House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1991

Previous Section

Home Page

Waller, Gary

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Mr. Tim Boswell.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Column 1019

Clause 11

Schemes made by the Secretary of State

Mr. Bell : I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 9, line 26, after order', insert

which shall not come into effect until it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to take the following : Amendment No. 63, in clause 22, page 18, line 17, after State' insert by order'.

Amendment No. 59, in clause 32, in page 23, line 28, after section', insert 8(7), 11(8)'.

Government amendment No. 19, in page 23, line 30, at end insert (2A) No order to which this subsection applies shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. Amendment (a), in line 10, leave out ; or'.

Amendment (b), in line 11, at end add

; or

(e) under section 22(2) above.'.

Amendment No. 75, in page 23, line 31, leave out subsection (3). Government amendment No. 20, in page 23, line 31, leave out from containing' to end of line 34 and insert

(an order under section 8(7) or 19(7) above other than one within paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (2B) above ; or)

(regulations under section 24 above ;'.) Amendment (d), in line 3, leave out 8(7) or'.

Amendment (e), in line 4, leave out (a) or'.

Government amendment No. 21.

Amendment No. 76, in page 23, line 39, at end insert

( ) If, apart from the provisions of this subsection, the draft of an order to which subsection (2A) above applies would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.'.

Mr. Bell : Amendment No. 42 reflects our concern that affirmative resolutions should be debated on the Floor of the House when we deal with the privatisation of trust ports under the Bill.

I am aware that amendment No. 42 is subsumed in Government amendment No. 19, which calls for a draft instrument containing any order to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. This was discussed in a fine and constructive debate in Committee. The Government listened to the Opposition's points and agreed that it would not be right for an order to be made simply on the fiat of a Secretary of State for Transport or a Minister. I was amused earlier when the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) whether the Labour party would renationalise the ports. The ports are trust ports and therefore are not nationalised, but in any event the powers in the Bill could, if they became law, be used by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) if there were a Labour Government, and I doubt whether many ports would be privatised. Therefore, the question whether the Labour party would nationalise such ports does not require a great deal of reflection. However, the Government listened to the arguments and accepted that they should not have an administrative fiat over the ports, and certainly not over those ports

Column 1020

which are compulsorily privatised. Whatever the Government say, there is no great will among British ports to be privatised. There may have been such a will when the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) began the process some three years ago. He turns his head with great alacrity at the mention of his name, and I am glad that he is here because he was the Secretary of State who invited the trust ports to take the private Bill procedure of the House of Commons. Tees and Hartlepool was the first port to do so. But the actual procedure, as he envisaged it, has changed drastically in the past three years, and certainly since he left office. 11 pm

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that, at that time, the former Secretary of State for Transport said that there was no question of trust ports being privatised against their will. However, the right hon. Gentleman is in his place tonight to support the Government, despite the fact that they are contradicting the policy upon which he embarked three years ago. It is one of the Opposition's jobs to highlight the little ironies that arise in the Government's actions over the years.

Some ports may have seen some merit in privatisation when it was first suggested by the right hon. Member for Southend, West, as they could perceive a form of management buy-out that would keep their ports in local hands. That would--as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said--benefit the local community and users and put the existing management's expertise to good effect. A different Bill is now before the House, and it is clear that the competitive tendering element will mean that many ports will be found not in the hands of their existing management but in those of predators of the kind that Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), do not believe exist. If ports anticipate that they will be taken over by outside bodies, they will not take the voluntary privatisation route, and there will be coercion of the type for which the Bill makes provision. That shows the importance of this House and the other place having placed before them orders that can be the subject of debate.

In Committee, the Minister rejected at every turn our proposals for proper consultation with local authorities and trade unions, so it is proper that the House should be given an opportunity to debate affirmative resolutions. Earlier, in the debate on the levy, the Minister pointed out that such debates, which need not be held late in the evening, can be well attended.

