House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 May 1990

Column 662

December 1985 and is reported in columns 107 to 127 of the Official Report. I hope that the House will forgive my lack of modesty when I say that I was able to persuade the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to accept my amendment to his resolution. He accepted it with his usual grace. The first resolution was passed under a Labour Administration and the second under a Tory Administration, and both stressed the need to protect our cane sugar refineries. Last week I spoke to Mr. Stevie Kane and other shop stewards in Tate and Lyle, who also expressed their serious concern about the Bill and its implications for their refinery. I hope that assurances and guarantees about the continuation of sugar cargoes into Greenock can be given by the hon. Member for Eastwood. Nothing less will do for my constituents who are employed by Tate and Lyle.

These are important matters, because unemployment in my constituency is still scandalously high--much higher than the level in the Strathclyde region and at least two and a half times as high as the United Kingdom level. The people that I have mentioned have a legitimate interest in the Bill, even though they do not work for the Clyde port authority.

I should now like to deal with the dredging of the Clyde. I know that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will respond to this. Despite my considerable respect for Bob Easton, the chairman of the Clyde port authority, and for John Mather, the chief executive of the authority, I cannot believe that a private company would continue to dredge that channel on any basis other than a commercial contract. The dredging of the Clyde is an essential operation because, if it were not carried out for two years, the channel would silt up and no vessel would be able to enter the docks at Glasgow, except for the King George V dock. Mr. John Mather and Mr. Bob Easton would not deny that.

Some of my constituents work for Kvaerner of Govan and others work for Yarrow's. Both those shipyards employ several thousand men and women whose livelihood utterly depends on the efficient dredging of that channel. I am not entirely certain of my figures, but I think that I am right in saying that the Clyde port authority pays more than £600,000 towards the total cost, Yarrow's pays at least £100,000 per annum, Glasgow district council pays a similar sum and Strathclyde regional council pays an amount not dissimilar to that. Kvaerner also pays for the dredging of that navigable channel. When Kvaerner negotiated the acquisition of the yard from British Shipbuilders, it swithered over the deal because of the responsibility that it would have for the cost of the dredging operation.

I seek an assurance from the Minister for Aviation and Shipping and from the hon. Member for Eastwood that that essential work will continue. If it does not, the shipyards at Port Glasgow will be irrevocably ruined within two years by the amount of silt that is carried up the Clyde on each tide. As I have said, I do not think that a private company would carry out dredging other than on the basis of a commercial contract, and I would not blame its shareholders for that.

Mrs. Fyfe : Would my hon. Friend comment on the possibility that dredging might continue but at an unreasonable cost? What are the implications of that?

Column 663

Dr. Godman : That is a worry for my hon. Friend and for other hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies. My hon. Friend must have constituents who work in Kvaerner in Govan and in Yarrows. I listened diligently to the speech by the hon. Member for Eastwood, but I did not hear the kind of guarantee that I am seeking about dredging. Perhaps he knows the Clyde better than I do, and my constituency is not directly affected. If the Clyde silts up, the shipyards may move down to Greenock. That would not break my heart, although my hon. Friends might throw me into the Clyde for even daring to suggest such a move.

Dredging is an essential commitment that must be honoured by those who manage the ports, whether that is the Clyde port authority or its successor body. Perhaps the Minister would tell us who will pay for that essential operation. Will it be the local council, the shipyards or the Scottish Office? I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is in the Chamber and listening with his characteristic courtesy and attentiveness. He may be able to tell the Minister for Aviation and Shipping that the Scottish Office will pick up the Bill. I would welcome that. Ministers may laugh, but this is no laughing matter on the Clyde.

I fear that, in time, the new company may be considered fair game by a distant predator in far-off London, Paris, Tokyo or somewhere else. I respect Messrs. Easton and Mather, and I know that both are committed to the Clyde and its well-being. However, they may well be thrown overboard by a London or New York-based predator--although, I hope, not literally.

