CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL

HC Deb 17 May 1971 vol 817 cc1015-40

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Speaker

Before calling upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to move the consideration of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill, I wish to inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), That the Bill be considered upon this day six months.

10.3 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

This Bill is of particular interest for a number of reasons. First, it is an attempt to legislate about a very topical problem, that of the environment. The Report of the Countryside Commission entitled "Planning the Coastline", published as recently as last November, referred specifically to Chichester Harbour as the first regional park.

The proposals in the Bill extend beyond the scope which general legislation has hitherto involved, and it is, therefore, a project of a somewhat unique character, creating a local conservancy authority with a somewhat unique constitution in that it would comprise representatives of two county councils between whose areas the main Chichester Harbour has hitherto been divided.

The Bill is promoted jointly by these two councils—namely, West Sussex and Hampshire County Councils—and would confer on the new authority powers designed to remove anomalies which have arisen from the divided administration of what is essentially one harbour and amenity area.

The Bill is a direct attempt to further the interests of naturalists, sports councils, amateur and professional fishing interests and others, including particularly and specifically the interests of yachtsmen and sailing enthusiasts. What could be more topical—with a Prime Minister who adds yachting laurels each weekend to the political ones he gains through the week on the sea-green benches of this House?

The history of the Bill's development is rather a long one and I will not bore the House with its details at this time of night. Suffice it to say that there have been very protracted negotiations. For many years there has been a pressing need to unify the administration of what have been two differently administered harbours and to deal with the problem of conservation in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area, which has been constituted an area of outstanding beauty.

The Bill therefore has been promoted jointly by the two county councils, and the proposals have been worked out with the support of both the previous harbour authorities, which have had responsibility for the administration of the harbours, and the district councils bordering the harbour; that is to say, the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, the Rural District Council of Chichester and Chichester City Council. Also party to the negotiations has been the Chichester Harbour Federation, which is representative of the users of the harbour. This federation represents both sailing and commercial interests. It includes among its membership some 16 clubs, all recognised by the Royal Yachting Association—and 10,000 individual members.

The Bill has also been welcomed by the Nature Conservancy and by the Countryside Commission which, in its recent report, recommended that these regional parks should be established in appropriate areas, and specifically recommended that Chichester Harbour should be selected as the first area for the creation of such an authority.

The House will understand that a very wide spectrum of users and different interests is involved, not only in, on and under the water but also on the shoreline and in the immediately surrounding countryside. As an indication of the large number of interests involved and the attempts made in the Bill to cater for all of them, I propose to read out the composition of the proposed conservancy.

There would be 14 members, of which four each would be found by the county councils, one by the Council of the City of Chichester, two by the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, one by Chichester R.D.C., and two by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Advisory Committee, which is the next point I come to.

There would be an advisory committee constituted by the Bill to advise and assist and to give all the help it could to this new Conservancy. This committee will be of not fewer than 14 and not more than 16 members, again with a very wide spectrum of interests: the Royal Yachting Association, of which I shall speak more in a moment, will nominate one member; the Chichester Harbour Federation, four members; the Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee, one member; the Nature Conservancy, one member; the Countryside Commission, one member; the Greater London and South-East Sports Council, one member—this is an indication that people come from far and wide to enjoy themselves in this area at weekends and so on; the Chichester District Association of Parish Councils is not left out and gets one member; the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation, one member; amateur fishing interests, one member; naturalist interests one member; wild-fowlers, one member; and other persons interested in the harbour or the amenity area, if the conservancy think fit, another two members; totalling up to 16 members.

The Bill's general concept was the subject of consideration at public inquiries as long ago as 1966, and again in 1968, into the revision of the Harbour Orders which were applied for by each of the existing harbour authorities, and it was approved at that time by the Minister as a desirable ultimate aim to achieve one unitary authority for the area.

In addition, in 1968, the two county councils commisisoned a detailed report which was called the Chichester Harbour Study and was produced by the joint planning advisers of those two county councils. This admirable report confirmed the landscape value and the recreational potentialities of the amenity area bordering on the combined harbour, as well as the opportunities for the improvement of the recreational value of the harbour itself. The conclusion of this admirable and detailed report, as stated on page 61, is: The main fact which has emerged from this Study is that all the various users of the harbour are inter-related and that development on the water is bound up with development on the land. At the next stage a steering committee composed of representatives of all the local authorities, the Chichester Harbour Federation as representing yachting interests, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy was established in November, 1969. This committee, which has taken a great deal of advice from outside interests, has been consulted fully in the detailed preparation of the Bill.

Since the Bill has been published petitions have been lodged against it by three bodies. Two petitions have been withdrawn. The only petition which is still standing is that on behalf of the Royal Yachting Association.

I must declare an interest, although not a financial one, because I have been a member of the Royal Yachting Association for many years. In fact, a little earlier I stumbled and referred to the "Yacht Racing Association" which is what it used to be called from 1875 when it was originally created—a little before my time.