We hope that the Government's amendment, which is supported by ours, will allow for proper debate and make the Minister accountable. However, if there is an election and a change of Government, the entire procedure will fall by the wayside. Meanwhile, the House wants an assurance that there will be proper debates on affirmative resolutions covering the variety of interests to which the Bill refers.

I commend amendment No. 42, while acknowledging that it is subsumed in Government amendment No. 19. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has tabled amendments to amendment No. 19, and no doubt we shall hear from him on them, and from the Minister as to whether he is prepared to accept it.

Column 1021

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : I declare my interest, as I shall be a parliamentary adviser to Port Enterprises Ltd. with effect from 1 May.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) addressed a concern that I share, and, perhaps surprisingly, his conclusions are not wholly dissimilar from my own. Amendment Nos. 75 and 76, with amendments (d) and (e) to Government amendment No. 20, are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). They can best be explained in this way. The Bill makes provision for a compulsory 42-day consultation period in respect of individual port privatisation schemes, with the intention of an order being tabled bringing a scheme into effect, using the negative resolution procedure. For that to happen, the order must lay for 40 parliamentary days before it is confirmed. At any time during that period it can be prayed against, which would occasion a debate in the usual way. During that process no privatisation can take place. At first, that sounds perfectly innocuous, but on closer examination it seems clear that that would create an inordinate and unnecessary delay for those major trust ports which wish to privatise, which is an important point.

The effect of the laying of the order having to be measured in parliamentary days means, as far as I can tell, that the earliest time in which a scheme could be approved would be by 19 December 1991, and if one makes the not unreasonable assumption that a general election might intervene, it would be the end of January 1992. Obviously that would create a disturbing and damaging period of uncertainty for each of the trust ports which wanted to privatise, especially bearing in mind competitive tendering, which is quite rightly the process preferred by the Government.

Therefore, the amendments give those ports privatising themselves, using the enabling powers in clause 8 of the Bill, the ability to have the order approved by the Secretary of State without recourse to further parliamentary procedure.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred to the fact that the Government will accept an amendment to clause 32 to give those ports that are being privatised compulsorily the right to an affirmative resolution procedure. I shall entirely understand if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary chooses to make that concession. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and I are talking about ports proceeding in different ways--on the one hand compulsorily and on the other, willingly. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will make that concession, and I could well understand the contrary argument. As for those ports acting directly in accordance with the policy in the Bill-- doing precisely what the Government want, by bringing themselves forward for privatisation--it does not seem necessary for them to have to go through that parliamentary procedure.

In short, my amendments would enable those ports that want to privatise to get on with it, without even more parliamentary procedure. I hope that the Government will accept that they are within the spirit of the Bill and that the idea behind them, if not their wording, will commend them to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Spearing : I support amendment No. 42, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I have tabled another set of amendments to the Minister's amendments that would include in this rather

Column 1022

dense and convoluted legislation the requirement for an affirmative resolution instrument to come before the House in regard to those parts of the Bill dealing with the port of Tilbury. I support amendment No. 42 and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments, because I do not think that amendment No. 19, which he will no doubt press, requires an affirmative resolution instrument for the port of Tilbury.

Tilbury docks remain perhaps the most important, or the only substantial, docks in the port of London. The relationship between Parliament and the law in the development of the port of London over the ages has been significant. Therefore, it is not for the House to have the power to approve a major change--or something more than a change--in the structure of what remains of the port of London. It would be totally inappropriate.

There used to be a law which permitted cargoes to be discharged only on the legal quays, upstream and downstream of London bridge. That was opposed by dock interests, and the House passed dock Bills approving the construction of docks. The port of Tilbury is the modern name for Tilbury docks, which were excavated and made operational in 1886 by the then East and West India dock company. They turned out to be white elephants. Dock companies in London were competing with one another in bankruptcy, so the privatisation of any docks in London would be a 19th-century step, to some extent. If the Government have their way, there will not be more than one dock company in London. However, there will be other wharves with which there will be direct competition. Then there is the question of competition from continental ports. There is no doubt that the port of Tilbury, although it is the nearest to London, will not be the only one serving London and the south-east. Dunkirk, Antwerp and others will be rivals, especially with the opening of the channel tunnel.

