House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Jul 1991

Column 1082

education, and are already doing so with dramatic success, having increased the figures very remarkably from those that we inherited in 1979.

On the additional burdens falling on local government, the cost of the next phase of care in the community has been estimated at £11 million, the cost of introducing the council tax at £24 million, and the cost of other general increases at about £24 million, giving a total of about £59 million.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I place on record the undying admiration of the House of your endurance, occupying the Chair for four hours and 10 minutes without a break, against the background of yesterday's statements about faulty waterworks somewhere else in England? It is reassuring to know that at least one waterworks is in perfect working order.

Mr. Speaker : I was going to suggest to the hon. Member that he should not raise a point of order, but I am very grateful for what he said.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it equally helpful?

Mr. Madden : I am sorry to prolong your occupancy of the Chair. I genuinely apologise for having to raise this point of order, but it is about an important matter.

In the past, you have deprecated the practice of parliamentary reports being released to the media before Members of Parliament received them. The Select Committee on Health--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that I can anticipate the hon. Member on this matter. He is aware that he cannot refer in the House to a report that has not yet been made. It is a Select Committee report. It will be possible for him to do that tomorrow when the report is published, but not today, please.

Mr. Madden : It is about the availability of the report. I wonder whether you would give the necessary instructions so that the report is available to hon. Members simultaneously with the press at 11 am tomorrow. It is particularly important, as allegations are being made that the report in draft--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I know about the allegations. As to the availability of the report, the hon. Member knows that it is a matter for the Committee, and not for me in the Chair. We should move on.

WAYS AND MEANS

Ports Bill [Ways and Means] (No. 2)

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ports Bill, it is expedient to authorise a levy in respect of gains accruing to any company to which the undertaking of a harbour authority is transferred under the Act on disposals of

(a) land which belongs both immediately before and immediately after the transfer to a transferred 51 per cent. subsidiary ; (

(b) interests in land which belong both immediately before and immediately after the transfer to a transferred 51 per cent. subsidiary ;

Column 1083

(c) interests in land within paragraph (a) above or in land in which an interest within paragraph (b) above subsists at the time of the transfer.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Column 1084

Orders of the Day

Ports Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

Transfer of undertakings

Lords amendment : No. 1, in page 2, line 23, leave out "statutory provision of local application" and insert "local statutory provision".

6.36 pm

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 29 and 34.

Mr. McLoughlin : These amendments are largely technical. They arise from the existing provision in schedule 1 for transfer schemes to provide for

"repealing or amending any statutory provision of local application".

By appearing to limit the provisions which could be repealed or amended to ones which were applicable only locally--that is, within a limited territorial area--it is possible that that expression might be taken to exclude, for example, a port authority's borrowing powers, leaving the new successor company encumbered with the old authority's more limited borrowing powers. It is precisely such statutory limits that the Bill would remove.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I am extremely grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. Has he or his officials received any intimation whatsoever from the Clyde port authority concerning its private Bill which would privatise that authority? Has it decided to pull up stumps and go home?

Mr. McLoughlin : As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made perfectly clear on Second Reading, that is a matter for the Clyde port authority. Obviously, I hope that it will have the benefit of the Bill being on the statute book in a short time. It will be for it to decide which course to follow. It is likely to follow the course of the Bill that we are discussing.

Having briefly explained that the amendments are technical, I commend them to the House.

Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) demonstrates the great concern about there being a public Bill and a private Bill. It was only as the private Bill went through the House that it was realised that the Treasury had to become involved to start getting money out of local trusts. The amendment went through the other place virtually without discussion, which means that we cannot oppose it at this stage. However, I wish to record once again our concern that this legislation is not doing its best for local communities. In effect, the interests of the port are being divorced from

Column 1085

those of the local community. As we have just heard, until now, ports have tended to act in the interests of their local community. Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 3

Initial issue of securities of the successor company

Lords amendment : No. 2, in page 3, line 7, leave out "In consideration of" and insert "Following".

Mr. McLoughlin : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

With this it will be convenient also to consider amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 33.

Mr. McLoughlin : The aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the Bill's provisions regarding the issue of securities by the successor company are compatible with a technical provision of an EC directive on company law, while at the same time maintaining the tax treatment of those securities.

