Clyde Port Authority Bill

HC Deb 14 May 1990 vol 172 cc650-90

Order for Second Reading read.

7.2 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a serious matter concerning the Bill. In respect of my constituency, clause 4(3) and (4) of the Bill are, at best, incompetent and, as worst, ultra vires.

The Clyde port authority, despite its claims, does not own any property on the Greenock waterfront. On 6 July 1772, in Edinburgh, Sir John Shaw Stewart gave the people of Greenock by way of a feu contract the whole of the waterfront between the Kirk burn, Westburn street and the Royal close, Bogle street. The port and harbours were given in trust in perpetuity to the magistrates, treasurer, town council of Greenock and their successors. That generous decision was incorporated in section 26 of the Greenock Port and Harbours Act 1867 and further codified in section 212 of the Greenock Port and Harbours Consolidated Act 1913, which states: Nothing herein contained shall hurt or prejudice the charter granted to the town of Greenock in the year one thousand seven hundred and fifty-one by the deceased Sir John Shaw of Greenock Baronet nor the feu contract betwixt John Shaw Stewart Esquire and the magistrates and council of Greenock dated in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two or any rights privileges or dues thereby conferred or thence arising so far as consistent with the provisions of this Act. Given the CPA's commercial banditry in this matter, I urgently request that the Bill be refused a Second Reading, for the reasons that I have outlined.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of his intention to raise these matters. I have had them looked into carefully, and there is nothing out of order about the Bill being down for Second Reading. Any aspects of the Bill that call into question its competence or details in the clause are matters for the Committee to discuss and decide in its examination of the Bill, should it be given a Second Reading by the House. Of course, there is nothing to stop the hon. Member, should he be fortunate in catching my eye, to refer to these matters again during the debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a growing custom, which is very unsatisfactory in terms of parliamentary procedure, whereby Ministers make important statements by references in written answers.

The hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) received a reply from the Ministry of Defence referring to a report in the Library about the case of Colin Wallace and misinformation. If Governments put substantial, far-reaching statements in the Library, they should offer to give the information, if not in answer to a private notice question arranged through the usual channels, at least by a parliamentary statement. May I ask whether you have had any request Mr. Deputy Speaker, from any Defence Ministers to make an oral report to Parliament on an extremely significant report about Government misdeeds?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not aware of any request from any Minister to make a statement to the House on this or any other matter.

On the hon. Member's general point, Mr. Speaker has found it necessary in the past to make some critical comments, and no doubt he will read the hon. Member's points with interest.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point concerns the way in which the procedures of the House are used. The Bill is clearly a Government measure. The device of private Bill time has been used to consider a Government measure. If this were a Government measure, we would have been able to get much better information and much better explanations about the Bill's purpose than is possible with a private Bill. I wonder whether it is causing you some torment to have the procedures of the House and your stewardship of private Bills abused by the Government.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is it on the same point?

Mr. Haynes

I said, further to that point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Frank Haynes, then.

Mr. Haynes

Okay, now we are right.

I watched your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the point of order was made about the Bill: If you had been on the Back Benches, as you were in the past, you would have been playing hell.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Haynes

The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not in the Chair; you are. I am saying that, had you been on the Back Benches, you would have been making some representations somewhere. A representation has been made, no progress has been made, so the matter has rightly and properly been raised here. Now you find yourself in the Chair, so I suggest that you have some responsibility, bearing in mind what you would have done on the Back Benches, as you did many years ago.

Mr. Holt

That is out of order.

Mr. Haynes

You twit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr Haynes) must not use such language when I am on my feet—or even when I am sitting down. The hon. Member cannot remember when I was a Back Bencher —I can hardly remember it. I hope, given what recollection I have, that no right hon. or hon. Member would take my behaviour as a Back Bencher as a role model for him to follow.

The hon. Member will know, as does the House, that private Bills are carefully examined by the examiners before they are put before the House. The examiners must be satisfied that the Bills are correct in all respects for presentation in the House. That has been done in this case, as in every other.

A similar point was raised fairly recently when we had before us a similar Bill—the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill—and it was dealt with by the occupant of the Chair. I doubt whether I can add anything useful to what was said on that occasion.

Dr. Godman

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me ask you a technical question. Given that no petitions of objection have been laid against the Bill, am I right in supposing, that if it is successful, it will go from this place to the Committee on Unopposed Bills? Am I also right in thinking that that Committee cannot consider amendments to the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is right that, in the absence of petitions, the Bill will go to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, but I think that in that Committee, appropriate amendments that satisfy the rules of order can be tabled, discussed and made. These matters may fall within the scope of what the Chairman of the Committee will permit, and the Committee could, if necessary, refer to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made this evening.

Mr. Haynes

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened to what you said a little earlier. You did not really listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said.

Mr. Holt

Oh!

Mr. Haynes

I wish you would do something about him, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Bill should be Government business. That is what we are saying. You know that yourself, Sir, without our having to tell you. Government business follows our consideration of this private Bill. That is how the Government are keeping the payroll vote here. That is what is going on.

Can I pick you up on a point that you made earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I remember you coming to this place. I followed your election in Doncaster and I know exactly who you kicked out. You can laugh, but I remember it well and I shall not forget it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not think that I can usefully add to what I have already said.

7.11 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Clyde has played a key role in the economic and social history of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is celebrated in legend and song—although it may be doubted whether Sir Harry Lauder, when he sang: Roamin' in the gloamin' By the bonnie banks o' Clyde Roamin' in the gloamin' Wi' my lassie by my side", had in mind those parts of the bonnie banks owned by the Clyde port authority.

The Bill is about the future, and it will allow the authority to play a full and constructive role in that future. Before I discuss the merits of the case, I shall explain the background——

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

Before the hon. Gentleman turns to the merits of the case, I have a question to ask him. He may be interested to know that I travelled through Eastwood this morning, and I looked carefully to see where his constituency touched the Clyde. I could not find any part of Eastwood that touched the Clyde. Now or at some point, will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House his interest in the Bill—indeed, all his interest in the Bill? The House will be interested to know what they are, as the hon. Gentleman certainly cannot be said to have a constituency interest.

Mr. Stewart

As I understand it, the Clyde port authority area does not touch the hon. Gentleman's constituency either.

Mr. Foulkes

Oh, yes it does.

Mr. Stewart

In any case, I assure the hon. Gentleman that a substantial number of my constituents work for the Clyde port authority.

I was about to start by explaining the general background to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) pointed out in his learned point of order, no petitions have been lodged against the Bill. The existence of the Bill has been well known for some time and no riparian authority has petitioned against it. The Bill has been fully considered by the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Holt

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the local authorities petitioned against the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, and the fact that the Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland have not petitioned against the present Bill means that they support it?

Mr. Stewart

I hesitate to go quite as far as my hon. Friend, but no authority has petitioned against the Bill —nor has any other body.

Dr. Godman

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially given the compliments that he has just paid me. Can he confirm, on the basis of his wide procedural knowledge, that although no petitions of objection have been laid in this place, there will be an opportunity for petitions of objection to be laid in another place within the 10 days after the Bill receives its Third Reading?

Mr. Stewart

I hesitate to give procedural guidance to the hon. Gentleman, as I can claim no expertise in the matter. My own—perhaps erroneous—understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct.

I emphasise the fact that the decision to pursue the private Bill route was made unanimously by the board of the Clyde port authority. That distinguished board includes a Labour politician who is extremely well known in the west of Scotland—the chairman of Strathclyde regional council's economic and industrial development committee, Mr. McGarry—and Mr. Tom O'Connor of the Transport and General Workers Union. Moreover, the Transport and General Workers Union has adopted different positions in respect of the Scottish and the English ports. The union has decided to take no action on moves by the Scottish ports towards public limited company status.

The Clyde Port Authority Order 1965 prevents the authority from competing on equal terms with continental ports or with ports in the United Kingdom. The general shift in traffic from west to east coast in recent years has made it necessary for ports on the west coast of Britain to consider means of diversification to reduce the vulnerability of the existing port businesses. The existing powers of the authority, contained in the 1965 order, are restrictive and may be changed only by legislation. The authority has long been mindful of the restrictions imposed on its powers and has sought to operate within those limits.

Mr. Worthington

Can the hon. Gentleman give examples from recent years to show how the powers have been restrictive? When has the authority wanted to do things that it has not been permitted to do?

Mr. Stewart

I was just about to expand on that point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured when I reach the end of my explanation.

The view taken by the board of the authority—I suggest correctly—has meant that the authority has not been able to take up investment opportunities that have come its way, given that its powers to invest are limited by paragraph 64 of the 1965 order to port-related businesses. Similarly, the authority is prohibited from acquiring property other than for port purposes and from developing its property, except with a view to its ultimate disposal. As Opposition Members know, the authority is a substantial riparian landowner. As such, and consistent with its role as the port of Clyde authority it is naturally anxious to participate fully and assist in the regeneration of the river and the river bank. Its limited powers of investment and property development mean that it has considerable difficulty entering into joint venture agreements or investing in joint venture companies to handle development of riverside sites.

Mr. Worthington

I want to modify my earlier question. How would this Bill alter the authority's ability to develop the land that the authority owns at present?

Mr. Stewart

I was about to reach that point.

The need for ultimate disposal means that the authority has no effective means of securing control, or even influence, over any development. An inability to purchase land other than for——

Mr. Worthington

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart

No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman several times.

Mr. Worthington

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

Mr. Stewart

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a minute, I will endeavour to answer his question.

An inability to purchase land other than for purposes directly related to the port business, makes site assembly and efficient use of the authority's existing land resources in relation to the regeneration of the river well-nigh impossible.

Mr. Worthington

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart

I have already given way several times to the hon. Gentleman. However, I will give way to him once more because I am aware of his interest in these matters.

Mr. Worthington

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

With regard to whether the Clyde port authority must eventually dispose of land, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could draw my attention to the part of the legislation which sets that out. I know that the port authority can enter into, and I believe has entered into, substantial leasing arrangements with private companies; they do not involve the disposal of land. I am at a loss to understand from what part of the legislation the hon. Gentleman has derived his information.

Mr. Stewart

I have referred to the advice provided to the authority by its lawyers. The legal advice is that, because of the existing provisions, the authority is inhibited in the ways that I have described.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has raised an important point. As I understand it, the case being made by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) rests on the proposition that the powers of the Clyde port authority, in its present form, are so severely restricted that it is necessary for it to be metamorphosed into something else. The hon. Member for Eastwood is presenting the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked him very reasonably what the authority cannot do now that it could do if the Bill was approved. The hon. Member for Eastwood could tell us only that the lawyers have advised the authority. The authority presumably advised the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman is now advising the House. Fourth-hand rumour rather than statement of fact in this House is unacceptable.

