The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14595, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the Harbours (Scotland) Bill.
16:27
It gives me great pleasure to open the stage 3 debate on the Harbours (Scotland) Bill and to invite members to agree to pass the bill. I thank members of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for their careful scrutiny of it.
The bill aims to resolve a technical issue by stopping borrowings of affected ports scoring on Scottish Government budgets when we have no control over what is a private financial transaction. Before the bill was introduced, there was extensive consultation with the key stakeholders, including the British Ports Association, the United Kingdom Major Ports Group and the UK Chamber of Shipping.
The principles of the bill were strongly supported, and that support has continued throughout the parliamentary process. No issues have been raised and no amendments lodged. The bill is intended primarily to repeal sections 10 to 12 of the Ports Act 1991 as it extends to Scotland, which will remove the Scottish ministers’ power to require certain trust ports—those with a minimum annual turnover of about £9 million—to prepare privatisation proposals. The power has not been used since devolution and we would not envisage it being exercised by any Government. However, the Office for National Statistics has interpreted the power as a key trigger for classifying as public corporations those trust ports that have reached the relevant turnover threshold, as the power gives a degree of public control.
What does classification mean? Following a trust port’s classification as a public corporation, any borrowings that it makes count against Scottish Government budgets and are deemed to be our borrowing. That is despite the Scottish Government having no borrowing controls over trust ports and what is essentially a private financial transaction for trust ports.
This is a technical matter of bureaucracy and clarification. It makes no sense that those moneys should score against Scottish Government budgets, which could subsequently impact on the Government’s ability to borrow and spend.
To date, only one trust port in Scotland—Aberdeen Harbour—has been classified as a public corporation. Two other Scottish trust ports—Lerwick Port Authority and Peterhead Port Authority—meet the £9 million threshold. However, the ONS postponed their classification pending the bill’s progress, so to date they remain unclassified.
Despite being classified since 2000, Aberdeen Harbour has been able to fund any infrastructure developments from its own reserves and there has been no impact on Scottish Government budgets. However, it is taking forward exciting proposals for a port extension in Nigg Bay—a project that is designated as a national development in the third national planning framework—which will need investment of about £400 million. That could mean a significant amount of borrowing, which under Aberdeen’s current classification as a public corporation would impact on the Scottish Government’s accounts and potentially our borrowing.
Our view remains that the removal of section 10 will mean that trust ports do not fall within the classification of public corporations. Indeed, the wording of the ONS review in 2013 highlighted that the remaining powers that ministers have to block voluntary privatisations are not sufficient in themselves to warrant classification as public corporations—at that point, the ONS was referring to the status of the smaller trust ports.
The ONS gave a decision in principle that, as the power to privatise was a key trigger for classification as a public corporation, removing that power should address the issue. However, it would not make a firm decision until the bill had started to make its passage through Parliament.
Following stage 1, we wrote to the ONS to outline our case and request a definitive decision on whether the bill will achieve the aim. We had hoped that that would be concluded in advance of stage 3 but, despite our making further requests to the ONS, it has not yet given us an answer. However, it has advised that this is very much on its agenda to review and we have stressed that that should take place as soon as possible. Ultimately, it is in the hands of the ONS and potentially the Treasury.
We are looking to get a positive decision from the ONS. However, what is fundamental and should not be overlooked is that the bill will remove uncertainty for the trust port sector and reaffirm our support for the trust port model as part of the diverse range of ports ownership structures that operate in Scotland.
Trust ports are independent statutory bodies that are governed by their own legislation and run by independent boards. They operate in a commercial environment with no direct public funding. It makes no sense for the Scottish ministers to have the power to privatise them.
The bill will also remove the requirement for six copies of a draft harbour revision or empowerment order to be submitted along with the application for the order. That is a necessary tidying of unnecessary bureaucracy.
There is a clear issue that we want to address and, given that primary legislation is required to do so, that is the route that we chose. The bill has had wide support from the industry, which remains the case as no amendments have been lodged.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Harbours (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call David Stewart, who has a generous six minutes.
