PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH WELLINGTON PIER) CONFIRMATION BILL (Hansard, 28 July 1980)

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to confirm an order enabling the Great Yarmouth Borough Council to sell or lease all or part of the Wellington Pier at Great Yarmouth. The borough council has been the statutory undertaker for, and owners of, the Wellington Pier since the turn of the century; but their ownership has unfortunately become unprofitab1e, as the costs of maintaining and operating the pier have outpaced the receipts. It is a burden to them and to their ratepayers. The pier has prospects of success, however, and in the borough council's judgment these would be improved if the borough council could sell or lease all or part of the pier undertaking. As things stand at present, however, they cannot lease the undertaking for more than three years, nor can they sell it. They have therefore promoted the order that is scheduled to this Bill; its effect would be to remove these statutory limitations on their commercial freedom of action. The order has been publicly advertised and there were no objectors.
One should perhaps consider for a moment the original purpose of these constraints on selling or leasing. When Parliament enacted them the object, presumably, was to ensure that the pier should always be controlled by a body with the substance and resources necessary to keep the pier in good order. So that this essential protection should not be lost, the present order would require the first purchasers or lessees of the pier, and any subsequent purchasers or lessees, to take on the existing statutory powers and duties for the undertaking—for instance, the duty to maintain the pier.
My Lords, seeing in front of me the noble and learned Lord who spoke in reply to my speech on the Brighton West Pier Order, this order might seem to him perhaps to be the very opposite of that Brighton West Pier Order which your Lordships' House so recently considered. The object of the Brighton West Pier Order was to allow the promoters to take on a 672 pier, while here the purpose is to transfer a pier out of the hands of the present promoters. There is nevertheless a similarity. The purpose of both orders is to give these enterprises every chance for the future—a chance not merely of survival, but of revival and prosperity. The Great Yarmouth Borough Council are optimistic about the future prospects; but this order, and the Bill, are essential if they are to be free to attract long-term commercial support for the Wellington Pier. My Lords, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.

§ Lord ELWYN-JONES
My Lords, as the noble Lord has pointed out, this is the second time within a short period that the House has learned that yet another pier is under threat. When I speak of "pier", of course, I mean spelled with an "i" and not "ee" These seaside piers—and I am not talking about the Wigan pier at the moment—are a notable, attractive, lovely part of our heritage. They are associated with a period of happiness and of enjoyment and pleasure. They are usually extremely beautiful. Few are as beautiful as the Brighton West Pier. But this, too, is a pier that was built in 1853, and considerably improved in the course of this century with an elaborately decorated new pavilion. It is something that ought to be preserved.
What I would like to know from the Minister is: What help are the Government going to give? As I understand it from the noble Lord, this order has the support of the borough council. But what is to be the fate of the pier if there is no willing buyer? Is it to become a wreck and allowed to disappear into the sea? What is to happen to it? There are too many of these beautiful aspects of our cultural heritage which are under threat. Is this merely a piece of Tory ideology in action, to hand over some publicly-owned enterprise to private enterprise once again? What kind of controls will there be over whatever company it is that leases or buys the pier? Will there be regulations over entry charges? I see that the council is entitled to demand such charges for the use of the pier as it thinks fit. Does that merely apply to rates or will there be any other control? What 673 control or influence will the local inhabitants have as regards the running of the Great Yarmouth Wellington Pier?
The notable feature of the Brighton West Pier proposal was that local inhabitants formed themselves into a protection society and decided to set themselves up as a company, and that particular Bill gave authority for the transfer of the ownership of the pier from the presently bankrupt company to the public-spirited local authority. Where does the local populace have a hand in this project? Is there any similar commitment or involvement?
The pier is a very attractive part of the community. For example, there is a splendid theatre in the Wellington Pavilion. Too many theatres are dying through lack of support of one kind and another—certainly lack of support from the Government. We would like the Government to be a little more forthcoming about this matter and not to cast the Wellington Pier into the deep despond of being destroyed by the waves of the North Sea through the failure of the Government to give a hit of help.

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has quite rightly taken my point that the Brighton West Pier and this pier are not the same. The Brighton West Pier, like many of your Lordships, is very ancient and in a sad state of repair! Here we have a pier which is in good "nick" as one might say. There is no question of danger to the public or anything like that. The order in this case does not mention conveyance to any particular person or enterprise—that will be for the commercial judgment of the borough council. The local populace has no particular say in that, except through the borough council. But what, after all, is the borough council except the mouthpiece of the local populace? So I hope that that deals with that particular point.
I see that the noble and learned Lord is shaking his head. However, the local populace has many different interests. They want to see something going on. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there is another pier at Great Yarmouth. However, to put the matter in perspective 674 and perhaps to make him happy and some of your Lordships who may also be unhappy, I shall put your Lordships in the picture. The borough council has found that ownership of the pier has not been very profitable. In 1978–79 the enterprise lost some £74,000. Maintenance of the pier structure—which dates from, I think, 1901—of the buildings on it and within its curtilage, including the pier theatre, a beer garden, an outdoor skating rink, shops and amusements, are an increasing liability. The council has concluded that, because of the financial constraints under which local authorities are operating, it will almost certainly not be able to take the necessary steps to make the enterprise profitable. The council, therefore, has decided to contemplate a sale or lease of the pier or its buildings.
There are several commercial concerns which have expressed an interest in partial or complete redevelopment. The pier statutes limit the council's ability to lease its undertaking and do not permit an outright sale. The council's purpose in promoting its order is to remove these limitations so as to improve the prospect of reasonable return to its ratepayers by making the undertaking a more attractive proposition to would-be lessees or purchasers. I think that I have probably said more than enough to explain to your Lordships the differences between this and the previous West Brighton Pier Order. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Lord ELWYN-JONES
My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the Government can offer any help or hope of assistance?

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
My Lords, I am afraid that, rather like on the last occasion when I spoke to your Lordships about the Brighton West Pier, I can offer no financial help on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in this particular exercise.