Mr. Stewart

If that is the case, it is extremely surprising that the Clyde port authority board which included Mr. Lawrence McGarry felt it necessary to introduce this Bill. It has been the board's view for a considerable time that its advice is that the present powers are restrictive and are particularly restrictive in relation to its desire to enter into joint ventures and take a full part in the urban regeneration of the Clyde.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I am not the only person who is becoming perturbed at what the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is saying. Even if the lawyers are mistaken and the restrictions are not as they have been described to the hon. Member for Eastwood, the House will waste a great deal of time unnecessarily. Surely it is not good enough to discover whether the lawyers' advice was correct in the Committee. The House is entitled to know now what specific parts of the legislation are——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a matter for me. I made it clear in response to earlier points of order that the Bill has been scrutinised by the examiners, who are satisfied about its format.

Mr. Foulkes

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. The other point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is a matter for debate and an issue that may be taken into account by the House when it reaches its decision at the conclusion of this debate.

Mr. Foulkes

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) relates to a point of order raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). A private Member is introducing this Bill.

If the Bill had been introduced by a Government Department, the Minister would be properly briefed and able to give legal opinion. He could then explain the matter to the House. We do not have the answer to that problem because the Bill is being introduced by a private Member who has been inadequately briefed and who cannot deal with the particular problem. Does that not show that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should have at least considered the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did consider the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and I hope that I responded to it fully. I cannot usefully add to what I said then. The Bill is in order. Some of the reservations that have been expressed under the cover of points of order are matters that could be made in debate and taken into account when the House reaches a conclusion. The Minister is in his place and will doubtless try to catch my eye during the debate. It is not for me to anticipate what he might say, but no doubt he is listening and may feel able to respond as appropriate. In the meantime, we should allow the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to make his speech.

Mr. Stewart

It may be helpful if I refer hon. Members to the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill in support of this Second Reading, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. In particular, I refer hon. Members to paragraph 6, which will be helpful.

Mr. Wilson

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Eastwood to refer to a paragraph which bears no relevance to the points that he was making? Paragraph 6 states: The Port Authority would wish their business to have a commercial freedom beyond the severely restricted scope of the present powers of the Port Authority. The aim of the Bill is therefore to free the conduct of the Port Authority's business from the restrictions arising from their present limited powers. The mechanism which the Bill provides to achieve this is the establishing of a two tier company structure;—that is—(a) a successor company; and (b) a holding company. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Those are not matters for me. Whether the hon. Gentleman is correctly reading or misreading a document that is not an integral part of the Bill is a matter for the House to take into account in reaching a conclusion at the end of the debate. It is not a matter for me to rule on.

Mr. Stewart

The Clyde Port Authority Bill retains the existing powers, duties and responsibilities of the authority regarding the maintenance and improvement of the port undertaking. The core port business——

Mr. Worthington

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart

No. I have already given way about six times to the hon. Gentleman.

The core port business will be operated by the successor company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the new holding company to be created by the Bill. To sum up——

Mr. Worthington

What?

Mr. Stewart

I have not finished. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can contain himself.

The holding company will have wider commercial powers than the authority has at present. The holding company will be a normal public limited company and it will be able to use its resources flexibly as it wishes. The successor company will inherit and preserve the statutory duties of the authority.

Mr. Worthington

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very important point?

Mr. Stewart

No, I have already given way about six times to the hon. Gentleman.

I want to refer briefly to the potential effects on employment of the structural changes. It would be fair to say that the restructuring programme will increase job security for the present employees and in due course will lead to increased employment throughout the west of Scotland. The existing employees do not oppose the proposals.

It is expected that four separate elements will be involved in the capital structure of the new body. The authority will put forward an employee share ownership plan—an ESOP. Current employees will be invited to subscribe for shares, for which interest-free loans may be made available.

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way to clarify a point?

Mr. Stewart

Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has not previously sought to intervene.

Mr. Wray

Who will be responsible for dredging? Will the successor company be responsible for dredging the river?

Mr. Stewart

That is a fair question, and the answer is yes. The successor company will be responsible for dredging the river. It will operate under precisely the same duties and responsibilities as does the Clyde port authority at present.

Mr. Worthington

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From a lack of knowledge, the hon. Member who is introducing the Bill may be misleading the House. As I understand the previous legislation, the Clyde Port Authority Order 1965, the Clyde port authority has been given powers to dredge the river; the duty is not there. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the successor company will dredge the river, but I believe that he is giving an undertaking that cannot be given because there have been occasions when the Clyde port authority has sought to withdraw from dredging.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

These are not matters for the Chair: they are matters for debate.

Mr. Stewart

In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), I was making the point that the successor company would be under precisely the same duties and obligations as those applying to the Clyde port authority at the moment.

I was talking about the capital structure of the new body. In addition to current employees, past employees, pensioners and their spouses and children will also be invited to subscribe to shares. The authority will also allow subscription by institutional investors, with preference given to institutional support in the west of Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on his point about employee share ownership?

Mr. Stewart

I shall give way, but for the last time, because I may be straining the patience of the House.

Mr. Foulkes

I hope that this is a helpful question, so the hon. Gentleman may be grateful to me. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be an employee share ownership plan—an ESOP. What percentage of the total shares will be available for that employee share ownership plan? How is it intended that the shares will be distributed between employees? Will it be on an equal or hierarchical basis, based on salary or other considerations?

Mr. Stewart

As I understand it, the intention is to have the proportion of employee shares as high as possible, as far as is reasonable. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific percentage in response to his question, but I repeat that the availability will be as high as possible. It is hoped that shares will be made available to residents in the Clyde port region, and that is actively being considered.

I have not spoken about the general problems of trust ports. They are familiar to the House, which has debated them previously. I emphasise that these proposals are the result of the unanimous view of the board of the Clyde port authority and that there is no significant body of opinion against the Bill among the local authorities in the west of Scotland. No local authority has stated its opposition to the Bill. The Scottish Development Agency, Strathclyde regional council and the unions have all been consulted. Against that background of the absence of opposition from such organisations in the west of Scotland, and in view of the clear merits of the provisions, I hope that the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.

7.34 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I wish first to assess the Bill's implications for my constituents and constituency and then to outline my reservations on a couple of broader issues.

As the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has said, the Bill has implications for the whole of the Clyde, both for the river and for the firth. In the past few days, I have discussed the Bill with Inverclyde district councillors, with employees at the Tate and Lyle cane sugar refinery and with those employed at the Greenock container terminal—all of whom may well be affected if the Bill becomes law. In addition, I have met John Mearns, the secretary of the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Society, and Derek Ferguson and other members of that society on several occasions. They too have expressed their serious concern about the Bill.

Incidentally, and in respect of a question that I asked the hon. Member for Eastwood earlier, perhaps he or his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I am right in saying that, although petitions of objections cannot now be lodged against the Bill in this House, such petitions can be lodged in another place withing 10 days of the date on which the Bill receives its Third Reading. I believe that that is the case, but I should welcome guidance on that matter because I must advise the hon. Member for Eastwood that certain interested parties intend to table such petitions if the Bill goes to another place.

My reservations about the ownership claims of the Clyde port authority to, say, James Watt dock in Greenock and to the Greenock container terminal are shared by many of my constituents.

Mr. Foulkes

Is my hon. Friend aware that, at 1 o'clock this afternoon, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland vessel, the Clupa, set sail from the James Watt dock to examine the explosives that had been dumped in the Clyde by ICI? Does my hon. Friend join me in welcoming that move but hope that it will result in some of his and my fishermen constituents receiving adequate and proper compensation for their loss?

Dr. Godman

In that interesting intervention, my hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of the facilities. He is absolutely right. All credit to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland for initiating that exercise. The James Watt dock and other facilities are used by vessels of the fisheries protection service. I agree with my hon. Friend that the dumping of explosive materials causes great concern to me, my constituents and many members of the Clyde Fishermen's Association.

If my challenge to the legality of the CPA's ownership of the waterfront facilities in Greenock is dismissed by the scrutiny of the Committee on Unopposed Bills—if the Bill gets that far—I believe that the Clyde port authority should offer the Inverclyde district council, which is in a real sense the successor body to the Greenock town council, a sum of, say, £2 million by way of compensation for its commercial banditry in my constituency.

When I raised a point of order about the competence of the Bill, I mentioned some contracts that had been signed in Edinburgh in July 1772. I obtained a copy of the document from the Public Records Office in Edinburgh a few days ago. Among other things, it states: It shall not be lawful nor in the power of the said magistrates, treasurer, town council of Greenock nor their successors in office, to sell,"— this may well interest the hon. and learned Member for Perth, and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)— alienate, dispose either irredeemably or under reversion nor wadsett, or burden with infefments of annualment or any other servitudes or burden the said harbour with anchorages, shore, bay, or ring dues, whereby the same may be evicted or adjudged and that all such dispositions, conveyances, wadsetts or other deeds so to be granted by them or their foresaids conveying or burdening the said subjects with any real diligence following thereon shall ipso jure be void null and shall only be effectual against the granter.

Mr. Foulkes

That had to be said.

Dr. Godman

One can see that I have done a little bit of research.

As I said earlier, that feu contract was incorporated in the Greenock Port and Harbours Act 1867 and was further codified in Section 212 of the Greenock Port and Harbours Consolidation Act 1913. It is my view, and as hon. Members well know I am not a lawyer——

Mr. Foulkes

A barrack room lawyer.

Dr. Godman

I may be a barrack room lawyer, as my hon. Friend says.

I should like to hear the Minister's opinion of the validity of section 212 of the 1913 Act. The Act questions the competence of the Bill.

The feu contract has been watched over by members of the Stewart family over the years. In May 1865, an attempt to abrogate the feu contract of 1772 was successfully repelled by miss Jane Stewart of Liberton Manse, near Edinburgh, in a court action. In 1965, the picture changed. The Greenock harbour trust was succeeded by the Clyde port authority. Therefore, Sir John Shaw Stewart's remarkably generous gift to the people of Greenock was eagerly, some would say greedily, swallowed by the Clyde ports authority.

Since that inauspicious day, the Clyde port authority has sold to the Scottish Development Agency the whole of the custom house quay with its fine custom house, which I am pleased to say was recently renovated——

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

At what price?

Dr. Godman

I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman is awake. It was sold, together with all the buildings and land to the west, towards the container terminal. Therefore, eight hectares of land and some fine buildings were sold by the CPA, in an act of banditry, to the Scottish Development Agency for £1.75 million.

The Scottish Development Agency is just as cavalier as the CPA in its attitude towards traditional maritime users of the harbour facilities on the Greenock water front. A couple of years ago I had to speak to the chairman of the SDA about the high-handed behaviour of his officials towards fishermen who were mooring their boats in East India harbour, Greenock. In a letter dated 5 December 1988, I said to Sir Robin Duthie that the Fish Act 1705, colloquially known as Queen Anne's Act, still gave certain rights to fishermen.

