House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 May 1990

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Clyde has played a key role in the economic and social history of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is celebrated in legend and song-- although it may be doubted whether Sir Harry Lauder, when he sang :

"Roamin' in the gloamin'

By the bonnie banks o' Clyde

Roamin' in the gloamin'

Wi' my lassie by my side",

had in mind those parts of the bonnie banks owned by the Clyde port authority.

The Bill is about the future, and it will allow the authority to play a full and constructive role in that future. Before I discuss the merits of the case, I shall explain the background--

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Before the hon. Gentleman turns to the merits of the case, I have a question to ask him. He may be interested to know that I travelled through Eastwood this morning, and I looked carefully to see where his constituency touched the Clyde. I could not find any part of Eastwood that touched the Clyde. Now or at some point, will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House his interest in the Bill--indeed, all his interest in the Bill? The

Column 653

House will be interested to know what they are, as the hon. Gentleman certainly cannot be said to have a constituency interest.

Mr. Stewart : As I understand it, the Clyde port authority area does not touch the hon. Gentleman's constituency either.

Mr. Foulkes : Oh, yes it does.

Mr. Stewart : In any case, I assure the hon. Gentleman that a substantial number of my constituents work for the Clyde port authority.

I was about to start by explaining the general background to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out in his learned point of order, no petitions have been lodged against the Bill. The existence of the Bill has been well known for some time and no riparian authority has petitioned against it. The Bill has been fully considered by the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Holt : Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the local authorities petitioned against the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, and the fact that the Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland have not petitioned against the present Bill means that they support it?

Mr. Stewart : I hesitate to go quite as far as my hon. Friend, but no authority has petitioned against the Bill--nor has any other body.

Dr. Godman : I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially given the compliments that he has just paid me. Can he confirm, on the basis of his wide procedural knowledge, that although no petitions of objection have been laid in this place, there will be an opportunity for petitions of objection to be laid in another place within the 10 days after the Bill receives its Third Reading?

Mr. Stewart : I hesitate to give procedural guidance to the hon. Gentleman, as I can claim no expertise in the matter. My own--perhaps erroneous--understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct.

I emphasise the fact that the decision to pursue the private Bill route was made unanimously by the board of the Clyde port authority. That distinguished board includes a Labour politician who is extremely well known in the west of Scotland--the chairman of Strathclyde regional council's economic and industrial development committee, Mr. McGarry--and Mr. Tom O'Connor of the Transport and General Workers Union. Moreover, the Transport and General Workers Union has adopted different positions in respect of the Scottish and the English ports. The union has decided to take no action on moves by the Scottish ports towards public limited company status. The Clyde Port Authority Order 1965 prevents the authority from competing on equal terms with continental ports or with ports in the United Kingdom. The general shift in traffic from west to east coast in recent years has made it necessary for ports on the west coast of Britain to consider means of diversification to reduce the vulnerability of the existing port businesses. The existing powers of the authority, contained in the 1965 order, are restrictive

Column 654

and may be changed only by legislation. The authority has long been mindful of the restrictions imposed on its powers and has sought to operate within those limits.

Mr. Worthington : Can the hon. Gentleman give examples from recent years to show how the powers have been restrictive? When has the authority wanted to do things that it has not been permitted to do?

Mr. Stewart : I was just about to expand on that point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when I reach the end of my explanation.

The view taken by the board of the authority--I suggest correctly--has meant that the authority has not been able to take up investment opportunities that have come its way, given that its powers to invest are limited by paragraph 64 of the 1965 order to port-related businesses. Similarly, the authority is prohibited from acquiring property other than for port purposes and from developing its property, except with a view to its ultimate disposal. As Opposition Members know, the authority is a substantial riparian landowner. As such, and consistent with its role as the port of Clyde authority it is naturally anxious to participate fully and assist in the regeneration of the river and the river bank. Its limited powers of investment and property development mean that it has considerable difficulty entering into joint venture agreements or investing in joint venture companies to handle development of riverside sites.

Mr. Worthington : I want to modify my earlier question. How would this Bill alter the authority's ability to develop the land that the authority owns at present?

Mr. Stewart : I was about to reach that point.

