Harbours Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I can tell noble Lords that the Bill has the support of the ports industry, which has identified an anomaly in the Harbours Act 1964. The Bill before us is intended to remove that anomaly and is essentially one designed to achieve a much-needed degree of deregulation of the ports industry in England and Wales by applying the same rules to the maritime sector as are applied successfully to other transport modes. I should remind noble Lords that I have introduced similar Bills in this House on previous occasions. The last Bill I introduced, during the 2003–04 Session, was debated at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report where some amendments were made to it. Unfortunately there was insufficient time in that Session for the Bill to proceed further. The amendments made at Report stage have been included in the Bill now before your Lordships. I shall not repeat what I said on the first occasion. This is the third time and I hope it is lucky. During the passage of the earlier Bills through the House, the Government expressed support for the Bill, as did the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and some Cross-Benchers. In other words, the Bill received all-round support. Similar provisions relating to harbours in Scotland—and to harbour orders, in particular—were introduced by the Scottish Executive on 27 October 2004 in the Transport (Scotland) Bill. That Bill completed its passage through the Scottish Parliament on 29 June this year. To that extent, of course, the Scots are ahead of the English and the Welsh, but it is to be hoped that we will catch up quite soon. The background to the Bill requires some technical explanation. Sections 14 to 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 empower the Secretary of State to make harbour orders. Such orders are required, for example, to establish or reconstitute harbour authorities, or to confer on existing harbour authorities additional powers to construct harbour works or to manage their harbours. The procedure for the making of harbour orders is set out in Schedule 3 to the 1964 Act. That schedule provides for objections to the making of a proposed harbour order to be sent to the Secretary of State within a six week period from the time the proposal is advertised. Where such an objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State must—I emphasise ““must””—hold a public inquiry to consider the proposal unless he determines that the objection is trivial or frivolous. The result is that a public inquiry must be held even if there is only one outstanding objection, unless of course the Secretary of State determines that it is trivial or frivolous. Quite rightly, the Secretary of State rarely categorises any objection as such. An objection made by a local resident who expresses a concern is, in practice, very unlikely to be determined as trivial or frivolous. There have been a number of cases where a single outstanding objection to an order has necessitated the holding of a public inquiry, which of course causes delay and considerable expense for all concerned. Perhaps I may give two brief examples. The first example relates to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Harbour Revision Order. As noble Lords will know, Felixstowe is the largest container port in the United Kingdom and the fourth largest in Europe. An application was made in October 2000 for a harbour revision order to authorise major new harbour works of considerable local and national significance. By November 2001, just over a year later, all but one of several objections had been withdrawn following the provision of appropriate assurances and undertakings to bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. As a result of the single outstanding objection, lodged and maintained by a local resident, a public inquiry took place over seven sitting days, resulting in the order being delayed until October 2002, virtually one year later. So there was a year’s delay. In his decision the Secretary of State stated:"““The project should proceed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest””." It is the port industry’s view that if the Secretary of State had been able to deal with the objection by written representations, as provided for in this Bill, it is likely that the order could have been made in about February 2002, with a significant reduction in costs and delay. The other example to which I should like to refer relates to the Whitehaven—at the other end of the country—Harbour Revision Order 1996. In 1995 the Whitehaven Harbour commissioners applied for a harbour revision order to authorise the construction of a lock and other harbour works as a key part of an urgently needed scheme for the regeneration of the Whitehaven town and the area surrounding it. Objections were made by holders of harbour bonds which had been issued in the 19th century to finance the port expansion. The bonds had virtually no market value and Whitehaven harbour was, by the time of the order, very little used and heading towards insolvency. However, the bondholders objected to the order on the grounds that the works would undermine the commercial value of their bonds. Following discussions with the Whitehaven harbour commissioners, three bondholders refused to withdraw their objections in the knowledge that their action would lead to a public inquiry, resulting in a delay and leading to the loss of European Commission funding, which was clearly very serious. As a condition of withdrawing their objections, they required that their bonds should be purchased at considerably more than their minimal market value. To resolve the issue, a number of private individuals contributed money to purchase the bonds, and the order was eventually made in June 1996. In this example, the current system was used to hold to ransom a public project of considerable local economic significance in an area of pretty high unemployment. Again, the situation would not have arisen if the Secretary of State had had the powers to consider their objections by means of written representations. The ports industry feels very strongly that the present position is unsatisfactory and that the Harbours Act 1964 requires amendment. I understand that there are no proposals to include in this parliamentary Session a transport Bill which could be a suitable vehicle for such an amendment; we suggested that it could have been put in a transport safety Bill, but it has nothing to do with safety, so it was not a very sensible suggestion. Officials have given no indication about when parliamentary time could be found for such a Bill. The effect of the Bill would be to bring the procedure for making harbour orders into line with those for making highways or transport and works orders. The Secretary of State would retain a discretion to hold a public inquiry in all cases. Where an objection is made by a relevant local authority, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, or a person whose land is proposed to be compulsorily acquired and who requests a hearing, the Secretary of State would be required to choose to hold a public inquiry or a public hearing. In other cases, the Secretary of State would have the discretion, instead of holding a public inquiry or a public hearing, to deal with the objections by written representations. Neither the Highways Act nor the Transport and Works Act expressly provides that, where objections have been made and sustained, and where the Secretary of State has decided to proceed without an inquiry or hearing, he must deal with those objections by means of written representations. However, both Acts provide that in such circumstances, the Secretary of State must consider those objections and, as a matter of practice, he will consider any further written representations made by the objectors and the applicant to the order where those representations are volunteered or where they are made at his invitation. A similar procedure for written representations would follow on the enactment of the Bill when read with paragraph 19(i)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act 1964, which provides that the Secretary of State must consider any objections which are made and not withdrawn. The consultation that has been undertaken on the Bill is very similar to what was undertaken on the previous two. Discussions and/or letters have been exchanged with the British Marine Federation, the Country Land and Business Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and English Nature. I met some of them, the British Ports Association met others, and we have had no comments or objections. I believe that silence over a period of several weeks means consent. I believe that the Bill is consistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act because it will apply similar measures in other legislation. In the case of a landowner whose land is to be subject to compulsory acquisition by means of a harbour order, his right to require a public inquiry will be retained. I conclude. If this Bill is enacted, it will enable the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in appropriate circumstances to speed up the process of making orders under the Harbours Act. It will certainly reduce red tape and help our harbours cope with a welcome growth in business while maintaining the ability of those who have legitimate concerns to make representations and, in certain circumstances, ask for an inquiry. The Bill is therefore welcomed by the ports industry. I commend the Bill to the House. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Berkeley.)