House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Jul 1990

Mr. Stewart : May I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan--

Mr. Redmond : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), but may we take it that all the technical details necessary to make the Bill presentable have been scrutinised and are correct? It may well be that another place will seek to amend the dredging provisions

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. If the Bill were technically defective, it would not be before the House. It is for the House to listen to the debate and make up its mind. It is a matter for the House to decide at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Stewart : Let me return to the point of substance raised by the hon. Member for Govan. Of course I cannot speculate on what might or might not happen in another place.

Essentially I am making two key points. First, the successor company has exactly the same obligations that the Clyde port authority has at present. It has exactly the same powers, duties and responsibilities.

Mr. Graham : Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Stewart : First, I shall finish my response to the hon. Member for Govan.

The successor company has exactly the same duties and responsibilities as the Clyde port authority has at present. As I have told the House, to the best of my knowledge, no port authority has an express duty in legislation to dredge a river. The legislation covering the Clyde port authority is in line with legislation that applies elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman will know that some port authorities are trusts and others are in the private sector. Some, such as Bristol, are owned and run by the local authority.

Mrs. Fyfe : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart : I have been generous in giving way, so I fear that this will have to be the last time.

Mrs. Fyfe : Will the hon. Member enlighten the House? He has given repeated assurances that the responsibilities will be exactly the same, but he has the opportunity to write the Bill as he pleases. Why has he decided not to write the Bill in a manner that will ensure that dredging is carried out by imposing a clear duty?

Mr. Stewart : I emphasise that the responsibilities being taken over by the successor company are the same as those held by the Clyde port authority. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable and proper way to proceed.

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

Mr. Stewart : No.

As I have explained to the House, the fact that there is no express duty in legislation does not mean that the authority or the successor company can stop dredging because of the duties that I have outlined to the House.

Column 754

I have taken up quite a lot of time of the House and a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. Other points have been raised, and I hope that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will outline some of the points to which the Clyde port authority responded, for example, on the structure. The Bill was sought by the authority and the board was unanimous. There were no petitions against it, and I understand that the Transport and General Workers Union has not attempted to stop the restructuring proposal in Scotland, although it has taken a different position in regard to Bills applying south of the border.

I hope that the House will feel that I have dealt with some of the major questions that have been raised and will agree to give the Bill a Third Reading tonight.

7.57 pm

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : I should like to point out to the House that recently the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided to give Braehead, a monster project, the go-ahead. That concerns me and the people in my constituency. I represent a huge area of the Clyde, as every Member of Parliament knows. Renfrew district council vigorously opposed the Braehead development, which will destroy the infrastructure of Renfrewshire. It will cause immense problems for the town of Paisley, destroying the new shopping centre which would have been built there. We have recently agreed to the Tilbury operation in Linwood.

You may well ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what this has to do with the Bill--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. On Third Reading the House is required to confine itself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Graham : I am trying to confine myself to what is in the Bill. The Bill has immense repercussions for my constituency. If the Bill is passed tonight, my constituency will suffer.

Mr. Allan Stewart : Of course the hon. Gentleman is right in the technical sense that the Bill gives the Clyde port authority powers to manage the Braehead development, for example. Will he be a little more explicit as to precisely why he is so opposed to that development? The hon. Gentleman, Renfrew district council and I see eye to eye on many issues.

Mr. Graham : The Bill is amazingly damaging to Scotland, and certainly to Renfrewshire. It will cause incredible problems. There is much concern among people who live on our side of the river that dredging will not be carried out. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) says that if the Bill goes ahead there will be no change, but there must be change. The board will be responsible to shareholders. A commercial decision will be taken not to dredge the River Clyde because it will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. The authority will say, "We do not have the money so we will not dredge it."

When I was on Strathclyde regional council, we gave Clyde port authority financial help to allow it to dredge the river. The authority will still be responsible for keeping the river clear. It is crazy for it to be privatised. It should remain a public corporation, looking after the interests of the Clyde and of the folk who live on its banks.

Column 755

Braehead has been given the go-ahead, but it will do so much damage to the Renfrewshire area that it could make ghost towns of communities such as Erskine and Renfrew and it will certainly hammer Paisley shopping centre. That is a genuine concern about what is happening in the Clyde port.

