Official Report 492KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Marine Navigation (No 2) Bill. I thank the minister for staying on to give evidence to the committee on the LCM and I welcome his supporting officials: Val Ferguson, who is a policy executive; and Stuart Foubister, who is the divisional solicitor. Before I invite members to begin the questioning, I remind the committee that we have a very short window in which to consider and agree a report on the LCM, which must be considered by the Scottish Parliament before the Christmas recess. Therefore, we will consider our draft report later in this meeting.
I will speak briefly to the proposed legislative consent motion on the devolved provisions of the Marine Navigation (No 2) Bill. In my view, the provisions will offer benefits to the operation of Scottish harbours without the need to develop separate legislation. The main provisions—and those most relevant to Scotland—include amendments to the Harbours Act 1964 and the Pilotage Act 1987, both of which are UK-wide acts that apply to Scotland.
We have three questions, which I will just put to you. First, have you identified any harbours in Scotland—you may have covered this—that no longer need to be maintained?
No.
Can you outline, with specific examples, what benefits the provisions covered in the LCM might bring to Scotland?
In addition to the benefits that I mentioned in my opening statement, the provisions will contribute to safer harbour operations by Scottish ports. For example, the direction powers will allow the harbour authorities safely to regulate their harbours. By taking away some of the burdens from harbour authorities that no longer need or use pilotage powers to oversee their harbour, the provisions will tidy up that process. The LCM also refers to useful provisions at a UK level that could be adopted very straightforwardly in Scotland. Another point to consider is that we do not have opposition from the ports and harbours, which are very supportive of the bill. However, the main benefit is that it will make our harbours safer.
The LCM states that the issues addressed in the bill would not merit separate Scottish legislation. Can you explain that view? Would the Scottish Government have introduced such a bill if it had the competence to do so?
I think that we would have done so if we had the competence—if the Parliament had the powers, I am sure that we would have taken the measures forward already—but the question is whether we should put this Parliament’s resources and time into bringing forward separate legislation when we have a proposal from the UK Government that enjoys the support of the industry and can be easily taken forward under these circumstances. That is the main benefit.
On that point, will there be any difference between how the provisions affect those ports that are privately owned and those that are controlled by trusts?
No, the same provisions will apply to both.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee, which has also considered the LCM, points out that clause 13 will give Scottish ministers powers to commence clauses 1 to 6 in relation to Scotland. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has asked this committee to explore further the points that it raised with officials last week on the powers contained in clause 13 to make incidental provision within the commencement provisions. Officials suggested that, although the Scottish Government could have asked for the incidental provision power to be removed, that was not considered necessary as it is unlikely to be used. Can you explain why that view was taken? Would it not have been preferable to have asked for the bill to reflect Scottish ministers’ intentions on the matter?
As you say, that point was discussed with officials. Perhaps Stuart Foubister can talk about those discussions.
The feeling was that it is a very minor matter. The bill includes the power to make incidental provision in the context of making a commencement order. That is not a power that we normally take in the Scottish Parliament, but it is terribly minor and is unlikely to be used, so we simply thought that there was no particular need to go to the extent of seeking to amend the Westminster bill to disapply that to Scotland.
Unless members have any further questions, I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance. We will consider our report to Parliament later on in this meeting.