I hope that the Bill will be chucked overboard. If it avoids that fate because of the skill of Ministers and the Whips Office, I certainly hope that it will be amended in another place in ways that are satisfactory to my constituents, given their legitimate interest in the Bill and their concern for the development of the Greenock waterfront from its container terminal down to James Watt dock and beyond. I do not believe that the Clyde port authority owns those properties, but if I am proved wrong because of past legislation, I believe that that authority should act generously and give a fair amount of compensation to the Inverclyde district council. As it stands, the Bill offers little comfort to the maritime communities on the River Clyde and the firth of Clyde.

8 pm

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : It may be for the convenience of the House if, at this stage, I make a brief statement of the Government's views on the Bill. On 15 March, the House gave a Second Reading to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. The Clyde Port Authority Bill is an almost identical measure, and the Government's position on both Bills is the same. Trust ports are slightly odd bodies. They are independent and not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited, but they must compete with ports run by companies, such as 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

Column 664

least the main commercial trust ports could be converted into companies. Changing the status of a trust port in that way needs primary legislation.

The Government have not been able to find room in their programme for appropriate legislation. It was for that reason that, about a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), when he was the 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 our legislative programme, private legislation is the only way in which any of those ports can quickly be converted into fully fledged private sector enterprises.

The present Bill will not alter the statutory responsibilities and powers that the Clyde port authority has under its existing private legislation.

Mr. Worthington : That is an extremely important assurance and we need to know what it means. I am particularly interested in the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)--the responsibility for dredging. As the Government back the Bill, does that mean that they are making a clear-cut commitment that dredging will continue at its present rate for ever? As I understand it, however, it is quite possible for the successor company to give up dredging when it wants to.

Mr. McLoughlin : I cannot add to what I have just said. The statutory responsibilities and powers of the Clyde port authority, as set out in existing private legislation, will remain the same. Obviously the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is one to be discussed in Committee as the Bill makes progress.

The existing legislation will be carried forward lock, stock and barrel to the proposed new successor company. successor company will still be a harbour authority. It will be subject also, just as the port authority is today, to those provisions of public legislation that 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 misunderstanding. The position is exactly the same as when Associated British Ports was privatised on the Government's initiative.

Mrs. Fyfe : Although the dredging may continue, can the Minister give us any assurances about the cost and who will pay?

Mr. McLoughlin : I am sure that if I started to give such answers, one might easily conclude that this was not a private Bill. I am merely stating the Government's position in relation to the private Bill. Other inquiries must be made through the proper channels when the Bill is in Committee.

The Government support the principle underlying the Bill. It is, however, necessary for Parliament to give careful consideration to the public interest in the conversion of trust port authorities into companies.

We agree with the promoters of the Bill that trust ports have no explicit owners, 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

Column 665

the proceeds from the sale of the shares of that company. The Government's view is that a proportion of the proceeds of sale should go to the Exchequer. We are considering the best way of securing that, but the intention, which Parliament would be asked to approve, would be that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of shares should be paid to the Secretary of State and paid into the Consolidated Fund whenever a trust port is converted into a company by means of private Act.

The Government regard that as an equitable share of the proceeds between the Exchequer and the new shareholders. In making that decision, we took into account the initiative shown by the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities in introducing their private Bills, the benefits of early privatisation, and the ports' intention to invest in new developments.

Mr. Wilson : What are the Government getting the money for?

Mr. McLoughlin : In the past, we have given certain grants, so it is required that there should be a return to the taxpayer, through the Exchequer, for some of those grants. The percentage was agreed as a broad figure for all trust ports that may introduce private Bills in the future.

We must bear in mind the interests of the taxpayer, who has contributed to the development of the trust ports, and the need to ensure a level playing field between the newly privatised trust ports and those ports already in the private sector. Therefore, on that basis, the present Bill has my full support.