I joined the Starcross Sailing Club in Devonshire, and have a certificate to this effect, when I was one week old. So whoever else might denigrate or deny the yachting interests in a discussion of these matters, that man would certainly not be myself!

The substance of the R.Y.A.'s petition is that as yachting and sailing activities form by far the greater part of the use of this combined harbour—there were estimated to be over 6,500 small boats in Emsworth and Chichester alone two years ago; the number has certainly not climinished—the R.Y.A. should have direct representation on the Conservancy Board itself rather than on the Advisory Committee.

Although I am presenting the Bill, I have a great deal of sympathy with this point of view. It is true that sailing interests predominate. Chichester Harbour is a unique stretch of sheltered water, perhaps better for dinghy racing than any other centre in the United Kingdom. It is unquestionably true also that the sources of revenue available to the new Conservancy will arise largely from mooring charges and other fees derived from boat owners.

The R.Y.A. makes the point that it has a personal membership exceeding 33,000, and also that over 1,500 affiliated clubs and sailing clubs are grouped under the overlordship, so to speak, of the R.Y.A.

I can certainly vouch for the fact that the R.Y.A. is recognised as being the national authority for all sailing and boating matters—not only sailing, but motorboats as well, and all sizes and types of boat. The R.Y.A. is recognised as being a national authority, and it has a tremendous record, particularly in recent years, as an energetic and very responsible authority. Its position is not challenged by any other authority. It is accepted by all sailing and boating enthusiasts at all levels from 12 metres down to the smallest little pram dinghy that anybody could possibly be afloat in.

The arguments for and against direct representation on this new Conservancy by the R.Y.A. could occupy us all night. I do not want to indulge in that exercise. We must face the fact that the petition of the R.Y.A. was very fully presented by parliamentary counsel in Committee on 5th and 6th April. The Committee's decision was against such direct representation by the R.Y.A. It seems a fairly narrow point. I can see what the R.Y.A. is driving at. I was not on the Committee but I have read all of its proceedings and I am bound to say that I wish I had been on the Committee because I would have had a lot of sympathy with the R.Y.A.

But tonight we must face the constitutional position that the petition was rejected by the Committee. The R.Y.A. is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. Paragraph 1 of the petition specifically states that the R.Y.A. welcomes the general principle of the Bill for the unification of this vast harbour complex, almost totally concerned with yachting. The R.Y.A. likes the Bill, wants the Bill, and has only this one narrow objection.

My judgment, which is why I agreed to put forward the Bill on behalf of its promoters, is that yachting interests as a whole would be better served by accepting the Bill as it stands and putting the new arrangements into effect as soon as possible than by reopening the whole question of the composition of the new Conservancy. To do the latter might be to defer for several years, or even indefinitely, the setting up of the new authority.

There is a delicately balanced house of cards built up by the authorities concerned, and I fear that the insistence of the R.Y.A. on moving one crucial card might bring the whole edifice tumbling down. Queen Victoria's Lord Salisbury said that "the time comes when any decision, even the wrong decision, is better than no decision." I hope that the R.Y.A. will philosophically remember this dictum even if it cannot agree with it.

The remainder of this long and complex Bill is not substantially opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has certain reservations. It is said that a miniature county council is being set up, remote from some of the people most affected by it. We are suffering from the inevitable consequences of the increased mobility of present-day sportsmen. They come with motor car and trailer, be it boat trailer or caravan, converging on this area of outstanding natural beauty, and it is difficult to produce any authority which can directly represent such a fluid population.

The new Conservancy has the power to call for limited support from the county rate fund and to levy charges of all kinds throughout the area. There are appeal provisions against the charges, and checks and balances of all kinds. The accounts of the Conservancy will be published. We cannot have an authority set up to regulate as complex and crowded a recreational area as this without giving it the essential teeth with which to do its job.

It is not specifically provided in the Bill that the Conservancy's meetings will be held in public, but I have been assured by the promoters that if this were an objection and it was not specifically covered they would be happy to support an Amendment in another place to cover the intention that the meetings should be held in public.

The proposed Conservancy represents an experiment well worth making. It is a valuable experiment which may be very much the pattern of the future. I recommend the Bill to the House.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

I am prompted to intervene very briefly for a special reason. Some time ago I was deputed by this honourable House to preside over the deliberations of the Committee on the Bill. I have no wish to detain the House by giving a detailed recital of the merits of the points in dispute, but, having heard all the arguments skilfully deployed by eminent parliamentary counsel on behalf of the petitioners, I am as familiar with the merits of the Bill as any hon. Member could hope to be.

