the unemployment that is caused as a result.
The effect on much smaller communities of the loss of the odd job here and there is not noticed, although proportionately that can have just as great an effect on the community. The automation of a lighthouse may well 887 bring with it the removal of a young family from an island or remote rural area, which in turn can affect the future of a local school. I have already mentioned the importance of the lighthouse shipping service to Stromness. I hope that the Government will be sensitive to the effects of any cost-cutting exercise on these communities.
I know that the Northern Lighthouse Board, to which I have frequently spoken about this issue, is aware of the effects, but it cannot do anything about them. It is not within its remit to take account of the social and economic consequences for a community of an automation programme or any alteration to the lighthouse tender vessels. It is anxious in cases of individual redundancy to take into account the fact that employees not only lose a job, but often a tied house, and it wishes to enhance the redundancy payments to take account of that. Naturally, it would look to the Government for assistance with that and perhaps if the Minister cannot respond to that point this morning he will write to me about it. I would happily correspond with him to see whether anything can be done to enhance redundancy payments.
Similarly, we should enable the lighthouse authorities to pay a rent allowance to those who should perhaps be encouraged to find their own home, either to buy or to rent, so that they do not become as dependent on a tied house as in the past. I understand that Trinity House has operated a system of rent allowances, but that has not been the case north of the border. If assistance could be forthcoming to enable the Northern Lighthouse Board to do that, I am sure that it would be welcome.
We need a broader perspective. We must accept that we need people on our coasts and that everything cannot he left to automation. There are good security reasons for that and when ships go aground it is useful to have people on the scene, not merely automated machines. In New Zealand and Canada there has been a rethink of the whole programme of automation.
We have a good service, which has been provided for many years. I seek an assurance from the Minister that in the development of the service the first and foremost consideration will be safety and the quality and efficiency of the service, and that that will not in any way be subordinated to the interests of the balance sheet. I am not denying the importance of that, but I hope that the valuable quality of the service will be recognised and that its work can continue.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)It is understandable that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should raise this subject in tonight's debate. I know that he takes a personal interest in the subject on behalf of his constituents especially those in the service of the Northern Lighthouse Board. The subject of the debate is an invitation to cover much wider matters. However, the hon. Gentleman's timing is unfortunate. Not just because it is 4.59 am but because a number of the matters he raised are directly related to the Arthur Young tender vessels study which is about to be published and it would be improper of me to disclose its contents in advance.
However, considerable attention has focussed on the lighthouse service in recent months, and this reflects a range of developments and studies bearing on the activities and responsibilities of the general lighthouse authorities. I am sure all Members on both sides of the House have a 888 high regard for the dedication and traditions of service of those employed in the lighthouse service and I pay tribute to them. The authorities are bodies with long and respected histories of high standards in the service of the mariner. I recognise that they are engaged in a difficult period of transition and change, reflecting increased automation and new technology in the area of marine navigational aids. The problems this brings in human and management terms are understood. I have a high regard for the readiness of the authorities' staff to adapt to new circumstances.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the financing of the lighthouse services. I accept that the United Kingdom, with Ireland and Greece, are in a minority within the EC in charging light dues—though nearly half the members of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities rely on dues of some kind to finance their lights. We in the United Kingdom remain of the view that the user should pay, within what is administratively practicable. I can hold out no prospect of the Exchequer taking on these costs. I accept some of the criticisms from the shipowners and ports that aspects of the current light dues regime—which has remained substantially unaltered since the turn of the century—have a disadvantageous effect on some traffics such as liner container vessels and part cargoes, and that some of this traffic may be diverted to a near continental port for transhipment. However, the reasons for transhipment are complex and go beyond the issue of light dues. We are nonetheless examing the scope for technical changes in the light dues structure which I hope will go some way to remedy some of the anomalies.
It is however inevitable that a substantial element of the costs will continue to fall on commercial shipping, because the revenues which might be raised from other users can never amount to more than a small proportion of the costs. The main category of user not contributing to these costs is small pleasure craft. Here it has not proved practicable to devise an enforceable system which would yield worthwhile revenue after collection and enforcement costs from other sources.
