| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the noble Viscount makes a statement which is demonstrably untrue, he should withdraw it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall in no way withdraw that statement. I listened with very great care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and that is precisely what he implied.
However, I make no apology whatever for majoring on the success which the privatised port sector has enjoyed. Those companies have not chased away their customers by instantly whacking up their port charges so that no one wishes to use the ports any more. That is a quite unreasonable suggestion. People who are putting money into ports have every incentive to make sure that they receive a profitable return. That is done by keeping the customers happy. That must be the first lesson of private enterprise.
The second point which was not referred to but which I made in my opening remarks is in relation to the statutory protection which exists in terms of charges and the statutory right of appeal against unreasonable port dues. I mentioned that although that right has been in existence for some time, it has not been exercised by any of the former trust ports since they were privatised. Therefore, a right of appeal exists against excessive and unreasonable charges but that right has not been exercised.
The issue of pensions was raised. That is always an interesting topic to discuss in relation to privatisation measures. I can be quite categoric. The pension rights of former and existing employees are protected by generally applicable pensions legislation, principally the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pensions Act 1995. In addition, at Tyne, the pension fund set up by the port authority is controlled by independent trustees. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had some concerns on the subject. The funds are not and will not be at the disposal of the owner of the port even to the extent that there may be a surplus beyond anticipated requirements. I hope that that explanation and categoric assurance allays the fears of the noble Lord.
Noble Lords had fun on the subject of Dover and there was a lot of speculation. In fact, the Secretary of State has accepted Dover's arguments against privatisation before the impact of the Channel Tunnel can be better assessed. Dover's trade is almost exclusively ferry-based and about 90 per cent. of tonnage is ferry-related. But the important point, which perhaps those who spoke so vigorously on the subject of Dover have not realised or taken on board, is that the Dover board has also undertaken to privatise voluntarily and to bring forward plans in 1997. That categoric assurance must be taken into account.
Some comments were made about the increase in the value of ports since privatisation. The management of newly privatised ports has greatly improved efficiency and profitability, thus contributing to a significant increase in the underlying value of the ports since privatisation. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, invests, if he does, in companies from time to time, he would wish them to increase in value. That would be seen as an indication of the success rather than failure of the company.
There was considerable debate on a number of the provisions which the port authority wished to include in the scheme. In my opening remarks I covered the reasons why the Secretary of State felt that it is not appropriate to include those provisions; for example, there is no justification for a consultative committee since the successor company will be just as able as the port authority to continue good relations with local interests. Of course, as I mentioned, it will be in its commercial interests to do so as evidenced by what has already happened in the private sector.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in his series of remarks, talked about a 172 per cent. profit increase.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I referred to it as a pre-tax surplus.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that huge increase in the surplus must be looked at very carefully. Like must be compared with like. Tyne's pre-tax profit before exceptional items increased by only about 7 per cent. between 1992 and 1994. There was a large exceptional item in the accounts for 1992--£3 million shown as a charge for accelerated depreciation. By quoting an artificially low figure for 1992, it is possible to make subsequent years look very impressive by comparison. That must be taken into account.
Much was made of the representations, and rightly so. We look carefully at all representations made whether or not they are in a standard format. Some one-third of the representations were in a standard format while the remainder made very similar points using very similar words. That must be viewed in the light of the very strong campaign which was mounted by the Port of Tyne Authority. Notwithstanding that, all representations received were carefully considered before a final decision was made to proceed with the laying of the draft order. Much was said about the concerns of port users, heightened, I suggest, by not particularly balanced information on the subject.
I join my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth in commending the authority past and present on its achievements. He was right to draw attention, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to the achievements that have been made in Tyneside as a whole and the regeneration which has occurred there. If the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is not familiar with it, I suggest that he should make himself familiar with it because it is a very impressive achievement.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I did not say that I was not familiar. I said that the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, was not the picture with which I was familiar.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we could argue all night but I believe that most informed commentators recognise that a very difficult situation in the north-east has benefited substantially from considerable regeneration. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, recognised that in his remarks. I know that he has been a strong supporter of the regeneration which has taken place in the past.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I have said in a number of contributions in this Chamber that there have been improvements. It is difficult to say otherwise. However, the Government always refuse to recognise that the rate of unemployment in the northern region remains the highest in the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland. That is something which the Government do not really tackle with the ferocity they should.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to that, I should like to refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He is so opposed, apparently, to foreign ownership of the port of Newcastle and yet we see the trade through that port improved considerably by Japanese investment. Does my noble friend have any views on that?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not think that it is ever for me to try to deduce the reasoning behind the intervention of other noble Lords.
Perhaps I may return to the subject. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, give his endorsement of the situation and
of the progress and improvements which have been made in the north-east. They are recognised widely. We have had exchanges in the past on other matters concerning mining issues on which there has been agreement.I turn again to the speech of my noble friend Lord Elliott. He recognised the improvements which have been made in the north-east and the part which the Port of Tyne has played in that regeneration. However, my noble friend recognised the protection which exists in the transfer. He recognised that greater investment and innovation will come with the transfer of the port to the private sector. I sincerely hope that the House will recognise the advantages that will come from the transfer of the Port of Tyne into the private sector. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 13.
Addison, V.
Aldington, L.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Ashbourne, L.
Attlee, E.
Balfour, E.
Blatch, B.
Bowness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Brentford, V.
Byford, B.
Cadman, L.
Carnock, L.
Coleridge, L.
Courtown, E. [Teller.]
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] Crickhowell, L.
Cross, V.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Ellenborough, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Goschen, V.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Howe, E.
Inglewood, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Kingsland, L.
Lawrence, L.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Milverton, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Mottistone, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Renton, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Seccombe, B.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trumpington, B.
Ullswater, V.
Whitelaw, V.
Addington, L.
Geraint, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Redesdale, L. [Teller.]
Russell, E.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller.]
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tordoff, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Whaddon, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page