Having just sat through and taken part in another debate on a Private Bill, my simple plea is that the House should consider it a duty, not necessarily to agree with everything which the Committee entrusted with special powers did, but to accept that the hon. Members over whom I had the honour to preside and myself diligently and conscientiously considered all the arguments presented to us by the parliamentary counsel in charge of the petitioners' case and the promoters' case. As long as we have this kind of procedure in the House—the facility for private authorities, be they county councils or other bodies, to provide finance to promote a Bill which has a desirable objective, as this Bill undoubtedly has—we should at least give them a fair crack of the whip and consider the merits of what they propose, regardless of where the Bill comes from in terms of party politics.

Although there was rooted opposition from the Royal Yachting Association, I was fortified by the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), with his nautical experience and personal contact with the yachting fraterniy. Throughout our debates in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, which were freely and fairly deployed on many occasions, there was a rooted objection that Chichester Harbour, which is an amenity district of great natural beauty, should be developed under the terms of the Bill as a minor national park, fusing together and giving co-ordination to the amenity and recreational interests of the harbour, the ecological preservation of the wild life and natural life which abounds in the sea and on the land in that area, and the fishing interests and those who earn their living on the quayside at Chichester, Waterloo and Langstone.

All those interests have been fully consulted. I am advised that the consultations about the merits of this very enlightened proposal have been going since about 1966. The two county councils which are the prime movers in this matter—the West Sussex County Council and the Hampshire County Council, whose county boundary runs through the middle of the area we are discussing in which the Conservancy is to operate—went to infinite trouble to get the local authority of Chichester and the urban district which adjoins it to ensure that all the interests were properly consulted. Two of the petitioners withdrew their petition before the Committee.

We were then faced with this rather unfortunate sticking point, that the yachting interests said, "We ought to be given a special place on the authority itself", that is, the governing board to be entrusted with the administration of this undertaking. In its wisdom, the Committee rejected this. It rejected it after full consideration, regardless of any party issue. I say that because, as hon. Members know, these Committees are composed of hon. Members representing both sides of the House. The yachting interests thought—this was the basis of their case—that because they provided so many of those who visit the harbour and enjoy its amenities and sail in its waters and in the waters of the estuaries of the rivers, and because they were producing such a large amount of the revenue which comes from levies by the harbour authority, they were entitled to special representation. In fact, representation of all the yachting interests has been amply provided for in the advisory committee which is being set up and which has 14 members. There is no need for me to weary the House with the details of whom they represent.

What this community desires is to merge together the many interests and functions which can affect the whole life of that area, the amenity and cultural welfare of the area, and to preserve what is well worth preserving, and could be destroyed by clumsy commercial development. The opposition is based upon the fact that those who supply a lot of the revenue wish to have special representation.

I am speaking now from memory without reference to a lot of notes, but I understand that a great many of the people—90 per cent. of them—who go to the harbour every weekend or at such other times as they wish to sail their craft on the waters of this inland sea are commuters; they are not local ratepayers, nor members of the local community, but people who because of motor cars and other means of easy traction can go there from all the surrounding areas, and from London—from very far afield, indeed. That is all right; we have no objection to that; and, no doubt, we should do the same thing if we lived in that delectable part of the country. I am speaking as a Lancastrian, as a northern man—who has still some beautiful country left in his part of the world and who is far removed from the seat of this dispute which has arisen.

I would simply say this. If I were buying goods made by I.C.I. or Lever Brothers, and were buying them at the market price, I would not demand a seat on the board of I.C.I. or of Lever Brothers merely because I bought their products. I would be content to pay the commercial price for their goods or services, as the case might be. Here we have the rather peculiar argument, which I think it difficult to sustain in logic or equity, "Because we are a numerous community and go to those waters and take part in the activities there and provide a lot of the revenue, we must be specially represented."

In reply to that, the Committee on the Bill came to the view that the two county councils have financial commitments to meet any deficit, if there were to be one, in the financing of the Conservancy. We hope, of course, that there will not be any deficit, but in the formative stages the county councils would be legally obliged under the terms of the Bill to provide compensating revenue if there were to be a deficit, and we, as a Committee, thought that it would be constitutionally wrong to give to outside, individual people enjoying the services of the district a voice on the governing board directly, so long as they are given adequate consultation through the advisory committee, on which they will be strongly represented.

Those who have investigated these matters, as I have with my three colleagues, are entitled to ask for the support of the House in endorsing what we have done and letting the Bill proceed on its normal course. There is sometimes prejudice in these matters. Private Bills which are opposed are sometimes debated by very few hon. Members, but when the Division bell rings hon. Members flock into the Lobbies on party lines, regardless of the merits of the Bill. Whilst I am a party politician, like any other, I would never be so narrow as to cast a blind vote on an issue concerned with the preservation and improvement of a special part of our country. The Bill is highly desirable, it is enlightened and liberal-minded, it has been soundly constructed and all interests have been consulted. If by some blind vote the House were ill-advised enough to reject the Bill, it would take many years to get it on its feet again. I commend the Bill to the House with the utmost confidence.