Ms. Walley : Again, we have further proof that this legislation is not about improving transport or about establishing an integrated transport structure. Amendment No. 2 shows the need for the face of the Bill to be changed because of the Bill's fundamental incompatibility with company law and with an EC directive on company law. The provisions were not voted on in the other place and, at this stage, we do not wish to oppose the amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 5

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

Lords amendment : No. 3, in page 4, line 13, leave out from "disposal" to end of line 14 and insert--

"of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the successor company to--

(a) managers or other persons employed by the company ; or (

(b) another company the whole or a substantial part of whose equity share capital is owned by managers or other persons so employed." Mr. McLoughlin : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 30.

Mr. McLoughlin : The amendments aim to rectify a possible shortcoming in the Bill's provisions enabling support to be given to a management and employee team engaged in bidding for a port. Where such a situation exists, it is normally the case that the managers and individuals involved, rather than acting as a group of individuals, will form a company to act as a vehicle for making the bid. It was possible that, on

Column 1086

a strict interpretation of the Bill's provisions, such a company would not have qualified for support because the wording used-- "managers and other persons employed"--

could have been held to refer only to individuals. This group of amendments is intended to preclude that possibility.

6.45 pm

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Opposition Members believe that these amendments go to the heart of the Bill as it stands, because they deal with the subject of management buy-outs. We are grateful for the fact that, when the amendments were discussed in the other place, as a result of probing by the Opposition, we were given the Secretary of State's guidance notes relating to the procedure for the sale of trust ports. The notes form a most helpful document. I asked the Leader of the House to consider incorporating the guidelines into the Bill, so important are they, but there was not sufficient time. As the right hon. Gentleman said on the Floor of the House at the time, I accept that it might have been on the late side, but, as I have said, we discovered that the guidelines existed only as a result of the prodding of Opposition Peers. Not only did that reveal the existence of the guidance notes, but it led to their being placed in the Library. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Transport for making his final guidelines available.

I am sure that the Minister can confirm that the guidelines that have been produced by the Secretary of State will cover all trust ports, including the Tees and Hartlepool. Although we have consistently opposed the movement of the Tees and Hartlepool port into the private sector, as the will of Parliament is reflected in the Bill and in the amendments that have been tabled in the other place, it is of the utmost importance to put on record our view that a satisfactory employee buy-out would be the best option available to the Tees and Hartlepool--provided, of course, that it was a valid buy-out, on behalf of the employees, and not a glorified management buy-out, which some of us suspect to have been the present management's long-term objective when they embarked on their own privatisation scheme through the private Bill route.

We must place the amendments in the context of paragraph 15 of the Secretary of State's guidance notes relating to the procedure for the sale of trust ports, which state :

"that the trust port will be required to appoint appropriate advisers to provide it with an independent benchmark valuation of the undertaking and an independent assessment of the bids received. This assessment should include advice as to whether the bids properly reflect the value of the port undertaking that the trust port will need to make this benchmark valuation and assssement available to the Secretary of State in putting forward its own proposals regarding the sale of the port to the Secretary of State for his agreement.

That these proposals will need to take into account the extent to which the bids meet the objectives of sale and will not therefore necessarily recommend that the highest bid should be accepted." That last point is of the utmost importance in the context of these amendments to clause 5.

The guidance notes also state :

"a trust port may wish to recommend that a price preference should be applied to a bid from a management and employee buy out team.

Column 1087

The Secretary of State will be prepared to consider a limited preference of this kind in individual cases and will have regard to the particular circumstances of each case."

As can be seen from the amendments, the Government are in a dilemma of their own making. On the one hand, as we saw in Committee, thanks to the work of hon. Members of all parties, they concluded that management buy- outs should be encouraged. On the other hand, however, they are enamoured of the principle of competitive tendering--in fact, they are so enamoured that that phrase appeared yesterday in the so-called citizen's charter which was announced by the Prime Minister.

What is to happen to the Tees and Hartlepool and the other trust ports that are covered by the Bill? Will the management buy-out be given preferential treatment, or will that management buy-out have only a limited prospect of success, being faced with a more gigantic bid from an outside firm that might even be a foreign firm? We are not, of course, allergic to foreigners on Teesside, and especially not to European foreigners.

In racing terms, I am reminded of the apprenticeship races in which, having had 10 winners, the apprentice loses his apprenticeship status. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is, as usual, in his place for such a debate. Far be it from me to say that an apprentice, who has a big race coming up and who does not want to lose his apprenticeship status, will hang back, but that was always the case in the stories that I read of old.

It would not be surprising at this stage if, like the apprentice with nine wins to his credit, the Tees and Hartlepool decided not to push itself to be first past the post. In other words, the Tees and Hartlepool might not benefit from the amendments and might not want to be the first in line for privatisation, because it knows that it might be swallowed up by a competitor or foreign company and that its management buy-out would then be left high and dry.

