§ 8.18 p.m
§ LORD POLWARTHMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives powers to develop harbours in Scotland in which responsibilities are vested in the Secretary of State as harbour authority. The purpose of the Bill is more specifically to enable the Secretary of State to take advantage of the unused potential of Peterhead Harbour of Refuge to meet the needs of the expanding North Sea oil industry. The harbour was built by convict labour as a place of refuge for ships in storm, under an Act of 1886, which understandably did not foresee the discovery of oil on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf and, in fact, restricted the use of the harbour as a haven of refuge only. The construction of two massive breakwaters, enclosing 200 acres of sheltered waters in depths of 14 and 60 feet, has, however, provided a potential industrial asset for North-East Scotland which should obviously be brought into use in the new situation which has arisen. Oil developers seeking facilities for servicing oil rigs for the recent fourth round exploration concessions have been pressing for the use of Peterhead's resources. Speed has thus been of the essence, and this short Bill has accordingly been presented to Parliament at short notice in order that the inadequacies of the existing legislation can be made up.
The Bill is drafted in general terms and is restricted in its application to harbours made or maintained by the Secretary of State, and then only to such harbours as are vested in the Secretary of State under statutory powers. It in fact applies to two harbours other than Peterhead: at Uig, in Skye, where the Secretary of State for Scotland became the harbour authority when their pier was acquired as part of a land settlement estate, and at Invergordon. where the Secretary of State for Defence is harbour authority. At neither of these harbours, however, is development envisaged under this Bill; indeed, Invergordon may shortly be dealt with under the Cromarty Firth Port Authority Provisional Order, if the latter is in due course confirmed.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to undertake the developments at 409 his own hand, in accordance with the normal practice of harbour authorities—-the Financial Memorandum envisages the possible expenditure of between £2 million and £3 million in the next two years; or, alternatively, he may authorise other persons to carry out that development. Whoever does it, whether it is to be the Secretary of State or other persons so authorised, the Secretary of State, as harbour authority, will retain overall control of the developments; for example, over access, the design and location of structures and operational responsibility through the harbour master. In addition, whoever carries out the work, the viability of the development will have to be demonstrated by applying the commercial criteria applied to harbour developments under Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. No Government grants or subsidies are available for the commercial development of harbours.
Subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides these powers. Subsection (2) enacts powers for acquisition of land, by agreement or compulsorily, to facilitate harbour development, subject to the procedural safeguards provided for in subsection (3). Subsection (4) provides for the making of any necessary orders by Statutory Instrument to amend or repeal existing Statutes of local application, the main purpose being to modify the Local Act of 1886 where it is inadequate or unsuitable. Clause 2 provides that all expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in implementing the Act should be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and that any revenue shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Clause 3 makes formal provision for the Title and extent of the Bill.
The Government are particularly mindful of the impact of extensive commercial developments at Peterhead on local interests. I can therefore give an assurance that the interests of the local fishing industry will be safeguarded, and that their right of access through the Harbour of Refuge to the fishing harbour will on no account be infringed. I know that local people are concerned that developments should proceed with the minimum of interference with local amenity. It is unrealistic to suppose that substantial industrial developments of this kind can 410 charm of the bay, but I hope that recreational facilities in the bay need not be seriously impaired. Indeed, the increased prosperity of the area which could well result from this activity could lead to improved opportunities for recreation. My officials will keep in close touch with the town council and the county council to ensure that every step is taken to preserve amenity.
It is not yet possible to give an indication of the outline of the plans for development at Peterhead, or of the arrangements that may be made with developers. Consultants have been engaged by the Secretary of State to advise on the overall design and operation of the harbour. Their recommendations are under active examination and discussion at the present time. Extensive discussions have also been taking place, not only with prospective developers but also with Aberdeen County Council, Peterhead Town Council and the Fishery Harbour Trustees. Once the future structure of developments is known more exactly, further consultations will be held with local interests and steps will be taken to ensure that the plans are fully explained to the local people.
My Lords, the Government have acted swiftly to remove the limitations on the development of a unique and substantial asset. They are anxious that its potential should be realised, consistent with orderly development and the safeguarding of amenity, and that this should contribute fully to the national and local economy. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —[Lord Polwarth]
§ 8.25 p.m.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Bill, which we welcome. Its purpose at the very outset was to convert the Harbour of Refuge, as it is known, into a commercial harbour. That was the sole purpose of the Bill. Then, in another place, after the Bill had been promoted, it was found that it might cover one other harbour, and that was Uig, in the Isle of Skye. I do not know how far we have gone, but to-night we find there is another harbour added to it. This is apparently one of those continuing sagas: every time the Bill reaches one or other place another harbour is added; 411 and we have learned to-night for the first time that Invergordon may well come under the aegis of this Bill.
Whatever else it does, we know that its purpose was indeed to do what I have already said, because this particular harbour in fact provided the most economical way of setting up the oil rigs and looking after them for the North Sea developments. As I understand it, the power invested in the Secretary of State by this Bill does not apply only to this particular harbour but will apply to Uig, if it is found necessary, or to Invergordon. And Invergordon is a much more attractive-looking spot, a much more likely spot for development to take place. If the Government are intending under this Bill to spend some £2 million to £3 million over a two-year period, then obviously this figure will have to be changed, and changed considerably, if Invergordon is to come into use; because while it may well be true that the county council will be introducing a scheme, I am equally certain that if the county council were to do so they would expect some considerable assistance from central Government. So I should be grateful if we could find out how it is proposed to tackle this situation.
