|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if the words "subject to immigration control" or some other limiting words are not inserted, it would mean that a person--the employee--who has attained the age of 16 would be subject to the Bill. That would include anyone, even someone who was born here. It would be absurd to say that somebody born here should be guilty of an offence if they have not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take that as being an intervention, and the answer is that I was not moving or speaking to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 which in any case, like Amendment No. 67, are pre-empted by Amendment No. 64, as we were no doubt told by the Deputy Speaker.
The amendments which we will be debating substantively on later clauses refer to a "relevant" person and then define that relevant person. My objection to Amendment No. 64 is that it uses a form of words which then relate forward to Amendment No. 100 in Clause 12. It is up to the Government how they group their amendments. I should have thought that they would wish to group Amendment No. 64 with
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am not sure why the noble Lord keeps saying that these are interventions in the Minister's speech. As I understand it, at Report stage she moves the amendment, we are all then entitled to speak to it and then the Minister winds up.
I wanted to comment briefly and say, as I said at Committee stage, that I have always been proud of being an immigrant. I do not dislike the term and any suggestion of change was because the noble Lord wanted it. However, there may be other people like myself who have come to this country and who are happy to be called immigrants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Baroness does not have a black face and is not likely to be asked questions about her employment status by an employer if she goes for a job.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be brief in winding up on the amendment. The change is correct. The noble Lord tempts me to enter a debate which rightly belongs later in the Bill; that is, in relation to the scope of Clauses 9 and 10. We will have that debate later and I rest for the moment on moving Amendment No. 64.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned and, in moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 10 minutes past eight o'clock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if agreed, this order will enable the Secretary of State to confirm the transfer of the assets, rights, liabilities and duties of the Ipswich Port Authority to the private sector. All property, rights and liabilities of the authority and all functions conferred or imposed on the authority by any local statutory provision will then be transferred to the successor company set up by the authority.
In furtherance of these objectives, the Transport Act 1981 enabled the transfer of the nationalised harbour undertakings of the British Railways Board and the British Transport Docks Board to the private sector in 1981 and of Sealink in 1984. The abolition of the Dock Labour scheme in 1989 enabled many ports to modernise their working practices and to take advantage of up-to-date cargo handling technology. These actions released competitive forces which had been dormant for years and led to great improvements in productivity. Other ports, including trust ports, had to respond to the new competition to become more competitive. By the end of the 1980s some trust port authorities had come to see that their position could best, indeed perhaps only, be developed by moving into the private sector, and at the beginning of this decade Tees and Hartlepool, and Forth, started to pursue the lengthy and expensive Private Bill process required for this transfer. It proved difficult and the Government, by way of an alternative, introduced a Ports Bill. The Ports Act 1991, as it became, is an enabling measure, providing a simpler and quicker mechanism than the Private Bill procedure for trust ports to privatise themselves. It also permits the Secretary of State to compel the larger trust ports to privatise.
The procedure in both types of privatisation is similar. A scheme is drawn up for the transfer of a trust port's undertaking to a Companies Act company formed by the vendor port authority. The scheme must be confirmed by order. In the case of compulsory privatisations, parliamentary approval is needed for the transfer order. The subsequent sale of such a company into the private sector, which requires the consent of the Secretary of State, completes the privatisation process.
So far six ports have used the voluntary privatisation procedure in the Act: in 1992 Tees & Hartlepool, Clyde, Forth, Medway and Tilbury, and in 1995 Dundee. All the 1992 privatisations have been a success and I am confident that that of Dundee will prove to be another. The post-privatisation increase in valuation of two of the ports, Forth and Tilbury, is one clear indication of the improvement in operating ability following privatisation. It also demonstrates investor confidence in the profitability of private sector ports. Tonnage handled at Forth rose from just over 23 million tonnes in 1992 to 44 million tonnes in 1994. The Government's
The powers of compulsion in Section 10 of the Act enable the Secretary of State to consult the board of any trust port with an annual turnover of over £5.6 million to ascertain its views on privatisation. My right honourable friend, the former Secretary of State, consulted the Ipswich Port Authority last June. The authority was given three months to respond with its views. Following its submission, the Secretary of State wrote to the chairman on 7th November to direct the authority to form a successor company and to prepare a transfer scheme to enable the authority to transfer all its property, rights, liabilities and functions. The Ipswich Port Authority met the requirement within the Secretary of State's timetable, and subsequently published the statutorily-required notice inviting representations to the transfer scheme and articles and memorandum of association of the successor company. Only one representation was in fact received and this related to matters which are appropriate for consideration during the working up of the sale documentation. The scheme submitted closely followed the model provided by my department and the few technical amendments now incorporated in the scheme, appearing as a schedule to the order, have been agreed with the Ipswich Port Authority.
