Pilotage Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 26 February 1987 vol 485 cc389-426

7.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 10 [Information and directions as to joint arrangements]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("or proposed").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 64. As drafted the Bill would not allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to seek information about pilotage arrangements from CHAs under Clause 10 until those arrangements had actually been made. I believe, and I hope that noble Lords will agree, that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to seek such information before arrangements are finalised. These amendments will enable him to do so. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 64:

Page 9, line 32, after ("made") insert ("or proposed").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Compulsory pilotage]:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 10. line 38, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding any bye-law,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 66 to 71 inclusive, and Amendment No. 76. What I have to say very much covers the ground of Amendments Nos. 72 and 104 but I gather that your Lordships would like them to be considered separately. However, I hope to cover quite neutrally the ground that lies behind them.

I say "quite neutrally" because the point arises out of a decision by an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House of which I was a member; in fact, a dissentient member. I raised the point with the noble Lord the Minister in Committee without tabling an amendment. I am very grateful to him that, with his usual industry, care and courtesy, he has dealt with it in Amendment No. 72 about which I shall not speak because it is controversial. The controversy necessarily involves the decision to which I was a party.

Perhaps I may describe quite shortly the position which arose. There is an ancient body in the Port of London called the London Guild of Watermen. It has the customary right—nothing written—to move ships and pilot ships within a dock or between moorings. That can be up to about two miles. In fact, in the test case to which I referred, it was a distance of three-quarters of a mile. There was no question but that the waterman who was navigating the ship in question was doing so lawfully.

Perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to look at Amendment No. 68. It relates to Clause 15(1) which is in virtually the same terms as the section we had to consider from the Pilotage Act 1913 and going back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. Your Lordships will see that it deals with the right of an authorised pilot, who previously would have been a licensed pilot, to supersede any pilot who is not authorised or is unlicensed. That was tested by a licensed pilot claiming the right to supersede the perfectly lawful and accepted navigation of the watermen.

The majority of your Lordships' appellate committee held that the terms of the predecessor of Clause 15(1) were subject to a by-law made by the London Pilotage Authority whereby the ship in question was not deemed to be navigating in the part of the London pilotage district which was in question. The result of that decision is that Clause 15(1) is in a misleading form and something must be done about it one way or another. Perhaps I may just say this. First, I have raised this in the form of "notwithstanding any by-law", which would have been in accordance with my dissenting judgment in the case in question. That is unsatisfactory because the by-law-making power must be in doubt after this Bill passes into law. I need not go into the technicalities of why I say that or why I do not think it is by any means a certain point.

Secondly, the decision in McMillanv. Crouchis not limited in its effect to the London Guild of Watermen. It would apply to any unlicensed pilot or to any unauthorised pilot in future.

Thirdly, there is obviously a conflict of interest between, say, the London watermen and the pilots but not limited to them. There are also the interests of the shipowners and the competent harbour authorities. Of course there are the financial interests of each of those persons in question.

Fourthly, the issue is not limited to London. I understand that there are bodies similar to the London Guild of Watermen in some other ports and although, as I have said, I do not want to enter into the merits of the matter, that is another ground where it seems to me that the amendment proposed by the Minister is superior to my solution.

May I just say a word as to the procedure? I do not propose myself to do more than move the first amendment formally and of course withdrawing it would be subject to your Lordships' consent. I would ordinarily then not propose to move the other amendments unless your Lordships indicate that you would like to have them moved in order to test opinion. In that case I shall move them formally. Otherwise I think it is more proper that I should leave the matter to the spokesmen for the various conflicting interests. My Lords, I beg to move.

8 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has explained the intention of these amendments is to remove any possibility that local by-laws will derogate from the operation of these clauses which concern these authorised pilots. However, I have to say that I believe that the references to by-laws are inappropriate since any by-laws made under the existing legislation—and I imagine that we are here talking about Section 38 of the Pilotage Act 1983—will lapse when the Bill comes into force and the Bill contains no equivalent by-law-making powers. The noble and learned Lord did refer to that and that certainly is our opinion on the matter.

As far as Clause 13 is concerned, the circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory for a ship will be specified in the pilotage direction and the provisions of that clause concerning the use of an authorised pilot, or a master holding a certificate, will apply straightforwardly to any ship navigating in those circumstances. Similarly, the provisions of Clause 18 will apply to any ship in such circumstances. I believe that amendments to these clauses are not necessary.

As far as Clause 15 is concerned, there is equally no question of by-law exemptions. But I have accepted that a CHA should have the power to direct that the provisions of this clause concerning supersession of an unauthorised person by an authorised one shall not apply in relation to ship movements within their harbour. This we shall come to in my Amendment No. 72. It will then be for the harbour authority to decide whether movements of ships between moorings and into and out of docks need be subject to compulsory pilotage and, whether the supersession provisions should apply. So I think the Bill does properly cover the work carried out by the Thames watermen in the Port of London. This provision may also be found to be of use in other ports where the movement of ships is, under existing arrangements, carried out by groups other than licensed pilots such as dock pilots.

I hope with that explanation—and obviously we are going to have a debate when we come to Amendment No. 72—that the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw these amendments.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, particularly as to why he has not sought to amend the clauses other than Clause 15. I was going to ask him about that on Amendment No. 72.

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 65 and I take it from your Lordships' silence that you are content that I should not move the subsequent amendments which have been grouped with it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 66 to 71 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 11, line 43, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) Subsections (1) to (4) above do not apply—

1. (a) to a ship which a person is piloting or ordered to pilot in a dockyard port (within the meaning of the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1965) in the course of his duties as a servant of the Crown; or
2. (b) if the competent harbour authority has directed that those subsections shall not apply to movements in its harbour or a specified part of its harbour for the purpose of changing a ship f1rom one mooring to another or of taking it into or out of any dock, to a ship being moved in that harbour or that part for that purpose;

but nothing in paragraph (a)above shall be construed as derogating from any immunity which affects such a ship as there mentioned apart from that paragraph.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 104.

The new sub-paragraph (b)in this Amendment No. 72 is intended to deal with the position of the London Guild of Watermen, a matter which has just been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and which was also raised at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.

As was mentioned in Committee, the Thames watermen carry out certain movements of ships from mooring to mooring, and in and out of docks. Their position is recognised by by-laws made under Section 38 of the Pilotage Act 1983. As the noble Lord, Lord Simon, explained, it was established in the case of McMillanv. Crouchthat pilots were not entitled to supersede them when they were carrying out work covered by the by-law.

I take the view that it would be in line with the philosophy of the Bill for decisions on how far ship movements of the sort carried out by the watermen should be brought within the pilotage regime to be a matter for the CHA to consider in the light of local circumstances. It will be open to the CHA to impose compulsory pilotage on vessels moving within the port, or to exempt them, as is the case on the Thames at present. This amendment will allow a CHA to direct that the provision that normally allows an authorised pilot to supersede an unauthorised person shall not apply to work of this nature. It will therefore be possible, if the PLA consider it the best arrangement in local circumstances, for watermen to continue to operate as they do at present. I understand that there have already been discussions between the PLA and the Company of Watermen, and I welcome that.

Turning briefly to Amendment No. 104, this clarifies a point which is ambiguous under existing legislation. It makes clear that a ship being moved within a harbour is navigating and can therefore be brought within compulsory pilotage should the CHA decide that it is necessary. Where that is not thought necessary and such work is carried out by groups other than licensed or authorised pilots the CHA may of course protect its position by suspending the normal arrangements for supersession by pilots under the new paragraph in Amendment No. 72. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to make these amendments. Amendment No. 72 is designed to accommodate the wishes of the Port of London that watermen who may or may not be sufficiently qualified to serve as authorised pilots will be able to navigate vessels.

If my view of the amendment is right, that is most remarkable because the White Paper explaining the Bill states in paragraph 1 of the introduction: in recent years there has been a growing concern about the costs of using British ports, in particular compared with those on the continent, and the Government is anxious to seek ways of helping to reduce these costs. One element in a port's costs is the cost of the pilotage service. the paragraph ends: the cost of pilotage is often greater than it need be. The provisions in the amendment will certainly not help to reduce costs. Neither will the amendment assist in operational efficiency. It is in complete conflict with the need to keep pilot numbers in line with real needs. It will defeat the concept of one pilot serving a ship from sea to berth, or vice versa. It will allow the imposition of an unnecessary or additional second pilot who will have to be paid for. It will legalise the preservation of out-of-date practices—something which the Bill supposedly is designed to stop.

In the broader sense, the amendment in some ways makes a mockery of the remainder of the Bill. Why legislate rights for authorised pilots and then make a provision allowing a CHA to circumvent those rights? How will a CHA be able to have regard to the amendment to Clause 2, approved only two weeks ago? That amendment allows a CHA to have special regard to the hazards involved in the carriage of dangerous goods or harmful substances by ship.

Do the Government realise that the effect of the amendment now proposed will be to enable oil tankers, gas tankers, vessels carrying nuclear waste—in short, vessels with great potential to damage the environment and destroy life—to circumvent the provisions that the Government believe are essential? Moreover, the amendment will allow such ships to be in the charge of unauthorised people who may well be incompetent and unqualified. I should point out that a 38-tonne tanker lorry driver must have a licence, yet a ship carrying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of oil, gas or atomic waste, a ship that is difficult to control and subject to the elements with a potential to devastate urban areas, will be allowed to navigate and manoeuvre without necessarily having a pilot.

