---

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Illsley, Eric

Lamond, James

Lewis, Terry

Livsey, Richard

Loyden, Eddie

Madden, Max

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Morgan, Rhodri

Murphy, Paul

Nellist, Dave

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Robertson, George

Salmond, Alex

Skinner, Dennis

Spearing, Nigel

Steinberg, Gerry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wallace, James

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 9, in page 9, line 43, at end insert ( ) costs incurred in pursuance of section (Financial assistance for proposals to maximise employee participation in equity or successor companies) below in connection with any proposal for maximising participation by employees of the company whose securities are the subject of the disposal in

---

Column 1034

ownership of its equity share capital (whether or not the disposal is made for the purposes of implementing any such proposal) ;'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 16

Levy on disposals of land, etc

Amendments made : No. 27, in page 12, line 15, leave out from company"),' to a' in line 18.

No. 28, in page 12, line 19, leave out from section' to end of line 34 and insert

shall be chargeable in respect of any gain accruing to the company on a chargeable disposal--

(a) of that land or interest ; or

(b) of an interest of any specified description in the land so transferred or in the land in which the interest so transferred subsists at the time of the transfer under that section ; made within the period of ten years beginning with the date on which the company ceases to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the body which immediately before the transfer was the relevant port authority in question.

(2) The levy shall be charged--

(a) at the rate of twenty-five per cent. on the amount of the gain, in the case of a disposal made within the first five years of the period mentioned in subsection (1) above ;

(b) at the rate of twenty per cent. on the amount of the gain, in the case of a disposal made within the sixth or seventh year of that period ; and

(c) at the rate of ten per cent. on the amount of the gain, in the case of a disposal made during the remainder of that period. (2A) The levy shall be paid by the chargeable company to the appropriate Minister.

(2B) There is a disposal of land or an interest in land for the purposes of this section and section ( --Supplementary and consequential provisions relating to levy under section 16 --) below if there would be such a disposal for the purposes of the 1979 Act.'.

No. 29, in page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert-- (a) for determining when and by whom any disposal of land or an interest in land is to be regarded for the purposes of this section as being made ;'.

No. 30, in page 12, line 40, leave out those purposes' and insert

the purposes of this section ;'.

No. 31, in page 12, line 42, leave out those purposes' and insert

the purposes of this section'.

No. 32, in page 13 line 4, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 33, in page 13, line 29, leave out from to' to second with' in line 30 and insert

corporation tax on chargeable gains'.

No. 34, in page 13, line 32, leave out subsection (3) above' and insert this section'.

No. 35, in page 13, leave out lines 35 to 43.

No. 36, in page 13, line 45, leave out from first specified' to end of line 48 and insert

means specified in an order under this section.'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

---

Column 1035

Clause 18

Power of Port of London Authority to form a company to operate the port of Tilbury

12 midnight

Mr. Spearing : I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 15, line 19, after activities', insert

within the curtilage of the Port of Tilbury.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 66, in page 15, line 20, at end insert

not otherwise provided by the Port Authority'.

Mr. Spearing : Clause 18(1) reads :

"The Port of London Authority (referred to below in this Part as the Port Authority') shall have power to form a company for the purpose of carrying on--

(a) that part of their undertaking which consists in operating the port of Tilbury ; and

(b) any activities which appear to them to be incidental to or connected with operating the port of Tilbury."

My amendments would effect the changes implied by their wording. This brief debate continues our discussion of the definition and description of the port of Tilbury. At the ninth sitting of the Standing Committee, the Minister said :

"the Government's intentions about Tilbury are clear on the face of the Bill. The document in question"--

referring to the application from the PLA, I think--

"which is technical, will determine which properties and functions are transferred to the Tilbury company."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 March 1991 ; c. 305.]

The question is : what properties and what functions? Hitherto the Minister has been coy about that. His phrase, on the "face of the Bill", was factually incorrect. These aspects are not on the face of the Bill--but they are in the document referred to. The long title of the Bill in part runs as follows :

"to provide for the transfer of certain property, rights, liabilities and functions of the Port of London Authority to a company formed by that authority."