I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here because it appears that there has been a bit of collusion. The other week, the Secretary of State dug a hole at Tilbury and said, "Linwood will rise from the ashes--there will be a big new shopping centre, factories and retail units." The Braehead development, which was refused by the council, got the go-ahead from the Secretary of State. He knows that Renfrewshire cannot take a monstrosity of a project like Braehead. What will happen to the Tilbury site at Linwood? It will end up as only housing, with no works, no factories, no warehouses and no shops. It will become a residential area because of the decision to privatise the Clyde port authority.

When the Secretary of State came to dig a hole in the ground at Tilbury in my constituency he knew that the planned development would not take place because of Braehead. That calls into question any future development in the Linwood area and at Inverclyde. Recently, a decision was taken to go ahead with a shopping centre at Inverclyde. That has a lot to do with what is happening to the Clyde port authority, because anything that it does in the Govan area has a massive impact on Renfrewshire and, in effect, deprives Inverclyde of a genuine development opportunity and makes nonsense of the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

I wish that the Secretary of State was here so that I could challenge him and ask whether he knew that he was going to give planning permission for the Braehead site. Did he tell the Tilbury developers, who are spending vast sums in my area, that he was going to give the go-ahead for the Braehead site? Did he tell the developers in Inverclyde that he was going to give the go-ahead for the Braehead site?

The Bill should be thrown out. It seems that there has been collusion between the Secretary of State and the developers of Braehead and Clyde port. He is fattening up the authority for the kill and for somebody to make a lot of money. At the end of the day, the people of Renfrewshire will suffer. I note that the Minister is smiling--he can smile all he likes, and he may smile to the bank, but our folk have suffered enough from the crazy plans of this Government. This is certainly a crazy plan. It is not a plan to help the people of the Clyde or my constituents--it is a plan to make a wee bit on the side to give to the Government's friends, but they will get a resounding no from the people of Renfrewshire at the next general election. It is another gift for the Government's friends, taking from the ordinary men and women who made the Clyde what it is.

8.5 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) spoke with great passion but told us little about how the development of 200 acres at Braehead will affect his

Column 756

constituents. He seemed to think that those 200 acres, whether they were used for housing or whatever, would not help the local economy. One of the encouraging aspects of the past few years has been how derelict areas of dockland have been given a new lease of life. Throughout the old major ports of the United Kingdom, buildings that previously had been standing derelict for some years have been brought back into use, establishing living, vibrant and healthy economies. That is what happens when one is able to develop and is free of the shackles of socialism and socialist practices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, the Bill received substantial support on Second Reading on 14 May. There were no petitions against it, and none from the riparian local authorities. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, who spoke with such passion, realised that the riparian local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. I accept that Cunninghame district council is still obtaining advice on the Bill. Under our democratic system, if it has an interest in the Bill and believes that its benefits are not what it imagines, it will take action. That is the democratic system functioning. Indeed, the Bill is an example of how the democratic system works. It must go through this House and the other place, and there are opportunities for those interested enough to take action.

The reason for the Bill is that the authority, as currently structured and confined by statute, cannot realise its full potential. Its sources of funding and finance are limited and it is unable to enter into joint ventures to develop land that it owns. Borrowing is limited by statute. If it were in the marketplace, borrowing would be restricted by the risk involved, which would be sensible.

It appears that some areas should and could be developed. I do not have enough local knowledge to comment on the proposals and schemes, but anything that brings life back into our docklands and our riversides must be good. If decision making is affected by statutory limitations on the authority, changes should be made. Only if the authority can utilise and manage its resources and assets will it be able to carry out its core area responsibility for the river and marine activities. That is a sensible use of assets in any organisation. The setting up of the holding company, with the successor company assuming all the responsibility and being accountable, means that, in that sense, nothing will change. I welcome the fact that employees and former employees will be able to obtain shares. Giving people the opportunity to buy shares in the companies in which they work is my idea of spreading the nation's wealth. There is no greater motivator for an employee than the feeling that he owns part of the company in which he works and there is no greater discipline on a board than the knowledge that the employees are shareholders.

I understand that the Opposition are worried about dredging of the river. All United Kingdom rivers are covered by the same legislation, so the Clyde port authority under the successor company will not be in a different position. It is covered by the Clyde Port Authority Order 1965. I look forward to debating--if we ever reach that stage--the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. We could go on for ever with that Bill, but I should step out of line in this debate if I said more. I wish simply

Column 757

to respond to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. That new clause will affect the responsibilities of the authority or its successor company.

