WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HC Deb 22 December 1964 vol 704 cc1122-55

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North)

I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".

This is a Private Bill which has been carried over from the last Parliament, and this is the first occasion on which the House has had an opportunity to consider it in this new Parliament and, indeed, under a new Government. That is one very good reason for this debate today. I hope that the Government will tell us what is their attitude towards the Bill and also towards the wider question of the facilities required for the import of iron ore into South Wales.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was courteous enough to give me some information in a letter which he wrote to me two days ago, but I think that he will admit that the information which he was able to give did not go very far. Indeed, this is the difficulty which I believe all of us in the House face over the Bill. We are being asked to judge this one project, this one of five or six ways in which the required facilities can be provided. Moreover, we are being asked to judge this one project in advance of the advice which in due course will be received from the National Ports Council. I believe that it is quite wrong to consider this one scheme when the Council will be reporting very shortly on the pros and cons of the various proposals which have been put to them.

In a debate on 9th November the Minister of Power told the House that there was need to consider as a whole the facilities for the import of iron ore into South Wales. That is what the National Ports Council is doing. Tonight, we are considering only one particular project, one way of providing the facilities which are required. I have no doubt that we shall be told that this is an enabling Bill and that it is urgent, but it seems to me that to pass the Bill tonight is to prejudge the issue. What we are doing, as it were, is to saddle one of the horses in advance, and I strongly object to that.

After all, this is not a small project which can be passed lightly. There are major issues involved—for example, economic issues, including the expenditure of, it is estimated, £18 million on the project to build a jetty which will be 4½ miles long. The unloading wharf, which will be at right angles to the jetty, will be 1,800 ft. long and will be able to take ships as large as the "Queen Mary", 65,000 tons, or probably even more. The jetty head will be under the nose of part of Somerset which is designated in the county plan as an area of great landscape value.

I believe that the economic case for the Bill has not been made, and I further believe that it would ruin a well-preserved stretch of coastline and threaten the prosperity and the prospects of the surrounding area, in particular, in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). I am emphatically opposed to the Bill on both these counts, and so are the local authorities in my constituency which are responsible for planning and development in that area—the Portishead Urban District Council, the Long Ashton Rural District Council and the Somerset County Council.

I have no doubt that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend will explain the attitude of local authorities in his constituency. In addition, there is very strong opposition from the people living in these areas. A petition objecting to the proposals in the Bill was signed by over 11,000 people. I do not believe that this strong opposition of local people and representatives can be disregarded or taken lightly.

I agree, as I am sure does the whole House, that facilities must be provided for import of iron ore into South Wales. No one would dissent from the statement that the present facilities are inadequate. I do not want to go over past history to show why this was not thought of before, but we are faced with a situation, as I readily concede, in which more adequate facilities must be provided.

The point is: what price are we to pay for these facilities? We all know the price which we paid for development in the first Industrial Revolution. We are still removing the scars created by that revolution—the human squalor and the man-made misery which were produced by hasty decisions at that time. I hope that we have learned our lesson and that we shall not allow the same to happen today and that, in this overcrowded island, we shall not allow industrial development to take place in a part of the country where we still have a glorious natural heritage which it is our duty to preserve for coming generations.

I turn now to examine the Bill a little more closely, in particular the economic case and the threat to the amenities of the areas which I believe it presents. As I mentioned, the estimate is that the proposed project will cost about £18 million of public money. There was considerable argument in Committee about whether the cost of iron ore would be reduced. There was also considerable argument about whether there would be a saving, taking into account the capital cost and the cost of maintenance. One can at least say that the economic case was not made out. What is certainly a fact is that the less the proposed jetty is used, the less likely it is to be an economic proposition.