The need for ultimate disposal means that the authority has no effective means of securing control, or even influence, over any development. An inability to purchase land other than for--

Mr. Worthington : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart : No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman several times.

Mr. Worthington : The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

Mr. Stewart : If the hon. Gentleman will give me a minute, I will endeavour to answer his question.

An inability to purchase land other than for purposes directly related to the port business, makes site assembly and efficient use of the authority's existing land resources in relation to the regeneration of the river well- nigh impossible.

Mr. Worthington : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart : I have already given way several times to the hon. Gentleman. However, I will give way to him once more because I am aware of his interest in these matters.

Mr. Worthington : I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. With regard to whether the Clyde port authority must eventually dispose of land, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could draw my attention to the part of the legislation which sets that out. I know that the port authority can enter into, and I believe has entered into, substantial leasing arrangements with private companies ;

Column 655

they do not involve the disposal of land. I am at a loss to understand from what part of the legislation the hon. Gentleman has derived his information.

Mr. Stewart : I have referred to the advice provided to the authority by its lawyers. The legal advice is that, because of the existing provisions, the authority is inhibited in the ways that I have described.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has raised an important point. As I understand it, the case being made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) rests on the proposition that the powers of the Clyde port authority, in its present form, are so severely restricted that it is necessary for it to be metamorphosed into something else. The hon. Member for Eastwood is presenting the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked him very reasonably what the authority cannot do now that it could do if the Bill was approved. The hon. Member for Eastwood could tell us only that the lawyers have advised the authority. The authority presumably advised the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman is now advising the House. Fourth-hand rumour rather than statement of fact in this House is unacceptable.

Mr. Stewart : If that is the case, it is extremely surprising that the Clyde port authority board which included Mr. Lawrence McGarry felt it necessary to introduce this Bill. It has been the board's view for a considerable time that its advice is that the present powers are restrictive and are particularly restrictive in relation to its desire to enter into joint ventures and take a full part in the urban regeneration of the Clyde.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I am not the only person who is becoming perturbed at what the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is saying. Even if the lawyers are mistaken and the restrictions are not as they have been described to the hon. Member for Eastwood, the House will waste a great deal of time unnecessarily. Surely it is not good enough to discover whether the lawyers' advice was correct in the Committee. The House is entitled to know now what specific parts of the legislation are--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is not a matter for me. I made it clear in response to earlier points of order that the Bill has been scrutinised by the examiners, who are satisfied about its format.

Mr. Foulkes : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. The other point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is a matter for debate and an issue that may be taken into account by the House when it reaches its decision at the conclusion of this debate.

Mr. Foulkes : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) relates to a point of order raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). A private Member is introducing this Bill.

Column 656

If the Bill had been introduced by a Government Department, the Minister would be properly briefed and able to give legal opinion. He could then explain the matter to the House. We do not have the answer to that problem because the Bill is being introduced by a private Member who has been inadequately briefed and who cannot deal with the particular problem. Does that not show that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should have at least considered the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did consider the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and I hope that I responded to it fully. I cannot usefully add to what I said then. The Bill is in order. Some of the reservations that have been expressed under the cover of points of order are matters that could be made in debate and taken into account when the House reaches a conclusion. The Minister is in his place and will doubtless try to catch my eye during the debate. It is not for me to anticipate what he might say, but no doubt he is listening and may feel able to respond as appropriate. In the meantime, we should allow the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to make his speech.

Mr. Stewart : It may be helpful if I refer hon. Members to the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill in support of this Second Reading, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. In particular, I refer hon. Members to paragraph 6, which will be helpful.

Mr. Wilson : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Eastwood to refer to a paragraph which bears no relevance to the points that he was making? Paragraph 6 states :

"The Port Authority would wish their business to have a commercial freedom beyond the severely restricted scope of the present powers of the Port Authority. The aim of the Bill is therefore to free the conduct of the Port Authority's business from the restrictions arising from their present limited powers. The mechanism which the Bill provides to achieve this is the establishing of a two tier company structure ;--that is--(a) a successor company ; and (b) a holding company."

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Those are not matters for me. Whether the hon. Gentleman is correctly reading or misreading a document that is not an integral part of the Bill is a matter for the House to take into account in reaching a conclusion at the end of the debate. It is not a matter for me to rule on.