I shall quote from that Act, because it is directly relevant to today's proceedings: the Estates of Parliament authorises and impowers all … subjects to take buy and cure herring and white fish in all sundry and sea channels bays firths lochs rivers etc. … wheresoever herring or white fish are or may be taken. And for their greater conveniency to have the free use of all ports harbours shoars forelands and others for bringing in pickeling drying unloading and loading the same upon payment of the ordinary dues where harbours are built. That is, such as are payed for Ships, Boats and other Goods. I look forward to the hon. Member for Eastwood assuring me, on behalf of the CPA, that, if the Bill were to be successful, the new company would behave more responsibly with regard to the Queen Anne Act than did the SDA. That Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh in September 1705.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn

We have been entertained with a lot of nonsense during the past 20 minutes. The hon. Gentleman's constituency probably contains more wonderful buildings than any of ours are privileged to have. The local authority has been appallingly neglectful. The great customs house has been restored with money given by the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland— alas, to be a value added tax office. The great building beside it is falling down, and the ropeworks is no nearer salvation. I find it strange that anyone should claim in aid the concept of heritage as a reason why the Bill should not be passed, when it would give the new authority powers to redeem and restore that great part of the Clyde.

Dr. Godman

We have just been entertained by a characteristic mixture of buffoonery and exuberant malice. I have sought the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman to conserve some of those buildings. I regret that he did not show his usual courtesy in acknowledging my request for his expert help in the conservation of those buildings.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn

The hon. Gentleman must give way. I replied immediately, and the case is before us. It is his local authority which is stalling, and he should withdraw that malicious remark.

Dr. Godman

I have no intention of withdrawing that malicious remark, because it was not at all malicious. I am not responsible for decisions taken by the Inverclyde district council. I am the Member of Parliament for Greenock and Port Glasgow, not a district councillor.

While the Bill cannot be amended in this place unless it is amended when it is scrutinised by the Committee on Unopposed Bills, I hope that amendments will be introduced when, as appears likely, it goes before an Opposed Bill Committee in another place. I hope that, if the Bill becomes law, no harm will come to the Greenock container terminal. I seek an assurance from the hon. Member for Eastwood on that.

On Friday, I spoke to Mr. Phil Cannie and some of his colleagues who load and unload cargo at the terminal. They also expressed their legitimate concern that the terminal should continue to function as a terminal. Business is undoubtedly picking up at the terminal, which has an important role to play in the local economy. It would be a great shame if the Clyde port authority were to dispose of it. It has an important role to play as a terminal, not as a site for executive-style housing. Trade is picking up, as I am sure the CPA will confirm. Timber cargoes are coming in, and the CPA has talked about investing in facilities for the transportation of wood pulp. It is absolutely essential that the hon. Gentleman gives an assurance tonight.

The same holds good for the James Watt dock, where, among other things, raw cane sugar is unloaded for refining at the Tate and Lyle sugar refinery. There are just two cane sugar refineries left in the United Kingdom. There used to be many more in Greenock, Liverpool and London. One of the remaining two, the Westland refinery, is in my constituency, and the other is in the constituency that is ably and honourably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

The refinery in Greenock employs about 300 people, most of whom are my constituents. The hon. Member for Eastwood spoke about security of employment in the Clyde port authority. I welcome that, but we also have to think about security of employment for those who are employed in the ancillary industries that are served by the Clyde port authority's maintenance of dock side and other port facilities. The 300 people who work in the refinery have an interest in the Bill.

I remind the hon. Member for Eastwood, Mr. John Mather and Mr. Bob Easton of the Clyde port authority that the House has twice passed without Division two resolutions, both of which acknowledged the need to protect the interests of the east African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar producers and those British citizens who are employed in our port and in the sugar refining industry. The second of the resolutions was passed on 2 December 1985 and is reported in columns 107 to 127 of the Official Report. I hope that the House will forgive my lack of modesty when I say that I was able to persuade the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to accept my amendment to his resolution. He accepted it with his usual grace.

The first resolution was passed under a Labour Administration and the second under a Tory Administration, and both stressed the need to protect our cane sugar refineries. Last week I spoke to Mr. Stevie Kane and other shop stewards in Tate and Lyle, who also expressed their serious concern about the Bill and its implications for their refinery. I hope that assurances and guarantees about the continuation of sugar cargoes into Greenock can be given by the hon. Member for Eastwood. Nothing less will do for my constituents who are employed by Tate and Lyle.

These are important matters, because unemployment in my constituency is still scandalously high—much higher than the level in the Strathclyde region and at least two and a half times as high as the United Kingdom level. The people that I have mentioned have a legitimate interest in the Bill, even though they do not work for the Clyde port authority.

I should now like to deal with the dredging of the Clyde. I know that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will respond to this. Despite my considerable respect for Bob Easton, the chairman of the Clyde port authority, and for John Mather, the chief executive of the authority, I cannot believe that a private company would continue to dredge that channel on any basis other than a commercial contract. The dredging of the Clyde is an essential operation because, if it were not carried out for two years, the channel would silt up and no vessel would be able to enter the docks at Glasgow, except for the King George V dock. Mr. John Mather and Mr. Bob Easton would not deny that.

Some of my constituents work for Kvaerner of Govan and others work for Yarrow's. Both those shipyards employ several thousand men and women whose livelihood utterly depends on the efficient dredging of that channel. I am not entirely certain of my figures, but I think that I am right in saying that the Clyde port authority pays more than £600,000 towards the total cost, Yarrow's pays at least £100,000 per annum, Glasgow district council pays a similar sum and Strathclyde regional council pays an amount not dissimilar to that.

Kvaerner also pays for the dredging of that navigable channel. When Kvaerner negotiated the acquisition of the yard from British Shipbuilders, it swithered over the deal because of the responsibility that it would have for the cost of the dredging operation.

I seek an assurance from the Minister for Aviation and Shipping and from the hon. Member for Eastwood that that essential work will continue. If it does not, the shipyards at Port Glasgow will be irrevocably ruined within two years by the amount of silt that is carried up the Clyde on each tide. As I have said, I do not think that a private company would carry out dredging other than on the basis of a commercial contract, and I would not blame its shareholders for that.

Mrs. Fyfe

Would my hon. Friend comment on the possibility that dredging might continue but at an unreasonable cost? What are the implications of that?

Dr. Godman

That is a worry for my hon. Friend and for other hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies. My hon. Friend must have constituents who work in Kvaerner in Govan and in Yarrows. I listened diligently to the speech by the hon. Member for Eastwood, but I did not hear the kind of guarantee that I am seeking about dredging. Perhaps he knows the Clyde better than I do, and my constituency is not directly affected. If the Clyde silts up, the shipyards may move down to Greenock. That would not break my heart, although my hon. Friends might throw me into the Clyde for even daring to suggest such a move.

Dredging is an essential commitment that must be honoured by those who manage the ports, whether that is the Clyde port authority or its successor body. Perhaps the Minister would tell us who will pay for that essential operation. Will it be the local council, the shipyards or the Scottish Office? I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is in the Chamber and listening with his characteristic courtesy and attentiveness. He may be able to tell the Minister for Aviation and Shipping that the Scottish Office will pick up the Bill. I would welcome that. Ministers may laugh, but this is no laughing matter on the Clyde.

I fear that, in time, the new company may be considered fair game by a distant predator in far-off London, Paris, Tokyo or somewhere else. I respect Messrs. Easton and Mather, and I know that both are committed to the Clyde and its well-being. However, they may well be thrown overboard by a London or New York-based predator—although, I hope, not literally.

I hope that the Bill will be chucked overboard. If it avoids that fate because of the skill of Ministers and the Whips Office, I certainly hope that it will be amended in another place in ways that are satisfactory to my constituents, given their legitimate interest in the Bill and their concern for the development of the Greenock waterfront from its container terminal down to James Watt dock and beyond. I do not believe that the Clyde port authority owns those properties, but if I am proved wrong because of past legislation, I believe that that authority should act generously and give a fair amount of compensation to the Inverclyde district council. As it stands, the Bill offers little comfort to the maritime communities on the River Clyde and the firth of Clyde.

8 pm

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)

It may be for the convenience of the House if, at this stage, I make a brief statement of the Government's views on the Bill. On 15 March, the House gave a Second Reading to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. The Clyde Port Authority Bill is an almost identical measure, and the Government's position on both Bills is the same.

Trust ports are slightly odd bodies. They are independent and not accountable to anyone. Their powers and sources of finance are limited, but they must compete with ports run by companies, such as 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.

The Government have not been able to find room in their programme for appropriate legislation. It was for that reason that, about a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), when he was the 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 our legislative programme, private legislation is the only way in which any of those ports can quickly be converted into fully fledged private sector enterprises.

The present Bill will not alter the statutory responsibilities and powers that the Clyde port authority has under its existing private legislation.

Mr. Worthington

That is an extremely important assurance and we need to know what it means. I am particularly interested in the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—the responsibility for dredging. As the Government back the Bill, does that mean that they are making a clear-cut commitment that dredging will continue at its present rate for ever? As I understand it, however, it is quite possible for the successor company to give up dredging when it wants to.

Mr. McLoughlin

I cannot add to what I have just said. The statutory responsibilities and powers of the Clyde port authority, as set out in existing private legislation, will remain the same. Obviously the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is one to be discussed in Committee as the Bill makes progress.

The existing legislation will be carried forward lock, stock and barrel to the proposed new successor company. successor company will still be a harbour authority. It will be subject also, just as the port authority is today, to those provisions of public legislation that 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 misunderstanding. The position is exactly the same as when Associated British Ports was privatised on the Government's initiative.

Mrs. Fyfe

Although the dredging may continue, can the Minister give us any assurances about the cost and who will pay?

Mr. McLoughlin

I am sure that if I started to give such answers, one might easily conclude that this was not a private Bill. I am merely stating the Government's position in relation to the private Bill. Other inquiries must be made through the proper channels when the Bill is in Committee.

The Government support the principle underlying the Bill. It is, however, necessary for Parliament to give careful consideration to the public interest in the conversion of trust port authorities into companies.

We agree with the promoters of the Bill that trust ports have no explicit owners, 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 of that company. The Government's view is that a proportion of the proceeds of sale should go to the Exchequer. We are considering the best way of securing that, but the intention, which Parliament would be asked to approve, would be that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of shares should be paid to the Secretary of State and paid into the Consolidated Fund whenever a trust port is converted into a company by means of private Act.

The Government regard that as an equitable share of the proceeds between the Exchequer and the new shareholders. In making that decision, we took into account the initiative shown by the Tees and Hartlepool and the Clyde port authorities in introducing their private Bills, the benefits of early privatisation, and the ports' intention to invest in new developments.

Mr. Wilson

What are the Government getting the money for?

Mr. McLoughlin

In the past, we have given certain grants, so it is required that there should be a return to the taxpayer, through the Exchequer, for some of those grants. The percentage was agreed as a broad figure for all trust ports that may introduce private Bills in the future.

We must bear in mind the interests of the taxpayer, who has contributed to the development of the trust ports, and the need to ensure a level playing field between the newly privatised trust ports and those ports already in the private sector. Therefore, on that basis, the present Bill has my full support.

8.6 pm

Mr. David Lambie (Cunninghame, South)

I was glad to hear the Minister's assurance that the Government will bring in legislation on the trust ports, but that makes me even more suspicious of the Bill.