Indeed, the way that the amendment is drafted, should a CHA exercise its option—and obviously it is the intention that they can do so; otherwise the amendment would not be included in the Bill—then any vessel could exercise the right to navigate in a compulsory pilotage area regardless of any pilotage direction requiring such a vessel to be in the charge of a pilot or a certificate exemption holder without being in the charge of either.

However, in debating Amendment No. 47 on the first day of the Report stage, on 12th February, the Minister said at col. 838 of Hansard: Having decided which vessels are to be subject to compulsory pilotage, the next step required under Clause 13 is that such ships shall be under the pilotage of an authorised pilot or under the pilotage of a master or first mate possessing a pilotage exemption certificate. The master of a vessel wishing to navigate within the defined terms of this amendment could do so himself regardless of whether he was aware of local by-laws regulating and controlling safety and navigation, regardless of the quality of his qualifications, regardless of his local knowledge or lack of it, and regardless of his competence. Is that really what the Government wish to have?

On the same date, reported at col. 754, the Minister said: The noble and learned Lord. Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in speaking to his Amendment No. 16, recognised that there were certain disadvantages to it. I am bound to say that we feel the same thing. My first worry concerns the practical implications of what is proposed. It seems to me that a CHA could find itself employing half of its pilots and entering into contracts of self-employment with the other half … It might be possible to make such an arrangement work, but I find it difficult to envisage. It is not a very economical or practical way of organising a pilotage system. In my view, what the Government now suggest in the amendment would allow that situation to develop, specifically in London and possibly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested, in Bristol and one or two South Wales ports. If that is so, clearly the Minister will be well advised not to proceed with the amendment.

Leaving that aside, the effect could well be disastrous to the safety of navigation in any of the ports of this country. We believe that the amendment is ill-conceived and is in conflict with the principles underlying the general nature of the Bill. Therefore we oppose the amendment and hope that the Government will consider withdrawing it.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, when I first saw this amendment I was extremely surprised. Although the first part under paragraph (a) is perfectly normal and acceptable, if paragraph (b) had formed part of an amendment put forward by the Opposition I have a feeling that my noble friend would have been on his feet declaring that this was a wrecking amendment. It strikes me as most odd that the Government should put forward what one of their own supporters would consider to be a wrecking amendment.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I feel that my noble friend should give this matter further consideration. It would be wise of him if he wishes to push this through at this stage—it is late in the evening and I honestly do not think that a Division would be helpful to anyone—to bring forward amendments at Third Reading next week to ameliorate the situation.

It is remarkable that a Bill that dramatically reduces the rights of licensed pilots should concern itself with protecting the supposed rights of unlicensed persons. I understand that there are only some 20 to 25 watermen on the river of London doing any form of pilotage work. I am sure that the pilots themselves would be the last people to want them put out of a job. However, I am sure that some formula can be produced that will allow them to work to their normal retirement age but not to be replaced at any time by anyone else; thereby allowing the work to be done by properly trained pilots who are accustomed to the increasing complexity of modern navigational equipment and the increasing complexity and size of various ships.

The declared aims of this legislation are to reduce the amount of pilotage, to reduce costs and to introduce berth to sea pilotage and sea to berth pilotage; and to sweep away archaic practices. So far as I can see this amendment seems totally counterproductive. The wiser approach might be that since an unlicensed pilot commits no offence until a licensed pilot has offered his services and been refused, when a competent harbour authority authorises pilots it should be a matter of agreement that authorised pilots will not challenge certain areas of unlicensed activity.

It is getting late and although I could go on talking for a long time there are other amendments to be dealt with so I shall not continue. However, I beg my noble friend to give this matter serious consideration, even if he will not withdraw his own amendment, in order to ameliorate the situation before we come to Third Reading.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is right in what he suggests will be the effect of this amendment—and certainly he makes sense to me—it seems to negate a great deal of the underlying purpose of the Bill. It appears to put the competent harbour authority in a position in which any ship being moved from any buoy—the expression that is used in the Bill is "from one mooring to another"—will entail, in the case of ports up rivers, the major part of a movement which requires the skilled services of pilots. I think that all of us can understand the noble Lord's wish to protect the historic position of people such as watermen. As a member of the Fishmongers' Company I can say that we actively support the watermen and their watermanship by promoting an annual race. As a matter of fact, half of them usually sink, but we have a very soft spot for these people.

I think we are in a very dangerous area. There are many legal eagles here and the saying is that hard cases make bad law. I think that this is a classic example of what happens when one tries to deal with one rather limited problem and in doing so opens the floodgates to a whole series of unthinkable situations around the country.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, perhaps I may throw a small crumb of comfort to the Minister. I think the noble Lord is making a mountain out of a molehill in many ways. It is nonsense to suggest that the watermen who have been doing this job for many years are in some way incompetent and not capable of performing this work. They have been doing it for very many years. Watermen undergo an apprenticeship and learn their craft over a number of years. To state that the practice might be unsafe is not absolutely correct.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned potentially dangerous ships such as gas tankers. In my experience in London these ships tend to operate in the lower reaches of the river, where there is far less likelihood of one of the watermen operating and having to move a ship. It refers to the old enclosed dock system, and only Tilbury is still operating in that way in any sense. I think that perhaps the case is being slightly overstated.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I agree that the case is being slightly overstated. After all, the amendment only refers to: changing a ship from one mooring to another or of taking it into or out of any dock". The intention of the amendment is only to provide a means by which certain groups of people other than licensed pilots can continue to carry out the work that they have traditionally done provided that the CHA judges that it is not necessary to bring such work within the formal pilotage regime. Of course the principal group of people about whom we are talking and who are involved in this matter are the London watermen.

My noble friend Lord Strathcona said that perhaps we had a soft spot for watermen. However, other groups of people such as dock pilots in certain other ports could be involved in a similar way. I have no reason to believe that the CHA will wish to apply subsection (7)(b) more widely than is necessary for this purpose. The subsection allows it to restrict its operation to part of the harbour. Nor can we see that any CHA can see advantage in applying subsection (7)(b) in a port where those other groups are not already working on ship movements.

I think it is worth pointing out that it is possible under existing legislation for any authority to make by-laws having a similar effect in other ports, but none has chosen to do so. I believe that it is right for the CHA to determine this matter as it thinks best in the light of local circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, particularly mentioned hazardous cargoes. At present the by-laws in the London pilotage district which provide for the work carried out by the watermen effectively preclude the imposition of compulsory pilotage on vessels moving between moorings or in and out of docks. It may be that the PLA will decide such movements should remain outside the scope of compulsory pilotage. If it does decide that such movements, at least in respect of certain ships, which might include those carrying dangerous cargoes, should be subject to compulsory pilotage, I accept that if subsection (7)(b) has been involved it may not be able to ensure that vessels moving in these circumstances actually take a pilot.

There may be a case for allowing the CHA to apply subsection (7)(b) more selectively so that as well as applying in only certain parts of the harbour it applies only in relation to such types of ships as it specifies. I should like to take that point away for further consideration.

In view of the hostility to this amendment, which as I say was merely trying to cater for a small group of people to continue to do the work that they have done for many years, I should perhaps like also to consider the possibility of whether the amendment might not be tightened up to apply only to areas where arrangements such as these presently exist. That was a fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he suggested that the provision might be widened to extend to other parts of the country.

I hope that noble Lords will allow this amendment to pass this evening with the undertaking that I have given to consider those particular points.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi)

Is the Minister moving Amendment No. 72 or is he withdrawing it? I am not clear.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I think that I moved the amendment a long time ago and we have had a debate on it. However, if that is not the case I shall move it again.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Declaration as to draught etc. of ship]:

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 73:

Page 12, line 3, leave out ("An authorised") and insert ("A").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 73 is conveniently taken with Amendment No. 74. They are purely drafting amendments. The result of accepting Amendment No. 72 will be that there will be people navigating ships as pilots who are not authorised pilots. Therefore Amendment No. 73 substitutes the word "A" for "An authorised", so that Clause 16(1) reads: A pilot may require". The second amendment, No. 74, has a similar effect. Instead of referring to, "Each authorised pilot" it will read "any person". I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord's amendments to Clause 16. There is certainly a case for extending the provisions of this clause so as to cover anybody who is piloting, whether or not he is an authorised pilot. Such people would include deep sea pilots and, as my Amendment No. 104 makes clear, groups such as dock pilots and watermen. It is hard to argue that such people should not be given information about the ship they are serving. Certainly I am prepared to accept the amendments.

I agree that similarly there is no good reason why the provisions of Clause 19 about misconduct should not also apply to such pilots as widely defined. However, I am advised that the Bill already has this effect since the term "pilot" for the purposes of the Bill is defined as: any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof—. Amendment No. 78 is therefore unnecessary.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I had not spoken to Amendment No. 78. I agree that it is not strictly necessary. The draftsman has carefully and advisedly altered his language from "an authorised pilot" to "the pilot". I would have no doubt in construing that to apply to any pilot whether authorised or not. The words that I propose to insert through Amendment No. 78 would make the matter clear. On the other hand, I do not like adding unnecessary words to any statute. If the Minister advises your Lordships that it is unnecessary, and I tend to agree with that, I shall in due course not move that amendment. In the meantime, I must thank the Minister for accepting Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 12, line 8, leave out ("each authorised pilot") and insert ("an) person")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Authorisedpilot not to be taken out of his area]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 12, line 29, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 30.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted is here based on Section 41 of the Pilotage Act 1983. However, since the provision makes it an offence to take a pilot without reasonable excuse beyond the point to which he has been engaged to pilot the ship, it seems unnecessary to provide also that it should be an offence to take him outside the area for which he is authorised. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am sorry to be disagreeable and again raise a question on the government amendment but, after all, the purpose of our debates is to find out why the Government are doing certain things and to criticise them. On the face of it, it would appear that the Government are removing a provision that is important in the context of ensuring efficient and cost-effective pilotage services. The removal of this subsection could result, for example, in a master, when on a deadline to make the time at the next port, preventing the pilot from slowing down the vessel sufficiently for him to disembark or over-carrying the pilot for whatever reason, thus losing for that period of time his services to the port for which he is authorised.

