| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Ronnie Campbell : That 5 million tonnes is the equivalent of at least two collieries in the Durham area.
Mr. Leadbitter : One also has to consider the dramatic number of closures, almost without exception without any time frame, to allow those communities to work out some form of industrial regeneration in the area. Whole communities are beaten up. That is the only way to describe the situation. As a result of political ignorance, whole communities are being beaten up by people who do not care, so long as it is going to be good for them. When the coal industry loses to that extent, the importers and the consumers find that the benefits disappear overnight. As in
Column 746
the case of loss leader sales, once the market has been secured, prices will go up. The competition will have gone from the industry.We have to be quite frank about what is in the minds of the people who have put this privatisation measure before the House. It is not just a question of extra profits. Any reasonable man would be happy with the success of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. There are other matters behind the scenes.
Mr. Devlin : There is no evidence whatever to justify the hon. Gentleman's allegations. At present, there is a facility at Teesport that handles 3 million tonnes of coal a year from different countries around the world. This includes British coal, and it is going to British Steel. In addition, 250,000 to 500,000 tonnes go to other users through the port. There has been no plan whatever to expand that facility. The Labour party has no evidence to support its allegations, despite the fact that, in respect of every port-related piece of private legislation, it has produced coal-mining MPs who have made the same claim. The matter is getting completely out of hand.
Mr. Leadbitter : I quote from a press report of 29 March 1988 : "The River Tees will become Britain's coal import centre if a dramatic plan by port chiefs gets off the ground.
British Steel's giant Teesside terminal already handles the world's biggest ships, bringing cheap open cast coal from across the world to feed Redcar's hungry blastfurnace.
But now Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority is looking at building a huge common-user' coal terminal."
Mr. Devlin : Which paper?
Mr. Leadbitter : It does not matter which paper. I want to get this on the record. The port authority may rebut it, if it can. [Laughter.] There is no point in the hon. Gentleman sniggering and laughing. We are used to a high standard of debate here. Let the hon. Gentleman enjoy the sedentary position and keep his lip buttoned.
Mr. Barron : I want to point out to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that both the chief executive officer and the commercial director of the authority are on record--in local papers that I assume those hon. Members do not read --as having said that, having received the results of the feasibility study, they are pressing ahead in conjunction with National Power. If I get an opportunity, I shall speak about this matter at a later stage.
Mr. Leadbitter : The newspaper report from which I was quoting continues :
"The THPA has commissioned leading independent shipping and energy consultants Lev Sychrava Associates for a feasibility study into transforming the 300-acre former Shell Teesport refinery site into a coal- importing complex.
Lev Sychrava, director of research and development with Lambert Brothers Shipping before going freelance, says the plan has a lot going for it.
The Tees site would be a good location to develop such a terminal, he said."
People do not commission a feasibility study of that kind without an objective. Indeed, nothing of this nature can be done properly without consultants and advisers. The suggestion that there is no plan in the minds of the board members is--I will not use the word to which you objected, Mr. Deputy Speaker--unreasonable.
I have no doubt that other hon. Members who catch your eye, Sir, including the hon. Member for Stockton,
Column 747
South (Mr. Devlin), will make other points. I hope that those who intend to vote tonight for privatisation realise that they will not be able to give a guarantee, either to people in this House or within their own hearts, that in future there will be the same success, the same momentum, as has been experienced under the port authority for the past 25 years.I had doubts about the Hartlepool port being kept within the estuary authority statutory arrangements, but I see in this Bill no guarantee that the port will be preserved. I have noted with interest, of course, that the port's trading area has diminished over the years. I have noted with pleasure the development of the marina, although that has yet to come to fruition. How can I feel certain, however, that, under privatisation, the Hartlepool port will be allowed to exist?
Under privatisation, I would have no defence. The authority might decide that, for one reason or another, it was not commercial or economic to keep the port open. It might be like British Rail. When British Rail wants to close a line, it gives information about the worst days, just as the meteorological office issues information only about the days when it is pouring. These chaps might have all sorts of peculiar ways of leading us to believe that the port at Hartlepool should close. Even if Tees and Hartlepool port authority wrote to me in big gold letters, "Ted Leadbitter, the port of Hartlepool will remain. Please be satisfied," I would say that those words were not worth anything. Tees and Hartlepool port authority cannot give anyone an undertaking about what a privatised industry will do.