The Port of Ipswich is one of the oldest in the country. Dating back to Roman times, its first charter was granted in 1199. The port has long served local traders and has a long history. The port has been continuously developed, with major works taking place during the 1830s and again in the 1920s. Throughout the years the emphasis has been on agricultural and, more recently, on oil products. In the 1970s the port also developed the ability to handle ro-ro and container traffic and had its most successful year ever in 1994. More recently, intense competition from the Channel Tunnel and other ports, notably Tilbury, and the ease whereby the non-local customer base is able to switch ports, have removed a substantial proportion of Ipswich's trade, in particular the ro-ro and container traffic. By contrast, national trade through our ports has risen from 495 million tonnes in 1991 to 538 million tonnes in 1994. To help counter the decline at Ipswich, the management of the port has moved ahead with plans to redevelop the port and has already found new trade to balance the loss of trade to Tilbury.
The board of the authority originally represented to us that privatisation was not in the best interests of the port, but I now understand that subject to parliamentary approval, it will proceed with privatisation expeditiously as the best way to remove uncertainty about the future of the port and increase the confidence of potential customers. The sale of the port, most probably by a trade sale, will be undertaken by the Ipswich Port Authority and its advisers. The Secretary of State will have to approve the choice of purchaser and completion is expected in early spring 1997, if this order is accepted by the House. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. His information seems to be more up-to-date when he says that the people of Ipswich have changed their minds. All the information I have is that the Ipswich Society in particular is looking more to the community as a whole than just the port itself, although it is very conscious of the fact that the port is a very important part of the community. The society has provided very interesting and crucial information to both Houses.
I got the impression that it was a very proud and a very civically organised and oriented society. It has gone to great trouble to inform both Houses of its concern, fears and worries for the future of the port and also--and this is very important--for the town.
I understand that the borough council and its predecessors have run the ancient port since about 1200. I am interested in the deeper research that the Minister has been able to undertake saying that the port goes back to Roman times: I go back only to 1200. The port has been sustained and developed over the past almost 800 years by the industry, energy and money provided largely by local effort. If the letter sent by the Ipswich Society to the Secretary of State for Transport is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt its contents, then the privatisation of the port without compensation to the local economy is unforgivable.
The town has plans for new economic development dependent on the use of the port area and in particular as regards the Victorian wet dock of which it is particularly proud. In its day it was the largest in existence. I am told that if these assets are removed from local democratic control and, once the port is privatised, are privately developed for the profit of a few, who may have no interest in Ipswich and who may in fact belong to another part of the world, it will be an ungrateful blow to the people referred to in the new political jargon as "Middle England".
I had intended to paraphrase parts of the letter from the Ipswich Society, but it is so well put that I find it difficult to improve on it. It states that the new company that is to take over does not seem to be required to,
There is absolutely no evidence of any enthusiasm among the people of Ipswich for this privatisation. Indeed, a survey conducted by one of the area's two MPs, Mr. Cann, indicates the reverse. Overwhelming opposition was displayed against any notion that the Government should receive the proceeds. Again, there was overwhelming support in favour of an obligation being imposed on any purchaser to continue its use as a port. It is also a question of compensation for the town of Ipswich, not only for the land, but also for the developments on which so much energy has been spent over the centuries, all of which was internally sourced or came from profits from the port.
I hope that the Minister will think about the damage that could be done. Places such as the Clyde have enormous hinterland developments, but its port is an enormously important part of a small place such as Ipswich. It is a question of chalk and cheese. The Minister quoted the example of the Clyde which has, indeed, been successful although to some extent the traffic has declined for technical reasons. Ipswich is a different matter altogether. It is a small town that is dependent on the port almost for its very existence. It should therefore be given more support.
