Hansard

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.