Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill (By Order) (Hansard, 15 March 1990)

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is essentially a Government measure. It is a public measure. It is part of Government policy to privatise the ports of the land.
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping, who is in his place now, has made various statements to the effect that the Government cannot find time to put these privatisation measures through the House properly. He has therefore urged companies or authorities such as the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to use the private route. Similar statements were made by the previous Secretary of State for Transport. Two years ago, he urged the docks, including Tees and Hartlepool, to take the private route. That was confirmed by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
My submission to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this should not be private business. Lord Graham made the same point earlier in the week in another place. He said that the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill that was before the other place should not be dealt with in this way. We believe that it is an abuse by the Executive of the legislature and that by means of private business the Executive are endeavouring to implement Government business.

§ Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the procedure is absolutely correct in this instance. My hon. Friends——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Order. It would be more appropriate for the Chair to rule on whether the procedure is appropriate.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for having given notice that he intended to raise the point. Mr. Speaker has considered the matter. He is satisfied that the Bill is proper to be proceeded with as a private Bill, since it is concerned with the regulation of an authority that was established by means of a private Act. If hon. Members consider that it is undesirable for the change of status of the authority to be brought about in this way, their appropriate course is to vote against the measure.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When the Tees Navigation Act was passed in 1808, the position was slightly different from what it is today. There was a clear and essential need to establish an effective management body to help the traders on Teesside to develop their foreign and domestic trade. However, ever since 1808 there has been state regulation of the port.
It is interesting to note from a historical point of view that the people who were originally entrusted by law in 1808 with looking after the well-being of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's predecessor were the 44 burgesses who were riparian owners of the land on either side of the river. In this age of feminine equality, it is 733 interesting to note that four of the 44 were ladies. That shows that, in the north-east, we were ahead of the game then, as we are ahead of the game now.
The parallel with the present is relevant. The trade prospects for this community, and for the north-east as a whole, are being restricted. This fresh initiative will sweep away the legislative shackles which are restricting the development of trade.
The docks under the control of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority have changed beyond all recognition, but the legal restrictions on its activities are essentially the same as they have been for 180 years. The movement of goods through the European market is now dominated by the requirement of manufacturers and customers for door-to-door, time-definite deliveries. Port facilities are no longer gateways between home and foreign markets but links in a continuous transport chain within a single worldwide market. Ports cannot stand still in the face of change.
The Bill will change the status of the authority to that of a normal commercial enterprise and will release it from the constraints of "trust" status. Only then can our third largest port compete effectively in the modern world of a single European market.
Trust ports are a peculiarly British concept. They are to be found only in this country. They have developed by virtue of circumstances rather than as a result of any express policy or planned development. The ports of Tees and Hartlepool together handle between 30 million and 40 million tonnes of goods each year—mainly oil, ore, cars, steel, forest products and containers. They form the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom, coming only after London and Sullom Voe, and employ 828 people.
At present, the authority is allowed to use its money only to maintain the ports. It could, if it wished, gold-plate the cranes on the quayside. It has enough money to do so. In his Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) described the authority as being run in an exemplary fashion, with an impressive record by any standards. Despite that commercial success, within its present limitations the law prevents it from expanding. The port has the potential to become a driving force for commercial expansion in the north-east, creating new wealth and new jobs.

§ Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)
The hon. Gentleman emphasised the fact that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority can invest only in port-related activities or in port development. However, in 1984–85, the port authority did not feel that it was bound by the alleged restriction and invested in property, finance, aviation, air travel, timber importing, transport, display signs, storage, security fencing and engineering. If the restrictions are as tight as the hon. Gentleman says, why is it that, only five years ago, the port authority could invest in such a wide range of products?

§ Mr. Holt
The reason is that the authority has a wise and good management. The law as it stands at the moment says: Powers are exercisable only for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein or in connection therewith and for the reclamation of land.

§ Mr. Cook
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the port authority broke the law?

§ Mr. Holt
I am saying that, within that constraint, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority properly invested money in areas that were within that definition If it wanted to open a fish and chip shop to sell the excellent fish of Whitby, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), it would not be allowed to do so under the current legislation. It wants to expand and grow. It does not wish to be held back by the 1808 and subsequent legislative restrictions that have been placed upon it.
The port has the potential to become a driving force for commercial expansion in the north-east of England as a whole, creating new wealth and new jobs. I find it strange—indeed, perverse and bizarre—that Opposition Members are seeking to stifle the opportunity that is presented by the Bill. The authority currently has cash reserves of nearly £30 million and last year made a profit on trading of over £10 million, despite the Labour party's efforts to encourage a damaging strike.
The authority is simply not allowed to utilise its money effectively, and yet—within sight of the authority's land—there are development projects and even an enterprise zone in which the authority would dearly love to invest, if only it were allowed to do so. Teesside is at the forefront of the Government's urban regeneration policies. All of us from that area will vouch for that.
Over recent years, THPA has contributed to the success of most of the Teesside development corporation's flagship schemes and it is now time for it to be allowed to invest in other projects. The success of schemes such as the Hartlepool marina and the Tees offshore base, which are joint ventures with the Teesside development corporation, testify to the active role that the authority is waiting 143 play in regenerating the area that I and my colleagues have the honour to represent in the House. The restrictions of trust status are an absurd anachronism which cannot be allowed to continue.
Last year, the Government freed the port industry from the burden of the dock labour scheme—not before time, as I shall hear from many of my colleagues. That has done much to put United Kingdom ports on an equal footing with their continental competitors, but much more still needs to be done. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is determined to capitalise on the new opportunities provided by the single European market and by the expansion in world trade. It has today announced the creation of two new companies to spearhead its expansion drive in the north-east: THPA Distribution and Services Ltd. and THPA Developments Ltd.

§ Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much imported coal will come up the river once the port gets on the go?

§ Mr. Holt
As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of coal comes into the port now for the British steel industry on Teesside. I understand that, beyond that, there are no plans for the importation of coal.
The creation of the new companies is one of the first practical steps towards creating new wealth and jobs in the north-east, but their success depends on the authoritiy being able to cast off the straitjacket of trust status now so that full preparations for 1992 and beyond can proceed immediately. That can be achieved only—I repeat, only—by the Bill.
735 The implications of the Bill will be widespread for the region. Under the twin curses of the dock labour scheme and trust status, the number of people employed by the authority has declined steadily and will continue to do so until the authority is given the freedom to expand, reversing the trend of many years by employing more and more people in a wider range of jobs. The new jobs will not only come directly from the port itself. The increased investment in the area and the injection of many millions of pounds into the local economy will have a knock-on effect, creating a host of jobs in the construction, transport, leisure and other industries.
The Labour party has tried to peddle the myth that reconstitution will deprive the local community of a say in how the port is run. Let me explode that myth now. The port is not owned by a company, by the local authority or by the Government, so it is accountable to nobody except its board. That board is appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport from people who have particular areas of expertise, but who are not appointed as representatives of the local people.
The port is not accountable financially or otherwise to the Secretary of State—indeed, it is not accountable to anyone else. The board can make decisions and it is accountable to no one. After the Bill has been passed, the plc will be responsible to its shareholders. The authority has deliberately chosen a method of issuing the shares of the new company that will ensure that the local community has a major stake in it. It guarantees that the shares will go to the staff and to local pension funds, and I am sure that the trustees of the Cleveland county council pension fund will see the wisdom of investing in this good thing, and will do so as soon as they can.

§ Mr. Neville Trotter (Tynemouth)
Is my hon. Friend aware that business in the north-east is very much behind his proposal that the future success of the port is vital to the interests of the north-east and that there is a strong feeling of support from north-east business for the Bill? Does he further agree that one of the traditional weaknesses of the north-east has been the lack of commercial headquarters? By means of the Bill, will he not create a further commercial headquarters which can show success in other directions as well as the success that it has already shown in managing the port?

§ Mr. Holt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He of all people from the north-east of England has a wide knowledge of industry and commerce. He is constantly in touch with all the people in the region—[Interruption.]—who are responsible not just for shouting from the other side, but for creating wealth and jobs, and giving other people the opportunity to earn a living. My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the whole of the north-east of England, except a few Opposition morons—most of whom are sitting in the Chamber this evening—is waiting for the Bill to be passed.
The authority's commitment to Teesside needs no emphasis by me, but is confirmed by the inclusion in the Bill of every statutory safeguard that is contained in present legislation for the port, the users and the region. The Bill, as I have said, is supported by everyone in the area who recognises the great potential of a reconstituted 736 port in the private sector. Over 100 of my hon. Friends have put their names to an early-day motion backing the Bill, which is almost unique.
The leader of the county of Cleveland's Conservative group has described it as an initiative which will benefit the people of Cleveland greatly and as an opportunity to generate wealth and create much needed employment". That support has been echoed by all the leading local Conservatives in Cleveland, as well as by the Confederation of British Industry regionally and nationally. Although he obviously cannot take a view on a private Bill, I hope that later this evening my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will confirm that the Government's policy is still that commercial enterprises fare best in the private sector.
In an area that hon. Members of all parties recognise needs more self-generated investment to build on the high level of investment already provided by the Government and the private sector, there exists a commercially successful organisation which is bursting at the seams with potential investment for the region.

§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull)
You were supposed to have said that with emphasis.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Holt
I am quite happy for Opposition morons to make as much noise as they like. They have no logical arguments and they have not put many questions to me.
There exists a commercially very successful organisation—[Interruption.] Ridicule is no comment; it is merely the means by which Opposition Members show their ignorance of what is happening in the north-east of England. The Bill will rid the authority of the disablement of trust status, allowing it to expand and, at the same time, it will give the local community a major stake in one of the greatest assets of Teesside—its port. I am sure that such widespread support will be reflected by hon. Members. It is essential for the development of commerce and jobs in the north-east that hon. Members allow the Bill to go forward to receive the detailed scrutiny of a Select Committee. I ask the House please to support it for the good of Cleveland, the north-east of England and Britain as a whole.