Dr. Godman : Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, following a buy-out or the privatisation of a trust port, the new authority would not be able to evade the responsibilities that the Port authority currently carries out? The important dredging operation on the upper reaches of the Clyde is now carried out by the Clyde port authority. That essential task must be carried out, or the river will silt up.

Mr. Bell : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I am not the Minister of the Crown who can or should answer that question. My understanding of the Bill is that the dredging would fall within the statutory authority of the port and would be a statutory requirement for whoever takes over the port. A port would be disadvantaged, because investment in it might suffer if the proposed buy-out came from a firm that decided to invest elsewhere. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my attention and to that of the House.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) : My hon. Friend cannot be completely familiar with the upper reaches of the Clyde. I wish to put it on the record that the Clyde port authority has a power which allows it to dredge the Clyde but that it has no duty to do so. That will be the case in the future. We are fearful that an entirely

Column 1088

commercially oriented body would be interested only in property development and not in the welfare of the river. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me put that point.

Mr. Bell : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Undoubtedly, the Minister will respond to it. It is on the record, and it is an important point. It is one of the reasons why the Opposition consistently opposed the privatisation of the ports, as embodied in the Bill.

To return to the amendments, trust ports might also like to take the opportunity of a management buy-out. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the Clyde Port Authority Bill. It is becalmed in the other place and will be extinct when the Bill is given Royal Assent. A private Bill is extinguished when it is confronted with a statutory measure such as this. Other trust ports may take the view that they should wait to see what happens with the Tees and Hartlepool port authority proposals before going ahead with their own management buy-out proposals. They might conclude that they should wait for two years in accordance with the terms of the Bill and then have the Secretary of State demand their plans for privatisation.

The board of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority might be well advised to leave its privatisation bid until two years have elapsed after the Bill is enacted rather than seek privatisation and lose out, like the apprentice who wins his 10th race and loses his apprenticeship status. Indeed, my advice to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is that, unless it can obtain a categorical assurance from the Secretary of State that the management buy-out is acceptable under the terms of the guidelines, it is ill advised to be the first port to seek privatisation and face the prospect of the port falling into foreign hands.

A great debate took place in the other place on these amendments. I shall not refer to that debate today. The Secretary of State's guidelines were referred to. While the Opposition pressed hard in the other place to ensure that the guidelines gave first priority to a management buy-out rather than competitive tendering, we were given no assurance in the other place that the amendments would give preference to a management buy-out. My specific question to the Minister is whether there will be a preference for a management buy-out or whether it will be only a limited preference, which will amount to no preference at all.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for stepping in at this stage. If it is in any consolation, I assure him that I do not intend to speak many times. I appreciate that the Bill has been carefully considered by the Committee, but I wish to make one minor point.

As hon. Members will be aware from the Register of Members' interests, I have been an adviser to the Port of London Police Federation for many years. In that connection, I wish to raise a minor issue on amendment No. 21, which refers to the transfer of local regulations. The Port of London authority has the power to have a police force. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, we are transferring that power to the port of Tilbury. One of the advantages of such a transfer is that, as we are all aware, Tilbury has a splendid Member of Parliament to look after its interests. However, my hon. Friend the

Column 1089

Minister will be aware that, in the transfer from the port of London to the port of Tilbury, the persons involved will lose considerably, even though they will do the same job, in the same place and in the same way.

The port of Tilbury is certainly as aware as the port of London of the immense benefit of having a statutory police force. But the Minister will be aware of the losses that people will face. First, the tradition has been that PLA police salaries were in line with Metropolitan police salaries. That will not necessarily be guaranteed after the transfer. The rent allowance was linked to the Metropolitan police but in future will be related to the Essex police. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a kindly person who, throughout his activities on the Bill, has shown consideration for all the people involved. But we must remember that, in such a transfer, we transfer not only cranes but people. I hope that the Minister can assure us that, although there is adequate provision to protect individuals' pension rights, there will also be some basis on which individuals can seek arbitration, understanding or some assurance that they will not lose if they do the same job in the same way in the same place.

