The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-16854, in the name of Stuart McMillan, on Peel Ports’ conservancy fee plans for Clydeport area. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges reports that Peel Ports Clydeport is planning to introduce a conservancy fee for leisure craft sailing in the Clydeport area; understands that the boating sector has expressed concerns that such a charge could impact the marine tourism economy, including in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency, as it could discourage boaters from sailing in Clydeport’s waters; believes that boaters have also expressed their anger at what it understands is Peel Ports’ lack of meaningful dialogue with the sector about these plans; further believes that this has led to questions arising over how the fee will be spent; understands that members of the Cross-Party Group on Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism have agreed that their collective position is that these plans should be abandoned, and that a public petition has been launched to attract support for this view, which, it understands, has attracted over 4,600 signatures so far, and notes the view that Peel Ports should scrap its proposal and work with the sector to address any issues.
17:12
I thank colleagues from across the chamber for supporting the motion for debate and my previous motion on the matter.
The issue is important and needs to be debated, and the support for my motion demonstrates the widespread opposition to Peel Ports’ conservancy fee plans. That reflects the dialogue that I have had with the boating sector, as everyone who I have spoken to rejects the proposed conservancy fee for the Clydeport area—a view that is also held by many people who are not sailors or boaters. In today’s polarised world, it is rare to find an issue that unifies everyone, but it is clear that people think that this proposal is not appropriate and must be abandoned. The Clyde belongs to the people of Scotland, not to corporate interests.
I established a cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism in 2009 and we were pivotal in delivering Scotland’s first marine tourism strategy, “Awakening the Giant”, in 2015 and the refreshed strategy, “Giant Strides”, in 2020. We are an active cross-party group.
I will provide some background to the motion. In August 2024, Peel Ports presented to a group of Clyde-based marina operators its initial plans to levy a conservancy fee on all leisure vessels between 6m and 24m long using the waters within the Clydeport authority area. The plans were subsequently released on social media.
Although it was proposed that the fee would be introduced on 1 April 2025, Peel Ports did not publish a detailed plan setting out the rationale for the fee, the services to be provided and the administrative arrangements. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the sector began to come to its own conclusions about the motives for introducing such a charge.
Peel Ports has attempted to justify the levying of conservancy fees by citing examples from elsewhere in Scotland where harbour charges are applied to leisure craft. However, the Clydeport area is 450 square miles, is not regarded as a harbour and contains numerous remote waters with negligible commercial traffic—the Kyles of Bute and the entire length of Loch Fyne, to give just two examples. Consequently, it is an area with many leisure craft, both local and visiting, with estimates stating that it sees up to 50 per cent of Scotland’s leisure vessels.
It is interesting, therefore, that none of the examples of conservancy fees that Peel Ports has given are applied to leisure vessels under 50 gross tonnage, plus they all relate to charges for the use of specific facilities such as piers, jetties and moorings that belong to the port authority in the relevant areas. However, Peel Ports will not provide additional specific services and facilities and, therefore, claims that the proposed conservancy fee is comparable with existing charges from other harbours and ports really are disingenuous.
I brought the debate to the chamber because Inverclyde stretches along the west coast of Scotland and is home to several boat clubs and two first-class marinas. Many of my constituents are recreational boaters, and we frequently welcome visitors to our beautiful part of the country. Boating benefits my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency—it creates and safeguards jobs and is a draw for visitors.
Marine tourism has grown locally and nationally thanks to the work of businesses and communities that want to show what our shores have to offer. However, the implementation of a conservancy fee will damage my local economy. The volume of correspondence and the level of anger regarding the conservancy fee proposals is like nothing that I have seen before. I have received emails from constituents and representations from boat clubs and marinas from across the United Kingdom. In addition, the petition that I started on the Change.org website has more than 4,600 signatures. Quite simply, people will stop coming to the Clyde and the west coast of Scotland.
Members of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism are particularly frustrated that Peel Ports has twice turned down invites to one of our meetings to explain its proposals. That has further led to those in the sector feeling that the fee is going to be imposed on them without their input.
