§ 11.19 a.m.
§ Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the procedure adopted for the privatisation of the port of Tees and Hartlepool.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)My Lords, on 18th December my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place that he was minded to give his formal consent to the recommendation of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority board that its undertaking should be sold to Teesside Holdings. Since then THPA Consortium, the management-employee buy-out team which bid for the port, and honourable Members in another place have put forward representations that there were defects in the THPA board's consideration of the bids. My right honourable friend will consider carefully the matters which have been raised before making a final decision on the sale.
§ Lord EzraMy Lords, does the Minister agree that considerable confusion has surrounded this first bidding process for a trust port to be privatised under the 1991 Act? Does he also agree that some of the bidders in this case submitted revised bids while others did not? Is it correct that the successful bidder, still to be confirmed by the Minister, did not submit the highest bid; nor did it represent the interests of the management even though that was supported in the Act? Will the Minister confirm press reports that, because of the confused situation, a news blackout has been imposed on the bidding processes for other trust ports?
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, I should not regard what has happened as confusion within the bidding process. As I stated in my Answer, the THPA board recommended to my right honourable friend that the bid should go forward. Since then various allegations have been made, upon which I do not intend to comment today. It is true that it was not the highest bid but my right honourable friend said in answer in another place:
the THPA board concluded that the bid by Teesside Holdings Limited, although not the largest in monetary terms, was the most consistent with the authority's 478 privatisation objectives and, taken overall, the most beneficial to the port, its employees and the Teesside community generally". —[Official Report, Commons. 18/12/91; col. 163.]
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, will the Minister confirm that the allegations that are being considered by his department in relation to the Teesside bid involve allegations that Teesside Holdings Limited offered inducements to the port authority which was handling the bid; that it was given a degree of favouritism; that conflicts clearly arose vis-à-vis Teesside Holdings Limited and the port authority; and that there was an omission on the part of two directors to disclose their involvement in malpractices relating to redundancy payment issues under the Dock Labour Scheme some time ago? In view of those serious allegations, will the Minister indicate whether the police are being called in to investigate the matters?
Secondly, would he not think it appropriate, since after all justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, that this port authority should not handle the issue again and that, in the interests of fairness as perceived by the other bidders, there should be a renewal of the whole proposal?
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, as I have already said, I do not intend nor would it be right for me to comment on the allegations which the noble Lord has wrongly repeated in the House today. When the time is right my right honourable friend will respond in full to the allegations that have been made. I have no knowledge of whether police involvement will be necessary.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, is the Minister aware that in another place these allegations were made most specifically because otherwise no one would be any the wiser about why the matter was being reviewed? In my submission it is perfectly proper to advert to those issues now. Can the Minister indicate whether the police are being called in? After all, in the interests of public information about the matter that issue is absolutely crucial.
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, I do not intend to reply to the allegations—it would not be right for me to do so. They must be properly considered. As I have already said, I do not know whether there is police involvement.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, the Minister has said that the Government will investigate the whole matter in detail. Will he give the House an undertaking that the results of their inquiries into these serious allegations will be made fully available to the public and to the House?
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, when my right honourable friend responds to the allegations he will undoubtedly wish to publicise them in some way. They were made by honourable Members in another place who are entitled to a reply.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the suggestion made by my noble 479 friend Lord Ezra that a news blackout has been imposed on any bids made in similar circumstances? If that is the case it is most serious.
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, I believe that to be the result of a misunderstanding. The department has asked trust ports seeking privatisation to delay making any public announcement about their boards' recommendations on the successful bidder for the port until my right honourable friend has had an opportunity to consider the recommendations and to decide whether to give his consent. The request was made because my right honourable friend might not give his consent to a recommendation. Should he not do so it would be misleading and unhelpful both to the recommended bidder and to the other bidders if the port announced its recommendation publicly. There is no reason why we should try to prevent bidders for a port from making public whatever information they choose about their bids and we were certainly not seeking to do so. The only confidentiality clauses that bidders are being asked to sign relate to commercially-sensitive information which they receive from the port for which they are bidding.