The powers conferred by this Bill are in fact fairly considerable, because it gives power to the Secretary of State for Scotland either to carry out the work directly or to give it out to private contract. Obviously, one would like to know what is intended, although I understood the Minister to say that the scheme had not got far enough yet for him to know exactly what was going to be done. But quite obviously the people in the area, and certainly the people of Scotland, will want to know what his intentions are, because if indeed there is a fixed purpose of this kind—and we have to remember the reason for which Peterhead was chosen—then someone is bound to have some idea about what it is intended to do with the site. So I should like the Minister, if he would, to go a little further and to tell us exactly what they intend to do there. I should also like to know, if in fact the Secretary of State decided to sub-contract the work (if I may use that term), what assistance would be available to the people who undertook the work. Would it be paid out of 412 this fund, or would it come from the provisions made under some other Act? I should have thought that if it were done directly under the provisions of this particular Bill, then the money would have to be paid out of this fund; hut it would be better if we understood what is proposed.
There is one other point I want to raise in connection with this Bill. I wonder whether it has not been drawn too tightly. I know that the powers of the Secretary of State are pretty considerable, but in the matter of the development of North Sea oil there is a great number of people who think that its potential has been greatly underestimated. It may well mean that further developments will have to take place in other parts of Scotland, and this might also call for very speedy action on the part of the Government to meet the situation. After all, the argument for this Bill is that speed is the very essence of the matter. It may well be that this matter will arise again, but before we part with this Bill I should be grateful if the Minister of State would say what action can be taken and what power there is for the Secretary of State to meet these possible needs.With those few, simple questions, I of course support this Bill.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODMy Lords, I should like to say one word of welcome to this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has done. I know the area well and I think it has great potential. I am glad that there will be some safeguards for the beauties of the bay and I agree with my noble friend Lord Polwarth that if you are going to make development it must be big enough to be able to take the development that we hope is to come to the area from the oil finds in the North Sea. It should bring prosperity to that part of the country. This nobody can begrudge since it is an area where we are anxious to see population increasing and the value of the work there going up in the interests of everybody concerned. I commend the Bill strongly and, in the words of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, I think it a good move and I hope it will be a highly successful one.
THE EARL OF BALFOURMy Lords, I wonder if I could just mention one 413 point here. My noble friend the Minister mentioned the Act of 1886, which I must admit I have never read. I wonder if this Bill possibly will in any way affect the actual wording of that Act or whether it should possibly mention that Act. That is the question I should like to ask. Secondly, speaking as a seaman who knows the East coast of Scotland pretty well, I should like very much the Minister to take note of what I am now saying. In a South-East gale, in anything of the size of a yacht coming up the English coast you can run in behind Holy Island harbour, if you have local knowledge; you can run right up the Firth of Forth and the next port you can get into is Inverness. That is a long way to run in a South-East gale, and they are not uncommon. I wonder if in the development of Peterhead as mentioned it might be possible so to design that port that a ship seeking refuge can run into Peterhead in a South-East gale. This is something I think many people are not aware of; but I have seen in a severe gale Aberdeen Harbour, for example, absolutely closed, with the three red lights up.
§ LORD POLWARTHMy Lords, I welcome the general support the House has given this small but extremely important measure, and particularly the comment from the experienced nautical noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I think I can assure him straight away that nothing will be done to interfere with the harbour in its function as a haven of refuge if he should ever have to take refuge there. There is no intention of doing that.
I shall endeavour to deal as quickly as possible with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. Regarding Invergordon, the position is that it is almost certain now that it will find its way into the hands of the proposed new authority which is being created for that area. It will then be for them to carry out any improvements or developments. It will not be concerned with the funds under this Act once it is transferred; it will be able to make use of loans available for port and harbour development which have already been made use of recently, for instance, in the new developments at Aberdeen harbour. The inclusion of Invergordon was due to the curious wording. Originally the Bill referred to the "Secretary of State". As 414 it omitted to include "Scotland", it apparently includes the Secretary of State for Defence, who is the present owner.
Regarding the width of the powers, I cannot tell the House how it is intended to develop it. There is a need at this moment both for flexibility and speed. The situation with regard to oil exploration is moving so swiftly and changing so rapidly that it is difficult at this stage to be precise. What is clear is that action is needed speedily to prepare the harbour for developments that may be required and which we are certain are going to be required. The object of the current consultant's investigation is to help the Secretary of State to decide whether the best method is for him to carry it out himself, in which case he will make use of funds provided for here. If he decides that the whole or part of the development should be farmed out to those interested they will be responsible for providing the funds themselves; the money will not come from the funds under this Bill. The noble Lord also asked whether we were not drawing it too tightly.
§ LORD HOYMy Lords, I am sorry to intervene but this is an important point. If nothing can be paid out of these funds when the noble Lord refers to organisations to which the work may be allocated, and says that they will have to find the funds themselves, I take it that they will have the right to apply for the industrial development grant. Is that so?
§ LORD POLWARTHMy Lords, this is an area in which I may not be able to satisfy the noble Lord because, as I understand it, harbour works and certain works within harbours are not included under the Industry Bill. It could be that certain work if not within a harbour curtilage could be eligible.
My Lords, on the scope of the Bill and the question of other harbours, there will be other harbours where development is going to be required. We have a prime example in Lerwick in the Shetlands where they are promoting an Order for this purpose at present. Owing to the legal situation of these harbours they could not be covered by an Act of this kind for it would conflict with existing legislation. They would carry out development by seeking power under Order under the Harbours Act 1964. 415 They would be eligible to apply for loan support under current legislation also, as has been done at Aberdeen. I have endeavoured to answer the noble Lord's points; I hope that I have been reasonably successful and thank the House for their acceptance of this Bill.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.