Official Report 398KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is consideration of the Harbours (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome Derek Mackay, Minister for Transport and Islands, and Chris Wilcock, head of ports and harbours at the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to provide an update on the progress that has been made on issues related to the bill since the stage 1 debate.
On 16 June, I wrote to the committee in response to the stage 1 report, which was published on 5 June. I would like to outline what progress has been made in relation to the Office for National Statistics and the non-statutory guidance on mediation.
Our view remains that the repeal of sections 10 to 12 of the Ports Act 1991 to remove the Scottish ministers’ powers to require certain trust ports—those with a minimum annual turnover of around £9 million—to prepare privatisation proposals should achieve our aim of trust ports not being categorised as public corporations by the ONS in future.
The purpose of the bill is primarily to resolve a technical issue—namely, to stop the borrowings of affected ports scoring on the budgets of the Scottish Government despite the fact that we have no control over what is a private financial transaction. It also removes a level of uncertainty for the ports affected and thus confirms the trust port model as part of the diverse range of ports ownership structures operating in Scotland.
Our view of the ONS decision on this matter was that the removal of section 10 would mean that trust ports would not fall within the classification as public corporations. Indeed, the wording of the ONS review in 2013 highlights that the remaining powers that ministers have—to block voluntary privatisations—were not sufficient in themselves for the ports to warrant classification as public corporations, at that point referring to the status of the smaller trust ports.
We wrote to the ONS on 15 July to put forward our case and to request that a definitive decision be made on whether the bill will achieve our aim. A decision has not yet been received from the ONS, and a follow-up reminder has been sent requesting an update as soon as possible. We will continue to press the ONS for a decision and will update the committee as soon as it is received. In the interim, a copy of the paper that was sent to the ONS can be shared with the committee and I will ask officials to ensure that that is passed across.
Some progress has been made on the development of non-statutory guidance on harbour dues mediation, and officials are holding a series of informal discussions with ports and harbours to seek their views. Following collation of those views, a more formal consultation is planned for later this year.
The issue that we wanted to address was very clear and primary legislation was the route for addressing it, as previously described and explained to the committee. There was wide support for the bill from the industry and that remains the case. Therefore, no amendments have been lodged for today’s stage 2 consideration.
Thank you, minister. I invite questions from members.
The minister is aware that my reason for supporting the bill related to the ONS judgment, as I explained at stage 1. You tell us that you have not yet had a response from the ONS. Would a failure to obtain a response have the effect of delaying the progress of the bill to stage 3?
It could do. I would rather have the information back from the ONS. There is still the benefit of securing the trust port model; it is still a good-to-do bill and a good-to-do technical amendment. We want to proceed, but a driving force is our desire to address the classification issue. We will pursue the ONS; we have given it time to respond. There is the potential to delay things, but we are now in the final run of this session of Parliament and we want consideration of the bill to be concluded within this session. I hope that we get that response and avoid delay; that is what we will pursue. However, the bill would still be good to do in any event.
As there are no further questions, we will move on.
No amendments have been lodged, but we are obliged to consider each section and the long title, and to agree formally to each. Standing orders allow us to put a single question where groups of sections are to be considered consecutively, and that is what I propose to do.
Sections 1 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the Harbours (Scotland) Bill. Stage 3 amendments can be lodged with the clerks on the legislation team. A date for stage 3 consideration is still to be agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau.
I thank the minister and Mr Wilcock for their attendance. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a witness changeover.
10:05 Meeting suspended.Previous
Interests