16:33
During the stage 1 debate, I described the bill’s proposals as non-controversial, simple and sensible. Nothing in the minister’s opening comments or in the current iteration of the bill leads me to change my original comments, although members will be pleased to know that I tried hard to find something to raise as a matter of conflict.
I am a member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which was the lead committee and was charged with reporting to Parliament on the general principles of the bill. The policy memorandum states:
“The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide an improved legislative framework for trust ports across Scotland and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing procedures and processes for stakeholders.”
The committee’s report makes it clear that the trust port model is one of the three main port ownership models in Scotland, which the minister touched on. The other two are the private model and the local authority model.
In his winding-up speech—or just now, if he wishes to intervene; I am just making sure that he has some work to do—will the minister tell us whether the bill will have any impact on private ports? I do not think that it will, but perhaps he could confirm that. My colleague Jenny Marra made an interesting point about private ports earlier today. Is there a mechanism to change the status of private ports to trust ports, if they wish to do that, so that they come under the remit of the bill?
To assist the member, I understand that the bill will have no impact on private ports, because it refers specifically to the trust port model. What we are repealing and removing is specifically for that purpose, so the bill will have no unintended consequences.
The minister might cover the second question, as well. Is there a mechanism for private ports to change their status to trust ports? If there is, I presume that they would then come under the bill.
I am now being volunteered to intervene by the member’s sitting down, but I am happy to accept that.
I have not considered that matter as part of considering the bill, but I am happy to explore it if there are private sector ports that want to transfer their status, which might be helpful for further development or ownership issues. The issue is certainly worth exploring. I cannot address it at stage 3 of the parliamentary process, but I am happy to look into it.
I appreciate the minister’s comments. I am not setting a precedent in allowing him to constantly intervene, but that seems reasonable in this context.
The key issues are that, in simple terms, trust ports have no owners and that all surplus funds are reinvested in the port for the local community—or, more technically, the local stakeholders.
I have visited several of the trust ports in the Highlands and Islands, which is my region, such as those in the Cromarty Firth, Inverness, Mallaig, Scrabster, Stornoway and Wick. Scrabster, for example, is perfectly situated to benefit from oil and gas and renewables work. The chief executive and the board there have an imaginative business plan for expansion and development, which will boost economic development across the region, including in fisheries.
I have visited my home city harbour in Inverness several times and know it well. Last year, I made a joint visit with the late Charles Kennedy, who was a man of great stature who will be sadly missed across the Highlands and Islands and beyond. I am sure that all members will join me in remembering the fine work that he carried out in our national Parliament, Scotland and the UK.
Inverness has developed a successful marina from reclaimed land, and it handles freight from all over the world. Aviation fuel is delivered to the harbour and pumped to RAF Lossiemouth through a secure pipeline. I hope that I am not breaching any official secrets by revealing that to Parliament. On a serious note, that is a good example of how transport policy can dovetail with climate change policy. Heavy aviation fuel is shipped to the harbour and pumped directly to a location, which reduces the emissions that there would normally be if it was delivered in heavy lorries up and down the A9. I am sure that the minister will note that good example of two things coming together.
Why are those examples significant? It is clear that the minister has covered the main thrust of the bill, which is to change the assessment, decision or recommendation by the Office for National Statistics to reclassify certain trust ports as public corporations. As we have heard, the ports that are in the firing line are those with a minimum annual turnover of £9 million. The minister did not touch on this, but I assume that, if ports with a turnover of below that amount reached the magic figure of £9 million, they would come under the remit of the bill as well. A few ports are bubbling around with a figure just below that.
The ports that currently meet the threshold are Aberdeen port, Lerwick Port Authority and Peterhead Port Authority. As the minister said, the bill will repeal section 10 of the Ports Act 1991 and remove the Scottish ministers’ powers to require larger trust ports to prepare privatisation plans. As I said, the cut-off point is £9 million a year.