That removal of a similar provision in existing legislation will impair rather than enhance efficiency. Should the clause be amended as proposed, it could be taken literally by a master and allow him to believe that, provided he tells a pilot on boarding or afterwards that he is engaging him not only to pilot the vessel out of the port for which the pilot is authorised but also to the next port—that could be Rotterdam for a London pilot—it would appear that the master would not be committing an offence. The pilot, short of driving the ship ashore, which is an offence under Clause 19, would have little choice but to comply. Apart from possible vast personal inconvenience, that would again not enhance efficiency. Perhaps the Minister will say that the points I have made are relevant to that. If so, the Government should reconsider the amendment.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I cannot see what the noble Lord is objecting to in this amendment. The clause, as redrafted, will say that the provision applies up to the point to which the pilot has been engaged to pilot the ship. If the pilot has been engaged to pilot the ship slightly beyond the area, that will be an arrangement which is made beforehand. It is reasonable to suppose that the ship will stop and let the pilot off at the point to which the pilot is engaged. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with the amendment, but I will have another look at it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 18 [Facilities to be given for pilot boarding and leaving ship]:

[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 77:

Page 12. line 44, leave out ("fails without reasonable excuse to comply with") and insert ("without reasonable excuse contravenes").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 [Misconduct by pilot endangering ship or persons on board ship]:

[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]

Clause 20 [Limitation of liability in respect of pilots]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 79:

Page 13, line 41, at end insert ("at the date when the loss or damage occurs").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 80. These are minor amendments to clarify a point which would otherwise be doubtful. The liability of CHAs and agents will in a particular case depend in part on the number of authorised pilots that they employ. These amendments specify that the number will be the number at the time of the incident. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 80:

Page 13, line 48. at end insert ("at the date when the loss or damage occurs").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 81:

Page 14. line 24, leave out ("default") and insert ("omission").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Abolition of pilotage authorities]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 82:

Page 15, line 1, leave out ("three months") and insert ("such date as the Secretary of State may direct").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 86, 105 and 107. In Committee, I agreed to look again at the provisions concerning the timetable that will apply to the process of winding-up the existing pilotage authorities, particularly taking account of the concern expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, that sufficient time should be available to Trinity House, once the position on assets and liabilities is clear, for it to put firm proposals to the CHAs for the use of its services as an agency. It was also pointed out that it is equally necessary to allow the Pilotage Commission sufficient time to draw up the proposed schemes.

These amendments attempt to deal with these points. First, the requirement on the commission to submit schemes not later than three months before the appointed day is replaced by a power for the Secretary of State to set a date for submission. In setting such a date he will naturally wish to set as early a day as seems possible after consulting the commission.

The second amendment to Clause 22 provides that the period between the Secretary of State making a scheme and the appointed day shall not be less than three months, so meeting Trinity House's main point of concern.

The amendments to Clause 31 provide some reassurance to the parties concerned, particularly to the Pilotage Commission, that the overall timetable is not going to be so rushed that a proper job cannot be done. They set a minimum period of nine months from Royal Assent to appointed day, which is the shortest period during which we believe the necessary work can reasonably be carried out. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, the Minister said that these amendments have been brought forward in reply to similar amendments that I moved in Committee. Certainly, as I said, they place a much clearer definition on the timescale which in certain instances was much too tight for the proper formation of an agency such as the one proposed by Trinity House. I am indeed grateful to the Minister for this. In relation to Amendment No. 107 where the timescale is increased to not less than nine months after this Bill is passed, I take it that the Minister is also at the same time in a way saying not more than nine months. In other words, it is not going on for ever, because certainly we want to have some date to work to. Would the Minister confirm that point? If so, I am very happy that he has brought forward these amendments, and I thank him.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House, obviously I cannot say "not more than nine months" but I hope it will be not much more than nine months.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. It is extremely difficult to get it right at this stage and I think the point the noble Lord has just made is one to which the Minister might give a little further thought to see whether there is a difficulty here. But otherwise I think we are grateful for what he has done.

Viscount Simon

My Lords, looking again at the wording, the amendment seems to me to leave a rather ungrammatical sentence. It leaves out "three months" and says, not later than such date as the Secretary of State may direct". Then it will go on, "before the appointed day". Is that what it means?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, by leave, I have read this through and it did not look too bad to me. On the point about its not being grammatical, I cannot see much wrong with it myself.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83:

Page 15, line 4, leave out from ("(including") to end of line 6 and insert ("in particular, liabilities in respect of pensions payable in respect of staff or former stall) and the arrangements to be made in accordance with section 23 below as respects their staff and any staff employed by persons licensed as pilots under section 12 of the Pilotage Act 1983 to whom the Commission considers the arrangements should also apply").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 83, and at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 83A, 84, 84A, 85, 90 to 93, and 94A, some of which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. These amendments again are intended to cover various Trinity House points which came up in Committee. Amendment No. 92 is a drafting amendment to make clear certain of the clause's provisions. We intend that the staff of the existing pilotage authorities who are to be transferred under the terms of the wind-up schemes should be transferred to the successor competent harbour authorities, while recognising in some cases that it might be more sensible to transfer them to the Pilotage Commission. But the Bill as drafted at present does not expressly say so.

We also intend that the wind-up schemes may set out the compensation terms for any staff who are to be made redundant. Such staff will of course have a statutory entitlement under the employment protection legislation, but that entitlement is less than most employers offer to their redundant employees and it is only fair that the pilotage authority employees have the opportunity of being treated similarly. This amendment allows the wind-up schemes to set out such terms.

Amendment No. 83 is in part consequential on Amendment No. 92. It also allows persons employed by licensed pilots to be treated as employees of pilotage authorities where the Pilotage Commission considers that should be so. This is in fulfilment of the undertaking I gave in Committee on the debate on amendments put down by the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, and my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Strathcona. The main provision on this is Amendment No. 94, which we come to later. In addition, the wording "pensions in respect of staff or former staff" ensures that the entitlements of dependants will be secured, which was a point raised by an amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, in Committee.

Turning to the new amendments Nos. 83A, 84A and 94A which I have put down, the first of these is a minor change to make it clear that the pilotage property, rights and liabilities of an authority falling within Clause 22(4), such as Trinity House, are to be transferred to the appropriate competent harbour authorities or to the Pilotage Commission. We envisage that the schemes will normally provide a transfer to the authorities, with transfer to the commission being a possibility held in reserve in case there are practical difficulties in immediate transfer to the authorities.

It had been suggested that as drafted the Bill left open the possibility of transfer to bodies other than the CHAs or the commission. This was not our intention and the amendment puts the position beyond doubt and in doing so meets what I think is the intention of Amendment No. 84, by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.

The second and third of these amendments clarify our intentions concerning the pension liabilities of pilotage authorities, particularly those of Trinity House. Some of these liabilities, including those relating to the staff of the Trinity House pilotage service, are not fully funded at present. Under these amendments, a scheme made under Clause 22 may include provision for such unfunded liabilities as exist at the appointed day to be placed upon a properly funded basis.

The cost of this will be one of the liabilities to be passed to the CHAs under the scheme. Such an arrangement would cover the proper funding of existing pension liabilities, not only relating to the staff actually transferred to the CHAs under the scheme but also relating to pensioners and other former employees and to pilotage staff whom under Clause 23(1)(a) Trinity House decides to retain. Staff who are retained for Trinity House's new agency company, Trinity House Agency Services or THAS, would fall outside the transfer scheme and THAS would be responsible for meeting their pension and other employment-related liabilities. But these arrangements would provide for THAS to be relieved of by far the most onerous of these liabilities, that relating to unfunded pension entitlements for past service. I hope noble Lords will agree that this will provide THAS with a fair start in life, as is our intention. I hope I have explained the amendments sufficiently. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having described these amendments and for meeting virtually all the points that I brought up in Committee and also the points which I intended to bring up in my Amendments Nos. 84, 85, 90, 91 and 93. I shall certainly not be moving those amendments in the light of the amendments which the Government have brought forward.

This was originally an extremely convoluted part of the Bill dealing with the transfer of assets and liabilities of the existing pilotage authorities. There were a number of points which were open to doubt, as the Minister has explained, and I can only say that I am extremely grateful to him for having met those points which were of great concern to Trinity House. They should now be in a much better position to get on with forming their agency. I am glad that the noble Lord the Minister has wished it a fair wind. I certainly do the same and I thank him once again.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I should like to echo what my noble friend has just said. This is a very complicated business and I must admit I am still a little obscure in my understanding as to how you convert an unfunded pension into a fully funded one. I am not clear where the liability is going to rest or what the cost will be.