8.6 pm

Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South) :I was glad to hear the Minister's assurance that the Government will bring in legislation on the trust ports, but that makes me even more suspicious of the Bill. According to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), if the Bill is passed it will have little influence on the present activities of the Clyde port authority. If that is so and given the Government's intention to introduce legislation, why has this Bill been brought in now? Why not wait until the Government bring in the legislation that will deal with all trust ports? We could then have a full debate on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee and deal with all the issues that have been raised, either in points of order or in the specific questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I am curious about the interest that the hon. Member for Eastwood has in the Clyde port authority. He told us that he was interested because certain of his constituents worked in that authority. That is a legitimate interest for any Member of Parliament, but surely it is not strong enough to sponsor a private Bill. Why was not my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked to bring in the Bill? Why were not the hon. Members representing Glasgow or Cunninghame asked to bring in the Bill? After the next election, when the hon. Member for Eastwood loses his seat, as most of the Scottish Tory Members will, I ask him to guarantee that he will not

Column 666

accept a directorship on the board of the new company. I should like the hon. Gentleman to answer that question and to give us an assurance that his future financial interests do not make him enthusiastic about the Bill being given a Second Reading tonight. I am serious about the matter and hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer that question. Some of his hon. Friends took part in previous debates on privatisation. I do not want to name names, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) can do that, as he is harder than I am. If he is willing to mention the name of the new director of the bus company, Stagecoach, I am sure that he will mention other names if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the interest of the hon. Member for Eastwood in the Bill?

I was suspicious about the Bill when it was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. When I came down from Scotland because of the one-line Whip, I was sure that, after listening to the hon. Member for Eastwood, I would understand why the Bill is necessary. I did not get that information. He said that the only difference would be that the authority could enter into joint ventures to sell property and land.

The hon. Member for Eastwood put us under tremendous pressure by saying that some of my trade union friends were supporters of the Bill--Tom O'Connor from the Transport and General Workers and Lawrence McGarry, the former chairman of the economic and industrial development committee of Strathclyde regional council, who are members of the board. They should have contacted Strathclyde Labour Members of Parliament before they decided to support the Bill given us their reasons. I am worried that they have the same interest in the Bill as I hope the hon. Member for Eastwood will not have after the next general election, when he is no longer a Member of Parliament.

In the statement on the behalf of the promoters, in support of Second Reading, paragraph 2 states that the port authority "is profitable ; and it does not rely on government subsidies." You do not know much about the Clyde, Mr. Deputy Speaker so I must explain that this is a Bill about the Clyde port authority-- Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I was unloading cargo and cargo handling during almost the whole of 1947 and 1948, on King George V dock.

Mr. Lambie : I withdraw my accusation, as I understand that it has no foundation. I can cut short my speech as I was about to give you the background to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that you could deal with the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

The Clyde port authority is a profitable company, but the accounts for a period of years show that it has been profitable not because of its port or harbour activities but because it has sold assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow gave us an example. It sold the heritage of Greenock and Port Glasgow to the Scottish Development Agency. Not that I criticise what the agency has done, but the people of Clydeside would have been happier with industry, harbour and port activities, which we had in the past, and not grass, trees and green fields.

The Clyde port authority has been successful because it has sold its assets, but it has reached the stage where it

Column 667

needs additional help to become more profitable. That is why it needs permission to establish joint ventures. The authority wants to bring in other vultures--not the ones on the roof, but the ones in the private sector--to rip off the heritage of the Clyde, which has been built up by the people of Clydeside for centuries when it was the foremost port in the United Kingdom.

With the development of Europe and the decrease in trade across the Atlantic to the Americas, the Clyde port authority has found itself in difficulty. However, it took the easy road out, and instead of trying to develop port facilities, it balanced the books by selling property and assets. That is my criticism and I have often made it to the authority and on the Floor of the Chamber.

I represent Cunninghame together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and within our constituencies we have two important ports that are integral parts of the Clyde--the deep-water port of Hunterston and the port of Ardrossan.

I am speaking tonight because I am interested in the development of the port of Hunterston, which is unique in the west coast of Scotland and unique in Europe because it is one of the few deep water ports. However, it has not been developed and the blame lies with the board of the Clyde port authority.