The creation by the House of the Port of London authority, together with the voting in of the administration in 1906, was a momentous step. In effect, the port of London was the pioneer trust port. Constitutional books throughout the world indicate that the Port of London authority, which was introduced by the Government of Mr. Asquith, was a model. It was set up to create a river highway by means of dredging ; to be a navigation and safety authority ; to take over the functions of the dock companies ; to be a warehousing body ; to provide specialist services ; and to plan expansion. I did not always agree with it in its later stages, but, as a public authority, it fulfilled those purposes.

The King George V dock, which is in my constituency, was opened as a public facility. Indeed, the expansion of the rather small Tilbury docks into what we have today was accomplished by way of post-war development under public enterprise. Some hon. Members may remember hearing Dudley Perkins on the radio. His talents as a dock and port manager were much appreciated. He created what today, for PR purposes, is the port of Tilbury.

I come now to the question of competition. The ports of the near continent- -particularly Dunkirk--have received a tremendous amount of public support. This is one area of European Community harmonisation that does not yet seem to have been explored. I am not saying that there should be such harmonisation ; I am saying simply that it has not been introduced. With the opening of the channel tunnel, the ports of the near continent will be in direct competition with the Thames. Any

Column 1023

installations on the Thames--public, private, or of mixed ownership ; dock, river, pier, wharf, pontoon, or whatever--will be aware of this. Here, the Government's optimism may be somewhat misplaced. Capital for the ports of France has been provided by public subscription and Government grants, and the system has worked very well. Alas, successive Governments on this side of the channel have not done likewise for the port of London.

The Port of London authority is not like any of the port trusts about which we heard in earlier debates. It was established as a sort of co-operative involving port users, municipal authorities, representatives of labour, and the lighterage companies. There never was an election, but that was the concept. However, gradually the port authority fell into the the hands of the Government. Now, every member of the board is appointed by the Secretary of State. Schemes that the PLA puts to the Minister have to be in line with what he wants. It is therefore very important that Parliament have the power to approve or reject.

The Minister may say, "We have a majority anyway, so why come to Parliament?" The reason is the need for public visibility, for scrutiny. PLA capital development, particularly that at Tilbury, was undertaken with public money. In the early 1900s the House took action in response to the failure of private enterprise. That is a strong case for the principle of trust ports to be extended to the Port of London authority and Tilbury.

When the docks were built the lighterage industry succeeded in ensuring that a free water clause was included in the docks Bills. It was resented by the wharfingers but welcomed by the dock companies. The result was that transport by water in London was made flexible. A large amount of cargo was discharged into barges and taken up river. It became a very finely balanced transport system. If the port of Tilbury becomes a separate private enterprise--I hope that it does not--the free water lighterage provision ought to be maintained. The Minister may not be able to answer that point now, but if the relevant statutory instrument were to be considered by the House, the matter would be discussed then.

That is another reason why the Minister ought to accept these modest amendments. They would result in the port of Tilbury having the same conditions applied to it as I hope will be applied to all other United Kingdom trust ports.

11.15 pm

Mr. Wallace : In Committee I dealt in detail with the arguments in favour of affirmative resolutions. I welcome the fact that the Minister has kept his word and introduced his amendments. A minor difference in detail between my amendment No. 59 and the Government amendment is that my amendment would also apply, where orders were made under clause 8(7), to schemes where a port had been privatised voluntarily.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) seems to regard Parliament as somewhat of an inconvenience ; he does not appear to believe that Parliament should have anything to do with the matter. He overlooks the fact that assets currently administered by trustees for the public good are to be transferred into private hands. The trustees may do that willingly and voluntarily, but such a transfer requires scrutiny. Parliament should not be bypassed.