I understand that at present Richard Thomas & Baldwins is importing about 3 millions tons of iron ore a year. At that rate, the proposed jetty would be used for less than a quarter of the time. I understand that expansion programmes which may take place may mean that the company's future requirements, in a few years' time, will be 5 million tons. That would involve the jetty being used for about one-third of the time, still quite a small proportion, and this may explain the significance of Clause 25, which states the types of cargoes which could be imported through the jetty. The Clause refers to: (a) raw materials for steel works in Wales or Monmouthshire; and (b) crude oil or natural gas". The Clause is very different from what we were led to understand when the Bill was first introduced. We were led to understand then that the jetty would be used for the imports required by Richard Thomas & Baldwins. As I say, the Clause is very much wider. It refers to imports for all the steel industries in South Wales for iron ore and it also refers to the import of crude oil and natural gas. The petitioners had no real chance to be heard on this point during the Committee stage of the Bill, for this was introduced towards the end of the proceedings.

The significance of this is that it means, in effect, that the jetty is likely to be used very much more and to a much greater extent than was originally envisaged. I concede that there are sound economic arguments, if one is going to spend £18 million on this project, for it being used as much as possible, but, as I see it, it introduces an additional factor in regard to amenity and the effect this extra use will have on the people of my constituency and the surrounding areas.

I do not want to make a party point here because this is not a party political matter. I read in a newspaper the other day that when we see the Bill to nationalise steel it is highly likely that Richard Thomas & Baldwins will be one of the main centres, perhaps the main centre, in this country for the production of strip steel. If that is so—and I am making no complaint or party point—this surely means that the jetty will be used to a much greater extent than was originally envisaged by the Bill.

The more it is used the more economically viable it is likely to be. At the same time, the greater is the risk that the amenities of the area will be jeopardised, in particular from noise, dust and oil. I accept that an Amendment was introduced in Committee which to some extent dealt with this point. The Amendment was introduced into Clause 15(3) which reads: … the Company shall take all practicable steps to reduce to a minimum nuisance from noise, dust and oil … I welcome that Amendment but wonder how effective it will be. In putting this provision into effect, will the local authorities be consulted? Will they be consulted about what practicable steps should be taken to reduce to a minimum the nuisance from noise, dust and oil? This is an important point about which local authorities in the area have had some experience.

The third main point I wish to make about the Bill concerns the likely effect on the régime of the river, of the estuary. I will not go into this in detail because it is a matter which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who hopes to enlarge on this aspect later.

My feeling about these three points on the detail of the Bill is that we face the prospect of a mammoth wharf of doubtful economic value clattering away day and night under the very nose of a residential and holiday area of great natural beauty. My main case against the Bill is that it is premature, that it asks us to prejudge the issue before the National Ports Council has reported, that the economic case for the Bill is not proved and that the price we shall pay in loss of amenity is intolerable.

I now wish to deal with the undertakings which were given by the previous Government on Second Reading, on 22nd June last. Those undertakings were of considerable interest and concern to everyone interested in this subject. One undertaking was: … we shall take no action to implement the Bill without giving the House of Commons an opportunity to debate our proposals in the light of the recommendations of the National Ports Council when they are received."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 144.] Does that assurance still stand and, if so, am I right in thinking that it has been written into the Bill in Clause 26(2), which reads: Any scheme to exercise any of the powers of Part II (Lands) or Part III (Works) of this Act shall be submitted to the Minister, and the Minister may make an order which shall be laid before and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that assurance still stands and whether or not I am right in thinking that the passage I quoted from the Bill represents the assurance in statutory form.

The second point to which I should like to refer from the Second Reading debate is the reference to consultation with the local authorities. This I regard as immensely important because the local authorities are justifiably sore, in my view, about the lack of consultation which has taken place on the Bill. The assurance was given by the previous Minister on 22nd June that should the Government decide that this scheme should go forward … we shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to arrange for further consultations with the local authorities who believe that they would be adversely affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 144.] Does that assurance still stand, and, if it does, may I ask for a little more information about the meaning of the phrase "further consultations"?

There are two points here. First, the comparatively narrow point, namely, the planning control over the design and external appearance, the means of access and the siting within the limits of deviation of the jetty itself. That was made fairly clear in the proceedings in the Select Committee in which the representative from the Ministery of Housing and Local Government stated, on page 7 of day 14 of the proceedings: The Minister of Housing's Report makes it clear that if the works in the Bill are approved the Minister will bring under planing control the design, and external appearance of the jetty, as well as the other matters mentioned in paragraph 3 of his Report. The other matters referred to were those to which I have referred, namely, the means of access and the siting within the limits of deviation.