Before I entered Parliament I took part in a trade union and labour movement campaign to persuade the Government to designate the Hunterston peninsula as an industrial area for steel, oil-refining and chemical activities. Those industries could have been developed there because large bulk carriers can come into the port and discharge their cargoes cheaply. The Clyde port authority has not developed the unique facilities of Hunterston ; it has allowed it to die.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, the port is now experiencing a slight upsurge in business, but if there is an adverse decision about the future of Ravenscraig steelworks, the port of Hunterston will be finished because its other activities will not be sufficient to sustain it.

Perhaps I am criticising the Clyde port authority unfairly for not developing Hunterston. I realise that it was placed under servere restraint due to the operation of the dock labour scheme and that a major disaster occurred when the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the steelworkers' union, was not allowed to organise workers loading and unloading ships at Hunterston. I realise that after a six-month strike, when Transport and General Workers Union reinforced the position of the dockers, it tied the hands of the Clyde port authority a little. Again, the authority should have fought more than it did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and I are also interested in the port of Ardrossan, which has been in decline while it has been under the Clyde port authority's control. When I represented central Ayrshire, which contains the port of Troon, I was interested in Associated British Ports. In Ayr, we were interested in comparing the port of Ayr with activities and development at the port of Ardrossan--there was no comparison. In fact, I often put the case to Ministers for the port of Ardrossan to be taken away from the Clyde port authority and handed over to Associated British Ports, even after it had been privatised.

I hope that the Bill will be thrown out tonight and that the Government will bring forward their proposed legislation for all the trust ports. If it is not thrown out, I

Column 668

hope that we shall secure amendments to it that will break up the Clyde port authority and withdraw from it the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan. The future of the two ports does not lie with the Clyde Port Authority plc ; it lies with an independent company developing both ports for the benefit of the people of Cunninghame, rather than subsidising a defunct Clyde port authority.

Dr. Godman : Can my hon. Friend advise me about the responsibility of the Clyde port authority as a pilotage authority? Would not the Clyde Port Authority plc still have responsibility as a pilotage authority?

Mr. Lambie : I am afraid that I cannot answer that question, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood or the Minister will answer it.

I appreciate that I may be arguing against some of my hon. Friends who represent the upper Clyde and the River Clyde, but I want the Hunterston and Ardrossan ports to be split from the Clyde river authority. If the Bill is enacted and the Clyde port authority ceases to be a trust port and becomes a plc, it will get all the money and will concentrate all its development on the buying and selling of property and land.

Therefore, the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan should become independent, even if that means them being taken over by a privatised Associated British Ports. At least they have shown an initiative that has not been shown by the Clyde port authority. If that authority and my friends who are directors on its board want to become property and land developers, let them. Of course, I appreciate that that would cause a problem for some of my hon. Friends.

I hope that we will not be defeated tonight by the votes of Scottish Members. I am a little disappointed that there is not one representative of the Scottish National party present. Perhaps they are at a wake for the resignation of the chairman of their party, Mr. Gordon Wilson, who today announced his intention to resign at the next conference.

Mr. Holt : It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to point out that no Scottish Nationalist Member is present. He forgot to mention that there are no Liberal Democrat Members present either. Of course, about 20 Scottish Labour Members have an interest in the port, but fewer than half of them have been present tonight.

Mr. Lambie : I was about to refer to the absence of Liberal Democrat Members. Strathclyde has had a fair parliamentary representation tonight. Those Scottish Members who are not here are feeding, and they will soon come in in droves.

I ask the hon. Member for Eastwood to declare any interest, or any possible future interest, in the Clyde Port Authority plc. In view of his arguments and the poor content of his speech, I ask him to withdraw the Bill.

8.26 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I speak in this debate because no one from Scotland can doubt the importance of the Clyde to Scotland's well- being. Ever since the industrial revolution, it has contributed substantially to the well-being, the benefit and the massive enhancement in values for those who live in the area and throughout Scotland generally.

