Freeports

HC Deb 02 February 1984 vol 53 cc411-23 3.54 pm

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about freeports.

Last year, in the course of his Budget statement my right hon. and learned Friend announced that, in accordance with the recommendations of a working party chaired by my noble Friend the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the Government had decided to designate a limited number of freeports on an experimental basis.

Subsequently, on 27 July I informed the House of the terms on which freeport applications would be assessed and invited applications to be submitted by 31 October. Forty-five applications were received by that date. On 3 November I listed the names in a written answer and I undertook to announce the successful candidates early in the new year.

Since November all 45 applications have been examined, first by officials and then by Ministers. As it was necessary to limit the numbers it was not possible to satisfy all of the applicants. My right hon. Friend and I, with ministerial colleagues, have made our choice with great care and no little difficulty and the House will understand that it would not be right — or proper, for reasons of commercial confidentiality — for me to attempt to explain why a particular application was successful and why another failed. Our selection achieves a mix of airports and seaports with a good geographical dispersion. This will enable the freeports concept to be properly tested and, as we have said, each of the initial freeports will be closely monitored and formally reviewed after five years.

We have chosen six sites. They are:

• Belfast—Northern Ireland Airports Limited.
• Birmingham—West Midlands Freeport Limited.
• Cardiff—Pearce (Wales) Consortium.
• Liverpool—Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.
• Prestwick—Kyle and Carrick district council and British Airports Authority.
• Southampton—Associated British Ports (Holdings) PLC.

The necessary enabling legislation will be included in the Finance Bill which my right hon. Friend will introduce next month. Discussions will begin immediately with the successful applicants with a view to designating and bringing the sites into operation as quickly as possible. In some cases it may be necessary for the plans submitted to be modified to some extent for operational reasons. I hope that the whole House will wish these ventures well.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Thurrock)

Does the Minister accept the conclusions of the working party's report that no tariff advantages can be gained from the freeports? Will he confirm that practically the only tangible advantage is cash flow relief and that that will lead to the concentration of goods in warehouses in some freeports until they are ready to be dispersed, at which point customs duty will have to be paid? Does he agree that that will merely give some ports an unfair advantage? It will relocate trade and jobs, concentrating them in the few ports which have been chosen by the Treasury. It will not create new jobs in the country as a whole.

Does the Minister agree that his announcement is no substitute for a real policy for the docks? The Government have abolished the National Ports Council and have no solution for the crisis facing the docks. The Tilbury port users committee, which might be expected to welcome the proposal referred, not to this policy, but to a policy to combat subsidies which are given to continental ports such as Rotterdam and Hamburg, through lower costs and, perhaps free pilotage and lighting. The committee would rather have had a sensible policy for the ports than this announcement. In view of the absence of a serious policy to deal with the crisis in our ports, it is not surprising that the Government were flooded with applications from areas which are desperate for jobs.

The Minister said that this was a geographical spread of freeports. That factor is supposed to have been taken into account, but east London, east Anglia, as Conservative Members will no doubt have noticed, Yorkshire, the north and north east, all areas of high unemployment, have not been taken into account in the Minister's statement. The General Council of British Shipping gave as its only praise for the idea the fact that the title of freeport is a marketable commodity. Does the Minister agree that the council has well summed up today's statement? It is a cosmetic solution. The Opposition would welcome Government policies or statements which were designed to create real jobs. This statement does not do that, and that is why we cannot welcome it unreservedly.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am sorry that the hon. Lady, in a rather long and, I thought, carping and sour response which was muddled in its reaction, adopted the line that she did, but I can confirm that under EC rules there are no tariff benefits. That was made clear by the working party, so there is nothing particularly new in what the hon. Lady said. There will be advantages, of course, in terms of cash flow. A main advantage may well be the marketing concept of a freeport. Benefits will flow also from the simplification of procedures and the reductions in compliance costs. This is a fairly modest initiative, but I expect that those who will benefit will not share the hon. Lady's sour reaction to it.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

Is the Minister aware that there will be great satisfaction in Northern Ireland following the announcement that Aldergrove is to be one of the freeports? Is he also aware that he and Northern Ireland Ministers will receive from the elected representatives and the Antrim borough council the widest possible co-operation?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