The Minister's representative went on to say: Any application for planning permission will be subject to ministerial decision. A local inquiry will be held at which any local authority, the company, of course, and, indeed, any other interested person or body will be free to state their views on the matter under inquiry. That seems fairly clear on the comparatively narrow point of the design. I regard this as a narrow point which does not amount to very much more than whether this jetty is to be painted red, white, blue or yellow.

However that may be, it seems to be clear on that particular planning point, but there is one point which is not clear, and I should be glad if the Minister could elucidate it. That is whether the Somerset local authorities will have some say in this matter. Planningwise, the proposed jetty would come under the jurisdiction of the Monmouthshire County Council and the Bristol County Council. It does not come under the jurisdiction of the Somerset County Council or the other Somerset planning authorities as well. I should like to know whether on this point the Somerset local authorities will be consulted.

The second point on planning—and this is a much more important one—is what further consultation will take place with the planning authorities, including the planning authorities in Somerset. I ask this in particular reference to a remark which was made, again by the representative of the Ministry of Housing and local Government in the Minutes of Evidence, on day 14, in which he stated: If Parliament should approve this Bill and if the Government should approve this scheme planning consent in principle would have been given. In other words, only these important details—that is the details of design and so on to which I have been referring—would remain. That makes me wonder what these additional consultations involve. This is an extremely important point so far as we are concerned. Does it mean that all that will happen is that the local planning authorities, including those in Somerset, are merely to have a polite talk with the Ministry as a sort of act of grace? Is that intended to fulfil the pledge? If it is, I say emphatically that in my view it is not good enough; or is it, in fact, intended that the Somerset local authorities will be consulted as planning authorities and that they will be able to exercise their rights and duties in this matter as planning authorities—duties which, after all, would have been their right had this proposed development taken place on land rather than in the Severn Estuary?

I cannot clearly develop this gap, as it seems to me, in our planning law tonight, but this whole business has put the local authorities in Somerset in an intolerable position. They rightly complain of lack of consultation. They had an extremely difficult job to do already. They are trying to plan a development of a county which is growing fast in population. They are trying, at the same time, to preserve a beautiful stretch of coastline and some glorious country. This is a very difficult job which Parliament has put upon them. They are making an extremely good job of doing it. But if development is to take place without any adequate consultation with them, development which is not on land but just out in the estuary, how can they possibly be expected to carry out the onerous task which Parliament has placed upon them?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

It might help the House if I said that I saw the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and gave the assurance that before any scheme of this kind is carried out the local authorities will be consulted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That assurance, as given by the last Government, we have definitely renewed, and before any scheme of this kind is carried out we give the assurance that there will be a debate in this House on the recommendation of the National Ports Council.

I feel sure that this should allay the anxieties which the hon. Member is putting forward. It must be a debate in this House, when we receive the recommendations of the National Ports Council on this issue. We certainly renew the assurance that the local authorities concerned will be consulted by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government before any scheme is confirmed.

Mr. Dean

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and also for the help he has given to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. I referred to that matter probably just before the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, but I am very glad to have that assurance. However, it would be most helpful if he could say a little more about precisely what the assurance involves.

What I am getting at is whether the local authorities are to be consulted as planning authorities, by which I mean—I think that the Parliamentary Secretary said, "Of course", but does that mean that the planning procedures that would normally be followed were this a development on land—local public inquiry, should there be objections, and the rest—will be gone through? There is a very great difference between a polite consultation with the local authorities—"What do you feel about this thing?"—and their having the same rights and duties as they would have were the development on land. That is the point I am driving at. If the hon. Gentleman could say a little more on it, it would be extremely helpful to my hon. Friend and myself.