I flag up the importance of looking at best practice around the world. The minister will have picked up from the stage 1 debate the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s excellent visit to Rotterdam harbour, which is the largest harbour in Europe and was the largest harbour in the world. That harbour showed the way forward by investing €4 billion to construct a new freight-only railway line to Germany. I am not suggesting that every port in Scotland or the UK develops such a service; I merely make the point that, if we develop services to allow freight to go off the road and on to rail, that will be successful for transport and climate change.
I urge all members to support the bill. It will resolve a technical anomaly, free up our larger ports from financial conflicts with the Scottish Government and improve the legislative framework for all trust ports across Scotland.
I call Alex Johnstone. You have four minutes or thereabouts.
16:39
I will rise to the challenge that we have been set: to find a way to spend the pre-allocated time discussing this fine piece of legislation.
The Harbours (Scotland) Bill is a simple piece of legislation—for example, section 2 relates to the number of copies of orders that must be issued. The key element, which is contained in section 1, is the repeal of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Ports Act 1991.
I do not have the minister’s advantage of being able to read out the explanatory notes, but by doing so he gave us the full details of the legislation’s function. David Stewart was faced with the dilemma of whether to take the same approach or a different one. He decided to repeat much of what the minister said. However, I feel unable to take the same approach and read out the notes for a third time. I will cover the issues that are contained in them, but I will probably do so more briefly, although I hope to be able to fill the four minutes that the Presiding Officer has allocated to me.
To assist the member, perhaps I could intervene to ask him to amplify Rotterdam harbour’s vital role in the world economy.
Rotterdam does indeed play a vital part in the world economy, but I am afraid that it is a subject on which the member knows rather more than I do, because he was on the visit to Rotterdam and I was not. Consequently, I am at a disadvantage on the subject.
To return to the bill, it might appear counterintuitive to some that the Conservatives will today vote for a piece of legislation whose main effect is to remove a requirement for port authorities to introduce proposals for privatisation when their turnover reaches £9 million. I have no difficulty with the privatisation of ports, but that is not the issue with which we are dealing in the bill.
Over recent months and years, the Office for National Statistics has caused a number of problems to various sections of Government by its redefinition of certain expenditure or borrowing as public rather than private. We are dealing with one particular aspect of that today. As the minister explained, the redefinition has meant that when some of our trust ports borrow money it shows against the Scottish Government’s borrowing. If that was a small-scale operation, perhaps the Scottish Government could find a way around it. However, our problem is that we have a large trust port in Aberdeen which is about to become involved in an extremely large project that will require significant levels of borrowing. Aberdeen Harbour is able to deal with that borrowing; it would require no Government assistance over and above that which has already been committed. However, the Scottish Government may find itself in the position of having to account for borrowing that is not its own, which would be unreasonable.
The easiest way to deal with the situation is to take the approach that the minister eventually decided on and to introduce a small piece of legislation that is designed to repeal sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Ports Act 1991 and to take out the privatisation requirement. If I ever get the opportunity to be in the minister’s position and want to encourage Scottish trust ports to become private, section 9 of the Port Act 1991 is still in place and, if they want to apply, I will be most accommodating. That said, the Conservatives will support the legislation at decision time.
16:44
Alex Johnstone said that this was a “fine piece of legislation”. I can only agree with that and with his comments about Aberdeen Harbour. The bill is about the Government’s intentions for the trust port model and this is the Parliament’s opportunity to give our support for that model. The bill will ensure that our harbours have a secure future and allow industries that are linked to our ports to grow and continue to build a strong economy. Such industries are a credit to this country and are world renowned.
When I first came to Scotland more than 30 years ago, I was already aware of the thriving fishing industry at many of the north-east harbours, and my time working in the fishing and haulage industries reinforced my view of the importance of the north-east ports for those industries. The ports also provide a home for the oil, gas and renewable energy sectors, which are vital for us all.