Fundamentally, the recreational boating sector contributes significantly to Scotland’s coastal communities, as other MSPs will recognise with regard to their own constituencies and regions. The last thing that the sector needs, therefore, is recreational boaters being targeted with an unjustified and extortionate fee. In addition, it is unclear how such fees will be collected. Who would pick up the administrative burden, and who is responsible for enforcing such a charge? Peel Ports has simply not answered those points, and many more, in any dialogue that it has had with individuals or with representatives from the various boating clubs and marinas. The more the proposals are scrutinised, the more questions there are, which has led the sector and the public to conclude that the proposals are quite simply a cash grab.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the issue is not that recreational boaters are unwilling to pay for their pastime. Sailors have always expected to pay for harbour, berthing and mooring fees. They are happy to pay, and want to pay, for what they should be paying for. Every MSP in the chamber recognises that this is not the action of the Scottish Government but the action of a private company. Nonetheless, my ask of the Scottish Government is, first, to continue the dialogue with Peel Ports, to ensure that this cash grab does not come to fruition, and, secondly, to look at the harbour authority powers, either via revision orders or by replacing the Harbours Act 1964. That act was designed for a different time that is unlike now. The Clyde belongs to the people, and it should be managed for the people, not for a private enterprise.
17:18
I congratulate my colleague Stuart McMillan on bringing this important matter to the chamber and on his work over nearly two decades in supporting the recreational boating industry
The Clyde is important to the history and identity of the west of Scotland. Many Glaswegians fondly remember travelling “doon the watter” on Clyde steamers to visit or holiday in one of the many picturesque seaside towns such as Largs, Millport and Saltcoats, in my constituency.
Since the mid-1800s, yachting has been very popular in the Firth of Clyde, when it became famous worldwide for its significant contribution to yacht building, with notable designers such as William Fyfe of Fairlie.
When it was first reported that Peel Ports planned to introduce a conservancy fee—or rather, a Clyde estuary tax—for leisure craft sailing in the Firth of Clyde, I was contacted by dozens of constituents, who expressed their outrage at the proposal. Those included sailing club members, hobby boaters and marina representatives. All rightly view the potential annual fee of £100 plus VAT as an unjustified and harmful imposition that will negatively impact leisure activities, tourism and the health and wellbeing of many—often elderly—boaters. One constituent said:
“This fee could in time become the deciding factor on whether to keep a boat on the Clyde or not with the knock-on economic impact on the tourism and marine industries.”
Indeed, several small sailing clubs depend heavily on membership subscriptions to survive, and they could well struggle or close if members decide not to keep their boats in the water. Boaters say that they have not seen any valid reasons whatsoever for the fee and that they feel that Peel Ports is exploiting leisure boat owners as an easy source of income.
Next Tuesday was to be the date for the introduction of the Clyde estuary tax. However, Peel Ports did not publish any reasoning for its introduction, why it is being imposed now and what services would be delivered to boaters from the resources obtained. The ostensible justification for the fee is that it will support the on-going management and upkeep of the port area under the provisions of the Clyde Port Authority Confirmation Order Act 1965 and the Harbours Act 1964, both as amended.
The principle of a statutory harbour authority charging leisure vessels a reasonable fee for harbour dues when mooring is accepted normal practice within the more limited area of an actual harbour. However, in this case, imposing the fee on the 1,150 square kilometres of the entire Clyde estuary would go way beyond that, stretching from Glasgow’s Albert bridge all the way to the Isle of Arran.
Boaters feel that Peel Ports has a monopoly over the entire cruising area but provides minimal benefit in return. For instance, Peel Ports Clydeport claims that the fee will contribute to covering the cost of dealing with accidents, despite that being the job of the marine accident investigation branch.
At the November meeting of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, which I attended alongside the convener, Stuart McMillan, and Clare Adamson, members of the leisure boating community and sector representatives convincingly expressed their concerns about Peel Ports’ proposal and its failure to engage with the CPG about its plans. One showed us a communication from Peel Ports suggesting that boats whose owners did not cough up would be boarded—that is piracy, no less. It is my strong belief that the Clyde’s waters belong to the people of Scotland—as Stuart McMillan indicated—and not to corporate interests that are looking to squeeze money from those who enjoy and rely on those waters.