I oppose the Bill, because my constituency interest is pertinent and real. Already, 70 men have been bought off. Some of my dockers were bought off. The authority said that they were getting too much money and it replaced them with people on about £8,000 a year. We know the tricks. So there will be no guarantees from the port authority, no satisfaction for the people whom I represent and plenty of worry for the miners. While there might be flash-in-the-pan prosperity for some of them, in the jungle of private enterprise that will not last. When the call goes out, they will be swallowed up and their jobs will have gone. I wish that they had listened to the common sense that seems always to prevail on this side of the House. 8.59 pm
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : I think the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has finished. It may be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I make a brief statement on the Government's views on the Bill.
As I explained in the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 1 December, trust ports are slightly odd bodies. They are independent. They are not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited. But they have to compete with ports run by companies like Associated British Ports and Felixstowe, which have the flexibility and accountability that the trust ports lack. It has long been in the Government's mind that it would be desirable if at least the main commercial trust ports could be converted into companies. Changing the status of a trust port in that way needs primary legislation, but the Government have not been able to find room in their programme for the
Column 748
appropriate legislation. That was why, as has been mentioned already, about a year ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), when he was Secretary of State for Transport, encouraged trust ports which saw benefits in turning themselves into companies to bring forward their own private Bills. It is still our intention to bring forward Government legislation on trust ports at the earliest convenient opportunity. But given the pressure on the legislative programme, private legislation is the only way by which these ports can quickly be converted into fully fledged private sector enterprises. However, I stress one point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) explained, the Bill will not alter at all the statutory responsibilities and powers of Tees and Hartlepool port authority under its existing private legislation. That legislation will be carried forward and will apply lock, stock and barrel to the proposed new successor company. That successor company will still be a harbour authority. It will be subject, just as the port authority is today, to those provisions of public legislation which apply to harbour authorities generally. I emphasise that there will be no loss or reduction in existing powers or obligations. That is a very important point, and the House should not be under any misapprehension. The position is exactly the same as when Associated British Ports was privatised.The Government support the principle underlying the Bill. Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shown welcome initiative. So has Clyde port authority, which has brought a similar Bill before Parliament. But both Bills have raised some difficult issues for the Government, which in the public interest we have had to consider with some care. A parallel could be drawn between a trust port and the trustee savings banks before they were privatised. It is indeed a close parallel. We share the opinion that trust ports, like trustee savings banks, have no explicit owners. They can therefore be said to be owned by the state, as distinct from the Government. So it is for Parliament to decide, taking into account any views expressed by the Government, not only whether a trust port should be allowed to turn itself into a company but who should get the proceeds from the sale of the shares in that company.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell : Do the Government know how many imports will come into the country over the next three or four years through these ports?
Mr. McLoughlin : I am not sure that that is an appropriate point at this stage of the Bill, but there has been a vast change in how the ports operate. They have taken advantage of freedoms given to them by the House over the years.
Mr. Campbell : The Government support the Bill. They are changing legislation which covers fuel imports, but it is being done by a private Bill. The Government are changing their energy policy completely.
Mr. McLoughlin : I cannot accept that point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who speaks on behalf of the promoters--
Mr. Holt : Does my hon. Friend agree--
Column 749
Mr. Frank Cook : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand aright? Is a Back-Bencher speaking on behalf of a Minister at the Dispatch Box in answer to an intervention?Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The Minister has the floor, but he has given way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
Mr. Holt : Does my hon. Friend accept that importation is on one side of the coin and exportation on the other? Are we not putting out more cars--built by Nissan--through the Tees than the Opposition ever thought we could?
Mr. McLoughlin : I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important part of the development of ports, and one that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has caught on to, very successfully--as I said in the 1 December Adjournment debate in answer to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
There is a further consideration. Many trust ports are different from the TSB in one respect. That applies to, among others, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Unlike the TSB, it has received Government support in the form of grants to purchase and improve its assets. Admittedly it is a long time since such grants were paid to the THPA, and the amounts were small ; but the grants were paid about 20 years ago towards investment projects in the port, and some of those assets are still in use. There is a general rule that, when assets acquired or improved by a non-Exchequer body with the aid of Government grants are disposed of, an appropriate proportion of the proceeds should go to the Exchequer. The Public Accounts Committee rightly attaches great importance to that.
If the Bill were amended to provide expressly for a share of the proceeds of the sale of the assets to go to the Exchequer, it could cease to be a private Bill. There would then be the problem of accommodating it within the Government's legislative programme, to which I have already referred. The Government are considering the best means of securing an appropriate share for the Exchequer from the proceeds of the sale of the port authority, and of other similar ports. One of a number of options that we are considering is to include a provision in the Finance Bill.