I believe that this is an order too far and that the Government will pay for it electorally in the area around Ipswich. There is already one Labour MP there and I should not be surprised if, because of this matter alone, after the election we have two Labour MPs there. This will then have been a costly privatisation of a port that could have continued its development in a part of England that badly needs it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister was somewhat disingenuous in his preamble to his description of the order. He tried to imply that what was done in respect of British Rail harbours and what has been done so far in the voluntary privatisation of six ports was on a par with the order we are considering. In the case of the British Rail harbours, the state was perfectly entitled to denationalise them, as has happened with other assets. In the case of the private ports, their future was for them to decide. However, this is the first time that your Lordships have had to consider a scheme for compulsorily transferring a port into the private sector against the wishes of the local inhabitants and against the original wishes of the Ipswich Port Authority.
Moreover, we are considering an order which was published on 5th June. Very little opportunity has been given to anyone to express an opinion. The sale of the port is a most important matter for the whole region as well as for the town of Ipswich, yet it is to go through without any pretence at consultation or even explanation. The Department of Transport has not bothered to hold any local meetings to explain the proposals, and the correspondence between the department and the Ipswich Port Authority is, I understand, classified material.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, Ipswich Borough Council is not to appoint any members of the new authority although it does appoint one of the trustees of the Ipswich Port Authority. I understand, however, that he is not allowed to speak on these issues and has made no public comment. So much for open government.
We have heard something of the history of the port. There is a dispute only about whether King John granted the original charter to the borough in 1199 or 1200. However, the fact is that the port has been going for a long time. Indeed, there has been trade there since even earlier when the port of Ipswich was used by the Angles for transporting goods between their original territory across the North Sea and their new lands in England.
Down through the centuries, the local people owned their port and invested in it. In 1842 they constructed what was then the largest wet dock in the world. As the Minister acknowledged, they poured substantial investment into the port in both the 1830s and the 1920s. The port has made a huge contribution to the prosperity of the town and the region. By 1992 it was still handling 5 million tonnes of cargo a year.
However, trade at the port has recently fallen--to an average of one ship per working day, according to the East Anglian Daily Times. Today's paper, which lists the arrivals for the week, gives three at Ipswich, compared with over 100 at Harwich and 200 at Felixstowe. As the Minister explained, that is because P&O North Sea Ferries withdrew last year, cutting the port's revenue by some £4.9 million or 38 per cent. of the total for the year. That was followed by the departure of Geest North Sea Lines and Bell North Sea Lines, which have concentrated their operations at Tilbury. The decisions of these operators may or may not have been
No doubt the port authority has done its best to keep the business going, even though the passing of this order will bring its existence to an end. The order provides for all the property and functions of the authority to be handed over to Ipswich Port Limited, which has been formed as a result of directions by the Secretary of State under Section 10(2) and (3) of the 1991 Act, as the preamble to the order recites.
One might imagine that the authority would have been demotivated by having to organise its own euthanasia, having first protested against it but finally succumbing to what was inevitable. Worse still, the exercise is budgeted to cost £887,000. Only the most irrational Tory doctrinaire can believe that such a diversion of money and management effort--pointless expenditure for completely non-productive purposes--can do any good for either Ipswich or the country as a whole. One negative result for the city has been the abandonment of negotiations which have been taking place between the authority and the borough council for an exchange of land between the two bodies. The borough was to acquire land around the wet dock for an important cultural initiative--the Centre for the English Story--which it was hoped would attract millennium funding and become a tourist spot for visitors from all round the world. Even if the new owners are sympathetic to the scheme, the millennium boat has been missed. That is the only way in which the project could have been made financially viable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has already observed, the transfer scheme has been opposed all along by the Ipswich Society. When it canvassed the views of its members, 108 replies were received all but one of which supported the proposition that the society should persuade Parliament to reject the order. The society tried to persuade the local newspaper, the Evening Star, to test public opinion more widely by conducting an opinion poll, but the paper did not respond. Dr. Peter Odell, chairman of the society, wrote to the Secretary of State on 5th April to make representations against the scheme and the provisions of the memorandum of association of the company to be established by this order. He referred to a previous letter of 16th August 1995 in which the society had argued for postponement of the compulsory privatisation, reaffirmed the views then expressed and added further points dealing with the memorandum.