Will my hon. Friend accept that there will be widespread delight in Scotland that Prestwick has been chosen for a freeport, particularly so in the county of Ayrshire and in west and south-west Scotland? Will he take an early opportunity to explain to industry the advantages of freeports, so that it can make the best use of them?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of the Prestwick announcement. Publicity for that freeport or, indeed, for any of the others, must rest with those who are concerned intimately with the arrangements and the Government are not taking any responsibility in that matter. I should also make it clear that we have no financial commitment to these freeports other than to the customs staff who will be involved with them.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the Minister accept that those hon. Members of all parties who have been pressing for the establishment of a freeport at Prestwick are pleased that it has been chosen for one? It represents a glimmer of hope in the general gloom that surrounds employment in the country. Will the Minister accept that we hope that jobs will be provided by inward investment, particularly from North America, rather than by the relocation of jobs currently in the United Kingdom? If this scheme is to be successful, does the Minister agree that to impose a five-year experimental period does not show the kind of confidence in the concept which the Government ought to be showing?

Mr. Hayhoe

The hon. Gentleman's attitude will do more to effect the success of the freeport at Prestwick than will the attitude of his Front Bench. I am therefore grateful to him for what he said.

It is right that there should be a review. There should be an independent monitoring of the progress made by these freeports. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be done in a way that will not inhibit their development.

Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)

I must express my expected desappointment at the exclusion of Manchester airport. I wish to make a point to my hon. Friend, not simply on a local matter, but going wider. Is it not the case that the freeport is intended to be an engine of economic development? If that is one of the objectives, is it not slightly unwise to have as an objective the spreading of the goodies as widely as possible, when we should be looking for those operations which are most likely to provide the biggest dynamo for the areas in which they are situated?

Mr. Hayhoe

I can well understand my hon. Friend's disappointment that Manchester was not chosen, but I know he will understand when I say that having selected Liverpool and Birmingham to have included Manchester would have meant an undue concentration in one broad area of the country. I accept what he said on the wider point.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

Is the Minister aware that there will be some resentment and even anger in Scotland, in view of the disappearing industrial base of the country, that only one port has been chosen? Is he also aware that there will be great satisfaction that the one chosen is Prestwick, since that town has been denied its right as one of the premier airports of the country, due to the indifference over the years of British Governments and the petty-minded and parochial attitudes of the councils of Glasgow and Edinburgh?

Mr. Hayhoe

I noted the great difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman in saying anything agreeable about the selection of Prestwick.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton (Crosby)

I must tell my hon. Friend how delighted all Merseyside will be, and relieved too, that Liverpool has been included in the list. It is a tribute to the support that has come from Members on both sides of the House for this application. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is further evidence of the Government's commitment to Merseyside and that, together with the international garden festival this year, this could well be Liverpool's year?

Mr. Hayhoe

I share with my hon. Friend and the other Members representing Liverpool their hope that this will assist in the revival of Liverpool and that the international garden festival will be a great success.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

Can the Minister say at this stage whether registered dock workers will be employed at the freeports? [Interruption.] Questions are being asked of the Minister, and not of the rabble opposite. Will the Minister say whether the conditions laid down by the National Dock Labour Board will be applicable at the freeport, and whether local authority responsibilities will be affected in any way by the regulations governing the freeport?

Mr. Hayhoe

I do not believe that any of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for me and, therefore, the operators of the freeports concerned.

Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme)

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be disappointment in Manchester that the city with the second largest international airport in the United Kingdom, outside the south-east, has been excluded? Can my hon. Friend give his reasons more fully than he did to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester)?

Mr. Hayhoe

As I have indicated, I do not think that it would be advantageous to seek to give reasons why certain of the sites were selected or others were not, but I accept what my hon. Friend said about the merit of the application for Manchester.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I know that this is a matter of great interest to all hon. Members who have been seeking to intervene, and I shall endeavour to call them all, but I appeal for short supplementary speeches—[Laughter]—supplementary questions, I mean.

Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South)

I, too, disagree with the view expressed from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on behalf of the Labour party. I thank the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for acting on the advice of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and designating Prestwick as Scotland's first freeport. Is the Minister aware that his announcement will give great pleasure to the people of Ayrshire, especially the unemployed, and those of us who have been campaigning for a number of years on behalf of Prestwick? It will give a fresh start to Prestwick and, as such, it can only be a good thing for the area.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I think in December 1982, and it was agreeable to be able to make a decision in harmony with that recommendation.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision that he has made to include Northern Ireland will be widely welcomed throughout the Province? I am sure that he is aware that the Assembly's Economic Committee made strong representations to have a freeport in Northern Ireland. Does he understand that there will be regrets in Northern Ireland that the facility will not be divided between the international airport and Belfast harbour? Will he go a step further and declare a customs-free zone for Londonderry harbour and Belfast harbour?