§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)
More than 25 years ago I took an interest in what was happening in the ports on the Tees and in the bay in which Hartlepool is located. I can recall vividly our many vexing and taxing debates on the Bill that set up the first estuarial authority in England. The Bill inculcated disgust in the minds of many people because at that time the port of Hartlepool was suffering the consequences of a deep depression. We suspected that the proposals that were to become the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 would leave Hartlepool defenceless.
We debated in the Grand hotel in Hartlepool—not that we needed any sustenance. The challenge was there and we accepted that certain interests were involved. There was an arrogant presumption that those in positions of authority in the port world knew far better than any elected Member of Parliament what was best for the area. Unfortunately, the converse is always true. An elected Member has an 737 obligation to look at the broad background of matters of concern to the people whom he or she represents. The authority officials do not have that remit. They are there to make the port work and, if they are good at their job, they are outstandingly essential. The two roles are complementary. The elected Member represents the broader background of issues and interests and the port officials who seek to run the port at a profit have the specialist professionalism. Those are highly interesting roles in the development of any business or public utility, industry or agency that is accountable to the Government.
I distrusted the Bill because it did not appear to contain an undertaking to keep the port of Hartlepool alive. Rather, it suggested the repeal of legislation that protected the port. I had to come here as a new Member and, for the first time, sit among experienced Members and say, "I object." That was great fun. It worked magic. The Bill just went back. I did not realise that the Chairman of Ways and Means had powers to bring it back quickly. The Bill stayed its course and the Parliamentary Commissioner was awfully decent about it. Then I introduced a clause to protect Hartlepool. But I am not so green now. My naivety and lack of experience then was accompanied by a spot of good fortune, but this time I bring to the House a considerable amount of experience.
Why, when the argument for an estuarial authority was so good 25 years ago, do we want to change it now? The Rochdale report made a number of excellent recommendations that benefited British ports. The port that I represented was saved and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has gone from success to success and has been blessed with good management, despite the oddballs. There are a couple there now, but they are of no account in the end because, like all of us. they come and go and serve their time in the middle.
Did someone sit down one bright morning in Queen's square, Middlesbrough and say to himself, "I think we should go in for privatisation"? I do not think anyone did that. The Minister said, "It's time you did some good thinking and got rid of the old-fashioned dock labour scheme.- We thought that we were fighting for a principle. We thought that we should keep the scheme since it had done the dockers a reasonably good turn in their time. It got them over the transitional period of depression that scars the working lives of people in our ports and in our industries.
But some of us forgot that the first stepping stone to privatisation was the pre-emption of something else. The Government have a policy on privatisation. I happen to be a senior Chairman in the House. I notice that one of my colleagues has now left the Chamber. I hope that he will not return because we do not want his vote tonight.
The Government's administrative wheels are a little clogged up and they have introduced three private Bills as test cases. I suspect that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is an agent provocateur for the Government. One or two of those involved may be on the list of the good and the great and a couple of knighthoods might come along in a few years' time. I do not object to that as a means of rewarding people for services done, but it is nice to mention it.
Why privatisation? The port is highly profitable. It has between £20 million and £30 million in cash floating around. It has about £60 million worth of assets. Its capital returns are running at about 18 per cent. The volume of traffic is as outstanding as the hon. Member for 738 Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said. We do not quarrel about small matters of fact like that, only about a change of approach. Some talk about political philosophy, but I prefer to talk about good common sense.
Why should a highly successful trust authority want to venture into the questionable waters of privatisation? The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that everybody wanted this change. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is here, although he comes from a place somewhat foreign to our Teesside. Still, we are pleased to see him back in the country, interfering in our little local matters.
The local authority, the county council, Hartlepool council and other district councils do not agree with the port authority. I have here a letter signed by Mr. D. B. Winney, the director of ABBA Shipping Limited, Union dock, Hartlepool. He says in his letter, which was published in a newspaper: The Port Authority have, in recent years, in any case not felt bound by the alleged restriction of being an 'estuary-wide port organisation' because in 1984–85, they invested funds in companies, some of which were well outside Cleveland County, who were involved in property, finance, aviation, air travel, timber importing, transport, display signs, storage, security fencing and engineering. That is what Tees and Hartlepool port authority is doing now, under the Act. The authority has not rebutted that accusation and it takes a great interest in such newspaper articles.
That poses a question: what is it that the port authority cannot do in the private sector because of the restrictions of the Act? Hon. Members are briefed on debates, and if any hon. Member can tell me that he has been advised by the port authority that it is not true that it has engaged in these private ventures, I shall come to the House and apologise because I will have been misled by a respectable employer.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
That is very fair.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
It is fair.
I have another question: why are we going through this arduous task, this highly expensive exercise, of a private Bill? In December 1989, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said, he had an Adjournment debate on this subject. He referred to the Rochdale report, which recommended, wisely, that, with the unfolding of the new port system for the principal estuarial ports, and the linking of the ports, it would be helpful if Ministers were given the power to amend, by affirmative resolution, in such a manner as to meet the changing wishes of port authorities.
If an hon. Member who has argued for saving a port that he represents and concluded that the exercise was worth it because of the formation of the first estuarial authority in the 1966 Act, then finds that the port authority has invested—I presume wisely—in a number of different economic sectors, why should he support this expensive business of doing something on the pretext that those activities cannot be carried out? If the authority can invest in aviation, signposting and all the rest of it, where else does it want to invest?

§ Mr. Holt
Like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in his Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) uses, cleverly, words such as "suggested"—the committee under Rochdale "suggested" changes. There is no evidence of those suggestions being implemented.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
No, but if Governments have the will, they have all the facilities available to them to do just that. I have spent much of my time in the House of Commons chairing Committees considering statutory instruments. I find orders coming to the House late at night when nearly everyone has gone so that they go through easily. Any Minister or Secretary of State can have his way through a variety of ways and means. I do not argue with that, but I argue that Tees and Hartlepool port authority has introduced an expensive measure to enable it to do something that it is doing already.
Mr. Winney has something interesting to say about the Bill. He says: The most ominous part of the proposed Bill being published is in Part III, paragraph 12, which allows the current members of the authority to transfer en bloc to the new Trust (or holding company) being set up to continue the undertaking. These people will then be able to continue in perpetuity, appointing the chairman of their choice and replacing members who leave the authority with their own nominees. Their power will be absolute. Under schedule 2, paragraph 9, they will be able to fix their own remuneration". That is not an inconsiderable advantage. I know of one man who hopes to God that his industry will be privatised next year, because he has found that his fellow chairmen are getting more money as they are free to make up their own pay slip.
Mr. Winney continues: Finally, under Part III, section 14 (4) 'The Trust may … provide for one or more employees' share schemes to be established in respect of the holding company: and any such scheme may provide for the transfer of the shares without consideration.' In other words, the reserves will be released not 'for the good of Teesside' but for the good of past, present and future members of the authority. A corollary of that point is that other people will benefit. As Mr. Winney says, chairmen can be appointed for life. There will be a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" attitude. The old golf club pals will be at it and they will make their own appointments. It is happening now.
Under article 3 of the Tees and Hartlepool Ports Authority Constitution Revision Order 1978 the local authority is able to appoint not fewer than two and not more than three people from a local panel on to the board. However, under article 3(5)(a), the Secretary of State can also appoint people—I fail to recall the exact number—who have knowledge of planning and the environment. Under that provision, people must be appointed who have special local knowledge.
We are talking about a highly successful port authority. With one or two exceptions, the management team is outstanding. It is co-operative. We are faced with a privatisation proposal that would lead to a transfer of all liabilities and assets. There would be a holding company, and the appointments to the board would be bound to be different from those that are currently and statutorily laid down.
Traditionally there has been a close working relationship between local authorities, which have been given powers by the House to represent the broad and general interests of the public, especially in areas where there is access to ports. There has been a link between the people and port authorities, and that has led to a great deal of pride and good will. When we have something good, it does not make sense to say, "We shall let it all go now. We 740 shall cut all the links and ties. We shall no longer have people on the board who have knowledge of planning and the environment."
I am the Chairman of the Committee that is considering the Environmental Protection Bill, and the port authority has a considerable part to play in what is taking place in that Committee. We are trying to find how best to co-operate and work with the port authority and attempting also to inject into the management operations of the authority, within its land boundaries and outside them, environmental standards that will ease the minds of many people in the area.

§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)
The link between Teesside and the structure of the board is important. Under the Bill, the consortium of shareholders that will take over the ownership of the undertaking will be drawn from management, employees of the board, port authority pensioners, pension funds of the port authority, local authorities and port users. Accordingly, the link with the local community will be as strong as ever. Surely the board will reflect the share ownership.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Some links are firm and others are tenuous. Some so-called links are formed because it is thought that it is nice to be courteous and to have that sort of relationship. I am saying that the links will be broken.

§ Mr. Jack Thompson (Wansbeck)
I understand the proposition that pension funds, employees and management would be involved, but there is nothing to prevent shares from being sold. In two, three, four or five years' time, the ownership of the port authority could be in the hands of London, Brighton, Swansea, Inverness or even Tokyo. That will not help the port authority.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It demonstrates the seriousness of what we are seeking to do.
If I were to say to the port authority officials, "For God's sake think again", no harm would be done to the growing economy and prosperity that we all want in the north-east. We are talking about something that affects us all in the north-east; it is not merely a Tees and Hartlepool matter. But would any harm be done if we took the route set out in the Bill? Some might say no. They might say, "Let us get on to the adventurous road of challenge and responsibility." That is what Professor Tawney might say. Those people must understand that there is a terrifying risk.
I have seen some greedy people since I became a Member of this place. They make me sick. One example is the Guinness affair. Let us not think that something of that sort could not happen following the privatisation of the port authority. The Lonrho management and the Al Fayed brothers insult each other as though they have no human decency. They do not have the guts to sue for libel. They reflect greed and enormous wealth.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I shall complete this part of my argument and then allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I am getting into form and when I do so I stick out my chin. I am prepared to take what then ensues because hon. Members have a right to come back at me.
741 Those who have studied the City scandals and the way in which takeover rules have been broken will understand what I am saying. In the area which I have represented for over a quarter of a century there has been an outstanding record of good management and growing success.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce
I listened carefully to the way in which the hon. Gentleman began his remarks. I was pleased when he paid fulsome tribute to the management of the port authority. I am attracted to the debate because I represent a port authority—Weymouth—and I have talked to that authority's management. I am encouraged by what it said and by the profitability of its operation. I should like a private company to be developed in the north-east, for which I have love and affection. I look to the future in the hope that such a company could expand its operations in the same way, perhaps, as Associated British Ports. The management services of a port such as the one that I represent—not investment services—would demonstrate that the north-south divide is not a one-way street of bringing expertise from the north-east to the south. The future should see us developing land bridges and taking advantage of all the opportunities offered by the Bill, which comes before us in advance of the Government's thoughts of putting out all the trust ports——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.

§ Mr. Bruce
It is an intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Interventions must be brief.

§ Mr. Bruce
Surely Opposition Members are trying to deny opportunities to an excellent management team.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I have always believed—I am not alone in my belief—that confrontation in the economy is unwise. Private enterprise, freedom of movement, laissez-faire and public accountability are all complementary. Many areas of our so-called private sector industry have been delighted over the years by the assistance of large publicly owned utilities. How many of our private enterprise companies have lived off the backs of the steel industry, the coal industry and British Rail? I stand for a balance between private enterprise and public accountability. I do not believe that dogma—on any side—is good for debate in the House.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority has been successful. It has invested in other companies, and in private companies. It has not done that for fun—it has done so to get a return on its investments. Where something is successful like that, there is no point in saying, "Look, you will get a little bit more, boys, if you privatise yourselves as well."
The House should know that the marina in Hartlepool has been initiated by the Teesside development corporation. I was the first public figure in Hartlepool to suggest a marina. I shall tell the House why it was not started then. So many people crawled along to the public coffers—so-called "high-risk entrepreneurs"—that it never got off the ground. However, a marina has now been started. There is a working relationship between the Teesside development corporation and a company called Lovell. Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shares in the Teesside development corporation. It is like the 742 Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. In my view, that holy trinity is working to some benefit. There is a composite of a trust company, a private company and the Teesside development corporation, all working well together.

§ Mr. Devlin
I am sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman again, but I am a little confused. I thought that I heard him say that the THPA has shares in the Teesside development corporation. Surely that is not possible because the Teesside development corporation was set up under legislation as a body corporate by statute. It does not have shares.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I do not think that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. Perhaps he will say that again.

§ Mr. Devlin
I may he mistaken about what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I thought that he said that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority had shares in the Teesside development corporation. The TDC is a body created by statute and does not have shares. I am wondering whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Perhaps I should correct that. In fact, I think that the TDC has shares in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I have seen the share list somewhere, but I shall write to the THPA if I have made a mistake.