There are the particular duties which the local authorities in my constituency have with regard to the protection of the coastline. Circular No. 56, dated 2nd December, 1963, was issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to local authorities, and very considerably emphasised the duty of local authorities to protect the coastline.

The document states: I am directed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to draw the attention of local planning authorities with coastal boundaries to the need to give increasing attention to the problem of coastal development. The coast attracts constantly growing numbers of people for holidays and for weekend recreation. The same is true of retirement. The 1961 census reveals a striking increase in the number of people living in the coastal districts and this is particularly notable on the south coast. It could well have spoken of the southwest coast as well: It is most important in making provision for these needs that the development permitted should not spoil the very things which gives the coastline its charm and attraction. I readily concede that the circular went on to say that there might be certain parts of the coast, including certain estuaries, where proposals for large-scale development might be difficult to resist. None the less, this does not alter the very clear and impelling message put across in the circular, which continues: … because the coast is of exceptional value and subject to heavy pressures for development the Minister considers that it merits special study and control. He therefore asks authorities with coastal boundaries to make a special study of their coastal areas…". The local authorities having done that: This study and consultation may conveniently in some cases form part of the quinquennial review of the development plan. In all cases, however, the policy emerging should be incorporated in the development plan, as soon as practicable. That is precisely what the Somerset local authorities have been doing.

Already in its existing development plan the Somerset County Council has a substantial area of the coast, including the part that we are now considering in the immediate vicinity of the jetty. It is already designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. In the revision of the development plan—which, I believe, has now been submitted to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—it is proposed to extend the area which comes under this designation.

So we have the Somerset local authorities carrying out with enthusiasm the spirit and the letter of this circular. To say the least, it is immensely discouraging for them if, while they are trying to do this, they are not to have a very real say in what shall take place actually on the sea and which will have a fundamental effect upon their efforts to carry out the spirit and the letter of the circular.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances about that particularly important planning aspect, and some details as to precisely what these further consultations will involve; whether they will really bring the local planning authorities fully into the picture and enable them to have as effective a say in this development as they now have when the development takes place on land.

We are told that this Bill is urgent. We all recognise that the sooner the right facilities for the importation of iron ore can be provided the better but, if it is so urgent, I wonder whether any preliminary consultations on the planning points have already taken place? If they have not, it does not suggest to me that, in the Government's view, this project, or other possible projects, is as urgent as all that. Have these consultations already begun? Have there been any preliminary discussions between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities concerned?

Urgency is an argument easily and often used, but if it is to be at the expense of the right decision it certainly does not carry conviction. I hope that I have put forward a reasonable case, and I apologise for keeping the House so long. It is a case in which I deeply believe, and one which, if necessary, I am prepared to take to the Division Lobby.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn (Stalybridge and Hyde)

As I was Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill, I do not think that I ought to say very much, but before the House comes to a decision there are one or two points which ought to be borne in mind.

It is certainly not my intention to answer in detail the very long speech made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), but the House should know that the Bill has been considered in detail by another place, that it came to this House and was given a Second Reading on the advice of the then Minister of Transport and went upstairs to a Committee.

We spent about 30 sittings listening to counsel for the promoters and for the petitioners. I failed to understand the remark of the hon. Member that local authorities did not have a proper opportunity to put their case. If he had been present at that meeting he would not have thought that any counsel was inhibited in any way from making very long speeches on every point.

The House should realise that if the Bill is passed it will not necessarily follow that this will be the scheme which will be adopted for the import of iron ore into South Wales, but, if the Bill is not passed, it would be to the detriment of the area represented by the hon. Member and by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). In giving our judgment on the Bill we imposed certain conditions. I have heard it argued that those conditions have not yet been carried out, but those concerned would have been very foolish if they had attempted to carry them out before this House gave general approval for it would have looked as if they were anticipating a decision by this House.

One of the conditions already made by North Somerset was about nuisance from noise, dust, and so on. Another we imposed was that a model should be made of the estuary so as to be quite certain about the effects of the tide on that area if a construction of this size and nature was built out into the estuary.