10.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

This Bill is being promoted jointly by the West Sussex and Hampshire County Councils, and its purpose is to unify the ownership and management of the two harbours, Chichester and Emsworth, which are now run by Chichester Corporation and Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council. It is a Private Bill, and the Government's attitude towards it is one of strict, though benevolent, neutrality.

The Bill touches on several aspects of the work of the Department of the Environment. There is, for example, the harbour. A general responsibility for harbour matters falls to my right hon. Friend, but the Bill for all that is essentially a local harbour measure to meet a local need, and my Department does not have, and would not wish to have, any special locus. We are, however, broadly content with the Bill as it stands and would not wish to dissent from anything that it says about the harbour.

Secondly, in so far as the Bill touches on the management of the countryside, once again the Department of the Environment has an interest. It is very gratifying that the lovely countryside bordering on these waters should, as the Bill proposes, be taken under the wing of a body such as the Harbour Conservancy. I feel sure the House will agree that this is an appropriate response to the need to protect this beautiful amenity area and to manage it in the best interests both of the flora and fauna and of the many people keenly interested in rural pursuits who will take their enjoyment there.

Thirdly, my Department has an interest in the sporting and recreational aspects that are touched upon in the Bill. I invariably welcome any prospect of sensible improved provision being made for sport and recreation, and in particular in this area for water sports. We are in the presence of a recreational explosion. More and more people with more leisure and more mobility are pressing to the shores and the countryside seeking their pleasure. In particular, there is an enormous upsurge in water sports of all kinds. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has here set a splendid example. But he is not alone. I understand that nearly 1½million people regularly turn to water sports, to sailing. There are, of course, anglers as well, and fishing is covered in some of the provisions of the Bill. On that count also I think I can rightly say that my right hon. Friend's approach is one of benevolent neutrality.

As I understand it, the yachting interests do not oppose the Measure in principle. It would not be right for me to take up a view one way or another on the question of the numbers and representation of those yachting interests on either the Conservancy or the Advisory Committee. As I understand the situation, the Committee of the House was in favour of having a Conservancy Board composed of 12 local authority members and two Advisory Committee members as proposed in the Bill itself. I would have thought there would be a general measure of contentment with that.

If, on the other hand, it should be the wish of the House that the yachting interests should have a stronger say one way or another in the affairs of the Board, then so far as my Department is concerned my right hon. Friend would not wish to dispute this point. From the Government's point of view we see the advantages of this Bill. We adopt a stance of benevolent neutrality.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Langstone)

The House has had the interesting prospect of seeing in this debate benevolent neutrality displayed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, benevolent paternalism from the hon. Member who chaired the Private Bill Committee, and benevolent criticism from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). Within those three forms of benevolence, it would be difficult for me to make my points without exposing myself to a charge of arrogance.

Clearly, what has been said about the functions and operations of Private Bill Committees is justified and hon. Members who sit on such Committees must be said to have considered this Bill and all other Bills that come before such Committees with care and patience. I do not think anybody would dispute that those hon. Members did so on this occasion.

My point of view is not based on objection to the general objectives or principles of the Bill. I have made it clear that I do not propose to divide the House on this issue. I have, however, a number of serious reservations on the Bill and I would be failing in my duty if I did not express them, particularly in view of the many representations made to me by constituents and, of course, because this whole area falls virtually in the heart of my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). The two of us may be said to have a much closer interest in everything the Bill is proposing than might be true of many other right hon. and hon. Members.

My first objection, and it is a real one, is to the manner in which the Bill has been handled. This possibly is as much a criticism of Private Bill procedure as of the way in which this particular Bill has been handled.

My second criticism is perhaps more fundamental, because it applies to the mechanism or mode of operation which will be employed by the Bill in the operation of the Conservancy Board. In principle we should never seek to end up, in this day and age, with anything that exposes us to the criticism of establishing a remote form of government—a form of government, whether central, local or specialist, as in this case, which can be seriously criticised as being unresponsive to the needs of those whom the particular administration affects.

Thirdly, I am critical of the powers of the Conservancy. Those powers, though constrained, seem to me to be of a considerable and wide extent. Page 19 of the Bill sets out these powers in detail, and it would be of interest if I were to summarise them. They include the provision, erection and maintenance of all such accommodation, houses, buildings, structures, erections, vehicles, plant, machinery etc., the holding of exhibitions, shows, regattas, competitions and contests, the provision of hostels and caravan sites, the provision of accommodation for, and the provision of meals and freshments, the provision, improvement or maintenance of roads and parking places, the dissemination of all forms of publicity and the provision of information centres, and the levying of charges for admission to, or the use of, any of the facilities.

Then, over the page, there comes a provision which has been criticised in representations made to me: The Conservancy may for the purpose of or in connection with any of their functions acquire any land within the harbour or the amenity area by agreement, whether by way of purchase, exchage, lease or otherwise. The following subsection reads: The Conservancy, by means of an order made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State may be authorised to purchase compulsorily any such land as aforesaid. These are very considerable powers.