§ Mr. Devlin
I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct on that point either. As I understand it, the THPA does not have any shares at the moment.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
That is a matter for me to clear up, but I have seen the document somewhere.

§ Mr. Bell
As my hon. Friend says, the question about shareholdings will be rectified or verified later. However, is it not a fact that Tees and Hartlepool port authority is involved in a tripartite development venture, the Hartlepool marina, involving the Teesside development corporation and the Lovell partnership?

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Yes, that is the position.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was right to intervene. If an hon. Member has not got something quite right in the debate, he will seek to put it right in the proper manner later.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
To ensure that we get a balanced view of the nitpicking that is taking place, will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that one of the major petitioners against the Bill was Teesside development corporation? Therefore, the relationship that we have been trying to put to bed during the past five minutes is not quite as cosy as one might be led to believe by some of our friends on the Government Benches—and I use that expression advisedly.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I shall pick up my point about risks. From experience, I believe that it will be a risk to divest the THPA of its assets, which will be transferred. When a holding company is in place and a shareholding applied for, I have no doubt that if the financial interests exist there will be a takeover. If there was a takeover, what would happen to the interests in the north-east which currently benefit from the THPA as constituted at present? It is more likely than not that any large company which takes over the THPA will have its headquarters elsewhere. That will be our first problem.
743 Secondly, the shares would reflect a certain amount of public reaction. Some people would have a handsome windfall. We have seen that happen in some of the recent privatisations, of which water is a good example—[Interruption.] Conservative Members need not say that that does not happen because the French took over some of our water companies.

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
One of the biggest windfalls, and one of the Government's first privatisations in the early 1980s, was from Associated British Ports. Within 24 hours of trading, the price of its shares was phenomenally higher than the price at which the Government sold them. Ever since, the Government have considered ports to be a lucrative area from which they and their friends can make money when they are privatised.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Yes, indeed.
Should those things come about, we must consider all the consequences that flow from takeovers, such as the power and greed and all the damage that is done to the areas that the harbours serve—in this case, to the Hartlepool and Tees area.
Let us consider my constituency. Through the actions of Hartlepool district council, we have spent about £2 million on land improvements, repairs, changes to facilities and, in some cases, to operations in the THPA area. That shows the close concern and working relationship exercised by Hartlepool district council, when representing its people. Such a working relationship would not exist in the circumstances that I have described, if the risks of privatisation falter in the end.
What are the benefits of the proposals? There is no doubt that the chief executive's salary will jump up in double quick time, and that will flow right through the organisation. Those concerned will be rubbing their hands with glee and trotting off on holidays abroad. Instead of travelling economy class, they will travel first class.

§ Mr. Holt
That is cheap stuff.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
That is what will happen——

§ Mr. Holt
rose——

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I shall give way in a moment.
I hope hon. Members will not take exception to this point. I should like to know the chairman of a former public body that is privatised whose salary did not jump up to three or four times its original level. That is what will happen here. It will be passed by the board and public representatives will not be there. Incidentally, Conservative Members should not assume that public representatives are redundant in privatisations. There is already an 18 per cent.—or thereabouts—capital return on investments. There is already a high turnover, and the organisation is a commercial success. Other disadvantages always follow from such circumstances. The company would not accept the same kind of social, economic and environmental responsibilities as it does now as a trust port. It would be all a question of return for the shareholders; everything else would take second, third, fourth and fifth places.

§ Mr. Holt
I could not let the hon. Gentleman's rather nasty remarks against the chief executive of the port 744 authority go by without asking him if, before making those attacks, he took the trouble to meet the chief executive and his board to discuss their private Bill and put his objections to them. I might tell him that, at present, they can set their own salaries and decide to travel first class. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to consider quite carefully the remarks that he has just made against very distinguished business men in the north-east of England.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have thought out very carefully what I have said. More than that, I have behind me not only sufficient knowledge but the great advantage of a lot of experience. Incidentally, in this House, experience is far more important than intellect, and it is something that the hon. Gentleman is desperately short of.

§ Mr. Bell
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is at present a salaries committee, as I understand it, that looks at salaries on the Tees and Hartlepool port authority? Did my hon. Friend hear any whisper from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that there would be a salaries committee once this authority was privatised?

§ Mr Leadbitter
I think that that has been noted.
I cannot understand why there should be any objection to what is a common cause and something with which nobody disagrees. I put it to the House: does any hon. Member know of any chairman of any public body that has been privatised who has not had his salary increased within months by three and sometimes four times? That is a hard fact of life.
I turn now to another disadvantage. A company called Shell is tripping around the coast of Scotland with little boats—30,000-tonners, 20,000-tonners—tipping off coal in ports where it feels that vigilant, elected Members of Parliament cannot find it out, and there has been a row about it in Scotland. I happen to be a senior member of the Select Committee on Energy and we have been notified of what is happening. Shell is moving that coal at a loss to itself, while the coal mines in Scotland have been brought to the point of litigation because they cannot get contracts from the South of Scotland electricity board.
Does any hon. Member think that, once the importers of coal have got the market, prices will stay low? Of course they will not. The innocents of private enterprise seem to presume that those of us who have different concepts of economic behaviour are completely naive. Once they get hold of the market in Scotland, we shall have Scottish miners out of work, redundant and another charge on the economy. We shall have to ask ourselves who on earth forgot to do the costings of all this. The public have lost and Shell and the people who import the coal have gained.
We heard earlier something about there being no plans in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority for the provision of installations for the importation of coal. That is nonsense, utter rubbish.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Poppycock, bunkum and balderdash.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. "Poppycock" is an expression that I hope not to have to hear too often in the House. I hope that hon. Members will take the trouble to consult Chambers dictionary to see the definition of "poppycock". Mr. Leadbitter.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would remind you that even in your elevated position you have to bear in mind that, when the Prime Minister of the day refers to "poppycock, bunkum and balderdash" when challenged about her tenure of No. 10, we have to accept it in the House. It does not matter to me; I do not believe a word she says.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot sit here arguing with the hon. Gentleman. I have ruled that I hope not to have to hear "poppycock" too often in the House. Mr. Leadbitter.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Bolsover; his timing is perfect. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course I accept your ruling. Naturally, we are kith and kin in this business and therefore we have to accept, should accept and want to accept your rulings.
So that is the position in Scotland. To suggest, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh did, I think, that there are no plans for coal importation installations in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority area is just not true. People in National Power, for instance, would not agree with the hon. Gentleman there. Certainly, I know from a letter that I have seen that even the words "feasibility study" are a bit naughty. Some people who write to Members of Parliament must consider that we are illiterate, or at least gullible. It is an indication of their arrogance when they write letters about feasibility studies.
The fact is that the port authority is contemplating, and, in my view, planning for, that extra trade, which it knows is there and which it will not turn down. The members know that, because it will not have the social and economic responsibilities that I have tried to describe, they will be able to get this done much more quickly if the authority is privatised. At least we shall have a reasonable amount of public representation on the board to hold their hand if we can get the sense of our argument over to them.
In recent years, and more particularly since the miners' strike, people have been sitting at dinner tables in the City and talking in terms of the reduction of the coal input into the power programme. From about 70 million tonnes—that in itself was a drop—we are down to about 60 million tonnes. That means that the Coal Board and the Government, and those others who want to keep nice and pally with them, will seek to pick up this part of the market, and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is one of two major ports that have been pinpointed. I think that, in the case of Teesside, they are thinking in terms of 5 million tonnes or thereabouts.

§ Mr. Ronnie Campbell
That 5 million tonnes is the equivalent of at least two collieries in the Durham area.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
One also has to consider the dramatic number of closures, almost without exception without any time frame, to allow those communities to work out some form of industrial regeneration in the area. Whole communities are beaten up. That is the only way to describe the situation. As a result of political ignorance, whole communities are being beaten up by people who do not care, so long as it is going to be good for them. When the coal industry loses to that extent, the importers and the consumers find that the benefits disappear overnight. As in 746 the case of loss leader sales, once the market has been secured, prices will go up. The competition will have gone from the industry.
We have to be quite frank about what is in the minds of the people who have put this privatisation measure before the House. It is not just a question of extra profits. Any reasonable man would be happy with the success of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. There are other matters behind the scenes.

§ Mr. Devlin
There is no evidence whatever to justify the hon. Gentleman's allegations. At present, there is a facility at Teesport that handles 3 million tonnes of coal a year from different countries around the world. This includes British coal, and it is going to British Steel. In addition, 250,000 to 500,000 tonnes go to other users through the port. There has been no plan whatever to expand that facility. The Labour party has no evidence to support its allegations, despite the fact that, in respect of every port-related piece of private legislation, it has produced coal-mining MPs who have made the same claim. The matter is getting completely out of hand.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I quote from a press report of 29 March 1988: The River Tees will become Britain's coal import centre if a dramatic plan by port chiefs gets off the ground. British Steel's giant Teesside terminal already handles the world's biggest ships, bringing cheap open cast coal from across the world to feed Redcar's hungry blastfurnace. But now Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority is looking at building a huge 'common-user' coal terminal.

§ Mr. Devlin
Which paper?

§ Mr. Leadbitter
It does not matter which paper. I want to get this on the record. The port authority may rebut it, if it can.[Laughter.] There is no point in the hon. Gentleman sniggering and laughing. We are used to a high standard of debate here. Let the hon. Gentleman enjoy the sedentary position and keep his lip buttoned.

§ Mr. Barron
I want to point out to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that both the chief executive officer and the commercial director of the authority are on record—in local papers that I assume those hon. Members do not read—as having said that, having received the results of the feasibility study, they are pressing ahead in conjunction with National Power. If I get an opportunity, I shall speak about this matter at a later stage.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
The newspaper report from which I was quoting continues: The THPA has commissioned leading independent shipping and energy consultants Lev Sychrava Associates for a feasibility study into transforming the 300-acre former Shell Teesport refinery site into a coal-importing complex. Lev Sychrava, director of research and development with Lambert Brothers Shipping before going freelance, says the plan has a lot going for it. The Tees site would be a good location to develop such a terminal, he said. People do not commission a feasibility study of that kind without an objective. Indeed, nothing of this nature can be done properly without consultants and advisers. The suggestion that there is no plan in the minds of the board members is—I will not use the word to which you objected, Mr. Deputy Speaker—unreasonable.
I have no doubt that other hon. Members who catch your eye, Sir, including the hon. Member for Stockton, 747 South (Mr. Devlin), will make other points. I hope that those who intend to vote tonight for privatisation realise that they will not be able to give a guarantee, either to people in this House or within their own hearts, that in future there will be the same success, the same momentum, as has been experienced under the port authority for the past 25 years.
I had doubts about the Hartlepool port being kept within the estuary authority statutory arrangements, but I see in this Bill no guarantee that the port will be preserved. I have noted with interest, of course, that the port's trading area has diminished over the years. I have noted with pleasure the development of the marina, although that has yet to come to fruition. How can I feel certain, however, that, under privatisation, the Hartlepool port will be allowed to exist?
Under privatisation, I would have no defence. The authority might decide that, for one reason or another, it was not commercial or economic to keep the port open. It might be like British Rail. When British Rail wants to close a line, it gives information about the worst days, just as the meteorological office issues information only about the days when it is pouring. These chaps might have all sorts of peculiar ways of leading us to believe that the port at Hartlepool should close. Even if Tees and Hartlepool port authority wrote to me in big gold letters, "Ted Leadbitter, the port of Hartlepool will remain. Please be satisfied," I would say that those words were not worth anything. Tees and Hartlepool port authority cannot give anyone an undertaking about what a privatised industry will do.
I oppose the Bill, because my constituency interest is pertinent and real. Already, 70 men have been bought off. Some of my dockers were bought off. The authority said that they were getting too much money and it replaced them with people on about £8,000 a year. We know the tricks. So there will be no guarantees from the port authority, no satisfaction for the people whom I represent and plenty of worry for the miners. While there might be flash-in-the-pan prosperity for some of them, in the jungle of private enterprise that will not last. When the call goes out, they will be swallowed up and their jobs will have gone. I wish that they had listened to the common sense that seems always to prevail on this side of the House.