Mr. Stewart : The Clyde Port Authority Bill retains the existing powers, duties and responsibilities of the authority regarding the maintenance and improvement of the port undertaking. The core port business --

Mr. Worthington : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart : No. I have already given way about six times to the hon. Gentleman.

The core port business will be operated by the successor company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the new holding company to be created by the Bill. To sum up--

Mr. Worthington : What?

Mr. Stewart : I have not finished. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.

Column 657

The holding company will have wider commercial powers than the authority has at present. The holding company will be a normal public limited company and it will be able to use its resources flexibly as it wishes. The successor company will inherit and preserve the statutory duties of the authority.

Mr. Worthington : Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very important point?

Mr. Stewart : No, I have already given way about six times to the hon. Gentleman.

I want to refer briefly to the potential effects on employment of the structural changes. It would be fair to say that the restructuring programme will increase job security for the present employees and in due course will lead to increased employment throughout the west of Scotland. The existing employees do not oppose the proposals.

It is expected that four separate elements will be involved in the capital structure of the new body. The authority will put forward an employee share ownership plan--an ESOP. Current employees will be invited to subscribe for shares, for which interest-free loans may be made available.

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way to clarify a point?

Mr. Stewart : Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has not previously sought to intervene.

Mr. Wray : Who will be responsible for dredging? Will the successor company be responsible for dredging the river?

Mr. Stewart : That is a fair question, and the answer is yes. The successor company will be responsible for dredging the river. It will operate under precisely the same duties and responsibilities as does the Clyde port authority at present.

Mr. Worthington : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From a lack of knowledge, the hon. Member who is introducing the Bill may be misleading the House. As I understand the previous legislation, the Clyde Port Authority Order 1965, the Clyde port authority has been given powers to dredge the river ; the duty is not there. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the successor company will dredge the river, but I believe that he is giving an undertaking that cannot be given because there have been occasions when the Clyde port authority has sought to withdraw from dredging.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : These are not matters for the Chair : they are matters for debate.

Mr. Stewart : In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), I was making the point that the successor company would be under precisely the same duties and obligations as those applying to the Clyde port authority at the moment. I was talking about the capital structure of the new body. In addition to current employees, past employees, pensioners and their spouses and children will also be

Column 658

invited to subscribe to shares. The authority will also allow subscription by institutional investors, with preference given to institutional support in the west of Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes : Will the hon. Gentleman give way on his point about employee share ownership?

Mr. Stewart : I shall give way, but for the last time, because I may be straining the patience of the House.

Mr. Foulkes : I hope that this is a helpful question, so the hon. Gentleman may be grateful to me. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be an employee share ownership plan--an ESOP. What percentage of the total shares will be available for that employee share ownership plan? How is it intended that the shares will be distributed between employees? Will it be on an equal or hierarchical basis, based on salary or other considerations?

Mr. Stewart : As I understand it, the intention is to have the proportion of employee shares as high as possible, as far as is reasonable. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific percentage in response to his question, but I repeat that the availability will be as high as possible. It is hoped that shares will be made available to residents in the Clyde port region, and that is actively being considered.

I have not spoken about the general problems of trust ports. They are familiar to the House, which has debated them previously. I emphasise that these proposals are the result of the unanimous view of the board of the Clyde port authority and that there is no significant body of opinion against the Bill among the local authorities in the west of Scotland. No local authority has stated its opposition to the Bill. The Scottish Development Agency, Strathclyde regional council and the unions have all been consulted. Against that background of the absence of opposition from such organisations in the west of Scotland, and in view of the clear merits of the provisions, I hope that the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.

7.34 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I wish first to assess the Bill's implications for my constituents and constituency and then to outline my reservations on a couple of broader issues. As the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has said, the Bill has implications for the whole of the Clyde, both for the river and for the firth. In the past few days, I have discussed the Bill with Inverclyde district councillors, with employees at the Tate and Lyle cane sugar refinery and with those employed at the Greenock container terminal--all of whom may well be affected if the Bill becomes law. In addition, I have met John Mearns, the secretary of the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Society, and Derek Ferguson and other members of that society on several occasions. They too have expressed their serious concern about the Bill.