Certain properties, however, are not defined. They could almost be called uncertain properties and uncertain functions.

I am grateful for the earlier ruling that it is perfectly in order for the House to discuss these matters without knowing what is likely to be transferred. The Minister should tell us a little more about this public relations phrase, the port of Tilbury.

In an earlier speech, I outlined the development of Tilbury docks. What will be involved in this change? Will the land adjacent to the operational area be included? What about the rail container depot? Or the dock itself? The dock has value : barges and ships, laid up or carrying cargo, can moor there--it can be used as a mobile warehouse. There are stacking and storage areas. There are workshops leased out to operators and used by the port itself. There are berths in the port. There is a grading dock and associated workshops. There is the lock. There is the passenger terminal, which has a landing stage on the river and an adjacent station. There are wharves which can be adapted for various uses--roll-on/roll-off, for instance--and there is the grain terminal. The annual report of the PLA implies that it is part of the so-called port of Tilbury.

In addition to all that, there are the employees, who are perhaps some of the most valuable assets, although the current managers do not appear to manage them thus. I

---

Column 1036

have been told that many of the tug crew have recently been made redundant, that anybody over 50 working a lock has been shown the door, or rather the river, and that pay has been reduced recently by up to 30 per cent. That may only be a report. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm all those things. But that is not a good advertisement for the port of Tilbury even if people have it slightly wrong, which I do not think they have. As we know, industrial relations there have not been of the best and there is a case at the moment which is sub judice and on which I shall not comment. The Achilles heel of the port of London in the past has been bad industrial relations.

In the end it would be for the courts to decide what Parliament meant by "certain property". But it is wrong for the House to pass the Bill without a schedule of that property and those functions on the "face of the Bill"-- a phrase which the Minister used in Committee. That is not on the face of the Bill and it is not even on the face of Hansard, unless we hear some wise words to the contrary in a moment. The courts cannot look to Hansard, they can only look to the Bill, but at least the House and the public should have something on the face of Hansard.

As I understand it, the Bill refers to the functions as they appear to the PLA and as the Secretary of State agrees. But the PLA covers a great deal more than the so-called port of Tilbury. It operates in three divisions-- the river division, which is navigational, Tilbury division, which is largely cargo, and, surprise, surprise, the property division. The Port of London Authority has no fewer than 16 property subsidiaries, some of them with property in the developing area of the upper pool. They are listed in the annual report. There is an income of £13 million a year from rent and sale of land. Much of it may have been sale of land in 1989, but it is quite a lot. It has 25 acres in what was called Thurrock park, immediately adjacent to the so-called port of Tilbury, and now, I believe, renamed the Capstan centre. In addition, as was said earlier, many cliff marshes further down river are still owned by the PLA. It is as much, alas, a property company these days, as it is a cargo-handling company. I understand from the wording of the Bill that any part of those undertakings in operating the port of Tilbury or any activities that appear to be incidental or connected with operating the port of Tilbury could be transferred. The operators could claim that for almost any one of those features. So it would be possible for the PLA to privatise itself--I have heard it described thus--along with any of its assets, which are not subject to parliamentary approval, as we have, alas, decided, and for which the Secretary of State thought that privatisation was justified.

I have a rather uncharitable feeling that the Minister and the PLA together could more or less disintegrate the PLA as we know it today. The port of Tilbury could have all sorts of subsidiaries up and down the river. Theoretically, it could land cargo on the Terrace of the House of Commons. If Conservative Members continue to vote away the powers of the House of Commons, it might turn into a wharf and that may be related to the port of Tilbury. That may be far-fetched, but what property upstream in London could not necessarily be connected with the port of Tilbury? Any cargo landed there or any cargo transferred there from any wharf on any part of the tidal Thames could be and is connected by water to the port of Tilbury. A legal judgment on those matters would probably be made in favour of the Minister and the PLA. Therefore,

---

Column 1037

this provides a channel for the port of Tilbury to expand up and down the river in almost any way that the PLA and the Minister wish. Amendment No. 66 would confine activities to those

"not otherwise provided by the Port Authority".

