Previous Section Home Page

Column 999

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

Formation of companies for purposes of transferof certain statutory port undertakings

Mr. John Ward (Poole) : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 6, at end insert--

(f) any harbour authority which has not received any grant from public funds other than any grants under the Enterprise Scheme during a period of five years ending with the passing of this Act.'. The amendment would exempt from compulsory privatisation any port that had not received subsidy from the taxpayer during the past five years. The House will know by now that my constituents are satisfied with the present arrangements for the management of Poole port and harbour. They do not wish to have a change of management forced on them by Government.

Apart from satisfying local people, the present harbour commissioners have not received a penny piece in direct subsidy from the Government in over 20 years. It seems wrong that they should be under threat from an action by a future Minister which would place at risk the good relationships and control of environmental conditions which are in place.

I have so far been unable to persuade the Government that the compulsion element should be removed from the Bill. The amendment would mean that only ports that have needed public subsidy in the recent past could be privatised by compulsion. The amendment would exempt ports such as Poole from compulsory privatisation, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

Several Hon Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I call Mr.--

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward)--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Not calling the hon. Member by name was a temporary lapse on my part. He and I have known each other for many years. Mr. Adley.

Mr. Adley : I am sure that it is permissible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for us to forget each other's names momentarily once every 21 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole is a fellow Dorset Member who may be too modest to say that he never misses an opportunity to protect, as he sees it, the interests of his constituents and his constituency.

I should, by way of declaration of interest, point out that in a few days' time the company with which I am connected, Holiday Inn, will be signing a contract with Poole borough council to build a hotel. I say that lest any mischievous journalist thinks that I am speaking for any reason other than in support of my hon. Friend. We Dorset Members like to stick together. Poole is undoubtedly one of the most efficient, well-run ports in Britain, and my hon. Friend made the valid point that a port which has not been in receipt of any central Government financial assistance should be entitled to have

Column 1000

some control over its own destiny. Even my hon. Friend, who perhaps occasionally shades his politics slightly differently from me, will not object to my saying in supporting him that the presumption in favour of privatisation regardless should always be tempered by local and national circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will pay heed to the pleas of my hon. Friend, who, I reiterate, always does so much to protect the interests of his constituents.

Mr. McLoughlin : I understand the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who takes a great interest in all transport matters, not least in those that we are considering tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has made many approaches to me on the subject. I visited Poole harbour with him on a day when the weather was not wonderful and was given a noisy welcome.

I have listened to the arguments put by my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. My hon. Friend has shown understandable concern during the earlier stages of this Bill for the well-being of Poole harbour and its users and his views, as well as those of the harbour commissioners, about the proposed reserve power of compulsion are well known. Nevertheless, I am sure that he is at one with the Government in supporting the main purpose of the Bill, which is to enable those trust ports that wish to do so to transfer themselves to the private sector.

Unfortunately, the amendment that he has tabled to clause 1 would deny this benefit to a very large number of ports, simply because, for whatever reason, they are not among those that benefited from public money during the recent past. Indeed, some of the ports excluded by the provision would be precisely those that have shown the most enthusiasm for privatisation, and it would make no sense to penalise them because they have not received any grant from Government in recent years.

Mr. Spearing : I can see why, for technical reasons, the Minister feels that the amendment goes too wide. Has he any response to the excellent document sent to various hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he agree that returning power to the people, in line with the announcements that we heard earlier today, is one of the Government's objectives? Why cannot he undertake to move, in another place, an amendment stipulating that trust ports that do not wish to be privatised will have the freedom to decline?

Mr. McLoughlin : The hon. Gentleman has perhaps missed some of our earlier deliberations on the enabling powers in the Bill, under which trust ports can propose themselves for privatisation. The Government believe that the larger trust ports should be in the private sector, but the Bill includes only a reserve power. It does not say that all trust ports will necessarily be privatised--an important distinction. As I have often said, if the Government intended to privatise all the trust ports, the Bill would say so. But the Bill recognises the differences among the many trust ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole speaks for Poole ; the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) would, I am sure, make a good case, as he saw it, for Lerwick. We cannot judge all the trust ports in the same way, which is why the Bill is drafted as it is.