Incidentally, and in respect of a question that I asked the hon. Member for Eastwood earlier, perhaps he or his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I am right in saying that, although petitions of objections cannot now be lodged against the Bill in this House, such petitions can be lodged in another place withing 10 days of the date on which the Bill receives its Third Reading. I believe that that is the case, but I should welcome guidance on that matter because I must

Column 659

advise the hon. Member for Eastwood that certain interested parties intend to table such petitions if the Bill goes to another place. My reservations about the ownership claims of the Clyde port authority to, say, James Watt dock in Greenock and to the Greenock container terminal are shared by many of my constituents.

Mr. Foulkes : Is my hon. Friend aware that, at 1 o'clock this afternoon, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland vessel, the Clupa, set sail from the James Watt dock to examine the explosives that had been dumped in the Clyde by ICI? Does my hon. Friend join me in welcoming that move but hope that it will result in some of his and my fishermen constituents receiving adequate and proper compensation for their loss?

Dr. Godman : In that interesting intervention, my hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of the facilities. He is absolutely right. All credit to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland for initiating that exercise. The James Watt dock and other facilities are used by vessels of the fisheries protection service. I agree with my hon. Friend that the dumping of explosive materials causes great concern to me, my constituents and many members of the Clyde Fishermen's Association.

If my challenge to the legality of the CPA's ownership of the waterfront facilities in Greenock is dismissed by the scrutiny of the Committee on Unopposed Bills--if the Bill gets that far--I believe that the Clyde port authority should offer the Inverclyde district council, which is in a real sense the successor body to the Greenock town council, a sum of, say, £2 million by way of compensation for its commercial banditry in my constituency.

When I raised a point of order about the competence of the Bill, I mentioned some contracts that had been signed in Edinburgh in July 1772. I obtained a copy of the document from the Public Records Office in Edinburgh a few days ago. Among other things, it states : "It shall not be lawful nor in the power of the said magistrates, treasurer, town council of Greenock nor their successors in office, to sell,"--

this may well interest the hon. and learned Member for Perth, and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)--

"alienate, dispose either irredeemably or under reversion nor wadsett, or burden with infefments of annualment or any other servitudes or burden the said harbour with anchorages, shore, bay, or ring dues, whereby the same may be evicted or adjudged and that all such dispositions, conveyances, wadsetts or other deeds so to be granted by them or their foresaids conveying or burdening the said subjects with any real diligence following thereon shall ipso jure be void null and shall only be effectual against the granter." Mr. Foulkes : That had to be said.

Dr. Godman : One can see that I have done a little bit of research.

As I said earlier, that feu contract was incorporated in the Greenock Port and Harbours Act 1867 and was further codified in Section 212 of the Greenock Port and Harbours Consolidation Act 1913. It is my view, and as hon. Members well know I am not a lawyer--

Mr. Foulkes : A barrack room lawyer.

Dr. Godman : I may be a barrack room lawyer, as my hon. Friend says.

Column 660

I should like to hear the Minister's opinion of the validity of section 212 of the 1913 Act. The Act questions the competence of the Bill.

The feu contract has been watched over by members of the Stewart family over the years. In May 1865, an attempt to abrogate the feu contract of 1772 was successfully repelled by Miss Jane Stewart of Liberton Manse, near Edinburgh, in a court action. In 1965, the picture changed. The Greenock harbour trust was succeeded by the Clyde port authority. Therefore, Sir John Shaw Stewart's remarkably generous gift to the people of Greenock was eagerly, some would say greedily, swallowed by the Clyde ports authority.

Since that inauspicious day, the Clyde port authority has sold to the Scottish Development Agency the whole of the custom house quay with its fine custom house, which I am pleased to say was recently renovated--

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : At what price?

