Harbours Bill [HL]

My Lords, I speak briefly in this   debate for two reasons. First, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Berkeley on his persistence in introducing this important but modest Bill. To do so for the third time, as noble Lords have said, represents dogged determination of an admirable nature. Secondly, I offer the Government’s support for the Bill. Noble Lords will understand that in the circumstances my comments will be very similar to those relayed by my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Bassam at Second Reading debates in previous Sessions. I need not apologise for that, as the basic arguments in favour of the Bill remain unchanged. The objectives of the Bill are to streamline the procedure for handling objections to harbour orders. It is a simple technical measure which will bring harbour order procedure into line with more recent arrangements—with the planning system, for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said. It will also bring England and Wales into line with Scotland, where a similar amendment to the Harbours Act 1964 was passed by the Scottish Parliament in August. The House will know that harbours in this country are managed by harbour authorities, which act as statutory undertakers with powers which in most cases were conferred originally by private Act of Parliament. Those powers have been used to authorise the original construction of the harbour and to enable the harbour authority to regulate the safe and efficient use of those facilities. Harbour authorities are also subject to a body of general regulation, but their local powers remain centrally important to the operation of our ports. Harbour authorities need to be able to revise their powers from time to time, to keep them up to date and to meet new demands. It may be appropriate to change the constitution of a harbour authority, for example, or to move the harbour limit, or to update the powers that it has to make bylaws. New powers are also needed to authorise harbour works, mainly because works in tidal waters interfere with rights of navigation and because the authority’s regulatory powers have to be statutorily extended to any new facilities. Until 1964 a harbour authority’s statutory powers could be revised only by private Act. The Harbours Act 1964, as my noble friend has said, created a procedure to make harbour orders. These are statutory instruments made by the Secretary of State for Transport. The 1964 Act may have seemed modern in its day, but it has been overtaken by developments in procedural practice—notably, for instance, by those contained in the Transport and Works Act 1992. This Bill would bring the procedures for making harbour orders back up to date. The procedure for making a harbour order begins with an application from the harbour authority, or would-be harbour authority in the case of an empowerment order. All applications are advertised so that people have a chance to object and make representations. I stress at this point that the Government regard as extremely important the ability of stakeholders and the general public to participate in the process. It is right that they should have the opportunity to make representations, which should then be properly considered. The 1964 Act makes provision for a public inquiry. Again, the Government see the value of such a provision when there is a range of serious issues to be considered. Noble Lords will be aware that a number of recent port developments have been the subject of public inquiries—for example, Dibden Bay in Southampton in 2002, the London Gateway at Shell Haven on the Thames Estuary in 2003, and Bathside Bay in Harwich last year. The Bill does not seek to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to hold inquiries to consider major port developments. Rather, it aims at a particular consequence of the Act’s provisions, which require an inquiry to be held even when there is only one objection. The Bill achieves this by allowing greater flexibility to the Secretary of State to determine proposals by way of written representation or another form of hearing. That aim seems to me, and to noble Lords who have spoken, to be perfectly in keeping with preserving an objector’s right to have their views considered while avoiding some of the less beneficial consequences of mandatory inquiries. Inquiries are disproportionate in some cases. Harbour authorities can be deterred from making desirable changes by the delay, uncertainty and cost. It is hard to plan a proposal knowing that there might be just one objection that could lead to an inquiry. Inquiries can also be inaccessible for some objectors, especially ordinary members of the public, who can find a hearing or written representation less daunting. The Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act allow hearings and representations as an alternative to an inquiry. Importantly, these more modern procedures still give objectors a full right to be properly heard. This Bill matches the flexibility contained in those acts, and preserves the right to an inquiry where one’s land is compulsorily acquired or the objector is a local authority. In addition, the right to an inquiry is given to the Government’s statutory advisers on nature conservation, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. Port development can and must be sustainable. Preserving the rights of these two latter bodies is proper, and we have no doubt they will be exercised appropriately by the bodies concerned. In summary, the regulatory impact assessment shows that the changes would cost nothing, and would benefit ports and objectors. The Bill would help the ports industry respond with greater agility to changing markets while maintaining full and effective scrutiny of proposed changes. I assure the House that only appropriate use would be made of the new discretion. The Secretary of State would not use it to avoid inquiries where they need to be held. We have plenty of precedents in the planning system to guide us on how the Secretary of State’s discretion should be exercised. The Bill, if enacted, would make a useful contribution to the Government’s policy of streamlining planning and related planning procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether this was part of an integrated transport policy. A review of port policy will be launched early next year. One of the topics that the review will address will be the relationship between ports and supporting infrastructure.