I fully understand the concern of the shipowners and the ports about the 14 per cent. increase in light dues which had to he imposed earlier this year. That increase has to be seen, however, as one coming after a long period when it had been possible to cover the difference between costs and revenue by drawing on the considerable cash reserves which had accumulated in the General Lighthouse Fund. However, these reserves were reducing rapidly, and an increase was unavoidable to bring revenue closer in line with current operating costs. There was also a new requirement—about half the increase—to be met as a result of transferring the £3.6 million annual operating costs of the UK Decca Navigator transmitters to the GLF. Reflecting this transfer, we have also for the first time extended light dues to the larger fishing vessels—but 60 per cent. of vessels—those under 10 metres in length—will still not have to pay. The Government believe that the new arrangements are a good deal for fishermen, who have seen substantial reductions in the market price of receivers. Most of those who previously rented sets will in fact save money.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of representation for fishermen on the lights advisory committee. That 889 is a matter for the committee, which has already approached the industry to invite its members to be represented.
Despite this year's increase, light dues are steadily declining in real terms. They are down 33 per cent. from the 1975–76 peak, and 18 per cent. lower than in 1981–82. The Government also reduced dues by 10 per cent. in 1983, in contrast to the increases of 23 per cent. and 40 per cent. imposed by the Labour Government in 1975.
The Government's policy objective is to contain and reduce lighthouse costs to secure efficiency and economy in the operation of the service. We have taken a number of constructive steps. There is now a much stricter control over the GLA's budgets, and it is set demanding cash limits which, to its credit, it is striving to meet, or even to better. A number of studies are now in progress.
I must stress that, although the costs that must be found for the lighthouse service fall on ship operators and not on the Government, we are determined not to take any risks with safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to have that reassurance.
A major study has recently been undertaken by Arthur Young, the management consultants, into the tender vessel requirements of the three lighthouse authorities. I know that this study is of particular interest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as one of the NLB tender vessels is based in his constituency, and he has already raised the matter. We have now received the consultants' final report, and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement about it very shortly. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.
This study was commissioned jointly by my Department and the three lighthouse authorities, and I believe that it is the first comprehensive joint appraisal that has been made of the fleets and the requirements that they have to meet. The report makes a wide range of recommendations, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be improper for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement. We shall, of course, consider the report carefully in close consultation with the Authorities and with the lights advisory committee, which represents ship owners, shippers and port authorities.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in that the Northern Lighthouse Board currently bases its ship "Polestar" at Stromness, and he raised that in his remarks.
The consultants' report makes some recommendations about different fleet configurations, and suggests illustrative alternative locations for vessels. The operation of the vessels represents about a quarter of the current running costs of the lighthouse service. Those costs fall not on the Government but on ship operators, who are under considerable financial pressure.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the Kiely and Strange reports. Let me add, in connection with electronic aids replacing traditional ones—which he also mentioned—that reports on navigational aids have commanded wide interest in the marine world. Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State published an independent report by Dr. D. G. Kiely, a consultant electronics engineer, recommending how developments in marine navigational aids should be applied in the coming years. The report contains an extensive analysis of likely technical developments, and 890 examines those developments in relation to the implications for United Kingdom marine policy and the likely requirements of all classes of marine users. It makes a large number of recommendations, and the views of interested parties have been invited. We shall be considering Dr. Kiely's detailed recommendations in the light of views expressed by the marine community. I am sure that, when that is done, account will also be taken of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The hon. Member also referred to the Strange report. The Lights Advisory Committee has urged on my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping a review of the traditional aids provided by the general lighthouse authorities. In support of this, it has commissioned a study by Dr. John Strange to examine the shipowners' contention that many of the traditional lights, buoys and beacons have been superseded by those of modern electronic position-fixing equipment carried on board ships. Dr. Strange concludes that the number of traditional aids should be reduced as electronic aids gain wider availability. I think the hon. Member will admit that because of the duplication that would necessarily be involved, one could not expect two systems to be kept permanently in being.
The LAC report is a timely contribution to the continuing examination of the costs and requirements of the GLA's services. It would be wrong to pretend, however, that the resolution of these issues will be easy. There will always be a continuing need for lights and daymarks as hazard warnings—a point recognised in the Kiely report. There are also many conflicting views and interests to be reconciled. They range from the largest tanker vessels through to the weekend yachtsman. The lighthouse authorities, who bear the responsibility of providing aids to safe navigation for all users, have already questioned some of the conclusions that were reached by Dr. Strange. My noble Friend will be taking forward consideration of all these complex issues in consultation with the lighthouse authorities.
