HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 14 April 1953)

LORD REA
My Lords, it is my privilege to commend for your Lordships' approval the Second Reading of this short but, I think, rather valuable Bill. After the matter which has just been before the House, I think your Lordships will find that this is child's play. Under the 1937 Act of the same name, the Secretary of State for Scotland is empowered to authorise the expenditure of up to £5,000 by local authorities or harbour boards, or other such bodies, in what are colloquially known as the "crafting areas" in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, for the construction, maintenance or repair of harbours, piers, ferries, slipways and such works without recourse to 682 Parliament in London. For the expenditure of more than £5,000 it is necessary for the promoters of these works to come to London and to promote what is known to your Lordships as a Provisional Order a procedure which is of course expensive, both in money and in time.
Your Lordships will, I think, agree that £5,000 to-day does not go very far in constructional or repair work of this nature. Indeed, the cost of getting the necessary machinery and plant to these remote places may well amount to several times that sum before the work itself is even started. It is therefore sought by this Bill to increase the maximum or £5,000 to £25,000 as being a much more realistic and suitable figure. The area concerned comprises the Scottish counties of Argyll. Inverness, Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney and Shetland, where, in many instances, your Lordships will realise that the struggle for subsistence is hard; and in sonic cases, particularly in the case of some of the Islands, there is a temptation to abandon the land to the seagulls and the sheep. Development of transport, particularly of water transport, in those areas is therefore of the greatest importance to the crofters. But the imposition of additional local taxation, in the form of rates and other taxes, to meet the cost of discussion in London, the briefing of Parliamentary agents and putting through each separate action as art Act of Parliament, simply because the cost of the operation is more than £5,000, is, I submit, really an unfair burden. Not only is money involved, but your Lordships are well aware that in the North of Scotland the period during which marine works can be undertaken is very limited, and rough weather often makes those works quite impossible for many months at a time. It is therefore conceivable that the delay caused by coming to London for a Provisional Order would put in jeopardy not only the livelihood but even the lives of some of these seafaring folk in the North of Scotland.
I would emphasise that this Bill does not seek authority for increased expenditure in any form; nor does it seek to bypass Parliamentary authority. All expenditure is and will be controlled and scrutinised by the appropriate Government Department, whether that expenditure be £100 or £100,000. What this Bill does seek to do is to extend the very great 683 benefit of getting quickly, locally, and inexpensively the approval or the veto—and I would underline the word "veto"—from the Secretary of State for Scotland for projects costing up to £25,000, instead of up to merely £5,000. Your Lordships, I am sure, are aware that a children's school, costing, say, £100,000, can be built to-day without any necessity for the promotion of a Provisional Order. It does seem more than a little unfair that, under the present law, and with no apparent benefit to anybody, these very deserving Scottish areas should be penalised by what is, in effect, merely a matter of procedure.
This Bill is nothing more than a small amendment to the existing Act in order to rectify a hardship which I feel sure was not envisaged in 1937. I would only add that the Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill, was fully examined by the Scottish Standing Committee in another place, and emerged from that Committee with unanimous approval and support. It then passed through the other place with similar unanimous enthusiasm and with the blessing of Her Majesty's Government. I very much hope that your Lordships may see fit to endorse that view, and I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON)
My Lords, I do not think that there is anything I need add to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, for which he is responsible in your Lordships' House. As a result of representations which have been made by the Highland Panel and Scottish local authorities generally, the Bill has the full support of Her Majesty's Government. The 684 Panel and the Scottish local authorities have represented, as the noble Lord has said, with justice, that it is anomalous that authorities who can build schools, undertake housing schemes and make themselves responsible for other works, involving considerable expenditure, without having to seek a Provisional Order, should be so closely restricted when it comes to marine works. Indeed, the raising of the quite inadequate limit of £5,000 to £25,000 will, I think, very much help to simplify this procedure.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, I should like to add my welcome to this Bill. The only question that arises in my mind is whether the limit has not been fixed rather on the low side, knowing what things cost to-day. That is the only question in my mind. Otherwise, I warmly welcome the Bill.

LORD MIDDLETON
My Lords. I, too, should like to support this Bill. May I ask the noble Lord opposite why Ross-shire does not appear on the list of counties affected?

LORD REA
My Lords, I must apologise for not mentioning that Ross and Cromarty is amongst the counties affected—it was a mistake on my part. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I would say that the promoters or sponsors of this Bill were, in the first place, anxious that the limit should be increased to £60,000 or £70,000. This did not meet with complete approval by the authorities concerned; it was considered that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and that it was safer to go for a figure that they would accept rather than one which they might not accept. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his reply on behalf of the Government.