The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13511, in the name of Derek Mackay, on stage 1 of the Harbours (Scotland) Bill. I will give everyone a few moments to get settled.
If you are all sitting comfortably, we will begin.
14:51
I am pleased to open the debate on the Harbours (Scotland) Bill. I thank those who submitted evidence, and the convener and members of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. I welcome the committee’s support for the general principles of the bill and for its detailed report. The overwhelming support for the bill is evidenced by the written and oral evidence received, which is referred to in the committee’s report.
Before the bill was introduced, we held stakeholder consultations with the key stakeholder groups, including the British Ports Association, the United Kingdom Major Ports Group and the UK Chamber of Shipping. No issues were raised in relation to the primary purpose of the bill. Those bodies strongly support the bill, as does the trust port sector in Scotland.
We also consulted on two further proposals for the bill. The first was the introduction of a mediation step in section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964, which allows users to challenge harbour dues through appeal to ministers, but the consensus from stakeholders was that legislation was not required and that a mediation step could be achieved through non-statutory guidance. Transport Scotland is already progressing that work and will engage with the industry shortly on the details.
We also consulted on the proposal in the bill to remove the requirement for six copies of a draft harbour revision or empowerment order to be submitted along with the application for the order. In addition, the bill removes the requirement to submit six copies of a harbour reorganisation scheme. I am sure that we would all agree that that change is necessary. With modern technology, the submission of multiple paper copies is no longer necessary. Removing the requirement will conserve resources, reduce the impact on the environment and reduce the bureaucratic burden of the application process.
Scotland has a thriving port sector that makes a major contribution to Scotland’s national and local economies. Our ports continually invest in their infrastructure and services to meet the demands of current and future markets. A recently published Scotland-specific Oxford Economics study shows that the maritime sector in Scotland provides 35,600 direct jobs. Approximately one in every four people employed by the maritime services sector in the UK is based in Scotland, which means that nearly twice as many people are employed in Scotland than in any other individual part of the UK.
In 2013, the sector contributed £1.8 billion to the Scottish economy, accounting for an estimated 1.7 per cent of the country’s total economic benefit. It generated more than £630 million in tax revenue. Those are impressive figures, and our country would not be the country that it is today without the day-to-day traffic through our ports. More than 90 per cent of all goods that are imported to the UK still pass through the country’s ports.
In Scotland, we have three types of port, all of which work in that environment. We have the private ports, examples of which are Forth Ports and Clydeport; local authority ports, such as Sullom Voe in Shetland and Campbeltown; and trust ports.
The primary purpose of the bill relates to trust ports, which are independent, statutory bodies, governed by their own local legislation and run by independent boards that manage the assets of the trust for the benefit of stakeholders.
All ports are obliged to act in accordance with their local legislation and other relevant law, whether they are trust, private or local authority owned. Trust ports are generally creatures of statute and operate only within the powers and duties conferred on them by statute.
Trust ports operate in a commercial environment with no direct public funding, and they compete in the market with private and local authority ports as well as other trust ports. There are no shareholders or owners and profits are reinvested in the port. They make significant contributions to the local economy and in many cases to the national economy.
Trust ports in Scotland range in size from Aberdeen to the small, yet thriving, harbour of Whitehills. All the surpluses from harbour operations are reinvested for the benefit of the harbour as a whole, which allows the trust to reinvest in major projects, for example.
Existing legislation gives the Scottish ministers the power to compel trust ports over the relevant turnover threshold—currently around £9 million—to bring forward privatisation proposals. That is a power that we have not used since devolution and it is not a power that any Government would envisage using—probably even one of which Alex Johnstone would be a member. The existence of the power, however, is interpreted by the Office for National Statistics as giving a degree of public control. As such, when a trust port reaches the relevant turnover threshold, the ONS will reclassify it as a public corporation.
My predecessor, Keith Brown, wrote to the ONS in September 2013 to advise that the Scottish ministers had no intention of exercising the power and that we would consider the introduction of legislation to remove it if necessary to avoid reclassification of the affected ports. Following the ONS decision of 25 September 2013 to retain its approach to classification, Mr Brown made a commitment to take forward legislation to remove the power—and here I am today.