Since I am now trespassing into dangerous areas of which at certain moments I think I have a comprehensive uderstanding though a minute or two later I realize I have not, I shall not pursue this matter further beyond echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has said. We are very grateful to the Minister and also for the efforts the department has made to relieve very real anxieties. I think it is excellent that this should happen. It is excellent that there should be a restora-tion of good relations between Trinity House and his department, and we are very grateful for his own part in this matter.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, for those remarks. I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, paid tribute to the work done by my department and, I would add, to the work done by Trinity House, together with the department, in finding these solutions to the problems.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may also express appreciation for the arrangements being made with regard to Trinity House. I ought to say that as a result of the words at the end of Amendment No. 84A I shall be looking very carefully at what was said on a previous occasion when we pressed for proper funding of the pilots' national pension fund, which we want to ensure is properly funded.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83A:

Page 15, line 15, leave out from ("schemes") to ("and") in line 17 and insert shall provide for the vesting of any relevant property, rights or liabilities of that authority in any competent harbour authority the Pilotage Commission considers appropriate or in the Commission itself").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 84A:

Page 15, line 19, at end insert may require any competent harbour authority the Commission considers appropriate to make provision to secure that the future payment of any pension which is payable in respect of staff or former staff of the pilotage authority and relates to service before the appointed day is properly funded.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 86:

Page 15, line 20, at beginning insert ("Not later than three months before the appointed day").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 15, line 24, at end insert ("(5A) The modifications which may be made under subsection (5) above include the substitution for a provision for property of a person who is a pilotage authority to vest in a competent harbour authority or the Pilotage Commission of a provision for that person to retain that property and pay to the competent harbour or, as the case may be. the Commission such sum as may be agreed between them to be the value of the property at the appointed day.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No 87. This amendment meets the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in Committee. He asked that it should be made possible for Trinity House to retain certain of its pilotage services' physical aspects where that could be agreed with the CHA. Instead, Trinity House would make a financial settlement with the CHA based on an agreed valuation of the assets concerned. Such an arrangement would facilitate the establishment of the agency service and might well be more convenient for all concerned.

Such an arrangement could obviously finally be agreed only once the overall disposition of assets and liabilities in a former Trinity district had been settled by the Secretary of State among the various CHAs involved. This amendment will allow what for convenience we may call the "cash alternative" arrangement to be included in the Secretary of State's scheme, and I hope will meet the point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House at this late stage, apart from saying once again how grateful I am to the Minister.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I should like the Minister to clarify a view which I hold, and which the pilots' organisation seems also to hold. It appears that there is a very strange suggestion here. Is the amendment proposing that a pilotage authority, instead of vesting its property in a CHA or the Pilotage Commission, may retain its own property but pay compensation to the relevant CHA or to the commission? If that is the position, then surely that is like paying for someone not confiscating one's property.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would not put it exactly in that way. As the noble Lord will he aware, the property—such as the boats which we are talking about—would in ordinary circumstances pass to the successor authorities which are the CHAs. In this amendment we are allowing them to make a settlement for cash instead if the present pilotage authority—Trinity House, for instance—wishes to hang on to them.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I must admit that I find a certain Alice-in-Wonderland character in this amendment. However, I am sure that it is all right. I am very grateful for what the Minister has done.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there will be any capital gains tax liability on a sale of this kind? It is rather an unfair question to throw at him. However, it occurs to me that such a sale might be liable.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, not without notice! It is more likely to be a capital loss, I should have thought.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 88:

Page 15, line 35, leave out from ("consult") to end of line 37 and insert ("the competent harbour authorities and pilotage authorities likely to be affected by the proposals and such persons or organisations as appear to it to be representative of the staff or former staff likely to be affected by them; and before making a scheme giving effect to those proposals the Secretary of State shall consider any representations concerning those proposals made to him by any such authority or by any person or organisation which appears to him to be so representative.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 88. The principal purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consider any representations made to him before he makes a scheme under Clause 22 which will effect the transfer of assets and liabilities of existing pilotage authorities to the CHAs. During Committee, both the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Shackleton, argued that there should be an opportunity for authorities to object to what was being proposed by the Pilotage Commission. I think that there was general agreement that to include provision for a public inquiry would be to go too far and to put at risk the early implementation of the Bill. However, I have considered carefully what was said during our discussion and I believe it would be unsatisfactory for those whom the Pilotage Commission has consulted during the preparation of the schemes to have no opportunity of making known their views about the proposals which are put forward. This amendment therefore requires the Secretary of State to consider representations which are made by the interested parties.

The amendment also picks up two further points which have been put to us. In Committee, I accepted in principle an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, which would require the Pilotage Commission to consult not just the representatives of the pilotage authorities and harbour authorities concerned but the authorities themselves, and, following approaches from some of the Trinity House pilotage service pensioners, I have agreed that the commission should consult not only representatives of present pilotage authority staff but also representatives of their former staff. I beg to move.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, what the Minister has said seems to be satisfactory up to a point. However, under subsection (2) the Pilotage Commission is given responsibility for submitting to the Secretary of State proposals for schemes for the transfer of property rights and liabilities of pilotage authorities and arrangements also for the transfer of their staff.

Subsection (8), with which this amendment is concerned, provides that before submitting proposals for such a scheme the Pilotage Commission shall consult, such persons or organisations as it considers are representative of the competent harbour authorities, pilotage authorities and staff likely to be affected by the proposals. The Government are making a very important change. The nature of the consultation which the Pilotage Commission must carry out is unchanged. However, the Government add that, before making a scheme giving effect to the commission's proposals, the Secretary of State shall consider representations made to him by a harbour or pilotage authority, or by any other person or organisation which appears to him to be so representative; that is, of the harbour or pilotage authority.

However, there is one omission. Why must the Pilotage Commission have obligations to consult representatives of the staff affected, but the Secretary of State is not empowered to consider representations by the staff on proposals made by the Pilotage Commission whereas the other authorities are given that opportunity? Whereas the staff have such power in connection with the commission's proposals they are not given the opportunity to consider the matter before the Secretary of State submits his scheme? Can the Minister please look at that?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I shall have to look at the point which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has raised and write to him on the subject. I shall certainly want to read what he said before I make any remarks.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I take it that if I am right we shall have an amendment at Third Reading.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, subject to the outcome of what has just transpired I should like to thank the Minister once again for meeting some of the points I raised at an earlier stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 89:

Page 15, line 32, at end insert— ("( ) References in this section and in section 23 below to a pilotage authority include references to any committee appointed by the authority under section 9(1)(e) of the Pilotage Act 1983.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. Amendment No. 89 meets a suggestion put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in Committee that the Bill, as drafted, would not cover the position of certain employees who, it appears, are employed not directly by Trinity House but by the local sub-commissioners of pilotage.

I accept that these people should be included in the winding-up arrangements. The amendment provides for that.

On Amendment No. 94, I undertook in Committee, when several of your Lordships referred to the position of pilot-paid crews or those employed by pilots rather than by pilotage authorities, to consider bringing forward an amendment to the Bill to cover their case. I accept that where persons working as part of the pilotage service are employed by the local pilots rather than the pilotage authorities, they should be provided for in the schemes for the winding-up of pilotage authorities in just the same way as if they had been directly employed by the pilotage authorities. I do not believe, however, that this will necessarily apply to all cases of employees of pilots. That is why the proposed amendments give the Pilotage Commission some discretion to decide in each case whether employees of pilots should be provided for within the proposals for schemes for the winding-up of pilotage authorities that the commission will put forward to the Secretary of State.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment should be made. I beg to move.

Lord Greenway

I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for Amendment No. 89, which meets the point that I raised in Committee.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward Amendment No. 94. If that is accepted, I shall not move Amendment No. 95. It is interesting to note that Amendment No. 94 states at paragraph (b): the contract of employment between the employee and the licensed pilot shall have effect from the appointed day as if originally made between the employee and the person by whom the scheme provides that he shall be employed". It is interesting because the House turned down my Amendment No. 26, which made similar suggestions with regard to redundancy on the point of pilots' salaries. I do not propose to press the matter under Amendment No. 95A. I hope that further consideration may be given to it between now and Third Reading. I do not wish to press my noble friend, particularly as I am happy with Amendment No. 94. It is strange, however, that the goslings are being looked after in one way but the geese are not allowed to be treated in the same way.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 23 [Transfer of pilotage authorities' staff]:

[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 92:

Page 16, line 4, at end insert— ("(IA) Such a scheme shall provide

1. (a) in the case mentioned in subsection (3) of section 22 above, that the staff to whom the scheme applies shall be employed on and after the appointed day by the competent harbour authority there mentioned; and
2. (b) in the case mentioned in subsection (4) of that section, that the staff to whom it applies shall be employed on and after that day by such competent harbour authority as the Pilotage Commission thinks fit or by the Commission.