Column 1001

For the reasons that I have explained, I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw it.

Ms. Walley : The amendment has a great deal to commend it. We have just heard from the Minister another example of the back-pedalling that seems to be taking place on this Bill. He seems to be saying that all trust ports are equal, provided that they have a turnover of more than £5 million and regardless of what some of that £5 million has to be spent on--important dredging work, and so on. However, quite apart from the attempts that we have made to create exemptions for environmental protection or on grounds such as those offered in this amendment, the message seems to be that some ports are not as equal as others in the matter of compulsory privatisation. It seems that, if an hon. Member can make a strong enough political case and bend the ear of the Minister, he can gain assurances that the Secretary of State will not use these draconian powers in his constituency. I am sorry that the Minister dismissed the amendment out of hand. We believe that it would clarify the issue and remove some of the trust ports from the net of compulsory privatisation by which they do not want to be caught. Sooner or later, we will be able to see exactly what the Minister's proposals are.

Like the Minister, I visited the port of Poole. It was a fine day and I suspect that my welcome was probably warmer than his. He at least had the grace to tell the House that he had a noisy welcome. It was a noisy welcome because everybody in Poole is united in the view that, however much this may be a piece of enabling legislation, they do not want is forced upon them.

9.45 pm

I understand that the chief executive, Hamish Green, will be speaking against compulsory privatisation at the debate on 15 May at Bournemouth polytechnic. I suspect that many, quite apart from the chief executive, the harbour commissioners and Poole and District Fishermen's Association and its secretary, Ray Knight, whom I met yesterday, including the environmentalists, agree wholeheartedly with the amendment.

If the Minister is not prepared to take on board, openly and honestly, the ideas behind the amendment, he should face the fact that the Government have not been able to convince the trust ports of the merits of privatisation. If he does not choose to apply the compulsory parts of the Act to them, he should at least be able to tell the House on what grounds he will be excluding certain ports. For that reason, the amendment has our support.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

Transfer of undertakings

Amendments made : No. 5, in page 2, leave out line 28. No. 6, in page 2, line 30, at end insert

; or

(c) to any liability of the authority incurred by virtue of section (Financial assistance for proposals to maximise employee participation in equity of successor companies) below in connection with any proposal for maximising participation by employees of the successor company in ownership of its equity share capital.'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Column 1002

Clause 5

Control by appropriate Minister over exercise of authority's functions under sections 3 and 4

Amendment made : No. 7, in page 4, line 10, at end insert-- ( ) In exercising his powers under subsection (2) above the appropriate Minister shall have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers or other persons employed by the successor company of the whole or a substantial part of its equity share capital.'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 8

Schemes made by a relevant port authority

Ms. Walley : I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 6, line 12, at end insert--

(c

(he shall require the memorandum and articles of the company to determine port activities as the main activity of that company.'.) The amendment speaks for itself. After the transfer of functions, the governing documents will be the memorandum and articles of association of the company. The Secretary of State will ultimately have power to determine the contents of the memorandum and articles. They will presumably be framed in such a way as to be attractive to people who might want to buy the shares. The objects clause in the memorandum of association determines the activities in which the company can lawfully engage and that could provide for

diversification or for other activities besides port activities. The Bill should be about transport. It should be committed to making sure that our ports can properly fit into Britain's transport infrastructure. Therefore, it is incomprehensible that, as happens now, plcs taking over the trust ports will be able to diversify to such an extent that port activities will not be the main activities at the heart of the new company. That is why we have tabled the amendment and seek to deter corporate raiders.

The Bill may free financial constraints on the ports, as the Government claim, but we believe that the ports should then be free to maintain activities and not to diversify into property development and all the worst examples of property speculation that we have seen.

The amendment would keep the essence of trust ports after privatisation. That is an issue on which we had considerable discussion in Committee. I remind the Minister that, in commenting on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, and on the proposals that did not complete their course in this House, the House of Lords Select Committee reported on 21 February 1991 :

"It is envisaged that the new company would enjoy unlimited freedom to expand its business activities into any sector and geographical area it chooses."

