§ 2.42 p.m.
§ Lord Lloyd of BerwickMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the West Pier Trust.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to reach a decision on the application for a harbours revision order under the Harbours Act 1964 in respect of the West Pier Brighton, submitted on 3rd July 2001.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, there is one outstanding objection to the application and the Harbours Act 1964 requires that when that is the case an inquiry must be held. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has decided not to call in the planning application and if the applicants apply for an inquiry now, a decision on the harbour revision order could be made within five to six months. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will wish to know that the Government have expressed support for the Harbours Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Berkeley to streamline harbour order procedures.
§ Lord Lloyd of BerwickMy Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, I must express a certain degree of disappointment. The Minister will, I am sure, confirm that the restoration of the West Pier is a matter of some 4 little concern, as it is our only grade 1 listed pier. Is he aware that since full planning permission has been granted, there is no longer any valid objection to the making of an order under the Harbours Act and therefore no need for a public inquiry? In those circumstances, an order could be made very much sooner than five to six months.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the noble Lord says there is no valid objection. Unfortunately, the Harbours Act 1964, which is a very outdated piece of legislation, says that an inquiry must be held unless the objection is trivial or frivolous. It does not use the word "vexatious", which we use nowadays. There are those who think that the objection is vexatious, but I do not think it could be said to be trivial or frivolous. So we are stuck with the Harbours Act until something can be done to replace it.
§ Lord DholakiaMy Lords, I spent many of my student days in Brighton, and the piers were a great attraction. When I write my autobiography, it will be called "From Pier to Peer". With the West Pier falling to pieces and Palace Pier having recently caught fire, the structures have a very nostalgic value. Can the Government do anything to assist in preserving something which is so precious to our seaside?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We very much want both piers to be in full working order. For that reason, the Heritage Lottery Fund has already paid out £1.7 million for emergency work on the West Pier, and £14 million or more is set aside for restoration work once all the procedures have gone through. But we are, as I said, stuck with an outdated piece of legislation—the Harbours Act 1964—which says that there must be a public inquiry if there is any objection, unless that objection is trivial or frivolous, and we do not think it is. There are two other routes: first, the Bill of my noble friend Lord Berkeley would bring the Harbours Act up to date. Secondly, there is the possibility of a regulatory reform order, which would depend on a marine consents review that my noble friend Lord Rooker is undertaking. If that can he brought forward, the situation will improve. But neither would be retrospective—they could not apply to Brighton West Pier.
§ Lord Lloyd of BerwickMy Lords, does the Minister realise that while all this is going on, the pier is collapsing, and that unless something is done very soon, there will be nothing to restore? It is obviously for the Minister to decide, but it can be done on the basis that the only objection was based on a planning point, which has now gone. Therefore, the remaining objection, in so far as there is one, is trivial or vexatious, or any other word you care to use.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I do not think lawyers should say "any other word you care to use". I should have thought they would have to be 5 much more precise. I have pointed out that the term "trivial or frivolous" is a much stronger criterion than "vexatious", which we would use today. There are those who think that the objection that remains is vexatious. If the West Pier Trust wants to take a case against the objector on that, I suppose it could, but it is not a matter for the Government to override statute law. That is what we are bound by.
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, I declare an interest as someone who was brought up in Brighton—or Hove, actually.
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, will the Minister explain why Brighton needs two piers when it has managed perfectly well with one for years?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, this is a heterodox point of view. Many people think that piers are good things in themselves. Brighton West Pier is grade I listed; it has been closed since 1975. I should have thought that having two piers is a real distinction for Brighton and that they would boost each other's commercial viability.