(1 B) Such a scheme may make provision for the payment of compensation to staff of pilotage authorities for any loss of employment which is attributable to any provision made by or under this Act but no such scheme shall affect any person's right to compensation otherwise than under the scheme")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 93 not move.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 94:

Page 16, line 41, at end insert— ("( ) Where the Pilotage Commission considers that arrangements under a scheme under section 22 above should also apply to any employee of a person licensed as a pilot under section 12 of the Pilotage Act 1983—

1. (a)subsections (IA) and (1 B) above shall apply as if the employee were employed by the pilotage authority for the district for which his employer is licensed;
2. (b)the contract of employment between the employee and the licensed pilot shall have effect from the appointed day as if originally made between the employee and the person by whom the scheme provides that he shall he employed on and after that day; and
3. (c)without prejudice to paragraph (b) above, subsections (3), (4) and (5) above shall apply as they apply to the transfer of an employee of a pilotage authority but with the substitution for the references in subsections (3) and (5) to the pilotage authority of references to the licensed pilot")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 94A:

Page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (6)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 95 and 95A not moved.]

Clause 24 [Abolition of Pilotage Commission]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 96.:

Page 17, line 7, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 10 and insert ("and the arrangements to be made as respects its stall including in particular proposals concerning the payment of pensions in respect of staff or former staff and any compensation to he paid to staff for loss of employment; but the scheme shall not affect any person's right to compensation otherwise than under the scheme")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to make explicit that the wind-up scheme for the Pilotage Commission should include provision for the payment of compensation to its current staff for early termination of their contracts. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [Functions and constitution of Pilotage Commission pending abolition]:

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 17, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— ("( ) the Commission shall give consideration to all proposals submitted by competent harbour authorities for the reorganisation of pilotage services under this Act and advise the Secretary of State as to their suitability to ensure safety of navigation in the ports and waters adjacent thereto: ( ) It shall be the duty of the Commission in fulfilling the function conferred on it by virtue of paragraph (a) above to consult such persons in the United Kingdom as the Commission considers likely to be affected by such proposals;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for again tabling the amendment that we discussed in Committee. I was hoping that the noble Lord the Minister, in the light of the way in which he has been reflecting on and. providing us with amendments for arbitration, consultation and appeals, might reconsider his attitude to the amendment.

To recap briefly, everybody agrees that the Bill will bring massive changes in the pilotage scene. John Moore, the Minister, when speaking to the pilots, said that the transition will be a difficult one. We are here handing over the whole setting-up of the regimes to completely new and unfamiliar bodies; in some cases, bodies with not much experience in matters concerning public safety and possible damage to the environment. It seems strange that no formal obligation is placed upon the CHAs to consider anyone at all—fishing interests, amenity bodies, other commercial interests, naturalists and environmentalists—before announcing their new regimes. That seems very strange in a period of massive change. The Pilotage Commission exists. It will not last for ever, therefore we are not saddling ourselves with a system which will hold up the parade once everything has settled down into its new form. We are charging the Pilotage Commission with the duties of sorting out schemes under Clauses 22 and 27, and giving advice under Clause 25(1)(a). We have also charged them with another consultative task under the amendment with which we were dealing a moment ago.

Therefore, it seems to me logical to use the Pilotage Commission as a sounding board to which all other interested parties concerned with the safety of navigation in the approaches to harbours will have an opportunity of turning and making their voices heard before there are massive changes which are not always fully understood by those making them. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, this is familiar ground. When my noble friend moved an amendment in the same terms in Committee, he explained that he thought there should in effect be some sort of appeal procedure where a CHA was proposing to make major changes in local pilotage arrangements. It was suggested that there should be an opportunity for other voices to be heard. If I may say so, I think that may noble friend rather overstates the case: I am sure that any CHA will be made well aware of the views of local interested parties, and indeed any sensible authority will wish to make sure that that is the case. As far as the most important consideration for port users is concerned, that is the extent to which pilotage is to be compulsory, there is a statutory obligation in Clause 5 to carry out consultations with users.

There seem to me to be two particular objections to the amendment. First, it appears to require all CHAs to submit proposals to the Commission, and as I said in Committee this is a degree of bureaucracy which I believe is quite unnecessary and which could lead to delay in bringing in the new regime. Secondly, it would remove the power of the Secretary of State to seek the Pilotage Commission's advice in matters where this might be valuable but which would not be covered by the wording in the amendment: this would therefore limit the extent to which the Commission could contribute during this transitional period.

However, the underlying objection to the amendment is that it would involve the Pilotage Commission in second-guessing the judgments which the CHAs have reached concerning pilotage needs in their ports. Giving such a role to an outside body which, however well it does its work, has no local experience, will inevitably undermine that responsibility, and I submit worse than that, will take us back towards the present unsatisfactory arrangements. I think that many people involved in this matter agree that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot be any more sympathetic to the amendment than I was at the last stage.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this matter because I am rather disappointed that the Minister has repeated a statement he made at Committee stage. The Commission is given certain responsibilities: it is given responsibility under the Clause 25(1)(a) to give the Secretary of State such advice as he may request, and it is given responsibility under Clause 24(2) regarding the disposal of property, rights and liability, etc. Therefore, we are not treating the Pilotage Commission as being an unimportant body. We are to abolish it but it has been given certain distinct powers until it is abolished. I recall that when a similar amendment was discussed at Committee stage, I suggested an amendment which provided that the Commission should give consideration to proposals submitted by the competent authorities but also included the power of the Secretary of State to request the Commission to give any advice that he may seek. It seems to me to be common sense to do both things. However, as the Commission has certain duties—it has to give a view on schemes—it seems to be common sense that something along the lines of the amendment should be considered by the Minister.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am afraid that I have little to add to what I have said tonight and on a previous occasion. I agree with the noble Lord that the Commission is not an unimportant body. It has been given a great many tasks to perform in the Bill but I submit that that is not a task which should be added to those it already has.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, there is clearly no point in pursuing this argument. I am bound to say that I found one of the Minister's statements very curious. He said that if the commission has to give advice, the Minister cannot ask it to give advice. That seemed to me to be a curious tweedledum and tweedledee arrangement. If the Minister had said that he agreed that anybody had the right to ask the commission to pass comment. I should have understood what he was saying, which would be roughly speaking what I had in mind. However, the Minister appears to be adamant that the competent harbour authority will be the sole arbiter, essentially on commercial grounds, in a highly-competitive environment on all the conditions which apply to all ships entering or leaving the harbours for which it is responsible.

The worst that might be acceptable—although I have doubts about even that—in a stable environment is that we are laying ourselves wide open to the competent harbour authorities riding roughshod over the opinion of anybody who differs with them in any way about the regulations which they are introducing. Having made that comment, with the greatest of reluctance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Clause 26 [Pilots' compensation schemes.]

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 18, line 12, after ("scheme") I insert— ("bb) Who are not at the relevant time holders of deep sea pilotage certificates,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 99. At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Grey, put down amendments under which the bodies responsible for issuing deep sea pilotage certificates would have been obliged to suspend or revoke certificates which they had granted if they considered that too many deep sea pilots had been certificated. His concern was that many district pilots who already had deep sea certificates would take early retirement from district pilotage under the compensation scheme to be introduced under the legislation. Many of them-might then become full-time deep sea pilots even though they had previously made little use of their deep sea certificates, and the risk would be that many more pilots would be operating in the deep sea market than the market could properly bear, with a threat to the livelihood of existing full-time deep sea pilots.

Some noble Lords considered that the approach suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Grey, would not be acceptable because of the arbitrary power which the issuing bodies would have to revoke certificates. I had a good deal of sympathy with their views. This is obviously not an area in which one can please all sides: either the deep sea pilots will be unhappy if nothing is done to prevent an influx into the deep sea pilotage business of retired district pilots who have previously done little deep sea pilotage or the district pilots will be unhappy if those who already have deep sea pilotage certificates have them withdrawn.

My own view is that it is right to do something to prevent the disruptive effects of a sudden influx into the deep sea pilotage market of large numbers of pilots who have previously used their deep sea certificates only rarely. What I propose is that nobody who is holding a deep sea pilotage certificate at the time should qualify for compensation under the schemes of compensation for surplus pilots. If the pilot chooses to surrender his certificate he will become eligible for compensation, subject to the other requirements being satisfied. If he decides not to surrender it, he will not be eligible for compensation. The choice will be his. Even if he does surrender his certificate, and takes his compensation payment, he will still be able to apply for a new certificate immediately thereafter, and it will be for the issuing body to consider whether, in the situation as it sees it at the time, it should issue such a certificate. The issuing body will be able to ensure that no gaps are left in the coverage by British pilots which would be tilled by Continental pilots in what is essentially an international market. If the issuing body decides to issue a certificate, the pilot will be able to re-enter deep sea pilotage and will also be able to keep his compensation payment.

I can appreciate that district pilots might not welcome this proposal, but I think that it is preferable that a district pilot who holds a deep sea certificate should be given a choice in this way rather than being subject to the arbitrary removal of his deep sea pilotage certificate.

I hope that noble Lords will see this as an acceptable middle way between what are in this case the rather conflicting interests of the district and the deep sea pilots. However, I should be very willing to consider any alternative means of coping with the problem, if one could be found which did not include the possibility of arbitrary revocation of existing deep sea pilotage certificates. I beg to move.

Earl Grey

My Lords, I wish to support these amendments because they are related to those that I introduced at Committee stage. The amendments are designed to protect those pilots who hold only a deep sea certificate and are not covered by any compensation scheme outlined in the Bill. At present, there is stiff enough competition in the deep sea area from abroad. It is a difficult market. If a deep sea pilot is unable to continue his profession due to overmanning, he is unable to claim compensation or remuneration for losing his livelihood. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments and I ask your Lordships to accept them.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised that the pilots are rather more than disappointed with this amendment. Their objections are on a number of grounds. First of all I find the Government's posture on this strangely inconsistent. Throughout the Bill they have said, "Let competition thrive even if it is at the expense of environmental danger and public safety". Then the noble Lord turns round and says, "Oh, but we can't have competition on deep sea pilotage, which is an international matter", and he has himself admitted that if we restrict the entry into the deep sea pilotage field it is likely to be filled by foreign nationals.