The authority provides navigation and other aids, but if the Minister has his way, and if the general election goes his way--which I do not think it will--I suspect that there would not be much of the port authority left, because Tilbury would gobble it all up. The Minister may deny everything that I have said. I hope that he does, and that I am wrong. I often put points in the House that I hope are wrong. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to deny the wild scenario that he may think I have painted, and to say what he has in mind. I hope also that he will give an undertaking to table amendments to be considered in another place that will define what are the certain properties and certain functions in question. Earlier, in opposing another of my amendments to allow the House to have the final say, the Minister said that the Bill already included such a provision. It does not, and until it does, we should not rest content.

Mr. McLoughlin : The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I cannot recommend his amendments to the House because they would be too restrictive of the activities that could be transferred to the new Tilbury company. It could be entirely sensible to transfer activities that are currently undertaken outside the geographical limits of the port of Tilbury.

In Committee, I mentioned the example of an inland clearance depot that might not relate entirely to the port of Tilbury, and which might lie outside the port itself. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would exclude such a depot from the transfer. The effect of amendment No. 66 is less clear, but it might exclude activities that relate almost but not quite to Tilbury, but which in all logic should be transferred to the new company. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but his amendments are not the best way to proceed. When I said earlier that privatisation is on the face of the Bill, I was referring to Tilbury being a specific part of the Bill, as opposed to the other trust ports, which will require an enabling measure.

Mr. Spearing : The Minister's brevity emphasises the wild scenario that I painted. He did not take the opportunity to deny, other than in the case of a wharf on the Terrace of the House of Commons, the principle that I outlined, which confirms my worst fears. The Minister made reference to an inland clearance depot. He may recall that the PLA once had such a facility, at Orsett. I believe that it failed a few years ago, or that it was sold. More likely, it is still the property of one of the PLA's many subsidiaries, and might be reactivated.

Definitions can perhaps best be dealt with in another place, and I hope that my points will be taken up there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made : No. 10, in page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (3).-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

---

Column 1038

Clause 19

Transfer to the company of relevant property, etc., of the Port Authority.

Amendment proposed : No. 11, in page 15, line 38, at end insert-- ( ) Together with a scheme submitted under subsection (1) above the Port Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State a copy of the memorandum and articles of the company.'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.] Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Barry Field : This amendment is the result of an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee, at column 302 of Hansard for 7 March 1991, in response to an amendment in my name, but moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) with his characteristic generosity and kindness, as I was unfortunately absent.

That amendment stemmed from representations by the London General Shipowners Society, and despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister conceded the point with which it dealt, the society continued to be concerned that Tilbury was not to be subject to advertising in part II of the Bill, in the same way as the other ports are, in part I.

My hon. Friend tackled that issue in Committee by saying that Tilbury will effectively be privatised when the Bill goes on to the statute book, whereas other ports have yet to come forward. 12.15 am

Donald Chard, the secretary of the London General Shipowners Society, which is quite an ancient society, as my hon. Friend knows, is still worried about that aspect of part II. Perhaps my hon. Friend might consider writing to him to try to reassure him about it. He continues to believe that by not advertising that aspect of the Bill in the same way as for ports covered in part I, something may be missed from the future consultation process.

My hon. Friend answered questions in Committee. I hope that he will be able to meet the concerns of the London General Shipowners Society.

Mr. McLoughlin : I assure my hon. Friend that I shall write to the gentleman he mentioned to set out the Government's position. Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made : No. 12, in page 15, line 39, leave out submitted under subsection (1) above' and insert so submitted'. No. 13, in page 16, line 6, at end insert--

( ) Before--

(a) confirming a scheme so submitted (with or without modifications) ; or

(b) making a scheme of his own under subsection (4)(b) above ; the Secretary of State may first (if he thinks fit) give the Port Authority a direction requiring them, before such date as may be specified in the direction, to secure that such alterations are made to the memorandum and articles of the company as may be specified in the direction.'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

---