Mr. Hayhoe

I do not think that it would be right for me to go beyond what I have already said. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that there is support from both sides of the House for the announcement that I have made.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Does the Minister realise that there will be considerable disappointment in Aberdeen that the city has not been designated a freeport? Will he acknowledge that the concept of a freeport appears to have changed between the original outline and the final award and designation? The original idea, as I understood it, and as the working party explained it, was that the designation should underwrite and secure economic success. No area is more successful than Aberdeen, yet it has been denied freeport designation for reasons which I suspect are political.

Mr. Hayhoe

I do not think that it would be wise to go into the precise reasons, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the attractions of the Aberdeen application. As I have said, I am sorry that some areas have not been selected.

Mr. Gerald Malone (Aberdeen, South)

Will my hon. Friend carefully explain to the House why the Treasury took the trouble to set out the criteria which applications for freeports had to meet, when in Scotland the only applicant to meet the criteria, Aberdeen, was not successful?

Mr. Hayhoe

I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion. All the sites that have been chosen meet the broad criteria that were set out.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

Will the Minister address himself to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? There is some anxiety that the Government—not the operators—might "do a GCHQ" on the freeports. This has happened in parts of the developing world where there are no trade union rights, and it could happen in the freeports because the areas will be cut off from the normal economy. Will he give an undertaking that the Government will not do that?

Secondly, how many new jobs does the Minister think will be created by the freeports? I campaigned for Liverpool to be included in the designation, although I had doubts about the concept. I took the view that if we were to have one we wanted it in Bootle. Will the Minister give an estimate of how many new jobs will come to the area, and will he say whether he thinks the freeport status of Liverpool will enable the area to attract trade from Hamburg and Rotterdam?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, true to form, seeks to impose some sinister interpretation on what is a straightforward announcement and straightforward action by the Government in designating six sites. The dock labour issue is for the operators concerned, not for the Government. Whether any of the freeports will attract trade from other freeports in Europe or elsewhere must be a matter for the operators. I wish them well in attracting such trade and making a success of their ventures.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

Is my hon. Friend aware that his list shows some inconsistency? He has backed some winners and some losers. But therein lies the secret, for it will be a real test of the idea of freeports. In backing Southampton he has most certainly backed a potential winner. I am sure that he would like to pay tribute to Associated British Ports and its presentation, which did so much in persuading him that the port, which is becoming of growing importance in the European context, should be on his list.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome, and especially for the selection of Southampton. I agree that there is a reasonable mix in the sites that we have designated. That reasonable mix will allow the freeport concept to be properly tested.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

As I come from an area which benefits by the decision that has been announced today, I thank the Minister for the decision. However, I am mindful of the worries that other Members must have who represent areas which are not included in his list of six.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: (Bolsover)

I have no worries.

Mr. Field

Even though my hon. Friend does not have worries, I do.

Mr. Skinner

Get on with it.

Mr. Field

I am on my feet and I am trying to speak to the Minister.

Mr. Skinner

Get on with it, then.

Mr. Field

I shall be a lot quicker if the hon. Member shuts up.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I understand, but this does take time.

Mr. Field

I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). May I lastly say, if I am allowed to—

Mr. Skinner

Get off your knees.

Mr. Field

The hon. Member obviously has difficulty distinguishing feet from knees. That is a basic problem. There has been a debate locally about the wisdom of the scheme. However, now that the decision has been made, I hope that all of us will pull together to make a success of the designation.

Mr. Hayhoe

I think that a majority of Members will share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), especially at the end of his question, including those in his remarks to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

Will my hon. Friend understand that there is great disappointment in the Medway towns, including my own constituency, which contains the port of Sheerness? This is felt particularly following the closure of the Chatham dockyard and in the light of the other advantages which we felt we had. One wishes success to all the other applicants, but is it not strange that of the six selected not one is an example of the newer expanding ports, which one would have thought would be natural applicants for freeport status? Is there any prospect of the list being reopened before the expiry of the five-year experimental period?

