Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The Government is unlikely to proceed with a Municipal Ports Review in the near future, and therefore there is a need to streamline the governance of the River Hamble to comply with current practice in the management of harbour authorities. The purpose of this report is to reach agreement to proceed with a Harbour Revision Order to modernise the Harbour Authority, to consider various options and agree a preferred structure of the Harbour Authority.

1.2 It is also recommended that the County Council embark on a consultation exercise about the governance of the Harbour Authority, to seek the views of those with an interest in the River Hamble.

1.3 The River Hamble Harbour Authority has a strong focus on achieving the Corporate Aims of Hampshire County Council and this report reflects the following aims: Aim 1: Maximising life opportunities; Aim 2: Stewardship of the environment; and Aim 5: Improving services.

2. Background

2.1 At its last meeting, the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee considered a report recommending that the County Council consider the options for the future administration and governance of the River Hamble. This followed the demise of the Government's proposed Municipal Ports Review and it was agreed that there was a need to improve the governance arrangements.

2.2 The current arrangements were put in place following the Modernisation of Local Government in 2000, but keeping intact the structure set up following the 1969 Harbour Revision Order for the River Hamble. Those arrangements are that the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee has a strategic overview role, agreeing and keeping under review the board plan and policies for the service within which Executive Member decisions are made. Any decisions concerning a change in policy have to be considered first by the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee, which meets twice a year. The River Hamble Harbour Advisory Committee also meets twice a year, just before the Management Committee, to provide a forum for those with an interest in the river to contribute to the decision-making process. In addition, because the full Management Committee meets so infrequently, the River Hamble Executive Member's Group meets once a month (excluding August and the months when the Management Committee meets - June and December) to consider everyday management issues and advise the Executive Member. The Executive Member's Group is made up of six Members from the Management Committee. All the meetings set out above are chaired by the Executive Member for Environment on the County Council.

2.3 These interim arrangements have complied with the requirements of both the existing Harbour Revision Order and the Local Government Act 2000, while providing a basis from which the authority could move forward once the outcome of the Municipal Ports Review was known. However, now that it is established that there will be no outcome of a Municipal Ports Review, it is necessary to find a permanent way forward which complies with the best practice advice of the Ports Division of the Trust Ports Review.

3. Informal Discussions on Options

3.1 Informal discussions have taken place with a number of organisations since the last meeting of the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee, with a view to seeking an initial, non-binding response to a possible review of governance. These informal discussions have taken place with the Royal Yachting Association (RYA), the British Marine Federation (BMF), through the meeting of Hamble River Boatyard and Marina Operators' Association, the River Hamble Mooring Holders' Association, the Ports Division of the Department for Transport and Parliamentary Agents. These discussions are ongoing.

3.2 The focus of these discussions included comment on the current interim arrangements, the options for the future governance of the river, how a new Harbour Authority might be formed and how it might operate to meet today's needs.

3.3 The options open to the County Council are as follows:

(i) Do nothing - continue with the current interim arrangements until directed by the Government through a future Municipal Ports Review.

(ii) Restructure the Harbour Authority under the existing Harbour Revision Order for the River Hamble.

(iii) Promote a Harbour Revision Order to restructure the Harbour Authority in accordance with best practice and the advice of the Ports Division but keeping it as a Municipal Port.

(iv) Promote a Harbour Revision Order to set up an independent Trust Port.

(v) Promote a Harbour Revision Order to set up a Commercial Port as Harbour Authority.

3.4 This report will not attempt to rehearse every detail of strengths and weaknesses of the various options, and Members are invited to comment on and add to the brief summary set out below:

(i) Do nothing - The interim arrangements were not designed for the long term, only designed to last at the most for 12 months. They do not comply with the general advice emerging from the Trust Ports Review, nor do they sit well with the Ports Division's advice for a modern, fit for purpose Harbour Authority - the advice is that the County Council cannot do nothing.

(ii) Restructure within the existing Harbour Revision Order - This was an option put forward by the Ports Division, however the initial legal advice is that, although possible, it may cause problems in the future as it would rely on memorandum of agreements with a number of organisations. This concerns agreements over not taking up the rights of a seat on the Management Committee as currently set out in the Revision Order, and would be necessary to meet the size and composition of the Harbour Authority as proposed by the Government. The advice is not to pursue this option.

(iii) Promote a Harbour Revision Order to restructure the Harbour Authority to meet the standards of best practice, but retaining the River Hamble Harbour Authority as a Municipal Port - The advantages include retaining a proportion of elected representatives and the links with extensive County Council-held land and statutory functions. They also include being directly associated with the County Council, with its economies of scale and wide range of expertise, and the support the Harbour Authority receives from the County Council by a degree of subsidy. Disadvantages that have been pointed out during the discussions include a perceived uncertainty in the very long term about the County Council and financial restrictions placed on local authorities.