According to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), if the Bill is passed it will have little influence on the present activities of the Clyde port authority. If that is so and given the Government's intention to introduce legislation, why has this Bill been brought in now? Why not wait until the Government bring in the legislation that will deal with all trust ports? We could then have a full debate on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee and deal with all the issues that have been raised, either in points of order or in the specific questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I am curious about the interest that the hon. Member for Eastwood has in the Clyde port authority. He told us that he was interested because certain of his constituents worked in that authority. That is a legitimate interest for any Member of Parliament, but surely it is not strong enough to sponsor a private Bill. Why was not my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked to bring in the Bill? Why were not the hon. Members representing Glasgow or Cunninghame asked to bring in the Bill?

After the next election, when the hon. Member for Eastwood loses his seat, as most of the Scottish Tory Members will, I ask him to guarantee that he will not accept a directorship on the board of the new company. I should like the hon. Gentleman to answer that question and to give us an assurance that his future financial interests do not make him enthusiastic about the Bill being given a Second Reading tonight.

I am serious about the matter and hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer that question. Some of his hon. Friends took part in previous debates on privatisation. I do not want to name names, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) can do that, as he is harder than I am. If he is willing to mention the name of the new director of the bus company, Stagecoach, I am sure that he will mention other names if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the interest of the hon. Member for Eastwood in the Bill?

I was suspicious about the Bill when it was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. When I came down from Scotland because of the one-line Whip, I was sure that, after listening to the hon. Member for Eastwood, I would understand why the Bill is necessary. I did not get that information. He said that the only difference would be that the authority could enter into joint ventures to sell property and land.

The hon. Member for Eastwood put us under tremendous pressure by saying that some of my trade union friends were supporters of the Bill—Tom O'Connor from the Transport and General Workers and Lawrence McGarry, the former chairman of the economic and industrial development committee of Strathclyde regional council, who are members of the board. They should have contacted Strathclyde Labour Members of Parliament before they decided to support the Bill given us their reasons. I am worried that they have the same interest in the Bill as I hope the hon. Member for Eastwood will not have after the next general election, when he is no longer a Member of Parliament.

In the statement on the behalf of the promoters, in support of Second Reading, paragraph 2 states that the port authority is profitable; and it does not rely on government subsidies. You do not know much about the Clyde, Mr. Deputy Speaker so I must explain that this is a Bill about the Clyde port authority——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I was unloading cargo and cargo handling during almost the whole of 1947 and 1948, on King George V dock.

Mr. Lambie

I withdraw my accusation, as I understand that it has no foundation. I can cut short my speech as I was about to give you the background to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that you could deal with the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

The Clyde port authority is a profitable company, but the accounts for a period of years show that it has been profitable not because of its port or harbour activities but because it has sold assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow gave us an example. It sold the heritage of Greenock and Port Glasgow to the Scottish Development Agency. Not that I criticise what the agency has done, but the people of Clydeside would have been happier with industry, harbour and port activities, which we had in the past, and not grass, trees and green fields.

The Clyde port authority has been successful because it has sold its assets, but it has reached the stage where it needs additional help to become more profitable. That is why it needs permission to establish joint ventures. The authority wants to bring in other vultures—not the ones on the roof, but the ones in the private sector—to rip off the heritage of the Clyde, which has been built up by the people of Clydeside for centuries when it was the foremost port in the United Kingdom.

With the development of Europe and the decrease in trade across the Atlantic to the Americas, the Clyde port authority has found itself in difficulty. However, it took the easy road out, and instead of trying to develop port facilities, it balanced the books by selling property and assets. That is my criticism and I have often made it to the authority and on the Floor of the Chamber.

I represent Cunninghame together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and within our constituencies we have two important ports that are integral parts of the Clyde—the deep-water port of Hunterston and the port of Ardrossan.

I am speaking tonight because I am interested in the development of the port of Hunterston, which is unique in the west coast of Scotland and unique in Europe because it is one of the few deep water ports. However, it has not been developed and the blame lies with the board of the Clyde port authority.

Before I entered Parliament I took part in a trade union and labour movement campaign to persuade the Government to designate the Hunterston peninsula as an industrial area for steel, oil-refining and chemical activities. Those industries could have been developed there because large bulk carriers can come into the port and discharge their cargoes cheaply. The Clyde port authority has not developed the unique facilities of Hunterston; it has allowed it to die.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, the port is now experiencing a slight upsurge in business, but if there is an adverse decision about the future of Ravenscraig steelworks, the port of Hunterston will be finished because its other activities will not be sufficient to sustain it.

Perhaps I am criticising the Clyde port authority unfairly for not developing Hunterston. I realise that it was placed under servere restraint due to the operation of the dock labour scheme and that a major disaster occurred when the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the steelworkers' union, was not allowed to organise workers loading and unloading ships at Hunterston. I realise that after a six-month strike, when Transport and General Workers Union reinforced the position of the dockers, it tied the hands of the Clyde port authority a little. Again, the authority should have fought more than it did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North and I are also interested in the port of Ardrossan, which has been in decline while it has been under the Clyde port authority's control. When I represented central Ayrshire, which contains the port of Troon, I was interested in Associated British Ports. In Ayr, we were interested in comparing the port of Ayr with activities and development at the port of Ardrossan—there was no comparison. In fact, I often put the case to Ministers for the port of Ardrossan to be taken away from the Clyde port authority and handed over to Associated British Ports, even after it had been privatised.

I hope that the Bill will be thrown out tonight and that the Government will bring forward their proposed legislation for all the trust ports. If it is not thrown out, I hope that we shall secure amendments to it that will break up the Clyde port authority and withdraw from it the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan. The future of the two ports does not lie with the Clyde Port Authority plc; it lies with an independent company developing both ports for the benefit of the people of Cunninghame, rather than subsidising a defunct Clyde port authority.

Dr. Godman

Can my hon. Friend advise me about the responsibility of the Clyde port authority as a pilotage authority? Would not the Clyde Port Authority plc still have responsibility as a pilotage authority?

Mr. Lambie

I am afraid that I cannot answer that question, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood or the Minister will answer it.

I appreciate that I may be arguing against some of my hon. Friends who represent the upper Clyde and the River Clyde, but I want the Hunterston and Ardrossan ports to be split from the Clyde river authority. If the Bill is enacted and the Clyde port authority ceases to be a trust port and becomes a plc, it will get all the money and will concentrate all its development on the buying and selling of property and land.

Therefore, the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan should become independent, even if that means them being taken over by a privatised Associated British Ports. At least they have shown an initiative that has not been shown by the Clyde port authority. If that authority and my friends who are directors on its board want to become property and land developers, let them. Of course, I appreciate that that would cause a problem for some of my hon. Friends.

I hope that we will not be defeated tonight by the votes of Scottish Members. I am a little disappointed that there is not one representative of the Scottish National party present. Perhaps they are at a wake for the resignation of the chairman of their party, Mr. Gordon Wilson, who today announced his intention to resign at the next conference.

Mr. Holt

It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to point out that no Scottish Nationalist Member is present. He forgot to mention that there are no Liberal Democrat Members present either. Of course, about 20 Scottish Labour Members have an interest in the port, but fewer than half of them have been present tonight.

Mr. Lambie

I was about to refer to the absence of Liberal Democrat Members. Strathclyde has had a fair parliamentary representation tonight. Those Scottish Members who are not here are feeding, and they will soon come in in droves.

I ask the hon. Member for Eastwood to declare any interest, or any possible future interest, in the Clyde Port Authority plc. In view of his arguments and the poor content of his speech, I ask him to withdraw the Bill.

8.26 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

I speak in this debate because no one from Scotland can doubt the importance of the Clyde to Scotland's well-being. Ever since the industrial revolution, it has contributed substantially to the well-being, the benefit and the massive enhancement in values for those who live in the area and throughout Scotland generally.

I especially remember the Clyde during the difficult years of the second world war, when troop ships came in from north America and the Clyde was regularly a target for the Luftwaffe. Anyone who saw the Clyde operating as a port in those days could never forget the extremely difficult circumstances with troop ships coming in from north America or going out to the middle and far east.

Dr. Godman

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Clyde port authority came into being in 1965?

Mr. Walker

I do not wish to become involved in pedantic arguments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am commending the Clyde's contribution to the well-being of the nation.

Dr. Godman

In view of the hon. Gentleman's stout defence of all those employed in the whisky industry, does he agree that it is a great shame that the overwhelming majority of whisky products are exported not from Greenock or Grangemouth, but from English ports? Is not that a matter for deep regret?

Mr. Walker

I make no apology for saying that the whisky industry carries out its business in the most efficient way possible, however that is done. The whisky industry has a future in its present form and it will continue to have one, provided that it exports its products in the most cost-effective and efficient way. It is not my job to second-guess the whisky companies in determining the routes through which they send their products abroad. My concern is to ensure that the £1,000 million-plus of whisky products that are exported continue to be exported. It has never been my desire, in public or in private life, to impose upon private sector companies restrictions that would in any way limit their performance in the world marketplace.

Dr. Godman

I repeat, the hon. Gentleman looks after the interests of those of his constituents working in the whisky industry with remarkable vigour. However, if the major ports on the Clyde and the Forth were to disappear, the subsidies offered to the whisky distillers and blenders to take their products out through English ports would surely disappear.

Mr. Walker

The responsibility for determining the place from which exports leave the country or imports arrive is largely that of the companies which ship products and the shippers. If they decide to use a particular port because it is more cost-effective than another, I hope that the port that has not been chosen will look carefully at whatever are the cost advantages, real or imagined, as seen by the shippers and shipping companies. We hope that all areas of Scottish activity, including ports, will adapt to meet the changing demands and conditions of the modern world, so that Scotland can compete not only with overseas ports but those elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

One cannot ignore recent trade history. Since its inception, the port authority has been obliged to face a number of dramatic changes in trade patterns. Like its predecessors, it has been compelled to adapt. The first of those changes was the implementation of full-scale containerisation on the world general cargo and liner trade routes. Those of us who witnessed that change occurring throughout the United Kingdom know that the ports that adapted quickly to containerisation thrived and grew, whereas ports that failed to adapt did not do so. Incidentally, I do not make any political, narrow, partisan points, because it is not that kind of Bill. It has the support of the Transport and General Workers Union, and of elected councillors, which I am delighted about.

Mr. Worthington

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman is rather impetuous. He does not allow anyone to complete a sentence.

I hope that Opposition Members accept that there is nothing narrow or partisan about the view that I take. Instead, I am concerned to see the Clyde develop in the best way possible. I was emphasising that unless one adapts quickly, and if restrictions are placed on the way in which a company or a trade union can operate, it serves as an impediment to change. Any impediment to change must present a disadvantage by comparison with ports that are able to change.

Dr. Godman

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that no impediments are being presented by the management or workers at the Kvaerner yard at Govan or at Yarrow. At both yards, management and workers are keen to win new orders. In the near future, Kvaerner may secure an order for three large vessels. That would be most useful to my constituents, because I fervently hope that Kincaid will build the engines for those vessels.

Mr. Walker

I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I stated that there are any impediments. I was only expressing the hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see the Clyde flourish—that we want it to adapt to meet the changing demands of today and tomorrow. We may differ on the route taken to achieve that. All the evidence from eastern Europe is that the capitalist, private-sector methods are far more efficient, create more jobs, and produce far more wealth than the narrow attitude that is the alternative, if I may put it that way.