The ONS has indicated that the power to force privatisation is a key trigger for the reclassification, and it is our strong view that removing that power should address the issue. Although that was its decision in principle, the ONS advised that it would make a decision only once the bill process was clear. My officials are currently in discussions with the ONS and Her Majesty’s Treasury, and we expect the formal decision to be made by stage 2 of the bill.
Currently only one port in Scotland is classified as a public corporation—Aberdeen. However, two further ports have reached the threshold. The ONS has delayed classification of those ports pending the outcome of the bill.
There has not been an issue for Aberdeen Harbour as, since classification as a public corporation in 2000, it has been able to fund any infrastructure developments or improvements from its own reserves. Aberdeen is, however, taking forward proposals for a port extension in Nigg Bay—a proposal designated as a national development in national planning framework 3 and requiring an investment of around £300 million, which could involve a significant amount of borrowing.
Classification as a public corporation means that any borrowings by the affected harbours will score against Scottish Government budgets, despite the fact that we have no control over what is in reality a private financial transaction. Aberdeen’s borrowings of £300 million would mean a significant impact on the Scottish Government’s accounts. Although that is primarily a technical matter, it needs to be resolved so that it does not have an impact on the Government’s ability to borrow and spend.
The primary purpose of the bill will be to effect the repeal of section 10 of the Ports Act 1991 as it extends to Scotland. It will remove the power of ministers to compel trust ports over the relevant turnover threshold to bring forward privatisation proposals. Trust ports fully support the bill in that regard but, more fundamentally, the bill will remove a level of uncertainty for the ports affected and thus confirm ministers’ support for the trust port model as part of the diverse range of port ownership structures already operating in Scotland. Diversity in Scottish ports is considered one of their strengths. A range of developments are taking place across our ports. Aberdeen, Lerwick and Peterhead are a few prime examples of on-going investment in port infrastructure under the trust port model.
We considered alternatives to bringing forward legislation—the main one being to seek HM Treasury cover to allow the classification to be budget neutral from a Scottish Government perspective. The risks associated with that included HM Treasury failing to accept the Scottish Government’s case for any of the trust ports in any given financial year and variation of borrowing versus the Treasury budgetary cover—the trusts borrowing more than the established level of HM Treasury budget cover for whatever reason. Those risks were considered to be significant, so the suggestion was not pursued.
The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee recommended that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Harbours (Scotland) Bill.
15:00
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which was the lead committee in the scrutiny of the Harbours (Scotland) Bill.
Given the broad support for the proposals in the bill during both the Scottish Government’s and the committee’s consultations, and the fact that there is a clear consensus across the chamber in support of the bill’s provisions, it is fair to say that the bill will not be holed below the waterline this afternoon. However, we can still expect a good deal of depth to our debate.
Members: Oh!
Moving on to the key issues, the committee welcomes the aims of the bill, which the Scottish Government states are
“to provide an improved legislative framework for trust ports across Scotland and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing procedures and processes for stakeholders.”
There was close to unanimous stakeholder support for the measures in the bill during the Government’s consultation, and that support was replicated in written evidence to the committee. In view of that, the committee decided to restrict its oral evidence sessions and heard only from the Minister for Transport and Islands and the bill team. The committee expresses its gratitude to all those who provided their views in written and oral evidence.
The main driving force behind the bill is a wish to remove the power whereby the Scottish ministers can enforce the privatisation of trust ports with an annual turnover of £9 million or more. The existence of that power has led the Office for National Statistics to classify those trust ports as public corporations, despite acknowledging that trust ports operate in a commercial environment and have no direct public funding, and despite assurances from the Scottish Government that the power had not been used since devolution and that it had no intention of using it.
At the time of the committee’s scrutiny, the affected trust ports were Aberdeen Harbour, Lerwick Port Authority and Peterhead Port Authority. Of those, the ONS already classifies Aberdeen Harbour as a public body. However, it has postponed classification of Lerwick and Peterhead, pending confirmation of the Scottish Government’s legislative proposals as set out in the bill.
Classifying those trust ports as public corporations means that any borrowing undertaken by the affected ports could have an impact on the Scottish Government’s accounts and borrowing. The Scottish Government therefore hopes that removal of the power will encourage the ONS to reverse its decision and the subsequent budgetary impact.
