HL Deb 20 March 1986 vol 472 cc1052-7

3.28 p.m.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be considered on Report.—(Viscount Davidson.)

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, this Bill seeks to authorise the trustees of the harbours at Peterhead to construct extensive harbour works adjacent to their existing undertaking in the area commonly known as South Bay, Peterhead. Few private measures have evoked such bitterness in recent times, and the Bill should not pass the House unremarked. In essence, we have the trustees of the fishing harbour at Peterhead very properly seeking to improve their harbour to give greater protection to their harbour entrance and to provide for an expansion of port facilities.

Representations made to Parliamentary Commissioners sitting at Peterhead in May 1985 were to the effect that the trustees were seeking, first, to calm the waters of the inner harbour; secondly, to reduce the severe congestion which arises, particularly at weekends; thirdly, to provide for the expansion of the grain trade in the future; and, fourthly, to provide better facilities for fishing vessels.

These aims are eminently sensible and are worthy of the support of any prudent port manager, and indeed of Parliament itself. I should add that the commissioners, to whom I have referred, sat under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who would have wished to be in his place today; but due to an inescapable prior commitment in the central area of Scotland, where he now lives, he is unable to be with us. However, he asked that I make his position clear to your Lordships' House.

Unfortunately, the scale of the proposed works went far beyond the stated aims and provided for an increase in commercial berthing capacity well in excess of 200 per cent. The plan deposited with the sheriff clerk at Peterhead in accordance with the terms of the Bill is capable of adaptation to accommodate ships of up to 24,000 tonnes deadweight. Clearly, this vast increase in total berthing capacity, and greatly enhanced ability to handle large vessels of a type never hitherto handled at Peterhead, placed the businesses of the other Scottish east coast ports very seriously at risk.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the ports of Aberdeen and Dundee and the Forth Ports Authority all objected, in company with the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners Association and the Aberdeen Stevedoring Company Limited. There were also petitions of objection from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, who operate a tanker terminal in the bay area, and from the Peterhead Bay Authority. Those objections were on the grounds of safety, having regard to the fact that the proposed works protrude into the bay harbour, and it was considered that they would put tanker traffic at risk. There were also, not surprisingly, strong complaints from the neighbouring residents, who still remain deeply concerned as to the effects upon their properties and upon their quality of life.

The Parliamentary Commissioners generally found in favour of the promoters, but effected some small modification by removal of the roll-on/roll-off facility and by placing some constraints upon the height of the development and upon blasting work with explosives necessitated by the need to remove rock in the course of dredging works. Consequently, the objectors petitioned Parliament. When the Bill was given its Second Reading on Monday, 16th December 1985, the great majority of speakers in the other place—representing all political parties, I might add—spoke strongly in favour of referral to a joint parliamentary committee of both Houses. Nevertheless, the Motion to refer the matter to a joint parliamentary committee of both Houses was defeated by a very narrow margin.

One of the objectors, Aberdeen Harbour Board, and acting on behalf of all the other objectors of Aberdeen, and with the encouragement and support of the Dundee Port Authority and the Forth Ports Authority, sought to meet with representatives of Peterhead Harbour Trustees to see whether one final attempt at compromise could achieve a solution mutually satisfactory to promoter and objector alike. It was in this somewhat difficult atmosphere that the chairman and the general manager of the Aberdeen Harbour Board finally met informally on two occasions with the chairman and the harbour master of the Peterhead Harbour Trustees. It has to be said that the two meetings which these parties held were conducted in a cordial and sincere atmosphere which had, as I understand it, been totally lacking from some previous discussions.

A new and completely modified construction plan was tabled by the representatives of Peterhead. This differs from the plan laid in accordance with the Bill before the sheriff clerk at Peterhead. The new plan provided for the major part of the works—the new south breakwater quay—to be constructed so as to provide a maximum depth of water of 8.5 metres. The plan also limited the dredged depth in works No. 1 shown in the order to 5.5 metres all over, instead of a part being dredged to a depth of 8.5 metres. The chairman and the harbour master at Peterhead categorically stated that they would be willing to enter into a written agreement not to handle offshore traffic—the principal cause of the concern at the other ports in the East of Scotland.

With the full approval of all the other objectors in Aberdeen and other ports to the south, the trustees were subsequently asked whether they could see their way to further limiting the depth and making other small modifications. No further concession was made, however, and the offer to enter into a legally-binding written agreement in regard to offshore traffic was not forthcoming. Indeed, such a legally-binding agreement in writing has been assiduously avoided.