Mr. Hayhoe

When one selects six out of 45—my hon. Friend will know that there were voices saying that fewer should have been chosen—it is inevitable that some categories and groups will not fall within the selection. This initiative should not be regarded as the only action that is being taken by the Government that will be of some assistance to certain areas.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Will the Minister remind the House of the advantages of freeports over existing bonding operations in existing ports? If there are no advantages, why is the programme being introduced? If there are advantages, surely it puts the existing bonding operations at a commercial disadvantage.

Mr. Hayhoe

As the working party's report made clear, there are no specific tariff advantages. It will be open to unsuccessful applicants to discuss with customs other procedural arrangements which could provide somewhat similar benefits. I have made that clear in the past in the House in respect of the Isle of Man initiative, which was introduced under existing legislation. The 45 applications, which were spread so widely throughout the United Kingdom, showed considerable interest among operators for these benefits.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Will he acknowledge that there are many of us who represent areas whose applications have not been successful who have no feelings of sour grapes and wish to see success? Will he confirm that nothing in his statement will deny the right to set up export-free processing zones to those who wish to do so under existing Customs and Excise legislation, which is exactly what, with total confidence in our area, we shall do in Thanet?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The present customs arrangements allow certain procedural arrangements to be made which can benefit those concerned.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockport, South)

Is the Minister aware that I and my colleagues welcome this concept and wish well the areas that have been chosen? However, does he agree that on this day of all days, when we have the highest level of unemployment in recent times, as announced this morning, the initiative is an inadequate response to the high levels of unemployment? Why has the northern region, which has the highest level of unemployment in the country, not been given one of the freeports? If the Minister is not able to designate one of the areas in the region as a freeport, will he reconsider with his Treasury colleagues the application by Teesside airport to introduce duty-free facilities and persuade customs and excise to provide at least that relief to the provisions of the airport?

Mr. Hayhoe

Since the initiative of designating freeports was not intended to be a response to high unemployment, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. It was never intended for that purpose. Customs duties at the airport are a separate question, but I am prepared to look at any further representations by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)

Following the rather carping question of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), I assure my hon. Friend that if Merseyside is not especially happy about having the freeport, Manchester would be delighted to have it. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the requirements for freeport status as stated in the July memorandum—that there should be trade demand and economic viability, that there would be no extra funds from central Government, and that it should be possible to do the necessary work quickly. As Manchester international airport fulfils all those requirements, will my hon. Friend explain why we are being bypassed? Is he aware that some of us are getting a little sick of Manchester being treated as a poor relation in the north-west?

Mr. Hayhoe

The description of Manchester as a poor relation is a long way from reality. I assure my hon. Friend that a number of sites which fully met all the criteria were excluded from selection, and I made that clear earlier. I have not said that those six sites were the only ones that met the criteria. I said that my right hon. Friend and I and the other Ministers involved had a difficult task in selecting what we believed was a reasonable group which would cause the concept of freeports to be properly tested.

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)

As the Member representing the Liverpool docklands area and Riverside, I welcome Liverpool's designation as a freeport, although I appreciate that it will not provide a panacea for Merseyside's economic problems. Can the Minister give an assurance that trade union views, planning, health and safety regulations and minimum wages will be observed within the freeport areas?

Mr. Hayhoe

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no difference between what occurs inside and outside the freeport zone in relation to safety requirements and the other aspects to which he referred. His question gives me an opportunity to say that a particularly stupid article in, I believe, the New Statesmen last November which suggested otherwise was absolute bosh.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

Will my hon. Friend accept my gratitude and that of most hon. Members at the arrival, at last, of freeports in this country? My sadness, which is shared by many hon. Members, is that the thriving port of Newhaven in my constituency is not one of those appointed. Will my hon. Friend reassess the period needed to measure this test to ascertain whether the time can be brought down to below five years? Will he tell the House the number of freeports that will be allowed then to expand this helpful instrument for the economy?