Mr. Worthington

So the hon. Gentleman is being non-political.

Mr. Walker

I repeat, socialism does not work, and all the countries of eastern Europe are rejecting it. I was trying not to be partisan, but was responding to the narrow partisan points of Opposition Members. If they cannot take it, they should not make their points in the first place.

The Clyde port container terminal was constructed on the site of the Princes pier at Greenock and received its first ship on 15 March 1969. The terminal, with its depth of water of 42 ft at low tide, with a back-up area of 42 acres, and with rail connections to the major industrial centres of the United Kingdom, had by 1973 attracted 13 shipping lines. I hope that Opposition Members view those remarks as promoting the Clyde.

Events gradually overtook the north Atlantic trade. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), in his interesting speech, quite properly defended the interests of his constituents—even if it was at the cost of the constituents of some of his hon. Friends. There is nothing odd about that, because the hon. Gentleman has a track record for it. No one could ever accuse the hon. Gentleman of neglecting his constituency.

Dr. Godman

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Clyde port container terminal, which is in my constituency. Everyone acknowledges that that terminal has seen bad times—largely brought about by fluctuations in maritime trade patterns. However, the vastly reduced number of men working at that terminal today are striving hard to increase its efficiency, and they are beginning to win.

Mr. Walker

I am delighted to hear that. I am not in any way being critical——

Dr. Godman

Yes, you are.

Mr. Walker

I am not. If the hon. Gentleman will read my speech tomorrow, he will see that I acknowledge, as does the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South, that the development of European trade in both directions is a substitute for what used to be the United Kingdom's major trade area in the north Atlantic. Anyone who doubts that trend need only study the changes in the trade patterns. One cannot blame the people working in the ports or the port employers for changing trade patterns. Whether one is trading in a port or in a high street, if one does not change to meet new patterns, one goes out of business. No right hon. or hon. Member wants to see Clyde port do that.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South referred in particular to the importance of Hunterston to the west and the whole of Scotland. There is no question but that Hunterston and Ravenscraig depend on each other. In Hunterston, Scotland has a facility of which it can be proud. I look upon it much as I view Prestwick. Both are great Scottish assets. It is up to us as Scots to identify how we can best influence those facilities being maximised, to the benefit of Scotland. That is why I am distressed that so many foolish and sad things are said about Hunterston, Ravenscraig and Prestwick.

Mr. Foulkes

In the past, I have had cause to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all the positive things that he has said about Prestwick, for which he has been a doughty campaigner. Was it the Secretary of State for Scotland's U-turn on Prestwick that really turned the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) against him and led the hon. Gentleman to campaign for the present Secretary of State's replacement by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? If so, that important milestone should be recorded. People should know about it. The primary responsibility belongs to the Secretary of State for Transport. He should be warned to look after his back.

Mr. Walker

I am fond of the hon. Gentleman in many ways. I hope that that does him no political harm. He has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the fact that we have joined together in campaigns in which we both believed. I should like to know what his views are on two-minute roof tax Donald. The Labour party has problems in Scotland. On which side of the fence does the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) fall? I shall go no further down that road. I have merely responded in kind to the hon. Gentleman's jibes.

The fact is that 50 per cent. of the Clyde port authority's traffic goes through Hunterston which represents 43 per cent. of its revenue. The Clyde port authority has a duty and a responsibility to ensure that the port is used to its fullest extent to benefit Scotland. Furthermore, Ravenscraig must continue to be the most cost-effective and productive plant that the British Steel Corporation owns. We must compliment the workers at Ravenscraig on their remarkable production performances.

Mr. Lambie

To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about Hunterston, my criticism of the Clyde port authority is that it has spent too much time on property development too little time on developing the harbour and port facilities, especially at Hunterston. If it had spent more time developing Hunterston instead of selling land in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), we might not have had to come here today to deal with this stupid Bill.

Mr. Walker

I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question on the basis of principle rather than detail. I do not know what the Clyde port authority has been doing. In principle, however, it is up to any corporate body that owns land or property to maximise its assets for the benefit of the whole undertaking. That could mean selling off land for development so that the core part of the business can be successful. The core business may require substantial funds if it is to grow. It would be better to use asset funds, on which no interest has to be paid, for those developments rather than borrowed funds. I hope that the Clyde port authority has been using its assets to create the maximum advantage for the core part of the business. I believe that it probably has, since it appears to be profitable. That must be welcomed by us all.

The Clyde port authority board unanimously support-ed the use of the private Bill procedure. It must have considered a variety of options—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is laughing. He sits on a board. I hope that the board on which he sits takes responsible decisions. If it does not, he and the other board members are failing in their statutory duty. Perhaps he is not unaware of a director's statutory duties.

I believe that in this case the board considered the options and decided unanimously to support the private Bill procedure. As it drew on the experience of so many interests, I have no hesitation in saying that I hope that the House will ensure that the Bill is given a Second Reading and is considered in Committee. If it does, Scotland's interests will have been well served.

The Clyde will continue to be an important port. The developments within Europe mean that trading patterns have changed, but during the next 30 years I believe that north Atlantic trade will be far more important that it has been during the past 20 years. Changes to the world's political power blocs will result in changes to trading patterns. It would be most unwise of us to run down this great national asset. I take the same view of the Clyde as I do of Prestwick—that we should look after and nurture it. If we do, it will still be there when trading patterns alter, as I believe they will. Too often in the past we have said, "If we had only known then what we know now." By then, however, it is too late.

Dr. Godman

With regard to the nurturing of the Clyde, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the assurances that have been given about continuing the dredging of the channel?

Mr. Walker

I am satisfied that the successor company will assume all the responsibilities of the present authority. On that basis, I assume that it will continue to do what has been done in the past. The Bill does not change the responsibilities; it merely gives them to the successor company. The statement says: The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the transfer of the Port Authority's undertaking to a Companies Act company, ('the successor company'), with the consequential dissolution of the Port Authority. The successor company would at all times be a wholly owned subsidiary of another Companies Act company ('the holding company')". The successor company will assume all the responsibili-ties of the Clyde port authority. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may not be satisfied that the authority would honour its responsibilities. However, the successor company would have to do so.

It is important to set up a holding company. That is the big difference. The holding company will be in the market place in a way that the Clyde port authority is not. It will have the opportunity to obtain funds, which the Clyde port authority cannot do. I should have thought that that would be of advantage to the Clyde.

If we are all interested in doing what is best for the Clyde—I hope that we are—I should have thought that experience has taught us that, if we do not change, we may end up with another albatross round our necks, and we do not want that.

8.39 pm

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who, in the past two or three minutes, gave us more explanation of the structure of the Bill than we were given by the presenter, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). His explanation was off the top of his head, however, which is a remarkable sign of the contempt with which the House has been treated.

The Bill is of considerable importance, and the House should treat it with the seriousness it deserves. It concerns an authority that is responsible for 450 square miles—not only the port of Glasgow but the ports of Ardrossan and Hunterston, not to mention all the sea lochs around the Firth of Clyde. It seems that we are to approve on the nod a change in the way in which the port area is administered.

The hon. Member for Eastwood is usually the most affable of Members, but on this occasion he has treated the House with some contempt by failing to brief himself on the implications of the Bill. Tonight, he is in the position of a Minister; usually, Ministers presenting a Bill go through it and explain the implications of each clause. That the hon. Gentleman failed to do. All he gave us was a recitation from what I can only assume was a public relations brief of about two pages from the Clyde port authority. The hon. Gentleman completely failed to answer the questions that were put to him.

I object to the Bill not because I regard the Clyde port authority as a satisfactory body—I do not. I regard it as highly unsatisfactory, and I think that it should be restructured so as to reflect the interests of all the people of Scotland, not just those of the people who run the authority now.

Is the Clyde port authority a public or a private body? We do not know whether it is fish or fowl, whether it is operating in the commercial market or in the public sector.

It is also most unsatisfactory that the authority should be the responsibility of the Department of Transport—a fact that is not widely known. I suspect that most people in Scotland think that it is linked with the Scottish Office. I notice that sitting on the Government Front Bench is the third of a rapidly changing sequence of Ministers that we have seen during the passage of this Bill—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). In theory, he is the Scottish Minister with responsibility for transport, but in practice his relationship with the Bill is peripheral. He has no brief for or interest in the matter. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping has apparently disappeared to an event that he considers of greater importance—

Mrs. Fyfe

Why?

Mr. Worthington

I do not know.

I have tabled parliamentary questions and written to the Minister at the Department of Transport about this matter. I asked: What means of redress or appeal exist in the case of maladministration or inefficiency by a body such as a port authority. In other words, I asked what people can do if they think that a port authority is not doing its job. The Minister replied: Harbour authorities that are companies or statutory trusts are autonomous bodies running commercial undertakings. Any complaint should be made to the chief executive or chairman, and if satisfaction is not obtained the complaint can ultimately be pursued through the courts."—[Official Report, 2 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 272–3.] So one can do nothing about these bodies save appeal to the people running them.

We are talking about a collection of individuals who emerge through the strange processes of the selection of the great and the good to sit on these bodies. They are not appraised, and as far as I know the Department of Transport issues no reports on their past credibility. These bodies seem to go on and on, pursuing a course that may be good or that may be distinctly mediocre.

In November 1989 I wrote to the Minister about accountability, and he replied as follows: Once the Board members are appointed, however, they are entirely responsible for the day-to-day running of the Authority using their collective judgment of what is in the best interest of the port and operating within the terms of the governing parliamentary legislation". So it appears that the board members, appointed by the Department, are not accountable. The Minister goes on to speak of the authorities' powers: In particular the 1965 Act provides that it is for the authority to decide whether to dispose of land, what price to seek and what conditions to impose on its release". That power does not sound limited in the way that we heard it described earlier.

If Parliament had had any sense, we should first have considered whether the Clyde port authority had been operating efficiently and effectively. If we discovered that it had not been, we should then have considered what reforms to introduce. Instead, we have given the port authority—if it has done a bad job, this would seem wrong —the power to initiate its own legislation. At no point did the hon. Member for Eastwood provide us with an appraisal of the sort of job that the authority has done. Has it effectively developed the work of the area, or has it been ineffective? All we heard was a statement of what it wants to do. That is not an effective way of running a great port on an important estuary. We needed to hear an analysis of what the authority has been doing for the past 40 years and of what changes are necessary.

That seems to me to be going about things back to front. We have only the assertion by the Clyde port authority about what has gone wrong, rather than an independent analysis. I would have welcomed it if the National Audit Office—or some such organisation—had examined the way that the port authorities operate, and concluded that changes were necessary. We need a clear statement of what is being sought and of the responsibilities.

In his brief and perfunctory introduction to the Bill, the hon. Member for Eastwood—who is now about to be even more perfunctory, and leave the Chamber—stated that the powers of the Clyde port authority were restricted. However, he was unable to say in what way. The original legislation—the Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act 1965—says what the duties and powers of the port authority will be. I shall read out those powers, because it is necessary for hon. Members to judge whether they are restrictive.