I emphasise the word "geographical" because right hon. and hon. Members expressed concern that a new company need not even be based in the area of the trust port that it took over.

The report went on :

"It would thus be possible for the privatised authority to undertake commercial activities of which it has no experience and which are far removed from the business it knows well ; namely, running a port and conserving a river. We accept that the authority intends at present only to expand into transport, distribution and warehousing services and into property development, and it has recruited expert managers in these areas. But nothing in the Bill would prevent even further diversification in the future."

Column 1003

The report added :

"Exposing the holding company to such risks could endanger a successor company's ability to fulfil its statutory obligations and to carry on its core business of running the port. That could have a detrimental impact on local industry and the local community." Those few sentences make the case. Whatever may be the Government's intentions, and regardless of whether they will force privatisation on trust ports that do not want it, unless we can write into the memorandum and articles of association the direction that the port should be the company's main activity, the Bill will have even less to do with transport than it currently masquerades as having. For those reasons, I press the Minister to say whether port activities should continue to be the function of the new companies, or whether we may expect total diversification and an abandonment of ports throughout the country.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : I wish to establish how the Government will use the powers contained in subsection (6), as amended by amendment No. 60, which would give the Secretary of State the authority to direct that a company's memorandum and articles of association could be changed, pending certain representations when a scheme is produced. I should like to hear the Minister's views in the context of recreational users such as yachtsmen and the owners of other pleasure boats.

From the Minister's comments in respect of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and representations and consultations between various users and the company, I fear that everything will be left to market forces. If there is to be a change of powers and responsibilities, the fear among yachtsmen and other pleasure boat users is that there could be a serious loss of facilities. We must rid ourselves of the misconception that all people who sail boats are rich, because that is not the case. Boating is one of the most popular sports in Britain. It is enjoyed by millions of people and millions of boat owners. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs. That is one good reason why I hope that he will be able to answer my question.

I am worried about people on low incomes, who have boats, but who cannot afford to put them in the larger marinas and use all the facilities offered to boats moored on the fingers there. Often their boats are on loose moorings in an estuary or a large harbour. I believe that such people feel threatened by this legislation. When a scheme is submitted by a port authority, what will be the Minister's attitude if representations are made to him about it by the Royal Yachting Association? Would he say that it was a matter for market forces, or would he use his powers to direct that the memorandum and articles of the company can be amended? Those powers do exist.

Yachtsmen and pleasure boat users want to know what the Government's attitude will be towards their sport. Will the Minister leave it to market forces or will he have sympathy?

I am not asking the Minister to refer to specific schemes, but yachtsmen and British boat users will want to know exactly what the Government's attitude will be towards using those powers.

Mr. Barry Field : As it was a Labour Chancellor who put value added tax on yachts, and in view of the hon.

Column 1004

Gentleman's concern, will he tell us whether it would be Labour party policy to abolish VAT on yachts and pleasure boats?

Mr. Randall : What a silly question. I am sure that you would rule me out of order if I answered it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have genuine concern for people who enjoy sailing and boating, which is a healthy sport, especially for young people, and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is insulting them. I am trying to find out whether a large number of those people will be threatened by the Government's policy. If the Government are going to leave ports to market forces, one can conclude that millions of pleasure boat users will be threatened.

When the Minister responds to the debate I look forward to hearing whether he will have sympathy or whether he will leave the matter to market forces and not use his powers to preserve an important sport and recreation.

Mr. Spearing : Although I happen to be a member of the RYA and therefore understand the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I do not speak as a member but because I want to probe the Minister more closely. I fancy that he may reject the amendment because of the words "main activity" or because of the use of the adjective "main" in relation to the word "activity". I foresee a lawyers' field day discussing that. If the Minister rejects the amendment I shall ask him to concede that hon. Members on both sides of the House are genuinely concerned about the ambit of the activities of the companies that he wishes to come into existence. If he declines the invitation of my hon. Friend the member for Kingston upon Hull, West, will he agree that some sort of clause--it may be too late for this House, but it could be included elsewhere--should be included in the Bill? It could run something like this : "It shall be a requirement of the memorandum and articles of the company that the activities of the company shall be principally those which are closely associated or closely related to port, haven or marine activities", although I admit that that is not a good immediate draft.