Mr. Hayhoe

It is better for me to make no commitments about the future. Let us see how we go. I am attacked on two sides. It is said that five years is too short a period to allow proper assessment of the viability of any of the ports, and now my hon. Friend offers me the opportunity to say that five years is too long. I believe that five years is about right.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous disappointment that will be felt in the east midlands now that once again that area has been omitted from the Government's initiatives, in spite of great and growing unemployment and the ideal facilities at east midlands airport? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to draw the anger and irritation of the east midlands to the attention of his colleagues, not least to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Hayhoe

My right hon. Friend has heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman has had to say.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)

Are there any provisions to take freeport status from those areas which do not use it properly, as may be apparent from the statements of hon. Members who represent Liverpool constituencies? If there are such provisions, Manchester will welcome the opportunity to become a freeport. The people of Manchester believe that Liverpool is adopting the status of the prodigal son, and they are fed up to the back teeth with Liverpool being rewarded with the fatted calf.

Mr. Hayhoe

No open-ended commitment is being made by the Government to continue to provide the official resources — the customs and manpower —required to control freeport zones. That is why we are having a review. If the review shows that any of the sites designated has failed to work well and does not have the opportunity and potential for the future, the Government will take the necessary action.

Mr. Skinner

Is the Minister aware that when the election was fought in June the Labour party manifesto made no reference to freeports, and not one Labour Member of Parliament of the 200-odd who were returned to the House was elected on the basis of a mandate which" included freeports, whether in England, Scotland or Wales?

Mr. Lambie

Speak for yourself.

Mr. Skinner

It was not in the Labour manifesto. Will the Minister bear in mind also that some of us are not kidded about this freeport? They are not free and they are not ports. This is nothing more than a confidence trick. A few years ago we had another one called enterprise zones. Enterprise zones were going to solve the problems of a few areas in the country. We do not hear much about them now.

Hon. Members

Question.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It would help the House and me if the hon. Member occasionally said, "Is the Minister aware".

Mr. Skinner

I think that you will find, Mr. Speaker, if you look in Hansard tomorrow and check with those people up there in the Press Gallery, that my opening words were "Is the Minister aware that as far as the Labour manifesto is concerned"—do hon. Members want me to continue?

Is the Minister further aware that what he has said today will not stop the trail of human misery in the Liverpool and Merseyside area and all the other areas that are involved? His policies, which have brought about the 50,000 or more bankruptcies and resulted in more than 4 million people trying to get work, need to be changed. Only in that way—not by the Minister's statement today—can we get Britain back to work.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the Labour party manifesto at the last election. I found it a great winner for the Tory party. The more often the electorate are reminded of its existence and the fact that at least some Labour party Members still support it, the better our chance of political success.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh, West)

Is my hon. Friend aware that Edinburgh's application for a freeport will stand until the day when the number of freeports will, I hope, be increased? Is he further aware that, notwithstanding some disappointment from Aberdeen and Edinburgh, the Prestwick decision will be widely welcomed, because not only is Prestwick the home of the Scottish aircraft industry, but the decision will greatly assist service industries?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has expressed his disappointment by wishing the freeport at Prestwick well.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)

Is the Minister aware that many Labour Members have at no time supported the concept of freeports? Once the Government had come forward with a policy of free ports—[Interruption.] Each hon. Member must concern himself with his own people in his own areas, especially if his has the highest level of unemployment in the country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if my area had not been designated a freeport the future of the port of Liverpool as a whole would have been hanging in the balance? Is he aware also that some of us, especially me, have had discussions with the port authority and have received categorical assurances that the wages and conditions of the port workers will be maintained at the same level, that all those who work at the freeport will be free to join their trade unions and enjoy those wages and conditions, that the local authorities concerned will not lose any rates and that the customs duties will continue once goods move from the freeport? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that—

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)

Too long.

Mr. Heller

It may be too long for the hon. Gentleman, but many of us who are deeply worried about the future of our areas, although we do not like the concept, are prepared and happy to accept that it is better than nothing. It cannot be a substitute for the Government coming forward with proper policies to deal with unemployment and economic development throughout the country.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about discussions with the operator for the Liverpool freeport. If he had passed on that information to his hon. Friends earlier rather than giving it in the House now he might have saved some time and avoided the raising of various questions which are not really matters for me. I have noted the other points that he made.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising, but there is an important debate to follow and I ask them please to be brief.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

I wish the experimental freeports every success. My hon. Friend expressed the hope that the operators would be successful in obtaining traffic from freeports in Europe. As there is no freeport on the east coast of the United Kingdom, how does he expect the freeports to succeed in that respect?

