§ Mr. WardI beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 44, at end insert:
`(6A) If, after consulting an authority as provided in subsection (6) above it appears to the Secretary of State that a direction under subsections (2) and (3) above ought not to be given to that authority, he shall not give the authority such a direction at any time within a period of five years commencing with the date on which he first so consulted the authority.'.1006 I had hoped that the Minister would be convinced by the strength of the argument put to him by many of my constituents that the element of compulsion should be removed completely from the Bill. That has not happened so far. As the Bill stands, should the Minister agree with local representatives not to use his compulsory powers to require them to prepare privatisation schemes, there is nothing to prevent the hon. Gentleman, or his successor, from returning to the question within weeks or months, having had a change of mind, and requiring privatisation to proceed. With such a sword of Damocles hanging over any organisation, it would be impossible for it to take sensible planning or commercial decisions, or to negotiate with financial institutions the financial arrangements that they have been prepared to make available in the past to trust ports, which would be under a continuing blight, due to the threat of such a decision being made by the Minister.For many years the Poole harbour commissioners have successfully managed their own financial affairs. They have financed the development and improvement of the harbour without any call on Government funds. If financial institutions have no guarantee that harbour managers will continue to hold their present responsibilities, such sensible financial arrangements could come to a halt overnight. Surely no hon. Member can envisage any commercial institution working under such conditions. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this modest amendment. It would enable at least some long-term planning—for five years—following the Minister's acceptance that privatisation is not immediately required.
§ Mr. WallaceI support the amendment. I attempted to introduced a similar amendment by means of a new clause that was not selected for debate. Under my scheme a trust port could have attempted to maintain the status quo. Its effect would have been very much the same as the amendment moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). I visited Poole last week. The weather was exceptionally good. No political significance can be read into the weather that greeted me and that which greeted the Minister. One could not help but be impressed by the work of the harbour commissioners over a number of years and by the way in which they have developed Poole harbour. They have tried to maintain its special characteristics, including its environmental characteristics. That alone makes Poole a special case. I hope that the Minister will take that into account if he ever decides to exercise the powers that new clause 9 gives to him.
All the trust ports have their own characteristics. I argued on many occasions in Committee that the Lerwick harbour trust has its own particular characteristics. I refer to the way in which it has responded to the challenge of the oil industry. During the last 20 years, its income has grown from £40,000 to well over £5.5 million. It has diversified its activities and has invested in farming, a town centre car park, an industrial estate, a state-of-the-art fish processing factory and a four-star hotel that was opened by the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.
The success of the efforts of many harbour trusts ought to be recognised. Moreover, if the Minister decides that a harbour trust need not be privatised, it should be free from the threat of privatisation for a number of years, or a brake could be applied to much-needed developments.
This is a sensible amendment. Both the hon. Member for Poole and I agree that the compulsory element is 1007 unacceptable, but the amendment does not preclude the Government's option to go down that road. However, having decided against such a course, the Government should allow the harbour trusts to get on with the job which in many places, such as Poole and Lerwick—two ports of which I am aware—they have been doing well for the past 20 or more years.
§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)I want to speak on the amendment because of the threat that privatisation poses to the fishing fleets around our coast, of which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will be aware. I understand that there is a fishing fleet in Poole which is concerned about the threat from the potential privatisation of the trust ports.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). Successful ports such as Lerwick and Poole, which have put a great deal of finance into the infrastructure, and have run themselves extremely well and successfully, need reassurance such as he suggested.
I am especially concerned to put the view of the many fishermen who have written to me because they are concerned about the steps that the Government are taking. As a result of the distinct lack of a Government fishing policy, fishing fleets are under threat. They have been declining and they are often forced into corners of ports. In some cases, they are no longer the major financial contributors to the ports. They fear that, if the ports were privatised, there would be a more lucrative source of income from marinas and developers which would force traditional fishermen out of their livelihood and their traditional facilities. They support the amendment, and I ask the Minister to take their needs into account. I assure him that the fishing fleet do not support him or the Bill.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI recognise the purpose behind the amendment. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the weather that I encountered in Poole. It was fairly lousy when I arrived, but it improved as the day went on.
It is important that the enactment of the Bill does not result in ports being kept in a constant state of uncertainty about possible privatisation. If, two years or more after enactment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State enters into consultations with a port authority about possible privatisation, but decides not to direct that authority to submit a scheme of transfer, it will clearly be helpful for him to tell the port when he next proposes to review the situation, or he may decide that the circumstances of a particular port are such that the need for further consideration will not arise.
When we had a meeting yesterday with fishermen from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), I was struck by a point which they made vociferously. My hon. Friend has consistently pressed the Government to make various amendments to the Bill and he has made his point effectively, as I will explain. The issue is whether we should build such a proposal into the Bill. I and my right hon. and learned Friend have given a good deal of thought to this, and we have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. My conclusion is that his proposal would help ports which we decide should not be pressed into privatisation when we consider their arguments and that we should incorporate such a provision into the Bill.
1008 My hon. Friend the Member for Poole is probably used to hearing my next words. I am told that the wording of the amendment is not entirely satisfactory, but, if he will withdraw it, I will undertake that an amendment that will have the same effect will be tabled in another place.
§ Mr. WardI thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.