The River Clyde should never be downgraded. It is vital to Scotland's economy and to the welfare of her people. As I said on Second Reading, the Clyde has changed and developed to meet Scotland's needs at each stage-- throughout the industrial revolution until today. Who can say what the future holds for that great river and for the successor company that will have the responsibility for management and navigation on the river? Few of us can say where we shall be 10, 20 or 30 years ahead. Who can say what the trade patterns will be?

As everyone knows, handling of imports and exports has changed dramatically and substantially over the past 40 years. Much of the Clyde traffic 40 years ago was handled by port authority workers who carried much of the cargo on their broad shoulders. Today, with containerisation, bulk cargo handling and the shift of trade from north America towards Europe, the Clyde port authority has been faced with substantial changes in work practice, a massive reduction in the labour force and a huge drop in the traffic to and from north America.

The container terminal was constructed, as I said on Second Reading, on the site of Princes pier at Greenock and received its first ship on 15 March 1969. The terminal, with its depth 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. Sadly, events overtook the north Atlantic trade and the container terminal ran into difficult times, and it is still experiencing difficulties. At the same time, there has been a substantial change in the old smokestack- related heavy industries throughout Scotland, which led to a major drop in the volume of trade involving the port and the authority. In addition, with the reduction in oil imports--because we have our own oil off the north- east coast--there has been a substantial drop, in the Clyde and other ports, in the trade in imported oil.

The Clyde is in competition with other ports throughout the United Kingdom and Europe, including Leith and Grangemouth in Scotland. Unless the Clyde can change to meet the changes in the marketplace, and unless the port authority has the flexibility and ability to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, it is clear that it will not be able to compete effectively with other ports in the United Kingdom and Europe.

Like other hon. Members, I am worried about Hunterston, which handles 50 per cent. of the Clyde port authority's traffic, representing 43 per cent. of the authority's revenue. We all know that the well-being and future of Hunterston are very much tied up with the well-being and future of Ravenscraig. We all know that many questions need to be asked and many have not yet been answered. We in Scotland want to know the answers. We shall have opportunities in our different ways to obtain some. Unless we can get some answers, Hunterston's future will have question marks over it. That cannot give any delight to anyone other than those who do not want the Scottish economy to do well. The deep-water port at Hunterston has great facilities that should be maximised.

Mr. Wilson : The hon. Gentleman's point about Hunterston is of interest to all of us and particularly to me from a constituency point of view. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that anything in the Clyde port

Column 758

authority's existing powers has contributed over many years, and certainly over the authority's lifetime, to the disappointing underdevelopment of Hunterston?

Mr. Walker : The hon. Gentleman has an edge on me as a constituency Member. If I put a question to him about the well-being of the whisky industry in my constituency, I think that I should have the edge on him. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on details, and I should not wish to do so.

My concern as a Scottish Member of Parliament is to ensure that Scottish ports can compete effectively, efficiently and on equal terms with other ports throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. The Bill will give the people who run the authority the opportunity to do just that. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill. 8.17 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He has one characteristic in common with members of his Front Bench--he views with distaste awkwardly honest critics on the Labour Benches as much as he views with loathing honestly awkward critics on the Conservative Benches. Many of us have constituency interests and concerns that we wish to defend with the same vigour with which he defends his constituents who work in the whisky industry. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that.

I think that you were fortunate to miss the earlier exchanges, Madam Deputy Speaker--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. I was listening.

Dr. Godman : I meant that it was before you came into the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I was listening.

Dr. Godman : I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly do not wish to cross swords with you.

As you are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, when Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair we discussed amendments to the Bill which are to be tabled in the other place. I cannot discuss them now because I do not know what they are, but if amendments are made in another place, I shall presumably have the opportunity to scrutinise and discuss them when the Bill comes back. I should like some amendments to be made.

First, I should like clause 4 to be amended so as to require the head office of the Clyde port authority always to be located in Glasgow. The CPA occupies one of the finest buildings in Victorian Glasgow. I have said that to John Mather on a number of occasions, and I believe that he has invited my wife and me to visit the building and examine the architecture.

Mr. Lambie : He will give you lunch.

Dr. Godman : I do not think for one minute that John Mather will give me lunch after what I have to say today, although I may be able to appeal to Sir Robert Easton for a cup of coffee. The head office of the CPA should remain in Glasgow. If it cannot be in Greenock or Port Glasgow, it must be in Glasgow.

Column 759

Mr. Lambie : My hon. Friend should realise that the main activity of the Clyde port authority is in Cunninghame. Its headquarters should be in Ardrossan and nowhere else.

