§ 33. Mr. Silvesterasked the Minister of Transport how many of those ports which at present come under the authority of the British Transport Docks Boards will be eligible to revert to private ownership, having regard to the terms of the White Paper on the reorganisation of ports, Command Paper No. 3903, under which it is proposed to limit the nationalisation of ports to those in which more than five million tons of goods are handled in a year.
§ Mr. MulleyThe hon. Member will by now have been able to study the terms of the Ports Bill; he will note that it provides for all the ports of the British Transport Docks Board to be placed under the charge of the National Ports Authority.
§ 42. Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from local interests in the Bristol area regarding the Government's impending legislation on the reorganisation of the ports; and what reply he has sent.
§ Mr. MulleyBristol City Council asked me to exclude the Port of Bristol, and Bristol Chamber of Commerce suggested that the powers of the National Ports Council should be strengthened. Their letters were acknowledged.
§ 60. Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Transport what recent survey he has taken out on the efficiency, reliability, handling costs, manning, and the volume and value of goods shipped by each harbour to be affected by forthcoming ports and harbours legislation; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MulleyThe hon. Member will find much relevant information in the publications of the National Ports Council, such as the Digest of Statistics and50W the Port Progress Report 1969, and in the reports of harbour authorities themselves. The Bill which I have just introduced is, of course, concerned as much with the efficiency of the nation's whole ports system as with that of individual harbours.
§ Mr. Waddingtonasked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from local interests in the Manchester area regarding the Government's impending legislation on the reorganisation of the ports; and what reply he has sent.
§ Mr. MulleyApart from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, certain other local interests have opposed the inclusion of the Port of Manchester in the reorganisation, and local trade union interests have suggested that the port should be put under a separate port board. We have explained the objective of establishing a structure of organisation within the industry to provide an essential degree of central direction of policy whilst encouraging local enterprise and initiative, and I am keeping in mind the suggestion about a separate port board.