HL Deb 28 January 1992 vol 534 cc44-6WA
Lord Mowbray and Stourton

asked Her Majesty's Government:

If they are now in a position to announce their decision on the recommendation put to them by the Board of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority concerning the sale of its undertaking.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

Yes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, in answer to a Question from the honourable Member for Stockton, South on 18th December in another place, said that he had written to the chairman of THPA to say that he was minded to give formal consent to the sale of the authority's successor company (Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Ltd.) to Teesside Holdings Ltd. as soon as he was able to do so; and that this would be possible only after the scheme of transfer submitted by the authority under Section 9(1) of the Ports Act 1991 and the order providing for a levy on disposals of land to be made under Section 17 of the Act had come into effect. The former took effect on 30th December 1991 and the latter on 16th January.

Since my right honourable friend gave that Answer he has received a number of representations concerning the sale, notably by Mr. John Hackney, the Chief Executive of THPA and Chairman of the THPA Consortium plc, and by the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, who have sought to persuade him that he should withhold consent to the THPA board's recommendation concerning the sale of the port. My right honourable friend has considered the matters very carefully, including taking Counsel's advice, and has concluded that there is nothing in them which would justify him taking a different decision from the one he was minded to take in December.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is satisfied that the THPA board conducted the sale of its undertaking properly, and fully in accordance with the procedure agreed with the department. In so far as it has been represented that the advice of THPA's professional advisers was misleading to the THPA consortium, he is satisfied that it was proper advice and should not have given rise to any misapprehension on the part of the consortium. He is further satisfied that the board evaluated the final bids which it received in accordance with the objectives of sale which he agreed with the THPA and that it did not apply any additional or different objectives of sale. These objectives were:

"In assessing the merits of competing offers, the Board of the Authority will have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal to managers and staff of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of its privatised undertaking. The Board will seek the best open market price for its undertaking having regard to its desire to ensure that after privatisation the undertaking should continue to operate in ways which are beneficial to the local economy. To that end the Board will look closely at the background and business plans of prospective purchasers to satisfy itself that they are directed to the maintenance of a viable, competitive port operation; to the maintenance of the port as a separate entity with day-to-day management and control located in Teesside; and to the need for proposals for the use of THPA's assets to be for the development of the port business or for the promotion of developments which are locally beneficial."

Amongst the matters drawn to my right honourable friend's attention was the statement in the Teesside Holdings' bid that an existing member of the THPA Board and a leading local solicitor, neither of whom was named, would be appointed to the Teesside Holdings' board. It was suggested that this created a potential conflict of interest on the THPA board in the consideration of the bids. Each of the non-executive members of the THPA board and their legal adviser have confirmed that they received no approach on this matter from 3i, whose nominees on the Teesside Holdings' board the directors would be; and Teesside Holdings have similarly confirmed that they made no such approach. My right honourable friend is satisfied that no conflict of interest arose in the THPA board's consideration of the bids.

Also considered were representations concerning Humberside Holdings and other companies associated with the Holloway family. Humberside Holdings, which is itself owned in part by Powell Duffryn and in part by the Holloway family, holds an equal share with Powell Duffryn and 3i in the equity share capital of Teesside Holdings Ltd. Mr. John Holloway is the intended Chief Executive of Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Ltd. My right honourable friend has found nothing in the evidence put before him concerning either Mr. John Holloway or Humberside Holdings which would make it proper to withhold his consent to the proposed sale to Teesside Holdings Ltd.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is now writing to the Chairman of THPA giving consent to the sale of the authority's undertaking to Teesside Holdings Ltd., and would like to place on record his appreciation of the patience which the chairman and members of the THPA board have shown during the delay in reaching a final decision caused by the need for him to consider these representations.