I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that, if the port of Tilbury is transferred to a trust and a company is established to run it, we shall have no guarantee about what will happen in five or 10 years. There is a real danger that assurances given by the port of Tilbury may not be inherited by a successor company.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the matter and that he appreciates that it is necessary to safeguard the position and give some assurances to the port of London police who have served the port well, who will continue to do the same job extremely well and who are rather worried about their future.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : I wish to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), which was given great emphasis in Committee, about our worries about those who take responsibility for our ports. As I have said on previous occasions, the ports will remain an important part of Britain's economy and transport structure, but in view of what has already happened in the ports and of the Lords amendments, it appears that the Government have neglected to deal with the future of the port transport industry in Britain. Our anxiety remains.

Those who have an interest in the ports industry are those who work in it and operate the ports. The evidence is that, almost without exception, the ports have been run successfully over many years by the people who managed and worked in them. Therefore, the possibility of a management takeover is very important. I re-emphasise the points made on that matter. Whatever powers the Government have in the Bill, they must ensure that the bodies that inherit our ports will be responsible by statute for upholding all the necessary practices in the port transport industry.

We have all expressed anxiety about dredging, conservancy and other matters. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will undertake to monitor what happens in our ports and ensure that any movement away from the port's interest is arrested and that our ports retain a future and are not surrendered to the rest of Europe.

Column 1090

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : After the bizarre intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I am not sure what we are supposed to be debating. I thought that we were debating the amendments to which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) addressed himself. I should like to get back to those amendments by assuring you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman and the House that you need not worry about the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. It is in good hands--apart from anyone else's, mine. That means that the hon. Gentleman need not worry whether the port will be slow off the mark in seeking privatisation by the management team.

If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, the backwoodsmen on Teeside and those who live in the past instead of the future had allowed my private Bill to go through, the port would already be privatised, we would have the new business, and jobs would be available. The Labour party, as ever, went further and further backwards.

7 pm

I am not too displeased about that, because it is beginning to show the people in the north-east of England that, over the centuries and the decades, it has been socialism that has held back the region. We in the north-east are now doing away with socialism, and we are seeing the benefits. Jobs are flowing in the area. Despite the recession, the north- east is the one area in the country where the jobs position has improved in the past few months, and it continues to do so. Much results from the work of the development corporations. Much could have been the result of the development of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, if the legislation had not been brought to a halt in another place.

One hears and talks about democracy, yet three wayward peers in another place can stop the will of this House. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman speak of the "will of the House". That will was usurped in another place. It did not matter, because, as ever, the Government came to the rescue with their Bill, which is probably improved as a result of the pioneer work that I did on the private Bill.

When the Minister replies, he will undoubtedly make it clear that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is not like the apprentice waiting for ever to ride a 10th winner. All apprentices must ride that 10th winner as quickly as possible because afterwards they can ride a Derby winner and win the real prizes. That is what the Tees and Hartlepool authority will do.

Dr. Godman : I would not dream of engaging in the debate on the state of socialism in the north-east of England, because you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order. As a Member of Parliament in another country from that of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), I can tell him that it is the Conservative party that is slipping away in Scotland, but I shall not go further down that road, either.

The amendments may improve matters slightly for the Clyde port authority. The Clyde Port Authority Bill seems to have foundered in the other place, or perhaps it has just come to some sort of anchorage--I say foundered, and the Minister talks about anchorage. A management-employee buy-out of the Clyde port authority may be vastly superior

Column 1091

in all sorts of ways to the management buy- out envisaged in the private Bill that has either come to grief or is tied up somewhere. Recently, there was a management-employee buy-out in Dundee and the operation is heading towards success. I am referring to a major bus company. The Transport and General Workers Union and the employers, with financial advice from, I think, the Clydesdale bank, although it may be the Royal bank of Scotland, bought the company. They are not turning it into a co-operative. They have set up a company which meets the entirely legitimate demands and requirements of the work force. The same should be done on the Clyde.

Port authorities must meet obligations, so that ports and estuaries can survive. In that respect, I wish to raise with the Minister the important question of dredging the Clyde. A management buy-out may be less of a prospect if no financial assistance is provided for the form of dredging that is so important on the Clyde. I simply remind the Minister of that. The cost of buying another dredging vessel, for example, may deter a management buy-out. Therefore, it is an important consideration. When these authorities are privatised, they must honour their obligations to local communities and local work forces.

Ms. Walley : The debate about employee-management buy-outs was developed extensively in Committee. We were disappointed that there was nothing in the Bill at the outset about how they could be achieved. The amendments and their further clarification is some proof that we made some progress on the idea.

As my hon. Friends have already admirably pointed out, there is a gap between what we would like to see and how the Bill is finally shaping up. Although we have got some concessions from the Government on this, the legislation is inadequate. Given the discussions in another place, at this late stage it is difficult to see how we can assure the trust ports that employee-management buy-outs will be favoured.