Surely that is what the House would expect such a company to be. One does not expect a port and harbour company suddenly to become an office organisation or to sell off land so that a marina is left as a tiny pool in the middle, even if commercial activity stops. That is a matter about which many people are concerned. We have seen how market forces operate along the Thames. Pressure is in their very nature. If the Minister is unable to accept this amendment, will he at least consider the introduction of some such provision as I have just rather badly outlined?

Mr. McLoughlin : The hon. Gentleman was right to suggest that I was unlikely to accept the amendment. The Opposition have overlooked one of the main purposes of the Bill, which is to allow trust ports to privatise themselves. They may wish to do so partly for the purpose of gaining the freedom to diversify their activities. Not long ago, I visited one of the trust ports. I shall not say which one. It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Column 1005

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Ports Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered. Question again proposed.

Mr. McLoughlin : I have just been referring to a visit that I paid to one of the trust ports. As we were passing a hanger, I was told that it had been rented out to a company. I said, "No doubt the company's activities are port-related." In fact, I did not realise that the charter requires such activities to be port-related, but there were a number of red faces around when I was told, "Possibly it ships in one or two things each year, but I do not think we could claim that its activities are totally port-related." I do not want to put such a restriction on the activities of trust ports.

Sale objectives will be agreed between the port and the appropriate Minister before the privatisation process gets under way. The Bill provides for a period of consultation. If the Royal Yachting Association, for which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Randall) spoke, has representations to make, it will want to put them forward at the appropriate time. [Interruption.] I did not intend to indicate that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for the RYA. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made a similar point earlier.

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Randall) rejected as nonsense the very telling point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). This amendment is too restrictive, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Ms. Walley : It may have escaped the Minister's notice, while he has been so busy with this Bill, that VAT has been increased to 17 per cent. Amendment No. 60 refers to the determination of port activities as the main activities of a company. Our intention is to ensure that ports that are operating effectively at present are enabled to continue to carry out their responsibilities. That should not be prevented by the takeover activities of predators. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken on board the spirit of the amendment. I can assure him that the matter will be pursued with vigour in another place. If he has any regard for the genuine concern of people throughout the country about the state of ports in 10 years' time, the sentiments that are expressed in this amendment will have to be taken into consideration during the period of consultation to which he has referred.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

Schemes initiated by the Secretary of State

Mr. Ward : I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 44, at end insert :

(6A) If, after consulting an authority as provided in subsection (6) above it appears to the Secretary of State that a direction under subsections (2) and (3) above ought not to be given to that authority, he shall not give the authority such a direction at any time within a period of five years commencing with the date on which he first so consulted the authority.'.

Column 1006

I had hoped that the Minister would be convinced by the strength of the argument put to him by many of my constituents that the element of compulsion should be removed completely from the Bill. That has not happened so far. As the Bill stands, should the Minister agree with local representatives not to use his compulsory powers to require them to prepare privatisation schemes, there is nothing to prevent the hon. Gentleman, or his successor, from returning to the question within weeks or months, having had a change of mind, and requiring privatisation to proceed. With such a sword of Damocles hanging over any organisation, it would be impossible for it to take sensible planning or commercial decisions, or to negotiate with financial institutions the financial arrangements that they have been prepared to make available in the past to trust ports, which would be under a continuing blight, due to the threat of such a decision being made by the Minister.

For many years the Poole harbour commissioners have successfully managed their own financial affairs. They have financed the development and improvement of the harbour without any call on Government funds. If financial institutions have no guarantee that harbour managers will continue to hold their present responsibilities, such sensible financial arrangements could come to a halt overnight. Surely no hon. Member can envisage any commercial institution working under such conditions. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this modest amendment. It would enable at least some long-term planning--for five years--following the Minister's acceptance that privatisation is not immediately required.