Column 1024

The Government amendments meet the spirit of what the Minister promised in Committee. He is therefore to be congratulated.

Mr. McLoughlin : This has been a useful debate. I am not sure, however, that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will agree with everything that I am about to say.

Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 reflect the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members in Committee. They felt that, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State confirms by means of an order a scheme that he himself has initiated through a direction to a port that has not submitted its own scheme within two years of enactment, or where he has made the scheme himself by order under clause 11 or clause 19, that order shall be subject to affirmative resolution, thus enabling a full debate to take place in both this House and another place. I know, too, that the British Ports Federation places considerable importance on the matter.

Hon. Members have, however, drawn attention to a further aspect of the order-making process to confirm schemes of transfer where schemes are brought forward voluntarily by ports. If an order is made to confirm such a scheme, and it is subject to the negative resolution procedures, it may be prayed against at any time within 40 days after it has been made, during which Parliament is sitting. It is very unlikely that the Bill will be enacted in time for schemes to be made before the summer recess. That means that the 40-day period would not begin to run until Parliament resumes after the summer recess and, depending on when Parliament resumes, would continue until the second half of December or even mid-January. It is argued that it would be unrealistic for prospective purchasers of a port to consider making serious bids until there was absolute certainty that an order confirming a scheme of transfer could not be annulled. The ports that are anxious to reap the full benefits of privatisation as early as possible are naturally concerned about the delay, and about the disruption and uncertainty that it would cause.

It would be wrong, when ports are anxious to achieve privatisation as rapidly as they can, that they should be held back in this way. That applies to the PLA's sale of Tilbury and to other ports under part I. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the amendments which will apply the affirmative resolution procedure when orders are made following my right hon. and learned Friend's exercise of his power of compulsion and of removing any parliamentary process from orders that are made, whether under part I or under part II, to confirm schemes brought forward voluntarily by ports.

I am advised that certain of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends are technically defective. However, the House would achieve the objectives that I have stated by accepting Government amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 75 and 76 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who made an important point. I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. If I understand him aright, there was no concern about the ports that wish to come forward. A number are waiting for the enactment of the Bill so that they can follow through the process of opening up to privatisation.

Column 1025

As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly said, the amendments would oblige the Secretary of State to make an order, with affirmative resolution procedure, to confirm any exercise by the PLA of its powers to dispose of Tilbury. That would be a quite impractical method. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that Tilbury is different, partly because its privatisation is contained in the Bill. For the other trust ports, the Bill is an enabling measure, apart from the reserve powers. The privatisation of Tilbury is on the face of the Bill unless the PLA decided not to privatise, in which case the affirmative order and compulsion could be exercised by the Secretary of State after two years. That is not likely to be the case.

In one respect, the hon. Member for Newham, South was slightly unfair to the PLA. He said that it acted solely as an agent for the Secretary of State. That is wrong, because it acts under its own statute, under which it has responsibilities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that clarification.

Mr. Spearing : Yes, the PLA acts under both private and public statutes. However, the point is that to divest itself of the operations at Tilbury, it would use the Bill, which the Minister has proposed.

Mr. McLoughlin : I think that we could split hairs on the argument on many occasions.

We have had an interesting debate. I hope that the House will accept the reasoning behind my remarks, and will accept Government amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 75 and 76.

Mr. Bell : I agree with the Minister that this has been an interesting and constructive debate. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the Minister has kept his word in Committee to table an amendment on Report. It broadens the provisions on the affirmative resolution, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Clause 12

Levy on initial disposals of securities of successor companies

Mr. McLoughlin : I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 9, line 36, leave out ten' and insert fifty'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 46, in page 9, line 36, leave out ten' and insert one hundred'.