I therefore recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading. It is a slightly unusual private Bill, to match the slightly unusual nature of the trust ports themselves. A number of questions arise--the hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised some in his Adjournment debate on 1 December--but I suggest that it would be appropriate for the Select Committee to consider them, and to report back to the House. It will have the opportunity to hear evidence from, and to question, the promoters and the petitioners in detail.
For those reasons, I shall be supporting the Bill later tonight.
Mr. Bell : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the debate began I put to your predecessor in the Chair a specific point of order of which I had given him notice. That was to the effect that this Bill is not a private Bill, but a public Bill, because it is Government policy and the Government had clearly shown that it was their policy, although they did not have time to include it in their legislative programme. They therefore obliged, or persuaded, Tees and Hartlepool port authority to take a private route. Let me quote a specific Hansard response on
Column 750
12 February 1990 by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). The hon. Gentleman asked"the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the trust ports."
The Under-Secretary replied :
"We believe that there are advantages in the main commercial trust ports being transformed into companies. So far we have not been able to make room ourselves for the legislation needed to bring about such a change. Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am not sure what the point of order is for me that the hon. Member is raising. I was expecting to call him, but at this stage I am not sure what the point of order is for the Chair. Perhaps he will explain that to me.
Mr. Bell : I shall do that immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having completed the short quotation, which concludes :
"Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have promoted their own private measures".-- [Official Report, 12 February 1990 ; Vol. 167, c.106. ]
When I raised this point of order earlier, I was given a response from the Chair, which I fully accept and do not challenge. I was told that the matter had been looked into by the appropriate authorities of the House, which had reached the conclusion that this was an appropriate private Bill.
We have since heard a Minister of the Crown say from the Dispatch Box openly and frankly that this is Government policy, that the Government are looking to privatise some 50 trust ports, that they do not have time to do so in their legislative programme and that they have therefore opted for the private route.
Was the Chair, or were the authorities of the House, aware of that when this was considered to be an appropriate private Bill? The Under-Secretary said that there were financial considerations attached to the Bill. He made a specific reference to grant money that had been given to Tees and Hartlepool port authority about 20 years ago. He said, in addition, that there would be a financial consideration because the Treasury, as a matter of principle, wished to realise not only the grant money but any benefits that had accrued as a result of that grant money. He said that the Public Accounts Committee had made the same statement. So he said clearly that financial provisions, which were not there before, attached to the Bill. He made a clear admission on the Floor of the House that it is Government policy. My question for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is whether this is a hybrid Bill, and whether the Chair was aware of that Government statement of policy before it gave its earlier ruling.
Mr. Devlin : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Does it relate to the same point?
Mr. Devlin : Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) just raised fell into two parts. The second part was expressly ruled on by your predecessor in the Chair earlier this evening, having received notice from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough of all the points that he just made. May I ask you, therefore, whether you will respond to only the first part of the point of order-- [Interruption.]
Column 751
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I shall respond to all points of order. I assure the hon. Member that the Chair is indivisible. This matter was considered extremely carefully. We had notice of it before the debate began.The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will know the ruling that was given by my predecessor in the Chair--I have it in front of me--and nothing that I have heard from the Dispatch Box in any way alters the ruling that was given at that time. The hon. Member will know well that if he feels that this is not a proper measure to be a private Bill, he can vote against it should there be a Division at the end of the debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), to leave the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was speaking to a point of order about the legitimacy of continuing with the measure on the Floor of the House? In other words, he did not remain in the Chamber to hear the points that my hon. Friend was making and the ruling that was given by the Chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am relieved that the responsibilities of the Chair do not extend to the movement of hon. Members in and out of the Chamber.
9.13 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : I am speaking for the Opposition, it having been made clear that there is a Government line on the issue. It may be appropriate, therefore, for the Opposition to state their position. While we in no way question the decision given in the ruling by the Chair, the words used by the Minister tonight have obviously thrown doubt into the minds of my hon. Friends about whether this is, in fact, a genuine private Bill.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) described the trust ports as a peculiarly British institution. I remind the House that the basis of the trust ports is that they either reinvest any surpluses achieved between operating costs and expenditure or they use those surpluses to reduce charges. I should have thought that that was a highly commendable practice and that it would be of regret to most hon. Members that British business over the years has not been keen to reinvest its profits in its own locality. Many of the trust ports have been highly successful in attracting new businesses and bolstering employment in areas hard hit by unemployment. Tees and Hartlepool is no exception to that.