When I say that we are, by this Bill, creating a miniature county council, I accept what the Clerk of the West Sussex County Council said to me in a letter which I received this morning, which is to the effect that most of these powers are those of existing harbour boards or are subject to ratification or transfer by existing county councils. None the less, an authority of this kind is in a different relationship to county councils from the private individual. Theoretically, these powers may be circumscribed in this way. But when an authority is given the kinds of powers that are proposed in this Bill, the argument that we are establishing a minature county council can be maintained in substance.

I turn to the manner in which the Bill has been handled. In essence, many representations were invited, and many may have been considered. During the long procedure of discussion, I have no doubt that that was the case. But it has been made clear to me in the past few weeks that numerous smaller organisations, unable to afford the very considerable costs of petitioning the Private Bill Committee which considered the Bill, have not had their case fully considered. We may think that that is not the case. The Committee may think that it is not the case. But certainly the smaller organisations believe it to be the case.

To confirm it, I quote from a number of the representations which have been made to me. I begin with the Emsworth Business Association, which said in a recent letter: There has been insufficient notification, public inquiry and public participation in the formulation of the Bill…its progress has been attended by undue haste. The Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Federation has made the following point to me: We encase a copy of our letter to you of 31st January submitting a list of suggested amendments. We notice with regret that not one of these has been met and would be grateful if you would take this up. We know you will appreciate the injustice of the ratepayer's position. His money is used to promote this sort of legislation, but neither individual ratepayers nor their associations have the immense sums of money required to back objections. These are serious points.

The next one is particularly interesting. It is contained in what might be described as a public document. In the Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill, which is a document laid before the Committee, this occurs: Nevertheless, the general functions of the Conservancy set out in this clause do not include any reference to fishing interests. In this part of the country, fishing interests are of a substantially lower order of magnitude or significance than any other. No one disputes that yachting is probably the predominant interest. But fishing interests are important. Men's livelihoods depend on them. It is of the utmost importance, when men's livelihoods are involved, that they should not end up feeling that their interests have not been considered adequately, even with a private Bill procedure of this kind.

Mr. J. T. Price

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, in setting up an Advisory Committee of not less than 14 and not more than 16 members, specific provision is made that the Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee shall be represented, after consultation with the Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Federation. The fishing interest are represented. Furthermore, it is proposed that the Advisory Committee shall elect two members to the Conservancy itself. There is direct provision for them.

Mr. Lloyd

I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. The point is that, although this form of representation of fishing interests has been made, the Advisory Committee, knowing this, is still dissatisfied. Possibly the reason for dissatisfaction, to which I shall come later, is the relationship between the committee and the Conservancy Board itself.

Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the two previous letters which he read were laid before the Committee and taken into consideration, even though they were not represented by counsel?

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is probably in a better position to answer. My impression is that these letters were not laid before the Committee. This again comes back to the Private Bill procedure.

I should now like to refer to a letter from the Emsworth Sea Angling Club in which it says: We accept that unification of control of Chichester Harbour has much to recommend it, but feel that many objectionable features have caused so much resentment over the whole area that, to get the Bill off to a good start and in a co-operative atmosphere, it should be completely redrafted on more democratic lines. This again may be exaggerated criticism, but it seems important that it is being made at this stage.

I come to yet another totally different kind of interest, the Emsworth Business Association, representing 60 businesses and, therefore, a large proportion of the businesses in a relatively small coastal town. The association writes: This Bill appears to erode the basic principles of democracy, in that it will transfer vast powers which are at present vested in several local authorities and controlled by our elected representatives, and place these powers in the hands of a far more remote body, which will be almost inaccessible to the local ratepayer. Yachtsmen are very much in the news. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester, who has certainly made some interesting observations on this point, speaks with considerable experience. The Royal Yachting Association certainly petitioned. It was one of the last surviving petitions which were aired and not withdrawn. However, it seems that the essence of the Royal Yachting Association's objection to the Bill comes down to the composition of the governing bodies. My hon. and gallant Friend has already given this information to the House. There is a condominium, in a sense, with the Conservancy Board consisting of 14 members exercising the real power and an Advisory Committee consisting of 14 to 16 members exercising what is I suppose a contradiction in terms, namely, advisory power.

Concerning the mechanism, it seems, from my limited experience, that, generally speaking, advisory committees are ineffective bodies. Not only in this specific area of harbour authorities do they seem to have no power except that of talking and writing letters, but more generally in all kinds of organisations they appear mainly as a sop to Cerberus. I sit on one known as the Council of Europe. It has a tremendous name, but it is nothing more than an advisory committee to Governments which take no notice whatever of what is said.

I turn to the Conservancy Board. The nomination principle by local authorities is very widely opposed in all the representations which have been made to me. This is to be met by including a Clause which provides that nominees should be confined to elected councillors. Many people have pressed for this, but I understand that the promoters have so far been unwilling to give anything more than assurances that naturally a substantial number of the elected members of the two counties will be nominated. This does not meet the criticism which has been made.

