---

Column 435

nodding his head in agreement, because that is exactly what the Opposition intend--to continue that uncertainty. That is disgraceful from any elected representative.

Dr. Kumar rose --

Mr. McLoughlin : I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. The record of those earlier debates shows that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough's concern about the Act naturally centre upon the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool authority, as he has demonstrated this evening. Now that that privatisation has actually taken place, I am wondering whether this will be his swan song, or whether he will continue to take such a lively interest in the Act. The hon. Gentleman's views on the Tees and Hartlepool port authority have not always been clear or consistent. During the debates in 1990 in this House on the authority's own Bill for privatising its undertaking, he was happy enough to denigrate the authority for having the temerity to be seeking privatisation at all. He was even more ready to attack the management for even thinking of buying the port. During the earlier stages of the passage of the Ports Act 1991, he was virtually silent on the question of management-employee buy-outs-- perhaps he was undergoing some sort of fundamental change of heart and could not reconcile the way in which he had stopped the original private Bill from proceeding in the House.

By the later stages of the Bill, and particularly during this House's consideration of the amendments that were made in another place, the hon. Gentleman had become eloquent in favour of a management-employee buy-out for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, primarily, as he suggested, to protect the port from outsiders, who might even be foreign. Possibly the most consistent aspect of his approach--if this can be called "consistency" --has been to try to attack and undermine whenever possible the decisions of the authority, obstruct its privatisation at every turn, and to make that privatisation as uncertain, costly and damaging a business as he could.

The motto of the hon. Member's policy might perhaps have been that it was necessary to destroy the authority in order to save it from privatisation. That would be an approach typical of a party that values entrenched positions and the status quo so much that, in the unlikely event of the Opposition winning the next election, they would probably reintroduce the dock labour scheme and reimpose on the ports industry the shackles from which it has just been released. By contrast, the Government have done a lot for our ports industry. My right hon. and learned Friend's announcement on 28 January will enable the THPA to embark on a period of development and expansion under its new owners.

---

Column 436

Looking ahead to other trust port privatisations which are currently in progress, we continue to see the use of a range of objectives of sale as criteria against which the final bids are to be evaluated as being the best way of enabling each trust port authority to assess the competing bids that it receives, and to take into account, alongside the price offered, its concern about the future of its port.

As I have said, the Opposition frequently accused the Government during the debates on the Ports Act of recognising no other criterion for port sales except the price paid. That was untrue. We said at the time that we were prepared to consider other objectives apart from the price if those were of importance to individual ports, and that is what has happened in this case. It is an approach to privatisation that gives each individual port authority considerable flexibility and control over its own privatisation, a situation which I would have thought was welcome to both sides of the House, given the views that were expressed during debates on the Act. The port authority is the vendor in the sale of each port, and it must be for each bidder to convince the authority's board that his bid meets the objectives of the sale as completely as possible and more fully than any of his competitors' bids.

I reject most emphatically the attacks on the ports privatisation programme that the hon. Gentleman has made both in the media and in this House.

I turn now to the progress that has already been made, since the Bill became law last July. One trust port--Tees and Hartlepool--has now completed its privatisation, and no fewer than four others--Medway, Clyde, Forth and Tilbury--have begun the process. I remind hon. Members that they comprise five out of the country's eight largest trust ports. Those developments clearly show that our assessment of the need for Government legislation to enable the trust ports to enter the private sector was right. The privatisation programme resulting from the Ports Act remains firmly on target.

By contrast, we know that, under a Labour Government, the trust ports would have no such opportunity. Not only that, but they would still be saddled with the enormous dead weight of the dock labour scheme, constantly draining away their resources and their competitiveness to no purpose. That is why this Government's long-term strategy for the ports industry is the better road for that industry to take, and why the trust ports privatisation programme, under the successful operation of the Ports Act, is an essential part of that strategy.

Having thoroughly scrutinised all the bids, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority board decided to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend--

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker-- adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned at fifteen minutes past One o'clock.

---