Orders Of The Day Ports Bill Lords amendments considered. Clause 2 Transfer Of Undertakings Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 23, leave out "statutory provision of local application" and insert "local statutory provision". 6.36 pm The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Speaker With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 29 and 34. Mr. McLoughlin These amendments are largely technical. They arise from the existing provision in schedule 1 for transfer schemes to provide for "repealing or amending any statutory provision of local application". By appearing to limit the provisions which could be repealed or amended to ones which were applicable only locally—that is, within a limited territorial area—it is possible that that expression might be taken to exclude, for example, a port authority's borrowing powers, leaving the new successor company encumbered with the old authority's more limited borrowing powers. It is precisely such statutory limits that the Bill would remove. Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) I am extremely grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. Has he or his officials received any intimation whatsoever from the Clyde port authority concerning its private Bill which would privatise that authority? Has it decided to pull up stumps and go home? Mr. McLoughlin As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made perfectly clear on Second Reading, that is a matter for the Clyde port authority. Obviously, I hope that it will have the benefit of the Bill being on the statute book in a short time. It will be for it to decide which course to follow. It is likely to follow the course of the Bill that we are discussing. Having briefly explained that the amendments are technical, I commend them to the House. Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) demonstrates the great concern about there being a public Bill and a private Bill. It was only as the private Bill went through the House that it was realised that the Treasury had to become involved to start getting money out of local trusts. The amendment went through the other place virtually without discussion, which means that we cannot oppose it at this stage. However, I wish to record once again our concern that this legislation is not doing its best for local communities. In effect, the interests of the port are being divorced from those of the local community. As we have just heard, until now, ports have tended to act in the interests of their local community. Question put and agreed to. Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. Clause 3 Initial Issue Of Securities Of The Successor Company Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 7, leave out "In consideration of" and insert "Following". Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege. With this it will be convenient also to consider amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 33. Mr. McLoughlin The aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the Bill's provisions regarding the issue of securities by the successor company are compatible with a technical provision of an EC directive on company law, while at the same time maintaining the tax treatment of those securities. Ms. Walley Again, we have further proof that this legislation is not about improving transport or about establishing an integrated transport structure. Amendment No. 2 shows the need for the face of the Bill to be changed because of the Bill's fundamental incompatibility with company law and with an EC directive on company law. The provisions were not voted on in the other place and, at this stage, we do not wish to oppose the amendment. Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.] Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. Clause 5 Control By Appropriate Minister Over Exercise Of Authority's Functions Under Sections 3 And 4 Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 13, leave out from "disposal" to end of line 14 and insert— "of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the successor company to— (a) managers or other persons employed by the company; or(b) another company the whole or a substantial part of whose equity share capital is owned by managers or other persons so employed." Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Deputy Speaker With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 30. Mr. McLoughlin The amendments aim to rectify a possible shortcoming in the Bill's provisions enabling support to be given to a management and employee team engaged in bidding for a port. Where such a situation exists, it is normally the case that the managers and individuals involved, rather than acting as a group of individuals, will form a company to act as a vehicle for making the bid. It was possible that, on a strict interpretation of the Bill's provisions, such a company would not have qualified for support because the wording used— "managers and other persons employed"— could have been held to refer only to individuals. This group of amendments is intended to preclude that possibility. 6.45 pm Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) Opposition Members believe that these amendments go to the heart of the Bill as it stands, because they deal with the subject of management buy-outs. We are grateful for the fact that, when the amendments were discussed in the other place, as a result of probing by the Opposition, we were given the Secretary of State's guidance notes relating to the procedure for the sale of trust ports. The notes form a most helpful document. I asked the Leader of the House to consider incorporating the guidelines into the Bill, so important are they, but there was not sufficient time. As the right hon. Gentleman said on the Floor of the House at the time, I accept that it might have been on the late side, but, as I have said, we discovered that the guidelines existed only as a result of the prodding of Opposition Peers. Not only did that reveal the existence of the guidance notes, but it led to their being placed in the Library. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Transport for making his final guidelines available. I am sure that the Minister can confirm that the guidelines that have been produced by the Secretary of State will cover all trust ports, including the Tees and Hartlepool. Although we have consistently opposed the movement of the Tees and Hartlepool port into the private sector, as the will of Parliament is reflected in the Bill and in the amendments that have been tabled in the other place, it is of the utmost importance to put on record our view that a satisfactory employee buy-out would be the best option available to the Tees and Hartlepool— provided, of course, that it was a valid buy-out, on behalf of the employees, and not a glorified management buy-out, which some of us suspect to have been the present management's long-term objective when they embarked on their own privatisation scheme through the private Bill route. We must place the amendments in the context of paragraph 15 of the Secretary of State's guidance notes relating to the procedure for the sale of trust ports, which state: "that the trust port will be required to appoint appropriate advisers to provide it with an independent benchmark valuation of the undertaking and an independent assessment of the bids received.This assessment should include advice as to whether the bids properly reflect the value of the port undertaking … that the trust port will need to make this benchmark valuation and assssement available to the Secretary of State in putting forward its own proposals regarding the sale of the port to the Secretary of State for his agreement.That these proposals will need to take into account the extent to which the bids meet the objectives of sale and will not therefore necessarily recommend that the highest bid should be accepted." That last point is of the utmost importance in the context of these amendments to clause 5. The guidance notes also state: "a trust port may wish to recommend that a price preference should be applied to a bid from a management and employee buy out team.The Secretary of State will be prepared to consider a limited preference of this kind in individual cases and will have regard to the particular circumstances of each case." As can be seen from the amendments, the Government are in a dilemma of their own making. On the one hand, as we saw in Committee, thanks to the work of hon. Members of all parties, they concluded that management buy-outs should be encouraged. On the other hand, however, they are enamoured of the principle of competitive tendering—in fact, they are so enamoured that that phrase appeared yesterday in the so-called citizen's charter which was announced by the Prime Minister. What is to happen to the Tees and Hartlepool and the other trust ports that are covered by the Bill? Will the management buy-out be given preferential treatment, or will that management buy-out have only a limited prospect of success, being faced with a more gigantic bid from an outside firm that might even be a foreign firm? We are not, of course, allergic to foreigners on Teesside, and especially not to European foreigners. In racing terms, I am reminded of the apprenticeship races in which, having had 10 winners, the apprentice loses his apprenticeship status. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is, as usual, in his place for such a debate. Far be it from me to say that an apprentice, who has a big race coming up and who does not want to lose his apprenticeship status, will hang back, but that was always the case in the stories that I read of old. It would not be surprising at this stage if, like the apprentice with nine wins to his credit, the Tees and Hartlepool decided not to push itself to be first past the post. In other words, the Tees and Hartlepool might not benefit from the amendments and might not want to be the first in line for privatisation, because it knows that it might be swallowed up by a competitor or foreign company and that its management buy-out would then be left high and dry. Dr. Godman Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, following a buy-out or the privatisation of a trust port, the new authority would not be able to evade the responsibilities that the Port authority currently carries out? The important dredging operation on the upper reaches of the Clyde is now carried out by the Clyde port authority. That essential task must be carried out, or the river will silt up. Mr. Bell I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I am not the Minister of the Crown who can or should answer that question. My understanding of the Bill is that the dredging would fall within the statutory authority of the port and would be a statutory requirement for whoever takes over the port. A port would be disadvantaged, because investment in it might suffer if the proposed buy-out came from a firm that decided to invest elsewhere. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my attention and to that of the House. Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) My hon. Friend cannot be completely familiar with the upper reaches of the Clyde. I wish to put it on the record that the Clyde port authority has a power which allows it to dredge the Clyde but that it has no duty to do so. That will be the case in the future. We are fearful that an entirely commercially oriented body would be interested only in property development and not in the welfare of the river. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me put that point. Mr. Bell I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Undoubtedly, the Minister will respond to it. It is on the record, and it is an important point. It is one of the reasons why the Opposition consistently opposed the privatisation of the ports, as embodied in the Bill. To return to the amendments, trust ports might also like to take the opportunity of a management buy-out. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the Clyde Port Authority Bill. It is becalmed in the other place and will be extinct when the Bill is given Royal Assent. A private Bill is extinguished when it is confronted with a statutory measure such as this. Other trust ports may take the view that they should wait to see what happens with the Tees and Hartlepool port authority proposals before going ahead with their own management buy-out proposals. They might conclude that they should wait for two years in accordance with the terms of the Bill and then have the Secretary of State demand their plans for privatisation. The board of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority might be well advised to leave its privatisation bid until two years have elapsed after the Bill is enacted rather than seek privatisation and lose out, like the apprentice who wins his 10th race and loses his apprenticeship status. Indeed, my advice to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is that, unless it can obtain a categorical assurance from the Secretary of State that the management buy-out is acceptable under the terms of the guidelines, it is ill advised to be the first port to seek privatisation and face the prospect of the port falling into foreign hands. A great debate took place in the other place on these amendments. I shall not refer to that debate today. The Secretary of State's guidelines were referred to. While the Opposition pressed hard in the other place to ensure that the guidelines gave first priority to a management buy-out rather than competitive tendering, we were given no assurance in the other place that the amendments would give preference to a management buy-out. My specific question to the Minister is whether there will be a preference for a management buy-out or whether it will be only a limited preference, which will amount to no preference at all. Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for stepping in at this stage. If it is in any consolation, I assure him that I do not intend to speak many times. I appreciate that the Bill has been carefully considered by the Committee, but I wish to make one minor point. As hon. Members will be aware from the Register of Members' interests, I have been an adviser to the Port of London Police Federation for many years. In that connection, I wish to raise a minor issue on amendment No. 21, which refers to the transfer of local regulations. The Port of London authority has the power to have a police force. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, we are transferring that power to the port of Tilbury. One of the advantages of such a transfer is that, as we are all aware, Tilbury has a splendid Member of Parliament to look after its interests. However, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, in the transfer from the port of London to the port of Tilbury, the persons involved will lose considerably, even though they will do the same job, in the same place and in the same way. The port of Tilbury is certainly as aware as the port of London of the immense benefit of having a statutory police force. But the Minister will be aware of the losses that people will face. First, the tradition has been that PLA police salaries were in line with Metropolitan police salaries. That will not necessarily be guaranteed after the transfer. The rent allowance was linked to the Metropolitan police but in future will be related to the Essex police. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a kindly person who, throughout his activities on the Bill, has shown consideration for all the people involved. But we must remember that, in such a transfer, we transfer not only cranes but people. I hope that the Minister can assure us that, although there is adequate provision to protect individuals' pension rights, there will also be some basis on which individuals can seek arbitration, understanding or some assurance that they will not lose if they do the same job in the same way in the same place. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that, if the port of Tilbury is transferred to a trust and a company is established to run it, we shall have no guarantee about what will happen in five or 10 years. There is a real danger that assurances given by the port of Tilbury may not be inherited by a successor company. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the matter and that he appreciates that it is necessary to safeguard the position and give some assurances to the port of London police who have served the port well, who will continue to do the same job extremely well and who are rather worried about their future. Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) I wish to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), which was given great emphasis in Committee, about our worries about those who take responsibility for our ports. As I have said on previous occasions, the ports will remain an important part of Britain's economy and transport structure, but in view of what has already happened in the ports and of the Lords amendments, it appears that the Government have neglected to deal with the future of the port transport industry in Britain. Our anxiety remains. Those who have an interest in the ports industry are those who work in it and operate the ports. The evidence is that, almost without exception, the ports have been run successfully over many years by the people who managed and worked in them. Therefore, the possibility of a management takeover is very important. I re-emphasise the points made on that matter. Whatever powers the Government have in the Bill, they must ensure that the bodies that inherit our ports will be responsible by statute for upholding all the necessary practices in the port transport industry. We have all expressed anxiety about dredging, conservancy and other matters. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will undertake to monitor what happens in our ports and ensure that any movement away from the port's interest is arrested and that our ports retain a future and are not surrendered to the rest of Europe. Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) After the bizarre intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I am not sure what we are supposed to be debating. I thought that we were debating the amendments to which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) addressed himself. I should like to get back to those amendments by assuring you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman and the House that you need not worry about the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. It is in good hands—apart from anyone else's, mine. That means that the hon. Gentleman need not worry whether the port will be slow off the mark in seeking privatisation by the management team. If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, the backwoodsmen on Teeside and those who live in the past instead of the future had allowed my private Bill to go through, the port would already be privatised, we would have the new business, and jobs would be available. The Labour party, as ever, went further and further backwards. 7 pm I am not too displeased about that, because it is beginning to show the people in the north-east of England that, over the centuries and the decades, it has been socialism that has held back the region. We in the north-east are now doing away with socialism, and we are seeing the benefits. Jobs are flowing in the area. Despite the recession, the north-east is the one area in the country where the jobs position has improved in the past few months, and it continues to do so. Much results from the work of the development corporations. Much could have been the result of the development of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, if the legislation had not been brought to a halt in another place. One hears and talks about democracy, yet three wayward peers in another place can stop the will of this House. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman speak of the "will of the House". That will was usurped in another place. It did not matter, because, as ever, the Government came to the rescue with their Bill, which is probably improved as a result of the pioneer work that I did on the private Bill. When the Minister replies, he will undoubtedly make it clear that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is not like the apprentice waiting for ever to ride a 10th winner. All apprentices must ride that 10th winner as quickly as possible because afterwards they can ride a Derby winner and win the real prizes. That is what the Tees and Hartlepool authority will do. Dr. Godman I would not dream of engaging in the debate on the state of socialism in the north-east of England, because you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order. As a Member of Parliament in another country from that of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), I can tell him that it is the Conservative party that is slipping away in Scotland, but I shall not go further down that road, either. The amendments may improve matters slightly for the Clyde port authority. The Clyde Port Authority Bill seems to have foundered in the other place, or perhaps it has just come to some sort of anchorage—I say foundered, and the Minister talks about anchorage. A management-employee buy-out of the Clyde port authority may be vastly superior in all sorts of ways to the management buy-out envisaged in the private Bill that has either come to grief or is tied up somewhere. Recently, there was a management-employee buy-out in Dundee and the operation is heading towards success. I am referring to a major bus company. The Transport and General Workers Union and the employers, with financial advice from, I think, the Clydesdale bank, although it may be the Royal bank of Scotland, bought the company. They are not turning it into a co-operative. They have set up a company which meets the entirely legitimate demands and requirements of the work force. The same should be done on the Clyde. Port authorities must meet obligations, so that ports and estuaries can survive. In that respect, I wish to raise with the Minister the important question of dredging the Clyde. A management buy-out may be less of a prospect if no financial assistance is provided for the form of dredging that is so important on the Clyde. I simply remind the Minister of that. The cost of buying another dredging vessel, for example, may deter a management buy-out. Therefore, it is an important consideration. When these authorities are privatised, they must honour their obligations to local communities and local work forces. Ms. Walley The debate about employee-management buy-outs was developed extensively in Committee. We were disappointed that there was nothing in the Bill at the outset about how they could be achieved. The amendments and their further clarification is some proof that we made some progress on the idea. As my hon. Friends have already admirably pointed out, there is a gap between what we would like to see and how the Bill is finally shaping up. Although we have got some concessions from the Government on this, the legislation is inadequate. Given the discussions in another place, at this late stage it is difficult to see how we can assure the trust ports that employee-management buy-outs will be favoured. Mr. Bell Can my hon. Friend refute the argument of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) who, with his usual grace, entirely misunderstood my remarks? If the Tees and Hartlepool authority were to be the first in line for privatisation, as it does not have the clear-cut assurance from the Government that a management buy-out will be preferred to a competitive tendering bid, there is every likelihood that it will lose its management buy-out and end up in the hands of a foreign firm with no particular interest in Teesside. Is not that the point of not hurrying towards privatisation under amendments, but of waiting for two years to pass so that we can see exactly what foreign interest there is in our ports? Ms. Walley I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, in relation to Tees and Hartlepool in particular. Two private Bills proceeded through Parliament—one for the Clyde port authority and the other for the Tees and Hartlepool port authority—and it is clear to everybody that the proof of the pudding will be in how the Bill relates to and compares with the private business that came to such an abrupt end when it was previously considered in this House. My hon. Friend is right: we want absolute priority for an employee-management buy-out proposal. He spelled out the position accurately. I should like to see whether the Tees and Hartlepool port authority decides to proceed with an employee-management buy-out. We should like that to happen and for the procedure to change only if the port does not wish so to proceed. We should give the port that opportunity. As my hon. Friend so clearly pointed out, the Bill gives no clearer commitment to an employee-management buy-out than the first draft of the legislation. We do not want trust ports to be privatised. They should make a commitment to the local community. If the legislation is enacted on Thursday, we want it to include an absolute priority for employee-management buy-outs, should that be the wish of the port concerned. As my hon. Friends have said, the legislation applies not only to Tees and Hartlepool, but to the London port of Tilbury. Many employees throughout the country may see the proposal as the best option in the circumstances, but they may feel worried that, in the market economy that prevails, it will not advantage those who wish to undertake an employee-management buy-out. I am going on at some length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is an important issue which is fundamental to the Bill. We have wrung some concessions from the Government—[Interruption.] If the Home Office Minister wishes to make a contribution rather than interrupt from a sedentary position, he is most welcome to do so. We are pleased that it will be easier to have employee-management buy-outs. Mr. Bell The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said, in relation to the amendments, that there could be management buy-outs at Tees and Hartlepool. Is it not a fact that, had it not been for our opposition in Committee, helped by some Conservative Members—we are always glad to see the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in his place and look forward to his presence when we discuss the clawback—even the limited preference buy-out scheme that we now have would not exist? That is entirely due to our opposition in Committee in which we were aided by a few Conservative Members. The great golden dream of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh of a management buy-out on Teesside, for which he and his colleagues wish to take credit, would not have come about but for the opposition of Labour Members. Ms. Walley I am always glad to give credit where credit is due. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is right to speak of the way in which the Opposition pressed for a policy that was not even included on the face of the Bill—albeit with some assistance from Conservative Members, who realised that ports could well be bought out by foreign interests and closed down because those foreign interests might have no regard for port activities. We take the credit for obtaining a firmer commitment to employee-management buy-outs. However, that commitment does not go far enough; we would like the Bill to have given complete priority to the concept of employee-management buy-outs, but that is not contained in the legislation. Not long after we debated the issue in Committee, word came through that foreign firms, particularly Japanese, were interested in the London port of Tilbury. We expressed concern on behalf of the work force who, even if they had wanted to press for a management buy-out, could not do so unless the Government could give a firm commitment, which the Government were perhaps unable to do. For those reasons, we are concerned that the amendment does not give the firm commitment to employee-management buy-outs for which we have constantly pressed. Many trust ports throughout the country share our views. Dr. Godman I was not a member of the Committee. I note my hon. Friend's misgivings about the amendments emanating from the other place. If the amendments are accepted, it would enable employees of the Clyde Port Authority to take a much more active part in the acquisition of the CPA than would have been the case under the terms of the Clyde Port Authority Bill, which came to grief in the other place. That is an important distinction, and it is why I gave the example of the Dundee bus company, where the employees and their representatives were part of the negotiating team discussing financial considerations. If the amendments are passed, CPA employees would at least have a more active involvement in their future than would have been the case under the terms of the dreadful CPA Bill. Ms. Walley I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that his constituents in the Clyde district are aware of the point that he makes. We are concerned to make absolutely certain that employees who have given their life's work to the ports are as involved as possible in the port's future. We have to do so bearing in mind the fact that the employees have to contend with legislation that forces the ports to become privatised. Dr. Godman I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I had not intended to take part in the debate, principally because I am not feeling very well. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that European Community legislation cannot prevent the Government of the day from expressing sympathy for a management-employee buy-out as against the would-be acquisition of a port by some foreign multinational company? 7.15 pm Ms. Walley My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I can well foresee circumstances in which local employees may wish, at all costs, to proceed with an employee-management buy-out to avoid the horrendous implications of a foreign company buying out the trust port. If that could not be made possible because the provisions did not exist in the Bill, those employees would wish to use every option open to them to ensure the employee-management buy-out. We would insist on exploring our need to operate in harmony with European directives to ensure that employees do not lose the option of an employee-management buy-out. Mr. Bell I hesitate to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend, but no doubt she has read—as I have—the debate on the amendments in the other place and will have noted the great anxiety felt there, as it was in Committee, about the possible privatisation of the port of Poole. We are glad to see the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) in his place tonight. In Committee, he expressed concern that the port of Poole might be privatised. Is not the port of Poole a classic example of where, even though employees may not wish the port to be privatised, it may be privatised against their will? The amendments will facilitate that task. It might be opportune if we could hear the views of the hon. Member for Poole on the amendments. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) agree that, although a port such as Tees and Hartlepool is even now reluctant to be privatised, other ports such as Poole are totally opposed to the idea? Ms. Walley I shall be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether it would be in order for me to respond to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, which may have been slightly outside our remit. Mr. Deputy Speaker I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am getting worried that the discussion is almost turning into a Second Reading debate. I hope that most of the arguments will be used on this group of amendments and that after that we may proceed more rapidly. Ms. Walley I am grateful for your advice on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would also understand if the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) wanted to intervene now, rather than later, but I have no doubt that he will make a contribution if he wants to. There is anxiety throughout all the trust ports about the implications of the legislation. There is a fundamental objection to the amendments involving compulsion. However, if it is accepted that that argument has been lost and nothing more can be done, the amendments relating to employee-management buy-outs give the trust ports some let-out and provide the only opportunity for the ports to continue under the direction of local people who are concerned about them. We should have liked the legislation to give complete priority to the concept of management-employee buy-outs—a concept that could have been modified and further clarified during the Bill's progress. At this late stage, there is still confusion because the Government have not said whether, if that concept is the preferred option, they will go along with it. That is a matter of great concern and regret to the Opposition. We still do not know whether the Government will let employee-management buy-outs go ahead if other bids worth far more money are made. The trust ports share our concern. The principle of management-employee buy-outs had cross-party support in Committee. However, at the end of our deliberations we have been left with the same assurances that we had at the beginning. We have been told that the Government will consider what they can do. They will only consider, they will not give the firm commitment that my hon. Friends and I want. We are forced to conclude that the Government are not keen on anything except window dressing. We have learnt from other debates this week that what the Govenment might say is different from what they do. We should not have such a window dressing when it comes to employee-management buy-outs; we need a firm commitment that those buy-outs will go ahead. The clawback property tax was designed to deter land predators from asset stripping ports. Although the ideology is right, in practice the tax has no effect other than to reduce correspondingly the tender offer to meet that possible liability. That reduction means that a management-led buy-out is not financially viable, but the aim of such buy-outs is to promote and develop a port and to use the land for the purpose for which it was acquired—port development. The Government have not granted any concession on the basic 50 per cent. levy for management-led schemes. However, it is worth noting that the Finance Act 1990 offered a 3 per cent. concession. The Government now seem loth to offer a meaningful discount, which is necessary to achieve a successful bid. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said that we had pressed for the guidelines in Committee. We were then assured by the Minister that those guidelines would be available. We were content to take advice from the Government about how they would proceed to firm up the proposals for employee-management buy-outs. The Government should have followed the proper procedures and made the guidelines available to those in another place who were discussing them. However, I gather that the guidelines were first made available to the Association of British Ports. The Government's handling of the guidance notes is another example of the way in which they have been remiss in their entire handling of employee-management buy-outs. Mr. Bell The guidelines appeared in draft form in the other place. On insisting that they be placed in the Library, my hon. Friends and I discovered that they were sent to the managing director of the British Ports Federation, Mr. J. Sharpies, by a Mr. M. W. Jackson—apparently he is a civil Servant. It was only because of the unofficial title of those notes—"The Secretary of State's guidance notes on the procedure for sale of trust ports"—that we ascertained that they were the guidelines for which we were looking. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that we have to suss out those guidelines from the Library as a consequence of a debate in the other place? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that those guidance notes were not sent by the Minister to members of the Committee for the use in the House today? Ms. Walley I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the details of the issue to the attention of the House. We pressed for the guidance notes to be made available and we had every confidence that they would be sent to the other place in due course. No one was more astonished than me when I read Hansard of the other place and discovered that the debate was adjourned for half an hour before those guidance notes could be discussed. Far be it from me to suggest that this place does exactly the same. In an earlier point of order concern was expressed that Ministers may be making announcements other than in the House, which denies hon. Members the opportunity to question Ministers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough that the guidance notes should have been available at the appropriate time so that those discussing this important Bill could have had the opportunity to peruse them and so discover their implications for management-employee buy-outs. We eventually got those guidance notes, but we understand from reading them that there is still confusion about the Government's exact commitment. The purpose of this debate is to try to discover whether there is a firm commitment from the Government to allow an employee-management buy-out. Other types of sale should go ahead only when employee-management buy-outs are not an option. Mr. Bell Does my hon. Friend agree that, in essence, it is clear from the guidelines that there is no firm Government commitment to the management buy-out option? We are committed to that option. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless we have a firm assurance from the Minister that the Government will show a preference for such buy-outs, we may yet divide the House on this amendment? Ms. Walley My hon. Friend has said it far better than I could. This issue is of great concern to us. If the Government are so in favour of employee-management buy-outs why was that commitment not included in the Bill in the first place? As time has gone on, we have attempted to clarify the position. We still do not believe that the clauses are perfect. However, I know that time is pressing and that it is important for the House to have an opportunity to discuss other important amendments. Although we welcome the improvements that have been made, we do not believe that they go far enough. However, I do not believe that it will be necessary to divide the House as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has suggested, but I shall look to my hon. Friend for guidance on that. Mr. McLoughlin This has been an interesting debate. I wonder what the Opposition's attitude would have been if the Government had given an absolute commitment to management-employee buy-outs which therefore substantially reduced the price of the ports? Let us then suppose that, at a later stage, the ports were sold. I am sure that the Opposition would have been the first to complain that we had not attracted sufficient revenue to the Exchequer. They would have been the first to complain about the taxpayer being ripped off. I cannot understand why the Opposition argue that we should give an outright commitment to management-employee buy-outs without testing the market. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said that he was impressed by some of the buy-outs relating to Scottish buses, but I doubt whether they met with the universal support of the Labour party at the time when they were announced. Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical and richly ironic for the Labour party to argue so hard for management-employee buy-outs? If we had a Labour Government today, we would not have this Bill, and not one set of managers or employees would have the right to buy anything in our ports. Mr. McLoughlin My hon. Friend makes the very point that I was about to make. In the main, I want management-employee buy-outs to be successful. Paragraph 5 of the guidance notes states: "a statement of objectives … need to be agreed on a port-by-port basis with the Secretary of State. In framing their draft objectives ports should have regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the successor company's equity share capital to managers or other employees of the port. A limited price preference for a management and employee buy-out may be appropriate, as described in paragraph 15 below." Paragraph 15 says: "In particular a trust port may wish to recommend that a price preference should be applied to a bid from a management-employee buy-out team. The Secretary of State will be prepared to consider a limited price preference of this kind in individual cases and will have regard to the particular circumstances of each case." We believe that the right way forward is to consider the ports case by case, and I think that the Opposition agree. The trust ports are not all the same, and we must take into consideration the conditions in each one. 7.30 pm My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) spoke of the Port of London authority police. We can deal with that point when we debate Lords amendment No. 35, which relates to the PLA. I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and I congratulate him on the way in which he has, on a number of occasions, vigorously raised with me both this issue and that of pensions, which has also been raised by a number of other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). Parity of the PLA police with the Metropolitan police was never guaranteed. The PLA endeavours to match the Metropolitan police within its means. The conditions and contracts of employment will transfer with the transfer of the scheme. However, the new owners will be able to make changes, but only through the negotiated process, as would need to be the case with any employees. It would be a dangerous precedent to set out what should happen in five or 10 years. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. We shall be watching the situation and shall take the point on board when the PLA comes to us about the sale of Tilbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made the point well. We are keen to see management-employee buy-outs. If the Opposition had their way, these would not be an option, because the Bill would not be before the House. Mr. Bell I am sorry to take up more of the Minister's time, but we said earlier that, if we were not satisfied with his explanation, we would divide the House. If he gave me an assurance that, although the guidelines talk of "limited preference" being appropriate, he will knock out "limited" and simply leave it as a "preference", we might be able to avoid a Division. Mr. McLoughlin We are not discussing the guidelines. The wording enables the Government to have discretion between port and port. I should have thought that that would be welcome. I would not want to declare in advance what the position would be for each and every port, because decisions will be made in due course. It would not be practicable to say that, come what may, management-employee buy-outs will be successful. I hope that, in the vast majority of cases, such buy-outs are successful. Sir Teddy Taylor I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but this is terribly important. Has he the approval of the EEC Commission for his important statement that preference will be given to a management buy-out, even at a lower cost? My understanding is that what he said is contrary to European Community law and that he will get hammered by the European Commission if he tries to insist on it. Mr. McLoughlin One always takes seriously my hon. Friend's cautions about our position within the Community and about what the Community law says. This is in line with what we did when we privatised the Scottish Bus Company. The same words were used in that case, so I am content that we are not breaking any treaty obligations in the way my hon. Friend fears. Dr. Godman I hope that what the Minister has said is borne out by the events. He was the Minister who had to change the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. That change was inflicted on the Government by the president of the European Court of Justice. Is he completely confident that a similar change will not be imposed on him as a result of these amendments? Mr. McLoughlin That is going rather wide of the amendments. I remember the incident because it was my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. However, I have no doubt that what the Bill sets out is acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Bell On competition, the situation under these amendments would not be dissimilar to the television franchises. As the Minister has been so frank and forthright on this issue, and given the assurances that he has made about management buy-outs, it does not appear necessary for us to divide the House. Mr. McLoughlin I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If anybody wishes to give me any similar assurances when we debate other amendments, I shall be only too pleased to give way. I can hear my Whip telling me not to be too generous. I commend the amendments to the House. Question put and agreed to. Clause 10 Schemes Initiated By The Secretary Of State Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 7, line 1, after "authority" insert "who have not formed a company in pursuance of section 1 above and" Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Deputy Speaker With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. McLoughlin These amendments should be called the Ward amendments because they are the result of the well-constructed case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). They mean that, once the Government have looked at a port after the two-year period and have decided not to privatise at that stage, they will not look at that port again for another five years. My hon. Friend argued his case well on Report and I gave him the commitment that we would make this amendment in the other place, and we have done so. Mr. John Ward (Poole) It would be churlish not to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the amendments. He knows that we do not wish the port of Poole to be privatised. The five-year moratorium gives it the opportunity to carry on its business in a sensible businesslike way which will prove, in five or seven years' time, that there is still no need to privatise. My hon. Friend the Minister listened with courtesy to the representations made to him rather noisily in my constituency, and I thank him for that. We obviously did not entirely convince him, but half a cake is better than none and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what we have. Ms. Walley We are glad of some further clarifications on the Secretary of State's powers of compulsion. We are totally against any compulsion. If there is to be privatisation, it must be done voluntarily and on the merits of the argument. We are concerned about the position of Poole trust port, but other ports are in a similar position and do not want these powers compulsorily attached to them. We are therefore glad of that clarification. Question put and agreed to. Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 agreed to. Clause 17 Levy On Disposals Of Land, Etc Lords Amendment: 7, in page 13, line 2, leave out "land or any interest in land belonging to a relevant port authority is" and insert "property, rights, liabilities and functions of a relevant port authority are". Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Deputy Speaker The amendment involves privilege. With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 8, 10, 16 and 36. Mr. McLoughlin Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 16, and the amendment to the Bill's title are all in one way or another paving or consequential amendments of amendment No. 10, which is designed to close a serious potential loophole in the arrangements for a clawback levy contained in clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill. In its present form, that levy applies only to land which is transferred directly from a port authority to its successor company. But some of the larger trust ports own subsidiary companies and, even if they do not, may well have the power to establish them. These companies perform a variety of functions, including, in some cases, the owning of land. It is therefore clearly necessary that the Bill should provide for the levy on onward land disposals to apply not just to land owned by the successor company itself but to land owned by the port authority's subsidiaries, which after the transfer will become subsidiaries of the successor company. The amendments tighten up a possible loophole. I commend them to the House. Ms. Walley Suffice it to say that this is just one more example of how in reality we are dealing with a finance Bill rather than a transport Bill. The fact that the Treasury did not understand the difference between the successor companies and the subsidiary companies at the outset of the proceedings of the Bill means that at this late stage this has had to be done to achieve consistency. Nevertheless, we agree that the amendments tighten up the loopholes. Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.] Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.] Lords amendment: 9, in page 13, line 13, at end insert "("the levy period")." Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Deputy Speaker The amendment involves privilege. With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 15. Mr. McLoughlin The principal amendment in this group of five amendments is amendment No. 12, which is intended to close a technical but not insignificant gap in the provisions of the Bill relating to the clawbreak levy. The amendment refers to the meaning of the word "disposal" in the context of clause 17, and it is made necessary because of a discrepancy between the time factor in clause 17 of the Bill—specifically, the levy period of 10 years—and a time factor which is sometimes relevant for determining whether there has been a disposal for the purposes of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979. This latter time factor may be referred to as the six-year time limit. The Government have accepted that "disposal" should have the same meaning for clawback purposes as it has for the purposes of the 1979 Act—that is, the Capital Gains Tax Act—and this is expressed in subsection (4) of clause 17. One of the cases where there is a disposal for the purposes of the 1979 Act could, however, have anomalous effects if applied without modifications for the purpose of clause 17. The case in question would be where land or an interest in land was transferred by a successor company to another company within the same group—or, indeed, by a relevant port authority to a subsidiary company at some time before the property of the authority is transferred to a successor company under clause 2 of the Bill—and then, during the levy period, the company owning the land or interest in land leaves the group. Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.] Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.] Lords amendment:No. 14, in page 14, line 13, after "order" insert— "( ) imposing penalties (including continuing penalties) in respect of contraventions of provisions of any order under this section;". Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Deputy Speaker The amendment involves privilege. With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Mr. McLoughlin This amendment makes it possible for penalties to be imposed where the provisions concerning the clawback levy on subsequent disposals of land are not complied with. I am sure that it will be welcomed by the House. Ms. Walley I place on record the fact that this will be subject to affirmative orders in both Houses. We pressed for that in Committee and we very much welcome the amendment. Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.] Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.] Clause 19 Financial Assistance For Proposals To Maximise Employee Participation In Equity Of Successor Companies Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 16, line 4, leave out from second "to" to end of line 5 and insert "have a reasonable prospect of securing that the objective of the proposal is achieved." 7.45 pm Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Mr. Deputy Speaker With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 20, 24 and 25. Mr. McLoughlin These amendments are intended to clarify the drafting of one aspect of the provision that the Bill makes enabling port authorities to repay the costs incurred by their management and employees in attempting to buy out the authority's successor company. It may perhaps be the case that more than one group of a port's management and employees attempt to buy the company and, if that were so, it would clearly be unsatisfactory if the authority ended up providing financial support for several competing bids, one or more of which would, inevitably, be unsuccessful. Ms. Walley I do not wish to detain the House any longer on this issue. However, it is important for me to point out that the Opposition would have preferred the option of some involvement of independent advisers. Nevertheless, the amendments represent a tightening up of the measure. We therefore do not intend to oppose the amendments. Question put and agreed to. Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.] Clause 40 General Interpretation Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 29, line 44, at end insert— ("(3) For the purposes of any provision of this Act to which this subsection applies a person employed by a company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of any company or other body mentioned in that provision shall be regarded as employed by the company or other body so mentioned. (4) Subsection (3) above applies to the following provisions of this Act— section 2(3)(c);section 5(3);section 13(3)(b);section 19(3)(b) and (5);section 26(5);section 28(2)(b) and (4); andsubsection (2)(a) above;(all of which are concerned with participation by employees of a company in ownership of its equity share capital or related matters).") Mr. McLoughlin I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. The Bill already provides that management and employee buy-outs should be encouraged and that a port authority may bear the costs incurred in mounting such buy-outs. In some cases, however, ports own subsidiary companies which have their own directly employed work force. These will, after the transfer of the port's undertaking, become wholly owned subsidiaries of the successor company. It seems only right that employees of these wholly owned subsidiaries should be in a position to benefit from the same encouragement that the Bill provides to management and employee buy-outs. Question put and agreed to. Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. (Some with Special Entry.] Schedule 2 General Supplementary Provisions With Respect To Transfer Under Section 22 Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 37, line 50, at end insert— ("Transfer of rights and liabilities relating to employment 9A.—(1) For the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 section 22(8) above shall be regarded as effecting a transfer to which those regulations apply of a part of the Port Authority's undertaking comprising all activities of the Port Authority, which by virtue of the transfer cease to be carried on by the Port Authority, including any such activities which themselves form a part of the Port Authority's undertaking which is not in the nature of a commercial venture. (2) According in those regulations, as they apply in relation to the transfer, references to the part of the undertaking transferred apply to all such activities of the Port Authority (of whatever description).") Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. McLoughlin.] Sir Teddy Taylor Earlier, the Minister was kind enough, to say that I ought to have raised the issue that I raised then on Lords amendment No. 35. He was very helpful in providing information, but I want to ask him whether I was correct in my assessment. He said that police employed by the Port of London authority would have certain safeguards. They are possibly to be transferred to another employer, for whom they will be doing the same job in the same circumstances. There will be no change. The Minister said that the previous assurance that they received—that they would receive Metropolitan police rates of pay—may no longer apply; instead they will receive Essex rates of pay. The rent allowance is another fundamental issue. It appears that, instead of receiving London rates, the people concerned will receive Essex rates. The Minister said that it was impossible to say what would happen in five years' time. I have no doubt that a great consolation for those working in the port of Tilbury will be the presence of an energetic, trustworthy and able Member of Parliament to look after their interests. I nevertheless hope that the Minister will consider the implications of the Bill. The Minister has said, in effect, that people are being transferred to a new employer. They will not enjoy their previous rights, wages and working conditions; and, as far as I can see, they have been given no guarantee of any kind about their future. I know that the Minister is a kindly person, and that he is concerned not just about cranes but about people. Surely he accepts that the position is unsatisfactory. Can he not give some guarantee to the police who have worked so well for the port of London—helping the port to obtain work that it would not otherwise have obtained—that their rights and welfare will be maintained? As the Minister will know, anyone who moves to a new employer and a different job is entitled to redundancy pay, and is enabled to start over again. Surely a job in which wages, conditions and rent allowance are different is a different job. Although the Minister may not treat Brussels with the care and attention that I consider necessary—he would be well advised to do so; I am told that Brussels prisons are very nasty places—I trust that he can at least assure us that he will look into the position. I know that the Minister wishes to ensure that employees do not lose out too much. He seems to be saying, however, that the Port of London police have no guarantee about their future. That is unsatisfactory. I know that the local Member of Parliament will make a point of investigating the matter, but I hope that all who are involved in police matters will do so as well. Mr. McLoughlin I shall certainly give careful consideration to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said. The amendment is technical. It applies specifically to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 under part II of the Bill, as they already apply to the transfer of port undertakings in part I. The PLA police force is not a commercial undertaking, and is therefore not automatically covered by the regulations. A specific application will be required for it to be transferred to the new Tilbury company. The regulations will protect employees' rights following the transfer of both the PLA police force and, if necessary, the transfer of any other PLA employee whose work might be considered not to be in the nature of a commercial venture. My hon. Friend's point is not lost on me. We shall take it seriously when the PLA scheme is presented to us, although, as I said earlier, no guarantee can be given that the same conditions will apply to the PLA police force as apply to the Metropolitan police. Let me add that I hope that the police will be included in the buy-out, and become successful operators at the port. Question put and agreed to. Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to. Criminal Justice Bill New clause proposed by the Commons in lieu of a Lords amendment to which they have disagreed: Duty To Release Discretionary Life Prisoners '.—(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if— (a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law; and(b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order. (2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account— (a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it; and(b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below. (3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner— (a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part"); and(b) the Board has directed his release under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence. (4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless— (a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and(b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. (5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board at any time— (a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and(b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and(c) where he is also serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term, after he has served one-half of that sentence; and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence. (6) On determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act"). (7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest. (8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment; but (a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and(b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.' The Lords do not insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment to the words so restored to a clause proposed by the Commons, to which the Lords desire the agreement of the Commons: In subsection (3), leave out 'subject to subsection (7) below'. Lords amendment considered forthwith.