If the House does not give the Third Reading to the Bill there is no reason to doubt that the National Ports Council may not decide that this is the scheme it wants for the import of ore to South Wales, in which case if it makes that recommendation to the Minister the Minister will come to the House and the conditions which we imposed in Committee will not be operative. If the House gives the Bill a passage on Third Reading, then, if the Ports Council decides that this is the best scheme, it could be put quickly into operation.

In view of the conditions we imposed because we considered that they were to the advantage of Somerset and Westonsuper-Mare, the House would be well advised to bear these matters in mind and to allow the Bill to go through. That is all I wanted to say, but I thought it important that these considerations should be brought before the House before a decision is made.

7.44 p.m.

Sir William Robson Brown (Esher)

I rise to speak in support of the Bill which I believe important as a matter of industrial economy and efficiency for the country. That is what we are debating. The purpose of the Bill is to enable a jetty to be built into the channel to enable the Richard Thomas & Baldwins works at Newport to discharge iron ore from boats of 64,000 tons. I should be prepared to prophesy that even that tonnage will be exceeded as years go by.

At the moment Richard Thomas & Baldwins has to bring iron ore by ore carriers of about 25,000 tons capacity and take it by rail from Newport. The firm has considered the project in every conceivable way actuarially and from an economic point of view and has come to the conclusion that the expenditure of £18 million is necessary, wise and economic. The firm would have been crazy to have become involved in expenditure such as this if it were not satisfied that ultimately the country will need a project of this kind.

At the same time, we must not say that industrial requirements should tread on the faces of local authorities, on local feelings and the amenities of the Somerset coast. I feel satisfied that at the end of all this the Minister with his advisers will take full care that these interests are protected. In the end there will be the benefit of the jetty and all that it can contribute without interfering unnecessarily with the amenities of that beautiful coast.

I quite understand the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) on behalf of his constituents. That is his duty and he has performed it very well indeed, but, as he said this is the first project embarked upon, I must inform him that a project has already been agreed by the Steel Company of Wales in the Port Talbot area and the project we are discussing will be the second of the kind. There may be others to follow.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who was Chairman of the Committee, made quite clear that ample opportunity was given, and will be given, for the proper and reasonable interests of local authorities to be stated. We have to face this situation in the light of the economic position of the nation. This project has been discussed in this House for several years and so far no progress has been made. As one who has been associated with steel all my life, I think that if we can give the project a fair wind, subject to the provisos I have made, we shall be doing a wise thing. The capacity of the works of Richard Thomas & Baldwins at Newport is huge enough in all conscience, but I forecast that the tonnage production of steel in sheet form—which is one of the finest ways of exporting steel—will rise steadily all the time.

I notice that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is present. He must be equally concerned about this matter, because he knows that iron ore not only goes to the Newport works but also to the Ebbw Vale works. Any custom which can be got for Ebbw Vale will be of value in continuing employment there, as I know from previous experience. I hope that this Bill will go through without a Division, because sufficient assurance has been given about it. We have the assurance of a public local inquiry within the normal framework of planning procedure.

Approaches have been made by the Richard Thomas & Baldwins Company to Weston-super-Mare in regard to its problems. The company's consultant engineer, Mr. Richard Pavry, a partner of Messrs. Posford, Pavry and Partners, maintained in his evidence his view that there is no risk. A consultant was also brought in and the objection was met by the Select Committee which drafted an amendment to Clause 26, which requires that the company should, in conjunction with Weston-super-Mare, carry out such tests as may be agreed between them or, in default of agreement, be determined by the Ministry of Transport to ascertain what effect, if any, the jetty and wharf-head is likely to have upon the régime of the Bristol Channel and, in particular, of Weston Bay.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

Was that expert decision given before the drilling rig collapsed because of the instability of the régime in the Channel?

Sir W. Robson Brown

That is a fine technical point about which, as my hon. Friend knows full well, I am not informed. In any case, we are in a position to see tests carried out and we are invited to take part in these tests. If there is no agreement, the Ministry of Transport can make a decision.