Mr. Bell : Can my hon. Friend refute the argument of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) who, with his usual grace, entirely misunderstood my remarks? If the Tees and Hartlepool authority were to be the first in line for privatisation, as it does not have the clear-cut assurance from the Government that a management buy-out will be preferred to a competitive tendering bid, there is every likelihood that it will lose its management buy-out and end up in the hands of a foreign firm with no particular interest in Teesside. Is not that the point of not hurrying towards privatisation under amendments, but of waiting for two years to pass so that we can see exactly what foreign interest there is in our ports?

Ms. Walley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, in relation to Tees and Hartlepool in particular. Two private Bills proceeded through Parliament--one for the Clyde port authority and the other for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority--and it is clear to everybody that the proof of the pudding will be in how the Bill relates to and compares with the private business that came to such an abrupt end when it was previously considered in this House.

Column 1092

My hon. Friend is right : we want absolute priority for an employee-management buy-out proposal. He spelled out the position accurately. I should like to see whether the Tees and Hartlepool port authority decides to proceed with an employee-management buy-out. We should like that to happen and for the procedure to change only if the port does not wish so to proceed. We should give the port that opportunity. As my hon. Friend so clearly pointed out, the Bill gives no clearer commitment to an employee-management buy-out than the first draft of the legislation.

We do not want trust ports to be privatised. They should make a commitment to the local community. If the legislation is enacted on Thursday, we want it to include an absolute priority for employee-management buy-outs, should that be the wish of the port concerned.

As my hon. Friends have said, the legislation applies not only to Tees and Hartlepool, but to the London port of Tilbury. Many employees throughout the country may see the proposal as the best option in the circumstances, but they may feel worried that, in the market economy that prevails, it will not advantage those who wish to undertake an employee-management buy- out. I am going on at some length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is an important issue which is fundamental to the Bill. We have wrung some concessions from the Government-- [Interruption.] If the Home Office Minister wishes to make a contribution rather than interrupt from a sedentary position, he is most welcome to do so. We are pleased that it will be easier to have employee-management buy-outs.

Mr. Bell : The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said, in relation to the amendments, that there could be management buy-outs at Tees and Hartlepool. Is it not a fact that, had it not been for our opposition in Committee, helped by some Conservative Members--we are always glad to see the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in his place and look forward to his presence when we discuss the clawback--even the limited preference buy-out scheme that we now have would not exist? That is entirely due to our opposition in Committee in which we were aided by a few Conservative Members. The great golden dream of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh of a management buy-out on Teesside, for which he and his colleagues wish to take credit, would not have come about but for the opposition of Labour Members.

Ms. Walley : I am always glad to give credit where credit is due. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is right to speak of the way in which the Opposition pressed for a policy that was not even included on the face of the Bill--albeit with some assistance from Conservative Members, who realised that ports could well be bought out by foreign interests and closed down because those foreign interests might have no regard for port activities. We take the credit for obtaining a firmer commitment to employee-management buy-outs. However, that commitment does not go far enough ; we would like the Bill to have given complete priority to the concept of employee-management buy-outs, but that is not contained in the legislation.

Not long after we debated the issue in Committee, word came through that foreign firms, particularly Japanese, were interested in the London port of Tilbury. We expressed concern on behalf of the work force who, even if they had wanted to press for a management buy-out,

Column 1093

could not do so unless the Government could give a firm commitment, which the Government were perhaps unable to do. For those reasons, we are concerned that the amendment does not give the firm commitment to employee-management buy-outs for which we have constantly pressed. Many trust ports throughout the country share our views.

Dr. Godman : I was not a member of the Committee. I note my hon. Friend's misgivings about the amendments emanating from the other place. If the amendments are accepted, it would enable employees of the Clyde Port Authority to take a much more active part in the acquisition of the CPA than would have been the case under the terms of the Clyde Port Authority Bill, which came to grief in the other place. That is an important distinction, and it is why I gave the example of the Dundee bus company, where the employees and their representatives were part of the negotiating team discussing financial considerations. If the amendments are passed, CPA employees would at least have a more active involvement in their future than would have been the case under the terms of the dreadful CPA Bill.

Ms. Walley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that his constituents in the Clyde district are aware of the point that he makes. We are concerned to make absolutely certain that employees who have given their life's work to the ports are as involved as possible in the port's future. We have to do so bearing in mind the fact that the employees have to contend with legislation that forces the ports to become privatised.

Next Section

Home Page