JIM FITZPATRICK MP, MR RICHARD BENNETT, MR CAMERON CLARK AND MR DAVID BOLOMINI

25 JUNE 2008

  Q240  Chairman: What action could be taken under the Bill when a GLA gives a direction to a Local Lighthouse Authority but the authority is unable to comply because the aids to navigation involved belong to a third party?

  Mr Bennett: I think we indicated in the consultation document that this question of third party aids to navigation was an area where we very much welcome further views. There are some enforcement powers over third party installations, such as lights on offshore installations for example, but it is clear from some of the evidence we have already heard that there may be a gap in the enforcement regime. We have also heard today that the Local Lighthouse Authorities, the Harbour Authorities, do not particularly want the role of enforcing the third party aids to navigation themselves. I think this is an area where we will look at the evidence and if it is sensible to extend the GLAs' powers, we will certainly consider that.

  Q241  Chairman: Could you envisage light-dues-payers having a role in approving commercial ventures, perhaps though the Lights Advisory Committee? Is that something you have thought about?

  Mr Bennett: The proposal in the Bill is for the Secretary of State to have the primary role in approving any contracts for commercial activities. I think it is important to understand that the Lights Advisory Committee, who represent commercial interests in the shipping industry, do advise the Secretary of State and the Department. The Lights Advisory Committee are certainly one of the groups we would expect to be involved in discussions of the GLAs' forward plans. Those plans will almost certainly include details of commercial activity that they were planning. We hope that having the Secretary of State's power of consent to the contracts, plus the Lights Advisory Committee's advice on the corporate planning process should be sufficient.

  Q242  Chairman: Do you think it is reasonable that UK light-dues-payers fund the work that could be carried out up to 200 miles out of UK waters and could it be a general taxation issue?

  Mr Bennett: We believe that the user-pays principle for light dues is the right one to stick to. We heard earlier that there are not many of these aids to navigation outside the 12 mile limit, I think a figure of 40 aids to navigation in total was mentioned. It is a very small proportion of the general aids to navigation which are provided for the mariner, but we certainly do not see any reason to draw a distinction between those and the aids within the territorial limit. They are basically there for the benefit of the mariner, for those coming to UK ports and we think it is appropriate that they should fall as a call on the General Lighthouse Fund.

  Q243  Chairman: If that number of likely incidents changes, is that something you will look at again in terms of funding?

  Mr Bennett: If it were to change substantially, I am sure that is the sort of thing that would become an area of debate with the Lights Advisory Committee and the shipping industry, but at the moment we do not think it will change significantly.

  Q244  Chairman: Is the failure of Local Lighthouse Authorities to comply with requests from the GLAs a major problem?

  Mr Bennett: We heard earlier on that as much as 15% of Local Lighthouse Authority aids are defective. A proportion of that number will have been notified for rectification and no action will have been taken.

  Chairman: Thank you very much for answering the questions. The meeting is adjourned.