Mr. Wallace : I support the amendment. I attempted to introduced a similar amendment by means of a new clause that was not selected for debate. Under my scheme a trust port could have attempted to maintain the status quo. Its effect would have been very much the same as the amendment moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). I visited Poole last week. The weather was exceptionally good. No political significance can be read into the weather that greeted me and that which greeted the Minister. One could not help but be impressed by the work of the harbour commissioners over a number of years and by the way in which they have developed Poole harbour. They have tried to maintain its special characteristics, including its environmental characteristics. That alone makes Poole a special case. I hope that the Minister will take that into account if he ever decides to exercise the powers that new clause 9 gives to him. All the trust ports have their own characteristics. I argued on many occasions in Committee that the Lerwick harbour trust has its own particular characteristics. I refer to the way in which it has responded to the challenge of the oil industry. During the last 20 years, its income has grown from £40,000 to well over £5.5 million. It has diversified its activities and has invested in farming, a town centre car park, an industrial estate, a state-of-the-art fish processing factory and a four- star hotel that was opened by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.

The success of the efforts of many harbour trusts ought to be recognised. Moreover, if the Minister decides that a harbour trust need not be privatised, it should be free from the threat of privatisation for a number of years, or a brake could be applied to much-needed developments.

This is a sensible amendment. Both the hon. Member for Poole and I agree that the compulsory element is

Column 1007

unacceptable, but the amendment does not preclude the Government's option to go down that road. However, having decided against such a course, the Government should allow the harbour trusts to get on with the job which in many places, such as Poole and Lerwick--two ports of which I am aware--they have been doing well for the past 20 or more years.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I want to speak on the amendment because of the threat that privatisation poses to the fishing fleets around our coast, of which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware. I understand that there is a fishing fleet in Poole which is concerned about the threat from the potential privatisation of the trust ports.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). Successful ports such as Lerwick and Poole, which have put a great deal of finance into the infrastructure, and have run themselves extremely well and successfully, need reassurance such as he suggested.

I am especially concerned to put the view of the many fishermen who have written to me because they are concerned about the steps that the Government are taking. As a result of the distinct lack of a Government fishing policy, fishing fleets are under threat. They have been declining and they are often forced into corners of ports. In some cases, they are no longer the major financial contributors to the ports. They fear that, if the ports were privatised, there would be a more lucrative source of income from marinas and developers which would force traditional fishermen out of their livelihood and their traditional facilities. They support the amendment, and I ask the Minister to take their needs into account. I assure him that the fishing fleet do not support him or the Bill.

Mr. McLoughlin : I recognise the purpose behind the amendment. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the weather that I encountered in Poole. It was fairly lousy when I arrived, but it improved as the day went on.

It is important that the enactment of the Bill does not result in ports being kept in a constant state of uncertainty about possible privatisation. If, two years or more after enactment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State enters into consultations with a port authority about possible privatisation, but decides not to direct that authority to submit a scheme of transfer, it will clearly be helpful for him to tell the port when he next proposes to review the situation, or he may decide that the circumstances of a particular port are such that the need for further consideration will not arise.

When we had a meeting yesterday with fishermen from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), I was struck by a point which they made vociferously. My hon. Friend has consistently pressed the Government to make various amendments to the Bill and he has made his point effectively, as I will explain. The issue is whether we should build such a proposal into the Bill. I and my right hon. and learned Friend have given a good deal of thought to this, and we have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. My conclusion is that his proposal would help ports which we decide should not be pressed into privatisation when we consider their arguments and that we should incorporate such a provision into the Bill.

Column 1008

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole is probably used to hearing my next words. I am told that the wording of the amendment is not entirely satisfactory, but, if he will withdraw it, I will undertake that an amendment that will have the same effect will be tabled in another place.

Mr. Ward : I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

The annual turnover requirement for the purposes of section 9

Mr. Wallace : I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 7, line 41, leave out £5 million' and insert £13 million'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 55, in page 8, line 1, leave out £5 million' and insert £13 million'.

No. 56, in page 8, line 3, at end insert--

(7A) In calculating the turnover limit, for the purpose of subsections (6) and (7) above, no account shall be taken of income of the port authority which has been derived from charges for cargo handling.'.