Mr. Hayhoe

It is not for me to judge how the traffic will go, but if the facilities and services offered when the freeports that I have announced come fully into operation are attractive on a world basis they will undoubtedly attract further traffic to this country, to our considerable advantage. I accept that no site has been designated on the east coast. As I said earlier, in choosing six out of 45 it was extremely difficult to cover all the various combinations and groupings which I knew would be mentioned when the House considered the matter.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the regret that will be felt in the city of Bristol that the freeport has gone to the wrong side of the Bristol channel? Will he bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when assisted areas and regional development aid are considered by the House next Tuesday?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly undertake to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to his comments.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the carping from the Opposition Front Bench and some Liverpool Members, the people of Merseyside are extremely grateful for the consideration the Government have shown in granting them a freeport and will grasp the opportunity to make something out of it?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that his predictions will be fully justified.

Mr. Steen

I congratulate my hon. Friend on putting into practice one of the recommendations of that splendid publication, "New Life for Old Cities", which advocated freeports. Will he have regard, however, to the problems of bureaucracy when setting up the freeports? Will he bear in mind especially the American experience that the advantages may be negatived, especially in relation to policing, if the Government are not sensitive to the way in which the freeports are run? Will the Government study the way in which freeports are run in the United States?

Mr. Hayhoe

I believe that the working group sought advice from other freeport operators, but I will certainly draw the attention of Customs and Excise to the points made by my hon. Friend. As to the reference to his earlier publication, I had forgotten the debt that we owe to my hon. Friend in this matter.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be deep dismay in Aberdeen that no freeport site has been selected in that area? In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), my hon. Friend said that all the applicants met the criteria. Will he confirm that the land on which the Prestwick freeport will be sited is owned by the Scottish Development Agency—a Government-sponsored body — and that Kyle and Carrick district council proposes to be involved in the administration? As public money will be spent by those two authorities, the application does not meet the criteria laid down by the Government, so will my hon. Friend reconsider the decision?

Mr. Hayhoe

I do not think that my hon. Friend's comments will attract much support in the House, save from one or two of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members who wish to press the claims of other areas. I can only repeat that the broad criteria were met—not by all the applicants, as my hon. Friend suggested, but by all the sites that have been designated.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that Prestwick should have freeport status before the Government said they would consider such decisions? Is he aware that that was a unanimous view and that Labour Members of the Select Committee played a major part in the work that was done?

Mr. Hayhoe

I accept that the Select Committee made that clear recommendation in December 1980 and I understood that it found support in all parts of the House. I believe, therefore, that our announcement will attract wide support in Scotland, although I accept that people who would have preferred their own areas to be chosen will be sorry that they were not.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Billericay)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and the commitment to free enterprise. Does he agree that hon. Members should temper their regional or constituency disappointment by wishing success to all six of the applications selected and ensure that they have a profitable future? Does he agree also that the attitude of the hon. Member leading for the Opposition might have been different if a freeport had been designated in the constituency of Thurrock?

Mr. Hayhoe

I have no reason to suppose that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) expressed other than the views appropriate for her to express as Front Bench spokesman for her party.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

As a great supporter of and believer in freeports, may I say how pleased I am that we have the original six? Although I wish that the east midlands airport had been one, I hope that it will be considered favourably in the next round. The enterprise zones, to which we wished success when they were announced, have proved successful and created many jobs, and I am sure that the freeports will do the same. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the people of the east midlands would like to be considered at a later stage?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his positive and constructive comments.

Mr. Timothy Yeo (Suffolk, South)

As Felixstowe is the most modern and profitable port in the country and was described by The Times last year as the nearest thing to an economic miracle in the British ports industry, and as it is an outstanding example of what private industry can achieve in an area previously dominated by moribund public sector attitudes, does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to exclude Felixstowe from the list of six seems to run counter to the Government's philosophy and will be greeted with great disappointment throughout Suffolk and the whole of East Anglia, especially as there is no east coast port on the list?

Mr. Hayhoe

I agree with my hon. Friend that Felixstowe is a highly successful port with a tremendous track record over the past 10 years. Its exclusion from the selection that I have announced in no way detracts from what it has already achieved or from what I believe will be its glittering future.

Dr. McDonald

Will the Minister just tell us how many new jobs will be created by the freeport scheme?

Mr. Hayhoe

No, I cannot make that prediction. So far as I know, none of those who have supported the concept of freeports has been able to give such a figure. Nevertheless, in making their applications the individual operators have stated that new jobs will flow. If their predictions of the success of their operations are fulfilled. that should be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House.