In January, it was reported that the billionaire Whittaker family behind Peel Ports recently saw their earnings increase, despite a fall in profits at the group, with the family enjoying a dividend of £153.9 million, up from the previous year’s more modest £138.9 million. They do not need the Clyde estuary tax. The proposed levy is at any time—let alone at a time of record shareholder earnings—an unfair and ill-conceived imposition on the boating community’s activities, and it must be abandoned immediately.
Failing that, I trust that Scottish ministers will today commit to work with the sector, and with the UK Government if required, to identify legislative steps that can be taken to challenge this unwanted Clyde estuary tax.
I thank my colleague Stuart McMillan once again for bringing the debate to the chamber.
17:22
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. My colleague Jamie Greene had hoped to participate, as the area that is covered by Peel Ports falls within his West Scotland region rather than mine. Nonetheless, I know many owners of leisure craft in my South Scotland region who will be affected by the proposals, and Mr Greene and I are aligned in our views on them.
I am grateful to Stuart McMillan for bringing the debate to the chamber and for his efforts, through the CPG on recreational boating and marine tourism, to highlight this unfair, ill-thought-through and ignorant proposal from Peel Ports, to which—as members might have gathered—I am utterly opposed.
Although I recognise that Peel Ports has the right to impose reasonable fees and charges to cover its costs relating to services and upkeep within the Clydeport area, the proposals are far from reasonable. More than that, they have the potential to cause significant harm to the area, damaging marine tourism, deterring investment and, in my view, potentially impacting public health by creating barriers to access. The lack of public engagement and public consultation by Peel Ports is hugely disappointing and only serves to reinforce the view that it is acting in a high-handed way with no consideration for the wider impacts that the decision will have.
Turning to my point on the public health impact of the proposal, many of the smaller craft that will be impacted by the proposals are not superyachts or gin palaces; they are small sailing craft that are crewed by members of the public who enjoy a day out on the water as a way of being active or to relax. Many of them are coastal rowing skiffs that are built by members of the community and rowed for fun or competition.
I am particularly aggravated by the idea that community groups such as coastal rowing clubs could be affected by the plan. Those are exactly the kind of community groups that I want to see more of. They offer a welcoming environment in which people of all ages and abilities can learn new skills, make new friends and keep fit. Sadly for them, their main rowing skiffs are longer than 6m, so they will now have to stump up to Peel Ports if they want to regularly row anywhere north of Irvine. The dozens of other clubs in Scotland that might visit the area to compete in a regatta will be hooked for a visitor fee.
I understand the position that Peel Ports is in. Its costs are rising and it argues that it has issues dealing with abandoned vessels and wrecks. However, all those vessels belong to someone and those individuals should be pursued for the costs. Responsible owners and seafarers should not be punished for the negligence of a few.
Scotland is an island and seafaring nation. Whether for leisure or commerce, seafaring is an important part of our history and culture. Leisure boaters take to the sea for many reasons: some for the challenge of pitting themselves against the elements or fellow sailors in competition, some for the camaraderie of meeting others with a shared passion, and many simply for fun. Whatever the reason, we should be encouraging more people to enjoy the pleasures that boating has to offer, not putting up barriers.
Peel Ports does not have to listen to the outcry from organisations such as the Royal Yachting Association or a number of local boating organisations that have objected to the plans. However, if it does not listen and if it does not change course, it will do profound harm to communities up and down the Firth of Clyde. I once again thank my colleague Stuart McMillan for bringing this issue to the chamber.
17:26
I extend my congratulations to the member for Greenock and Inverclyde on securing this members’ business debate. It is an important issue, and I am sure that the minister will agree that it brings into sharp focus a public policy failure that has loomed large in the west of Scotland for the past 35 years.
The Ports Act 1991 was a disaster for the west of Scotland’s economy, and the surreptitious privatisation of what was a public body has presented long-term strategic, economic and social challenges for the development of the west of Scotland.