Furthermore, there is a question of past history. On 23rd May the Secretary of State announced a compensation scheme. He said then: Those proposals will include provision for a compensation scheme to be funded by the industry, for those licensed pilots whose services are not required by the harbour authorities once they have taken over responsibility of pilotage. The pilots thought that that was a perfectly straight-forward and understandable thing, even if in fact there were a few riders to that agreement which were not mentioned at the time.

Now, quite late in the day, the Government come along and say, "We arc going to add a further qualification to that. If you want to get compensation you have to give up another qualification for which you have worked and on which you have spent money and which, in the ordinary way, should have a financial value." The Government, in a way, are offering the pilots what I think used to be known as Morton's Fork, or Hobson's Choice. They are saying, "Either you take compensation in respect of losing your job as a pilot, or you have to give up a totally unrelated thing, which is your certificate of deep sea pilotage." The two are totally unrelated.

At Committee stage, the Minister, as he agreed, said: I am therefore prepared to consider providing in the legislation that any pilots taking the proposed compensation and early retirement terms should surrender their deep sea pilotage certificates. This would not prevent them from subsequently applying for fresh deep sea pilotage certificates, but it would be for the authorised bodies then to consider whether they should be issued."[Official Report,12/1/87: col. 133.] I think the noble Lord repeated that this evening. So the noble Lord appears to be saying that you give up your certificate one day and the next day you march in and get another certificate from another body. If that is going to be automatic, what is the point? If it is not automatic, then surely it is objectionable. One would have thought that the simple thing was to say that these certificates would remain in force. If there is going to be discretion in the matter, who is going to exercise the discretion, and how is it going to be done?

Again, the Minister himself said, at col. 132: Since deep sea pilots operate in an open market in which there are a number of bodies issuing certificates, how would it be possible for any one body to know what number is required? And yet a moment ago the noble Lord was telling us that he thought there were going to be too many. He also said at Committee stage (col. 132) that one amendment would, put a deep sea pilot at risk of losing his status for reasons unconnected with his conduct or competence". But is not that exactly what this amendment does? He also said, again in col. 132: Unlike district pilots, deep sea pilots operate in an international free market, and I think it would be quite wrong to put their status at risk in this way. Yet that appears to be what the noble Lord is now doing.

There is the technical question that many of the deep sea pilotage certificates are only short haul: that is to say, they are restricted to certain regions, so they would not in fact support a full-time occupation. But, if we remove these pilots from the market, as I said earlier the likelihood is. it seems to me, that all we should be doing would be restricting British nationals' right to practise in this market, leaving it wide open to others to come into it. I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to know that the pilots find this discriminatory and objectionable both in commercial terms and in terms of what undertakings the Minister has given in the past.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Strathcona has said. The giving up of the deep sea pilotage certificates is totally unnecessary. It would surprise me if many of the inshore pilots would wish to use their certificates, but they have the qualification. Why should they not use the certificates?

I agreed with my noble friend when he said that there was a danger of foreign nationals coming into the deep sea market in greater strength than is already the case. By allowing them to be available to pilot British ships, we should be increasing our imports without increasing our chance of exporting pilotage services. It is economically unsound for the nation as a whole, let alone for the pilots. They have worked hard for many years to obtain these certificates. They are being made redundant from one job and the Minister is saying in the same breath, "You are redundant from one job. You may not get a job in the same field".

Lord Greenway

My Lords, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, there are too many deep sea pilots around for the work available. The noble Lord. Lord Strathcona, asked how the present licensing authorities know how many deep sea pilots are available. Anybody who is in that business has a good idea of how many pilots are around. If I may speak again for Trinity House, which is one of the licensing authorities, it does its best to try to dissuade any applicant from becoming a deep sea pilot for that very reason. I believe that it is not possible to refuse anyone a licence, even an EC national these days. But applicants are told to go to the companies who run deep sea pilotage, such as Hammonds at Dover and Hutchisons at Gravesend, and find out for themselves, then go back to Trinity House to see whether they still want to be a deep sea pilot. There have been cases where a pilot has been to see such people and then come back and said, "Thank you very much. We had no idea how difficult it was and there is also the fact that there is not so much work around".

Deep sea pilotage has traditionally been in the hands of the United Kingdom and Holland. But there are indications that the Germans and the French would like to get a piece of the action. On top of that there is an increasing number of what I term cowboy pilots who arrive on a ship in a Continental port and say to the captain "How would you like a nice cheap pilot?" Then a little underhand dealing goes on. The deep sea pilotage situation is difficult. We have heard a lot of talk during our negotiations on the Bill about fair and equitable treatment. What the Government are trying to achieve is fair and equitable for existing deep sea pilots, and I broadly support the amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Viscount Simon

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has put forward what is admittedly rather a compromise; but it is a compromise which I should have thought was well justified. I do not know the facts in detail but I have been given to understand that quite a considerable number of people who have district licences, particularly in the River Thames, also have a deep sea licence of which they make use very seldom.

If they get substantial compensation for giving up their district licence, it seems rather unfair that they can then go on competing in the deep sea market. If the compensation is right for a full-time district pilot, then, if they have not been doing more or less full-time district work, why do they qualify for full compensation? It seems to me that they are seeking to get it both ways, and I should have thought the proposal that the Minister has put forward was broadly a very fair one.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I took no part in the debate either in Committee or subsequently, but I have listened carefully to this debate. The noble Lord the Minister has obviously had conflicting interests to weigh and I find myself perfectly well persuaded that his scheme is not only fair but extremely adroit. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Greenway and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that this amendment is a fair and equitable compromise between conflicting interests.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this amendment? It is, as I think I said in my opening remarks, something of a compromise, but I believe that it achieves fair and equitable treatment. The present position, as I understand it, is that there are 45 full-time deep sea pilots. There are also something like 70 London district dual licence holders, and at the present time I understand that they do the equivalent of the work of approximately three full-time pilots during a year. What the deep sea pilots are obviously worried about is that somebody should collect his compensation and early pension, and then go into the deep sea pilot market and, obviously, undercut existing deep sea pilots with the benefit of the compensation terms and the early pension.

I do not believe that my noble friends Lord Strathcona and Lord Swinfen are correct in what they said about us letting in more foreign pilots, because, as I said in my opening remarks, the issuing body will be able to ensure that no gaps are left in the coverage by British pilots which would be filled by Continental pilots in what is essentially an international market. If the issuing body decides to issue a certificate, the pilot will be able to re-enter the deep sea pilotage and will be able to keep his compensation intact. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made.

It is a question of fairness. The Government have been accused by my noble friends of being unfair at various stages during this Bill, but I think in this case we are doing our very best to be fair to a small number of deep sea pilots.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 99:

Page 18, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) For the purposes of paragraph (bb) of subsection (2) above the relevant time" means

1. (a) in the case of a person who has no such arrangements as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection made with him, immediately before the appointed day; and
2. (b) in the case of a person who has such arrangements made with him which are terminated as there mentioned, immediately before the termination of those arrangements; and

deep sea pilotage certificate" means a certificate granted by virtue of section 9(1)(j) of the Pilotage Act 1983 or under section 21 above.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 100:

After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:

("Further compensation scheme)

1. (1) The Secretary of State shall make a scheme or schemes ("further compensation schemes") under which payments are to be made for the purpose of compensating pilots for any loss of employment which may be suffered by them in consequence of the suspension or revocation of an authorisation under section 3(9)(b) or (c) of this Act.
2. (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a further compensation scheme shall require a competent harbour authority to make payments to those persons whose authorisations are suspended or revoked under section 3(9)(b) or (c) of this Act.
417
3. (3) A further compensation scheme may contain such provision as the Secretary of State may determine as to—
   1. (a) the terms and conditions on which and the times at which payments are to be made; and
   2. (b) the circumstances in which payments may be recovered from the persons to whom they are made.
4. (4)A further compensation scheme may include provision enabling a competent harbour authority to require the whole or part of any existing fund constituted for the purpose of making payments by way of compensation for loss of employment to pilots working in its harbour (whether vested in any person absolutely or as a trustee) to be applied towards any payments required to be made by the authority under the scheme.
5. (5) A further compensation scheme may extend to one or more areas and different provision may be made in respect of different areas.
6. (6) The Secretary of State may arrange for the Pilotage Commission to administer any further compensation scheme and any dispute arising as to the entitlement of any person to a payment under a further compensation scheme shall be determined by the Commission.
7. (7) After the abolition of the Pilotage Commission its functions under this section may be exercised by such other person or persons as the Secretary of State may appoint after consultation with such persons as he considers are representative of the persons in the United Kingdom principally interested in pilotage.
8. (8) A further compensation scheme may be varied by a subsequent such scheme.
9. (9) The Secretary of State may, by order made after the expiration of the period of ten years beginning on the appointed day, repeal any scheme made under this section and such order may contain such transitional powers as the Secretary of State considers are appropriate in consequence of such repeal.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be convenient if I speak to Amendment No. 101 as well as moving Amendment No. 100. These amendments are almost similar to two amendments which I brought forward at Committee stage. They are regarded by the pilots as two of the most important amendments which your Lordships will have had before you and they are regarded as really vital for their future.

