Meeting of the Parliament 25 March 2025
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