| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
However, we believe that there will be significant opportunities for building on the already extensive collaboration between the three authorities. This is where I anticipate seeing some more cost savings appearing in areas such as the management of the combined fleet of ships. For similar reasons, we should carefully consider the evidence before taking the step of splitting the management of Irish Lights. I fully accept that we have to improve the funding arrangements and ministerial colleagues are engaged on this. However, Ireland is a good example of where geographical considerations are not necessarily coincident with political boundaries and we want to be sure that the long-term solution that we come up with is consistent with both economic objectives and our maritime safety objectives. The lighthouse service in the UK and Ireland is rightly held up as an excellent example of co-operation, bringing together a unified British Isles solution to maritime safety. The Commissioners of Irish Lights have continued as a cross-border body since the establishment of the Irish Free State, the success of which was confirmed by both Governments by the inclusion of CIL as a model of all-Ireland co-operation within the 1998 Belfast agreement. We would only move away from such co-operation if all the benefits of doing so were very clear.
I should at this point refer to the discussions that are taking place between our shipping Minister, my honourable friend Paul Clark, and his Irish opposite number, Noel Dempsey, the Irish Minister for Transport. As recently as 2 February, this week, Mr Clark wrote to Mr Dempsey on the subject of the funding of Irish Lights' activities in the Republic of Ireland. He said in the letter:
"I think it would be of great benefit if we could jointly state our unequivocal commitment to progress to a situation where Irish Lights were fully financed from Irish sources within a definite period".
However, I correct the figure to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred as the cost of Irish Lights. The subsidy to the Irish Republic is not £15 million. I seem to remember that he used that figure in our debate in the summer. The correct figure is, of course, substantially less than that because the £15 million figure includes the cost of providing a service for the coast of Northern Ireland.
Subject to what Atkins may say in its report, it is possible that even the economic case for changing the current arrangements in relation to Ireland will prove unconvincing. I do not believe that the UK or the Republic of Ireland would be willing to transfer responsibility for their aids to navigation to another sovereign state. It would then follow from my noble friend's proposal that there would have to be two separately funded authorities providing aids to navigation in and around the island of Ireland, which may be less efficient and more difficult to co-ordinate. It would
5 Feb 2010 : Column 451
Turning now to some of the less controversial aspects of my noble friend's Bill, I welcome the way that he has embraced some of the ideas that went into the draft Marine Navigation Bill when we put it out to consultation in 2008. Whatever organisation is responsible for providing maritime aids to navigation, they need to have the powers and authority to do so effectively. The measure to clarify the extent of jurisdiction will help to assist the providers of aids to navigation in operating an efficient safety regime everywhere in the seas around this country.
Looking at Clause 8 of my noble friend's Bill, I am pleased, too, that he agrees that the funding of the lighthouse authorities should remain essentially as it is. The system is not perfect and we are continuing to look for ways to improve it, not least by trying to include as many as possible of those who use the aids to navigation in the payment system.
The possibilities for obtaining income from commercial activities by the providers of the service are important in maximising the use of resources. It is inevitable that there has to be some spare capacity in a system that needs to be capable of rapid response to emergencies. If that spare capacity can be employed profitably in other, non-critical commercial work that brings in additional income, it can only be to the benefit of those who pay for the system. The general lighthouse authorities have already made good use of their existing powers in this way and I therefore applaud the clause that permits greater use of spare assets.
An often overlooked but none the less important aspect of the work of the general lighthouse authorities is their involvement with local lighthouse authorities in ensuring that standards are maintained. In drafting the Marine Navigation Bill, we took the view that these powers would benefit from improvement, particularly in respect of the enforcement of directions by a general lighthouse authority so that on the, admittedly quite rare, occasions when there is a serious failure in the delivery of local aids to navigation, there should be the threat of a criminal sanction to deter continued non-compliance. My noble friend is therefore quite right to incorporate this in his Bill.