Mr. Dean

My hon. Friend said that there was an assurance with regard to a local public inquiry. As I understand the position at the moment, subject to anything the Minister may say, the only assurance we have is that there will be a local public inquiry with regard to the design. This is a very narrow point. We have not an assurance with regard to a local public inquiry on the principle.

Sir W. Robson Brown

I will not venture to answer on behalf of the Minister. I am sure that he will give the hon. Gentleman his views at the end of the debate.

Those who are close to the matter know full well that the wharfhead will come under the jurisdiction of the Port of Bristol Authority the British Transport Docks Board, which owns the docks at Newport, and Newport Corporation have withdrawn or not maintained their own objections to the Bill. The company has consulted the Port of Bristol Authority, which does not object to it and will be willing to co-operate in the implementing of the schemes.

Finally, all these plans, whatever they may be, must go before the new docks authority for final approval. The situation at the moment is that, if the company can resolve its difficulties with the various authorities and if the Bill goes through, it may have gained a couple of years, whereas if it merely sits quiet and says, "We had better wait until the authority has examined all the projects all over South Wales", years can go by. I commend Richard Thomas & Baldwins for its persistence in this matter, and I hope the Bill receives the full support of the House tonight.

7.53 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

May I intervene at this stage, although I do not wish to cut the debate short by asking the House to arrive at a conclusion now? We are in the position of awaiting the report of the National Ports Council on the merits or demerits of the scheme. It is clear that we have to do something about iron ore imports into South Wales. I do not think that anybody here or outside would dispute that. A variety of schemes have been suggested. They were considered by our predecessors and it was decided to refer the matter to the National Ports Council.

I appreciate the anxieties which have been expressed by the hon. Members for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), who came to see me. We discussed the problem. I am here tonight to renew the assurances which were given previously that, whatever the recommendations of the Council may be, there will be a debate in the House on those recommendations and there will be consultations on the recommendations between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities, which I know may be affected from the point of view of amenity and in other respects.

We can say no more than that now. It would be wrong for the House to prejudge the issue. A Bill has already been passed concerning another line of development for the solution of the problem. The powers have been given. We are very concerned in the Department about the extraordinary delays which occur if legislative powers are not made available. If a scheme is agreed upon, and it is viable and necessary for the economic development of the country, we want the powers to be available to put the scheme into effect as soon as possible, I am sure that hon. Members who object in this case would agree that that is absolutely necessary.

The Ministry is not promoting the Bill. We are simply saying, "Let us have these powers available because we expect, in a few weeks—in January, 1965—to have the recommendations of the National Ports Council on the various schemes which have been suggested for developing iron ore imports into South Wales". This is a matter which is vitally important for the country's future economy. This will involve a tremendous amount of development. It may involve treading on some people's corns. It may cause some unpopularity.

But I give the assurance that before any scheme of this kind is considered there will be consultations with the local planning authorities about the amenity aspects of the scheme. I give the further assurance, in confirmation of what was done by our predecessors, that there will be a full debate in the House on the recommendations of the Council. I would only hope that, in the light of these assurances, hon. Members will allow the Bill to be passed.

Mr. Dean

I am grateful for the assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary has given. Could he say a little more about what the consultations will amount to? Will the normal planning procedure be put into operation in the consultations with the local planning authorities? It would be most helpful if the hon. Gentleman could say a little more on that.

Mr. Swingler

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "the normal planning procedure". We have given the assurance that, if the scheme for which powers are asked in the Bill is recommended by the Council, the Minister of Housing and Local Government will then have consultations with all local authorities concerned to get their views on the amenity aspects, and that will precede a debate in the House on the recommendations of the Council.

The hon. Member's interests are completely safeguarded. First, the local authorities will have the opportunity of expressing their views. There will then be the opportunity in the House to express views on the recommendations of the Council before the Government proceed further.

Mr. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

When the hon. Gentleman refers to a debate in the House on the recommendations of the National Ports Council, does that mean a debate on the affirmative Resolution under Clause 26(2) of the Bill, or a separate occasion altogether?