§ The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)
I think the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has finished. It may be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I make a brief statement on the Government's views on the Bill.
As I explained in the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 1 December, trust ports are slightly odd bodies. They are independent. They are not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited. But they have to compete with ports run by companies like Associated British Ports and Felixstowe, which have the flexibility and accountability that the trust ports lack. It has long been in the Government's mind that it would be desirable if at least the main commercial trust ports could be converted into companies. Changing the status of a trust port in that way needs primary legislation, but the Government have not been able to find room in their programme for the 748 appropriate legislation. That was why, as has been mentioned already, about a year ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), when he was Secretary of State for Transport, encouraged trust ports which saw benefits in turning themselves into companies to bring forward their own private Bills.
It is still our intention to bring forward Government legislation on trust ports at the earliest convenient opportunity. But given the pressure on the legislative programme, private legislation is the only way by which these ports can quickly be converted into fully fledged private sector enterprises. However, I stress one point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) explained, the Bill will not alter at all the statutory responsibilities and powers of Tees and Hartlepool port authority under its existing private legislation. That legislation will be carried forward and will apply lock, stock and barrel to the proposed new successor company. That successor company will still be a harbour authority. It will be subject, just as the port authority is today, to those provisions of public legislation which apply to harbour authorities generally. I emphasise that there will be no loss or reduction in existing powers or obligations. That is a very important point, and the House should not be under any misapprehension. The position is exactly the same as when Associated British Ports was privatised.
The Government support the principle underlying the Bill. Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shown welcome initiative. So has Clyde port authority, which has brought a similar Bill before Parliament. But both Bills have raised some difficult issues for the Government, which in the public interest we have had to consider with some care.
A parallel could be drawn between a trust port and the trustee savings banks before they were privatised. It is indeed a close parallel. We share the opinion that trust ports, like trustee savings banks, have no explicit owners. They can therefore be said to be owned by the state, as distinct from the Government. So it is for Parliament to decide, taking into account any views expressed by the Government, not only whether a trust port should be allowed to turn itself into a company but who should get the proceeds from the sale of the shares in that company.

§ Mr. Ronnie Campbell
Do the Government know how many imports will come into the country over the next three or four years through these ports?

§ Mr. McLoughlin
I am not sure that that is an appropriate point at this stage of the Bill, but there has been a vast change in how the ports operate. They have taken advantage of freedoms given to them by the House over the years.

§ Mr. Campbell
The Government support the Bill. They are changing legislation which covers fuel imports, but it is being done by a private Bill. The Government are changing their energy policy completely.

§ Mr. McLoughlin
I cannot accept that point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, who speaks on behalf of the promoters——

§ Mr. Holt
Does my hon. Friend agree——

§ Mr. Frank Cook
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand aright? Is a Back-Bencher speaking on behalf of a Minister at the Dispatch Box in answer to an intervention?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
Order. The Minister has the floor, but he has given way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).

§ Mr. Holt
Does my hon. Friend accept that importation is on one side of the coin and exportation on the other? Are we not putting out more cars—built by Nissan—through the Tees than the Opposition ever thought we could?

§ Mr. McLoughlin
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important part of the development of ports, and one that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has caught on to, very successfully—as I said in the 1 December Adjournment debate in answer to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
There is a further consideration. Many trust ports are different from the TSB in one respect. That applies to, among others, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Unlike the TSB, it has received Government support in the form of grants to purchase and improve its assets. Admittedly it is a long time since such grants were paid to the THPA, and the amounts were small; but the grants were paid about 20 years ago towards investment projects in the port, and some of those assets are still in use. There is a general rule that, when assets acquired or improved by a non-Exchequer body with the aid of Government grants are disposed of, an appropriate proportion of the proceeds should go to the Exchequer. The Public Accounts Committee rightly attaches great importance to that.
If the Bill were amended to provide expressly for a share of the proceeds of the sale of the assets to go to the Exchequer, it could cease to be a private Bill. There would then be the problem of accommodating it within the Government's legislative programme, to which I have already referred. The Government are considering the best means of securing an appropriate share for the Exchequer from the proceeds of the sale of the port authority, and of other similar ports. One of a number of options that we are considering is to include a provision in the Finance Bill.
I therefore recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading. It is a slightly unusual private Bill, to match the slightly unusual nature of the trust ports themselves. A number of questions arise—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised some in his Adjournment debate on 1 December—but I suggest that it would be appropriate for the Select Committee to consider them, and to report back to the House. It will have the opportunity to hear evidence from, and to question, the promoters and the petitioners in detail.
For those reasons, I shall be supporting the Bill later tonight.

§ Mr. Bell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the debate began I put to your predecessor in the Chair a specific point of order of which I had given him notice. That was to the effect that this Bill is not a private Bill, but a public Bill, because it is Government policy and the Government had clearly shown that it was their policy, although they did not have time to include it in their legislative programme. They therefore obliged, or persuaded, Tees and Hartlepool port authority to take a private route. Let me quote a specific Hansard response on 750 12 February 1990 by the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the trust ports. The Under-Secretary replied: We believe that there are advantages in the main commercial trust ports being transformed into companies. So far we have not been able to make room ourselves for the legislation needed to bring about such a change. Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not sure what the point of order is for me that the hon. Member is raising. I was expecting to call him, but at this stage I am not sure what the point of order is for the Chair. Perhaps he will explain that to me.

§ Mr. Bell
I shall do that immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having completed the short quotation, which concludes: Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have promoted their own private measures".—[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 167, c.106.] When I raised this point of order earlier, I was given a response from the Chair, which I fully accept and do not challenge. I was told that the matter had been looked into by the appropriate authorities of the House, which had reached the conclusion that this was an appropriate private Bill.
We have since heard a Minister of the Crown say from the Dispatch Box openly and frankly that this is Government policy, that the Government are looking to privatise some 50 trust ports, that they do not have time to do so in their legislative programme and that they have therefore opted for the private route.
Was the Chair, or were the authorities of the House, aware of that when this was considered to be an appropriate private Bill? The Under-Secretary said that there were financial considerations attached to the Bill. He made a specific reference to grant money that had been given to Tees and Hartlepool port authority about 20 years ago. He said, in addition, that there would be a financial consideration because the Treasury, as a matter of principle, wished to realise not only the grant money but any benefits that had accrued as a result of that grant money. He said that the Public Accounts Committee had made the same statement. So he said clearly that financial provisions, which were not there before, attached to the Bill. He made a clear admission on the Floor of the House that it is Government policy. My question for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is whether this is a hybrid Bill, and whether the Chair was aware of that Government statement of policy before it gave its earlier ruling.

§ Mr. Devlin
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Does it relate to the same point?

§ Mr. Devlin
Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) just raised fell into two parts. The second part was expressly ruled on by your predecessor in the Chair earlier this evening, having received notice from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough of all the points that he just made. May I ask you, therefore, whether you will respond to only the first part of the point of order—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I shall respond to all points of order. I assure the hon. Member that the Chair is indivisible. This matter was considered extremely carefully. We had notice of it before the debate began.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will know the ruling that was given by my predecessor in the Chair—I have it in front of me—and nothing that I have heard from the Dispatch Box in any way alters the ruling that was given at that time. The hon. Member will know well that if he feels that this is not a proper measure to be a private Bill, he can vote against it should there be a Division at the end of the debate.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), to leave the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was speaking to a point of order about the legitimacy of continuing with the measure on the Floor of the House? In other words, he did not remain in the Chamber to hear the points that my hon. Friend was making and the ruling that was given by the Chair.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am relieved that the responsibilities of the Chair do not extend to the movement of hon. Members in and out of the Chamber.

§ Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)
I am speaking for the Opposition, it having been made clear that there is a Government line on the issue. It may be appropriate, therefore, for the Opposition to state their position. While we in no way question the decision given in the ruling by the Chair, the words used by the Minister tonight have obviously thrown doubt into the minds of my hon. Friends about whether this is, in fact, a genuine private Bill.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) described the trust ports as a peculiarly British institution. I remind the House that the basis of the trust ports is that they either reinvest any surpluses achieved between operating costs and expenditure or they use those surpluses to reduce charges. I should have thought that that was a highly commendable practice and that it would be of regret to most hon. Members that British business over the years has not been keen to reinvest its profits in its own locality. Many of the trust ports have been highly successful in attracting new businesses and bolstering employment in areas hard hit by unemployment. Tees and Hartlepool is no exception to that.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
On my hon. Friend's point about reducing charges, is she aware that D. B. Winney, who was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), said in his letter, which was published: The reason for the massive level of its reserves is simply that, in its monopoly position as sole authority on the Tees and at Hartlepool, it has been able over 24 years, to levy dues on goods and for conservancy at any price it chose to fix."? Mr. Winney went on to say that, if there had been competition for customers who had installations on the river at Seal Sands to turn to, it would have been quite a different matter. The easy way for the port to solve its problems of having massive reserves would have been to release its reserves and reduce its charges, thereby giving industry the benefit of lower charges on the Tees.

§ Ms. Ruddock
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. Clearly that is a way forward. Certainly it would be a way to avoid the danger of gold-plated cranes on the docks.
It is not surprising that the trust ports, as authorities with some public accountability and, indeed, responsibility, should have attracted the attention of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) reminded the House, in 1988 trust ports became the subject of a Government consultation on privatisation. The Bill appears to be an attempt to substitute that and to pre-empt possible Government legislation. Although, undoubtedly, we would not be happy to see such Government legislation introduced, at least it would be an honest response to the position, which would give us the opportunity to debate the wider issues of conservancy and safety, which are pertinent to privatisation.
The Bill simply opens the way for loss of local control and local investment, possibly loss of jobs and the potential for asset-stripping. It is significant that the local authorities and unions, such as the Transport and General Workers Union—I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by that union—oppose the Bill, fearing the example of privatisation in other spheres.
The proceeds from privatising the port could be considerable. It is interesting that the Minister has described the degree of Government interest in the matter, through which they hope that moneys might be returned to the Exchequer.
Who will be in control of the port authority after privatisation?

§ Mr. Holt
The shareholders.

§ Ms. Ruddock
Indeed, the shareholders. It is obvious that a takeover of the holding company could result in control moving out of the area entirely. The Bill will create a different structure from the present one. At present, the Secretary of State can include in it not less than two and no more than three members from a panel of local authority nominees. I suggest that that gives some local accountability.
In addition, the Secretary of State is required in appointing all members of the authority to have regard to relevant experience in planning and environmental matters affecting the area of the harbour. He must also have regard to the desirability of including members who are familiar with the area served by the authority. All that will be lost.
The authority has shown that it can act commercially, in a commercial environment, under the present arrangements. That has been evidenced by the successful operation of the port and the high level of profitability achieved. I understand that at present the port is largely run by people who live and work in the area, including councillors, and it is therefore operated in the interests of the locality as well as those of the wider economy.
The Bill does nothing to ensure that the importance of the port to the local economy will continue to be sufficiently recognised. It is obvious to us that open public subscription for shares in the holding company may provide windfall benefit to those who have hitherto not been involved with the port and its locality in any way. It is our view that there is not sufficient reason to dissolve the authority and set up the new company proposed in the Bill.
753 Nothing that has been said to the House suggests that the present powers are too restrictive; indeed, the port's economic success and expansion over the years give the lie to that suggestion. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh boasted that this was the third largest port undertaking in the United Kingdom——

§ Mr. Holt
So it is.

