To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has taken place under the Ports Act 1991 to privatise the port of Tilbury.

I am pleased to say that the Port of London authority has now advertised the port of Tilbury for sale, and thus begun the bidding process for it. The PLA's aim is to complete the sale of Tilbury by the end of February.

The overwhelming Majority of employees at the port, who according to a recent survey said that they supported a management-employee buy-out and would buy shares in the newly privatised port, will want to congratulate my hon. Friend on the fast progress being made. Bearing in mind that the overriding priority is to privatise the port as soon as possible, can my hon. Friend assure me that he will give the fullest consideration to the concerns being expressed by the Port of London police authority as privatisation proceeds?

Indeed, the Port of London police authority has made representations through my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I am urgently considering them and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

It is quite obvious that the Labour party has been opposed to the privatisation scheme throughout, but the simple fact is that we will give those who work at Tilbury the opportunity to be part of the company. That is a welcome move, which is opposed by the Labour party.

Can the Minister confirm that there is a major anomaly in the Act and in possible privatisation —the fact that the port of Tilbury is not defined geographically? Therefore, can he confirm that if that port obtains property in central or west London the property will become part of the port? Would not it be anomalous for the existing publicly owned Port of London police authority to become the police of a private company? Will the Minister resolve that as soon as possible?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers what happened to the Merseyside police force when the Mersey docks were privatised, because he will find no anomaly there. As I have said, we are currently considering the broader aspects of the matter. This is another example of the Labour party's total Opposition to privatisation and to people playing a part in the company in which they work. It has not changed.

I hope that the Minister is successful in resolving the serious and real problems faced by the Port of London authority. It will be a major triumph for the Government if they pass an important Act of privatisation while still showing concern for the real needs of people who are affected by it.

I take seriously my hon. Friend's point, which we are currently addressing. Just a few weeks ago my hon. Friend led a delegation to see me and the points raised at that meeting are being investigated.

Is the Minister aware that the Port of London authority's chief executive, Mr. McNab, who was appointed by the Government and is responsible for the privatisation of the port, was found by a recent employment tribunal to have been untruthful in the evidence and not to have kept truthful board minutes? Does not the Minister accept that such an outright condemnation of the honesty and integrity of Mr. McNab makes him not a fit and proper person to carry out the privatisation of the port of Tilbury? The Minister should use his powers to remove him.

The person who will make the recommendations to the Secretary of State is the chairman of the PLA, Sir Brian Kellnet, and not Dr. McNab as the hon. Gentleman suggests.