Mr. Swingler

Assurances have previously been given that there would be a debate on the recommendations of the National Ports Council and I am reaffirming the decision of my predecessors that before any decision is taken there will be a debate in the House on the recommendations of the Council.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) made a carefully reasoned speech in defence of a perfectly legitimate constituency interest and put a number of pertinent points to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in particular the point about the import of crude oil which, perhaps, has come as a surprise to those of us who have taken an interest in this matter and on which my hon. Friend is entitled to at least a comment. Nevertheless, I was surprised particularly at two remarks which my hon. Friend made when he called into question the economic value of this scheme—he said it was of doubtful economic value—and when he questioned the urgency of it.

I believe that the future competitive power of the iron and steel industry is at stake in the Bill to some degree, and that we cannot at this hour, or indeed any other, regard the competitive power of that industry as neither urgent nor of economic value. My original interest in the Bill, as I explained on Second Reading, stemmed from a completely different business complex involving the freight charges on imported iron ore, which struck me as inordinately high. The more I went into it the more convinced I became of the need for deeper ports—at least one if not two in the South Wales area. The reason for this is perfectly plain and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson-Brown) has explained it. Large ore-carriers are absolutely vital because of the lower operating costs at sea and the lower capital cost per ton carried.

Only a decade ago carriers were of the order of 20,000 to 30,000 tons. Now they are 65,000 tons and are rapidly rising to anything up to 100,000 tons in future. The greatest economies are over the longest distances and it is important to realise that the distances over which we are importing ores into this country have increased steadily since 1946.

The largest laden ore-carrier discharged so far is one of 33,000 tons at Tyne Dock. This compares interestingly with carriers operated by our competitors. In Italy there are four ports with a capacity for 45,000 ton carriers. In Germany there is one port of 30,000 tons capacity and one of 40,000 tons. In France there is one of 45,000 tons, in Holland one of 55,000 tons, one of 30,000 tons and one of 45,000 tons, and in Belgium 45,000 ton ore-carriers can discharge. This is a real and important contrast when my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North questions the economic value. An ore-carrier of 23,000 tons is about the limit for Bristol now on all tides, although people there claim that 30,000 tons might be possible on a high tide. This is at a cost of 20s. per ton. If one could get a 60,000-ton carrier there the cost per ton would be reduced to 14s. This seems to me to be a fact of considerable significance to the economy of the whole country.

The position of the Spencer Works is very relevant to this debate. The company gave a Press conference a week or two ago where it was explained that it had expansion plans now which could meet double the demand for the company's present output, but the company could not possibly achieve this unless it could increase its input very considerably. This would not be possible without the advent of large ore-carriers of the type which could come to this jetty in the Bristol Channel.

I should like to put some points on the objections which have been brought forward in Committee, and two in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), because the question of sewage is rather more his constituency interest than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North. There was talk, and I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare who mentioned this, of a model, which was necessary to judge the effect. The corporation produced this in Committee.

I believe that it was as a result of this that it was written into Clause 26 in Part IV of the Bill that … the Company shall in conjunction with the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the borough of Weston-super-Mare … carry out such tests, including the construction and operation of models as may be agreed between the corporation and the Company or in default of agreement as may be determined by the Minister to ascertain what effect (if any) the construction and operation of the authorised works is likely to have … This was a gain for the corporation.

As a result it consulted, together with the consultants to the company, Mr. Allen who produced the original report, about the necessary tests. I think that Mr. Allen said that he did not, first of all, believe that tests would be necessary but that if they were the first step should be a survey generally of the currents and the effect upon sewage at the moment. The cost was reckoned to be between £5,000 and £10,000.

I understand that the corporation then said that it would be unreasonable for it to incur half the cost, which by the Bill it would be required to do, since the Bill might not go through. Subsequently, Richard Thomas & Baldwins offered to defray the entire cost, but despite this there has as yet been no agreement from the corporation that this test should be undertaken. If I am right in what I am saying, I put it seriously to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that the corporation is on rather weak ground in a matter of considerable importance to the country as a whole.