§ Ms. Ruddock
I have every reason to believe that that boast is correct, but that gives the lie to the claim that the authority is constrained by its present structure. No matter what constraints the hon. Gentleman may believe exist at the moment, there is no requirement or justification for the fundamental constitutional change that the Bill would effect, which we believe would be to the detriment of the port authority and its dealings with the local community and to the detriment of the local economy.

§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)
I support the Bill. It is appropriate that we should have another private Bill to promote the navigation of the Tees. The original navigation Act was promoted by the Tees Navigation Company as a private Bill in 1808. That Bill was succeeded by a further private Bill, which set up the Tees Conservancy Commission in 1852. After that came the Bill to which we have already referred, which became the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act introduced the Hartlepool facilities of the British Transport Docks Board.
This is a Bill initiated by Teesside people for the benefit of Teesside people. It will mean that there will be a major investing authority based in Teesside for the future. At present, the powers of the board are extremely restricted. Under part III of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966, the authority shall have powers to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the conservancy, maintenance and improvement of the harbour and the facilities afforded therein and in connection therewith, and for the reclamation of land. Section 12(2) says: For those purposes, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Authority may—improve maintain, regulate, manage, mark and light the harbour and, subject to the provisions of this Act, provide port facilities therein, and acquire, carry on and improve any undertaking … affording or intended to afford accommodation or facilities for the transport, loading, unloading, receiving, forwarding, or warehousing of goods". We have been asked who sat down in Queen's square and thought one bright sunny day that it would be a good idea to privatise the port? Surely the point is that the nature of the port has changed a great deal since 1966. That was what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was asked about.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
Where were you in 1966?

§ Mr. Devlin
At that stage, I was at school. Being a young hon. Member, I am only 30, and I cannot say that at the age of seven I was paying much attention to the navigation of the Tees.
However, returning to what I wanted to say, which is more important, between 1966 and 1976 there were major land reclamation works. Thousands of acres of land have been brought into use for petrochemical, chemical, steel and port facilities. As a result of that investment, the Tees 754 and Hartlepool port authority is now promoting itself as the European chemical centre on Teesside. There has been no shortage of investment by the port authority.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
On the one hand the hon. Member says that there are restrictions and that the port cannot do anything, and on the other he says that it is investing in all sorts of things left, right and centre and doing so much. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He has to make up his mind: is it restricted or not?

§ Mr. Devlin
As usual, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has missed the point. The activities and areas in which the port authority can invest are extremely limited. His hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, whom I am answering, asked earlier why it was necessary for the powers of the port authority to be changed now. The reason is that, since 1966, the port authority has carried out all its functions to the best of its abilities, vet the authority will be left with a large amount of cash which it cannot invest in any further port facilities on Teesside. The authority has reclaimed thousands of acres of land and it has built petrochemical and steel complexes and wharves, and it has promoted the chemical centre on Teesside, but it is getting to the point where there is little more it can do.
The position has changed recently because of the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The status of the port authority is no longer protected as it was formerly. It is not realistic for Opposition Members to say that, because the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has a monopoly over the navigation of the Tees, it is a monopoly and that it is uncompetitive, as hon. Members have said about fees. The fees charged by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority are extremely competitive. They have to be, because the port has to compete with ports all around the coasts of Britain, many of which have been privatised. It has to compete with a lean, mean and hungry Associated British Ports, and it cannot sit by the River Tees and say that it does not have to pay attention to anyone else.

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Devlin
I have given way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North and I do not intend to give way to him again—he can make his own speech—but I shall give way to the other hon. Members in due course.
Where does the Tees and Hartlepool port authority go from here? It is in a competitive world. The only way that it can survive in the long term is by introducing an integrated transport facility which must not be limited to the borders of the River Tees.
In the past 150 years, as hon. Members know, ports have developed and become bigger. The port on the River Tees was originally at the town of Yarm in my constituency. When ships became too big, the port moved to Stockton, which became a great boat building centre. With the introduction of metal shipbuilding and iron ships to the River Tees, the port moved downriver to Middlesbrough.
The Bill marks the point at which the port is now constrained within a narrow area at the mouth of the River Tees and at Hartlepool. It wishes to expand beyond that limit and to expand the facilities and activities on Teesside.
Since we are all reading from press cuttings this evening, I shall quote from the Evening Gazette of 9 January 1990.

§ Mr. Cook
We are all doing some reading tonight.

§ Mr. Devlin
Yes.
The article says: Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority chiefs have their eye on spreading their wings in the 1990s. They see the P & O group as a possible model in its bid to become a private company because P & O owned Ferrymasters, the cargo shipping firm … and transport firms on the continent as well as the UK. We are in the transport game. One of the strengths of the future is having an interest in several links in the transport chain,' said Mr. Britton. That is why the Bill is so important. There are now cash reserves sitting in the bank belonging to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority amounting to £30 million, and each year those cash reserves are growing. There is extreme competition from private, formerly non-scheme ports. There is also the very important matter of the future of employment on Teesside.
Job opportunities in the port have contracted over a number of years because of the operation of the dock labour scheme. After abolition, the port authority slimmed down its operation in order to match European productivity levels. It is now in a position to expand a whole range of its facilities and activities, but it is unable to do so. Recently, 28 jobs were on offer and 700 people wanted them.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is confined by the objectives that are set out in the 1966 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh said that we live in changing times. There are immense investment opportunities on Teesside is a result of the activities of the Teesside development corporation and the Tyne and Wear development corporation. It is only right that where there is an overlap between the functions of the port and the Teesside development corporation, which has taken over planning powers in respect of some of the land that belonged to the port authority, they should work together. They have worked together, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, at Hartlepool marina, at the Teesside offshore base and in Stockton.
The result of that co-operation is that the Tees port authority believes that there is a range of investment opportunities throughout Stockton, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Iangbaurgh and the north-east in general—even up to Newcastle—in which it would like to invest. However, it is constrained by the objectives in the Act.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North tried to be clever earlier in the debate when he referred to a range of investments which, he said, were outwith the objectives set out in the Act. The port authority is no longer involved in many of the activities that he mentioned.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
Does the hon. Gentleman deny that it was involved in those activities?

§ Mr. Devlin
No, I do not. However, those activities were directly related to the port and its activities and fell into category B, which I read out at the beginning of my speech.
At the moment, 37 million tonnes of goods come into and go out of the port every year. It made a profit last year of £9.246 million. That profit is accumulating. There is a fantastic return on capital of 17.6 per cent. What will happen to all that money if the port remains a trust port? It will not be used. It is a wasted opportunity for the people of Teesside to have on their doorsteps a cash-rich 756 authority that is unable to spend money on a variety of projects within its area, although it could and should do so.

§ Mr. Ronnie Campbell
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this private Bill has been introduced so that 5 million tonnes can be brought up the river? It would also mean the closure of Hartlepool coalfield, which would lead to at least 6,000 miners losing their jobs.

§ Mr. Devlin
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) for raising the matter of coal. When I challenged the hon. Member for Hartlepool earlier on that matter, he read out a document which he then refused to show me when I came across the Floor to ask him. From which newspaper did it come? When the hon. Gentleman read it out, he said that it was a press release, yet I could see from where I was sitting that it was a press cutting. He did not say from which journal it had been drawn. I took advice on this point this afternoon from the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I was assured—I have no reason to doubt its word—that it had no plans at present to expand the port in any way.

§ Mr. Ronnie Campbell
At present.

§ Mr. Devlin
The hon. Gentleman shouts at me. I shall be perfectly frank. A feasibility study was carried out by PowerGen on Chatham and Teesside. No decision was made as a result of that study. It is only right that such feasibility studies should be undertaken. Opposition Members see the Bill as a vehicle for bringing in more coal on the River Tees. The authority can do that already. Powers already exist for coal to be brought in on the River Tees. As I said earlier, a considerable amount of coal is already imported from Australia, Canada and other countries to British Steel on Teesside and at present 30 million tonnes are coming in. That point has already gone by the by.
No provision in the Bill will bring further coal on to the River Tees. The discussion is pointless, because whether the port is in the private sector or continues as a trust will make no difference to the import of coal. The hon. Member for Hartlepool raised the question of the Shell depot being used. That depot is widely recognised by anyone who knows anything about the Tees port as the daftest place on the entire river to bring in coal.

§ Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)
I was looking at "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and I came across a charming young photograph of the hon. Gentleman. The first thing that hit me was that he has a majority of 774, which explained why he must now be losing some sleep. The hon. Gentleman's biographical details described him as interested in regional development.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that nobody believes that the port authority does not want to use the Bill to import massive amounts of coal. It is part and parcel of the Government's policy for the privatisation of the coal industry—that is not a problem now, because they will not win the next election—to be able to import 40 million tonnes, so that they can close down all the peripheral coalfields and privatise the central coal belt. It is all part of that plan.
The hon. Gentleman admits, rightly, that he is young and inexperienced. Opposition Members—who in my case 757 are a little bit older, although not a lot older—have considerable experience of the deviousness of this Government. We know what they are up to.

§ Mr. Devlin
That has nothing to do with the Bill. I am so interested in the development of my region that I want it to have a major facility that can move goods in and out of the north of England at a competitive cost, organise transport throughout the European Community and the north of England, and that can create thousands of jobs in doing so.
Opposition Members are ignoring that. They are interested not in new opportunities, but in old opportunities. All we ever hear about from them is the old, traditional industries and the way things were done 100 years ago. The Bill is about the future of our region, the transport infrastructure, jobs and the prosperity of the people of the north-east. I will not sit here and listen to any Scotsman telling me what should or should not be brought in on the River Tees. I shall leave that to people who know what they are talking about and to business men who are ready to make decisions.

§ Mr. Hood
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Devlin
No, the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity.
The Bill will enable the port authority to own and invest in property throughout the region but outside the port area. It is in a good position to spot and to exploit the many exciting investment opportunities that exist in the north of England and that is entirely due to the work of the Teesside development corporation and the Tyne and Wear development corporation.
Following the attacks made on the port authority by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), Port News, the journal of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, said: Every opportunity to invest in port facilities in Teesside has been taken up and will continue to be so. But trade goes where the major transport operator goes, not where the port goes, and if THPA wishes to develop, it must develop as a transport operator. Investment in that new undertaking will be securely in the hands of Teessiders. There is no question that the aspersions cast by the hon. Member for Hartlepool will come to fruition. The shares will be so dispersed among the people and the pension funds of Teesside that it will simply not be possible for a major operator to acquire the lot in one fell swoop. That must be the sort of safeguard which will protect the future of the port and to which the hon. Gentleman referred when he talked about the 1966 Act.
The investment will be securely in the hands of Teessiders. It will be there for the benefit of local people and it will ensure the continued commercial success of Great Britain Ltd. I urge the House to support the Bill.