I am advised that the chairman of the Peterhead Harbour Trustees has now sent to the Aberdeen Harbour Board a revised engineering drawing which shows that the depth of the principal new quay will be restricted to 8.5 metres, unlike the original plan. The chairman of the trustees has also given his word to Aberdeen Harbour Board that the trustees will not handle offshore traffic, and we must assume that this means that they will not only refrain from seeking such traffic but will positively decline any offers of such traffic. Similarly, he has given an assurance that, in accordance with the offer made earlier, dredging works No. 1 will be restricted to 5.5 metres. In some measure, this ameliorates the worries of the objectors and they have intimated that they are willing to accept that the word given by the chairman of the trustees will be honoured.

It has to be said that the enactment of this Bill will be contrary to the advice of the EC Court of Auditors, who are on record as stating that the ports of North-East Scotland are under-utilised and additional capacity in one port would be at the expense of all the others. Evidence before the commissioners confirmed that no new trade would be generated and there would be no net job gain for Scotland. On the contrary, evidence tabled on behalf of the promoters pointed to consequent job losses even as far afield as Inverness.

In my view, none of the objectors, and especially Aberdeen Harbour Board, would ever have stood in the way of an attempt to improve Peterhead Harbour for the benefit of the fishing industry, to reaccommodate their existing grain trade or indeed to improve the access to the harbours and give better weather protection. The bitterness of the past few months derives in part from the original engineering plan which has now apparently been superseded. Above all, it derives from the totally unjustifiable proposal, as I see it, to create a major new deepwater harbour within 30 miles of another major harbour which already has considerable surplus capacity. Even with the limitations upon which Aberdeen Harbour Board have now received recent assurances, the new facility would be physically capable of accommodating any ship which used Aberdeen or Dundee in 1985.

Furthermore, there can be little doubt that unfair competition will arise, since Peterhead currently depends upon casual labour who belong to no trade union and, unlike dockworkers in Aberdeen, Dundee and the Forth ports, are subject to no training scheme, have the benefit of no pension scheme and are not in regular employment.

At an estimated cost exceeding £13 million, substantial traffic must be generated to pay construction costs. The fishing industry contributes more than three-quarters of the ship dues and goods revenue of the Peterhead Harbour Trustees. It will, therefore, be the fishermen of Peterhead to whom the trustees will eventually be answerable if this grandiose development proves unviable, for it is they who will be paying.

Time alone will tell whether Parliament has been wise in allowing this dubious measure to proceed. I hope that the worst fears of the objectors will not be fulfilled and that the danger of serious unemployment in ports to the south will not eventuate. But as the Bill now proceeds through your Lordships' House I have to express the hope that the trustees of the harbours of Peterhead will stand by their undertaking not to handle offshore traffic in the future. A failure of will by them in this regard would have the most serious repercussive effect upon the other ports of the east coast of Scotland.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, started by saying that he agreed with the four aims, which he mentioned, which the trustees of Peterhead harbours have put forward as the reason for this confirmation Bill. Having just listened to what he has said, perhaps I may say that his objections appear to be, first, that the work proposed will be more extensive than is really necessary; and, secondly, that this will be at the expense of nearby ports, particularly Aberdeen. I understand entirely why the noble Lord has taken this line—among other things, he is a former distinguished Lord Provost of the City of Aberdeen—but I feel I must put briefly another point of view.

Peterhead has been, among the ports on the north-east coast, a very successful fishing port. The harbours there are meeting greater demand for providing berths for fishing boats but they are also experiencing a demand for the handling of grain and other bulk cargoes. At present, great congestion is being experienced in the harbours of Peterhead, particularly at times of the week when a lot of boats are there together.

The proposals in this confirmation Bill will, I understand, meet the demands of the success which Peterhead has been enjoying and will build upon it. In putting forward these proposals I believe that not only will the trustees be making sure that activity continues and is increased at Peterhead in accordance with the demand but that this will also have a good effect on the hinterland. Therefore I believe that the Bill ought to be supported.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Boothby

My Lords, as one who represented the burgh of Peterhead in another place for 34 years, who opened the present harbour which is rather too small, and who is the only surviving freeman of the burgh of Peterhead, I should just like to say that I warmly welcome this order. I think it is very necessary. I think that the promises and obligations made by the trustees of Peterhead harbour will be carried out.