The Scottish Government has reiterated that removal of the power would remove uncertainty for ports affected and reaffirm its
“support for the trust port model as part of the diverse range of ownership structures in Scotland.”
All those who responded to the committee’s consultation agreed with the proposals. For example, the British Port Association said:
“To enable growth and development trust ports should have the ability to borrow money commercially without causing budgetary issues for Transport Scotland. As Section 10 is one of the triggers for this classification its removal could therefore take them out of this classification and clarifies their financial status. This is a fundamental problem to which we hope the Bill will contribute a solution.”
The committee was assured by the Scottish Government that, although it has not had a guarantee from the ONS that it would indeed reverse its decision following the passage of the bill, its discussions with the ONS have suggested that it should satisfy the requirements with regard to reclassification. The Scottish Government confirmed to the committee that it expects that such discussions will be concluded by stage 2 of the bill, and in our report we have asked to be kept informed of their outcome. On behalf of the committee I welcome the Government’s commitment, in its response to the committee, to doing that.
The Scottish Government also confirmed that the requirement to reclassify the affected trust ports is particularly important, given that—as we have already heard this afternoon—Aberdeen Harbour is considering a large redevelopment that could involve significant borrowing, possibly in the region of £300 million. Should the reclassification not be forthcoming, that borrowing could score against the Scottish Government’s budget.
Given that situation, and any potential for future investments at eligible ports, the committee has called on the Scottish Government to provide further information on the contingencies that it will put in place, as the ONS has not yet provided a guarantee of its final decision on those matters.
The bill also removes an administrative requirement for six copies of a draft harbour revision or empowerment order to be submitted along with the application for the order. In addition, it reduces the requirement to submit six copies of a harbour reorganisation scheme to the Scottish ministers, seeking confirmation of the scheme, to one copy. The committee, along with all stakeholders who responded, agreed that that was a sensible step, given that modern technology prevents the requirement for multiple paper copies.
On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment in its response yesterday to update the committee on the development of non-statutory guidance on harbour dues mediation.
The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee considers that the bill introduces proportionate and appropriate provisions to address a very specific policy objective as outlined in the explanatory notes to the bill, which is to ensure
“that the borrowings by the trust ports that meet the current criteria do not score as expenditure against Scottish Government budgets in the year of borrowing”.
The committee looks forward to the Government’s response to the information that was requested in the stage 1 report, and it recommends that the Parliament agree the general principles of the bill.
15:06
I confirm that Scottish Labour will support the Government throughout the passage of the Harbours (Scotland) Bill, and I am happy to work with the minister in any way that I can to progress the legislation.
There is nothing that we can or want to disagree with in respect of the legislation, and we welcome the Scottish Government’s moves in its attempt to prevent specified trust ports from being privatised.
By removing Scottish ministers’ powers to require trust ports to prepare privatisation proposals, the Scottish Government is putting the stakeholders of each harbour first, and there should be no issue with that provision among members in the chamber. The ONS’s policy aim of reclassifying trust ports as public bodies will force privatisation on trust ports where there is no desire for that.
The bill itself is a very short, yet important, piece of legislation that is split into two parts, and I hope that we can have consensus among members in the chamber throughout its passage. This Scottish Government bill should give assurances to harbours and their communities that reinvestment and engagement will be at the heart of their future.
The British Ports Authority, on behalf of the Scottish ports committee, stated that committee’s support for part 1 of the bill in its written submission to the Scottish Government consultation. It said:
“The Scottish Ports Committee fully supports repeal of section 10 of the Ports Act 1991. It very much welcomes the proposals in as much as they will remove uncertainty for those ports above the privatisation threshold. It also confirms support for the Trust Port model as a vital part of the ownership mix”
of ports
“in Scotland.”
As the committee’s report states, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee received evidence that the Scottish Government
“has not had a guarantee from the ONS that it will reverse its decision following the passage of the Bill”.
We take note of that and hope that, as the Government has responded, the discussions with the ONS will be completed in due course and the legislation will remove the ports from the new classification.