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)
I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I listened with great interest to the incandescent way in which he made his points. Earlier this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had the remarkable spectacle of the hon. Member for Stockton, North crossing the Floor of the House. I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stockton, North did what?

§ Mr. Bell
I apologise. My gaze was fixed on the hon. Member for Stockton, South.
We had the interesting spectacle of the hon. Member for Stockton, South crossing the Floor of the House. He came and sat on the Opposition Benches. My recollection of constitutional history is that when an hon. Member crosses the Floor of the House he should make a speech so that we can hear why he did so. However, your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that we should not use the word "poppycock" too often in the Chamber, so it would not be appropriate to ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on why he crossed the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) says from a sedentary position, he got lost. He got lost in the debate and in the brief that he was reading.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in his place. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that we could not get a fish and chip shop in the Tees and Hartlepool development area from which to buy the excellent fish from Whitby. According to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, property development is the major aim of privatisation, so we can look forward to the day when the first property development of the newly constituted body is a fish and chip shop to accommodate the hon. Member for Scarborough. We shall all live in hope.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South made our points for us. He told us how successful the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was. If that is so, why does it have to be privatised? If it is so successful that it has about £30 million in cash in the bank, why must it be privatised? We have not had an answer to that point.
We heard at great length from the hon. Member for Stockton, South about the proposed shareholding of the newly privatised company. It was significant that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh did not mention what the shareholding would be. It was left to the hon. Member for Stockton, South who, with a briefing note, gave us these proposals. The last I heard of this was that the port authority had no idea how it would privatise the company, and to whom the shares would belong. I was told that it had appointed chartered accountants, in the shape of Peat, Marwick, McLintock to advise it. If we understand what the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, it is that the port authority has received advice but not passed it on to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, because he did not say anything about it.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South made great play of the fact that there is already a terminal for coal on Teesside. He mentioned the 2 millon tonnes coming into British Steel and other users of coal in the area. He did not say something that has been forcefully said from the Opposition Benches: that what is being proposed is a common use terminal, to which coal can be imported on spec and kept in a depot until it is sent anywhere in the country, north or south. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said, the Durham coal field has at least 12,000 employees, and two pits the size of Horden colliery closed recently. We can get no assurance about whether there will be a common use coal terminal.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that my Adjournment debate was an attack on the Tees and 759 Hartlepool port authority. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh rightly said that I praised the authority, which put the matter into perspective.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that everyone in the area supported the privatisation of the port authority. I have here a letter from a distinguished solicitor on Teesside who said: In my lifetime, this Authority has been regarded as a semi public Authority which although it is autonomous in many respects it was set up for the benefit of the area. Many people must now be concerned that what has been a public body is endeavouring to 'privatise itself'. From the point of view of the people working for the concern it may well be a good thing if it comes off but whether it will be for the public benefit is quite another question.

§ Mr. Holt
Will the hon. Gentleman say that that solicitor was a Labour county councillor?

§ Mr. Bell
I can say quite emphatically that the solicitor who wrote this letter, whom I have never met, is neither a politician, nor a member of the county council or of any political party. His name is a matter for him. I am simply responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. I have the letter here. It is in my file, but I have not asked the solicitor whether I can give his name on the Floor of the House.

§ Mr. Devlin
I shall be interested to know what authority a solicitor, who wishes to remain unnamed, and who has some thoughts on the matter, can add to the progress of the debate. I can produce letters from barristers, solicitors and business men who think that the privatisation is a jolly good thing. I have not bothered to read them all out because they have no locus in the debate.

§ Mr. Bell
The locus is that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh said in an intervention that the measure had the support of everyone in Teesside. He may have added the proviso that anyone with any sense would support it. I am refuting that categorically by quoting a letter written by a solicitor. I have not spoken to him about the letter and he has not told me that he wishes to remain unnamed. As a member of the public, he is entitled to express his view through a Member of this place on the Floor of the House.
I shall refer briefly to some of the other comments of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. He said on two occasions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are morons. It is interesting that he used that expression, which I presume is fully parliamentary because nothing was said to suggest that it was otherwise. The hon. Gentleman then said that I cleverly introduced a point in my Adjournment debate. It seems that, on the one hand, one can be a moron and, on the other, clever. The two terms, if I may use a legal expression, are mutually exclusive. It seems that the hon. Gentleman wished to get his own back on me for calling him a "Champagne Charlie" not long ago. I used that description because he had authorised and sponsored a function within the House for Conservative Members to persuade them to support the Bill.

§ Mr. Holt
The hon. Gentleman said that the soiree was for Conservative Members. He and all his hon. Friends were invited, and none of them had the courtesy to attend.

§ Mr. Bell
Ideology must be sparse in the Conservative party if Conservative Back-Bench Members have to be invited to drink champagne in the House to encourage 760 them to support an ideological commitment to privatisation. After 10 years in office, it may be that privatisation is no longer the mode with the Tory party. Why did the hon. Gentleman have to bring along champagne to persuade his hon. Friends to support the Bill tonight?

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Do I understand that the champagne party took place? I received an invitation and I asked how much it would cost. The public relations people in London referred the matter to the THPA but I still did not receive an answer. I was genuinely worried about the Bill coming into the House. I was also worried that free drink and some biscuits and cheese, or whatever, were on offer. Was my hon. Friend told what the cost of the freebie was?

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh was right to say that I was invited to the party. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Cook) was not. No Labour Member attended the function. That shows that there is still principle within the Opposition, if there is not among Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)
I am worried because during debates on a previous privatisation of our ports there were suggestions about champagne and smoked salmon being made available so that Conservative Members could nip out of the Chamber to drink and eat at their leisure free of charge. Perhaps you will give some thought to the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a view to determining whether such practices by those who are engaged in the privatisation of our ports are correct in parliamentary terms.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Let us continue with the debate. That issue has nothing to do with the Chair.

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were about to answer the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield on my behalf. He has made the valid point that we are concerned about the use of facilities within the House in an effort to influence Members of this place on how they should vote.
As this point has been raised, I shall quote from my statement to the press, which reads: Richard Holt is inviting a host of Champagne Charlies in order to gain support for the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority. It is a common and often condemned Tory practice to wine and dine those they seek to influence when Bills are before Parliament. Labour MPs will boycott the function and hold it up for the ridicule and contempt that it deserves. That answers the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. I congratulate the hon. Member for Langbaurgh because when I described him as a "Champagne Charlie", he came back to say that he was an orange juice addict.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
If it is acceptable for the promoters of the Bill to seek support from the payroll vote by offering champagne suppers in the House with the odd touch of sherbet, perhaps it would be equally fair for Opposition Members to seek to force a vote on each of the Estimates tonight, in which case there will be about seven votes, which will keep Conservative Members here until about midnight.

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point that had not occurred to me until now. The so-called payroll vote may be wheeled in at some time this evening 761 to assist the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. Without in any way challenging the earlier ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have two points to make about that. First, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh categorically stated that the Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), cannot take a view on the Bill. Those are the very words that he used. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary of State then took an extremely clear view, which we can all read in tomorrow's Hansard. The view that he has expressed many times is that, in the offing, in some form or another, is the privatisation of nearly 50 ports, ranging from London and Dover to small fishing harbours. Apparently, that is what the Government are considering. Transport Ministers are studying whether legislation is needed to pave the way for trust ports, which handle nearly half the country's seaborne cargo trade and a lot of passenger traffic, to be converted into private companies. Therefore, the Government's position is clear.
I quoted earlier from what the Under-Secretary is reported as saying in Hansard. I now refer to a press statement, which reads: Last week in a House of Common's debate Shipping Minister Patrick McLoughlin made clear his support for converting trust ports into commercial companies. A spokesman for the Department of Transport confirmed that ministers were 'looking at options', but indicated that it would be a struggle to find the immediate time for the necessary enabling legislation. We have had several accounts suggesting that this is a Government measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has made it clear that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh was flatly contradicted by the Under-Secretary. It is probably a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
Secondly, the former Secretary of State for Transport was in the House earlier this evening. If we refer back to press comments, we are left in no doubt that it was the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who instigated this Bill. That is made clear from a speech that was reported on 11 March 1988 in a local newspaper, which reads: Private eyes focus on us". The article clearly states: Transport Secretary Paul Channon caused some ripples on the Tees when he raised the spectre of privatisation this week. Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority chief executive John Hackney was in London to hear Mr. Channon say that Britain's 74 publicly owned ports are prima facie candidates for going into private hands. The THPA did not leave the matter there, at simply listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. A further press cutting of 5 April 1988 said: Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority is seeking clarification on why the Government has asked for its views on ports going private. At present the THPA is an independent body, with board members drawn from local industry, local councils and the TUC. So we come again to one of the central points of the Bill—whether there is any local accountability. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh said that there was no accountability at all to the local community. Yet we see clearly that Tees and Hartlepool port authority, while an independent body, had board members drawn from local industry, local councils and the TUC. It is therefore clear that this is a Government-inspired, Government-instigated and Government-backed Bill. We shall see as we go on, in Committee and out of Committee, just how much support the Government give to the Bill.
762 I fully accept the Government's commitment to privatisation. I do not accept that the Executive ought to use the legislature for their own purposes. I made very clear my own view of privatisation as a Government measure in a speech that I made on the Budget in 1988, when I said that from the point of view of the Conservative party The concept of privatisation is legitimate. It was an ideological commitment that the Conservative party made at the time of the 1979 general election."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 1027.]

§ Mr. Frank Cook
My hon. Friend introduces a study of the concept of privatisation, but is it not a fact that privatisation as we normally understand it suggests that people pay money in order to acquire property? In this instance it will be quite different. People will be paying money for shares that will be going into a company which will then become their property. So they will be putting money into their own bank. Is not that exactly the same as if I were to sell my hon. Friend my house for £100,000, guaranteeing him that the £100,000 would be in my house when he came to occupy it?

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said that any fool can sell a company at half price, and we have seen over the years, under the Government's privatisation scheme, a consistent underselling of shares in companies being privatised. Then we have seen those shares move into pension funds and banks, again to the detriment of the community.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, made the point that the shares would stay within the community, but he could not guarantee that. He can no more give us a guarantee than Mr. Tiny Rowland could receive a guarantee from Mr. Fayed. When Mr. Rowland arranged for Mr. Fayed to buy the shares in House of Fraser, he suddenly discovered that Mr. Fayed not only held those shares but had bought others and become the majority shareholder. We can see clearly that, once shares are in the public domain, we do not know and cannot tell where they will end up. One thing that we know, and we have seen it in the sale of public assets over the past few years, is that the City of London ends up with the shares.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
Does my hon. Friend feel that many of those shares will be bought in the area, which will be affected by not just this change, but the subsequent change that will lead to the mass importation of coal into the area? So will people in places such as Keir Hardie Terrace, Shotton colliery, which is nearby, or Easington, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) was born, be the prime candidates, as they get kicked out of their jobs, to pick up those shares so that they have a rake-off from this development? I doubt whether anything such as that will occur.

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, whitch brings me back to the speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, when he made the point about those who lose their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out that about 70 jobs in Hartlepool had been lost and that those who had stayed in the industry had had to take pay cuts. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh talked about the twin curses of trust ports and the dock labour scheme. We have seen the nefarious 763 effects of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, in the shape of a reduced labour force, both on the Tees and in Hartlepool, and a reduction in salaries. My hon. Friend has a valid point. What will people be able to do? Will they be able to buy shares at half price and, possibly, sell them to the City of London? Will the City then decide the appropriate investment policy for Tees and Hartlepool?