Mr. Wallace : The amendment would replace the figure of £5 million with the figure of £13 million as the threshold beyond which the Government may exercise the powers in clauses 9, 10 and 11 to compel a privatisation. I must make it clear that the amendment does not imply that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends accept the case for compulsory privatisation, although we accept that if trust ports wish of their own free will to privatise themselves, that should be permissible. The Bill makes that far easier than a private Bill would because the private Bill procedure is cumbersome and can often thwart the intentions of the trust ports.

We object to the compulsory element in this, but, accepting that it is the Government's intention, it is only right that we probe it and find out why in the world they have put the cut-off point at £5 million. I raised the question in Committee and did not receive a proper answer. I will come on in a moment to review the one answer that the Minister gave in Committee.

10.15 pm

The reason why I have chosen £13 million as opposed to the £10 million that I mentioned in Committee is that, quite apart from the fact that it takes in a number of other ports, not least Aberdeen, it has the merit of being consistent with the point that I was trying to make in Committee. I chose £10 million and then increased it to £13 million because I was picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was Secretary of State for Transport. On that occasion, attending a lunch at the British Ports Federation, he is reported in the federation review for April 1988 as saying the following :

"We see privatisation as relevant primarily for the larger ports. We would not force the smaller ports down that road, though privatisation would not be ruled out if they wished."

Basically, that is the general intention of the Bill : that the smaller ports should not be forced down the road if they do not so wish, but that, if they do so wish, the procedure should be simplified and they should be able to do it.

On that occasion the then Secretary of State for Transport mentioned a figure of £10 million as the cut-off,

Column 1009

or threshold. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) says from a sedentary position, I have increased that figure to take account of inflation, particularly the rampant inflation that we have had under the Conservative Government over the past three years.

We therefore have a position consistent with that taken in 1988 by the then Secretary of State for Transport and we have not yet heard from the Government why they have chosen a much lower figure. They have not given us any other indication of the criteria which they applied and we have not had any real indication of why the figure for the threshold has been pitched at £5 million rather than at £13 million.

The one possible explanation which the Minister offered the Committee was this :

"The Government felt that a £5 million turnover demonstrated a level of activity at which the Secretary of State could use his reserve powers to introduce an element of compulsion."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 28 February 1991 ; c. 209.] That does not answer the point at all ; it restates in a different way what is already in the Bill.

I believe that the Minister owes it to the House and, in particular, to those trust ports that would be affected by the £5 million turnover cut-off, to say why he picked on that figure. Clearly, it is a figure of some significance ; it means that ports with a turnover above £5 million become subject to central direction by the Secretary of State which would not be there if a different figure had been chosen. The ports that would be affected by this--I believe that Dundee comes into the £5 million category--are Blyth, Lerwick, Poole, Milford Haven, Aberdeen, Harwich haven and Clyde.

I ask the Minister to try to give a better explanation than he has up to now or, better still, to accept the logic and the consistency of the previous Secretary of State for Transport and apply the £10 million, allowing an element for inflation.

The other amendment in this group is No. 56, which would mean that in calculating the turnover limit no account would be taken of the income of the port authority derived from charges for cargo handling. This is the result of many of the representations made, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by the Blyth harbour commissioners. They point out that the Government have said on many occasions during the passage of the Bill that their aim is to create a so- called level playing field. I think that there must be more level playing fields now than there are acres of grass. We are always being told about creating level playing fields. Many port authorities have not traditionally undertaken any cargo-handling operations. Shipping companies reserved any cargo handling activities for themselves or for private stevedoring companies. At the inception of the trust ports, many shipping companies managed to ensure that they had a continuing legal right to discharge and load their vessels, and trust port authorities therefore had different functions, many of which involved improving and managing the ports, primarily by way of river conservancy and by developing port facilities.

In time, however--not least because of the financial effect of the massive reductions in labour required, but also because of other developments in the ports--a number of ports developed handling capability, although that was not true of all of them. The port of Blyth has an annual

Next Section

  Home Page