Regarding Clause 10, my noble friend is clear in his intention that as many people as possible who benefit from the work of the lighthouse authorities should pay for them. Generally, we agree with him, but any attempts to broaden the base of payers must be workable and cost-effective. In the case of this particular clause, I believe that, in its present form at least, it could impact only on a small number of vessels involved in activities such as safety and revenue or fisheries protection.
Clause 12 deals with pension liabilities. These are a growing issue for the general lighthouse fund. In a sense the general lighthouse authorities are a victim of their own success in modernising and automating their infrastructure, which has created a large number of pensioners in comparison to the present staff levels. By operating a pay-as-you-go final salary pension
5 Feb 2010 : Column 452
Like many other sectors, this is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue for the long term, and changes need to be made to enable future pensions to be fully funded. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has included this sensible measure, which is based on the clause in the draft Marine Navigation Bill, to enable changes to be made which might modernise the authorities' pension arrangements. It is a step that will have to be taken regardless of any other changes to the governance of maritime aids to navigation. I will nevertheless remind your Lordships that as we advised during the consultation on the draft Bill, the Government have no intention of reaching any conclusions on new pension arrangements for existing or former staff of the general lighthouse authorities without full consultation with all those involved.
Before I conclude, I wish to respond to some of the points which were made in the debate. I echo the tribute made by my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd of Duncansby and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to those who work in the lighthouse service. They do a wonderful job, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. It is right that this House pays tribute to them today. My noble friend Lord MacKenzie of Culkein referred to the increase in light dues, as, indeed, did many other noble Lords in the debate. It is worth putting on the record that even after the increase in light dues that is due to take place on 1 April this year, light dues will be no more in absolute terms-that is, 43 pence per net registered tonne-than in 1993. This is 32 per cent lower in real terms after taking account of inflation. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to the decision by Maersk to divert an extra line from the Far East to Felixstowe. Like him, we believe that this is an indication that the increase in light dues will not act as a deterrent to foreign shipping companies bringing their ships to the United Kingdom.
As regards the efficiency of the GLF, its investments in recent years have generated very positive returns which have helped to maintain or cut light dues rates. Viewed over the past five years, the portfolio has delivered a positive return of 11 per cent. That is another example-I hope the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree-of the GLF doing the right thing.
I hope that I have explained why the Government are concerned about the proposals in my noble friend's Bill for establishing a Marine Navigation Aids Commission and an Office of Maritime Navigation Aids Regulation. We are also concerned about his proposals for the effective turning off of the Irish Lights. My noble friend is well-intentioned and very determined. I suspect that we shall hear from him and other noble Lords on the subject on more than one occasion in the future. However, I hope that he will realise, from our efforts to carry out a full review of the provision of aids to navigation, that the Government share his concern to achieve an end result that provides an improved and efficient service. We are not convinced
5 Feb 2010 : Column 453
12.40 pm
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken; we have had a very good debate. Not everybody agreed with me, but I did not expect that. A number of issues have been raised. I will not attempt to answer all of them, because I will not repeat what I said in my first speech. However, I hope to answer one or two questions.
My noble friend suggested in his response that I am trying to turn off the Irish lights. That is not the case and we both know it. It is a question of getting a more equitable means of financing them. Whether or not we have one structure that covers the whole of the British Isles, including Ireland, under a marine navigation aids commission or something like that, the key is to get commonality of services. Many noble Lords spoke about the importance of local services, and they are absolutely right. What I was and am trying to achieve is equitable financing between ships coming into UK ports and those entering the Irish ports. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, how the work is done on the ground is a separate issue. However, as the Republic is a separate member state, there is no difference between a ferry crossing the Irish Sea and paying light dues at both ends-in Dublin and Holyhead or Birkenhead-and a ship crossing the Channel between Dover and Calais. If light dues are chargeable in each port, they should be paid.