§ Mr. Jack Thompson
Suppose that local people acquire shares and, after a year or two, sell them to others with a particular industrial interest, such as the importation of coal. In those circumstances, control of the port would ultimately be in the hands of people who had only one thing in mind—the importation of coal. Or it might be radioactive waste or a whole range of other things. That would be a monopoly. It is what happened in the old days. The port that is shared by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) was owned by the coal owners. It was they who determined what should happen. That is exactly what could happen in this situation.

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Some of us remember Mr. Eric Varley, who at one time was Secretary of State for Energy in a Labour Government. Mr. Varley left to become chairman of Coalite. But Coalite was taken over, and Mr. Varley is no longer doing that job. What will happen to the Tees and Hartlepool assets if asset strippers move in? It would not be necessary, in order to secure control, to buy 51 per cent. of the company; a controlling interest could be secured by acquiring something like 29 per cent.
We are talking about the swinging '90s, but what will happen after that—or perhaps even during the '90s—if people, having acquired a controlling interest, decide that there are richer pickings elsewhere in the country or on the continent? They might decide that they would be better off if they had their headquarters in Brussels. Where are the guarantees? Once a company is privatised, once it becomes a company in the public domain, once its shares are being traded in the City of London, no one can tell where the shares will end up. No one can tell who might make share raids. No one can tell what course the company will take. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) said, it might even go into a business such as nuclear waste or the importation of coal, and the House could do absolutely nothing to stop it. In the context of this legislation, there is no such thing as a golden share. The Government have no power to prevent any of the things that we know could happen.
I want to come now to some of the more important points that were made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at the moment. He said that, in the past, the investments of Tees and Hartlepool were all related to ports or port authority work. He was quite specific. If he thinks again and looks at the facts, he may come to regret that statement. Tees and Hartlepool invested in Tac Display Co. Ltd. On 13 January 1986 a document was prepared for the chairman and members of Tees and Hartlepool port authority, explaining Tac Display Co. Ltd., a privately owned company based on North Shields, whose business is the design and manufacture of shop display units". 764 The hon. Member for Stockton, South said very clearly that the company invested only in port-related projects. That is not the case.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
In Cleveland.

§ Mr. Bell
Yes, in Cleveland, which is our esteemed county.
The business of this company was the design and manufacture of shop display units. It had five divisions. It had a jewellery display manufacturing division. I should like the hon. Member for Stockton, South to tell me what that has to do with a port authority. It had a retail display manufacturing division. The hon. Member for Stockton, South might like to tell us what that has to do with a port authority. It had a shop fitting division. The hon. Member for Stockton, South might like to tell us what that has to do—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Frank Cook
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us have been here since the beginning of the debate. We have been paying great attention and participating in the exchanges. Some hon. Members are doing neither; in fact, they are causing great disturbance to those of us who want to continue our interest in the Bill. I ask you to take them to task.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Perhaps those hon. Members will have regard to what has just been said.

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the intervention of my hon. Friend.
I was analysing an investment of Tees and Hartlepool port authority—Tac Display Co. Ltd. It also had a manufacturing of vacuum forming and joinery division. Again the hon. Member for Stockton, South, who has just returned to the House, might like to tell us what that has to do with a port authority. Earlier the hon. Gentleman made a categorical statement that the investments of Tees and Hartlepool port authority over the past few years were related entirely to port matters. Therefore, he might like to tell me what that division has to do with port investment.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
What is happening elsewhere in the House is interesting. The hon. Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) are having a discussion. One is the sponsor of the Bill and the other was the sponsor of the Associated British Ports legislation that allowed millions of tonnes of coal to be brought into the country. This is a similar measure. It is designed to try to kill off the north-east coalfield, just as the other legislation was designed to kill off the Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire coalfield.

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right in his reference to a relationship between the Associated British Ports Bill and this Bill. It is a copycat Bill. It would not be before the House if Tees and Hartlepool did not want to follow the route taken by Associated British Ports. The Bill has a similar design and concept. It will affect the mining industry in Durham and in Yorkshire. As I develop my theme, I shall show that there is no way that the hon. Member for Stockton, South can wriggle out of the fact that there is potential for a common use coal terminal on Teesside.

§ Mr. Devlin
I thought that I answered that when I made my speech. It does not matter whether the port is in the private sector. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's description of the Bill. It is not a copycat Bill. The legislation sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was to extend the port of Immingham——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It would be unwise for us to have a rerun of the Associated British Ports (No 2) Bill. That has nothing to do with Tees and Hartlepool.

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have preferred the hon. Member for Stockton, South, who made a categorical statement about the port authority investing only in port-related matters, to respond to the fact that the authority has invested in TAC Display Co. Ltd., which has five divisions—a jewellery display manufacturing division, a retail display manufacturing division, a shop fitting division, a vacuum forming and joinery division and a design division. I shall give way if he wants to recant what he said earlier, or rephrase it. As he does not want to do so, I shall continue.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
I am astonished that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) should be so surprised at the lack of consistency in the statements made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). After all, he did a 180-degree turn on northern arts between 28 November and 13 March; he got it totally wrong on the poll tax; and the other evening he voted in one Division and then did not bother to vote in the next.

§ Mr. Bell
It is appropriate for my hon. Friend to refer to the inconsistency of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am simply responding to his earlier statement that all the investments of Tees and Hartlepool port authority were port-related. Let me refer again to the investment in TAC Display Co. Ltd. Let me quote from an interesting and revealing document circulated to the chairman and members of the THPA: The question must be asked as to why should the Authority invest in a company which has performed so poorly over the last two years? The first point is that there has been a marked turnround over the past few months, output has increased, productivity has improved, and a loss at the end of October of £12,000 has more than been offset by profits in November and December and it is realistically expected that the projected profit will be in the region of £20,000. The company is very highly geared and therefore any equity investment will reduce the high cost of financing which has reduced its ability to grow, and probably the most important feature is that management has now got control over the company and is exercising financial disciplines with the assistance of a regional manager of a major bank. It was so successful that it lost £150,000. We are hearing so much tonight about the need to pass this privatising measure because the port cannot invest in other companies.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh phrased his argument very cleverly. At no time did he say that any of the investments made in the 1980s were illegal, or ultra vires the company; at no time did he seek to address the question whether powers already existed for the THPA to do everything that it has done for several years. The Under-Secretary is listening carefully and attentively——

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
In fact, the Minister is listening to his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). There is a three-way connection: the 766 Minister, who represents a constituency in west Derbyshire, with which masses of ports are associated, is tied in with the Bill. We are discussing a Government measure tonight.

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It has arrested the attention of the Under-Secretary, who is now listening with great attention. His predecessor as shipping Minister, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was fully apprised of the facts about the THPA's investment in TAC Display Co. Ltd.
The Minister's predecessor was written to by the predecessor of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth, who wrote expressing anxiety about the investment. The Minister's answer was significant. He made it clear that investment in a company such as TAC Display Co. Ltd. was entirely a matter for the authority. He said—in a ministerial letter— As I understand it, the Authority has the statutory power to make such an investment. If the statutory power exists for a private authority or the trust port to invest in jewellery, in retail display manufacturing, in shop fittings, in a vacuum forming and joinery division, and in design work, and if the Minister of the Crown says that the investment is in order, why are we here tonight? Why is it necessary for us to go through he process of this debate, to have to listen to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh and the Minister, whose remarks, to his credit, were all about privatisation, a subject to which we had referred earlier?

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I, too, brought to the attention of the House the list to which my hon. Friend is referring, and I reached the same conclusion as he. It is important for my hon. Friend to impress on the House the fact that that list of activities poses an important question. If the authority can undertake all those activities under present legislation, what does privatisation have to offer? It seems that nothing new could be undertaken, so we are left wondering whether there is a reason for the measure other than privatisation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has not told us that reason.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
A hidden agenda?

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend says, from a sedentary position, that there might be a hidden agenda. After some months of public debate, we have not been able to get to the real hidden agenda.
I explained that the company lost £150,000. A liquidator was appointed in August 1986, and one is left wondering what happened to that £150,000. Did it represent a dead loss to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, which provided an independent report to the board of that authority prior to the investment being made, how and why did the investment go wrong and why did the authority get involved in it in the first place?
The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that all the investments of that authority at that time were port-related. There was a company named Mercury Maintenance Ltd., which proved to be another fine investment by the authority. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh was right to say that, in an Adjournment debate, I praised the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, but my praise was for its programme for disabled workers. We are now considering the financial side of the authority, where a different picture emerges.
767 Mercury Maintenance Ltd. changed its name to Hercules Security Fabrications Ltd. The authority invested £30 in that company, but a loan of £136,000 was given. The directors in September 1986 were Mr. John Hackney, who is the present chief executive, and Mr. John Tholen,' who was the former chief executive. The company was found to be hopelessly insolvent as at November 1987.
The authority invested in another company, in accordance with the powers that it has had since 1966. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool was instrumental in incorporating the Hartlepool port into the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, and credit is due to him for his efforts in that matter many years ago.
There was a £25,000 investment in LPC Elements Ltd. by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority in December 1985. The director remained unchanged, Mr. John Hackney and Mr. John Tholen. According to the company's accounts, it lost £10,534 as at 1988.
We come to Casair Aviation and an investment of £5,000, with £25,000 given by way of mortgage for an aircraft. Again, the directors were as previously. In other words, Tees and Hartlepool port authority board members find themselves on boards of companies in which they have invested. Casair was hopelessly insolvent when it was finally bought out by Northern Aviation Limited, but the accounts were not to hand.
Another company in which Tees and Hartlepool port authority has invested in accordance with its powers under the 1966 Act is called Boldpath. It was given a loan of £510,000. The hon. Member for Stockton, South said that the authority wanted to become a property developer on Teesside or in the north. He said that it could not develop into property because it did not have the powers. But Boldpath is a property company in which the authority invested in September 1986. Against a company with capital of £100, the authority lent £510,000. It is not surprising that, when we ask for statements from the authority about the variety of its investments, we do not find them in the balance sheets or its public accounts and we cannot elicit specific information on each company in any statement.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) back in his place, no doubt hot from the 1922 Committee Thursday night meeting. Another company in which the authority invested in accordance with its powers was Quality Pipework Services. What does the hon. Member for Stockton, South think that Quality Pipeworks Services has to do with a port authority? The authority invested £40,000 in that company and lent it £80,000. Again, the directors were Mr. John Tholen and Mr. John Hackney, the former and present chief executives. That investment was so good for Tees and Hartlepool that it got its investment back at the price it paid for it.
Why should we stop at one, two, three or four companies? Let us examine the entire record of the authority as it relates to its bid for privatisation. What about Storefreight, a company in which the authority invested £100,000? Again, the directors were Mr. John Hackney and Mr. John Tholen. It was the only investment out of ten which turned out to be profitable.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
I am so interested in the information that my hon. Friend is imparting to the House that I 768 should like him to clarify whether the investments took place when Mr. Tholen was acting as chief executive or after he departed.

§ Mr. Bell
All the investments that I have before me were made in 1986. Hercules Security Fabrication was a £30 investment in 1986–87. All the investments were probably made at about the time when Mr. Tholen was chief executive, but Mr. John Hackney, the present chief executive, became a member of the board of all the companies to which I referred.
Storefreight, in which £100,000 was invested, is now a profitable company because it is now 100 per cent. owned by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. It is the only company to be found in the public accounts. When we ask questions about other investments, we are told to wait until the new accounts are published next month. Perhaps as a result of the intervention tonight on the Floor of the House there will be a modification in the accounts.
I wish to put some questions to the sponsor of the Bill and his ally, the hon. Member for Stockton, South. How can the House allow the privatisation of a company which, when it had the power to do so, invested so badly and unwisely? We do not know how much it has cost the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, but it runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. We cannot obtain an answer to that question.