Dr. Godman : My old and hon. Friend has a point and he has made it in his usual powerful way. But I am trying to be diplomatic. I should like the headquarters to be located in Greenock, but I am perfectly willing to accept that the head office should stay in Robertson street, Glasgow.

I should also like the Bill to be amended to require that the present directors shall not be major shareholders in any successor company.

Clause 4 deals with the duties, liabilities and responsibilities of the authority. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) mentioned Inverclyde district council's position on the Bill, so in fairness I ought to say something about that. I would be the last person to impugn the hon. Gentleman's honour or character, but it seems to me that a deal may have been struck with the Secretary of State for Scotland over the passage of the Bill today and the hon. Gentleman's conduct on the Standing Committee considering the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Allan Stewart : I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that that is not so. I have repeated today that I intend to speak and vote against a guillotine on that Bill if a guillotine motion is introduced.

Dr. Godman : The hon. Gentleman is a man of his word. I readily accept what he has said and withdraw my criticism.

As I said, the hon. Gentleman referred to Inverclyde district council. It is only fair that I should mention the fact that today I received a letter from John Thompson, the director of administration for that council. Mr. Thompson wrote :

"The District Council at its meeting yesterday decided not to lodge in the House of Lords a petition objecting to the Bill."

In that regard, the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastwood were accurate. Mr. Thompson continued :

"However, the District Council has resolved to seek the support of the Clydeside MPs in opposition to the Bill."

I can well understand why the council is reluctant to petition in the other place. Like most councils in Scotland, it is strapped for cash and the procedure for presenting a petition of objection to an Opposed Private Bill Committee can be an expensive activity. Mr. Thompson went on to say :

"As you know, the District Council opposes the Bill on the grounds that its consequences, if enacted, could potentially be of significant detriment to the District."

My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made that point in his inimitable way. Mr. Thompson then said :

"In particular, the continuation of the present dredging operations of the River Clyde is extremely important to the economic wellbeing of the whole Clyde area and in particular are of considerable significance to commercial and industrial users of the River. Upon privatisation, it may be the case that a private Company would consider from a commercial view that the dredging operations should be discontinued on the grounds of commercial expediency." That was what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) suggested in his intervention.

Mr. Thompson went on :

Column 760

"Although at present there is no strict legal obligation imposed on the existing Clyde Port Authority to require the dredging of the River, the Clyde Port Authority does part finance the dredging operations in the wider public interest."

It is right and proper that Mr. Thompson should acknowledge the part played by Clyde port authority at present. His letter continued :

"A privatised Company may decide to take a narrower short term commercial view that the dredging operations are not commercially attractive and discontinue these in the future."

Mr. Thompson made some further criticisms. He said, for example : "The Bill would emphasise the property development aspects of the privatised Companies rather than the importance of the Clyde for employment, tourism, commerce and industry, leisure and the environment in general. Such an emphasis on property development may result in short term windfall profits being taken outwith the area of the Clyde without any obligation on the part of the shareholders to re-invest in the local area having regard to any consideration of public interest."

That is what I have said all along about clauses 1 to 5. No matter how estimable Sir Robert Easton and John Mather are--I have respect for both gentlemen and for their officials--a predator company based in London, Du"sseldorf, Tokyo or New York may come along and sweep them into the Clyde. Would such people have any commitment to the Clyde and its people? I think perhaps not. That is why I want the Bill amended to require the head office always to be located on the Clyde. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South may argue that it should be in Saltcoats, but I would settle for Glasgow.

Mr. Sillars : Govan.

Dr. Godman : No. If it is not Glasgow, it has to be Greenock. Did the hon. Member for Eastwood support the Eurowestport concept put forward by the late John Davidson, formerly director of the CBI in Scotland, who had a vision within which the Clyde port authority had a major role to play? A couple of years ago, in talking about the channel tunnel--I relate my remarks to clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill--he argued the case for Eurowestport :

"The Channel Tunnel will be in operation in seven years. The west of Scotland will be then connected, without transshipment break, to the European transport network--a potential advantage we have never enjoyed before. It is that absence of any need for transshipment that alters so dramatically the situation.

The scale of port developments on the European continent has been a major feature of development in the past quarter century. They have established an enviable reputation for economic, uninterrupted service. But it surely ought to be possible to break that mould by detailed forward planning, a positive approach and determined marketing. We must not accept that others have a prescriptive right to the advantages."