If my memory serves me correctly, at the end of a debate in which there was widespread support for the principle of these amendments, I decided that I would not force a Division at the Committee stage because the weather was so shocking on that day that the attendance was very low, and it would have been a farce to have a Division with a majority of one vote out of perhaps seven. That was the only reason that a Division was not asked for at Committee stage.

I must emphasise that the White Paper, in explaining the Bill in paragraph 41, finishes with an important statement: It is confident too that the legislation will provide a lasting basis for the future for marine pilotage, while at the same time providing equitable treatment to the present and future members of a distinguished profession". I have emphasised the words "future members".

I shall not go into what I said at Committee stage in introducing the amendments. However, emphasis was laid both by the Secretary of State and by the Prime Minister on being fair to those pilots who will continue. The amendments seek to carry out the pledges to be fair to those pilots who will continue. Generally speaking, we consider that those who decide to retire by the appointed day are being treated fairly. However, these two amendments are considered essential, and without them the continuing pilots who will have their licences removed by the Bill could be dismissed at any time after the appointed day with no compensation and no enhanced retirement provisions.

That means that they will be treated inequitably in absolute terms. They will also be treated inequitably in comparison with those pilots retiring as a direct consequence of the Bill. The financial provisions are considered to be essential and the pilots have personally subscribed to those provisions by the direct use of moneys from their pension fund. Let it not be forgotten that the pilots' pension fund contributed £15 million towards the scheme for pilots who will be surrendering their work on the passage of the Bill.

As I say, similar amendments were proposed at Committee stage. The Minister said, at col. 168 of the Official Report, Public Bill Committee, on 15th January this year: It is right that special compensation arrangements should be provided for pilots who are self-employed and who will lose their employment as a direct result of the repeal of the legislation under which they obtained their licences. But the position of pilots who would be authorised under the new system will be different". The Minister added that pilots who are authorised would, either have a contract of employment with the CHA or … an agreement with a CHA or … contract of employment with an agent. If a pilot's authorisation is revoked, he will of course have the protection of his contract of employment; or, if he is self-employed he will surely have made certain that safeguards are included in his agreement with the CHA or agent". Therefore it is clear that everything depends on the agreement which the pilot has made. The Government, who are hoping to pass this legislation and who are saying that they will be fair to continuing pilots, seem to wash their hands of any responsibility.

The Minister said, at col. 170 of the Official Report, Public Bill Committee: 1 do not think I can concede the principle that there should be a statutory compensation scheme for pilots who lose their authorisation after the initial period". The Minister then said that provisions for the initial period should not necessarily go on for ever.

I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that in Amendment No. 100 an additional provision has been added which was not included in the amendment proposed at Committee stage. In subsection (9), in order to meet the criticism that that situation could not continue for ever, the amendment now before the House enables the Secretary of State, by order, to repeal the further compensation scheme after a period of 10 years.

The purpose of Amendment No. 101 is to secure as a permanent benefit under the Pilots' National Pension Fund rules the enhanced early retirement benefit for pilots declared to be surplus to requirements in the future; that is, after the appointed day. The Government have refused to date to dictate to a private sector pension fund, because that is what it would be, but indicated in the debate at the Report stage that pensions could be a matter referred to the arbitration panel, which we shall discuss later. That would refer to what might be inserted in an agreement with a CHA. It does not necessarily mean that there will be a guarantee that what we request in this amendment will take effect.

I am giving the Government rather an easy way out. Assuming that the Government feel that they cannot possibly include in the legislation the continuance of this benefit, I would ask whether there could be sympathetic exhortation from the Minister to the future managers of the fund. Further, in the light of the inclusion of pensions as a matter for reference to the arbitration panel, I would urge the Minister to include a directive or recommendation on this benefit in the guidelines which are to be drawn up for the panel. The ideal solution is legislative provision, which is what Amendment No. 101 proposes. Failing this, the strongest possible influences should be brought to bear on whoever might be the trustees of the Pilots' National Pension Fund later on to provide for enhanced early retirement provision for pilots declared to be surplus after the appointed day.

We are saying that the scheme for pilots who surrender on the appointed day is reasonably satisfactory. But what we want to ensure is that the promises made for continuing pilots—and promises have been made by Ministers, by the Prime Minister, and in the memorandum—are carried out not only as regards the further compensation scheme but also as regards the pension scheme. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I explained in Committee that I could see no case for a continuing statutory compensation scheme to be available for pilots once the period of reorganisation has passed. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has accepted this at least to the extent of providing, as his amendment seeks to do, a means for such schemes to be withdrawn after a period of 10 years.

The position of pilots who lose employment after the transitional period will, like the position of those in other trades and professions, be determined by the terms of their contracts of employment or other arrangements under which they are providing their services. The question of the terms on which employment is to be terminated if in future a pilot's services have to be dispensed with will be among the contract terms which can be dealt with under the arbitration procedure which we debated on Amendment No. 36 at the previous session. That procedure seems to me to offer a very fair deal to the pilots, and I certainly cannot accept that equity requires that the special compensation arrangements which we are making should be extended beyond the period of re-organisation, not even for the new 10-year period proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. That is a proposition I would find very hard to justify to people in other walks of life who are much more vulnerable to changes in trading conditions and other circumstances than the pilots will be under the CHAs' auspices.

I turn now to Amedment No. 101. The proposed new clause would enable a pilot who lost his authorisation under the new system to receive the same early retirement benefits from the Pilots' National Pension Fund as a pilot who retires on the introduction of the new regime. I commented when the same amendment was put down at Committee stage that I could hardly believe that the intention was that a pilot should be entitled to early retirement terms if his authorisation were merely suspended. But the more substantial point is that if this amendment were to become law we should be laying down benefits to be provided by the PNPF, a private pension fund, without giving any consideration to the effects on the financial position of the fund and without giving those responsible for managing the fund any opportunity to make representations. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, accepted that point to an extent.

The justification for our laying down in this way what the benefits should be is so much the less because the proposal relates to a period after pilots' reorganisation will be complete. We intend that, when the harbour authorities take up their responsibilities for pilotage, the British Ports Association shall take up the employers' role in the management of the PNPF. That association has already undertaken, subject to detailed examination of the fund's financial position, not to reduce existing benefits including the period when the Government's compensation scheme will be in force—the early retirement terms. It will be a matter for those who will then be responsible for the PNPF to decide whether the early retirement terms should continue to be available for the pilots who are released after what we have called the shake-down period is over. Much will no doubt depend upon the financial position of the fund at the time, the likely cost of continuing such early retirement terms into the future, and the other options which the managers of the PNPF will be able to consider by that time. I can well understand that those who have contributed to the PNPF and who are not able to take advantage of the early retirement terms which will be available during the period immediately following the reorganisation will feel that the same terms should remain available after the end of that period. I am sure that an extension of the early retirement scheme is something which those responsible for the PNPF will consider very carefully. However, I do not believe that we should pre-empt decisions which will probably be taken by those responsible for the PNPF. I am sorry I have not been able to be more forthcoming but I hope at least to have given some encouragement to noble Lords in what I have said about these amendments.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who said that the ideal arrangement would be to write these things into the legislation, certainly as regards Amendment No. 100. However, the Minister has fallen back throughout upon his arbitration scheme and all of us I believe, wait with bated breath to see what is revealed in the guidelines which will direct the arbitration scheme. I understood the Minister to say that his understanding was that pensions would be something that one would expect to bring under the arbitration arrangements in the same way as the discussion upon basic earnings.

Since we are dealing with both these amendments, the question of Amendment No. 101 is obviously a little more difficult, in that the Government are really saying that we are not in a position to lay down the law in connection with the PNPF. I daresay that that is indeed the formal position. Some people think that the PNPF has already been raided to the tune of about 15 million pounds to provide the compensation scheme for those leaving. I suppose the right answer is to hope that some similar arrangement or undertaking can be extracted from the PNPF before we have the Third Reading in this House. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, does not intend to press either of these amendments at this stage. He hopes that we can obtain some satisfactory undertakings in connection with the arbitration and the PNPF before we reach Third Reading.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I think that that might be difficult. What I spoke of with regard to the future of the PNPF was something extending into the future and not something which could be settled before the Third Reading. It depends on the financial position of the fund going into the future.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am disappointed, naturally, with the Minister's reply although, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, said, there is a certain amount of encouragement in his words which we might follow up on further amendments. There are amendments later on dealing with the management of the fund and the composition of the management of the fund. This should be kept in mind when we reach those amendments, as also should the remarks which have just been made.

There is a difference. We cannot compare what is suggested here with other trades and professions. The difference here is that the pilots have agreed to the scheme of reorganisation. They believe it is desirable: they believe it is necessary, and they support it. As I have said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, has reminded us, the pilots' own benefit fund has contributed to the Government scheme for the reorganisation to the tune of some 15 million for its own scheme of payments. Therefore that is different from other trades and professions.

When we come to look at the arbitration amendment—I think it is Amendment No. 109—it may be that one or two points can then be made. The Government must move for a further scheme in some direction or give encouragement to the CHAs to have a further compensation scheme. If they do not move at all on the future benefits under whatever pension fund there is then frankly they will not be carrying out their pledges to continuing pilots. They may be carrying out their pledges to pilots who decide to give up under the scheme, but it is the continuing pilots who are concerned and if we are not careful some pilots will have to make serious decisions on whether to continue or take advantage of the original benefit schemes. However, in view of what the Minister said and at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]

Clause 27 [Funding of Part III expenses and liabili-ties]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 19, line 7, leave out ("section 22 or 23 above") and insert ("this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment ageed to.