The hon. Member referred to fog signals, or fog horns. That is a management matter for the authorities, which they will no doubt carry through as they think fit, in consultation with the users. In the light of the recent recommendations of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, that fog signals should be dropped as a major navigational aid but retained where needed as a hazard warning, the GLA, including the Northern Lighthouse Board, will have to hold consultations with the vessel users for whose benefit the fog signals exist. The Government are not involved in the matter. I hope that the hon. Member will raise it directly with the Northern Lighthouse Board which is responsible for the safety of navigation.
§ Mr. WallaceThe Minister has said that restrictive financial targets have been set by the Government for the lighthouse authorities. I referred earlier to Sumburgh head, Copinsay and Cantick head. Cost cutting seems to be paramount. Fog sound warning devices, particularly for fishing vessels, do not appear to have been considered. Does the Minister believe that when the board is considering these important matters it should bear that point particularly in mind?
§ Mr. MitchellThe board has to balance all the considerations and make a sensible judgment. I said earlier that we do not intend that there should be any safety risk. Safety is the paramount purpose of the board's activities.
The hon. Member referred to the proportion of light dues that account for the difference between United Kingdom and Continental port charges. United Kingdom port costs are about 60 per cent. above those in comparable Continental ports for the liner container trade. A study undertaken by the Department of Transport in 1985 estimated that light dues, on average, accounted for only one seventh of the difference.
The hon. Member also referred to the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Defence still pays for its use of the Decca Navigator under an agreement with the Racal-Decca company. It has not been relieved of that responsibility under the new arrangements. The hon. Member also referred, understandably, to consultations with users. The Arthur Young study of the lighthouse service in 1985 recommended a new lights users committee, in addition to the current lights advisory committee that represents the shipowners and ports. One must guard against the proliferation of committees and the concept of separate payers' and users' committees seems of doubtful value. The general lighthouse authorities have regular and satisfactory consultations with users. The fishing industry has been invited to be represented on the Lights Advisory Committee with regard to any extension of light dues for some fishing vessels.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the matter of Irish lights. A financial agreement was reached in 1985 whereby the Irish Government now makes an annual contribution to the costs that are incurred in the Republic. After a transitional period, Irish sources of light dues and contributions will meet 50 per cent. of the costs in the Republic.
Enhanced redundancy terms for lighthouse keepers are initially a matter for the general lighthouse authorities in their capacity as employer, but approval from the Department would be required to sanction any increase in expenditure in redundancy compensation.
The keepers who are in the service of the Northern Lighthouse Board have sought improved terms to compensate for the loss of tied housing. The redundancy terms, which are based on those of the Civil Service, are already generous and for keepers they already take account of their tied housing. The Department had to reject an earlier proposal which would have added between £2 million and £4 million to the costs of the automation programme, but we are prepared to consider some more modest proposals if the NLB believes that there is a case for them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will find that helpful.
I hope that what I have said will reassure hon. Members that we are aware of the problems that face shipowners on the one hand and the authorities and their staff on the other. The Government's primary concern is to secure an efficient and cost-effective system of navigational aids that are appropriate to the needs of marine users.
It is not in dispute that a service to the mariner is required if safety at sea is to be maintained, but it is a service which is necessarily adapting to changing circumstances and technology. With the co-operation of the lighthouse authorities our objective is to continue the process of reducing the costs of the service and improving its management.
892 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that during the course of this short debate I have been able to cover most of the points that he raised and that he will take some reassurance from them.
§ Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for being absent at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, the provision of public transport in the capital city at 4 am is not what it should be and I have the dubious pleasure of having walked to the House from Lambeth.
I listened with interest to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that I heard. The hon. Gentleman spoke with knowledge of his constituency and with concern, which is shared by many of us, about the position that is currently enveloping the lighthouse service.