(iv) Promote a Harbour Revision Order to set up an independent Trust Port - Clearly the advantages of pursuing this option would mean using a tried and tested system that has been reviewed and refined recently by the Government. Members would be appointed through a system of public advertisement, and in accordance with the Nolan principle of appointment to public bodies. The Trust Port would need to be financially independent, raising its revenue from river users.

(v) Promote a Harbour Revision Order to set up a Commercial Port - It seems highly unlikely that this would be viable unless the Crown Estate, with the freehold interest in the river, was prepared to pursue such an option.

4. Fit for Purpose

4.1 To assist in the process of improving governance and to set the context for any new administration, it is worth bearing in mind the requirements of a modern harbour authority. The guidance set out in the document of the former Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions `Modernising Trust Ports: A Guide to Good Governance' includes advice on selecting Board Members, which is especially relevant to a municipal port like the Hamble. This includes a suggested job description, person specification and other important advice.

4.2 During discussion with interested parties, a number of requirements of any new governance structures were raised. These included:

(i) the need for a small and effective decision-making Board of between 7 and 9 members;

(ii) the Board to be skilled to address the breadth of issues concerning the River Hamble;

(iii) the Board to be accountable and accessible, with clear terms of reference and transparent decision making processes; and

(iv) the need for an independent advisory and scrutiny body.

4.3 The two options that appear to be the most viable solution (set out in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4) are the continuation, but totally restructured, Municipal Port or a complete change to a Trust Port. Within the very limited discussions that have taken place there was more support for continuing with a Municipal Port rather than a Trust Port, for the following reasons:

(i) If local Members become part of the Board then local people and businesses would be democratically represented.

(ii) A level of subsidy and ongoing risks were covered by the County Council and this could continue.

(iii) A breadth of support to the Harbour Authority across a range of professions could be accessed from the County Council.

(iv) The County Council is the largest landowner fronting the river and holds the lease of the bed of the river for 50 years.

4.4 However, everyone consulted supported the need to change from the current arrangements and all participated in developing and refining the following proposition for further examination:

(i) A new decision-making Harbour Authority of 7 members. The 7 full voting members would consist of 3 County Councillors, the Harbour Master and 3 technical representatives, to include one with recreational sailing skills, one with marine industry knowledge and one with environmental experience.

(ii) The County Councillors would be drawn from the elected Members for Eastleigh and Fareham, the Chairman being appointed by the Cabinet of the County Council.

(iii) The appointment of the 3 technical representatives would be through public advertisement to a detailed person specification and job description.

(iv) The appointments Panel would be made up of the Chairman, the RYA, the BMF and English Nature.

(v) An independent Advisory/Scrutiny Committee, to elect its own Chairman, to be made up of representatives with an interest in the river including, amongst others, the District Councils, the Parish Council, the RYA, BMF, Mooring Holders' Association and others to be agreed.

4.5 The seven person Harbour Authority would meet frequently, possibly once every two months or more, with the Advisory/Scrutiny Committee meeting each time just prior to the Harbour Authority. The term of office for the 3 technical members on the Harbour Authority would be four years, renewable for a further four, after which they could apply for a third term but would have to reapply and go through a selection process. The timing of the appointment of the technical representatives could be mid-term between County Council elections, to avoid all the Board members being changed at the same time.

5. Bye-Laws

5.1 The advice the County Council received from Parliamentary Agents is to avoid widening the purpose of the Harbour Revision Order to modernise the Bye-Laws. The recommendation is that the Harbour Revision Order should include a power to give general directions which could be used to control safety issues on the river.

6. Next Steps

6.1 Following comments from the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee, it is recommended that there be a further period of informal discussion to test and refine the proposed restructure. During this period an assessment of other harbour authorities could be undertaken. Subject to the outcome of this process, agreement needs to be given by the County Council to embark on a formal consultation on the proposed changes to governance, as this will entail a change to the County Council's constitution.

6.2 Although it will be difficult, it is suggested that, before embarking on a formal Harbour Revision Order process, it is worth attempting to arrive at a consensus. The more objections the greater the cost and delay; cost that the Harbour Authority can ill afford.

Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee:

(i) supports the River Hamble Harbour Authority remaining as a Municipal Port;

(ii) considers the proposed new Harbour Authority Board, as set out in paragraph 4.4; and

(iii) commends to the County Council a formal consultation and change in governance via a Harbour Revision Order.

8443H/MD-T