My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this Bill forward again, giving us another chance to discuss it. He has given us a very detailed description of what it entails and all the bits and pieces associated with it. I shall address only certain items.
Together with other noble Lords, some of whom are here today, I spoke on this subject on 7 July last year and declared, as I do again, that I am a younger brother of Trinity House and a Master Mariner who, from time to time in years gone by, used the signals from lighthouses and buoys.
The Bill seeks to replace the GLAs and establish MNAC in their place, with an Office of Marine Navigation Aids Regulation—OMNAR—to replace, in large part, the role of the Secretary of State in his responsibilities for the GLF and GLAs. As far as the GLAs are aware, there was no consultation with the Republic in terms of the proposed removal of the fading mechanism for its aids to navigation. Furthermore, the Bill fails to grapple properly with the constitutional issues associated with the Republic's position under existing legislation.
In terms of the Bill itself, it is unclear who is ultimately responsible for the provision of aids to navigation, following the creation of the MNAC and the establishment of the OMNAR. This concerns me and, I suspect, many others. A failure in terms of aids to navigation provision could be extremely costly in terms of human life, property and the marine environment. The "Tricolor" wreck, which sank in French waters in 2004, has cost something approaching $200 million. Furthermore, the Bill is unclear on the question of the transfer of existing assets and liabilities and how any transitional measures would operate. Nor does it mention the responsibility for wrecks, as Sections 252 and 253 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 place responsibility for wrecks outside harbour areas with the GLAs.
The Department for Transport has commissioned W S Atkins to conduct a review of GLAs and the management of GLF. Among its aims, it will address the funding regime—in other words, more light dues raised in Ireland resulting in less reliance on dues raised in England. It will also look at where future efficiencies can be made in GLA operation and support. The review will report in March, and its recommendations are unlikely to require major primary legislation. Devoting parliamentary time now to an issue that would largely be resolved looks somewhat inappropriate. However, the Bill presents an opportunity for ship owners to keep in the public domain their grievances about light dues and the GLA structure.
It has been estimated that significant costs would be incurred in setting up the new structure, particularly with regard to operating costs, redundancy, relocation, retraining and new infrastructure. These have been estimated at between £25 million and £70 million, or, to put it another way, between 12.5p to 35p on light dues, which the ship owner would have to bear. Would any ship owner approve of this potential increase to the running costs? I suspect not.
Marine Navigation Aids Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Simon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 5 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marine Navigation Aids Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c437-8 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:43:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_619573
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_619573
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_619573