I had the opportunity to venture into the Clydeport building a few weeks ago to discuss some matters with Peel’s property side about development on Clydeside. I had the chance to pop my head into what was once the trustees’ chamber of the Clyde Navigation Trust building. The trust was a public body that was established under statute to democratically manage a public asset, the Clyde navigation, which is a man-made channel from Glasgow city centre down to the Firth of Clyde. It was also established to undertake port improvements, build shipbuilding facilities, enable trade and enable public access.
The reality is that it was privatised like something out of Yeltsin’s Russia. It was an appalling act of surreptitious privatisation of public assets. The continuing lack of regulation that prevails over port authorities in Scotland, particularly the private port authorities, is simply unsustainable. This is another symptom of the wider disease of public policy failure in Scotland.
The issue that we have to contend with is not simply the conservancy fee, although that is an example of the monopolistic behaviour that we have become all too familiar with in relation to the Clyde; it is a symptom of a wider lack of regulation and a lack of balance of control.
I offer the cabinet secretary the example of bus privatisation in the 1980s and the steps that have been taken by the Government to introduce greater regulatory scope to address the imbalance that it caused. Perhaps similar consideration could be given to how we can deal with port management in Scotland by introducing a similar process of greater public oversight, regulation and accountability for harbour and port authorities.
The process does not necessarily need to be the more extreme example of nationalising assets. It is about how we bring the assets under a greater degree of public control. That is what we all seek to achieve. Whether it is developing and maximising the opportunities of port infrastructure or facilitating democratic access to the river, it is important that we get this right.
I extend the point that was made by Mr Gibson about the sheer scale of the Clydeport area. It covers 450 square miles of the west of Scotland and it is the biggest harbour authority in the UK by a considerable distance. It is not just a contained port facility; it is a vast area of territory, extending from Glasgow Green and the Clyde tidal weir right down to the Isle of Arran.
As the cabinet secretary will be familiar with, the reality is that there is not much vibrancy or leisure traffic on the upper part of the Clyde beyond the Erskine bridge. One of the longer-term challenges is how we develop that vibrancy around the river if another charge is imposed without any commensurate development plan.
Where is the marina for Glasgow, for example? Liverpool has the Albert dock, with myriad pleasure craft and a vibrant riverfront. Glasgow has the Scottish exhibition and conference centre and Pacific Quay, but the area is a desert. Apart from the Waverley plying its lonely trade up and down the Clyde in the summer season, there is not very much else going on.
There is a broader concern in that regard. The port facilities are underutilised, and economic development on the river banks has not been achieved because of the monopolistic behaviour of the port authority. We are seeing a private tax being levied by the port authority on pleasure craft for no obvious benefit, and there is no clear plan for the development of infrastructure on the upper Clyde. If I were to take a small craft to the Riverside museum, I would pay an annual conservancy fee of £120, yet there is barely any berthage, and there are very few amenities there.
We really need to get a grip on the issue, as it is a bigger problem. As the member for Greenock and Inverclyde hinted, the Harbours Act 1964 is ripe for revision. In addition, consideration could be given to how, in addressing the issue, we extend greater public oversight and accountability, perhaps through the Clyde mission and Glasgow City Region programmes. We could also go back to the idea of having a Clyde Navigation Trust that is accountable to other public authorities along the river.
17:31
I grew up virtually on the banks of the Clyde, just beside Strathclyde park, and “Song of the Clyde” was one of the first songs that I remember being taught when I was a youngster. The Clyde was integral to our leisure and to the community in North Lanarkshire, and it borders most of my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency along the south side.
Much has been said about what the Clyde has meant to people, and how it belongs to the people. I think that it is worth remembering some of the things I have seen that might be lost if the proposal goes ahead. I think of Mr Savage, who founded the then Clyde Humane Society and volunteered for years, saving people in distress in the Clyde and being there to rescue people who were in trouble, and unfortunately bringing many bodies back when there had been a tragedy in the Clyde. All the work that the society still does, now as the Glasgow Humane Society, might not have happened.