The Act says: It shall be the duty of the Port Authority, subject to the provisions of this Order, to take such steps from time to time as they may consider necessary for the maintenance or improvement of the port and the accommodation and facilities (including navigational facilities) afforded therein or in connection therewith". The Act goes on to give what seem to be all-embracing powers. On page 8, section 15 says: The Port Authority … may … manage, use or develop land belonging to them as they think fit". That does not seem to be restrictive.

The Act continues: in addition may with a view of selling or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land after the development is carried out … retain any part of land belonging to them … develop it or procure its development for use wholly or partly by other persons. I am open to persuasion that the powers are too restrictive, but that does not seem to be the message from the Act.

Mr. Foulkes

It is not the message from me, either.

I appreciate the diligence with which my hon. Friend has gone into the matter to show the wide powers of the Clyde port authority. Earlier in his speech, he referred to navigation lights; if he thinks that the Clyde port authority has wide powers, he should put his tremendous energy into examining the Commissioners for Northern Lights. I have never come across a more powerful feudal organisation —I was going to say, on this side of the iron curtain; however, these days even on the other side of the iron curtain there are not such powerful organisations. When he has finished dealing with the Clyde port authority, will my hon. Friend have a wee go at the Commissioners for Northern Lights?

Mr. Worthington

I am graterful for that suggestion for my future work programme. I shall bear it in mind, and add it to the long list of fascinating subjects on to which my hon. Friend wishes to divert me.

I am not aware that the Clyde port authority has been unable to be involved in property development. It has been able to diversify from explicit port-related work on the Clyde. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) said that it had done that excessively, but there was no evidence that it was unable to develop the areas that were surplus to port requirements. Within Glasgow, I believe that there are areas that are the subject of development now: I may have missed a declaration on it, but I gather that in the Braehead area of Renfrew there is a proposed major shopping development awaiting the decision of the Secretary of State. The Clyde port authority has been involved with the Tarmac Group of Companies to develop it.

Let us take the Glasgow garden festival and the construction of the exhibition centre: the port authority has correctly realised that those developments should take place. I am not conscious of any restriction in its powers to stop it doing that effectively.

Dredging is another matter of concern. We have the right to ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Eastwood to clarify the power to dredge. Section 16 of the Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act states: The Port Authority may from time to time"— there is the controversial "may" with which we always have difficulty— deepen, dredge, scour and improve the bed and foreshore of the river and firth of Clyde within the port or in or near any approach to the port". There is a power whereby the port authority can use its resources to dredge, which is very different from saying that it "shall" always do what is necessary to enable the area to operate as a port. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood is still wandering around. He is using the old Scottish Tory device of moving around to make himself seem more numerous.

I am not reassured when the hon. Gentleman or the Clyde port authority says that nothing in the legislation changes the authority's powers. During the past 10 years, the authority has said to other bodies, such as the regional and district councils and the shipyards, "We may need to withdraw from this activity unless we are supported in the dredging." The hon. Member for Eastwood may by now in his travels have received advice on whether my reading of the Act is correct—that there is no duty on the port authority to dredge the Clyde and to maintain Glasgow as a port. I believe from my reading of the legislation that it could withdraw from that activity.

The Opposition realise the importance of not allowing the Clyde to silt up. I would assume that, because the port authority is in the public domain, public money would always be made available to maintain the Clyde. What will happen under a privatised company? The hon. Member for Eastwood may assure us that that the successor company—although he did not dignify his speech with technical terms such as "successor company"—inherits the same obligations as the Clyde port authority.

From my reading of the Act, I believe that it "may" dredge, not that it "shall" dredge and that it is open to a privatised company to up sticks at some stage and say that it is not in its commercial interests to dredge the Clyde. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Eastwood —he was generous to me earlier—if he wishes to assure me that the Bill maintains in perpetuity the duty on the Clyde port authority or the successor company to dredge the Clyde.

Dr. Godman

Does my hon. Friend agree that the dredging problem is exacerbated by the need for the Clyde port authority to purchase a new dredging vessel in the near future? Will not such a vessel cost several million pounds?

Mr. Worthington

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It is realised that, if the Clyde is to be effectively dredged in the future, outdated equipment needs to be replaced. But that decision has been made by a public authority which realises the importance of its public duty to dredge the Clyde. Whether the successor company would make a commercial decision along those lines, I do not know.

Mr. Wilson

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible, and deeply worrying, that the invitation that he offered so freely to the sponsor of the Bill was not taken up? Does he agree that Opposition Members' meeting with Clyde port authority representatives confirmed what he has said? There is no absolute obligation to dredge. Does my hon. Friend find it as incredible as I do that the sponsor of the Bill is not prepared to answer his question one way or the other?

Mr. Worthington

I am stunned by the failure of the hon. Member for Eastwood to know his Bill sufficiently well to give even that most basic reassurance. I am sure that, on being told that the Clyde port authority was to be privatised, the first question that Opposition Members would ask would be, do the arrangements safeguard the ability of the port of Glasgow to continue to operate as a port? It is difficult to continue as a port without one basic ingredient, which I have always thought to be water. If there is no water in a port, it is difficult to see how it can operate effectively. Yet the hon. Member for Eastwood seems quite unable to assure us that there will continue to be water in the port of Glasgow.

Mr. Lambie

Does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour tonight of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) justifies the Prime Minister's sacking him as a Scottish Minister?

Mr. Allan Stewart

Answer.

Mr. Worthington

I would always defer to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on these matters, as he seems to be the adviser on them.

We are told that the successor company will have the same powers. We need to know just what provisions have restricted the development of the company. We need that spelt out in much greater detail.

Page 9 of the Bill deals with the functions of the Clyde Port Holding Trust that is to be established. I regret that I have had to take so long on this subject, which could have been dealt with earlier by the hon. Member for Eastwood. Clause 13(2) says: (2) The Trust shall consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman, and not less than eight nor more than eleven other members. (3) The persons who immediately before the first transfer day are the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Port Authority shall become respectively the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Trust". In other words, the members of the port authority will succeed themselves. That is not usually what happens when someone dies.

Clause 14 says: The Trust shall … give to the holding company such directions as the Trust consider appropriate in respect of the matters in respect of which the Trust may give directions as mentioned in section 8". That refers to the securities of the new company. Earlier, the Minister made a somewhat perfunctory statement, which we could not examine because he had departed, to the effect that half the proceeds of sale of the company were to go to the Treasury. However, we do not know why it should be half the proceeds, or the basis on which that was determined.

The trust is the key factor in setting up the holding company and the successor company. According to clause 14: The Trust may, in carrying out their functions in relation to the disposal of securities of the holding company, 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 shares without consideration. There is agreement on both sides of the House that employee share schemes are good. We want them to develop, but within egalitarian principles. We would want to ensure that there was a genuine co-operative venture, instead of half a dozen shares for someone on the ground floor of the company and several hundred thousand shares for the people at the top of the company.

I understand the phrase "without consideration" in clause 14 to mean free. Some of the shares in an employee share scheme should be transferred for free. I have no objection to that if that is done fairly, and that could be a good idea for the employees. However, clause 14(5) states: The Trust may transfer securities of the holding company without consideration"— that is, for free— to bona fide employees of that company or of a subsidiary of that company (including any such employees who are members of the Trust). The Clyde port authority board was established by statute and the members appointed by the Secretary of State. It is promoting legislation which transfers the affairs of the port authority to the Clyde Port Holding Trust which will set up the arrangements for the successor company and the holding company. It will also have the power to award itself shares.

It is clear that some present members of the Clyde port authority will become members of the trust. No one other than CPA members can become members of the trust. Those people are promoting legislation which will inevitably give them powers to allocate free shares to themselves in the new company.

Mr. Foulkes

That is better than winning the pools.

Mr. Worthington

I would not make that assertion, because it may not be a very important inheritance. It depends how moderate the trust is in its willingness to allocate to itself what was a public asset. We must also consider the lack of clarity about other members of the CPA and whether they are employees or whether the Clyde Port Holding Trust could designate those people as employees. Those people could receive a benefit in future.

It is unacceptable that a rambling Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Eastwood, should present this private Bill in such a perfunctory way. The Bill does not make clear the provisions for the members of the promoting body. We have a right to know whether the CPA members will benefit financially from the proposal. If I have misread the Bill, I apologise for any mistaken inferences.

According to my reading of the Bill, the members of the Clyde port authority as presently constituted can, will and indeed must become the Clyde port trust, because no one else can do so. They can then decide the terms upon which employee share ownership will be distributed and they can then allocate shares to themselves "without consideration" —that is, without paying money for them. We have a right to an explanation of that, and I wish that there was a Minister on the Treasury Bench who could explain it.

I turn now to the importance of the meaning of "the Clyde" in the west of Scotland. We are not talking simply about a commercial undertaking. The Clyde is a most powerful symbol of the wholeness of life in the west of Scotland. It is a symbol of all the issues relating to the environment, tourism, commerce, leisure and sport. Therefore, in addition to the narrow commercial interests of the holding and successor companies, all those aspects need to be taken into account.

I referred earlier to dredging but that issue needs further consideration because of its general importance and the responsibility attaching to other bodies. At present, other contributing bodies include the regional council, which has been obliged or induced to contribute largely because of the importance of the Clyde to the sludge boats, which are the major daily users of the Clyde. They go up and down the river and out into the firth——

Mr. Lambie

And pollute the beaches of Ayrshire.

Mr. Worthington

Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South has said, they pollute the beaches of Ayrshire.

That antiquated way of disposing of sewage has been questioned both by the European Community and by sane environmentalists. The regional council will be obliged to stop being involved in that activity. Eventually, therefore, the regional council will no longer need to use the Clyde for that activity. In addition, I understand that, under the provisions of another EC directive, dredging the Clyde and dumping the waste elsewhere is no longer regarded as acceptable, and that land-bound disposal methods must be used as well. Therefore, the regional council may lose its obligation and feel that it no longer has a duty to support dredging.

If I might correct my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I understand that Glasgow district council has contributed £100,000 on a one-off basis. We all hope that Govan Shipbuilders and Yarrow Shipbuilders will continue into perpetuity, but nothing is absolutely certain in this world and those companies contribute substantially at present.

The main issue here is that a cost that used to be met entirely by the port authority is at present met only partially by that port authority, so I want to know who will carry out the dredging in the future in view of the cost of that activity. If I have to second-guess what will happen in 10 years—if the Bill becomes law—I imagine that the successor company will have walked away from those responsibilities, and I guess that some public authority will have to march in to pick up the cost of the dredging. It may be the regional council or the district council. A private Bill has been used as a mechanism for dumping a public obligation. It seems to be going through without being adequately examined.