The bill will enable those industries to flourish, with assured security in ports’ organisational structure, development and funding. Indeed, the growing industries and the redevelopment plans at the harbour in Aberdeen, about which we heard from the minister, David Stewart and Alex Johnstone, were a driving force behind the bill.
Aberdeen’s status as the energy capital of Europe is a strong asset to the city and to Scotland. I welcome the improvements and expansions at Nigg Bay. Such an enterprising attitude will enable Aberdeen to secure its position as a principal port for the energy sector. Like the minister, I hope that the Office for National Statistics will respond positively and not deem Aberdeen Harbour a public corporation, so that the harbour’s ambitious proposals can succeed with no financial effect on the Government’s budget.
I wish the Aberdeen trust all the best with its future developments, and I urge it to consider nearby communities, particularly the fantastic community in Torry, whose people should benefit first. We sometimes forget about people, but they should have the benefit of development.
The bill will have a great impact in Scotland and in particular in my region. The port at Montrose has welcomed the bill’s repeal of sections 10 to 12 of the Ports Act 1991.
There are many trust ports in my region, many of which are small. West of Fraserburgh, we have Whitehills, Gardenstown, Pennan and Rosehearty; south of Peterhead and north of Aberdeen we have Cruden Bay and Collieston.
Peterhead itself has one of our most successful harbours. It is the largest whitefish and pelagic port; it is also in the top league in European terms and in 2011 achieved the British Retail Consortium’s global standard for storage and distribution, which is regarded as the international benchmark for the handling of food produce. The harbour is considering various developments, which will be in strong hands if they are in the hands of a trust. I thank the Scottish Government and the minister for all the support that they have given to Peterhead harbour in relation to its future development.
I also thank the Scottish Government and the minister for the help that they have given to Fraserburgh. The harbour has greatly benefited from the recent multimillion pound deepening and upgrade project, which was welcomed by the whole community.
No amendments to the bill have been proposed to or by the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, and all members seem to agree that this is a fine bill. Like many of the people who work in industries that are linked to our harbours, I congratulate the Scottish Government on introducing the bill. The trust port model has all my support and I will welcome the passing of the bill.
16:48
I am pleased to speak about the bill.
Scotland is blessed with a long and indented coastline, where we are never too far away from an exhilarating view. Our ports are rich in history, while being outward-looking, modern links to the rest of the world.
The development of the national marine plan raised issues such as sustainable growth—I prefer the phrase “sustainable development”—the need to connect remote communities, climate change and sea level projections. Such issues should remain at the forefront of our minds as we look to the future for our ports and harbours.
Our ports and harbours have a mix of ownership type, as we have heard, and I welcome efforts to improve the efficacy of trust ports. Ports can be the cornerstone of a community, and the proposed modifications to the Ports Act 1991 will bring relief from uncertainty as a result of unnecessary privatisation powers. It is also encouraging to see some governmental housekeeping in the context of simplified application processes.
Ports are a national asset and it is vital that we allow them to flourish without the threat of privatisation being attached to considerable financial success, without a requirement to produce onerous paperwork and without unproductive approaches to dispute resolution.
The trust port model accounts for a significant number of Scotland’s harbours, and I celebrate its improvement with the passing of the bill today.
Very often, ports and harbours are the beating hearts of coastal communities. I am passionate about providing support for local groups and communities that wish to take their own action to make the best use of their local resources. The Crown Estate, I am relieved to say, offers increasingly valuable support—by way of long-term guidance—to ensure that communities can harness the potential of the coastline and that the benefits are tethered to the local economy.
The marine stewardship fund helps communities to increase the value of their ports in financial, environmental and social terms through true sustainable development. A commitment to environmental responsibility, investment in accessibility and good management mean that ports improve and enhance their sustainability. Harbours are more than just instrumental in connecting external ports; they are key to internal community connectivity, too.