My noble friend Lord Simon asked about the role of the MNAC. This is in Clause 1(3)(a) of the Bill. He and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned that the estimated cost of the new structure would be £25 million to £70 million. I was given that figure by representatives of Trinity House when I met them. I have asked them several times since to give me details of how they arrived at the figure, but there has been total silence. I do not believe that the figure is sensible: there is no evidence to back it up. I maintain that if one merged some of the back offices, which is what I am proposing, and possibly reduced the number of expensive board members, one would make a saving.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said that the arrangement with Ireland was part of an international treaty that could not be broken. As I said in my speech, a Written Answer on 12 January last year stated that there is no legal or constitutional reason why it could not be broken. I do not know who is right, but that is what the Written Answer said.
There is some debate about whether ships are being diverted away from ports and, if they are, why that should be so. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned extra ships coming in from the Maersk company. My information is that the "Emma Maersk", one of the biggest container ships in the world, if not the biggest, came in to Felixstowe. I have several photographs of it. I am told that it is now going around the Atlantic loaded with empty containers because it is cheaper for
5 Feb 2010 : Column 454
The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, said that the continuation of lights and navigation aids is absolutely vital. I entirely agree. I am certainly not proposing to change this. There are wonderful new electronic devices, but many ships do not have them and need to use lights.
My noble and learned friend Lord Boyd talked of the concerns of people in Scotland about whether the Scottish Government would be happy to see the end of the Northern Lighthouse Board. That is a consideration. I have no views on whether one organisation should be based in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh or anywhere else. If it is all part of a UK system, there is no reason why it could not be based in Scotland or England. That is something that we need to discuss further.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is clearly concerned at the proposal in my Bill to charge the Royal Navy for entering UK ports. He said that it was a waste of public money to move it from one pot to another. However, I do not believe that this is public money: it is money paid by the shipping lines. I do not see why the Navy should be exempt from paying money for using the navigation aids paid for by the shipping lines, any more than anybody else should be exempt. We can discuss that in Committee.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, there is a very good answer to that question. It is extremely likely that there will be some occasion each year when the Royal Navy provides valuable assistance to Trinity House. If it did so on a commercial basis, it would be extremely expensive.
Lord Berkeley: That is a very good response; we can look at that again. I take the noble Earl's point. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, there are many issues that should be looked at, including how payments are made.
All the other issues could be discussed at a future stage-if we get there. I will conclude by addressing my noble friend's final comments about the joint statement between the Republic and the UK regarding their willingness and intention to come up with a solution to what we have all been calling the Irish question. This is very welcome. I am grateful to him and his colleagues for doing this.
Noble Lords have made many comments in this debate and I am grateful to them all for participating. There is a lot to reflect on.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill [HL]
Bill Main Page
Copy of the Bill
Second Reading
12.48 pm
Baroness Quin: My Lords, this Bill appeared in the previous Session in another place, where the Member in charge was Mr Andrew Dismore. I am pleased that
5 Feb 2010 : Column 455
However, my interest in this Bill, and the reason that I was keen to sponsor it in your Lordships' House, derives from a speech made in this House by my noble friend Lord Dixon, to whom I pay tribute for his work on the issue. My noble friend spoke powerfully in December 2008 about the many cases that he knew of in the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside where people exposed to asbestos developed pleural plaques and lived with the constant worry of contracting life-threatening asbestos-related conditions as a result. In that debate, he said that he himself had worked in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries for 37 years and that some of the colleagues with whom he had served his apprenticeship and worked alongside had died of asbestos-related diseases. He knew from that direct experience what a terrible death it was. He also reminded us that there is no way in which anyone can get pleural plaques other than through exposure to asbestos, so it is very clearly an industrial condition.
Like my noble friend Lord Dixon, my home area is the north-east of England, and at different times in my political life-in the European Parliament and in the other place-I have represented the shipyard areas of both Tyneside and Wearside. Because of that, I know how much the issue of pleural plaques causes fear and dread. I also know that, before the House of Lords 2007 judicial ruling, compensation had been paid to people over a 20-year period but that since then many others have tragically been caught by the ruling and have been unable to benefit. This, I believe, has created an unfair and anomalous situation between people in the same neighbourhoods and the same workplaces. My Bill would restore the position that existed before the House of Lords 2007 ruling on the case, which had been brought before the House of Lords by insurance companies.