A recent Strathclyde joint working party report, imaginatively called the "River Clyde Project" and, more poetically, "A corridor of growth", in which the region and associated districts—not just Glasgow, but Clydebank and Dumbarton on the north of the Clyde and, I assume, Renfrew and Inverclyde—took part. The Scottish Development Agency and the private industry group Scottish Action also took part, as well as the Clyde port authority. It was possible for those public organisations to come together to consider the Clyde as a whole and a strategic affair. They recognised that it was not the sort of project that was best dealt with piecemeal.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Tayside, North failed in his synopsis of world history to explain how Glasgow had been regenerated in recent years. One fact is absolutely certain—not a person in Britain could say that Glasgow had been regenerated by the workings of the market. There is not the slightest doubt that, where regeneration has occurred, it has been because of the actions of local authorities, where relevant, the Government—I pay tribute where that has happened—the Scottish Development Agency and other public organisations that have created the leverage that has led to private investment. Without that public investment in the first place, there would never have been any private investment.

I am worried that, with the Bill, we shall once again lose the ability to act strategically and consider the Clyde, all that river valley and estuary, in an overall context. That is an important power. We are talking about a 20 sq km area that can be developed for industry, housing or retail. The area will also be progressively more important in terms of water sports and leisure. We must ensure that the public interest is represented there, rather than the narrow commercial interest. If the port authority is given the freedom to develop on a purely commercial basis, that will be inadequate.

When considering the Bill—I hope that it will not receive a smooth passage through the House and the other place—we must ask whether it is genuinely geared to the interests of the people of the west of Scotland, because——

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

I know that my hon. Friend is coming to his conclusion. I have listened to quite a bit of the debate, and no one has told the House where the demand is coming from. It is all right to say that there has been no opposition to the proposals from the Scottish Development Agency, the regional council or a number of organisations named by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who wants to keep Eastwood out of Glasgow, but not out of the port of Glasgow. But where is the demand coming from? Is it coming from the present board members of the Clyde port authority? If that is the only source, is that not a cause for the deepest of deep concern?

Mr. Worthington

I share that concern. As I said earlier, I am not rising in objection to the Bill, because I am satisfied with the present state of affairs in the Clyde port authority. I became interested in the affairs of the Clyde port authority because of its lack of action in the area covered by my constituency. Over many years, the Clyde port authority has simply allowed the Rothesay port area to become a tip. We did not really need any legislation to get an improvement. What we needed was a bit more activity by the port authority. In 1981, part of Clydebank was designated an enterprise zone. It was hoped that the special status of that zone would lead to a regeneration of Clydebank. I know that many hon. Members who go there will see that it has been transformed in many ways.

I give credit to the Government, the Scottish Development Agency, the regional council and the district council who have worked together to achieve enormous success in every part of Clydebank except the Rothesay dock area. In that area, the port authority failed to take action not because of any restrictions in the relevant Acts but because of lethargy. It simply failed to realise the potential of the area and hoped that something would come around the corner to cause change to occur in future.

Last year, the Rothesay dock area was to be regenerated by the import of coal. Hon. Members may remember the dispute last year between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal. Suddenly, the Rothesay dock was to be the means by which huge amounts of coal would be imported. That was not to be, and a simple letter such as the one that I sent to the SSEB established that there would not be such an amount of imported coal. The area could have been regenerated without any change in the legislation. That regeneration did not occur—not because of difficulties with the legislation but because of difficulties with the Clyde port authority.

9.31 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I have an interest in the Bill not only because of my Front-Bench role but because both Ardrossan and Hunterston are in my constituency. My main concern in the debate and in the weeks ahead is to ensure that the Bill, whether or not it becomes law, should be the subject of public debate. That has not happened in past months and that is why there is such strong opposition in the House to the Bill's simple passage.

Important points of principle are at stake and substantial public assets are to become private assets by means of this device. The House was entitled to more explanation and justification than we heard from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). His explanation for the Bill bordered on the insulting. It was completely inadequate and did not begin to deal in detail with the Bill or its clauses.

Mrs. Fyfe

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) are in the Chamber and that both of them were involved in similar Bills for other ports? Neither represents a Scottish constituency. Is there some strange community of interests on the other side of this debate?

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friend takes me easily to the next part of my speech. It is vital to consider where this whole idea has come from. It has not come from the board of the Clyde port authority, year after year sitting in frustration, fretting over the lack of powers at its disposal.

I understand that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping had to leave the Chamber. He explained to me his reasons for that. In his brief contribution he rightly gave credit to the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The chairman's statement in the annual report of the Clyde port authority gives us the background to all this. It states: Back in 1988 the then Minister of Transport, Paul Channon, informed the trust ports that any request for increased powers would only be granted if the ports were prepared to accept a greater measure of accountability as in the case of a limited company to its shareholders. The preparation work in this has been very complex and time consuming for the authority's senior executive and we now look to the Government for their full support as the legislation progresses through Parliament. The Bill is not a private initiative from the Clyde port authority, but a Government one. The work is being done for the Government by people such as the hon. Members for Eastwood, for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and others who are involved with similar Bills. The demand does not come from the people who work on the Clyde or the communities located there which depend on that river for commerce, industry, leisure and other purposes.

The undoubted consequences of the legislation will be a further downgrading in the importance of the river Clyde and a greater emphasis being placed on the property development potential of its river banks. That is bad news for marine users and shipyard workers. It is a setback to the revival of the Clyde as a centre of marine trade. This is an enabling Bill that will enable a privatised company to turn public assets into private ones and to turn public sectors into centres of private speculators.

If the aims of the Bill are as stated I find it slightly odd that the Clyde port authority found it necessary to trawl entire west central Scotland to come up with the one Conservative Member to be found in that territory—and at that an hon. Member who has no direct interest in the river Clyde. The way in which the hon. Gentleman presented the Bill and the way he pranced round the Chamber, like the sugar plum fairy, in search of little bits of information to elaborate the bare bones of his opening speech, reflect no great credit on the Bill that he is seeking to promote.

We are dealing with substantial public assets. According to the balance sheet of the Clyde port authority for the year ended 31 December 1989, the total assets of the authority, less current liabilities, are £52,069,000. Conservative Members have given a slipshod performance and much of their debate has been light-hearted. A few of them have read from briefs and have had little of substance to say in defence of the case. In such a perfunctory manner is the House expected to hand over £52 million of public assets to a newly created private company? That is what Conservative Members are trying to push through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is right to point our that the people who will take over the running of that private company have been placed in their present positions of responsibility and trust to perform a public function rather than to run that private company. We believe that that must be exposed to far more rigid scrutiny than has so far been applied.

The only justification that the hon. Member for Eastwood gave for the Bill was that the existing remit and powers of the authority are so restrictive that it must cast them off to acquire great new liberating powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and other hon. Friends have already called that concept into serious question. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie told us what the authority can do for better or worse and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and other colleagues told us what the authority had not done when it was within its powers to act, had it had the will.

As a general rule, it is reasonable to say that a body which has not satisfactorily used, extended or lived up to its present powers should not come to the House lightly and demand a new set of powers which have the interesting side effect of turning it into a private company. It is worth quoting from clause 13(3) of the Bill, which states who will run the private company: The persons who immediately before the first transfer day are the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Port Authority shall become respectively the chairman, the deputy chairman and other members of the Trust and shall, subject to the provision of this Act, continue in office until the Trust is dissolved by virtue of section 15 … of this Act. Some people might think, "Nice work if you can get it." One day it is a public body with people appointed either by the Secretary of State or local authorities and others, and the next day they are the office bearers of a substantial private company which owns the assets that go with the River Clyde.

Opposition Members are not satisfied that the justification for the Bill lies in the restrictive powers that are alleged to exist under the present Act. If that is the case and if the powers of the Clyde port authority are so restricted that it cannot carry out work that it thinks is necessary, let it demonstrate that in the court of public opinion in succeeding months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said at the outset, we are going to have another go at the Bill, in the Lords. The authority has plenty of time to make that case and we will base our subsequent actions upon the manner in which it does so.

Mrs. Fyfe

It is surprising that when the hon. Member for Eastwood presented the Bill tonight and referred to the fact that a substantial amount of riparian land is involved and that there was considerable difficulty in developing joint ventures on riverside sites, at no time did he—or any of his hon. Friends—attempt to describe the benefits that could result. We are being asked to write a blank cheque tonight.

Mr. Wilson

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was astonished that the case was made so thinly. Practical examples probably could have been quoted to demon-strate how the extended powers could be used. The manner in which the hon. Member for Eastwood and the people who briefed him approached the debate shows that they did not feel that they had been called upon to give the House examples of how such extended powers could be used to their advantage. The hon. Member for Eastwood did not offer one example.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie tried generously, to encourage the hon. Member for Eastwood into an intervention. Perhaps he could give me a practical example now of something that has not been done if the authority had new powers. I would be pleased to hear a specific example.

Frankly, if the hon. Member for Eastwood sits there and cannot offer the House one example of what the Bill will achieve in practical terms, the House will make its own judgment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow spoke ably about the local considerations in his constituency. He reminded us that we are not talking about an abstract or turning one sort of company into another, but about the life-blood of the community—the docks and the waterfront in Greenock. He also properly reminded us that it is Sir John Shaw Stewart's gift to the people of Greenock that is to be passed merrily on from one hand to the next without any regard to original intent. I find it rather odd that a party that is pleased to harp back to philanthropy by public-spirited citizens in bygone ages casts it all aside when it suits its commercial purpose in the present age. Sir John Shaw Stewart's gift is of no interest or relevance because the Conservative party has an immediate commercial purpose to fulfil.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow and other hon. Members dealt fully with dredging, which is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. We are not passing comment on the people to whom the Clyde port authority will pass in the short term. I have no doubt that the people who have been running the Clyde port authority for the past two or three decades and whose life's work has been tied up with the Clyde will not, on the day that the authority becomes a private company, abandon responsibility for dredging the river.

We are not talking about that. We are talking about what might happen in one, two or three decades when they and we will have passed on. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the Clyde Port Authority plc being handed on to other concerns. With the way that riverside development is progressing not only in Britain but throughout the world, dealing more with property and less with waterways, what will a future company that owns the interests think about the responsibility to spend large sums of money every year dredging a river which, because of these policies, may by then be used even less than it is now?

A legal obligation to maintain dredging should be written into the Bill. As has been shown during the debate, those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill are under a misapprehension. There is no such obligation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, the word "may" is crucial. If a company's first commitment is to keeping the waterway alive and flourishing, it will do it. However, if its first commitment is to property development, with the traffic on the Clyde and the shipbuilding industry being only a secondary concern, it will have no obligation under the Bill to maintain the dredging of the Clyde. Without that obligation, what will be the consequences for the Clyde?

There is no constituency in Scotland more affected by the matters that we have been discussing than that of Govan in Glasgow. The people of Govan will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for having spoken so eloquently on their behalf. He spoke also for the Kvaerner shipyard and about the crucial issues relating to the Govan constituency.

Mr. Foulkes

Why did my hon. Friend have to do that?

Mr. Wilson

I am astonished that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here. We can only speculate on where he may be——

Mr. Foulkes

Shopping?

Mr. Wilson

I think that Marks and Spencer closes early on a Monday night. Of course, the hon. Gentleman could be sharpening the knives for the Scottish National party leadership contest. For all I know, he could be polishing his cromag in anticipation of Bannockburn day.

