Hansard

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.