Mr. McLoughlin : The amendment rectifies a slight mishap that occurred when the Bill was in Committee. In the main, the Opposition brought it on themselves. They tabled an amendment to increase the rate of levy on the proceeds of the port sales to 100 per cent., and spoke vehemently in favour of it. They then somehow managed to vote for a probing amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) to reduce the rate of the levy to 10 per cent. They got the result they deserved.

We in the Conservative party are in the familiar position of having to rescue the hon. Member for

Column 1026

Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his colleagues from their embarrassment. The hon. Member was quite open in Committee when he said that he saw himself on the bridge and saw the possibility of causing a disaster--

Mr. Prescott : I said "a revolt in the engine room".

Mr. McLoughlin : I apologise--he saw a revolt in the engine room and took advantage of it. However, he did say that he would not be surprised if the Government returned to this on Report, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The issue of the levy has been discussed at great length, but it is an important matter and I make no apology for returning to it. The lack of any owner of the trust ports, except the state, means that there is no vendor to receive the proceeds of sale when one of them is privatised. Hon. Members have argued that some or all of the proceeds should go to the nearest local authority, but many of these ports are national rather than local assets, and their relationship with their local authorities varies considerably from one port to the next. Without any levy, the entire proceeds of sale would revert in the form of a windfall gain to the purchaser. That seems clearly wrong, and one side effect is that in theory there would be no limit on the price which a purchaser would be prepared to pay for a port, because he would get the purchase price back as well as becoming the owner of the port. We believe that it is right that the taxpayer should have a share of the proceeds by means of a Government levy. The question is, how much should this share be ? Let us look at the two extremes. At 10 per cent., the figure currently in the Bill, the purchaser of a newly privatised trust port gets back virtually all the money that he has paid. In a situation of competitive bidding, this would drive the price of the port up to ridiculous levels--a result which could, incidentally, seriously disadvantage a managment-employee buy-out team, which might be ill-equipped to raise the amount of finance necessary to mount a successful bid. An example should illustrate this point. If the value of a port is generally accepted to be about £10 million, a bidder might be prepared to pay as much as £50 million for it. The Government would take £5 million as their 10 per cent. levy, but the bidder, if he were successful, would get back £45 million together with the port, worth £5 million. I think everybody would agree that that would be a fairly good deal. From the standpoint of simplicity, a 100 per cent. levy has more to recommend it, since it does not drive up the price of the port ; the Government simply take the whole of the proceeds. But this would put the sale of the trust ports on the same basis as that of nationalised industries and would ignore the very significant differences that in fact exist between them. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the idea is not at all popular with all the ports themselves, not least because it appears to ignore the fact that the trust ports are independent of Government. By allowing nothing back to the purchaser, it would not allow them to plough any extra capital back into the industry.

With the levy at 50 per cent.--the rate of levy originally in the Bill--a balance is maintained between the interests of the taxpayer and of the new port owner. The Government could indeed, as has been pointed out, stand

Column 1027

to get something like 100 per cent. rather than 50 per cent. of the actual value of the port by way of levy, since setting the rate at 50 per cent. is likely to cause the price of the port to rise above its market value, although not so much as to distort the bidding process as seriously as a 10 per cent. levy would. But 50 per cent. of the price will revert to the purchaser of the port, and that will be a further incentive for a port to privatise itself, on top of the benefits of privatisation itself. That is because of the extra capital which the sale will generate for the port, which it may need for investment in the port or to use as seems best in its commercial judgment.

For these reasons, I make no apology for bringing this amendment back to the House. I believe that 50 per cent. is the right level for the Government's levy, and I accordingly commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Prescott : The reason we voted for the 10 per cent., as the Minister knows, is that we wanted to hear from him an explanation that we did not hear in Committee, and which I think we have just heard from him, of how they arrived at the figure of 50 per cent. Our amendment for 100 per cent. tonight gives us a chance to reiterate our committee amendment, although we were not provided with the opportunity to vote for it.