I have also seen work done with drug and alcohol interventions that involved people building coracles to go on the Clyde. Those interventions often involved work with young people to help them to understand that rivers are a great source of leisure and sporting activity, and are for everyone’s use.
To see that use curtailed in the way that is proposed, therefore, is absolutely at odds with Scotland’s tradition of the right to roam. I know that we are talking about waterways, but I ask members to imagine if a charge were suddenly to be imposed on people accessing Glencoe or other hillsides and walking areas across Scotland. There would be outrage, so I absolutely understand why so many people are against the imposition of fees.
I am a member of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism as a result of my involvement in the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness. Given the amount of water safety work that we do in those groups, I understand the complexities of Scotland’s waters. We have one of the longest coastlines in Europe, and the nature of that coastline means that the proposed fee area vastly encroaches into our waterways, including Loch Fyne and all the places that are traditionally known to us as areas for leisure boating and where people can access the water. The proposed area covers a whole section of the coastline of the Isle of Arran, and people will not be able to sail round there or around the Isle of Bute, or to Millport, without incurring the fees.
The relevant legislation has existed since 2003, and only now is the company coming forward with its proposals to impose a fee on leisure and tourism in Scotland. We have a proud history of protecting the rights of people to roam in Scotland, and that should extend to our waterways. I understand that ports need to be maintained, but that comes with a responsibility to provide services, too.
I feel that, as the area that is involved is unique and vast, the impact of the proposals will be detrimental to the whole of it. I have holidayed many times in Rothesay and, while we were on holiday, it was always a joy for our family to spot the Waverley whenever we could. It would be absolutely appalling for Scotland if that environment were to change as a result of people deciding not to come to the west of Scotland.
17:35
I congratulate Stuart McMillan on securing the debate, and I congratulate every member who has spoken. I agree that the proposed fees are far from reasonable, and I hope that a strong, unified message goes from the chamber today that the proposals are unacceptable.
A number of speakers have said that the Clyde belongs to the people of Scotland, and I agree. However, we must accept that the operating model fails to deliver on that statement. The Clyde Port Authority was formed as a public trust by an act of Parliament in 1966; it was then privatised in 1992 and became Clydeport. Clydeport was floated on the stock exchange in 1994, subsequently becoming part of Peel Holdings. Despite the fact that Peel Ports’ assets are strategic national assets, its shareholders are a number of investment groups, and decisions are consistently taken that are not in the public interest. I agree with the speakers who have said that we need to re-examine the model, whether by considering ownership or, perhaps, as a first step, regulation. Internationally, it is highly unusual for a private company to be a port authority; that is only the case in the UK because of the ideological privatisation that we experienced in the 1990s.
As many speakers have said, Peel Ports is proposing to levy a fee on all leisure vessels between 6m and 24m long that use the waters in the Clydeport authority area. The fee is to be introduced very soon—on 1 April 2025—and I hope that there is a way to ensure that that does not happen.
The scale of the Clydeport area is unique in the UK—it is estimated that up to 50 per cent of Scotland’s leisure craft operate there. Many people in our boating communities have been lobbying us and have been very clear that they believe that the unconstrained and weakly justified nature of the fee makes it look like a tax on recreational boating. That imposes an economic detriment on the marine tourism industry, which many coastal businesses depend on and which many of our constituents enjoy.
So far, Peel Ports’ justifications for the fees do not seem to stand up to scrutiny, and it appears increasingly difficult to see how the fee might benefit the community or visitors. The briefings that were given to members before the debate indicate that Peel Ports does not investigate and respond to accidents in the Clyde, except at the request of the owner or operator. The aids to navigation that are maintained by Peel Ports have been installed for the benefit of large vessels carrying cargo rather than that of the leisure or passenger vessels that would be captured by the fee, and there is no evidence that Peel Ports conducts regular environmental surveys or considers environmental protection.
My friend has made very powerful points about the lack of accountability. Does she agree that one of the key challenges on the upper Clyde is the lack of regular dredging of the river? That has been the case for many years, and it is severely constraining navigation on the upper part of the river—it is, in effect, sterilising much of it for navigation.