Mr. Frank Cook : On my hon. Friend's point about reducing charges, is she aware that D. B. Winney, who was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), said in his letter, which was published :
"The reason for the massive level of its reserves is simply that, in its monopoly position as sole authority on the Tees and at Hartlepool, it has been able over 24 years, to levy dues on goods and for conservancy at any price it chose to fix."?
Mr. Winney went on to say that, if there had been competition for customers who had installations on the river at Seal Sands to turn to, it would have been quite a different matter. The easy way for the port to solve its problems of having massive reserves would have been to release its reserves and reduce its charges, thereby giving industry the benefit of lower charges on the Tees.
Column 752
Ms. Ruddock : I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. Clearly that is a way forward. Certainly it would be a way to avoid the danger of gold-plated cranes on the docks. It is not surprising that the trust ports, as authorities with some public accountability and, indeed, responsibility, should have attracted the attention of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) reminded the House, in 1988 trust ports became the subject of a Government consultation on privatisation. The Bill appears to be an attempt to substitute that and to pre-empt possible Government legislation. Although, undoubtedly, we would not be happy to see such Government legislation introduced, at least it would be an honest response to the position, which would give us the opportunity to debate the wider issues of conservancy and safety, which are pertinent to privatisation. The Bill simply opens the way for loss of local control and local investment, possibly loss of jobs and the potential for asset-stripping. It is significant that the local authorities and unions, such as the Transport and General Workers Union--I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by that union--oppose the Bill, fearing the example of privatisation in other spheres.
The proceeds from privatising the port could be considerable. It is interesting that the Minister has described the degree of Government interest in the matter, through which they hope that moneys might be returned to the Exchequer.
Who will be in control of the port authority after privatisation?
Ms. Ruddock : Indeed, the shareholders. It is obvious that a takeover of the holding company could result in control moving out of the area entirely. The Bill will create a different structure from the present one. At present, the Secretary of State can include in it not less than two and no more than three members from a panel of local authority nominees. I suggest that that gives some local accountability.
In addition, the Secretary of State is required in appointing all members of the authority to have regard to relevant experience in planning and environmental matters affecting the area of the harbour. He must also have regard to the desirability of including members who are familiar with the area served by the authority. All that will be lost.
The authority has shown that it can act commercially, in a commercial environment, under the present arrangements. That has been evidenced by the successful operation of the port and the high level of profitability achieved. I understand that at present the port is largely run by people who live and work in the area, including councillors, and it is therefore operated in the interests of the locality as well as those of the wider economy.
The Bill does nothing to ensure that the importance of the port to the local economy will continue to be sufficiently recognised. It is obvious to us that open public subscription for shares in the holding company may provide windfall benefit to those who have hitherto not been involved with the port and its locality in any way. It is our view that there is not sufficient reason to dissolve the authority and set up the new company proposed in the Bill.
Column 753
Nothing that has been said to the House suggests that the present powers are too restrictive ; indeed, the port's economic success and expansion over the years give the lie to that suggestion. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh boasted that this was the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom--Ms. Ruddock : I have every reason to believe that that boast is correct, but that gives the lie to the claim that the authority is constrained by its present structure. No matter what constraints the hon. Gentleman may believe exist at the moment, there is no requirement or justification for the fundamental constitutional change that the Bill would effect, which we believe would be to the detriment of the port authority and its dealings with the local community and to the detriment of the local economy.
9.22 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : I support the Bill. It is appropriate that we should have another private Bill to promote the navigation of the Tees. The original navigation Act was promoted by the Tees Navigation Company as a private Bill in 1808. That Bill was succeeded by a further private Bill, which set up the Tees Conservancy Commission in 1852. After that came the Bill to which we have already referred, which became the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act introduced the Hartlepool facilities of the British Transport Docks Board.
This is a Bill initiated by Teesside people for the benefit of Teesside people. It will mean that there will be a major investing authority based in Teesside for the future. At present, the powers of the board are extremely restricted. Under part III of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966, the authority shall have powers "to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein and in connection therewith, and for the reclamation of land."
Section 12(2) says :
"For those purposes, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Authority may--improve maintain, regulate, manage, mark and light the harbour and, subject to the provisions of this Act, provide port facilities therein, and acquire, carry on and improve any undertaking ... affording or intended to afford accommodation or facilities for the transport, loading, unloading, receiving, forwarding, or warehousing of goods".
We have been asked who sat down in Queen's square and thought one bright sunny day that it would be a good idea to privatise the port? Surely the point is that the nature of the port has changed a great deal since 1966. That was what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was asked about.
Mr. Frank Cook : Where were you in 1966?