I think that the hon. Gentleman played some part in the debates on the reorganisation of the pilotage service. Many of us on the Opposition benches were concerned about the way that the Government were proposing to allow exemption certificates for masters and foreign masters who use British ports on a regular basis. They would be able to gain exemption certificates and they would not necessarily need a pilot. In my view, and that of the United Kingdom Pilots Association, that was a retrograde and detrimental step. The current thinking in the Department of Transport, whether on pilotage or lights, does not satisfy many of us in respect of the safety provisions that we all feel are necessary for British merchant shipping.
I readily accept that there is an argument that modern electronic navigational techniques make lights and buoys unnecessary. That may be so, but it assumes that a ship and those navigational aids are functioning properly. If there is any problem on board ship and the aids are not functioning properly, those involved have to resort to traditional navigation methods using lighthouses, buoys and the Decca navigational system. I contend that that system is essential. No matter what it costs, it needs to be maintained and available at all times as a fallback. I do not think that the House would readily agree to any reduction in the provision of safety around our coasts caused by the withdrawal of lighthouses, foghorns, buoys or any other type of navigational aid currently in place. I understand what the Minister says about the current review and his unwillingness to comment until its findings are made public. Perhaps we can debate that matter when those views are made public.
I am conscious of the time. I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is waiting for the next debate and that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is duly in his place at 5.20 am, so I should like to make a final point. It is a great pity that, because of the general election's intervention, we were denied the opportunity of an hour and a half's debate on the Opposition prayer on the increase in light dues. I have to say in honesty to the Minister that, even at this early hour of the morning, I found his defence of the increase in light dues utterly pathetic. The total cost of the provision of lights around the United Kingdom is about £40 million. In overall Exchequer terms, that is a drop in the bucket. It is insignificant. It could well be paid out of central Exchequer funds, as it is in almost every major maritime country, but instead the Government have done as all 893 Governments have done—my Government did it just as the Minister's Government are doing it now—and have imposed a levy on ship owners and port authorities. According to the Port Users Association, an increase of 14 per cent. in light dues means an increase of about £1 million for certain ship owners. That must be a massive disincentive for ships to come to the United Kingdom.
The Minister is as aware as I am of the demise of the British Merchant Navy and our port industry. The Government should have constructive policies and a proper strategy for shipping and ports, instead of putting a spanner in the works by increasing light dues. I reject the ethos behind the Minister's speech, which implies that it is not possible for the Treasury to take on board what is a minor cost to it but a major cost to the shipping industry. It is time that the Government sat down and thought about the damage that they are doing by simply hiking up the costs and charges imposed on an already overburdened shipping industry.
§ Mr. David MitchellWith permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) started with some rather snide remarks about the lack of transport services at 4.30 am in the capital city. If it were appropriate, I would have referred to the hon. Gentleman as the foolish virgin for not having made prior arrangements to ensure, as other hon. Members have, that he got to the House on time.
The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the traditional aids which he seeks to defend, almost brick by brick and stone by stone, as though no technological 894 advances were taking place. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on what he said, I am sure that he will feel that there is some inconsistency in his expressing a desire to retain all of the existing aids while technological advance means that there are other ways in which to secure safe navigation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a 14 per cent. increase in light dues and said that it is not justified. About half of that cost arises from the Decca Navigator being a cost now taken on by the general lighthouse fund which was not formerly carried by that fund, so we are talking about a 7 per cent. increase in costs. Moreover, it is not a 7 per cent. increase in one year. Lighthouse funds have drawn on reserves recently. It is not possible to draw on reserves for ever. The hon. Gentleman must demonstrate that the reserves are still larger than they need to be. He did not, and unless he can make out such a case, he cannot deploy an argument against a 7 per cent. increase.
The hon. Gentleman takes the view that the Exchequer should pay, although a previous Labour Government concluded that dues should continue to be paid on the traditional basis. He said that the cost is £40 million, but it is £63 million. He said that it is a burden on the United Kingdom shipping industry, but he fails to take account of the fact that 90 per cent. of light dues are paid by foreign shipping. He is suggesting that this sum should be paid by United Kingdom taxpayers. The logic behind that statement is not as impressive as I would expect from the hon. Gentleman. It is perhaps understandable that his logic is not as impeccable as normal at such an hour of the morning.
No doubt we shall return to these matters, when I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be thinking a little more clearly.