We voted for the 10 per cent. of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who I see is not here this evening. Is the Select Committee still sitting, or is it on a visit? There are precedents. Those who vote against the Government are often sent to the most attractive places in the world. I do not know whether that is what has happened to the hon. Member for Thurrock, although I note that the amendment relates to precisely the clause about which he was concerned. He said that it entailed exploitation, and that the Government were not entitled to take the money, which belonged to the ports themselves. 11.30 pm

The Minister has already conceded part of the argument. His illustration based on everyone operating on the £10 million figure appears to have come from the interesting document made available to the conference held by the Waterfront organisation and produced by Mark Seligman, of the consultants Warburg and Co. Ltd. which dealt with getting the capital structure right. That is a very important point, and the matter is highly complex.

Any hon. Member reading through the passages about how one gets the capital structure of the companies right in such circumstances will realise that the judgment of Solomon needs to be exercised. Presumably that also applies to commercial judgments as to whether one makes a profit or not. The heart of the matter is the question that we are dealing with here : would the Government's take affect that balance? Presumably, not only the share price will be affected by that judgment. Presumably it also affects the possibility of people bidding for a buy-out.

The Minister made clear what would happen to the value of the company if the figure were 10 per cent.--the figure stipulated in the Bill as drafted following amendments accepted in Committee. I shall not go through all the details. Hon. Members can see from the document how the example is arrived at. It refers to a model company worth £10 million--with a turnover of £10 million--and a profit of 15 per cent. A judgment is made about how the price-earnings ratio is arrived at, and the document gives a net asset value of £5.3 million. The

Column 1028

figures are there in the document should hon. Members wish to read them. As the Minister said, if the Government took 50 per cent., it would be equivalent to the £5.3 million net asset value. It would then be argued that the Government were getting 100 per cent., as some hon. Members said in Committee.

The question that is important to this debate is whether the purchase price for a management-worker buy-out will be affected. I hope that the Minister will now answer a question that he did not answer before. I do not intend that as a criticism, as he had a number of questions to answer, but he now has another opportunity to answer it. The statement in The Guardian said that the Department was making it clear that it would be bound to accept the highest figure. As has been said, that is not necessarily the case under competitive tendering arrangements ; they can accept less. But presumably there is a limit to how much less they can accept.

Mr. McLoughlin : I confirm that the story in this morning's edition of The Guardian is inaccurate and that our original statements to the effect that we may not necessarily go for the highest bidder still hold good.

Mr. Prescott : That statement will be welcomed by those who want a move in that direction. We have made our position clear. In the main, however, the Government say that it is one of their objectives to do that, and I think that they will have to do it. The interesting question is to what extent the Government are prepared to discount the highest bid in order to accept an employee-management buy-out. That is the importance of the judgments made about the net asset value of the companies and the price that is arrived at.

The Minister has conceded that, even under his own formula, the 10 per cent. figure would produce a £45 million windfall. Clearly that would be an advantage to the purchaser, who will have no legitimate claim to that money. At least the Government can say that they have a more legitimate claim. That is their argument for the 50 per cent. levy. Unlike the individual who purchases a company with its assets and either makes a killing or not, depending on the Government's levy, the Government will take the money in the name of the community. The other side of the coin is the Opposition amendment, which provides for the 100 per cent. figure. The Minister rightly pointed out that that would take out the excess money that can be made. He then said--curiously, in my view--that the company would be like a nationalised industry, because it would not be left money with which to expand. I do not understand that. A public limited company cannot be like a nationalised industry in that sense. The company would have its own debt and equity structure.

Presumably, before making a bid, the prospective purchasers would make judgments about the distribution of the company's equity, its value and its debts. The judgment whether sufficient resources will be available to meet the investments that might be required to allow the company to expand will depend on the circumstances. In the case of a port such as Dover, for example, the problem is not a shortage of money for use in developing the port ; Dover has already done as much as it can in that direction.

There is a strong argument for gold-plating port investment. We say that the assets could be used for investment in activities other than port- related activity

Next Section

Home Page