I briefly summarise these points. Activities in Ipswich are not the prime objectives of the company, nor is the company even obliged to continue to operate the port. The registered office can be anywhere in England and Wales and the company is empowered to merge with another company and thus to become registered abroad. The company may demolish any building and sell off
One would have thought that, even if there had been no statutory right to make representations, the Secretary of State would have had the courtesy to answer a letter of this kind. When a person writes in response to a public invitation issued in accordance with a legal requirement it is quite intolerable that he should receive no answer right up to the day when the order is supposed to be approved. Surely, the House is entitled to demand that a full reply be given and that adequate time be provided for its consideration by the society, and for any further representations that it may wish to formulate in the light of the Secretary of State's response, before the order is passed.
Given the way that this process operates, we have to approve the order without having the faintest idea of who the future owners will be. Ipswich Port is to be sold off under provisions which are not even in the order. They are to be sold under tender procedure. It is for the Secretary of State to decide in his absolute discretion which of the tenders to accept. The bidders could offer to meet some of the concerns expressed, and theoretically a higher bid without concessions might be rejected in favour of a lower bid which was accompanied by promises of local co-operation and consultation. But no such assurances could be made legally binding on the new company.
The proceeds of this sale go to the Secretary of State. To disguise the fact that he is taking something that does not belong to him, the Act provides that the purchaser has to pay double the real consideration for the sale. The Secretary of State then charges a 50 per cent. levy on the sale and the other 50 per cent. is handed back to the purchaser. This is the kind of deal that one would expect from shady traders in Walworth Road market. If someone takes an asset away from me without permission or compensation I call it theft. Perhaps there is a different kind of moral principle at work when the state confiscates and sells for its own benefit assets that have been an integral and important part of a city for 800 years. Accountants may say that the town is not the owner and so nothing has been taken from it. But it was the borough which created the port and sustained it by investment and mutual co-operation over the years.
My party is against the compulsory privatisation of ports. Our Federal Conference passed a resolution in March 1991 opposing this feature of the Ports Bill and calling for legislation to take account of the wishes of local communities as well as environmental considerations. This order rides roughshod over the wishes of the people of Ipswich. There has been no pretence of finding out their views. Not only does it fail to
As recently as October 1994 your Lordships reaffirmed that this House had an unfettered right to vote on delegated legislation. This particular order is so uniquely objectionable that I propose to test the feeling of the House this evening.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, took us through a number of the provisions and some of the history of the port. He made clear the view of the Labour Party as to this provision, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made clear his view. However, since he spoke as a Back Bencher I am not sure whether or not he expressed the official view of the Liberal Party. Since there is a considerable amount of nodding on the Front Bench of the Liberal Party I presume that the noble Lord was performing a dual role. Of course, I fully accept that.
A good deal of anxiety has been expressed in the House this evening. I believe that a number of points have not been fully considered. Parliament has passed the Ports Act 1991. Therefore, all accusations of theft and so forth are quite unfounded. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, charged me with being disingenuous to the House. In no way is that true. The other points not fully taken on board by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and not recognised at all by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerned the protection and the fact that the successor company would inherit not only the assets but also the statutory obligations of the port. To all intents and purposes, that point was totally ignored by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his peroration. I firmly believe that this order, should it receive the approval of the House, will provide a number of benefits to Ipswich.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, objected to the fact that no compensation was to be offered to the people of Ipswich. I see no reason why any compensation should be paid to the people of Ipswich. Compensation is to cover losses, as it were. The assets owned by the trust port belong to the trust port itself. As it is a trust, by definition it has no legal owners. So the assets do not belong to the people of Ipswich; they belong to the trust port. We are taking the trust port into the private sector. We believe firmly that that will produce full benefits.
Another accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which was wrong was that there was no consultation. There was consultation. We followed to the letter what was laid down by the Act which Parliament approved some five years ago. The Act allowed six weeks for views to be expressed, and only two were received.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|