As a member of the ICI Committee, I am pleased with the stage 1 report, which is very concise. In evidence sessions, we heard from the Minister for Transport and Islands and from Government advisers, and I think that we can all agree that the evidence that was collected has been crucial in enabling us to understand what the bill seeks to address and how we can achieve our aims.
It is unfair that a port should be privatised because it is run in the interests of its stakeholders and not shareholders, has a well-established revenue stream and re-invests its surplus to the benefit of its business and its local community.
In the event that the bill does not prevent reclassification, we will work with the Scottish Government to prevent any damage to borrowing. With further devolution imminent and increased borrowing available, we must ensure that the classification does not hinder our ability to invest in Scottish public services and infrastructure. That is why we do not want to see borrowing by ports scored against the Scottish Government, despite the latter having no direct accountability for funding the former. The Government’s consultation showed that nine out of 10 respondents agreed that the Scottish Government should repeal section 10 of the Ports Act 1991.
On part 2 of the bill, there was unanimous support for the removal of the requirement for six copies of a draft harbour order to be submitted. We support that Scottish Government proposal, and we are delighted that 100 per cent of the respondents also do so.
The bill is preventative and reacts against the ONS proposals, and I repeat our support for the Scottish Government. Harbours have long been lifelines for the villages and towns that they helped to shape. The ONS classification could result in the privatisation of Aberdeen, Peterhead and Lerwick ports because of the thresholds that are set out.
Those trust ports, along with the rest of Scotland’s trust ports, have a long history that goes back decades and centuries. In advance of the debate, I read up on the history of Aberdeen harbour and was surprised to find that it is believed to be Britain’s oldest existing business, dating back to the time of King David I, who granted charges on vessels entering the harbour in the 1100s. The harbour helps to shape Aberdeen’s economy to this day, having survived attacks in recent history, during world war two, and as far back as the 12th century, with Viking attacks. There has been a fishing harbour in Peterhead for more than 400 years, surviving when times were bad and excelling in good times. That is the history that shapes ports and harbours and the towns that are located nearby.
Although I agree that privatisation of the trust ports would not damage their histories, we must work for the future of the harbours to ensure that stakeholders are protected and revenues reinvested.
I reaffirm that Scottish Labour will support the bill today and throughout each stage. I look forward to listening to contributions from across the chamber in what is a short but nevertheless important debate.
15:12
It gives me great pleasure to stand up time and again in the chamber to accuse the Government of being the most centralising and authoritarian Government that Scotland has ever seen. It therefore surprises me all the more to find myself standing here to speak in a debate whose main subject is the Scottish Government and the minister giving up a power. It is doubly interesting to discover that the power that he is giving up is the power to require ports to put together proposals for privatisation. At the end of the debate today, I will support the minister.
Let me explain myself. Scotland’s trust ports, which are among Scotland’s biggest and most impressive businesses, particularly in the case of Aberdeen, are examples of businesses that, to all intents and purposes, already operate as private companies. They are sound businesses that make sound decisions based on charging and long-term investment, and, particularly in the case of my local port of Aberdeen, have shown a great aptitude for running successful businesses that are based on that model.
As a result of section 10 of the Ports Act 1991, ports are required to prepare a privatisation proposal once they have passed a certain level of turnover. That has been considered by the ONS, which believes that it puts ports in a position in which they must be reclassified as public bodies or public corporations.
That is an unfortunate consequence of the 1991 act, which can—and, in the case of Aberdeen, I believe will—undermine a port’s ability to borrow for its investment programme. With the investment programme in Aberdeen now very close to the point at which the construction process will begin, it is important that we take that hurdle out of the way.
I have no problem with the other provisions in the bill; I do not intend to address them as they speak for themselves. The key issue is that we are removing a specific obstacle for a specific purpose. At 5 o’clock, my Conservative colleagues and I will vote for the bill on the basis that it is part of a process that is designed to take away that unfortunate hurdle.
However, at this point we have no guarantee that the process will eventually end up with the ONS changing its position and guaranteeing the outcome that we desire. For that reason, although I am fully supportive of the general principles of the bill, I will reserve my judgment at stage 3 to ensure that what we vote for will deliver the outcome that we desire. If, at that stage, it is clear that it will not result in that outcome, it will be necessary for me to reconsider my position.