Column 669

I especially remember the Clyde during the difficult years of the second world war, when troop ships came in from north America and the Clyde was regularly a target for the Luftwaffe. Anyone who saw the Clyde operating as a port in those days could never forget the extremely difficult circumstances with troop ships coming in from north America or going out to the middle and far east.

Dr. Godman : Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Clyde port authority came into being in 1965?

Mr. Walker : I do not wish to become involved in pedantic arguments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am commending the Clyde's contribution to the well-being of the nation.

Dr. Godman : In view of the hon. Gentleman's stout defence of all those employed in the whisky industry, does he agree that it is a great shame that the overwhelming majority of whisky products are exported not from Greenock or Grangemouth, but from English ports? Is not that a matter for deep regret?

Mr. Walker : I make no apology for saying that the whisky industry carries out its business in the most efficient way possible, however that is done. The whisky industry has a future in its present form and it will continue to have one, provided that it exports its products in the most cost-effective and efficient way. It is not my job to second-guess the whisky companies in determining the routes through which they send their products abroad. My concern is to ensure that the £1,000 million-plus of whisky products that are exported continue to be exported. It has never been my desire, in public or in private life, to impose upon private sector companies restrictions that would in any way limit their performance in the world marketplace.

Dr. Godman : I repeat, the hon. Gentleman looks after the interests of those of his constituents working in the whisky industry with remarkable vigour. However, if the major ports on the Clyde and the Forth were to disappear, the subsidies offered to the whisky distillers and blenders to take their products out through English ports would surely disappear.

Mr. Walker : The responsibility for determining the place from which exports leave the country or imports arrive is largely that of the companies which ship products and the shippers. If they decide to use a particular port because it is more cost-effective than another, I hope that the port that has not been chosen will look carefully at whatever are the cost advantages, real or imagined, as seen by the shippers and shipping companies. We hope that all areas of Scottish activity, including ports, will adapt to meet the changing demands and conditions of the modern world, so that Scotland can compete not only with overseas ports but those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. One cannot ignore recent trade history. Since its inception, the port authority has been obliged to face a number of dramatic changes in trade patterns. Like its predecessors, it has been compelled to adapt. The first of those changes was the implementation of full-scale containerisation on the world general cargo and liner trade routes. Those of us who witnessed that change occurring throughout the United Kingdom know that the ports that adapted quickly to containerisation thrived and grew,

Column 670

whereas ports that failed to adapt did not do so. Incidentally, I do not make any political, narrow, partisan points, because it is not that kind of Bill. It has the support of the Transport and General Workers Union, and of elected councillors, which I am delighted about.

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

Mr. Walker : The hon. Gentleman is rather impetuous. He does not allow anyone to complete a sentence.

I hope that Opposition Members accept that there is nothing narrow or partisan about the view that I take. Instead, I am concerned to see the Clyde develop in the best way possible. I was emphasising that unless one adapts quickly, and if restrictions are placed on the way in which a company or a trade union can operate, it serves as an impediment to change. Any impediment to change must present a disadvantage by comparison with ports that are able to change.

Dr. Godman : I point out to the hon. Gentleman that no impediments are being presented by the management or workers at the Kvaerner yard at Govan or at Yarrow. At both yards, management and workers are keen to win new orders. In the near future, Kvaerner may secure an order for three large vessels. That would be most useful to my constituents, because I fervently hope that Kincaid will build the engines for those vessels.

Mr. Walker : I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I stated that there are any impediments. I was only expressing the hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see the Clyde flourish--that we want it to adapt to meet the changing demands of today and tomorrow. We may differ on the route taken to achieve that. All the evidence from eastern Europe is that the capitalist, private-sector methods are far more efficient, create more jobs, and produce far more wealth than the narrow attitude that is the alternative, if I may put it that way.

Mr. Worthington : So the hon. Gentleman is being non-political.

Mr. Walker : I repeat, socialism does not work, and all the countries of eastern Europe are rejecting it. I was trying not to be partisan, but was responding to the narrow partisan points of Opposition Members. If they cannot take it, they should not make their points in the first place.

