POWER OF PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY TO FORM A COMPANY TO OPERATE THE PORT OF TILBURY (Hansard, 23 April 1991)

§ Mr. Spearing
I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 15, line 19, after 'activities', insert `within the curtilage of the Port of Tilbury.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 66, in page 15, line 20, at end insert `not otherwise provided by the Port Authority'.

§ Mr. Spearing
Clause 18(1) reads: The Port cf London Authority (referred to below in this Part as 'the Port Authority') shall have power to form a company for the purpose of carrying on—

(a) that part of their undertaking which consists in operating the port of Tilbury; and

(b) any activities which appear to them to be incidental to or connected with operating the port of Tilbury."

My amendments would effect the changes implied by their wording.
This brief debate continues our discussion of the definition and description of the port of Tilbury. At the ninth sitting of the Standing Committee, the Minister said: the Government's intentions about Tilbury are clear on the face of the Bill. The document in question"— referring to the application from the PLA, I think— which is technical, will determine which properties and functions are transferred to the Tilbury company."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 March 1991; c. 305.] The question is: what properties and what functions? Hitherto the Minister has been coy about that. His phrase, on the "face of the Bill", was factually incorrect. These aspects are not on the face of the Bill—but they are in the document referred to. The long title of the Bill in part runs as follows: to provide for the transfer of certain property, rights, liabilities and functions of the Port of London Authority to a company formed by that authority. Certain properties, however, are not defined. They could almost be called uncertain properties and uncertain functions.
I am grateful for the earlier ruling that it is perfectly in order for the House to discuss these matters without knowing what is likely to be transferred. The Minister should tell us a little more about this public relations phrase, the port of Tilbury.
In an earlier speech, I outlined the development of Tilbury docks. What will be involved in this change? Will the land adjacent to the operational area be included? What about the rail container depot? Or the dock itself? The dock has value: barges and ships, laid up or carrying cargo, can moor there—it can be used as a mobile warehouse. There are stacking and storage areas. There are workshops leased out to operators and used by the port itself. There are berths in the port. There is a grading dock and associated workshops. There is the lock. There is the passenger terminal, which has a landing stage on the river and an adjacent station. There are wharves which can be adapted for various uses—roll-on/roll-off, for instance—and there is the grain terminal. The annual report of the PLA implies that it is part of the so-called port of Tilbury.
In addition to all that, there are the employees, who are perhaps some of the most valuable assets, although the current managers do not appear to manage them thus. I 1036 have been told that many of the tug crew have recently been made redundant, that anybody over 50 working a lock has been shown the door, or rather the river, and that pay has been reduced recently by up to 30 per cent. That may only be a report. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm all those things. But that is not a good advertisement for the port of Tilbury even if people have it slightly wrong, which I do not think they have. As we know, industrial relations there have not been of the best and there is a case at the moment which is sub judice and on which I shall not comment. The Achilles heel of the port of London in the past has been bad industrial relations.
In the end it would be for the courts to decide what Parliament meant by "certain property". But it is wrong for the House to pass the Bill without a schedule of that property and those functions on the "face of the Bill"—a phrase which the Minister used in Committee. That is not on the face of the Bill and it is not even on the face of Hansard, unless we hear some wise words to the contrary in a moment. The courts cannot look to Hansard, they can only look to the Bill, but at least the House and the public should have something on the face of Hansard.
As I understand it, the Bill refers to the functions as they appear to the PLA and as the Secretary of State agrees. But the PLA covers a great deal more than the so-called port of Tilbury. It operates in three divisions—the river division, which is navigational, Tilbury division, which is largely cargo, and, surprise, surprise, the property division. The Port of London Authority has no fewer than 16 property subsidiaries, some of them with property in the developing area of the upper pool. They are listed in the annual report. There is an income of £13 million a year from rent and sale of land. Much of it may have been sale of land in 1989, but it is quite a lot. It has 25 acres in what was called Thurrock park, immediately adjacent to the so-called port of Tilbury, and now, I believe, renamed the Capstan centre. In addition, as was said earlier, many cliff marshes further down river are still owned by the PLA. It is as much, alas, a property company these days, as it is a cargo-handling company.
I understand from the wording of the Bill that any part of those undertakings in operating the port of Tilbury or any activities that appear to be incidental or connected with operating the port of Tilbury could be transferred. The operators could claim that for almost any one of those features. So it would be possible for the PLA to privatise itself—I have heard it described thus—along with any of its assets, which are not subject to parliamentary approval, as we have, alas, decided, and for which the Secretary of State thought that privatisation was justified.
I have a rather uncharitable feeling that the Minister and the PLA together could more or less disintegrate the PLA as we know it today. The port of Tilbury could have all sorts of subsidiaries up and down the river. Theoretically, it could land cargo on the Terrace of the House of Commons. If Conservative Members continue to vote away the powers of the House of Commons, it might turn into a wharf and that may be related to the port of Tilbury. That may be far-fetched, but what property upstream in London could not necessarily be connected with the port of Tilbury? Any cargo landed there or any cargo transferred there from any wharf on any part of the tidal Thames could be and is connected by water to the port of Tilbury.
A legal judgment on those matters would probably be made in favour of the Minister and the PLA. Therefore, 1037 this provides a channel for the port of Tilbury to expand up and down the river in almost any way that the PLA and the Minister wish.
Amendment No. 66 would confine activities to those not otherwise provided by the Port Authority". The authority provides navigation and other aids, but if the Minister has his way, and if the general election goes his way—which I do not think it will—I suspect that there would not be much of the port authority left, because Tilbury would gobble it all up.
The Minister may deny everything that I have said. I hope that he does, and that I am wrong. I often put points in the House that I hope are wrong. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to deny the wild scenario that he may think I have painted, and to say what he has in mind. I hope also that he will give an undertaking to table amendments to be considered in another place that will define what are the certain properties and certain functions in question.
Earlier, in opposing another of my amendments to allow the House to have the final say, the Minister said that the Bill already included such a provision. It does not, and until it does, we should not rest content.

§ Mr. McLoughlin
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I cannot recommend his amendments to the House because they would be too restrictive of the activities that could be transferred to the new Tilbury company. It could be entirely sensible to transfer activities that are currently undertaken outside the geographical limits of the port of Tilbury.
In Committee, I mentioned the example of an inland clearance depot that might not relate entirely to the port of Tilbury, and which might lie outside the port itself. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would exclude such a depot from the transfer. The effect of amendment No. 66 is less clear, but it might exclude activities that relate almost but not quite to Tilbury, but which in all logic should be transferred to the new company. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but his amendments are not the best way to proceed.
When I said earlier that privatisation is on the face of the Bill, I was referring to Tilbury being a specific part of the Bill, as opposed to the other trust ports, which will require an enabling measure.

§ Mr. Spearing
The Minister's brevity emphasises the wild scenario that I painted. He did not take the opportunity to deny, other than in the case of a wharf on the Terrace of the House of Commons, the principle that I outlined, which confirms my worst fears.
The Minister made reference to an inland clearance depot. He may recall that the PLA once had such a facility, at Orsett. I believe that it failed a few years ago, or that it was sold. More likely, it is still the property of one of the PLA's many subsidiaries, and might be reactivated.
Definitions can perhaps best be dealt with in another place, and I hope that my points will be taken up there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.