Lack of maintenance has been an issue in many areas. Indeed, some of us are very aware of the situation at Ardrossan harbour, where the failure to maintain the port is having devastating economic consequences.
The proposed conservancy fee represents just one of a number of decisions being taken by this multinational that I put to the Scottish Government are not in the public interest. I am pleased to support the motion and, on this particular issue, I call on the Scottish Government to take direct and immediate action to intervene and urge Peel Ports to scrap its plans for implementing the fee.
17:40
I congratulate Stuart McMillan MSP on securing the debate. I know that he has done a lot of work to get Peel Ports to abandon its proposal, because the decision, if taken forward, will negatively affect boaters along the River Clyde, including those in Clydebank, which is part of my constituency.
The plan to introduce a conservation fee—I mean “conservancy”; I cannot say the word—for leisure craft in the Clydeport area has caused real concern among my constituents as well as for British Marine and British Marine Scotland, which have been working to represent members’ interests in opposing it. Indeed, responses from a recent British Marine Scotland members survey suggest overwhelming opposition to the proposal.
As Stuart McMillan has rightly put it, the move will affect not just boaters in Scotland, but people sailing from other parts of the UK or even Europe to enjoy the Clyde, and there are massive concerns that the fee will put them off. Although I realise that it is not possible for the Scottish Government to dictate the business decisions that are made by a harbour authority on how to manage a harbour, I am nevertheless grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport for taking into consideration the concerns of vessel owners across Scotland and writing to Peel Ports on the issue.
The decision, if introduced, could damage Scotland’s marine tourism industry and the economies of coastal communities that rely on the sector. Indeed, Stuart McMillan’s petition, which has attracted more than 4,630 signatures so far, captures people’s feelings on this issue. It is concerning that, despite its being invited twice to outline its plans to the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, Peel Ports has declined to participate. As such, the CPG unanimously agreed on 27 November 2024 that members’ position was that the plans should be abandoned. Unfortunately, the failure of Peel Ports to attend and be held accountable only adds to the boating community’s frustration and the feeling that the decision is being put upon them without their input.
However, I understand from correspondence with the cabinet secretary that Peel Ports has assured her that a wider consultation process with all relevant stakeholders is proposed to take place in the coming months, with an outcome on that consultation expected later this year. I hope that as many people as possible are able to take part in that, and I will put it on my socials and encourage my constituents to respond to it, too.
Unfortunately, there is no doubt that the decision will put boaters off sailing on Clydeport’s waters. Stuart McMillan has also expressed another worthwhile concern, which is that a conservation fee—I cannot say the word; it is just not happening tonight—will result in a progressive increase in charges. In my opinion, such a decision places another financial burden on people at a time when they are already facing higher costs. As British Marine has made clear, it will restrict freedoms to sail in Scottish waters, harm marine tourism and impact on small coastal communities.
Alongside the fact that the fee could deter boaters and harm small coastal communities, the rationale behind it remains questionable, with no clear provision of services or facilities in return. As has been mentioned, it also unfairly targets small leisure craft rather than larger vessels.
It is not that boaters are unwilling to pay for their pastime; as the chief executive of RYA Scotland has stated, sailors have always expected to pay for harbour berthing and mooring fees. This is about the imposition of a fee with no clear provision of services or facilities across a huge part of the recreational boating community.
The recreational boating sector contributes significantly to our coastal communities, and we cannot burden it with unjustifiable fees. It is quite clear that this is a wrong decision, and I join my colleagues in calling for it to be abandoned immediately.
17:44
I thank Stuart McMillan for his work in highlighting a number of issues of importance to the maritime sector, both in Parliament tonight and through his role as convener of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism. I found members’ contributions on the issue to be thought provoking and considered, and I will reflect on them.
MSPs have highlighted the strength of feelings on a subject that is important to Scotland as a seafaring nation. Scotland’s waters are vast and unique, and the use of our seas for the movement of people and goods, fishing and recreation and to facilitate the increasing offshore energy demand shows that the issue will remain of huge importance in years to come. There will be challenges as a result of competing and changing demands, and ensuring that our waters remain safe for those at sea and that they are maintained and protected for future generations is crucial.