The Clyde port container terminal was constructed on the site of the Princes pier at Greenock and received its first ship on 15 March 1969. The terminal, with its depth of water of 42 ft at low tide, with a back-up area of 42 acres, and with rail connections to the major industrial centres of the United Kingdom, had by 1973 attracted 13 shipping lines. I hope that Opposition Members view those remarks as promoting the Clyde.

Events gradually overtook the north Atlantic trade. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), in his interesting speech, quite properly defended the interests of his constituents--even if it was at the cost of the constituents of some of his hon. Friends. There is nothing odd about that, because the hon. Gentleman has a track record for it. No one could ever accuse the hon. Gentleman of neglecting his constituency.

Dr. Godman : The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Clyde port container terminal, which is in my constituency. Everyone acknowledges that that terminal has seen bad

Column 671

times--largely brought about by fluctuations in maritime trade patterns. However, the vastly reduced number of men working at that terminal today are striving hard to increase its efficiency, and they are beginning to win.

Mr. Walker : I am delighted to hear that. I am not in any way being critical--

Dr. Godman : Yes, you are.

Mr. Walker : I am not. If the hon. Gentleman will read my speech tomorrow, he will see that I acknowledge, as does the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South, that the development of European trade in both directions is a substitute for what used to be the United Kingdom's major trade area in the north Atlantic. Anyone who doubts that trend need only study the changes in the trade patterns. One cannot blame the people working in the ports or the port employers for changing trade patterns. Whether one is trading in a port or in a high street, if one does not change to meet new patterns, one goes out of business. No right hon. or hon. Member wants to see Clyde port do that.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South referred in particular to the importance of Hunterston to the west and the whole of Scotland. There is no question but that Hunterston and Ravenscraig depend on each other. In Hunterston, Scotland has a facility of which it can be proud. I look upon it much as I view Prestwick. Both are great Scottish assets. It is up to us as Scots to identify how we can best influence those facilities being maximised, to the benefit of Scotland. That is why I am distressed that so many foolish and sad things are said about Hunterston, Ravenscraig and Prestwick.

Mr. Foulkes : In the past, I have had cause to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all the positive things that he has said about Prestwick, for which he has been a doughty campaigner. Was it the Secretary of State for Scotland's U-turn on Prestwick that really turned the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) against him and led the hon. Gentleman to campaign for the present Secretary of State's replacement by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? If so, that important milestone should be recorded. People should know about it. The primary responsibility belongs to the Secretary of State for Transport. He should be warned to look after his back.

Mr. Walker : I am fond of the hon. Gentleman in many ways. I hope that that does him no political harm. He has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the fact that we have joined together in campaigns in which we both believed. I should like to know what his views are on two-minute roof tax Donald. The Labour party has problems in Scotland. On which side of the fence does the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) fall? I shall go no further down that road. I have merely responded in kind to the hon. Gentleman's jibes.

The fact is that 50 per cent. of the Clyde port authority's traffic goes through Hunterston which represents 43 per cent. of its revenue. The Clyde port authority has a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the port is used to its fullest extent to benefit Scotland. Furthermore, Ravenscraig must continue to be the most cost-effective and productive plant that the British Steel Corporation owns. We must compliment the workers at Ravenscraig on their remarkable production performances.

Column 672

Mr. Lambie : To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about Hunterston, my criticism of the Clyde port authority is that it has spent too much time on property development too little time on developing the harbour and port facilities, especially at Hunterston. If it had spent more time developing Hunterston instead of selling land in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), we might not have had to come here today to deal with this stupid Bill.

Mr. Walker : I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question on the basis of principle rather than detail. I do not know what the Clyde port authority has been doing. In principle, however, it is up to any corporate body that owns land or property to maximise its assets for the benefit of the whole undertaking. That could mean selling off land for development so that the core part of the business can be successful. The core business may require substantial funds if it is to grow. It would be better to use asset funds, on which no interest has to be paid, for those developments rather than borrowed funds. I hope that the Clyde port authority has been using its assets to create the maximum advantage for the core part of the business. I believe that it probably has, since it appears to be profitable. That must be welcomed by us all.