[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]

Clause 29 [Interpretation]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 104:

Page 20, line 17, at end insert— ("(2) In this Act references to a ship navigating or being navigated include references to its moving or being moved within a harbour for the purpose of changing from one mooring to another mooring or of being taken into or out of any dock.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 65. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 20, line 36, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 82. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 106:

Page 20, line 36, leave out ("This Act") and insert ("The provisions of this Act, except section 25,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 25 already provides for the Pilotage Commission to make a start on its new responsibilities immediately on the enactment of this Bill. This amendment makes it possible for it to do so without the need for a separate order to bring the relevant provisions into force. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a sensible provision. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 107:

Page 20, line 38, at end insert— ("(2A) The day appointed under subsection (2) above for the coming into force of Part I of this Act shall be not less than nine months after the passing of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 82. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]

Schedule I [Transitional and saving provisions]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 109:

Page 21, line 10, at end insert— ("(1) Where any dispute arises before the appointed day between a competent harbour authority and any person who wishes to be authorised under section 3 of this Act by the authority on or after that day as to what the terms of any provision in any contract of employment which is to be entered into between them should be and that dispute cannot be resolved by negotiation between them, the authority or any person or organisation which represents holders of licences under section 12 of the Pilotage Act 1983 for a pilotage district in which the authority's harbour falls may refer the dispute to an arbitration panel appointed in accordance with section (Temporary procedure for resolving disputes as to terms of employment) (2) of this Act and the panel shall determine what the terms of that provision should be and the contracts of employment between the authority and authorised pilots to which their determination is to apply ("material contracts"). (2)Subsections (3), (4), (6) and (7) of that section shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as if references in those subsections to subsection (1) of that section included references to sub-paragraph (1) above and references in subsection (4) to relevant contracts included references to material contracts. (3) If regulations under subsection (6) of that section as it applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above provide that the expenses of referrals and determinations under this paragraph are to be borne by the Pilotage Commission, section 3 of the Pilotage Act 1983 shall apply as if those expenses were expenses of the Commission in performing its functions.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 109, Amendment No. 110:

Sub-paragraph (1), line 2, leave out ("any person who wishes") and insert ("the representatives of the majority of persons wishing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 110 and 111A address essentially the same point though they are slightly different in detail. All that the amendments seek to do is to preclude the possibility of individual mischief-making and undue abuse of the arbitration procedure which the noble Lord introduced in the previous amendment and for which we are grateful. I need add no more. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, these amendments are prior to the operation of the arbitration procedure before the appointed day. The first would mean that a dispute would have to be between a CHA and the majority of those seeking authorisation before arbitration could be invoked. This might rule out going to arbitration on a dispute concerning contract terms affecting only a few pilots and thus limit the application of the clause. Therefore I am not sure that it does not go a little further than we may wish.

However, the second amendment means that only persons or organisations representing a majority of the pilots could invoke the procedure. The pilots are concerned that otherwise it would be possible for rogue individuals representing only a few pilots to invoke this procedure. I find that amendment entirely acceptable and will certainly agree to it.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. We were only trying to save him a little trouble in the long term. However, I am perfectly happy to withdraw Amendment No. 110 in view of what he has said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 111 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 109, Amendment No. 111A:

Sub-paragraph (1), line 7, after ("represents") insert ("the majority of the").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 111A, being confident that the Minister will accept it.

On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 109, as amended, be agreed to?

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the Minister said that he had spoken on this matter in connection with Amendment No. 36. That was a long time ago. I believe we said that where there were long groupings and it came to a particular item, it would be possible to say a few words on a specific amendment.

First, I should like to thank the Minister for writing to me about the point I raised concerning the position of the British Ports Association in relation to Associated British Ports. He pointed out to me that Associated British Ports is a party to the discussions that are taking place between the ports and the pilots about the guidelines, which all of us consider to be of the utmost importance.

Turning to this amendment, in subsection (1) there is the phrase: any person who wishes to be authorised that is someone who wishes to continue. Later on there is a reference to: after that day as to … the terms of any provision in any contract of employment". I presume that means that the arbitration machinery can be used where there is an argument between the pilots of a particular area and the CHA in making a new agreement for continuing pilots, which I believe is a point that the Minister made in replying to other amendments.

Would that arrangement cover any possible discussion with a CHA and the pilots association locally for a further compensation scheme for continuing pilots? As regards those other issues over which from time to time there has been general pressure, such as the notion that there ought to be rights of appeal, are those points covered on any matter which is subject to arbitration after the appointed day?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, as I said, I spoke to this amendment when Amendment No. 36 was moved and I gave a broad outline of what we thought would and would not be covered by the arbitration procedure. At that time I think one meeting had taken place between the British Ports Association and the representatives of the pilots under the chairmanship of officials from my department. I can say that fruitful discussions have taken place.

The next discussions between those parties will take place tomorrow. I do not want to pre-empt what might and I hope will be decided tomorrow by going into more detail at the present time. I am confident that I shall be able to make a useful statement when we come to the Third Reading of this Bill. However I would rather not pre-empt the discussions between the interested parties that are to take place tomorrow.

On Question, Amendment No. 109, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]

10 p. m

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 113A:

Page 21, line 38, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the representatives of the members and other principal interest").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 114 which is a government amendment and with my Amendment No. 115. Amendment No. 113A relates to paragraph 3 in Schedule 1. I shall read the first four lines of the sub-paragraph: Any pilots' benefit fund established under paragraph (i) of section 15(1) of the Pilotage Act 1983 shall continue in existence notwithstanding the repeal of that section by this Act and the Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers appropriate". There are then three points as to which he may make an order.

We suggest that after "the Secretary of State" and before the word "may" we insert: after consultation with the representatives of the members and other principal interest". That seems to be common sense. My amendment No. 115 is an amendment to the Government amendment. I hope that it is all right for me to speak to that amendment, because the Government have not yet moved it. It will save me doing so later.

The pilots are concerned that the government amendment fails to specify the composition of the managers of the Pilots' National Pension Fund. That is similar to the previous absence of guidelines for the proposed Government dispute procedures which we understand are under discussion. The present management of the pension fund is provided for under pilotage by-laws which gave the necessary pre-establishment confidence to the members, with a statutory right of appeal or objection to their approval, which facilitated the establishment of the Pilots' National Pension Fund.

Formal discussions to which I have referred between the British Ports Association and future equal principals with the Pilots' National Pension Fund members and the present trustees of the pension fund, would indicate a readiness to accept a 50-50 basis for the composition of the future managers. That does not provide a sufficiently guaranteed formula for automatic acceptance of government Amendment No. 114.

Further, in the event of a 50-50 basis being accepted, the appointment of the chairman of the management with a casting vote will be critical. Ideally, that should be clarified beforehand. That is the purpose of my Amendment No. 115 to government Amendment No. 114. I am sure that it is fully appreciated that in the pension field in particular the right climate of confidence needs to be established before there is this radical reform of the pilotage organisation. This amendment will assist in doing that. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, Amendment No. 114 will enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State not only to provide for the port authorities and the pilots to appoint the managers of the PNPF; it will enable him to determine what powers the ports and the pilots should retain to themselves to enable them to decide the fund's overall policy. I accept that the suggestion contained in Amendment No. 1 13A is a reasonable one, and that before making an order under this paragraph concerning future arrangements for the Pilots' National Pension Fund, the Secretary of State should consult representatives of the fund's members and of the harbour authorities.

I therefore accept the noble Lord's amendment in principle but, unfortunately, it went down only yesterday and I have not had a chance to clear it with the draftsman. I shall certainly bring forward something on the Third Reading, if I may.

Turning to Amendment No. 115, the provisions in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 established the general procedures for settling the arrangements for the future existence and organisation of the Pilots' National Pension Fund and any other existing pilots' benefit fund. It is inappropriate to try to deal in this legislation with one aspect of those future arrangements, as this amendment seeks to do. It is also premature since discussions between representatives of the pilots and of the harbour authorities need to take place before any of the parties can reach any firm conclusions about what those future arrangements should be.

I suggest that those are the type of points which the Secretary of State will need to consult about under the noble Lord's previous amendment, which I have accepted in principle, before an order is made. Since such orders will be subject to negative resolution procedure, there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to express views on these matters at the appropriate stage. I hope therefore that with my acceptance in principle of the noble Lord's first amendment he will not feel the need to press his last one.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 113A in principle and I look forward to the amendment at the next stage. In the light of what the Minister has said on the Government's own Amendment No. 114 and my amendment to that, I shall look very carefully at what the Minister has said. It sounds very reasonable, if I might put it that way. As he has said that he has not had a chance to look carefully at Amendment No. 113A, although he accepts it in principle, similarly I have not had an opportunity to look thoroughly at Amendment No. 114. I think we all accept the position, and on the basis of the noble Lord's remarks I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 113A.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 114:

Page 21, line 42, leave out from ("(b)") to ("and") in line 43 and insert ("the appointment of the managers of any such fund and any powers to be exerciseable as respects the management of the fund by the persons who are to appoint those managers;").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 115, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 114 agreed to.