The bill is a good example of how the Parliament works effectively to deal with specific problems, and how the bill has been handled and processed so far is a good example of what is good about the Parliament. That is why I have no hesitation in offering my support at this stage, with the qualifications that I have stated.
15:16
I welcome the opportunity to support the bill’s principles. Harbours and ports are indeed the pores through which part of Scotland’s economy breathes. More important, in all parts of Scotland, our harbours and ports are also the heartbeat of many of the communities that they serve.
The future of trust ports, as detailed in the bill, must be planned and secured appropriately. They were home to fishing communities, they were the trade exchange forums, and they helped our shipbuilding, steel and mining industries become the best in the world. Trust ports and local authority ports are intertwined with individuals in communities.
As Mary Fee said, the Ports Act 1991—which was brought in under Margaret Thatcher—gave ministers the right to compulsorily privatise ports. That was wrong then and it is wrong today.
My memory of history is that Margaret Thatcher was long gone by 1991.
I think that if the member looks, Margaret Thatcher is still with us today—but he is absolutely right.
The compulsory privatisation powers under the 1991 act have not been used since devolution.
There are different kinds of ports—private ports, trust ports and local authority ports—but they all operate on a commercial basis and receive almost no public funding. Some of our ports are funded by local authorities. Sullom Voe is one example. The model has the flexibility to allow benefits to flow—in that example, to the good people of Shetland.
Aberdeen Harbour’s classification as a public corporation has been mentioned. Its reclassification to trust status potentially gives the harbour and the Scottish Government the flexibility to borrow and invest in a cost-efficient manner. The transfer obviously provides best value for the community, the taxpayer and the people of Aberdeen.
Private ports, of course, also have a contribution to make. As the Presiding Officer will know, Ayr and Troon harbours are part of the British Ports Association, and they are very important. Scotland will grow its export market significantly in the years to come, so our port authorities must be secure and flexible, and they must assist as best they can under the new transfer of powers to achieve that significant goal, which will bring investment, jobs and a better standard of living to Scotland.
The tourism trade, about which I will speak in the next debate, is very important, as are the fishing industry and the marine sports industry, for which the marina at Largs caters. The offshore wind market has given many ports a lifeline. It secures employment on not just the operational side but the maintenance side.
The bill will give Scotland the flexibility to grow its ports and harbours in a disciplined fashion. It will improve the legal framework for trust ports by negating the need for privatisation as a result of ONS reclassification, which would jeopardise their future status and, as the minister said, Government budgets.
It is right that protection is afforded to trust ports and that intervention will be possible to secure the transfer of rights and liabilities, subject to Government advice. All the things that the bill will do are very important. The British Ports Association says that it
“very much welcomes the proposals in as much as they will remove uncertainty for those ports above the privatisation threshold. It also confirms support for the Trust Port model as a vital part of the ownership mix in Scotland.”
15:21
I would like to start by outlining the theory behind the Harbours (Scotland) Bill, which is a concise and necessary piece of legislation.
The main purpose of the bill is to remove from the Scottish ministers the power to require trust ports to bring forward proposals for privatisation. For clarity, a trust port is a port that has no shareholders or owners and at which any surplus revenue is invested back in the port. Without the bill, the reclassification by the Office for National Statistics of trust ports with a minimum annual turnover of £9 million as public corporations would have resulted in some trust ports being forced into privatisation against their best interests and against the desire of their stakeholders. At the time of the bill’s scrutiny by the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, Lerwick Port Authority and Peterhead Port Authority had trust ports that met the £9 million criterion, which meant that they would have been required to bring forward proposals for their privatisation as a result of ONS reclassification, despite the fact that neither had expressed a desire to be privatised.
The bill is a necessary piece of legislation that will stop forced privatisation of a port simply because it has an annual turnover of £9 million or more. Private is not always best, and it would be ridiculous if a port that had no desire to be privatised were to be forced into becoming so against its best interests and against the desire of its stakeholders.