It is to some extent a reflection of the expansion and growth of the inshore fishing industry not only of Scotland but of the whole of this country. I have spent over 60 years of my life in Parliament, and most of that time cursing successive governments to no particular avail although I think with good reason. It therefore gives me very great pleasure to say how warmly I support this Bill because it is in the result a reflection of the successful policy for inshore fishing generally, which the present Government have consistently pursued.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was perfectly right when he said that Peterhead deserves the success it now has, because of the services it has supplied. The two groups of people who have to be considered most in this matter are the fishermen and the public; and both want the expansion of Peterhead. The fishermen have proved for years now that they regard Peterhead as the best port of landing of the lot. The expansion of the industry as a whole and of the seafaring industry around the coast of Scotland is the justification for this order.

I therefore hope very much that the order will be given the welcome it deserves. I can assure your Lordships that I, who know them pretty well, am absolutely convinced that the trustees of the harbour of Peterhead will honour the obligations they have already given to Aberdeen.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, it is rather sad that we should have to have this debate because here we have a very deep controversy dividing a part of the North-East of Scotland—a tug-of-war between Aberdeen and Peterhead. I am beginning to think that the Government are in between them. I am very sorry for the Minister. He is neutral in this; he cannot say anything by convention. We are much freer on this side of the House.

I regret indeed that this is not a Public Bill; had it been, it would have gone on for quite a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will remember that the last Bill we had on the extension of Peterhead was one that he raced through the House, but it was a Public Bill. I had the pleasure thereafter of opening the extension of the harbour. That was barely 10 years ago. It was an extension of the harbour of refuge. There are really two harbours in Aberdeen—the fishing harbour and the harbour of refuge. We now have this extension which is going to cost more than £13 million. That estimate was taken about two years ago and the cost is probably far higher now.

When one considers how much is going to be done and how much money is going to be spent, one can understand the concerns of other areas as to whether or not, in order to get a profit from that investment, they are going to extend their traffic, and that at a time when the EC already says that the underutilisation of the present facilities is about 50 per cent. We heard a Question today about the fall in oil prices and the effect that that might have. We heard how wonderfully we are doing without the profits and taxes from oil. If the price goes down and there is a laying-off in respect of the activities in the North Sea, which has been keeping both these ports and other ports in that area at a rate of prosperity greater than it has ever been, one can see the concern.

I read with very considerable care all that was said in another place just the other day. The Member of Parliament, Mr. McQuarrie, made great play of the fact—I am not quoting his words; I am not allowed to do that—that the facilities were intended primarily for the fishing industry. But the Minister, Mr. Ancram—or Lord Ancram, as he sometimes calls himself—who is neutral in this matter and merely explains it, had this to say: I understand that these facilities are intended primarily for commercial, that is, non-fishery, traffic".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/85; col. 87.] That is the difficulty. I do not believe that they are going to spend upwards of £13 million to make the harbour safer for the fishing industry. I wish that there had been much more come and go between Aberdeen and Peterhead in that respect.

Lord Boothby

There will never be that, my Lords.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Now, now, my Lords, we have heard plenty from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in the past, and we all know of the glories of Peterhead. Some of us have a soft spot for Aberdeen as well, despite what happened to its football team last night.

The Government may well be neutral but I believe it is true to say that the trustees at Peterhead asked the Government for some money. They asked the Government for some £12 million and did not get it. I wonder where all the money is to come from. Will it come from the Scottish Office or from the Ministry of Transport? If non-fishery harbours are supplied with cash by anyone, it is from that source. It does not look as though the EC is going to come across with the money if it thinks that there is already over-provision in that area. It is regrettable that those two areas and harbours which are so close and which have been so friendly over the years should be fighting over that matter.

I may explain to your Lordships who do not realise this that there was a heated argument in another place and there was very much a cross-party Division in the House. The Government's majority was only 18. Still, the matter has already been decided and we must accept it.

As I have said, I am sorry for the Minister because the convention is that the Secretary of State treats the recommendations from the Parliamentary Commissioners seriously and respectfully. Only in very exceptional circumstances does he set them aside. He has decided—rightly, I believe—that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

Although the Secretary of State is not to be regarded as expressing a view on the merits, because he incorporates the report in a Bill it means that the Government must be silent. I wonder whether they will be silent again when they are asked for money in respect of this matter, because then they will not be able to remain neutral.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, the Government's attitude towards this Bill is one of total neutrality. I had not intended to intervene in this debate but I should just say to your Lordships that, as all the proper procedures have been observed, it is the Government's duty to accept the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioners and to submit to Parliament a confirmation order that has been the subject of an inquiry. That is what your Lordships are doing today.

On Question, Bill considered on Report.