Mr. J. T. Price

I think that we had better get the record straight. Since the question of democracy has been brought into the matter, may I point out that the members of the Conservancy Board are to consist of four members of the West Sussex County Council, four elected members of the Hampshire County Council, one elected member of the Chichester City Council, two elected members of the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, which I think includes Emsworth, and one from the Chichester Rural District Council, in addition to which two members are to be nominated to the Conservancy Board itself from the Advisory Committee, on which the Royal Yachting Association will no doubt be represented. They have a channel of representation by the elected people in their respective county councils, urban district councils and city councils to extra seats on the Conservancy Board, through the agency of the Advisory Committee. That is the balanced view that the Committee took.

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Member has probably misinterpreted me. I am not disputing his figures, but there has been considerable criticism about the fact that the county councils retain the power to nominate their representatives and that those representatives will not necessarily be—and according to the Bill do not have to be—elected councillors to counties.

I do not altogether share this criticism, but many of those who have made representations are critical on that point, because they object to the principle of nomination. They feel that this places considerable power in the hands of county councils and keeps the Conservancy Board one stage further from the reach of those elected by the local electors—the citizens.

The Royal Yachting Association has a very strong case, if only on the old—if not old-fashioned—principle of "No taxation without representation". Looking at the area comprised within the authority of the proposed Conservancy Board, it would not be difficult to make out a case that probably nine-tenths of the revenue of that authority, directly or indirectly, will be derived from the yachting interests. One can also make the case that the harbour of Chichester is unlike any other harbour, in that yachting is uniquely important, and that although other interests are rightly and properly represented in our discussions—wild life conservation, and recreation—in terms of revenue produced for those who have to govern this body they are relatively insignificant.

The promoters' arguments are mainly that because there is a precepting power they must have not merely a majority but a substantial majority on the Conservancy Board. I fail to follow the logic of that argument. It seems to me that what is wrapped up in this elaborate term "precepting power" is that the Board has a delegated right to spend a stated sum of money between£20,000 and£30,000. It may spend up to that amount without going to anybody, or seeking any authority. Therefore, it is in a sense a budget provided by county councils in the first place, grants by the central Government—relatively minor, I understand—in the second place, and an unstated, unquantified and unlimited source of revenue from those who use the harbour in any sense whatsoever.

I do not see the logic of the argument that because there is a budget from the county councils, the county councils and the other local authorities between them must have an overwhelming majority on the Conservancy Board.

That brings me to the next point. The argument put forward in favour of not disturbing the situation is that there has been such a delicate balance, and that this has been so difficult to achieve, that we dare not alter it or ask anyone to upset it, because once it is upset we shall never be able to recover the situation. I do not altogether accept that.

Then there is the argument that the local yachtsmen are taking a different view from that of the Royal Yachting Association. The Chichester Harbour Federation has settled for four seats on the Advisory Committee, and therefore the association, representing the national yachting interests, has no right to put forward a different point of view. This again is a difficult argument. It seems appropriate that the National Yachting Institution should have its point of view represented.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

A few moments ago my hon. Friend said that this Conservancy would have apparently unlimited powers to charge the yachting interests for the conservation provided to them. He is no doubt aware that, under Section 31 of the Harbours Act, 1964, there would be a right of objection to the National Ports Council about any harbour charges.

Mr. Lloyd

I entirely accept that, but the National Ports Council is also an advisory body with no real powers. When I took a case from Langstone Harbour on appeal to the council, all that happened was that there was a series of polite and very interesting letters, but no material result, so far as my recollection goes. The council doubtless performs valuable work in other spheres but it is totally unsuited to appraise an appeal from an area such as Chichester.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said that payment of harbour dues did not bring entitlement to privileged treatment. He said that buying soap from Unilever's did not entitle him to sit on the Unilever board. I accept that, but there there is a very wide range of choice. A young man with a dinghy in Chichester may be able to move it five or 10 miles or further, but this will be a considerable expense to him. A man who is keeping a small cruising boat has a much more limited opportunity, and someone who has waited 10 years for a large mooring in Chichester has no opportunity at all, and is much more in the grasp of the authorities.

I feel obliged to put some specific proposals before the House largely in the hope that, out of all this, the promoters will, in reviewing the next stage, which takes place in another place, see whether they can possibly meet the general range of criticism. I am arguing for a new balance between local authority interests and user interests. This is a matter of judgment and discretion and there can be many views about where the fulcrum of this balance should lie. My suggestion is only one possible version which may have weaknesses of its own, but it should be considered so that the promoters know exactly what is in my mind.

I suggest that the proposed Conservancy Board should consist of eight authority nominees, comprising two from West Sussex, two from Hampshire County Council two from Havant and Waterloo, and one each from Chichester City and Chichester Rural District, the last two becoming two from one body when those two authorities are merged into one under the local government reorganisation.