Importantly, the Bill would also create parity of treatment between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other. The Scottish Parliament has already legislated to restore compensation to affected workers and, interestingly enough, the Scottish courts have recently confirmed the legality of the new position in Scotland in rejecting arguments against the legislation by insurers, in particular.
While I respect, and indeed fully support, the right of the devolved institutions to introduce their own policies, I urge the Government to follow the Scottish example. I hope that the Government will accept-as indeed I hope will the spokespeople of the opposition parties-that it is particularly galling for former shipyard workers on Tyneside and Wearside, many of whom have done stints of work in the Scottish yards, to have to endure this discriminatory and unfair treatment.
While many of the people affected by pleural plaques are in shipyard areas such as mine, the issue affects many workplaces and former workplaces throughout the country, particularly in the engineering sector.
5 Feb 2010 : Column 456
I know that the Government will have some fears that if the 2007 ruling is entirely reversed and we go back to the situation that existed previously, injury lawyers, for example, may seek to profit through this by maximising every possible claim, resulting in costly bills to industry and government.
However, I hope that the Government will consider tackling the issue of excess legal profits in other ways. It would be quite wrong-even grotesque, in my view-to let concerns about the cost of justice prevent justice from being granted to those who deserve it and need it most. It is of course hard-it has certainly been hard for me-to get completely reliable figures for how many claims could be introduced as a result. My understanding is that there were probably about 4,000 or so claims pending which were halted by the 2007 ruling, and that there have probably been about another 3,000 since then. I have to say that my figures are guesstimates based on information supplied by one firm which was probably representing about 30 per cent of cases at a time, but that is the best guesstimate that I have been able to make in the circumstances.
I assume, however, that as compensation had been paid for a considerable number of years before the ruling, and as, too, the outcome of the ruling was far from being a foregone conclusion, the Government must have planned for a certain level of ongoing expenditure on such cases. If the judgment had not taken place, or if the result had gone the other way, the Government-and, of course, insurers-would have had to continue to pay compensation in any case.
I willingly concede that the Bill raises a number of legal aspects, some of the details of which can of course be looked at in Committee. There is also the recent helpful case in Scotland for our guidance. That case was decided on 8 January of this year and ruled firmly against the challenge to the Scottish legislation brought by insurance companies. On the legal aspects of the Bill before us today, my honourable friend in another place, Andrew Dismore, met lawyers from the Ministry of Justice. I have seen an account of the meeting, and none of the legal issues seem insurmountable-far from it. Indeed, at this point I pay tribute to the work done by Andrew Dismore and a considerable number of other colleagues in the other place, who have shown both persistence in raising the issue of pleural plaques and considerable knowledge of the legal and other issues involved.
The Government, including both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice, have met me and other interested Members of both Houses about the issue, and I appreciate that they understand the concerns of those with pleural plaques because of exposure to
5 Feb 2010 : Column 457
In conclusion, although this time on a Friday, at the end of Parliament's working week, is not a time at which attendance is high, I am sure that noble Lords will none the less not underestimate the great interest in this issue in both the national and local media. Indeed, the media interest in areas such as mine is constant and intense. There is hope and expectation that the discrimination created by the 2007 ruling and the financial hardship experienced by many pleural plaque sufferers will be addressed by your Lordships' House, by the Government and by Parliament as a whole. I beg to move.
12.58 pm
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have heard of pleural plaques on several occasions, but was never clear exactly what they were until I started doing some research for this debate. The judgment that removed compensation included the statement that they do not do you any harm in themselves, but it does mean that you have been exposed to a potentially lethal substance. That leaves us in a rather odd situation. If we could prove that certain types of pleural plaques would lead to certain conditions-I have not been made aware that we can-there would be an unanswerable case that compensation should always be given. However, there does not seem to be enough medical knowledge here to decide even the likelihood-if there has been improvement on this I would be very interested to hear it-of developing further complications and damage.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |