| Previous Section | Home Page |
Miss Widdecombe : In a minute ; I have remembered the hon. Gentleman.
All evening, the Opposition have been saying that we cannot give figures for how many people will be affected. If the Council of Mortgage Lenders is telling us, as it has been, that there is a potential to save 40,000 repossessions, and we had done nothing about it and said that we could not measure the effect, would not the Opposition have been the first to say that we should have been listening to what was being said?
Column 424
Mr. Kirkwood rose --Miss Widdecombe : I will give way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar) first, because I promised to do so.
Dr. Kumar : If the figures for the building societies are as stated, why do we not see the result in local authorities? The number of people becoming homeless is still increasing in Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh when it should be declining. If the case that the Minister argues so vociferously is right, it should be translated into that.
Miss Widdecombe : The hon. Gentleman is completely confusing repossession with the larger question of homelessness. The figures that I have given are those of the building societies.
As to the interesting and expensive speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), I want to be quite clear about what he promised. It was that the Labour party, in the unlikely event of its ever being in a position to do so, would abolish the 50 per cent. rule for the first 16 weeks and would pay 100 per cent. right from the start. In other words, he would pay for some 40,000 applicants at an average of £34 a week. That was a pledge, we were told. Is it an immediate pledge? I will be happy to give way if he will tell us. Is this to be done on day one, year one, Parliament one? Do we know?
The hon. Gentleman urged us to extend our help with mortgage payments to those on low incomes, not on income support. He did not even restrict help to those on family credit, if I understood his speech correctly. Is the Labour party promising to do that? How much would it cost? We reckon that, if we extended it just to those on family credit, it would come to some half a billion pounds.
Mr. Allen : Will the hon. Lady tell us how much it is costing for bed and breakfast for all the people who have had their homes taken from them?
Miss Widdecombe : If Opposition Members distribute pledges, they must put a price on them. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that he would effect savings on bed and breakfast by abolishing the provision?
Mr. Allen : The hon. Lady seems to be practising for life in opposition already. She should remember that for at least the next eight weeks she will still be a Minister. The costs of
bed-and-breakfast accommodation should be available to her and the Government. Perhaps she will give us the figures. The figures for future expenditure will become available as and when the expenditure is incurred. This expenditure, caused by the Government's incompetence having forced people into repossession of their homes and hence into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, is taking place now. So what are the figures?
Miss Widdecombe : Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not restricted to repossession cases. We are discussing repossessions. We are discussing what Labour proposes. Opposition Members have consistently said that we have caused a lot of misery by our income support rates. I want to know : by how much Labour would raise those rates ; when they will raise them ; and whether this is a pledge or a priority. The 16-week restriction has given rise to one of the major criticisms levelled at our policy. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) repeated the
Column 425
fabrication that when the Prime Minister was Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for social security he caused or contributed to the problem of repossessions by introducing this rule. But we were told at the time, in writing, by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that that rule would not be a cause of repossession and that it saw no reason for anyone to leave home as a result of it. We have been told the same since.So the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is that introducing 100 per cent. from day one would make no difference--this is not a cause of repossessions.
We must strike a balance between the use of taxpayers' money to help people to acquire assets and the people's need to keep a roof over their heads. We have therefore struck that balance. There is no effect on repossessions that we can measure, or that the Council of Mortgage Lenders will admit to, so--
Mr. Allen : On 19 December 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) quoted a statement by the Building Societies Association in 1986, as follows :
"Building societies regret that the government has decided to limit assistance which unemployed owner-occupiers receive through supplementary benefit".--[ Official Report, 19 December 1991 ; Vol. 201, c. 463.]
Miss Widdecombe : For the second time running, the hon. Gentleman has quoted only the first part of that statement. Immediately following that quotation, the association continued :
"Societies will do all they can to help people where benefit is restricted, and there is no reason to expect that people will lose their homes as a result of this measure."
The hon. Gentleman should quote in full, or not at all. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already put the hon. Gentleman right on this point, so either he is insulting the House by making the same point again when he knows the truth, or he is hoping that we have even shorter memories than he has.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned what he called the diversion of £350 million to building societies. That was no diversion : the money was always intended for the lenders in the first place. There is no question of their having made what the hon. Gentleman called a nice little earner. They were supposed to receive the money ; indeed, that was the only reason why it was handed over at all.
The next question concerns multiple deductions. As was said earlier, the Bill does not affect multiple deductions because those are taken, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North agreed, from basic income support. These deductions will be taken only from the amount of income support which was calculated for mortgages.
From the talk tonight, one would have imagined that there were not already ceilings and limits on direct deductions. There are. We should remember that the sums
Column 426
made over in income support include an amount for community charge and an amount for ordinary living expenses, and that they should, therefore, be used for this purpose. When social fund loans deductions which are on top of the 15 per cent. ceiling are made, they are flexible and negotiable. Often-- [Interruption.] The problem with Opposition Members is that they do not talk to enough local offices. Often people have large numbers of social fund loans simultaneously, but they are paying off only one at a time. I can tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that the problem is well addressed.I sum up--
Mr. Kirkwood : The Minister is making heavy weather of the point. Has she any estimate for the House of the repossessions that will be saved as a direct result of the Bill?
Miss Widdecombe : All we have are the estimates of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. As I have said, we are responding to that body. If we had not responded to the estimate that we could save that number of repossessions, we should have been heavily criticised at the time. We have the latest forecast that the package, in addition to the package that we introduced before Christmas, together with the measures being taken by building societies, could save 40,000. With the measures only having been announced in November, it is too early to say precisely how many will be saved.
We have responded to the request of the lenders. We have done our best to ensure that money is going where it should go. We have got, in return, an agreement from lenders to limit repossessions, some of the results of which I gave earlier. The Bill is a humane and welcome measure. Opposition Members, although they do not oppose it, have not the courage to welcome it and to praise it as it deserves. Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [3 February.]
SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTERESTPAYMENTS) BILL [MONEY] Queen's Recommendation having been signified
Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill it is expedient to authorise--
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of that Act ; and
(b) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Column 427
Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill Immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [3 February]
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New clause 1
Report to Parliament
"The Secretary of State shall at six-monthly intervals lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the scheme authorised by this Act.'.-- [Mr. Bradley.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington) : I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief, because I am sure, from Ministers' contributions to the Second Reading debate, that the Government will welcome the new clause. All we seek through it is the opportunity for the Secretary of State to report to the House on a six-monthly basis on the workings of the Bill, which will then be an Act.
From what the Under-Secretary of State said, it is clear that, although the time has not yet elapsed by which the Government can give a sufficient consideration of the consequences of the Bill, they will be able to do so in due course. The Secretary of State will be able to report and to give us the details that we have been seeking tonight about how many repossessions have been avoided because of the Bill. He could perhaps widen the report and give details of the rescue schemes that have finally been put in place with the building societies, say how they are operating in practice, how many people are included in them, what is their cost, what is their rental element and how much housing benefit is being paid on the affordable rents that I hope will be introduced under them.
The new clause would give us an excellent opportunity to return to the subject to determine whether the Bill's effects have alleviated the desperate plight of those suffering under the threat of repossession. I hope that, in view of the spirit in which I have moved the new clause, it will be welcomed and accepted by the Government.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I shall be equally brief. I cannot respond positively to thnew clause, although I have some sympathy with it. I hope that, over the time that I have been involved in social security, I have proved that we are anxious to monitor and report back to the House regularly on what happens with our legislation. There are sufficient opportunities open to hon. Members, let alone Front-Bench spokesmen, through Adjournment debates, questions, written questions, and so on, to ask the Government to produce the figures on the implementation of any policy-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Carry on.
Column 428
Mr. Scott : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
To produce, at considerable expense and complication, the sort of figures for which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked on a six-monthly basis would be excessive. The Government have no intention to disguise or shield from the House the effects of any policy we introduce, least of all this one. We stand ready to produce, as requested by the House, the figures on the implementation of our policy and its effects. I cannot believe that it would be sensible to compel this or any successor Government to produce--
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : To save making a speech, may I ask the Minister a simple question? If he is not prepared to produce a six-monthly report, can he assure us that the statutory instruments that will follow from this primary legislation will be under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure?
Mr. Scott : The Bill is not a mere enabling Bill--it is properly a Bill that includes most of the effects of the regulations. It is more appropriate that the regulations should be under the negative procedure, but it is open to the Opposition to pray against them and to have them discussed, if that is what they wish. There are ample opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House, if they wish to check the implementation of the Bill, to have it discussed openly in the House. I do not believe that the measure being advocated by the hon. Member for Withington is sensible.
Mr. Bradley : The Minister's reply was disappointing. We cannot help but be concerned that, because the Government are not prepared to report back to the House, they may have more to hide than they are suggesting tonight. I assure the House that we shall rigorously pursue every possible avenue to seek the necessary information. Although we are often hindered in that task, I am sure that all my hon. Friends will use every device possible to ensure that the consequences of the Bill and the real statistics that we are seeking from the Government--not comments from "Money Mail" or the Council of Mortgage Lenders--will tell us exactly what is happening with mortgage repossessions as a consequence of the Bill.
In the light of the Government's assurance of rigorous pursuit in this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Column 429
Tees and Hartlepool
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
12.45 am
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : It is appropriate that we should adjourn the House on a short debate on the operation of the Ports Act 1991. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Transport endorsed the privatisation of the first trust port in accordance with the powers granted to him by the Act.
The legislation privatising trust ports is unlike a great deal of other Conservative legislation in past years, in which the Government sought to avoid responsibility. The fingerprints of the Secretary of State for Transport may be found all over the Ports Act. Not only does he oversee the sale of the ports, laying down conditions ; he also makes the final decision on criteria set down by this Department.
It has always struck me as curious that, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)--I have heard a variety of speehes from him--used to have to tootle along to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer for money for Jaguar, while feeling that the decisions involved were commercial decisions on investment, more appropriate to business men. In the case of the Ports Act, the Secretary of State bears on his shoulders a series of duties for which he is held accountable to the House. We know that the Act came into force because the Treasury saw a variety of pots of gold dotted around the country in our trust ports. Section 13 makes that clear when it talks of levy on initial disposals of securities of successor companies. In short, half the pot of gold in each port would go to the Treasury ; the other half would go back into the successor company.
If the Treasury had its eye on the pots of gold, however, so did other predators. When the successor company to Tees and Hartlepool, Teesside Holdings, took over the port, it immediately picked up the £35 million cash asset that was standing in the bank, in the port's name, at the time of the takeover.
Whatever arguments may be advanced about the first privatisation of a trust port--and there are many--the fact is that, of a purchase price of £180 million, with £90 million going to the Treasury and with cash to the tune of £35 million in the Treasury, not to mention a pension fund with some £38 million in the bank, Teesside Holdings has paid no more than £55 million for assets worth £180 million. Opposition Members feel that that constitutes naked capitalism of the worst kind on the part of this Conservative Government--capitalism at its most blatant. It is cynical ; it deprives a local community of its port ; and it is immoral.
When deciding to endorse the bid of Teesside Holdings, in his written response to a planted parliamentary question, the Secretary of State for Transport said that he had considered representations about Humberside Holdings and other companies associated with the Holloway family. He was required to do so because Humberside Holdings is one of a trio of companies in the consortium that became the successful bidder for the port of Tees and Hartlepool.
The Secretary of State made the following statement about John Holloway, who was intended to be chief executive of Tees and Hartlepool port authority :
Column 430
"I have found nothing in the evidence put before me concerning either Mr. John Holloway or Humberside Holdings which would make it proper for me to withhold my consent to the proposed sale to Teesside Holdings Ltd."--[ Official Report, 28 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 501. ]Mr. Kevin Fletcher, a solicitor on Teesside, who advised the Tees and Hartlepool board on the sale, advised me that the backgrounds of all the bidders were fully taken into account. Nor can the Secretary of State claim ignorance, for I gave his Department a full file on matters surrounding both the Holloway family and its associate companies.
This is important, because one of the criteria which was laid down by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Ports Act, and to which he alluded in his parliamentary response, was the fitness of the bidders to run the port. The Secretary of State was quite right not to take into account the past criminal records of Douglas and Barry Holloway, nor did I ask that he should. We know from newspaper reports that Douglas Holloway was convicted in November 1980 of bribing officials at the Scunthorpe works of British Steel with two of his directors, including his son Barry. He was fined £11,000 with £10,000 costs, and given a 12-month suspended sentence. Barry Holloway was fined £1,500, received a six-month suspended sentence and was gaoled for seven days for contempt of court. John Holloway was charged and acquitted and, by way of explanation of how he found himself in the dock in the first place, he said that he had just left school at the time.
Both Douglas and Barry Holloway were on the board of Humberside Holdings throughout the bidding process for the port of Tees and Hartlepool. They promptly resigned on 21 December when facts of their criminal records became known to the public. Mr. W. G. Andrews, who is now the non-executive chairman of the new board of Tees and Hartlepool, indicated, when asked, that he thought that the Holloways had paid their debts to society. As it happens, it turns out that society, on both sides of the Atlantic, paid their debts for them. As the Secretary of State for Transport knew when he made his first decision under the Ports Act, the most significant company in the Holloway group was Interdom. That company went into liquidation on 15 November 1991, during the bidding process, with a summary of liabilities to non-preferential creditors in the amount of £1,740,000, and an estimated total deficiency, as regards members, of £2,240, 527. Those directors listed as holding office during the last three years were Douglas Holloway, Barry Holloway and John Holloway, all of whom were involved in the bid for the port of Tees and Hartlepool. As I have already said, John Holloway is now the new chief executive. A full file on Interdom Ltd. was submitted by Ernst and Young to the Department of Trade and Industry, marked "Private and Confidential" and dated 29 November 1991--this at the very time that the former non-executive board was debating the credentials of the bidders. The Secretary of State for Transport was aware of this when he satisfied himself that Mr. John Holloway was a fit and proper person to run a port. Thus, while he was making that decision, the Department of Trade and Industry was considering a file submitted by the receivers on the selfsame people. The Secretary of State knew that when he
Column 431
decided that Humberside Holdings, with the same Holloway shareholders, was also composed of fit and proper persons. Nor could it be said, when it came to receivership, that the Holloways were respecters of particular creditors or persons. Thus, American Express found itself owed £50.15. Arthur Anderson was owed £57,542. Mercury Carphones was also owed money. That is an interesting thought for you, Madam Deputy Speaker : running a port without car phones. One can imagine the Holloways being unable to phone back and forth because, when their company went into receivership, they owed Mercury £827.72. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State concluded that they were fit and proper people to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool.There is a significant statement appended to the file sent to the Department of Trade and Industry, to the effect that, prior to the receivership date, the company had a credit balance of £1,658,817. That amount had been set off against the bank borrowings of other group companies by the company's bankers, pursuant to their security. The offsetting arrangement has, according to the statement on file at the Department of Trade and Industry, created
"inter-company balances with other group companies which are also in receivership and the balances are not therefore recoverable." "Other companies in receivership"--but the Secretary of State declared in his written response that he had considered the record of the bidding company and satisfied himself, or words to that effect, that it was fit and proper to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool. In fact, the receivership of Interdom and other group companies referred to in the file submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry is only the last in a long line which looks like a trail of broken dreams and promises--rather like the tragic James Dean posters that one sees from time to time.
Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. and John Sutcliffe Consolidated Stevedores Ltd. were associate companies of Humberside Holdings Ltd. The holding of Humberside Holdings Ltd. in Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. amounted to 50 per cent. and, in the case of John Sutcliffe Consolidated Stevedores Ltd. to 33 per cent. John Holloway and Frederick Russel Brown were directors of Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. as well as directors of Humberside Holdings Ltd.
I shall return to Frederick Russel Brown in a moment, because he is a director of the new Tees and Hartlepool port and will work in an executive capacity alongside John Holloway. Both companies of which they were directors went into liquidation, leaving the Government to pick up the bill for redundancy payments to stevedores amounting in the case of Lindsey Dock Services Ltd. to £3,340,001 and in the case of John Sutcliffe Consolidated Stevedores Ltd. to £3,598,314. Let us look across the Atlantic. Interdom owned a company in the United States called Contract Marine Carriers Inc. with head offices in Richmond, Virginia. Douglas Holloway was listed as one of the officers--in fact, he was listed as chairman and president. The chief accountant was Mr. Frederick Brown who, as I said, is now to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of State in the discharge
Column 432
of his duties under the Ports Act 1991. When Contract Marine Carriers Inc. went into involuntary bankruptcy, Interdom Holdings Ltd. was the principal shareholder.Just prior to the involuntary bankruptcy, moneys amounting to $172, 250 which rightly belonged to the creditors were transferred from the Sovran bank, Richmond, Virginia to the National Westminster bank, 52 Threadneedle street, London, and to the Hungarian International bank, Princess house, 95 Gresham street, London EC2. Those concerned with the transfers were Douglas Holloway and Interdom Ltd., of which Mr. John Holloway was a founding shareholder and director.
When an attorney representing the creditors in the United States--Mr. C. Thomas Green III--sent a letter to the company, a reply was sent by McHale and Co. denying that Interdom Holdings Ltd. was or had ever been a shareholder in Contract Marine Carriers Inc. A search at Companies house revealed that, although Contract Marine Carriers (UK) Ltd. was registered, as was Contract Marine Carriers (Garston) Ltd., there was no reference to Contract Marine Carriers Ltd. in the United States. In the end, Mr. Douglas Holloway accepted responsibility for the company in a letter dated 3 April 1986. So we see the link between a company in the United States--Contract Marine Carriers Inc.--and Douglas Holloway ; through Mr. Holloway to Humberside ; through Humberside to Interdom ; and from Interdom, through Humberside again, into the consortium, and from that consortium to the new company created under the Ports Act. We come again to Mr. Fred Brown. Not only was he listed as chief accountant, but--between 20 and 29 January 1986, shortly before Contract Marine Carriers Inc. ceased trading, because of the involuntary bankruptcy--he went to Richmond, Virginia. One of the reasons given for the involuntary bankruptcy of the American company was that the revenue was being collected abroad, and debts were not being paid in the United States. In short, the money owed directly to the company was being funnelled off to the United Kingdom. There was also serious doubt whether the company was properly registered in the United States in accordance with the Jones Act. There were violations not only of United States law but of United Kingdom law, because the company was not registered as one of the companies in the Interdom group.
What do we see when the Secretary of State for Transport has made the first decision? We see that two directors involved in two companies that have gone into receivership are now to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool--at a time when the associate company was not only in liquidation but had been referred to the Department of Trade and Industry.
It is my full intention to call for the disqualification of the directors Fred Brown and John Holloway in accordance with the Company Directors Disqualification Act, 1986, and to submit a full file to the Department of Trade and Industry, calling for it to take action in the public interest. A disqualification order under section 8 of that Act should be made.
The reason for my decision is the inability of the Secretary of State for Transport to look the facts fully in the face and to act upon them in accordance with his duties under the Ports Act. I shall submit the file because, in my view, there is prima facie evidence of a breach of commercial morality, of gross incompetence and of
Column 433
recklessness. There is evidence, too, that the two directors are not fit and proper persons, and are not competent to run the port of Tees and Hartlepool.Other factors, too, make me determined to take the matter a stage further. Six and a half million pounds of taxpayers' money has never been seen again ; it was paid to stevedores so that two companies could go into liquidation and then set up in business again. The law takes a dim view of such a situation--rather more so, apparently, than does the Secretary of State for Transport.
According to the law, the amount of Crown debt is an important factor in determining unfitness. I have already mentioned the £6.5 million of Crown debts owed by the two companies, which the Department of Transport has been unable to recover because of the massive debts that the companies have run up, and their inability to meet any of them.
The number of liquidations that directors have been involved in is a relevant factor, too. It is no coincidence or accident that Fred Brown and John Holloway have been involved in previous liquidations, nor that John Holloway was a founding member of Interdom Ltd., and retired, or resigned, from the firm in May when he saw that the writing was on the wall. However, he is listed in the DTI file as a director for the past three years.
The way in which the companies have been managed in the past is another significant reason why the matter should be referred to the DTI with a view to having those two directors disqualified. I have already referred to the issue of morality. We see here the confluence of Government immorality and bad legislation.
After 13 years, the Tory Government have no sense of morality and no sense of what is due to the taxpayer. We hear so much about Labour's tax policy, yet £6.5 million of my money, your money, Madam Deputy Speaker, the money of other hon. Members and the money of those who live in our country has simply been given away to firms and individuals who, as I have shown tonight, have lined up a whole series of liquidations in the United States and in this country. We have seen incredulity on the part of the 15 trust ports of our land, which were lining themselves up for management-employee buy-outs only to shelve their plans. The ports of Tyne and of Ipswich have no further interest in privatisation. After two years, the Government's ports policy is totally incoherent.
Dr. Ashok Kumar (Langbaurgh) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State has delivered a kick in the teeth to the people of Cleveland and Cleveland Members who lobbied him, pointing out his errors at different times?
Mr. Bell : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We saw the Secretary of State and he said, "I hear what you say," but he did not act upon what he heard.
We have seen immorality, bad legislation and a privatisation too far and we have seen--to paraphrase "Gone with the Wind"--that the Tories don't give a damn about Teesside.
1.5 am
The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : In the short time that is left, I shall attempt to answer some of the points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has made. I will not be able to answer them all.
Column 434
The hon. Gentleman said that the operation of the Ports Act 1991 is in some chaos, and I shall come to that matter a little later. The hon. Gentleman said that we had not fully considered his representations. I can assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State considered in great detail all the representations that were made. That is why a considerable time elapsed between his original statement that he was minded to accept and the announcement of the final decision to give the go-ahead. Any complaints that were made to us were taken seriously.We have heard on numerous occasions that the only reason why the Government wanted the Ports Act on the statute book was that they wanted the money. That allegation has just been made again. Had that been our sole concern, we would have accepted the highest bid. The simple fact was that a recommendation was made to us by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and the Secretary of State accepted it. We all know that Labour Members have consistently opposed all the measures that we have taken to free up the docks industry. Tonight they have yet again shown their total objection to any privatisation that gives opportunities to the people who work in the industry concerned. Such privatisations are anathema to the Opposition. The enactment of the Ports Act was the latest stage in a process of deregulating the port industry. The abolition of the dock labour scheme did much for the THPA, freeing it from the constraints from which it had suffered for many years. The repeal of the dock labour scheme provisions was consistently opposed by the Opposition. We believe that it is essential to have a competitive industry in which individual ports compete with each other for business in the marketplace. We believe that the right place for the larger trust ports is the private sector. As company ports, they will be able to compete on equal terms with the part of the ports industry that already lies in the private sector and which, by tonnage, already amounts to more than 50 per cent. of the industry. They will no longer be bound by the unnecessary constraints on their activities that their status as trust ports brings.
My right hon. and learned Friend delayed making his final decision on the sale of THPA until he had looked into the various matters that Opposition Members had raised about the sale. On 28 January, he announced that he had not found anything in the points raised that would justify him in not confirming his consent to the recommendation that the THPA board had made to him that the port should be sold to Teesside Holdings Ltd. This statement ended a period of uncertainty for the port which had the potential for doing real damage to the port itself. It was important that that period of uncertainty should be ended and I am sorry that Opposition Members seem to want to reopen the whole subject and to renew that uncertainty--
Dr. Kumar rose --
Mr. McLoughlin : I am sorry, but I do not have the time to give way because I have not been left with enough time to reply. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
That is not and cannot be good for the port or the area that is serves. A few moments ago, I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker)
| Next Section
| Home Page |