—[Mr. Greg Knight.] 7.54 pm The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. The amendment is purely consequential, introducing a drafting change that resulted from an amendment to which the House agreed when the Lords amendments were considered on 16 July. The House agreed to the deletion of subsection 7 of a new clause on discretionary life sentence procedures. That subsection gave my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary power to defer a prisoner's release by up to six months. Following the deletion of subsection 7, the cross-reference in subsection 3 is no longer relevant, and the new amendment removes it. Question put and agreed to. Water Industry Bill Order for Second Reading read. 7.56 pm The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time. As five Bills relating to water consolidation are before the House this evening, I shall, with permission, speak to all five together, as they form part of the one consolidation. The Water Act 1989 substantially restructured the water legislation of England and Wales. Functions previously vested in the water authorities were divided between a new national body known as the National Rivers Authority, and the companies appointed as the new water and sewerage undertakers. The two main Bills in the consolidation are the Water Industry Bill and the Water Resources Bill. They bring together the principal legislation from the 1989 Act and elsewhere, dealing with the new undertakers and the National Rivers Authority respectively. The third Bill, the Statutory Water Companies Bill, consolidates the provisions in the 1989 Act that deal with the corporate structure and powers of the statutory water companies. The fourth Bill, the Land Drainage Bill, reproduces the functions of the internal drainage boards and local authorities. The fifth Bill, the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill is ancillary to the four main Bills. It covers consequential amendments and repeals relating to the other four. In preparing the consolidation, the Law Commission issued a report in which it made a number of recommendations for minor technical amendments to improve the consolidation. All five Bills were referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills during their passage in another place. The Joint Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commission were necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and that the five Bills, taken together, amounted to a single consolidation. 7.58 pm Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) We are always supporting consolidation measures, which make life easier for those who must deal with legislation. As usual, we congratulate those responsible for the consolidation and the drafting, and the Law Commission. I am sorry that there was a slight hiccup last week, when we could not get the Bills through in a reasonably short time. Opposition Members will always be co-operative on measures of law reform and consolidation, and we praise the Law Commission's work. I understand, however, that there is a considerable backlog of law reform and consolidation Bills, and I only hope that things will move rather more quickly. To ensure that they do, I shall say no more today. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. — [Mr. Greg Knight] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment. Water Resources Bill Lords Read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Greg Knight.] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agree to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment. Statutory Water Companies Bill Lords Read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. — [Mr. Greg Knight.] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment. Land Drainage Bill Lords Read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. — [Mr. Sackville.] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment. Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill Lords Read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. — [Mr. Sackville.] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment. Deer Bill Lords Order for Second Reading read. 8.6 pm The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This Bill, like the water consolidation Billls, is a consolidation Bil with amendments to give effect to the Law Commission recommendations which are contained in the Commission's report on the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate the Deer Act 1963—which has been amended extensively over the years—and the Deer Act 1980. During its passage in another place, the Bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. The Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commission were necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation of the law and that, in all other respects, the Bill was pure consolidation. The House will wish to express its gratitude to the Law Commission for its work on the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. — [Mr. Sackville.] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment. Statute Law Revision (Isle Of Man) Bill Lords Order for Second reading read. The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The purpose of this Bill, which applies only to the Isle of Man, is to remove an anomaly whereby many obsolete Westminster statutes continue to form part of the law of the Isle of Man even though they have been repealed for the United Kingdom. The Bill therefore extends to the Isle of Man a series of enactments that have already been used to repeal statutes in United Kingdom legislation. It also takes the opportunity to repeal for the island 30 or so miscellaneous measures which are similarly obsolete. During its passage in another place, the Bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. The Committee reported that it was satisfied that all the enactments proposed to be repealed by the Bill were either obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded—in due course, that will apply to every hon. Member—and that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. This is yet another Bill that has been prepared and drafted by the Law Commission, this time in conjunction with the Isle of Man authorities. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to acknowledge and express appreciation for the work of the Law Commission and of parliamentary counsel in preparing the consolidation and statute law revision measures—such as those before the House this evening—that do so much to tidy up the statute book and present it in a modern form. Study of this Bill is a fascinating microcosm of 1,000 years of Isle of Man history. I commend it to the House. 8.11 pm Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) rose— Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), but I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that this is a consolidation measure and it is only in order to discuss whether consolidation should take place. Sir Teddy Taylor That is exactly the point that I want to raise. As the Solicitor-General rightly said, this is a technical Bill that repeals some 700 obsolete enactments that have been repealed for the United Kingdom but not for the Isle of Man. The Solicitor-General omitted to mention that there are two items that are not in that category and I wonder whether we should consolidate them. One of those measures is the Military Lands Act 1900 and the other is described as 7 Jac. 1 c.4. Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if I understand him correctly, he is dealing with Acts that are not consolidated. If that is the case, it is out of order. Sir Teddy Taylor I am not seeking to do that. I am simply saying that we are repealing two proposals that did not apply to the United Kingdom but only to the Isle of Man. I simply want to know what they are. This went through the House of Lords without any discussion. The Isle of Man has no representative in the House, and it would be wrong for us to repeal this legislation without knowing what it is. The measure is entitled Assurance of the Isle of Man. I went to the House of Commons Library because we have an obligation to the Isle of Man. I asked about that measure. We looked up the books and found that it was an Act for the execution of divers laws made against rogues, vagabounds, sturdy beggars and other lewd persons. The Library said that it must be a private Bill but, sadly, it was not available. Although we are restricted in our discussion, bearing in mind our obligations to the Isle of Man, it is important to know what we are repealing. My simple point is whether the Solicitor-General can tell us what it is; what was the assurance of the Isle of Man and why is it necessary to repeal it now? It is a technical matter, but it is important. If we are dealing with legislation that applies to the Isle of Man, we should know what we are doing. If we do not, we are not doing our job for the Isle of Man. 8.13 pm The Solicitor-General I understand fully the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and I shall give him an answer. If I understand him correctly, he was referring to the Bill that is mentioned in abbreviated form and described as 7 Jac. 1. c4 under the title, Assurance of the Isle of Man. That Act settled the lordship of the Isle of Man on the Earl of Derby and his heirs. The lordship was revested in the Crown by the legislation of 1765, 5 Geo. 3 c. 26, which was repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976. Therefore, this Act is obsolete. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the information that he requires. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Sackville.] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment. Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill Lords Order for Second Reading read. 8.16 pm The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time. Having regard to my Scottish ancestry, which involves the law and farming in Scotland, I am glad and privileged to have the opportunity, on behalf of my Scottish colleagues, to introduce this Bill, which consolidates the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949. That Act remains the primary piece of legislation on agricultural tenancy matters in Scotland, but it has been quite extensively amended over the years. The Bill incorporates these amendments and disposes of certain spent provisions. It has long been recognised that there was a need to clarify the statutory position in Scotland which, because of the many amendments, had become unnecessarily complex. The Bill is pure consolidation and makes no change in substance to the existing law, but the result will be a much simpler and more straightforward account, which will be welcomed by those who need to advise and act on behalf of farmers and landowners in Scotland. The preparation of this Bill has been a long and difficult task, and I must thank all those with an involvement in its preparation. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Sackville.] Bill immediately considered in Committee: reported, without amendment. Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment. Northern Ireland 8.18 pm The Solicitor-General (Mr. Nicholas Lyell) I beg to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved. Again I feel privileged to introduce these regulations. When the new Emergency Provisions Act comes into effect on 27 August, the whole of the Emergency Provisions Act 1978 will be repealed, including the regulations contained in schedule 3 to that Act. As these regulations remain essential provisions, the House needs to ensure their continued survival after the repeal of the 1978 Act. That is the purpose of this statutory instrument. It consolidates the existing regulations without amendment. Question put and agreed to. Scottish Bus Company (Privatisation) Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Sackville] 8.19 pm Mr. Henry McLeish (Fife, Central) I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Company with particular reference to the sale of Fife Scottish, the bus company which covers the five parliamentary constituencies of Fife, including my own. I regret having to bring this matter before the House because the debate is about the incompetence of the Scottish Transport Group, the insensitivity and duplicity of Scottish Office Ministers, and the intimidation of the management-employee buy-out of Fife Scottish by Stagecoach Holdings Ltd. They were the key players involved in the sale of Fife Scottish and, in a sense, the debate is about the failure of the management buy-out to buy its own future. What began as the sell-off of the best bus company in Britain has become the sell-out of the Fife Scottish bus group and the abandonment of the clear principle of which the Government often talk but on which they rarely act. It is interesting to refer back to the earlier debate on the Ports Bill because there was much talk about support for management-employee buy-outs but, as the debate ensues, we shall find that, in the Scottish Office in particular, there is no enthusiasm for such a step towards the privatisation of a particular company. The intimidation, insensitivity and incompetence to which I have referred has left 850 of my constituents very bitter, bewildered and betrayed. They have been frustrated and blocked by an unprincipled and unprecedented set of circumstances and by a coincidence of factors that I should more appropriately describe as a conspiracy by certain groups to kill the hopes and aspirations of a very enthusiastic work force, including the management. The tragedy is that the employees and management of Fife Scottish did nothing wrong. They had worked enthusiastically for three years to set up the context in which to bid for their company, their jobs and their future. They had invested large sums of money from their earnings into the management-employee buy-out. They had made tremendous gains in efficiency to turn Fife Scottish into not just the best bus company in Britain, but the most profitable. They also brought the skills, enthusiasm and commitment to the service that they deployed for the benefit of the people of Fife. The simple question is, why did they fail when they had everything going for them, and when the Government purported to support the idea of a management-employee buy-out? That is the key issue that I wish to discuss. Before I get to the technical aspects of the debate, I refer to the Scottish Office. A group of Tory Ministers said that they supported management-employee buy-outs. They invested £50,000 in the quest for the buy-out within the company, but when the bid was made it was rejected out of hand. Of course, that group of Tory Ministers wanted to get the highest price for the company, but when Fife Scottish put in a second bid, the Scottish Office Ministers again rejected it. I hope that the Scottish Office will publish the detailed bids from Stagecoach Holdings to satisfy my curiosity and that of the employees as to whether it submitted a bid that was not heavily qualified by conditions that were dealt with in secret. The group of Tory Ministers made it quite clear that Fife Scottish could obtain no assistance from public funds, although the Scottish Office was happy to sit and see the Scottish Development Agency invest £500,000 of taxpayers' money in Stagecoach Holdings, thereby giving it a competitive advantage in terms of the security of its equity base. We heard from Scottish Office Ministers that they wanted a quality bus service, so why did they sell out to a company with no track record of services in Britain, a company with an unenviable record of employment conditions and a reputation for tough talking, asset stripping and anti-competitive practices? That was the quality handed down to the people of Fife by Scottish Office Ministers. The employees, the people of Fife and I might say that this was nothing more than characteristic Tory hypocrisy. We could also say that it was a breach of good faith, but the tragedy is that the charges against the Government go much deeper than that. The story that must be told this evening is about the role of the Scottish Office, the Scottish Transport Group and Stagecoach Holdings. To set the scene for the details that will follow, I draw the Minister's attention to the private meeting attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). We warned the Minister at that time that we had heard from Deloitte, which was advising the Scottish Transport Group, that the level playing field was fast disappearing. There would seem to have been no continuing enthusiasm for the management-employee buy-out and it was implied that perhaps there had been too many management-employee buy-outs. We also heard that the Scottish Transport Group had completely bungled the estimate of sales and proceeds from the privatisation process, so it appears that, as Fife Scottish was well back in the list of sales, Ministers were looking for the highest bid and excluding all considerations of quality, of management-employee buy-outs and a host of other considerations which were important to people whom I represent. We advised the Minister that those concerns had been expressed by the STG and from Deloitte and that in confidence we were willing to exchange our concerns with him. The Minister said—and confirmed in a letter—that we should have no fears and that it was a level playing field. Of course, the Scottish Office ministerial team was still wedded to the idea of giving management-employee buy-outs a fair wind. We were also reassured two weeks before the bid that there was nothing wrong and nothing to be upset about. As for the bidding process itself, Stagecoach Holdings had put in a bid almost £2 million in excess of the valuation of the company's assets. We believe the figure to have been £9·1 million—the Minister can correct or confirm that figure. That meant that the bid was, we believe, more that £1 million above the Fife Scottish bid which, in turn, was £1 million more than a realistic valuation of the company's assets. One does not have to be a financial genius to work out that if one bids way above the asset value of a company, it is extremely difficult to get the necessary financial support. Indeed, the first act of sabotage carried out Stagecoach Holdings was to put in a loss-leading bid. The company had upped its turnover in Britain from about £28 million to nearly £100 million in about two years. It could deploy assets and investment and, at a stroke, put the fledgling management-employee buy-out at a competitive disavantage, so that is what it did. From the moment of the first bids, known as the sealed bids, it was clear that the company was loss leading in a way that would destabilise the management-employee buy-out. Ministers may say, "That is the marketplace, and if a company wants to loss lead, that is fine." But Scottish Office Ministers have a responsibility not to be carried away by a company with assets but whose record on quality is dubious, to say the least. Some consideration should have been given over and above the final deliberations to the management-employee buy-out, which was a fair bid based on a fair appreciation of the assets. The bid by Stagecoach Holding Ltd. was not that type of bid. Now we come to the heart of the matter. There were two sealed bids—one for about £8·1 million and the other, we believe, for about £9·1 million. Because Fife Scottish had bid realistically it found, to its amazement, that it had been outbid by Stagecoach Holdings and was apparently being given short shrift by the Scottish Transport Group, Deloitte and, it would appear, by the Scottish Office. Despite that financial pressure at an early stage, Fife Scottish obtained a commitment for the extra £1·1 million from the Bank of Boston and put in another bid to the Scottish Office. That bid was competently submitted—there was never any doubt about that. Indeed, I quote from a private and confidential letter from Mr. M. S. Roxburgh, commercial and planning executive to Mr. Stuart of Fife Scottish Omnibuses Ltd.: "If prior to completion a new competitive offer is made, STG is obliged to make the contents of such an offer known to the Secretary of State, and there may be no alternative but to consider that offer. It is therefore in your interest"— that is, in the interests of Fife Scottish— "to be able to complete the transaction as soon as possible. STG will not be obliged to recommend to the Secretary of State acceptance of the highest or any hid." The STG itself then reneged on the principles that it had agreed with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and which were part of the legislation that went through the House. I will tell the shabby tale of incompetence that ensued after the second bid was received, but first I shall give the details of the technical background to the bid. Following submission of the formal offer by Touche Ross on behalf of Fife Scottish on 24 April, Touche Ross was engaged in discussions and correspondence with the STG. The question of increasing the price in the management-employee buy-out's former offer was discussed. The important aspect was that the STG did not reply to letters dated 24, 28 and 29 May from Touche Ross. Consequently, Touche Ross wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) on 7 June 1991, and Henderson and Jackson, the solicitors acting for Fife Scottish, wrote on 10 June to the STG, with a copy to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Again, no replies were received. I will spell out what that shabby process meant in practice. Fife Scottish timeously submitted a bid on 24 April. On 9 May it got in touch by telephone with the Scottish Transport Group. On 24 May Touche Ross wrote a letter to Mr. Roxburgh of the STG: "I refer to our telephone conversations today and on 9 May when I explained that it might be possible for the management team to consider an increased offer for Fife Scottish if that became necessary. I understand that you will have advised the relevant parties of this and it may now be helpful to provide you with further information." The telephone call of 9 May was not passed on to the Scottish Office. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny that when he replies. The letter went on to suggest that a new offer of £9·1 million was being submitted, and to offer to meet representatives of the STG that week. Again, that was not done, because there was no response to the letter. Finally, Touche Ross's letter said: "I should be most grateful if you would ensure that this information is conveyed to the Scottish Office and I trust that I shall hear from you prior to any final decision." No action was taken; there was no response. After the letter that referred to 9 May and 24 May, another letter was sent on 28 May, again to Mr. Roxburgh, referring to telephone conversations on 24 and 9 and a previous letter sent on 24 May: "regarding an increase in the offer from the MEBO team at Fife Scottish … I find this surprising when the offer from the MEBO team is close to the rumoured £9·1 million from Stagecoach, particularly in the light of competitive issues surrounding East coast bus services. There has been no attempt whatsoever to negotiate acceptable terms with the MEBO team and I must ask you to give further consideration to our request for a meeting". Again, no action was taken. The letter was not even acknowledged. Exasperated, Touche Ross again wrote to Mr. Roxburgh, who was obviously an avid reader, but not so good at sending letters on to the Scottish Office or replying to the people who had sent them, as follows: "I refer to our telephone conversations on 9 May, and 24 May and my letters dated 24 and 28 May, to which there has been no response. I have heard indirectly that these approaches have not been properly considered as they did not represent a formal offer. If this is indeed the case. I find it astonishing that you have been unable to advise me of your position, to enable the offer of the management and employees to be properly considered. I should like an explanation as to how your approach can be compatible with the requirements of the relevant legislation." The letter ended: "I must insist that this offer is communicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland without further delay and that you acknowledge receipt of this letter." The House has guessed it in one—no action was taken, and no response was given. The company had intimated on 9 May that it wanted to submit a formal bid and to have further discussions. Yet between 9 May and the time that the Scottish Office was willing to make a formal announcement on 29 May there was no reply to eight representations to the STG. That is disgraceful. It may involve a great deal more than a Fife Member of Parliament heaping disgrace upon the STG. We must ask what the role of the STG is. That is simple— it is handling the privatisation. Taxpayers are paying Deloitte hundreds of thousands of pounds to advise the STG and for it in turn to advise the Scottish Office. Will the Minister tell the House whether, before 29 May, he knew of any of the representations made to the STG, and to Mr. Roxburgh in particular? More specifically, was the hon. Gentleman aware that on 9 May, a few days after the sealed bids were submitted, Fife Scottish, as was allowed for in the privatisation document, wished to discuss a new way forward and to meet either the STG officials, Scottish Office officials or Ministers? These points are crucial to my argument, and I hope that the Minister will deal with them in his reply. The Minister may want to comment on another interesting point. This whole shabby process continued until the Fife Members received letters dated 28 May confirming that the Scottish Office would be making a formal announcement on 29 May. It is now quite clear that Stagecoach was given preferred bid status on 23 May; indeed, we believe that a deposit was lodged with the Scottish Office on 20 May. So in essence, we were to be given a formal announcement nine days after the debacle unfolded, and after the whole process had been sewn up by Ministers and the Scottish Transport Group. At 9.20 am on the day on which I received the letter from the Scottish Office, I telephoned the Minister and asked whether he had received any further representations regarding a bid. My judgment was that the Minister had not received any further representations and I asked him to contact the Scottish Transport Group to ascertain what had happened to the formal bid which had come in by telephone on 9" 24 and 28 May and which had then been faxed to the STG on 29 May and conveyed to the Scottish Office on the same day. The important point is that it was a competent bid. The question that must be posed is what level of incompetence led the STG not to bother the Scottish Office ministerial team with any of the discussions and bids until the very day on which the Scottish Office was to make a formal announcement. Was the STG guilty of a dereliction of duty in not consulting its political masters at the Scottish Office? My judgment is that it was. There is another, more serious, point, however. Did Scottish Ministers know about the discussions, telephone conversations and bids, and, if so, why did they do nothing about them? It seems to me that we need an inquiry into what Mr. Roxburgh, the commercial and planning executive of STG, and Mr. Elwyn, the chairman and chief executive of STG were doing between 9 May and 29 May. Not only was their behaviour disgraceful; it was a gross dereliction of duty not to pass on important information affecting the future of 850 employees. I hope that the Minister will respond to that. Two weeks later, after the Minister had withdrawn the announcement of 29 May, the Secretary of State confirmed that he was proceeding with the bid after due consideration. Let me quote from the letter of 7 June advising me that, after deliberations, Stagecoach Holdings Ltd. was to be given preferred bid status: "I do however wish to emphasise that I am satisfied that the sale process has been properly conducted in accordance with the Disposal Programme and that the objectives of the Disposal Programme in this case will be met by proceeding with the sale of Fife Scottish to Stagecoach." It is obvious, following the three days in the Court of Session, that the STG intimated to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 29 May the existence of the final offer. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not exercise his discretion to look at the bid sensibly, because he was swayed by the advice given by STG to the effect that, because it had come in after the sealed bid process, it should not be considered. I believe that the ministerial team at the Scottish Office is in dereliction of its duty because it did not take the new offer seriously and, indeed, because it did not know about it until the eleventh hour. That crucial point is germane to my argument. Fife Scottish did not lose. It could never win, because there was a conspiracy of forces. The incompetence of the Scottish Office and STG prevailed, and Ministers made the decision regardless of quality of service, of the management-employee buy-out consideration and of the company record of Stagecoach Holdings Ltd. The whole shabby tale does not finish there, however. I can report to the House that, before the judicial review was heard in the Court of Session, my hon. Friends the Members of Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and I had a meeting with the senior management of Fife Scottish on a Saturday evening at which we were told of the company's decision to pull out of the judicial review process. When asked why, the company's representatives gave a very forthright answer. The bus industry had heard from Stagecoach Holdings Ltd.—in characteristic style—that if Stagecoach lost in the Court of Session, and if Fife Scottish secured the contract, Stagecoach would come into Fife and destroy the newly fledged MEBO operation. Two of the directors decided that they had had enough, and I can understand why. At that point, the Bank of Boston withdrew its funding, with the result that the financial structure of the company nearly collapsed. Following frustration at the incompetence of the Scottish Office, we now have the first signs of intimidation by Stagecoach Holdings Ltd. Fortunately, the courage of the employees and the finance of the Transport and General Workers Union came to the rescue, and Fife Scottish decided to proceed with the judicial review. The House will understand how the 850 employees felt. For three years, they had done nothing wrong. They had been treated with contempt by the Scottish Office and now, in the marketplace, they found that they were dealing with a predator who would stop at nothing to secure the bid and who was prepared to threaten to come in and destroy their company. I find that sickening in the extreme—but that was part of the process in which Stagecoach was involved. There is another serious matter that I wish to raise in connection with this affair, and I have written to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Waker) to tell him that I am raising it. The Glasgow Herald of 26 February 1990 reported that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had had a discussion with the hon. Member for Tayside, North in the Committee that considered the legislation: "Mr. Wilson said: 'The question which now arises is, when the various parts of the Scottish Bus Group come up for sale, will he'"— the hon. Member for Tayside, North— "'be lobbying for management-employee buy-outs, which is supposed to be the Scottish Tory policy, or will he be lobbying for Stagecoach, because the two will be in direct opposition?"'. It gives me no particular pleasure to say this, and I am not a judge of the activities of hon. Members—there are appropriate Committees for dealing with such matters—but in the Dunfermline Press and West of Fife Advertiser on Friday 31 May, we read: "Last-minute bid stops bus sell-off … Tayside North Tory MP Bill Walker who is also a Stagecoach director said he had written to Ministers expressing his concern at the turn of events. He said 'The decision they made originally was the right one.'". How did he know? I do not know whether it was the right decision or the wrong one. Clearly the hon. Member for Tayside, North has extra-sensory perception—or, at least, an unusual insight—into what was happening. After that article in the Dunfermline Press, the Sunday Mail reported: "Mr. Walker expressed his concern about the delay in a letter to the Scottish Office.He said, 'The original decision made by Ministers was the right one.'He was not available for comment last night." The Daily Record reported on 11 June in an article entitled "It's War on the Buses": "But last night Mr. Walker, MP for Tayside said"— I want hon. Members to note the next word— "'We stuck to the rules for bidding for Fife Scottish and won fair and square.If anyone is suggesting I have done anything improper, they had better have proof to back it up.'" I had a meeting with Mr. Brian Souter, the chairman of Stagecoach Holdings, in Westminster Hall cafeteria. Mr. Souter may be a good businessman, but he has an awfully slack tongue. He said to me, "Mr. McLeish, don't be silly. Mr. Walker has been doing the same as yourself and Mr. Brown. He has been lobbying intensively on our behalf and of course, not only is he a director of Stagecoach (Malawi) Ltd"—which I find an interesting idea—"and Stagecoach International Ltd., but he is a paid consultant." I bow to the greater wisdom of my colleagues in this place, but his behaviour outraged and incensed the people who had fought for three years and then found that there was a conspiracy of interest in the Scottish Office, in this House and within Stagecoach Holdings which frustrated their admirable hopes and aspirations for the future. I feel very sad that this matter has to be raised. I hope that a Committee of this House which deals with such matters, would want to receive the submission that I will put forward about this matter and that it will be considered once more. To complete the story of the sell-out of those 850 employees, I refer to another comment made by Brian Souter in Westminster Hall cafeteria. He said that, if they managed to take over Fife Scottish, he would destroy the competition of Rennies and Moffat and Williamson within nine months. He said, "That's the way we operate." Will the Minister confirm that I sent him a letter on 7 June advising that we had serious information about anti-competitive practices around the country involving Stagecoach and that we had details of transactions in the bus industry which could result in Stagecoach taking over north of England firms which already had an investment in Scottish bus companies? I received a reply to my letter from the Minister on 10 June which was illuminating, but unhelpful. He wrote: "With regard to points you make about Stagecoach's competitive activities within areas of their existing operations, I suggest that, if you have any evidence of anti-competitive practice, you draw it to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading." That seemed reasonable, but notwithstanding the fact that in the procedures for the disposal of the companies within the ambit of the Scottish Bus Group, those anti-competitive practices had been mentioned. It was stated that, if there was a hint of any company closing down its competitors, that would be a serious issue which should be addressed. What happened? There was a dismissive letter from the Scottish Office advising that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should be contacted for further discussions. That was not done at the time, but it will be done now. A tragic situation has developed which brings no credit on Scottish Office Ministers for having been involved in such a shabby and duplicitous process. The privatisation of Fife Scottish has been highly irregular and unprofessional in the extreme, and it provides a shocking insight into the tawdry behaviour of what employees in my constituency can describe only as a complete whitewash of their aspirations and a determination to sell to Stagecoach, regardless of whether there was an MEBO involving £50,000 of taxpayers' money and regardless of quality and the £500,000 invested in Stagecoach through the Scottish Development Agency. We have now reached the stage where I cannot trust the Scottish Office to deal with any further privatisations of the Scottish Bus Group, if the experience of the Fife team is anything to go by. We are looking at some fairly serious accusations of intimidation, incompetence, insider dealing and indifference, on behalf of the Scottish Office, to all the activities around it. I have met the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, who is interested in an investigation into the matter before he considers the wider aspects of privatisation of the bus group in Scotland. I will pass my material to him after this debate and on the completion of the court case. I want to refer the activities of the hon. Member for Tayside, North to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I want an investigation by the Scottish Office into why the STG refused on eight occasions to respond to letters or telephone calls from Fife Scottish and, in turn, did not pass on any of the information to Scottish Office civil servants or Ministers. Of course, I would like the Scottish Office, if it was technically possible, to hold Stagecoach Holdings Ltd. to account for its intimidation, destabilisation of the management buy-out because of the loss-leading bid, and anti-competitive practices which could result in Stagecoach Holdings Ltd. controlling every bus route and service between the north of Scotland, the east coast of Scotland, through the central belt of Scotland and into Glasgow. All that has happened after the Government said that bids would be received from two or more companies and that they could not be on a contiguous basis. What hypocrisy that was when we consider what has happened. What has happened may be disturbing the conscience of the Scottish Office, but there is nothing much that we can do now. The employees have a new owner, and I wish them well. Stagecoach Holdings has a group of men and women whom it does not deserve. For the benefit of the travelling public in Fife and for the benefit of the employees, I hope that it will go from strength to strength. I believe that there is enough evidence, however, for a wide-ranging inquiry into the issues that I have raised. The behaviour of STG has been so deplorable and disgraceful that the chairman and chief executive should be suspended until the matter has been resolved. That would be a small price to pay for the betrayal of 850 employees and the best bus service in Britain, which has been passed over to a shady group with no track record and no good employment conditions and which has made hasty promises which I fear will not be kept. 8.57 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas Hamilton) The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has used some strong language, but I reject his allegations. The procedures that were adopted followed the disposal programme. I shall refer to the details later on, but four management-employee buy-outs have succeeded, and they have succeeded because they have won. The hon. Gentleman referred to a meeting that we had. I made the position clear at that time. He asked for a level playing field. Of course, preference is given to management-employee buy-outs in terms of the disposal programme. The hon. Gentleman asked about letters that were received and considered by the Scottish Transport Group. No formal increased bid was received until about 10 am on 29 May. When we received that formal offer from the Scottish Transport Group we agreed that it would be right further to consider the position. I reported that decision to the hon. Gentleman and we discussed it on that occasion. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all bids received were fully and properly considered. I cannot go further than that. However, in view of the fact that the appeal period relating to the court action which was recently raised has not yet expired, there is not much further than I can say on that point. Mr. McLeish That simply is not good enough. I have the private and confidential letters, which I am quite willing to make available to Scottish Office civil servants and Ministers. It was quite clear, as early as 9 May, in the telephone conversation on 24 May, and then in letters on 24, 28 and 29 May that a bid—a higher bid—was being considered and that representatives were anxious to discuss further with the STG or the Scottish Office. Is the Minister telling me that he knew about those conversations prior to the telephone conversation that I had with him on the morning of 29 May? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I am not saying that. What I can give the hon. Gentleman is the chronology of events. The Department was aware that, on 24 May, Malcolm Roxburgh of the Scottish Transport Group received a phone call from Touche Ross that the MEBO would come up with a further sum. That was followed by a letter from Touche Ross on the same date, indicating a possible increase and a wish to discuss. However, I must stress that the letter which made a formal increased offer was the letter of 29 May, and the hon. Gentleman and myself discussed it on the programme. At the time, the Secretary of State was away. I went into the matter thoroughly and I believe that it was absolutely competent for the Secretary of State to consider the matter further in the light of the circumstances and the facts that the hon. Gentleman had put before me. It was absolutely right that he should follow the best legal advice. That has been done. The disposal programme has been followed and the winner was absolutely clear. Mr. McLeish I must again repeat that that simply does not square with the facts. Can the Minister answer the question that I asked? Did he see, was he aware of or was he informed about—any way that he would like to receive this question—the 9 May telephone conversation, the 24 May telephone conservation, the 24 May letter or the 28 May letter? Of course, he was eventually made aware of the 29 May offer. Can he confirm whether he was informed about those previous contacts desperately seeking some discussion of a revised bid? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a formal offer was made on 24 May. That is not the case. A formal offer was made on 29 May. The hon. Gentleman is asking what I knew. I knew very well on 29 May, because the hon. Gentleman had telephoned. I went into the matter very thoroughly. We came to no rushed decisions on the matter. Indeed, an announcement was about to be made that morning, and that announcement was postponed. The circumstances were gone into very thoroughly by all the Scottish Office lawyers and I am glad to say that it was absolutely clear at the end who the winner was. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He is concerned about the privatisation of the SBG, but most particularly concerned about the sale of Fife Scottish. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced on 10 June 1991 that he had granted consent to the Scottish Transport Group to sell that company to Stagecoach (Holdings) Ltd., which is based in Perth and owns and operates a number of bus companies in the United Kingdom and overseas. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions relating to that consent, in view of his support for the unsuccessful bid made by the management and employees of the company. He has questioned whether the sale has been properly conducted. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sale has been the subject of proceedings in the Court of Session. The management buy-out team submitted to the court a petition for judicial review seeking a reduction of the Secretary of State's consent. That petition was dismissed on 11 July. We have this week received the text of Lord Coulsfield's opinion, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have not yet had time to consider its terms in any detail. However my right hon. Friend welcomes Lord Coulsfield's decision. I understand that no appeal has been lodged against the court's judgment and that there is unlikely to be one. Nevertheless, the period for an appeal has not yet expired and, in those circumstances, it would be wrong for me to comment in detail on the circumstances of my right hon. Friend's decision. The hon. Member for Fife, Central has criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I can say only that my hon. Friend made Ministers aware of his interests in all the dealings involving Stagecoach at the beginning of the privatisation programme. I cannot comment on the— Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) rose— Lord James Douglas-Hamilton On this point? Mr. Wilson I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is interesting. He has said that his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made his interest known from the outset of the privatisation process. Does the Minister mean from the outset of the Bill's consideration by the House? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton He made his position absolutely clear to Ministers from the time at which he had an interest. We never had the slightest doubt about that point throughout the process— Mr. Wilson rose— Lord James Douglas-Hamilton No, I have made my position absolutely— Mr. Wilson rose— Lord James Douglas-Hamilton If the hon. Gentleman wants to table a written question, he may do so. I cannot give him the specific date. I have been aware of my hon. Friend's interest throughout the process. Mr. McLeish Will the Minister give way? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton No, I cannot—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is an honourable man and the House should so regard him. Mr. McLeish rose— Lord James Douglas-Hamilton No, I have answered that point and want to go on to the next. The hon. Gentleman can come back later if he wants. I cannot comment on the detail of the bids, which are commercially confidential, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was anything improper about the conduct of the sale or about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reached his decision. I believe that the work force have said that they will co-operate with the new owners, and I welcome that. I am sure that Fife Scottish will have a strong future as a bus company and will continue to serve the travelling public in Fife very well, as it has in the past. Mr. McLeish rose— Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman on one point. He recently visited the Scottish Office with a deputation of employees from the bus company and handed in a petition, containing a considerable number of names. The petition suggested that the present arrangements that are operated by Fife regional council, by which pensioners and the disabled can travel free, will be ended by the sale of Fife Stagecoach. I am glad to confirm that that is not the case. Stagecoach proposes to run Fife Scottish as a bus operating company, providing timetabled services. Fife regional council's concessionary fare scheme will continue to apply to the service as before. Although I cannot comment in detail on the sale, it may he helpful if I explain the background to the sales of the subsidiaries of the Scotish Bus Group. Mr. McLeish The Minister is going off the subject. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I am not off the subject; I am on it. I must again repeat to the hon. Gentleman that we are within the time scale for an appeal, and if he—[Interruption.] I must make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that if those concerned wish to appeal, they have the right to do so, so I choose my words with great care. Mr. McLeish rose— Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but reluctantly. Mr. McLeish The Minister can speak freely tonight because he knows that there is no cash available for any appeal in the Court of Session, which would cost thousands of pounds. What we have heard tonight allays none of the fears that have been expressed in this House —[Interruption.] I shall continue despite the involvement of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). None of our fears have been allayed, because the Minister has chosen to miss all the essential points. There was never any doubt about the legalities; what we are talking about are the procedures involved. It is clear that the Minister was not aware—this information was not available to him through his civil servants or the STG—that new bids, new telephone conversations and new letters were around and about. Will he confirm that he did not know until the 29th? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he is raising a legal question about whether a properly constituted legal bid was submitted on an earlier date. All I can say to him is that I was absolutely certain in my own mind on the morning that we spoke together on the telephone that I was absolutely correct to consider that bid further, as was the Secretary of State. The fullest possible legal advice was taken and accepted by the Secretary of State before a final decision was arrived at. I think that that was correct. The Transport (Scotland) Act 1989 provides the Secretary of State with power to draw up a disposal programme for the whole of the STG's undertaking with the exception of its shipping operations for which the Act makes provision for transfer to the ownership of the Secretary of State. That leaves the Scottish Bus Group which, before implementation of the disposal programme began, consisted of 10 separate bus subsidiaries. The disposal programme was published on 6 February 1990 and copies have been made available in the House. Since it is however now some time since the disposal programme was published, I think it would be helpful if I were to refer to certain passages in it which set out the objectives of the programme. The disposal programme was prepared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after consultation with the Scottish Transport Group. The programme provides for the disposal of the subsidiaries and the arrangements to be made in preparation for the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group. Section 2(1) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989 set out the main objective of the Secretary of State in preparing the disposal programme. That is the promotion of sustained and fair competition between the SBG companies and between them and other bus companies. That objective is being promoted primarily by offering the Scottish Bus Group for sale as 10 separate undertakings with a view to the establishment of independent companies operating within a competitive framework in the bus industry. The general approach which the disposal programme requires STG to adopt is to offer the companies listed in the programme for sale on an individual basis. The disposals are required to be effected generally by means of sale and purchase agreements relating to shares in the subsidiaries disposed of. The programme does, however, provide for subsidiaries not disposed of in this way to be wound up prior to the dissolution of STG. The appendix sets out in detail how the companies will be advertised for sale on a phased basis. They will be placed in the national trade press. All those conditions were followed and an information memorandum would be made available for a nominal charge to prospective purchasers who registered an interest in a company, provided that STG is satisfied that the prospective purchaser has sufficient financial backing or the prospect of sufficient backing. Prospective purchasers will be invited to submit indicative bids and other relevant information and may be invited to have discussions. Sealed bids— Mr. McLeish On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make a judgment on the relevance of the wider implications of the matter to the specific issue of the sale of Fife Scottish to Stagecoach Holdings? Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) I did not follow the hon. Gentleman. Is he complaining that the Minister is going into matters which are wider than those which he raised? Mr. McLeish Yes. Mr. Deputy Speaker That is not a matter for me. The debate on the motion for the Adjournment can be wide. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton The hon. Gentleman assumes that there will be no appeal. I am not entitled to make any such assumption. I will proceed on that basis. He is unrealistic if he pursues the debate on any other basis. Sealed bids will be required to be submitted to STG by a closing date. When seeking the Secretary of State's consent for a sale, details of all bids received for that company together with a statement of its reasons will have to be submitted. Following the Secretary of State's consent, arrangements will be made with the successful bidder for completion of the sale. Clearly, the disposal programme provides that discussions will take place as necessary between prospective purchasers and a negotiator acting on behalf of STG before the submission of sealed bids by purchasers. STG reserves the right not to invite a formal bid from any prospective purchaser and is not required to give any reason for not inviting any such bid. STG is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before deciding not to invite any bid. STG is not obliged to recommend to the Secretary of State acceptance of the highest or any other bid for a particular undertaking. No disposal will take place until a management-employee team has had a reasonable time in which to lodge a bid. Bidders are required to include all relevant information in their bids, including the following details: names of the principals involved; details of the shareholding and financial structure proposed for the company or group of companies the basis for employee participation, and any limits on the transfer of shares; a statement of their future intentions for the business; the price being offered for the company; and so on. As I mentioned earlier, the legislation sets out the main objective in preparing the disposal programme as being the promotion of sustained and fair competition in the bus industry. It provides that no buyer of a bus company, including persons connected with that buyer, will be allowed to buy any other bus companies operating in contiguous areas, as defined in the programme. There is also an overall limit of two on the number of companies that one buyer can acquire. These restrictions apply to the nine area-based operating companies, but not to Scottish Citylink Coaches. In order to promote the competition objective, STG is also required to make inquiries of intending bidders to establish what links they have or might intend to have with other companies in future. I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman sets high store by the provisions in the disposal programme concerning a preference for bids involving employee participation. The Secretary of State has a statutory obligation to have regard to the desirability of promoting the acquisition by the employees of a controlling interest in the companies to be sold. For that reason, preference is given to bids involving the acquisition of such a controlling interest. Such bids can take the form of a management-employee buy-out, MEBO, or an employee buy-out, EBO. In the case of MEBOs, at least 25 per cent. of the ordinary shares in the company should generally be owned by or on behalf of non-management employees to satisfy the requirement of adequate non-management employee share ownership. It is open to bidders to make whatever arrangements they consider appropriate to satisfy that requirement, and non-management employee share ownership could well be above that figure. As a general principle, shares should be available to all management and non-management employees on equal terms. The shareholding arrangements could be by means of an employee share ownership plan ESOP, by arrangements for employees to buy shares, or both. Where a bid, which involves a controlling interest by employees along the lines that I have specified, is otherwise comparable with a third party bid, a price preference will be given to the bid involving employee ownership. Further passages in the disposal programme set out arrangements regarding pensions and travel concessions. I stress that four of the sales so far have been to management-employee buy-outs: Lowland Scottish, Scottish Citylink, Eastern Scottish and Kelvin Central Buses. Northern Scottish has been sold to Stagecoach. Midland Scottish was sold to GRT Holdings, and Strathtay Scottish to the Yorkshire Traction Company Ltd. Clansman Travel and Leisure Ltd. and Rapsons Coaches have jointly been awarded preferred bidder status in the sale of Highland Scottish. An important matter to which the disposal programme does not refer is the publication of sale proceeds. The position is that the total proceeds for the sale of all the SBG's subsidiaries and the prices obtained will be made public only after the privatisation process has been completed. Earlier publications of prices realised could prejudice the sale process. The hon. Gentleman wanted a chronology of events and I shall give him that chronology as it is known to the Scottish Office. On 8 February 1991, the sale advertisement appeared, 11 information memoranda were issued and the indicative bids date specified. On 7 March 1991, indicative bids were due and five were received. In the week commencing 18 March 1991, the agreed purchasers were advised that 25 April would be the final bid date. On 25 April, five formal bids were received. The Stagecoach bid was the highest. On 8 May, the STG board considered the bids and recommended Stagecoach. On 9 May the STG requested the Secretary of State's consent to make the sale to Stagecoach. On 17 May— Mr. McLeish Will the Minister give way? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton No, just let me finish the chronology. The hon. Gentleman can intervene later. Mr. McLeish On that very point. After mentioning the board meeting on 8 May, the Minister moved to 9 May. Was the Scottish Office informed on 9 May of the telephone conversation held between the STG and Touche Ross about the interest of Fife Scottish in readjusting that bid? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton To the best of my knowledge, I was not, but I shall have to check that from the papers. On 17 May, there was a submission to Ministers. On 23 May, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was content and the letter of consent was issued to the STG. On 24 May Malcolm Roxburgh of the STG received a phone call from Touche Ross, as the hon. Gentleman staged, that the MEBO would come up with the further sum. That was followed up by a letter indicating that the increase was possible. The hon. Gentleman is putting a legal argument on whether that constituted a formal offer. It was not recognised as such and was not treated on that basis. On 27 May Stagecoach signed a deposit agreement. On 28 May the deposit cheque was received by the STG's bank. On 29 May the Touche Ross letter was delivered, the hon. Gentleman telephoned me, and I called off the announcement which was due to be made two or, perhaps, three hours later that morning, in order to look thoroughly into all the circumstances because it was clear that a formal increased offer had been made. On 25 May, the intended press announcement was cancelled. On 30 May, a letter from the Scottish Transport Group said that its board was still of the view that the sale to Stagecoach should go ahead. On 5 June, there was a submission to Ministers that recommended consent should be granted to Stagecoach. On 10 June, there was a press announcement and a new consent letter was issued. On 13 June, a petition for judicial review was advised and papers were received. On 14 June, a petition was heard in court and the MEBO failed to obtain interim interdict, but an order was made for a first hearing of the judicial review. The first hearing, on 3 July, was adjourned and on 10 and 11 July, the hearing continued and the petition was dismissed. The appeal period expires on 1 August. That is the chronology of events. However disappointed the hon. Gentleman may be at the outcome, I have to tell him that the advice of the lawyers was followed to the letter, which we believe was absolutely right. If he has any grounds for questioning the judgment of Scottish Office lawyers and Ministers, the proper course is to resort to the courts. The hon. Member's MEBO has done that. If I had been in any doubt, the MEBO would have won. I was in no doubt, and the MEBO lost. That is the reality; this is not a discretionary matter but a matter of fact. Four MEBOs have won and the final sale is now under consideration. In earlier discussions, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that we were merely paying lip service to the matter, but four of the MEBOs have won, which is a substantial number. I cannot go further than I have gone tonight, as the matter could conceivably come up on appeal in court. Therefore, I have chosen my words with care. 9.22 pm Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) My contribution will be brief, first because I do not want to interfere with the second Adjournment debate, to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), and secondly, because the subject of this Adjournment debate has been set out not only ably but brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)—in contrast with the Minister's performance. I say without malice that the speech that we have just heard from the Minister—if "speech" is not too strong a word—was a disgrace. I thought that the long passage that he blabbered out while reading from notes was particularly bad—it was clearly written about two years ago. The Minister did not even change the future tense into the past tense. I hope that the Hansard writers will do him no favours. He told us what was going to happen—it was an old speech written when the process was under way. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) My hon. Friend was quoting. Mr. Wilson The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State says that his hon. Friend was quoting. In that case, we look forward to seeing several columns of quotations in Hansard tomorrow. The Minister's speech was a disgrace with no attempt to address the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. I wish to iterate some of the perspective on the matter. I spent many long hours in Committee listening to similar feats of eloquence from the Minister. No one doubts the Minister's good will or his integrity. We all knew that, at that time, the Minister was the front man for much darker forces. We did not know the entire details of how the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group would work out, but we were certain that Stagecoach—unloved, unwanted, but so influential—would end up with two large slices of the action. That is what we knew from day one, and that is precisely what happened. It did not matter too much how that was to be achieved—it was part of the end goal and, by heavens, one way or another it would be achieved. It is a dreadful story. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) is welcome to intervene if he understands the issue, but if he wants to sit there muttering, that is his hang-up. The case relating to Fife is a dreadful one and the Minister has conspicuously failed to answer the detailed questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central about the eight representations made between 9 and 29 May. Either those representations were not reported to the Scottish Office, or they were and they were ignored. How is it that the central figure in the privatisation, Mr. Roxburgh, the solicitor acting for the Scottish Transport Group, could receive such communications from interested parties without responding to them? How could he still be acting within the terms set out for him by the Scottish Office? How could that happen? The Minister should consider the eight communications that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has detailed. He should tell us what was done about each of them. He should tell us in what sense Mr. Roxburgh has been called to account for his actions, or lack of them, on the eight representations made between 9 and 29 May. I want to consider the role of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), which has been an issue for a long time. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not present. I have said most of what I am going to say tonight before, but I would be much happier saying it if the hon. Gentleman were here. It is remarkable that such a diligent director of Stagecoach has not made it his business to be in the House tonight. I remember the Committee stage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill very well, as does the Minister, I am sure. I remember particularly the performance of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who was diligent in his attendance. However, the hon. Gentleman did not make many speeches in Committee, but, occasionally, he leapt into action. Anyone who studies the record of the Committee will find that the hon. Gentleman repeatedly intervened to represent the interests of Stagecoach. On one occasion the hon. Member for Tayside, North nipped out of the Door to telephone the Stagecoach management. He then came back to refer to the interests of Stagecoach. Every time we drew attention to the hon. Gentleman's behaviour, he said, reasonably, that he was acting in his role as a constituency Member. Although Stagecoach is not based in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he pointed out that some of his constituents worked for it. Those were the grounds on which we were led to believe that the hon. Gentleman took such an active interest in the proceedings in the good name of Stagecoach. The Committee stage ended in 14 February 1989. Imagine our surprise a few weeks later when we read a reference to the hon. Member for Tayside, North as a director of Stagecoach. Imagine our further interest when we read in the Register of Members' Interests that in April 1989, at most six weeks after the Committee stage and some three months before the Third Reading was completed, the hon. Member for Tayside, North— Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) Order. If the hon. Gentleman is implying some impropriety on the part of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is absent, he is not going about it in the correct way. There is a procedure laid down that he should follow. It is not the procedure that he is following tonight. Mr. Wilson I cannot imagine that by reading from the Register of Members' Interests I am attributing impropriety. Mr. Deputy Speaker As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the hon. Member for Tayside, North had expressed certain views in the proceedings on the Bill prior to the entry in the Register of Members' Interests. That carries serious implications, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) must not pursue them in the manner in which he has. He must raise them through the proper procedures laid down. Mr. Wilson I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will restrict myself to factual matters. I will not speculate. The factual matter is that the Committee stage ended on 14 February 1989 and the Register of Members' Interests shows that, in April 1989, the hon. Member for Tayside, North— Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman is either not listening or is disregarding what I said. The hon. Gentleman is now clearly suggesting some impropriety on the part of the hon. Member for Tayside, North. Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollok) My hon. Friend is reading from— Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman must not raise the point in that way. The appropriate way is to write to the Select Committee. Mr. Wilson It is difficult to question the Minister without referring to these matters. Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the conduct of the hon. Member for Tayside, North. That is not a matter for the Minister, but a matter for the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North wishes to refer to the conduct of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, he must not raise the matter in the House. He must write to the Select Committee. Mr. Wilson I am referring to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. He has read reports in the press in which the hon. Member for Tayside, North claimed that he approached the Minister, using the word "we" in terms of Stagecoach, to raise certain concerns about the interests of Stagecoach with the Scottish Office. I ask the Minister directly: did the Scottish Office receive such representations from the hon. Member for Tayside, North? Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in disregarding the advice of the Chair. My attention has been drawn to the relevant passage in "Erskine May". On page 389 it says: "Where one Member makes an allegation against another Member, he is required to do so in writing to the Registrar, who refers the allegation to the Committee and informs the Member concerned." By implication, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is making an allegation against the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who is not here tonight. He should instead follow the procedure that I have described. Mr. Wilson I shall leave this subject entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central and I will write to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I stress that I have made no allegations. The hon. Member in question was advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central of his intention to raise these matters on the Floor of the House tonight. I have asked the Minister a direct question, which is germane to the debate: did he receive the representations to which I referred? The whole business stinks to high heaven. Housing (Glasgow) 9.32 pm Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) I should like to convey through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my thanks to Mr. Speaker for allowing me this second Adjournment debate, which was a pleasant surprise. I also thank the Minister, who is responsible for housing in Scotland, for giving me the opportunity to talk about a matter that is important to me. Like most Glaswegians of my generation, I was brought up in an old tenement building, in a room and kitchen with an outside toilet. Therefore, throughout my life in public office, I have always felt it important that people get a decent home and decent shelter. Many of us in the city of Glasgow felt that, when everyone had a home with adequate rooms and a bathroom, all problems would be solved. However, we know from the housing situation not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom that people need more than that for their housing needs. I hope to highlight some of the problems that have arisen in my constituency. As the debate is about housing in Glasgow, the problems in my constituency are relevant to those in any Glasgow constituency. I am glad to see that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) are here. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about local authority housing. He is a former leader of the Renfrewshire district local authority. Both Glasgow district councillors and officials take pride in trying to give a good service to council tenants. When I was a Glasgow district councillor, I found that the local ward councillor could solve tenants' minor problems by making representations to the housing manager. If there was any difficulty with the housing manager, the local ward councillor could ask to see the convener of housing. If there was any difficulty with him, the local ward councillor could appeal to the leader of the group or to the committee. However, problems that could be solved in that way when I was a councillor cannot be dealt with in the same way by the present councillors. They are experiencing great difficulties, due to the fact that the Government are starving local authorities, particularly the housing authorities, of the money they need. The houses in Broomknowes road in my constituency were built in the inter-war period. It is referred to as intermediate housing. They are grey sandstone buildings. Although they are old, they are in better condition than some of the houses that were built in the 1960s. I have spoken to a tenant who lives in Broomknowes road who went to live there when she was a young girl. She is now in her fifties. The standard in those tenements is so high that they are a credit to the local authority and to the people who live there. Only one thing is needed. The windows are deteriorating. Consequently, those properties are not properly draught-proofed. Ten or 15 years ago, the Minister knows that the local authority could have said, "Let's get this through the budget. It's a 50-year-old property. The people who live there are good tenants. We want to encourage them to continue what they have been doing, in some cases for generations." The Minister's aim must surely be to provide decent housing. If tenants take a pride in their properties, they ought to be encouraged. The people who live in Broomknowes road cannot get double-glazed windows for their properties, even though that is a standard provision in other houses. They need double-glazed windows because their houses are on a main road, with heavy buses passing by. The houses ought to be insulated against noise as well as against cold in winter. Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a false economy, and that it is to be found in Glasgow and elsewhere? As the Government have starved housing authorities of the necessary funds, replacement windows cannot be provided for tenants. Windows just have to be patched up. Over 15 years, that is a false economy. It would be cheaper to replace the windows than have to keep patching them up. However, that option is not available to housing authorities. They do not have the funds for that purpose. Mr. Martin My hon. Friend is correct. One of my constituents in that area told me that the council could carry out only minor repairs to a window sash. One part of the window was repaired. The tradesman went away and did not return until weeks later to repair another part of the same window. Someone has to pay that tradesman. His wages come from public funds. If the work were properly carried out, morale in the area would be raised. A problem that could have been solved easily in a councillor's surgery has led to the tenants' association making representations to the community council and to the community council holding a public meeting. When I travelled from Westminster to Glasgow to speak there, members of the regional council were present to support the district councillors. The local housing manager was also there. The starvation of funds has led to the involvement of Uncle Tom Cobley and all in a problem that should be easily resolved. I think that the people of Broomknowes road are entitled to a better deal. I had not intended to refer again to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). In various housing debates, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman has refered to the big, empty, soulless housing units that Labour-controlled authorities had built on the outskirts of Glasgow. I assume that he was referring to Drumchapel, Easterhouse, Castlemilk and Priesthill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been brought up in the tenements in which I was brought up, he would know that, in the 1950s, people told lies to get into housing in those areas. So high were family standards then that brothers and sisters who slept in the same room never saw each other unclothed. On winter nights, boys would have to be dressed if one of their sisters wanted to wash at the sink. When the Drumchapel and Easterhouse accommodation became available, a mother and father could have their own room, and brothers and sisters could live separately in a flat with a bath. It was like winning the pools. If the hon. Members who talk of soulless communities knew anything about housing in Glasgow, they would appreciate that such peripheral schemes gave those in the city centre a breathing space. Those schemes were similar to the current "merchant city" scheme. That scheme would not have been possible if people had not been rehoused away from the centre of the city. Not every peripheral scheme involves a bad housing estate. I have mentioned the Balornock and Barrmullock schemes before, and I am sure that there are high-demand schemes in every constituency that contains good council housing stock. The Minister has failed to help the local authorities in one regard. Many of the estates were started up in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when men and women finished their army service and started families. Now, those people are pensioners. They have lived and built up communities on those estates. They should be given flats designed for elderly people in the surroundings where they brought up their families. If we are serious about creating communities and keeping them stable, why cannot we accommodate such people? They brought up their families in four or five-apartment tenements or houses with front and back doors, but now they need smaller accommodation. Why can they not be accommodated by one of the schemes that I mentioned earlier? Let me cite a specific case: it may be appropriate for me to do so on a day when a Minister has talked about doing away with regiments in the British Army. Some members of that family are now dead. A man came to see me who had been a prisoner of war, having been captured at Dunkirk when with the Cameron Highlanders. He could not accept a proper job after the war because, having been in Poland and exposed to severe cold without a proper diet, he was not as robust as he had been when a young soldier. The main political parties talk about patriotism and how we must wrap ourselves in the union jack, and nowadays we talk about the great tradition of the British regiments. The man who came to see me in that case had come out of the forces and wanted a decent home, and I am pleased to say that he got one. Unfortunately—it must have been a million-to-one chance—the tragedy that occurred to his family was dreadful. In his old age, he, his wife and his son—three people in the same house—contracted cancer. I know that certain members of that family died. They all may be dead by now. I felt a sense of failure on behalf of society at that time. Although that family had lived in that house since 1945 —in a community in which I lived—with the minister, priest, home helps and neighbours aware of their plight and visiting them because they knew that they needed support, society let them down when they needed alternative housing. Because they needed a bathroom on the ground floor, they were told, "You have plenty of points for another home, but you will have to move away from your present community." We all carry some responsibility for letting that family down. We must not simply heap all the blame on the local authority. I hope that families such as that will not be forced, by circumstances beyond their control, to move from the local communities they love and have played a part in creating. Much is said about multi-storey flats. In my constituency I have the 32-storey Red road flats, among the highest in Europe. They were built by the father of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I remember him well. He was a building manager with Glasgow corporation, and I knew him when I served as a young councillor. I recall working with him on various committees. I had the highest regard for him. Although in England they are called flats, we in Scotland refer to them as houses, even though they may be in high-rise blocks. Such flats suit some people—particularly, say, married couples with teenagers, when everybody in the household is out working. Such homes are easy to decorate and are sometimes more secure. When people come home after a day's work, such flats are usually warm, and the people living in them may not want homes with front and back doors and the bother of looking after a garden. A big problem with some multi-storey flats is security. Many multi-storey flats were built not just by local authorities but as a result of decisions taken by Government. Both Labour and Conservative Governments of the past told local authorities, "If you don't build multi-storey dwellings, you will not get grant." Local authorities had people pounding on their town hall doors demanding to get out of the slums in city centres —in places such as Anderson, where I was brought up, Old Springburn and the Old Gorbals. People were demanding, "Get us out of these rat-infested places." Local authorities were told by central Government to build non-traditional houses. As a result of what happened in the past, we still have multi-storey flats, and I could take the Minister to some developments in my constituency which are absolutely beautiful. One could literally eat off the floor in the entrance hall. The lifts are well cared for and in superb condition. Other multi-storey flats, on the other hand, are not so good, and the reason is usually lack of security. It is clear that multi-storey properties will be with us for a long time to come, and I fear that we are, as it were, spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. We have spent a fortune on such housing and we have employed caretakers, but they are not there 24 hours a day. We spend a lot of money on lifts, sound insulation and so on, but we need a concierge service to provide security and stop vandals coming into the building and causing havoc. In an ordinary tenement dwelling, the worst that can happen is that someone can put graffiti on the wall. However, if a vandal gets into a multi-storey flat and damages the lift, it may mean that someone with a heart disorder might be required to walk up 18 floors. Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) What if there is a fire? Mr. Martin Yes, it could cause problems in any emergency. An ambulance may be needed or a doctor may have come to call. A concierge service has been introduced in some multi-storey flats in Glasgow and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to expand that service. My hon. Friend the Member for Pollock served with me on the local authority when we said that there should be some experiments on the sale of council housing. Therefore, I speak as a Labour Member who was not frightened to say that we should look at the sale of council housing. However, we should not have embarked upon the wholesale selling of council housing. In my constituency, the best housing stock has been bought and the worst is left lying there, sometimes derelict. If, in the 1950s, people were glad of their corporation house to rent, why should not the same apply to young couples in the 1990s? Circumstances change. Now, young couples who have lived all their days in one community are being told that they cannot have a house. In fact, strangely, a lady in my constituency came to see me and said, "My Sandra can't get a house." I said, "Your Sandra can't get a house because you have bought your house, the woman next door has bought her house and so has everybody else." The Sandras of this world should be able to get decent housing in their community. Fair enough—by the sale of council housing we have given people the bargain of a lifetime. People are proud of their homes, and I can see the improvements that they make to them. However, there should be new housing for young couples who are not sitting tenants and who do not have an opportunity to buy their house. The problem is that people have to be tenants before they can buy their council house. How are young couples to become tenants if there are no houses to rent? The Minister might say that the housing association movement is receiving a fortune from the Scottish Office and is rehabilitating the tenements throughout Glasgow. I am proud of the work that is being done by the housing associations in my constituency. I was a founder member of one of them. There is the Springburn Possilpark housing association, Milnbank and Reidvale. In fact, a photograph of one of the back courts of the Reidvale tenements in the Dennistown area appears in Prince Charles's book, "A Vision for Britain", as he was so impressed by the beautiful way in which it has been done up. However, there are problems in the housing association movement. It does a good job, but there is a lack of accountability. The Minister has often talked of local authorities being accountable, but he fails to highlight the fact that the housing associations have a great deal of autonomy. They have general management committee meetings, but the Minister knows that full membership consists only of tenants and householders. They alone can attend an AGM. At least within local authorities everyone over the age of 18 in a house can have a say in whether the council is doing a good job. Sometimes, the associations disregard decisions made at the committees' AGMs. They are becoming remote, and the Minister should consider ways of encouraging those associations to become more involved in the community. I cite an example. Possilpark in Springburn wanted, with the help of public grants, to take over Springburn public hall, which has lain derelict, to sandblast it, to do it up internally and to sell it to the private sector. I said that I did not mind a bit of it going to the private sector, but that as it was a public hall, surely it had some function for social activities such as weddings and dance classes, so that the community would get something back from the urban aid money put into the project. I was told that the community would have a nice clean building and that the housing association would have its value added tax paid from the profit it made from the sale of the building. I could not convince the housing association that the real function of a community-based association was not always to have foremost in its mind the worry of getting wages for the staff and keeping the association going—it should be to ensure that the community got the best deal. Flats are being built in my constituency, and everyone says that that is great, because Springburn has lain derelict and its planning has been in a state of decline. However, when one-bedroomed flats are sold for £42,000, it is not the 8,000 local unemployed people in my constituency who will buy them. If they are one-bedroomed flats, families will not buy them—at best, they will go to a couple. The Minister has a responsibility through Scottish Homes to ensure that the committees are more accountable to the public whom they serve. The waiting list system is a puzzle to me. I have complained before that, when a constituent of mine asked to be put on the waiting list, she was told that the list was closed. She then discovered that her neighbour was put on the list a week later. When I inquired about that, I was told that the first constituent had tried to be put on the list on Monday the 22nd and that the neighbour tried on Tuesday 23rd, and on Tuesday the 23rd the list was reopened for a day. That leads to abuse. I am not saying that anyone is dishonest, but if someone phones Jeannie to say that the list will be open first thing at 9 am, I know that Jeannie will try to put her name on the list. That is unfair to the person who, the day before, had appeared on the scene and wanted to put her name on the list. If public money is involved, everyone should have a fair chance. Nobody would tolerate the circumstances that I have described if a local authority were involved. I welcome the private sector in places such as Springburn. I believe that there is room for everyone to be involved in housing, and that there should be a social mix. The private sector can always move quickly, and I am pleased that it has done so in the centre of my constituency in parts of Dennistown and in Portland Dash, where the famous Speirs wharf is being built. The people there might be in the high-income bracket and therefore not after council housing, but they bring in a population which can serve schools, churches and community groups, which can all benefit. I am happy to see the private sector coming in. I do not want to stray wide of the subject of housing, but people from the private sector raise problems with me involving not only housing but planning in general. Developers often feel that, with the two-tier local authority system in Glasgow, sometimes they get— It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put. Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Nicholas Baker.] Mr. Martin I shall be brief now, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I have nearly finished. Private developers often feel that, with the two-tier planning authority structure, they get permission from Glasgow district council to build houses, offices or commercial developments, only to discover that the region has called the plan in. Developers sometimes feel that it would be best to let the region consider the matter—perhaps it has a legitimate right to consider it—only to discover that the district council has appealed against the call-in, as it is legally entitled to. If someone has £3 million to invest in property in my constituency, and the property market is fluctuating because of business rates, bank rates and all the rest, that person will be getting nervous. It would be understandable if such a developer decided to invest in a new town next time, not in a city with two planning authority structures. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. I finish by thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your time, and the Minister for listening. 10.2 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for having spoken effectively in the debate. I have greatly enjoyed visiting his constituency several times, and I know that he has taken a keen interest in housing, in seeing housing associations develop and in generally improving conditions for his constituents. It will amuse the hon. Gentleman to know that a year or so ago, just before the end of the year, I was in a position to make a supplementary allocation of about £3 million. We ascertained that Glasgow could make full use of such a sum, so it was almost all given to that city. To my surprise, I saw in the evening paper the headline, "Insult to Glasgow". I read the article and suddenly realised that the award had been thought to be the main allocation, although it was only a supplementary allocation. I received an apology shortly afterwards. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take the needs of Glasgow seriously into account. The city is the largest public sector landlord in western Europe, and has the biggest and most pressing problems. I do not wish the hon. Member to doubt that I see Glasgow as a great city. I have enormously enjoyed visiting it since I was a boy, when I used to be taken to the dentist there. The dentist was a lay preacher and I learnt much about Christianity when I had no chance to answer. The campaign, "Glasgow's Miles Better" has an enormous impact. The city has now been brought forward tremendously. Not only the People's Palace but the Burrell collection, the garden festival and a stream of other successes have put Glasgow firmly on the European map as a city of culture. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should concentrate not only on the problems of the merchant city but on the peripheral housing schemes—the hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically the problems of high rise flats. Many of the points that he covered are matters for the district council, and I have no doubt that it is acting on many of them. Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollok) What about money? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton The hon. Gentleman asks about money. I will make available as many public sector resources as I possibly can, but if there is a shortfall between what is intended for the local communities concerned and 'what is available in public resources, all the other possible sources of funding need to be considered, including funding from housing associations—Scottish Homes—and the private sector. Let me give an example. Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) I endorse all that the Minister says about the turn-around in Glasgow, which I also praise. I seek an assurance from him, however, that, given that he proposes to do all this for Glasgow, he will not take the money away from authorities such as Renfrew district, which not only have peripheral housing estates but which are on the periphery of Glasgow and should not be forgotten. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Last Thursday, I made an extra allocation of £128,000 to his district council. I realise that it was for environmental improvements, not in Foxbar but in Ferguslie Park, but I hope that the money will help, and we will bear the needs of Foxbar particularly in mind. I made the chairman of Scottish Homes aware of the visit that I paid with the hon. Gentleman to his constituency, and I am certain that the discussions on that matter will be taken forward. We envisage the urban regeneration schemes developing much further, into smaller urban renewal initiatives of which there are now three in Scotland—Alloa, Kilmarnock and Falkirk. We hope that there will be three more before very long. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that we must give additional attention to the peripheral housing schemes in his constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. The Greve report stressed the importance of looking at an empty property and considering the possibility of disposals and the housing association movement has a strong role to play. The hon. Member for Springburn mentioned the valuable example of Speirs Wharf which, if not in his constituency, is on the edge of it. He is absolutely right. However, I stress that that project was undertaken not just between the district council and the SDA. It also involved Historic Scotland, which has given more than £12 million in grants to historic churches in Scotland and to historic buildings generally. Although it is a small part of the picture, if the hon. Gentleman has historic buildings in his constituency, he should contact that body. I am sure that his proposals will be considered sympathetically. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of the Gordon Highlander. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear earlier today that housing needs must be addressed— Mr. Martin Cameron Highlander. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton That is an important correction. I myself was a Cameronian, and that institution, too, was founded by a Cameron. I regard the officials in Glasgow as giving a very good service. One example of the way in which they have excelled is to be found in the Hamish Allan centre for the homeless. When young people—or anyone with a problem that has caused them to be homeless—go there, they are really well treated. They are made to feel at home and there is no element of stigma attached to going to the centre. It is performing an extremely valuable role, and I believe that other councils in Scotland would be well advised to look at the excellence of the service that it has provided with a view to following its example. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made an additional allocation to Glasgow in respect of homelessness projects and I believe that Glasgow is proceeding with such projects successfully and effectively. The hon. Gentleman is obviously interested in what the local authority can do to help to enhance its resources. There are two things that it could do. If right-to-buy sales were processed within six months rather than 12, that would result in many hundreds of thousands of pounds extra coming into the system. Let me give the example of the rents-to-mortgages scheme: a quarter of all the expressions of interest have come from the Glasgow area. If a small number of tenants—say 50—buy under the rents-to-mortgages scheme, that will bring in £500,000 of receipts which will go an immense distance towards renewing the window frames in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. If one of the district council's priorities is to build houses, that is an absolutely legitimate aim; the council is entirely within its rights to pursue that aim—if it is the council's priority. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) must appreciate that one of the problems facing Glasgow is whether it should spread the funds available to it thinly or concentrate on specific upgradings. I understand that it is doing the latter and that is a matter for Glasgow and not for me. With regard to housing associations, Glasgow has had spent on it almost half the total available for the whole of Scotland. It has had about £500 million spent on it. Much of that may have gone to the inner city, but that will spread outwards in future and will concentrate increasingly on peripheral housing schemes. Mr. Dunnachie What about the private sector? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I realise that there is a strong prejudice in Glasgow against the private rented sector, but I believe that the best landlord that a man can have is himself. If Glasgow wants to enhance its receipts, having a voluntary rents-to-mortgage scheme will undoubtedly improve the amount of funds that it can spend on its public sector stock. Mr. Dunnachie I have raised the matter before, but received no answer. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton That was about a completely different point on repair grants. I have written to the hon. Gentleman fully about that and, I understand, action has been taken. This year, £82 million is being spent by Scottish Homes in Glasgow. In spite of that, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) calls for its abolition. That is seriously irresponsible. Scottish Homes is performing an extremely valuable role, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has recognised. I believe that it should be strongly supported. Mr. McMaster I would not defend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). I want to refer to the use of capital receipts of the sale of houses to fund the ideas referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). However, the arithmetic does not work out if we carry it to its logical conclusion. Where there is a diminishing housing stock and the best houses are sold and the loan debt must still be financed with fewer tenants, eventually all the council's receipts will be used to finance the loan debt which has not decreased. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton The hon. Gentleman should be aware that £1,600 million has been made available to spend on public sector stock as a result of right to buy sales. The receipt from right to buy is much higher than the outstanding debt on each house which varies from area to area. It may be £4,500 or £6,000. The average council house sale varies between £10,000 and £12,000, and that is well above the average outstanding debt in Scotland. The great strength of right to buy is that it benefits everyone, not just the aspiring tenant who wishes to own, but the public sector. Scottish Homes has been spending those huge sums in Glasgow this year and it is also giving priority to homelessness projects and to urban regeneration initiatives. Such initiatives affect Castlemilk and North Forgewood in Motherwell. I believe that that role will increase. I am glad that the hon. Member for Springburn has struck up such a good relationship with Scottish Homes. His particular point on the whole is not so much a point for me as one for him to pursue with the chairman of Scottish Homes and at a local level. I hope that a suitable arrangement can be worked out. Housing projects are successful where well-established agreements are worked out at community level. It would be easy for us to go faster, but if we did that we would not have the support of local communities, and the housing projects concerned would not stand the test of time. I have mentioned that Glasgow can do a lot more to enhance receipts by shortening the processing time for council house sales and by considering a voluntary programme from rents to mortgage. I regard the other call that was recently made in Glasgow—again it was by the Scottish National party; I think that it was the hon. Member for Govan—that £976 million of capital debt should be written off as totally inappropriate. That sum would have to be raised either by extra taxation or through borrowing. It follows that any decision along those lines would have to be considered most carefully and would require legislation, and we have no such proposals. As for resources to Glasgow, I must make it clear that, before we make allocations, we look first and foremost at Glasgow, because it is far and away the biggest public sector landlord not only in Scotland but in western Europe. Its needs are greatest and we must therefore look at them carefully. I receive complaints that too much is going to Glasgow and not enough is going to the rest of Scotland, but, objectively, the needs are greater. The hon. Member for Pollok is shaking his head. Needs are greater in Glasgow than in many other parts of Scotland. However much he is given, the hon. Gentleman will try for more. Whatever Government are in power, Glasgow will not get everything that it wants. It must make the best of the opportunities before it. The Greve report recommended the disposal of empty stock. I recommend that the possibilities should be effectively followed up. On resources for this year, the provisional housing revenue account capital allocation of £92 million includes more than £4 million to honour commitments given to fund the costs of approved innovative projects in Castlemilk. Excluding that, the gross allocation gives the council an allocation of £616 per council house, which is above the Scottish average of £559. The council's net allocation of £60·5 million is 11 per cent. higher than the corresponding allocation for last year. That increase, together with resources of £60 million, which the council expects to draw from its covenant scheme, should enable the council to sustain its substantial capital programme. Again I congratulate the hon. Member for Springburn on his success in the ballot. I also congratulate Glasgow on its many successes. I stress that Glasgow's success is in the interests of Scotland's success. I should like not only much better housing in Glasgow but more job opportunities in Glasgow. We must work for that as well. Question put and agreed to. Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o'clock.