Mr. Allan Stewart : The late John Davidson was my successor as director of the Scottish CBI. I thought a great deal about his proposal.

Dr. Godman : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's graceful intervention about the late John Davidson.

I quoted the late John Davidson because, with regard to clause 4 of this Bill, in the light of his comments about the Eurowestport concept and the traditional maritime activities carried out on the Clyde, it is essential that the

Column 761

CPA retains more than just a foothold in those industrial maritime activities. The CPA should not become a property company. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping is listening to me in his usual attentive way. On Thursday 29 March I asked him to give us the names of the chairman, chief executive and directors of the CPA. One or two of those gentlemen have been mentioned. Needless to say, there are no women on the board. I wonder whether there will be women on future boards.

Mr. Lambie : What about friends of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)?

Dr. Godman : I am not sure whether Tommy O'Connor of the Transport and General Workers Union would want to find himself in such company. In addition to Tommy O'Connor and the then councillor Lawrence McGarry, one of the board members will be the managing director of Scottish Metropolitan Property plc. I wonder what ideas that CPA director has about property developments along the Clyde. I do not want to speak for much longer because other hon. Members wish to speak. However, I want to consider dredging. It has been readily conceded by John Mather, chief executive of the CPA, by Bob Easton and by others that dredging is a major and vital task. We know that the costs of the dredging are disputed. When the Norwegian company Kvaerner sought to acquire the shipyard in the constituency of the hon. Member for Govan it was unhappy about its responsibility for meeting a share of the dredging costs. Clause 4 (3) refers to the port authority's obligation in relation to the dredging operation. The other day I saw the dredger in the middle of the river, not far from Lymebank. By any standards she is an ancient vessel, long past her prime, and she needs to be replaced.

Mr. Worthington : That is no way to talk about a lady.

Dr. Godman : I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), says and I suspect that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), might say the same thing.

Mr. Greg Knight (Derby, North) : Do not bring me into it.

Dr. Godman : The dredger is an ancient vessel. She does a fair turn of work, but she needs replacing. I estimate that, to do that job effectively, a new vessel will cost upwards of £12 million. I would like to see such a vessel built on the Clyde.

Mr. Lambie : Well, in Port Glasgow.

Dr. Godman : Where else but at Kvaerner Ferguson of Port Glasgow? The Norwegians are moving in everywhere.

The new company that will be formed if the Bill is enacted will have to find the wherewithal to replace the dredger if the company is to continue the dredging operation. In addition to that capital outlay, over the past two or three years the CPA's annual dredging costs have been in excess of £600,000. In terms of the liability under clause 4, I believe that some assistance is given to the CPA by the Strathclyde regional council, Glasgow district council, Kvaerner of Govan and Yarrow.

Column 762

While I respect the people who run the CPA's trust board, in terms of clause 4(3) I have tried to change section 16 of the Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act 1965 which reads :

"The Port Authority may from time to time deepen, dredge, scour and improve the bed and foreshore of the river and Firth of Clyde". I have tried to change that power to a duty so that section 16 of the 1965 Act would read :

"The Port Authority shall from time to time".

I have sought to do that through a new clause that I have tabled to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill because I am given to understand that nothing in this Bill abrogates the provisions of the 1965 Act. Does the Minister wish to intervene? The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) indicated dissent.

Dr. Godman : I thought that the Minister might tell me that I was wrong about that. If I am right, I have every right to table a new clause to a miscellaneous provisions Bill so as to change the 1965 Act. There may be a technicality with which I am not familiar, but I hope that I can change a power to a duty.

The hon. Member for Tayside, North referred to the container terminal. He was right to say that in terms of activity and vessel turn-around the terminal is a shadow of its former self. Nevertheless, there is work there. Ships are coming into the terminal. It is one of our finest deep port facilities--about 42 feet.

If the Bill is successful, the container terminal should continue as a container terminal and the land should not be regarded as a site for executive-style housing in landscaped gardens. Again referring to the late John Davidson's concept of Eurowestport, it is essential to retain that container terminal not only for the people of Greenock and Port Glasgow who work there but for the maritime link to what I hope will one day be a dedicated high-speed link through the channel tunnel and be connected with the European railway network.

Mr. Allan Stewart : The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. Is he reassured by the fact that the Clyde port authority is investing about £1 million in the terminal for new storage and so on? There will be a real commitment.

Next Section

Home Page