Scottish ports are fundamental to the economy. That is highlighted by the fact that in 2006 ports in Scotland handled 102 million tonnes of freight, which represented 17 per cent of the UK’s total freight for the year. That is equivalent to 21 tonnes of freight per person in Scotland—almost three times the figure for England. In 2006, it was revealed that port and harbour-related activity including cargo handling and storage, warehousing, and ship repair and construction directly affected 18,000 jobs in Scotland.
I emphasise that ports in Scotland are of particular importance because they play a unique role in connecting communities and handle more than 10 million passenger movements each year. The trust port at Lerwick is a model example that illuminates the successes and benefits of the current system of trust ports in Scotland. Lerwick’s modern ferry terminal has made an important contribution to the doubling of annual passenger numbers to around 133,000. The ferry provides overnight services to and from Aberdeen on the Scottish mainland, and it also calls at Kirkwall in Orkney.
Finally, I reiterate that it is necessary to pass the Harbours (Scotland) Bill and to make it law in order to ensure that thriving trust ports are not forced, because of the ONS’s reclassifying decision, into a process of privatisation against their best interests and the desire of their stakeholders. I welcome the apparent consensus across the chamber on this important bill.
We come to closing speeches. I call Alex Johnstone to wind up on behalf of the Conservatives. You have four minutes or thereby, Mr Johnstone.
15:25
I assure you, Deputy Presiding Officer, that this will be a short speech, because there is not much left to say on the bill.
It has been an interesting debate, but I must emphasise one thing, which is that I believe that the bill is not about the anti-privatisation agenda, however well it might achieve that objective by other means. This is the result of the fact that a quirk of previous legislation means that the minister has the power to require ports to prepare a plan for privatisation and brings into question whether they are outside or inside the control of the minister. The bill will clarify that misunderstanding or doubt to ensure that we do not have a situation in which, as a result of the ONS’s decision, the ports fall within the responsibility of the minister, and their borrowing falls within the responsibility of the Government.
Is Alex Johnstone aware that the same problem occurs in other sectors that are the Scottish Government’s responsibility, including the college sector? Many colleges cannot carry over surpluses because they are deemed to be public corporations.
There are some areas of the Government’s responsibility in which, I am sure, that is an advantage rather than a disadvantage, but in this case it is very important that we clarify the situation before we have ports fall foul of the provision.
The debate has been interesting also in terms of a number of pieces of information that were provided. For example, Mary Fee pointed out that Aberdeen has an extremely good record of sound business practice, in that it has been charging for use of its port since as early as the 11th century. It is no surprise that Aberdeen was the first to come up with that principle. We also, to an extent, had an opportunity missed by Jim Eadie, who is the convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. He started his speech with a wonderful collection of port-based puns with which I thought he was going to continue throughout his speech. Unfortunately, he went on to talk about serious issues.
I reiterate that the bill is an important piece of legislation that has a very specific function that carries a great benefit for a small number of ports in Scotland and avoids the Government having to take their borrowing into account as public borrowing. The bill is an important step for us to take; I hope that we can, as a result of decisions that are still to be made or confirmed by the Office for National Statistics, carry on without the restriction in question being in place. I therefore pledge my support for the bill at decision time at five o’clock this afternoon.
I call David Stewart. You have six minutes or thereby, Mr Stewart.
15:28
You are very kind, Presiding Officer. Thank you for your generous allocation of time.
This has been a short, sharp debate on what is, as we have all heard, a non-controversial, simple and sensible bill. I commend all members who have spoken in the debate for their imagination and ingenuity in making their saying that the bill is a good thing last for at least six or seven minutes. We perhaps all needed to become a poor man’s Stewart Stevenson, who would have undoubtedly invented or discovered a grandfather who was harbour master of Aberdeen Harbour in 1905 but—alas!—we did not.
Perhaps I should provide quickly some feedback on the debate. The minister talked about a number of the bill’s aspects, particularly the often cited issue around privatisation. I thought that Alex Johnstone looked very crestfallen at the mention of the lack of privatisation, but he also stole my line about Mary Fee’s trip down memory lane when she made her point about Aberdeen Harbour. I have a bizarre image of Vikings having to pay a levy to Aberdeen Harbour following their regular raids in Aberdeen, but perhaps that has already happened.