The Clyde port authority board unanimously supported the use of the private Bill procedure. It must have considered a variety of options-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is laughing. He sits on a board. I hope that the board on which he sits takes responsible decisions. If it does not, he and the other board members are failing in their statutory duty. Perhaps he is not unaware of a director's statutory duties.

I believe that in this case the board considered the options and decided unanimously to support the private Bill procedure. As it drew on the experience of so many interests, I have no hesitation in saying that I hope that the House will ensure that the Bill is given a Second Reading and is considered in Committee. If it does, Scotland's interests will have been well served.

The Clyde will continue to be an important port. The developments within Europe mean that trading patterns have changed, but during the next 30 years I believe that north Atlantic trade will be far more important that it has been during the past 20 years. Changes to the world's political power blocs will result in changes to trading patterns. It would be most unwise of us to run down this great national asset. I take the same view of the Clyde as I do of Prestwick--that we should look after and nurture it. If we do, it will still be there when trading patterns alter, as I believe they will. Too often in the past we have said, "If we had only known then what we know now." By then, however, it is too late.

Dr. Godman : With regard to the nurturing of the Clyde, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the assurances that have been given about continuing the dredging of the channel?

Mr. Walker : I am satisfied that the successor company will assume all the responsibilities of the present authority. On that basis, I assume that it will continue to do what has been done in the past. The Bill does not change the responsibilities ; it merely gives them to the successor company. The statement says :

Column 673

"The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the transfer of the Port Authority's undertaking to a Companies Act company, ( the successor company'), with the consequential dissolution of the Port Authority. The successor company would at all times be a wholly owned subsidiary of another Companies Act company ( the holding company')".

The successor company will assume all the responsibilities of the Clyde port authority. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may not be satisfied that the authority would honour its responsibilities. However, the successor company would have to do so.

It is important to set up a holding company. That is the big difference. The holding company will be in the market place in a way that the Clyde port authority is not. It will have the opportunity to obtain funds, which the Clyde port authority cannot do. I should have thought that that would be of advantage to the Clyde.

If we are all interested in doing what is best for the Clyde--I hope that we are--I should have thought that experience has taught us that, if we do not change, we may end up with another albatross round our necks, and we do not want that.

8.39 pm

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who, in the past two or three minutes, gave us more explanation of the structure of the Bill than we were given by the presenter, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). His explanation was off the top of his head, however, which is a remarkable sign of the contempt with which the House has been treated.

The Bill is of considerable importance, and the House should treat it with the seriousness it deserves. It concerns an authority that is responsible for 450 square miles--not only the port of Glasgow but the ports of Ardrossan and Hunterston, not to mention all the sea lochs around the Firth of Clyde. It seems that we are to approve on the nod a change in the way in which the port area is administered. The hon. Member for Eastwood is usually the most affable of Members, but on this occasion he has treated the House with some contempt by failing to brief himself on the implications of the Bill. Tonight, he is in the position of a Minister ; usually, Ministers presenting a Bill go through it and explain the implications of each clause. That the hon. Gentleman failed to do. All he gave us was a recitation from what I can only assume was a public relations brief of about two pages from the Clyde port authority. The hon. Gentleman completely failed to answer the questions that were put to him.

I object to the Bill not because I regard the Clyde port authority as a satisfactory body--I do not. I regard it as highly unsatisfactory, and I think that it should be restructured so as to reflect the interests of all the people of Scotland, not just those of the people who run the authority now.

Is the Clyde port authority a public or a private body? We do not know whether it is fish or fowl, whether it is operating in the commercial market or in the public sector.

It is also most unsatisfactory that the authority should be the responsibility of the Department of Transport--a fact that is not widely known. I suspect that most people in Scotland think that it is linked with the Scottish Office. I notice that sitting on the Government Front Bench is the

Next Section

Home Page