In my region, Portpatrick harbour is an inspiring example of community ownership as a model for ports. Only 20 miles from the Irish coast, Portpatrick harbour is a safe haven for thousands of mariners yearly. In the summer this year, the community rallied together to save the harbour from repossession. With support from Community Shares Scotland, the community formed the first Scottish charitable community benefit society, and it was able to sell more than enough shares to buy the harbour. In the spirit of connectivity, support came from around the world. It is fantastic that the community benefit society model stands ready for others to utilise.
Today, Portpatrick harbour underpins much of the local community and economy, and the community benefit society has further innovative plans to build new facilities and expand on to new land. It remains an unspoiled and productive asset for Scotland and beyond. I hope that, although this does not relate to the bill that we are discussing today, the minister will highlight in his closing remarks how the Scottish Government might be able to further support such models in future.
I support the bill and I feel positive about the simplifications that it brings. I wish all those who work on our seas and in our ports good luck for the future.
We move on to the closing speeches. I call Alex Johnstone.
16:52
Thank you, Presiding Officer. That surprised me. I did not think that you were going to come round to me quite so soon.
The debate has been interesting, and it was a great deal more diverse and wide ranging than I expected—and perhaps than it needed to be. I think that it is fair to say that the bill is extremely limited in what it sets out to achieve and it does no more than is required. In repealing sections 10 to 12 of the Ports Act 1991, it ensures that the risk of investment being redefined as public rather than private will be avoided. For that reason, it plays a key role in ensuring that our trust ports can go forward and invest with confidence, taking up the opportunities that are presented to them by the market and borrowing money to expand their facilities and services whenever that is required.
It would be inappropriate for the Government to be put in a position where it had to take responsibility for money within broader accounting schemes when it had nothing to do with the decisions that surrounded that money. For that reason, the bill, limited though it is, will serve a clear purpose for Scotland’s trust ports. It will offer them the opportunity to expand in the future, and in the near term it will allow Aberdeen to take forward its ambitious expansion project without any imposition from Government.
However, a key element is whether the Office for National Statistics will change its definition once the bill has gone through. I believe that the minister said in his opening remarks that he had expected confirmation of that to come from ONS in some form before the completion of stage 3 but that he has not received that.
The Office for National Statistics works in strange ways, I am sure, but I hope that, once we have passed the bill tonight, we will get quick action from the ONS. There must be a clear understanding that the objective that we have set out to achieve by bringing the bill through the Scottish Parliament has been achieved and that we are delivered from the previous difficulties. I am sure that, at decision time, the bill will be passed unanimously in the expectation that that will be the outcome. I hope that we do not find ourselves in the difficult position of having legislated but still not having the comfort that we sought to achieve. When we have passed the bill, we will still have a little more excitement on the agenda until we see that in black and white.
Let us get on and pass the bill, and let us hope that those in other places do their bit.
16:55
When I thought about winding up the debate, I was reminded of one of my favourite films, “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”, in which James Stewart has to speak for 24 hours on a very important piece of legislation and resorts to quoting the Bible and the telephone book. I reassure the Presiding Officer that I have neither the Bible nor a telephone book in front of me—I am sure that he would rule me out of order.
This has been one of the most straightforward and consensual debates that it has been my pleasure—I use the term loosely—to speak in. The minister made the valid point that there has been absolutely no adverse feedback during the consultation. There is a strong argument that no Scottish Government of any political complexion should be responsible for the financial operation of an independent organisation—that is the key to this. Irrespective of who runs the Scottish Government in the future—whether it is the SNP or any other political parties—the point is well made that we need to get this right for both the Scottish Government and the ports.
As we have heard, the ONS believes that the power to privatise triggers the right for a port to become a public corporation, which causes all sorts of problems. Therefore, it is vital that we get this right. As Alex Johnstone rightly pointed out, the ONS may be a fairly strange operation—I believe that it is responsible to the Treasury—but I am hopeful that we can get the issue resolved. If it is not resolved, I am not sure that further legislation by the Scottish Parliament will be able to sort the matter out. However, let us be positive and hope that we can get the matter sorted out through this sensible bill.