Dr. Godman : I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman is awake. It was sold, together with all the buildings and land to the west, towards the container terminal. Therefore, eight hectares of land and some fine buildings were sold by the CPA, in an act of banditry, to the Scottish Development Agency for £1.75 million. The Scottish Development Agency is just as cavalier as the CPA in its attitude towards traditional maritime users of the harbour facilities on the Greenock water front. A couple of years ago I had to speak to the chairman of the SDA about the high-handed behaviour of his officials towards fishermen who were mooring their boats in East India harbour, Greenock. In a letter dated 5 December 1988, I said to Sir Robin Duthie that the Fish Act 1705, colloquially known as Queen Anne's Act, still gave certain rights to fishermen. I shall quote from that Act, because it is directly relevant to today's proceedings :

"the Estates of Parliament authorises and impowers all subjects to take buy and cure herring and white fish in all sundry and sea channels bays firths lochs rivers etc. wheresoever herring or white fish are or may be taken. And for their greater conveniency to have the free use of all ports harbours shoars forelands and others for bringing in pickeling drying unloading and loading the same upon payment of the ordinary dues where harbours are built. That is, such as are payed for Ships, Boats and other Goods."

I look forward to the hon. Member for Eastwood assuring me, on behalf of the CPA, that, if the Bill were to be successful, the new company would behave more responsibly with regard to the Queen Anne Act than did the SDA. That Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh in September 1705.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : We have been entertained with a lot of nonsense during the past 20 minutes. The hon. Gentleman's constituency probably contains more wonderful buildings than any of ours are privileged to have. The local authority has been appallingly neglectful. The great customs house has been restored with money given by the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland--alas, to be a value added tax office. The great building beside it is falling down, and the ropeworks is no nearer salvation. I find it strange that anyone should claim in aid the concept of heritage as a reason why the Bill should not be passed, when it would give the new authority powers to redeem and restore that great part of the Clyde.

Column 661

Dr. Godman : We have just been entertained by a characteristic mixture of buffoonery and exuberant malice. I have sought the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman to conserve some of those buildings. I regret that he did not show his usual courtesy in acknowledging my request for his expert help in the conservation of those buildings.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : The hon. Gentleman must give way. I replied immediately, and the case is before us. It is his local authority which is stalling, and he should withdraw that malicious remark.

Dr. Godman : I have no intention of withdrawing that malicious remark, because it was not at all malicious. I am not responsible for decisions taken by the Inverclyde district council. I am the Member of Parliament for Greenock and Port Glasgow, not a district councillor.

While the Bill cannot be amended in this place unless it is amended when it is scrutinised by the Committee on Unopposed Bills, I hope that amendments will be introduced when, as appears likely, it goes before an Opposed Bill Committee in another place. I hope that, if the Bill becomes law, no harm will come to the Greenock container terminal. I seek an assurance from the hon. Member for Eastwood on that.

On Friday, I spoke to Mr. Phil Cannie and some of his colleagues who load and unload cargo at the terminal. They also expressed their legitimate concern that the terminal should continue to function as a terminal. Business is undoubtedly picking up at the terminal, which has an important role to play in the local economy. It would be a great shame if the Clyde port authority were to dispose of it. It has an important role to play as a terminal, not as a site for executive-style housing. Trade is picking up, as I am sure the CPA will confirm. Timber cargoes are coming in, and the CPA has talked about investing in facilities for the transportation of wood pulp. It is absolutely essential that the hon. Gentleman gives an assurance tonight.

The same holds good for the James Watt dock, where, among other things, raw cane sugar is unloaded for refining at the Tate and Lyle sugar refinery. There are just two cane sugar refineries left in the United Kingdom. There used to be many more in Greenock, Liverpool and London. One of the remaining two, the Westland refinery, is in my constituency, and the other is in the constituency that is ably and honourably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

The refinery in Greenock employs about 300 people, most of whom are my constituents. The hon. Member for Eastwood spoke about security of employment in the Clyde port authority. I welcome that, but we also have to think about security of employment for those who are employed in the ancillary industries that are served by the Clyde port authority's maintenance of dock side and other port facilities. The 300 people who work in the refinery have an interest in the Bill. I remind the hon. Member for Eastwood, Mr. John Mather and Mr. Bob Easton of the Clyde port authority that the House has twice passed without Division two resolutions, both of which acknowledged the need to protect the interests of the east African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar producers and those British citizens who are employed in our port and in the sugar refining industry. The second of the resolutions was passed on 2

Next Section

Home Page