We also heard from Jim Eadie. I, too, emphasise his very poor puns, but he also made some serious points in discussing the ICI Committee’s support for the general principles of the bill. He made a good point about the ONS reclassification; let us all hope that, following the passing of the bill, the ONS will consider reclassification so that our larger ports can become public corporations.
We heard about Aberdeen Harbour, which many members of the ICI Committee visited, including me. It was my first visit to Aberdeen Harbour and I was extremely impressed by the professionalism of the organisation. We also had a tour round the proposed harbour at Nigg, which will be a tremendous asset for the north-east.
Does David Stewart care to remember the opportunity that he had to take the wheel of the pilot boat and run up and down the various docks in Aberdeen—at great danger to the shipping and the public, I am sure.
I am glad that Alex Johnstone raised that point: I am sure that I broke several local byelaws. He will know that I was piloting the boat to look for floating voters, but I did not find many.
Mr Brodie rightly made the analogy of harbours being the heartbeat of their local communities. He also made some good points about Ayr and Troon and some wider points about the important roles of fishing, sports and offshore renewables. I am glad that he, too, supports the excellent model of trust ports that we have across Scotland. We have a good mixture of trust ports, private ports and local authority ports, but trust ports are extremely important.
We heard from Margaret McDougall about the positive effects on freight, jobs and passengers, given the various ferry operators that we have.
I flag up that the ICI Committee is doing a first-class job—I would say that, wouldn’t I?—in inquiring into freight. Recently, we visited Rotterdam harbour, which the minister might wish to comment on in his closing remarks. It was the largest harbour in the world, and it is now the eighth largest. The point that I would like the minister to comment on in discussing best practice is that Rotterdam harbour not only provides a fantastic service for its clients but has developed a freight-only infrastructure that goes all the way to the gates of Germany, which is a fantastic resource. To look at best practice in the world must be good for the Scottish Government.
I will give one example in the brief time that I have left. On delivery of goods to Italy that might go through the Mediterranean Sea, large container ships do not stop in Italy, but go via Rotterdam so that they can use the freight-only rail service all the way to Italy. That is a good example of best practice and of services really making a difference in the world.
Mr Stewart—I can give you the time back for the intervention that you took.
Thank you. [Laughter.] You are very kind, Presiding Officer. I really appreciate that extra time.
I have visited several trust ports including those in Aberdeen, the Cromarty Firth, Inverness, Lerwick, Mallaig, Scrabster and Stornoway. I remember in a previous life being invited to the opening of the Mallaig harbour extension, with the Princess Royal. It was nerve-wracking because I was asked to give a 10-minute speech in front of the assembled masses. Mallaig Harbour Authority showed great initiative in having an extension built.
I also flag up the great work that is being done at Inverness harbour, where I replicated history by having a shot in the harbour boat—I hope not causing too much mayhem. It is doing great work on freight and there has been a huge expansion in its marina. An interesting point that members might not be aware of is that, for security reasons, Inverness harbour has a special arrangement for delivery of aviation oil; a dedicated underground pipeline goes all the way from Inverness harbour—a good trust port—to the old base at Kinloss and the current base at RAF Lossiemouth.
Scrabster is another fantastic harbour at which there is great development work for the renewables industry.
There are in Parliament some debates in which we all come together. This has certainly been one of them. The bill is sensible and Labour will give it our whole-hearted support. I believe 100 per cent that we should support the bill at decision time.
I call Derek Mackay to wind up the debate. Minister—you have eight minutes or so.
15:34
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Your generosity knows no bounds. I thought that it was particularly gracious to give David Stewart time back for the intervention when he was just looking to do a bit of filibustering.
The spectators in the Parliament have been in for a real treat this afternoon, as members have found that we are in absolute agreement on the bill’s purpose, content, scrutiny and presentation. How can I possibly spend eight minutes summing up when there is such agreement and consensus on a clear bill in which everything has been taken into account, Presiding Officer? That is not a rhetorical question; I look forward to your note coming to me via the clerks on exactly how I will spend eight minutes summing up the debate.
There is also time for interventions if you wish, minister.
Thank you very much for that guidance, Presiding Officer.
We have been able to showcase how Parliament can work together using the functions in its committee scrutiny process through to the stage 1 debate.