Mr. Worthington

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here, especially as his constituency and other constituencies have already been affected by the withdrawal of dredging operations between the Victoria and Glasgow bridges, which ceased about a quarter of a century ago. We can now see the extensive mudbanks in those locations. That that will be repeated lower down the river in the hon. Gentleman's constituency unless dredging continues was established in a report, commissioned by the regional council and others into the consequences of abandoning dredging, carried out by Babtie Shaw and Morton.

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friend makes his point well. My hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), who referred to the implications for shipyards, were not talking for narrow constituency interests. If anything, their constituency interests would be served by the upper Clyde becoming silted up.

Dr. Godman

There is a direct Greenock and Port Glasgow constituency interest in the Kvaerner shipyard at Govan. At this very moment, the men and women at Clark Kincaid in Greenock are building two engines for liquid petroleum gas carriers being built at Govan. If Kvaerner, with the support of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), obtains the order for three new vessels, it is extremely likely that Kincaid will build the engines.

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friend provides an additional item of interesting information, emphasising the point that we in the Labour party speak together for all parts of the Clyde and do not seek to distinguish between one part and another.

Clearly, the dredging issue is of prime importance, and the least that we are entitled to ask for is that it should be a matter for public debate. I am disappointed that we have not heard more from some of the bodies that should have been briefing Opposition Members.

Mrs. Fyfe

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that when the cost of dredging has been raised in the debate, there has been no response from the Government Benches? My hon. Friends and I have expressed concern that although the new body may continue dredging, it is not known at what price to Govan shipyard in particular and to the local authorities.

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friend's point is well made. We are not discussing a hypothetical matter that might arise at some future date. We know from our own discussions with the Clyde port authority that, even under the present arrangement, the sharing of dredging costs is a live issue. The shipyards must be persuaded that they have to meet the present level of cost.

I am pleased to acknowledge that Clyde port authority in its present form is fully committed to maintaining dredging and the marine use of the river. The hon. Member for Eastwood failed to address the question of what the situation will be when that authority no longer exists and its place taken by a plc whose prime interest is property development rather than the marine uses of the Clyde.

Mr. Lambie

If Clyde Port Authority plc becomes a land and property development speculator, would it not be in the interests of my hon. Friend and myself, as Members of Parliament representing Cunninghame, to see the ports of Hunterston and Ardrossan separated from the new company?

Mr. Wilson

I intended to refer to that matter later, but I shall do so now. My hon. Friend makes an interesting proposition. Long before I entered the House, I had a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, and for his knowledge of and views on Hunterston. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the economic problems confronting north Ayrshire arise from the fact that the opportunity was never taken to develop Hunterston as it might be. It is ironic that the preface to the port authority's annual report makes reference to Hunterston as deep-water port facilities which are among the finest of their kind in Western Europe. I cannot help wondering where else in western Europe one would go to find other fine deep water facilities and at the same time discover such economic underdevelopment of their potential.

The same is true of Ardrossan. I am grateful for the £800,000 of development that has recently taken place there, and congratulate Clyde port authority on it. However, neither my hon. Friend for Cunninghame, South nor myself can ignore the years of neglect at Ardrossan and the steady rundown not only of cargo traffic but the various ferry services that used to run out of that port. I am conscious of the fact that, when new services are contemplated today, it seems to be Troon and Ayr that receive prominent mention as possible future ports for development. I hope that the new development at Ardrossan signals a more positive attitude towards it by the Clyde port authority, in whatever form. Cunninghame district council is examining the Bill and it would be interested in the possibility of Hunterston or Ardrossan opting out. It should be allowed to put forward its views. I want to encourage that kind of public debate.

We are all in favour of employee share ownership plans. However, the hon. Member for Eastwood knows as well as I do that there are ESOPs and ESOPs. In fact, there are ESOPs and fables. We see that in the bus context of Clydeside Wester, where there are two rival buy-outs. In the one case there would be genuine worker ownership; in the other, there would arguably be much less worker ownership.

This is an enabling Bill. It enables shares to be distributed unevenly. After the Bill is passed we shall probably find that a small number of people own a substantial proportion of the shares in the new Clyde Port Authority plc. We are entitled to a public debate. If it serves no other purpose, I hope that this debate, by means of the publicity that it attracts, will lead to public attention being focused on the Bill. That is long overdue. I do not doubt that, if the Bill had been introduced as a Government measure, it would have attracted far more public attention than it has received in its present guise. As it is a private Bill, it has so far crept through by stealth.

Most of those who will be directly affected by its provisions are worried about the Bill. The troops have probably been pulled in so that the hon. Member for Eastwood will obtain his 100 votes. Hon. Members have just come into the Chamber who were not here earlier. They would have a hard job trying to pinpoint the Clyde on a map of Britain, but they will vote for the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Member for Eastwood will gain a pyrrhic victory. The debate has served to highlight the questions of ownership and dredging. The hon. Member for Eastwood has been unable to answer them, but they will not go away. They will be asked increasingly in public as well as in private.

Mr. Worthington

Another issue that has not been fully explored is that of flooding and what will happen if dredging ceases. Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the survey, the minimum level by which the height of the Clyde will rise if dredging ceases is 1 m?

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friend has referred to another important issue. It may not seem important to hon. Members in 1990. However, it may be very important to those who live on the banks of the Clyde in the year 2020. That issue will also receive a public airing. Before the measure goes to another place I am sure that public interest in the Bill will have greatly increased.

Mr. Harry Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been in the Chair for a considerable time. I have listened to the debate throughout the entire time that you have occupied the Chair and I listened to it for a considerable period when your predecessor was in the Chair. As I have listened to the debate, I have become more and more concerned——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. What is the point of order?

Mr. Ewing

The point of order is that we have in our possession a House of Commons document. If certain hon. Members do not have it, it is available in the Vote Office. I make no complaint about that. However, the House of Commons document refers to——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is a matter for debate.

Mr. Allan Stewart

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

Mr. Harry Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Stewart

I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division——

Mr. Ewing (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I see that they have now put the Tellers in.

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 38.

Division No. 205]	[9.59 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Brazier, Julian
Amess, David	Bright, Graham
Arbuthnot, James	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Aspinwall, Jack	Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Atkinson, David	Buck, Sir Antony
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Budgen, Nicholas
Beith, A. J.	Burt, Alistair
Benyon, W.	Butcher, John
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Butterfill, John
Boswell, Tim	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Carrington, Matthew
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Chapman, Sydney
Bowis, John	Chope, Christopher
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Maclean, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (FSushcliffe)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Colvin, Michael	Mans, Keith
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Cormack, Patrick	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Maude, Hon Francis
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Day, Stephen	Miller, Sir Hal
Dorrell, Stephen	Moate, Roger
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Monro, Sir Hector
Dunn, Bob	Morrison, Sir Charles
Durant, Tony	Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Dykes, Hugh	Moss, Malcolm
Eggar, Tim	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Neale, Gerrard
Fallon, Michael	Neubert, Michael
Favell, Tony	Nicholls, Patrick
Fearn, Ronald	Norris, Steve
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Page, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Paice, James
Fishburn, John Dudley	Patnick, Irvine
Forman, Nigel	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Forth, Eric	Rathbone, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus	Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Franks, Cecil	Rhodes James, Robert
Freeman, Roger	Riddick, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Gill, Christopher	Sackville, Hon Tom
Goodlad, Alastair	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Gregory, Conal	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Ground, Patrick	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Grylls, Michael	Shersby, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Speed, Keith
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Hawkins, Christopher	Steen, Anthony
Hayward, Robert	Stern, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Stevens, Lewis
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Summerson, Hugo
Irvine, Michael	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Jack, Michael	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Janman, Tim	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Jessel, Toby	Thorne, Neil
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Thurnham, Peter
Kirkwood, Archy	Twinn, Dr Ian
Knapman, Roger	Walden, George
Knowles, Michael	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Lang, Ian	Waller, Gary
Lawrence, Ivan	Ward, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Wells, Bowen
Lightbown, David	Widdecombe, Ann
Lilley, Peter	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Mr. Richard Holt and
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Mr. William Hague.

NOES
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Foster, Derek
Bermingham, Gerald	Foulkes, George
Boateng, Paul	Fraser, John
Callaghan, Jim	Fyfe, Maria
Cox, Tom	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Dalyell, Tarn	Golding, Mrs Llin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Haynes, Frank
Dixon, Don	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Eastham, Ken	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Skinner, Dennis
Lambie, David	Spearing, Nigel
McFall, John	Turner, Dennis
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Wilson, Brian
Maxton, John	Worthington, Tony
Michael, Alun	Wray, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris
Pike, Peter L.	Tellers for the Noes:
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Mr. Max Madden and
Prescott, John	Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

Mr. Ewing:

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 37.

Division No. 206]	[10.11 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Amess, David	Gregory, Conal
Arbuthnot, James	Ground, Patrick
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Grylls, Michael
Aspinwall, Jack	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Beith, A. J.	Harris, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Hawkins, Christopher
Boswell, Tim	Hayward, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Bowis, John	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Brazier, Julian	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Bright, Graham	Irvine, Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Jack, Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Janman, Tim
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick	Jessel, Toby
Buck, Sir Antony	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Budgen, Nicholas	Kirkwood, Archy
Burt, Alistair	Knapman, Roger
Butcher, John	Knowles, Michael
Butterfill, John	Lang, Ian
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Lawrence, Ivan
Carrington, Matthew	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Chope, Christopher	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Lilley, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick	Maclean, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Maclennan, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Day, Stephen	Mans, Keith
Dorrell, Stephen	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Maude, Hon Francis
Dunn, Bob	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Durant, Tony	Miller, Sir Hal
Dykes, Hugh	Moate, Roger
Eggar, Tim	Monro, Sir Hector
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Morrison, Sir Charles
Favell, Tony	Moss, Malcolm
Fearn, Ronald	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Neubert, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Nicholls, Patrick
Fishburn, John Dudley	Norris, Steve
Forman, Nigel	Page, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Paice, James
Forth, Eric	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Fox, Sir Marcus	Porter, David (Waveney)
Franks, Cecil	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Freeman, Roger	Rhodes James, Robert
Gill, Christopher	Riddick, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Shaw, David (Dover)	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Thorne, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Thurnham, Peter
Shersby, Michael	Twinn, Dr Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Waller, Gary
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David	Ward, John
Steen, Anthony	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Stern, Michael	Wells, Bowen
Stevens, Lewis	Widdecombe, Ann
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Mr. William Hague and
Summerson, Hugo	Mr. Richard Holt.
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

NOES
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Boateng, Paul	Madden, Max
Callaghan, Jim	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Dalyell, Tarn	Maxton, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Michael, Alun
Dixon, Don	Mullin, Chris
Eastham, Ken	Pike, Peter L.
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Foster, Derek	Prescott, John
Foulkes, George	Skinner, Dennis
Fraser, John	Spearing, Nigel
Fyfe, Maria	Turner, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Wilson, Brian
Haynes, Frank	Worthington, Tony
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Wray, Jimmy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Tellers for the Noes:
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Mr. Tom Cox and
Lambie, David	Mr. Harry Barnes.
McFall, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).