I was amused by Alex Johnstone’s comment that it is a great night for him because he is going to vote against privatisation. I will ensure that that is noted in his next election leaflet in Aberdeenshire or wherever he stands. He did not fall into my obvious trap by discussing Rotterdam, but he discussed Aberdeen Harbour, which we visited. I record my thanks to the chief executive of Aberdeen Harbour.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, with great gratitude.
I appreciated the member’s earlier question for the minister. The private port that I am interested in is Greenock’s Ocean Terminal, which he will know is strategically important for the Scottish export industry and is becoming increasingly important for our tourism industry through cruise liner traffic. The minister made the member an offer in response to his question. How will he ensure that the minister follows through on his offer to discuss the wider aspects of how we can support the development of private ports such as Greenock’s Ocean Terminal?
I am sure that the minister has noted my friend’s comments, which I certainly support. Ocean Terminal is a vital port that is fantastic for the development of Scotland, and I fully support all the work that the member has done in that area.
Christian Allard made some excellent points about the importance of ports to our oil and gas industry, and he flagged up the important project at Nigg. When we visited Aberdeen Harbour, the chief executive took us to the proposed site at Nigg and I was extremely impressed with the work that is being done there with the tremendous investment of, I think, £300 million. Of course, that is a perfect natural harbour. I am sure that the work that is being done at the harbour in Aberdeen, which is almost full, given the great volume of traffic that it deals with from around the world, is necessary and I fully support the new development at Nigg.
Claudia Beamish took a different and highly refreshing tack on the bill—she talked about sustainable growth. To refer again to the movies, she suggested that it is a case of back to the future for port trusts. I believe that she is right that simplification is the key and that we need to avoid threats from privatisation. I had not followed the detail of the marine stewardship fund, on the use of which she gave some excellent examples, and I was not aware of the harbour repossession problem at Portpatrick, which I visited in my youth. It is an excellent facility, and I am pleased to hear that it is in community ownership. I do not think that there are many examples of harbours that have gone down that route, but I am sure that members will correct me if that is not the case.
Alex Johnstone always does what it says on the tin. The Harbours (Scotland) Bill is a straightforward bill, which it makes a lot of sense to pass. All of us have put our faith in trust ports, which are a good example—to use the horrible jargon—of double devolution from the Scottish Government to local authorities down to ports and local community trusts. That is what double devolution means for me—having strong, active local community groups. That was the theme of a recent debate at an excellent concert venue in Beauly—I will leave members to guess which venue I am referring to. That was an extremely useful debate, in which the importance of Aberdeen was emphasised.
I recommend that all members support this straightforward and very useful piece of legislation.
17:01
I agree that it has been a constructive and consensual debate, and it is one in which some new precedents have been set for the Scottish Parliament. Claudia Beamish spoke from a sedentary position because of a medical condition that was explained earlier and David Stewart invited me to speak—indeed, he compelled me to speak—by sitting down during his speech. Perhaps other members can learn from that in their grilling of future Scottish Government ministers.
David Stewart again invited me to go to Rotterdam. Even with my transport brief, I am Scotland bound and based. The furthest away I normally get is our islands—I have not been to Rotherham, never mind Rotterdam. However, I am happy to look at the experience that David Stewart had there. I know that he was profoundly impressed with how the port in Rotterdam has been developed and how water freight has been deployed, and I am very mindful of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s work on freight, including waterborne freight.
Claudia Beamish made an extremely important point about the ownership of ports and harbours and the ability of communities to take advantage of the potential of their coasts. I absolutely support community ownership and new developments of ports and harbours. Claudia Beamish asked what support is available for that. There is the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, under which ownership can be transferred. There is also the potential for control of the Crown Estate to come to Scotland, which could be used positively for local communities. I am very excited by the potential that exists for greater local benefit to be derived through the Crown Estate, as I have proposed in the islands prospectus. Exactly how that would be delivered is a matter for consultation, but we have established the principle that local communities should benefit from the Crown Estate in a way that they have not previously done.