Mr. Devlin : At that stage, I was at school. Being a young hon. Member, I am only 30, and I cannot say that at the age of seven I was paying much attention to the navigation of the Tees.
However, returning to what I wanted to say, which is more important, between 1966 and 1976 there were major land reclamation works. Thousands of acres of land have been brought into use for petrochemical, chemical, steel and port facilities. As a result of that investment, the Tees
Column 754
and Hartlepool port authority is now promoting itself as the European chemical centre on Teesside. There has been no shortage of investment by the port authority.Mr. Frank Cook : On the one hand the hon. Member says that there are restrictions and that the port cannot do anything, and on the other he says that it is investing in all sorts of things left, right and centre and doing so much. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He has to make up his mind : is it restricted or not?
Mr. Devlin : As usual, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has missed the point. The activities and areas in which the port authority can invest are extremely limited. His hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, whom I am answering, asked earlier why it was necessary for the powers of the port authority to be changed now. The reason is that, since 1966, the port authority has carried out all its functions to the best of its abilities, yet the authority will be left with a large amount of cash which it cannot invest in any further port facilities on Teesside. The authority has reclaimed thousands of acres of land and it has built petrochemical and steel complexes and wharves, and it has promoted the chemical centre on Teesside, but it is getting to the point where there is little more it can do.
The position has changed recently because of the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The status of the port authority is no longer protected as it was formerly. It is not realistic for Opposition Members to say that, because the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has a monopoly over the navigation of the Tees, it is a monopoly and that it is uncompetitive, as hon. Members have said about fees. The fees charged by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority are extremely competitive. They have to be, because the port has to compete with ports all around the coasts of Britain, many of which have been privatised. It has to compete with a lean, mean and hungry Associated British Ports, and it cannot sit by the River Tees and say that it does not have to pay attention to anyone else.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Devlin : I have given way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North and I do not intend to give way to him again--he can make his own speech-- but I shall give way to the other hon. Members in due course.
Where does the Tees and Hartlepool port authority go from here? It is in a competitive world. The only way that it can survive in the long term is by introducing an integrated transport facility which must not be limited to the borders of the River Tees.
In the past 150 years, as hon. Members know, ports have developed and become bigger. The port on the River Tees was originally at the town of Yarm in my constituency. When ships became too big, the port moved to Stockton, which became a great boat building centre. With the introduction of metal shipbuilding and iron ships to the River Tees, the port moved downriver to Middlesbrough.
The Bill marks the point at which the port is now constrained within a narrow area at the mouth of the River Tees and at Hartlepool. It wishes to expand beyond that limit and to expand the facilities and activities on Teesside.
Since we are all reading from press cuttings this evening, I shall quote from the Evening Gazette of 9 January 1990.
Column 755
Mr. Cook : We are all doing some reading tonight.The article says :
"Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority chiefs have their eye on spreading their wings in the 1990s. They see the P & O group as a possible model"
in its bid to become a private company because
"P & O owned Ferrymasters, the cargo shipping firm and transport firms on the continent as well as the UK. We are in the transport game. One of the strengths of the future is having an interest in several links in the transport chain,' said Mr. Britton." That is why the Bill is so important. There are now cash reserves sitting in the bank belonging to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority amounting to £30 million, and each year those cash reserves are growing. There is extreme competition from private, formerly non-scheme ports. There is also the very important matter of the future of employment on Teesside.
Job opportunities in the port have contracted over a number of years because of the operation of the dock labour scheme. After abolition, the port authority slimmed down its operation in order to match European productivity levels. It is now in a position to expand a whole range of its facilities and activities, but it is unable to do so. Recently, 28 jobs were on offer and 700 people wanted them. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is confined by the objectives that are set out in the 1966 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh said that we live in changing times. There are immense investment opportunities on Teesside as a result of the activities of the Teesside development corporation and the Tyne and Wear development corporation. It is only right that where there is an overlap between the functions of the port and the Teesside development corporation, which has taken over planning powers in respect of some of the land that belonged to the port authority, they should work together. They have worked together, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, at Hartlepool marina, at the Teesside offshore base and in Stockton.
The result of that co-operation is that the Tees port authority believes that there is a range of investment opportunities throughout Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Langbaurgh and the north-east in general--even up to Newcastle--in which it would like to invest. However, it is constrained by the objectives in the Act.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North tried to be clever earlier in the debate when he referred to a range of investments which, he said, were outwith the objectives set out in the Act. The port authority is no longer involved in many of the activities that he mentioned.
Mr. Frank Cook : Does the hon. Gentleman deny that it was involved in those activities?
| Next Section
| Home Page |