This opens the scope for user representation, the maximum being six, still leaving the local authority nominees with a significant and workable majority. The user interests should comprise two from the Royal Yachting Association representatives on the advisory committee, one from the Ship and Boat Builders' Federation, one from the Sussex Sea Fisheries and Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Association and two from other interests.

This group of six would be a significant counter-weight to the local authority users and would certainly give scope, in the two unnamed representatives, for moving the representation of common interests in Chichester Harbour to giving those who are likely to be there, and who are certainly economically, recreationally and socially of the greatest present significance, some direct say in what the Board is proposing to do.

Mr. J. T. Price

I should like the hon. Member's proposition to be clearly understood. He is proposing, is he not, that six members should be added to the Conservancy, which is the central controlling body, and that they should not be elected members? He has been arguing to the House this is an undemocratic procedure. Is he suggesting that six people shall be appointed to a Conservancy which, in practice, would have the power to levy a rate on ratepayers living in the area; that six people who may not live in the area, who may be commuters from other parts of the country, should be invested with power to levy a rate payable by the county authorities and by those who subscribe to their funds? This is an important constitutional matter.

Mr. Lloyd

I am not suggesting that, because the power to levy a rate, to the extent that a majority decision would be involved, would still be vested in the eight who would be a majority on the board. My suggestion concerning the number of places on the board is not that six be added, but that local authorities should give up a certain number and instead of there being merely two nominees from the advisory board, there should be six nominees from the advisory board. That is the essence of my proposal.

This would result in a number of consequential changes to the advisory committee. There should be two—not one—Royal Yachting Association representatives on the advisory committee and three—not four—Chichester Harbour Federation representatives on the Advisory Committee.

To sum up, I should like the promoters, if it is possible at this stage, before they present the Bill in another place, to reconsider the cases made by the smaller interests which have been unable to afford to present petitions before the Private Bill Committee. I should certainly be prepared to let them have all the documents which have been sent to me. If it were possible for them to receive representations directly, even at this late stage, I am sure that the interests of democracy would be served.

Secondly, I admit that it is difficult and that the existing solution is the result of a wide attempt at compromise, but, nevertheless, I should like the promoters of the Bill to reconsider the composition of the boards. I should like them to reconsider the question of elected versus nominated members of their own group because, although I do not believe this to be vital, it is believed to be vital by many people who have written to me. It comes back to the question of no taxation without representation. If that seems to be rather too large a principle to apply to a very small organisation, perhaps we can call it no charging without some degree of representation.

The promoters will have an opportunity to put forward Amendments in another place. I very much hope that they will do so. I think that Amendments are required. They are not voluminous, but they are important and significant.

I have one other query, and I would willingly give away to the hon. Member for Westhoughton if he could answer it. It seems to me extraordinarily strange that in a Bill which is being put before the House to unify two harbour authorities, in a geographical area where there are already three harbour authorities, where, it seems to me, nothing is not in common between those three—they are all homogeneous—in the sense that there is a major yachting interest, there is a major wild life interest and the character of the harbours is the same, Langstone Harbour Board has not been included in the proposed Chichester Harbour Conservancy. All the logic which one commands seems to suggest that it should have been included.

I wonder whether we are likely to find ourselves, in five or six years' time, presented with yet another Private Bill when someone wakes up to the fact that the situation demands even wider unification of the authority throughout the new Chichester Harbour Conservancy area and the existing Langstone Harbour Conservancy area. If the hon. Member for Westhoughton knows the answer, I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. J. T. Price

As a matter of courtesy I will try to respond, although I can give no authoritative answer to that question. Having been presented with very extensive maps of the whole area and shown where the boundary lines operate, the red and green lines—I cannot describe this in the abstract without the maps before me—some of the coastal areas surrounding the harbour, certain peripheral area on the waterfront, on private land, are still outside the boundaries of the Conservancy. From my knowledge and what I have experienced in debate on these matters, I can only assume that many boundaries have been drawn as a result of long compromise and concessions made to various interests who had objections to particular sections originally mapped. This is a balance between different interests who have represented very liberal and generous compromises on one point or another. I would not venture beyond that.

Mr. Lloyd

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting information. It confirms my suspicion that we have here a situation in which the basic, natural administrative and other requirements of the area are not applied to the whole area, as they should be, right to the eastern end of Portsmouth—at the other end obviously very different circumstances apply. The whole of the harbour is one from the practical point of view. However, this may stimulate those responsible for this question to think again if and when the matter again comes before the House.

I am obliged to the House for the patience with which it has listened to me discussing a somewhat long but, I hope, an important interest.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray (Rossendale)

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has made many points, the majority of which were considered in depth by the Committee. My hon and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) gave an excellent resuméof the background leading to the Bill. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), as Chairman of the Select Committee, gave the impartial resume of the unanimous findings of the Committee.