Christian Allard reiterated Alex Johnstone’s point about the bill being necessary and a “fine piece of legislation” that will hopefully serve its purpose. Alex Johnstone was right to remind us that, in itself, the bill might not satisfy the ONS. I hope that it does; it should, because we are meeting its expectations and addressing the concerns that it had conveyed to us. That said, the ONS might not give us the classification outcome that we want.
However, I still believe that the bill is worth passing, even if it does not address the classification issue, although I hope that it will. The bill is good to do and necessary, however limited it is. It will give the trust ports in Scotland the certainty and confidence that they would appreciate from all sides of the Parliament, not least from the privatising tendency that is Alex Johnstone. He conceded that the bill is absolutely the right thing to do, which is a fair point.
That takes us to the wider importance of ports and harbours, which are of course identified in the national planning framework as critical to the infrastructure of Scotland. As we have developed terrestrial planning, which is spatial planning on land, and marine planning, we have increasingly looked to the coast for further sustainable economic growth, to which Claudia Beamish referred. That is one of the reasons why we ensured that Aberdeen in particular remained in NPF3; a number of members covered that issue.
Right now, the Scottish Government has responsibility for terrestrial planning—spatial land planning—and marine planning. The only planning that we are not responsible for and which is still reserved to Westminster is extraterrestrial planning—space—but we look forward to Scotland Bill amendments to capture even that issue. Of course, we may jest, but there is still the on-going issue of wanting to locate the spaceport in Scotland. A number of members here have an interest in that. [Interruption.] I see that we have developed a new precedent of animal noises in the Scottish Parliament; perhaps we inherited that from Westminster. However, I am sure that that is just a temporary phase that we are going through to get through this very necessary debate.
The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee pointed out the issue of mixed ownership. In terms of the overall composition of our ports and harbours, that is maybe not how we would design it if we were starting with a blank page. However, supporting trust ports is absolutely necessary.
Duncan McNeil referred to Greenock and Port Glasgow, and I think that those areas are an example in which the private sector has aspirations but could do much more. They are of course very popular in terms of not only tourism and cruise ships but wider shipping, and they have great potential for Inverclyde. I know that Duncan McNeil has warmly welcomed the award of the ferry contracts to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd in Port Glasgow, which has ensured jobs there. That example might expand as part of strengthening our ferry fleet.
The overall thrust of the bill has achieved all-party support. I will just say a word or two about why we have not taken forward the engagement around mediation, which we toyed with earlier in the bill’s legislative process. The Government’s view is that if there was a requirement for mediation, we could produce non-statutory guidance on mediation rather than have it in the legislation in order to keep the bill absolutely focused on the issue of classification and not compelling trust ports to go down the road of privatisation, for the reasons that we have given.
The marine sector is important in Scotland. We do not want to inhibit growth in a maritime sector that was shown, in an Oxford Economics study that was published in May, to have contributed £1.8 billion to the Scottish economy in 2013 alone. The sector accounted for an estimated 1.7 per cent of the country’s total benefit, and generated over £630 million in addition. Approximately one in four people who are employed in the maritime sector in the UK are based in Scotland.
We have described the three types of ports that we have in Scotland, and of course trust ports operate in a commercial environment, as has been described. We are addressing the bureaucratic issue and the privatisation issue, and I think that we are also giving confidence to the trust port model. I am sure that the sector will warmly appreciate the very positive comments about the role that the ports and harbours have in Scotland.
David Stewart revealed earlier, to help fill the time, that one of his favourite James Stewart films was about someone who was filibustering to fill the time. I can reveal that my favourite James Stewart film is “It’s a Wonderful Life”, and this is indeed a wonderful bill. I hope that the Parliament will endorse it unanimously today.
Previous
Apologies (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1