Will the minister give way?
I certainly will.
How confident is the minister that the ONS will change its classification once the bill becomes law?
Having considered the advice that we have been given on the reason for potential classification, I am fairly confident that our clarification through the bill will remove the element that caused concern, but we cannot get an absolute answer from the ONS until the legislation is clearer and, indeed, complete. The ONS will then run through its methodical process and give us a decision. I am entirely open-minded, but I am fairly confident—I am sure that we all are—that the bill will serve the purpose that is intended.
The bill is clear, of course, and that should give the clarity that the ONS seeks. The bill supports the trust model; the debate has been worth having for that reason. It should give clarification and it will tidy up the bureaucracy.
The fourth point was a surprise to all of us: the bill has helped to deliver Alex Johnstone along the journey towards public services and not towards privatisation. I understand that that is based fully on a technicality.
I must intervene because I have always been the first in the chamber to make it clear that the concept of public service is not unique to the public sector; it also has a great tradition in the private sector, which we should encourage.
In this particular case, we are almost getting back to an old argument, which I remember having in the chamber once before, about whether the co-operative model is a public sector model or a private sector model. I argued that it is a private sector model; others in the chamber chose to argue that it is somehow a public sector model. The trust port model is a wonderful model that we should encourage and support, and after the passage of the bill it will be a model that we can thoroughly define as a private sector one.
I may not agree with Mr Johnstone, but I am delighted to have been able to stimulate him into that intervention.
I want to reflect on the contribution by the convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, Jim Eadie, and his puns. I had great hope that the puns would last for his entire speech, but he gave up on them 43 seconds in. However, it was a valiant effort.
The Government anchors our hopes in reclassification. [Interruption.] That is the biggest groan that we have had in the chamber all day.
The bill does not give us guarantees, but it should give us progress. Great value has been attached to the consultation, which showed another way forward in mediation. We are taking that into account, and we will produce guidance on that.
There is an important philosophical point around the model and whether forced privatisation plans would be necessary or just an unnecessary exercise. It is important that, by taking our action, and if the ONS agrees, the Government, in accounting terms, will continue to have the necessary financial flexibility that will mean that spending that we have not incurred will not be scored against us.
The information about Aberdeen Harbour was very interesting.
I will consider David Stewart’s invitation to visit Rotterdam harbour. I have been to Rotterdam once before and I was very impressed with how they use their infrastructure—indeed, I can remember seeing someone transport their house along the river.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I was just about to come on to Chic Brodie and the value of ports. I will take his intervention.
The minister is talking about infrastructure. He will be aware of the trans-European transport networks—TEN-T—programme, through which €26 billion will be made available over the next six years. Part of that will be dedicated to improvement of harbours and ports in order to reduce sulphur emissions. Once the transfers have been fulfilled, will he encourage the harbours and ports authorities to engage appropriately?
Yes, I will, because it is important that they do so. That connects to the point raised by David Stewart and Jim Eadie about infrastructure investment. As identified in the national planning framework 3, which I led on as the planning minister at that time, investment in our infrastructure is so necessary and important to our economy. If we can lever in further funding, including from Europe, that will be welcome.
The point about TEN-T is a good one. The cost of the Rotterdam freight-only line was €4.8 billion, which was partly funded through the TEN-T programme.
That makes the point about the importance of added investment.
Margaret McDougall’s speech was helpful: it found purpose in describing definitions as a way to fill a four-minute speech.
Alex Johnstone touched on what he described as the centralising nature of this Government, to which I, of course, object. I was the minister who first led the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, which has fallen to Marco Biagi to progress. I hope that Alex Johnstone sees the nature of empowerment in this bill, as it is presented to Parliament. I am mindful that he had no hesitation in supporting the bill, subject to assurances from the ONS. If we do not get them, that may lead him to vote against the bill at stage 3. Therefore, I will work hard to get those assurances.
I thank all members for their speeches. The debate has been necessary in terms of clarity, classification, our accountability, and the tidying up of bureaucracy. I hope that the disapplication of the power in primary legislation will serve the purpose on which we all agree. I am sure that members’ views will help us to argue with ONS on classification of trust ports in Scotland.
Next
Marine Tourism