§ Mr. Meale
The information that my hon. Friend imparts to the House is rather alarming. He has read out details of companies involved in marinas, development agencies and fabrication plants. Is he sure that they are the only companies involved? Perhaps we should not proceed any further until we get more details of all the companies in which investments have been made.

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. I have kept to the very end of my observations on financing another company of which no one has ever heard. I have spoken to three directors of the company who have never heard of it. It is Mountjoy Finance. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North, with his great City contacts, has heard of Mountjoy Finance. What are we to make of that company? According to a report submitted to me on 24 January this year, the company was incorporated on 14 February 1986. Its principal activity was the making of long-term loans.
Again, the hon. Member for Stockton, South may be able to tell me whether the making of long-term loans is a port-related activity. The company's assets are fixed at £350,000. Its current assets are set at £50,013. Its current liabilities are £500,000 and its net worth is £13.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
I am staggered to hear that information, especially bearing in mind my hon. Friend's statement that he has spoken to three nominated directors of the company who did not know that they were directors. Did I hear aright, or have I got my wires crossed?

§ Mr. Bell
No. I specifically asked three directors of the company, one of whom is no longer a director, whether they had ever heard of Mountjoy Finance, and they all answered that they had not.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
Can that be legal?

§ Mr. Bell
It may be prudent for me to ignore my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention.
769 Let us talk about the net worth of Mountjoy Finance—£13. That is the net worth of a company that can give long-term loans. That £13 represents 13 ordinary shares of £1 each, allotted and fully paid. The company's authorised capital is 100 ordinary shares of £1 each. For the benefit of the House, let me give the names of the shareholders. Northern Investors Company Ltd, Centro house, 3 Cloth market, Newcastle upon Tyne, has three £1 shares. Ferguson Industrial Holdings, Appleby Castle, Cumbria has four ordinary shares. Melville Street Investments (Edinburgh) Ltd., 4 Melville street, Edinburgh, has four ordinary shares. Then, to and behold, at the bottom comes Tees and Hartlepool port authority, Queen's square, Middlesbrough, which has two £1 shares in the company.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
Do I understand from that list that the only Cleveland interest in the shares was that of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority?

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend is right. According to the information on record at Companies house, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, with its two shares, is the only Cleveland company involved.
I can go further. The investment is not listed in the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's annual report to which I referred earlier, and one of the four directors of the finance house—if I may call it that—is Mr. John Proctor Hackney, of 50 The Holme, Great Broughton, Middlesbrough, who is listed as finance director but who is now the chief executive of Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Mr. Hackney was appointed a director of the company on 30 May 1989.

§ Mr. Ronnie Campbell
Does my hon Friend think that the Daily Mirror should campaign for a public inquiry into this matter?

§ Mr. Bell
I will simply say, modestly and prudently, that Mr. Arthur Scargill is a much-maligned man when one studies the details of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's financial statements.
The financial status report to which I refer—lest there be any doubt about this, I have the official documents with me—prepared on 24 January 1990 stated that the directors have relied upon the exemptions for individual accounts under sections 247 to 249 of the Companies Act 1985. That allows the company to file only a modified balance sheet and a limited number of notes instead of full accounts. The company qualified for this exemption, as it is classed as a small company within the meaning of the Companies Act.
The comments on the financial status report are revealing and show that the company is run at a break-even point, receiving and paying £48,073—worth of interest a year. It is interesting to note that they receive and pay the same amount of interest.
The principal lenders—now we get to the heart of the matter, the reason why the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is investing in a company for £2—are the shareholders. They have extended £350,000 of long-term finance to the company. As the company is in the hands of its shareholders, and only has a small £13 paid-up share capital, this is what the financial status report says: we would advise you to seek a parental guarantee if you are considering extending this company a line of credit. That is with £13 cash in bank on the balance sheet as of 30 September 1987. Here we have it: a £2 investment; a 770 £350,000 loan; one is warned to seek a parental guarantee before extending the company a line of credit; and again £13 in share capital in the bank.
According to the financial statement of 30 September 1988, The company's activity is the making of long term loans. The directors consider that the result for the year is satisfactory. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh looks somewhat disconsolate. He has not listed a single investment by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority during the past—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Meale
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Opposition Members and some Conservative Members—to be fair—have waited patiently here all night listening to the debate. Many more Opposition Members wish to participate in the debate but we cannot hear a word because of the rabble standing over there. Can they be brought to order?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Perhaps those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will talk quietly.

§ Mr. Bell
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

§ Mr. Holt
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (seated and covered)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.

§ Mr. Barnes
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have already said that I shall take it after the Division.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order. One arises from your refusal to allow a point of order during the Division. The point of order that I wanted to raise during the Division was on whether you would think again about accepting the closure motion.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is proving my point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to dispute the judgment of the Chair on whether to accept a closure motion. The Chair accepted it, it is then for the House to make a decision. That is what happened and that was in order.

§ Mr. Barnes
rose——

§ Mr. Bell
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have ruled on the point of order. If hon. Members have a different point of order, I shall take it. We must now proceed to a Division on Second Reading.

§ Mr. Bell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling in any way, but would it be in order if, through you, I put it on the record, for the information of the Secretary of State for Transport, that I shall be calling for a formal Department of Trade and Industry investigation into the affairs of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and into the financial shenanigans that I have revealed tonight on the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to page 366 of "Erskine May", relating to an hon. Member raising a point of order during a Division, only when a question of order arises during a Division may a Member speak seated and covered. That implies that there is a procedure for raising a point of order during a Division and, like many other hon. Members, I have used that procedure in the past.
My point of order is whether I should have been prevented from raising a point of order during the Division. This relates to the point of order that has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I had been attempting to raise another point of order, which it is now too late to raise, about the nature of the Division that was then taking place, given the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, which I feel should lead to a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry, and affects our procedure in relation to this legislation.
Although I feel aggrieved about it, I accept that that has now passed. My point of order relates to whether, by that precedent, hon. Members will be refused the right to raise points of order during a Division.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No new precedent has been created. This matter is at the discretion of the Chair. Depending on the circumstances, it is usual for the Chair 774 to take a point of order during a Division if it relates directly to the conduct of the Division, such as whether the Division bells are ringing.
I am sure that, from the point of view of common sense, the whole House will appreciate—the hon. Gentleman himself made this point—that, when a Division is taking place and hon. Members are going through the Division Lobbies, it is exceedingly difficult in practical terms for the Chair or anyone else in the House to hear what is being said by the hon. Member who is raising the point of order.
From the points that the hon. Gentleman raised during the first Division, it is clear that he was not making a point of order relating to the Division. It is sensible and practicable in those circumstances for the Chair to use its discretion in this way—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and to take points of order after the Division when they can be properly heard and properly dealt with—

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clearly within your recollection—this has happened during the seven years that I have been a Member of the House—that there have been many occasions when the Chair has accepted points of order during a Division——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Nellist
I have not made the point of order yet.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to question the judgment of the Chair. I am sure that he does not intend to do that. We now come——

§ Mr. Nellist
On a different point of order——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Nellist
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We now come——

§ Mr. Nellist
It is a different point of order——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If it is a different point of order, I shall hear the hon. Gentleman, but it must be a different point of order.

§ Mr. Nellist
It is a totally different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain to me under which Standing Order the occupant of the Chair can decide whether or not a point of order is valid if the case has not even been made?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have already dealt with that point of order, and there is nothing that I can add.

Division No. 132]	[10.37 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Churchill, Mr
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Amess, David	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Arbuthnot, James	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Conway, Derek
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Baldry, Tony	Cran, James
Bellingham, Henry	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Dorrell, Stephen
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Emery, Sir Peter
Boswell, Tim	Fallon, Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bowis, John	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Fookes, Dame Janet
Brazier, Julian	Forman, Nigel
Bright, Graham	Gale, Roger
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gill, Christopher
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Buck, Sir Antony	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Burns, Simon	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Burt, Alistair	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Butterfill, John	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Carrington, Matthew	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Carttiss, Michael	Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Cash, William	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Harris, David
Chapman, Sydney	Hayes, Jerry

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Patnick, Irvine
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Porter, David (Waveney)
Holt, Richard	Portillo, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Irvine, Michael	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Jack, Michael	Riddick, Graham
Janman, Tim	Rowe, Andrew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Ryder, Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Kirkhope, Timothy	Shaw, David (Dover)
Knapman, Roger	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knowles, Michael	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lang, Ian	Shelton, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lightbown, David	Stevens, Lewis
Lilley, Peter	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Lord, Michael	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Summerson, Hugo
Maclean, David	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mans, Keith	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Thorne, Neil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Thurnham, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Tracey, Richard
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Trotter, Neville
Mellor, David	Walden, George
Mills, Iain	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Waller, Gary
Monro, Sir Hector	Widdecombe, Ann
Neale, Gerrard	Wilshire, David
Neubert, Michael	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Norris, Steve	Tellers for the Ayes:
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Mr. Tim Devlin and Mr. William Hague.
Page, Richard

NOES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Barron, Kevin	Lamond, James
Beith, A. J.	Leadbitter, Ted
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Meale, Alan
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Nellist, Dave
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Pike, Peter L.
Cummings, John	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Ruddock, Joan
Dixon, Don	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Doran, Frank	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Fisher, Mark	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
George, Bruce
Gordon, Mildred	Tellers for the Noes:
Haynes, Frank	Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Stuart Bell.
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy

Division No. 133]	[10.51 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Janman, Tim
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Amess, David	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Arbuthnot, James	Kirkhope, Timothy
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Knapman, Roger
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Knowles, Michael
Baldry, Tony	Lang, Ian
Bellingham, Henry	Lawrence, Ivan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lightbown, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Lilley, Peter
Boswell, Tim	Lord, Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Bowis, John	Maclean, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	McLoughlin, Patrick
Bright, Graham	Mans, Keith
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Buck, Sir Antony	Mills, Iain
Burns, Simon	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Burt, Alistair	Neale, Gerrard
Butterfill, John	Neubert, Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Carttiss, Michael	Norris, Steve
Cash, William	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Page, Richard
Chapman, Sydney	Patnick, Irvine
Churchill, Mr	Porter, David (Waveney)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Portillo, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Conway, Derek	Riddick, Graham
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Rowe, Andrew
Cran, James	Ryder, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Sackville, Hon Tom
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Durant, Tony	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Emery, Sir Peter	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Fallon, Michael	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Stevens, Lewis
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Gale, Roger	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Gill, Christopher	Summerson, Hugo
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Thorne, Neil
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Tracey, Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Trotter, Neville
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Walden, George
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Waller, Gary
Harris, David	Widdecombe, Ann
Hayes, Jerry	Wilshire, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Holt, Richard	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hordern, Sir Peter	Mr. Tim Devlin and Mr. William Hague.
Irvine, Michael
Jack, Michael

NOES
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dixon, Don
Barron, Kevin	Doran, Frank
Beith, A. J.	Fisher, Mark
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Gordon, Mildred
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Haynes, Frank
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Cummings, John	Lamond, James
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Leadbitter, Ted