The port sector comprises a combination of ownership models, but the overarching principles of how a port can operate remain the same, regardless of whether a port authority is privately owned, in trust or operated by a local authority. Scottish ministers have no legal powers to instruct the decisions that a port makes, and that is legally enshrined in the Harbours Act 1964 and the local harbour order legislation that each port operates under, as Stuart McMillan and others have acknowledged. Harbour authorities are independent, self-governing bodies that are responsible for the safety and efficiency of marine operations within their jurisdiction, and their duties include managing ports and harbours for safe navigation, protecting the environment and ensuring overall operational efficiency. Therefore, the Scottish Government has no say in the day-to-day running of their business, nor can it dictate business decisions on how to best utilise their resources. Ports are held to account by their own legislation rather than by the Scottish or UK Government.
I appreciate what the cabinet secretary says about these being private companies in which the Scottish Government cannot intervene, but does the Scottish Government not give grants to some ports to help with their development, the docking of ships and so on? Is there no leverage in that respect that the Scottish Government can potentially use?
The role played by that area of Government is limited and tends to apply to the marine sector and marine operations.
Due to the importance of the issue that we are discussing tonight to a wide range of small vessel owners, I wrote to Peel Ports to highlight stakeholders’ strength of feeling, and it confirmed that it is in the preliminary data collection phase of a community consultation process to assess the possible introduction of an annual conservancy fee for leisure vessels on the Clyde. We have been advised that no decision has been made on how to proceed at this point in time. It noted that any formal decision to implement a licence fee would be preceded by a thorough public consultation, ensuring that the perspectives of all marine users are taken into account, and it also confirmed its view that any proposed conservancy fee would, if introduced, be in compliance with its legal responsibilities as set out in its local legislation and the 1964 act.
There is a potential role for Scottish ministers in the future if a fee or charge is in place and a user invokes section 31 of the 1964 act. That section provides for a right of objection to Scottish ministers against the imposition of
“ship, passenger and goods dues”.
The Scottish Government will process any objections lodged under that section, and any person considering making such a formal challenge should take independent legal advice.
If the section 31 procedures were to be invoked, ministers’ role would, in effect, involve adjudication of a dispute. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me, as minister at this time, to discuss the potential substance of any dispute or to offer any view on it, the parameters of the right of objection under the 1964 act or how ministers may carry out their decision-making function. Those are matters for objectors to consider and to take a view on without any input from ministers as potential decision makers. There is no scope for the issue to be dealt with, other than by way of a transparent, impartial and even-handed consideration of an objection duly made.
However, at this stage, there is no fee or charge in place, and I understand that Peel Ports is exploring all options. We understand that a wider consultation process with all relevant stakeholders is proposed to take place in the coming months, with an outcome on the consultation expected later this year.
The importance of charges to the viability of ports and harbours and the safe management of our waters, and the principle of users contributing to those costs, are well recognised, but it is also right that the levying of such dues be proportionate. Although statutory harbour authorities are independent bodies governed by their own legislation, proper consultation with users and interested stakeholders on proposals is important.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s points regarding the provisions of the 1964 act, but could she also allude to the need for greater regulatory oversight of ports, particularly on things such as dredging and maintaining the navigation channel? Surely such activity is integral. Should that not be a legal obligation on harbour authorities to ensure that they are held to account for such fundamental things?
In closing, I would encourage anyone with views on the specific issue being debated tonight to engage fully with any forthcoming consultation, but I also thank members for raising wider and more general issues surrounding it. The issue has brought to the fore some of the historical nature of the regulation that is currently in place on this area, and that is something that, as I have said, I will take away and reflect on. Other important points have been made; for example, the issue of standards and expectations has, rightly, been raised in a variety of contributions, and I will reflect on that, too.
I hope that, in setting out my legal responsibilities, I have been able to indicate why I cannot give an opinion on what has been said today. However, I have certainly listened carefully to the well-considered and well-crafted points that members have made.
Meeting closed at 17:51.Air ais
Decision Time