For the sake of good order, I suggest that we look at the following points. First and foremost, initially there were three objections to the Bill: one by the Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council, one by the Road Transport Association, and the third by the Royal Yachting Association. After discussion and negotiation with the promoters of the Bill, the first two objections were withdrawn. It was then resolved that the Committee appointed by the House should consider the objection raised by the Royal Yachting Association. No other objections whatsoever were raised before the Committee, from which it is fair to assume that the other objectors, by letter or other means, were reasonably satisfied with the assurance they had been given by their immediate local authorities.

In this debate—perhaps I was at fault in Committee—I should declare an interest. For many years I have been a yachtsman. As a result, I know the views, habits and thoughts leading to decisions and activities among the yachting fraternity. I took these considerations into my thoughts and ultimate decision upon the Bill. For that reason I support the Bill, with its Amendments, as approved by the Committee.

The Committee had looked at the fact that we had two small harbours, Chichester and Emsworth. Both were, perhaps, becoming overcrowded; both had scope for improvement; both needed a degree of regulation—much as I dislike the word—to ensure that, with the full use of the environment, they could give of their best not only to the boating fraternity but also to all those who wished to use the area to the full for pleasure and recreational purposes. I see no objection to that. The points made by the wild life and other organisations were catered for in the advisory committee.

Then there is the financial aspect. There is hardly one active member of the Royal Yachting Association who lives in the immediate vicinity or in what can be termed the catchment area of the Bill—nor, for that matter, within a radius of 30 miles north, east or west. It would be difficult for them to live to the south unless they were mermaids. In other words, they are not ratepayers. Nor are they responsible for spending the county rate, or even a proportion of it, on this Conservancy Board. They therefore have no financial discipline thrust upon them.

The two promoting authorities—the West Sussex and the Hampshire County Councils—have been wise in their assessment of the constitutions of the Board and of the advisory committee.

It is easy for people to say that they like messing about in boats and that they spend a lot of money on their boats. However, is the money spent within the district? Does it involve the authority's rate account or revenue account in a profit or a loss? This point was debated in extenso in Committee. It was stated categorically that the rating interests would not show a profit in other words, the local authorities through the rates would subsidise the activities of yachtng authorities. I therefore think that the constitution of the main governing body and that of the Advisory Committee is reasonable.

All these points were considered at great length by the Committee. It was the Committee's unanimous decision that the Royal Yachting Association had failed to make its case. Others Amendments which had been discussed between the promoters, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were subsequently considered. It was the Committee's unanimous decision that the Bill, as amended, be recommended to the House.

Since the Motion objecting to the Bill appeared on the Order Paper I have studied the Bill and the Committee's proceedings very carefully and I can see no reason for retracting my decision to give wholehearted support to the Bill as amended.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)

As a member of the Committee I wish to comment on a number of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). As regards the point raised about the fisheries interests by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the end of Clause 21(2) the phrase and of avoiding interference with fisheries was written in expressly to safeguard the Conservancy's powers in respect of fisheries.

The matter of the non-elected councillor or somebody nominated by the local authorities was discussed in Committee and we had the precedent of the Lea Valley Regional Park Act, 1967, where it was clearly stated that it was desirable that when the local authority felt it had a paucity of persons suitable to serve on this rather specialised Conservancy, it should have the right to nominate someone better suited. It was for this reason that we accepted this precedent as proper for permitting local authorities to put someone on a conservancy who was not necessarily a councillor.

The Conservancy is still subject to planning control by the local planning authority on which elected representatives sit. Therefore, one has a double check on their activities, via the local planning authority. There is no sense, therefore, in which there is a non-elected person having planning control. He is still barred from total control in that he is still subject to the local authority.

The powers of the advisory committee were clearly the major problem: whether the powers of the Advisory Committee were sufficient to ensure that it was not an empty talking shop, but a body with effective access to power. In Committee we carefully noted that the Advisory Committee had power both to examine all matters material to the affairs of the harbour referred to it from the Conservancy, and also to initiate matters itself and to bring them from the Advisory Committee to the Conservancy.

I believe that was associated with the Medway Harbour Authority Act, and we came to the conclusion that the Advisory Committee had sufficient access to power to prevent the charge that it would be nothing more than a talking shop. We closely examined the points mentioned in the hon. Member's speech.

11.19 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

By leave of the House, I should like to reply to one or two matters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) made an interesting and thoughtful speech. No doubt alternative compositions for the Conservancy Board can be suggested and discussed over and over again, but this process has already gone on for five years and we do not want to be like Aesop's dog which lost its bone in the hope of getting a better bone.

The matter is urgent, because something like chaos prevails in Chichester Harbour at weekends, as anybody acquainted with those waters is aware. My hon. Friend's points will be noted no doubt in another place, but it may be difficult to go back to square one.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.