Mr. Webster

I understood that discussions were in train. I did not understand that the corporation had declined to agree. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having clarified that point.

Mr. Hastings

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reception of that information, which I hope is accurate. I understand it to be so, but he will have means of checking it very rapidly after this debate.

We are talking about a jetty 12 miles upstream from the area which it is claimed might be affected. It would be a perfectly reasonable engineering thesis that in order to affect currents of the power involved in this Channel one would have to put massive works down either opposite the beach involved or downstream of it, but 12 miles upstream seems to me, on the face of it, a rather unreasonable worry.

Finally, I should like to echo what the Minister has already said—that what we are considering are alternatives between four separate schemes. We are not pronouncing finally in any way on Bristol Deep. The alternatives were Newport, where the authorities are neither willing nor able to carry out the necessary alterations, Cardiff where we have no real estimate of the cost involved and where there is also opposition to operations there. Port Talbot, for which there has already been enabling legislation and, finally, Bristol Deep, which is the subject of tonight's Bill.

In the general context of the competitive power of the steel industry, which is vital to the country, the House should allow the Bill to go forward so that the National Ports Council at least will have the chance to consider it. That Council was set up by this House in 1963 precisely for this sort of objective and it would be wrong if it was denied the chance to consider the scheme.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Nobody should be surprised that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) should have raised this question. He represents in this House an extremely beautiful part of the country. I happened to pay a visit there in the early days of October for the purpose of ensuring that the hon. Member never got here. Unfortunately, that mission was not successful, but I hope to repeat it in the future.

Certainly anyone representing such a beautiful place as North Somerset would be eager to ensure that every possible precaution was taken to see that its beauty was protected. Therefore, nobody should complain about the hon. Member's making representations, even if they have been made at considerable length by his predecessor. Indeed, after the marathon performance of his predecessor, it would have been regarded as delinquency on the hon. Member's part if he had not come along to say something much more briefly today. We have, therefore, no complaint that the hon. Member has raised the matter.

It is, however, only right that we should be fair also to the company whose Bill is being presented. Suggestions were made in the Second Reading debate that Richard Thomas & Baldwins had in some way behaved improperly, hastily or precipitately. I am very glad that such accusations have not been repeated in this debate, because the company was doing its duty, just as the hon. Member was doing his. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) for what he has said in these matters. What he has said will be well accepted by those who work in Ebbw Vale and even by those who work in what we in Ebbw Vale regard as the minor branch works of the business at Llanwern. They will both be grateful for the fact that their views should also be represented in this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who was Chairman of the Committee, has, however, made it clear that all these questions which have been raised in this debate, and, indeed, all the questions that were raised in Second Reading, have been examined in the utmost minuteness and with the most exhaustive care, not merely by a Select Committee of this House but also previously by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. Therefore, nobody could possibly suggest that this measure is in some way being rushed through without all these questions being taken into account. It is the very opposite procedure to that. We know that in the Committee which has now examined the matter one main Amendment was carried. This has been referred to both by my hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee and by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings).

As I understand the position on the tests that were to be carried out, the position is that since the Clause was inserted in the Bill the Director of the Hydraulics Research Station of the D.S.I.R. has, at the suggestion of the company, met the advisers of the borough council and the company offered to arrange for the immediate carrying out of the preliminary field works in Weston Bay before advising on the tests that he considers appropriate to settle the matter. This was welcomed by the company, which still waits to hear whether the offer has been accepted by the borough council. There, again, it is quite evident that the company—Richard Thomas & Baldwins—was taking every step which it was required to take and which it was prompted to take by the discussions which went on in the Select Committee. In that direction also no complaint can be made against the company.

My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has repeated quite clearly from the Front Bench the assurances which have been given about the consultation which will take place with the councils. He has also repeated again that we are to have a debate in this House on the Report of the National Ports Council. It would be impossible, therefore, to have more safeguards piled one upon another to deal with this situation.

One of the safeguards is a debate of this nature. Therefore, it is quite proper that hon. Members should raise the matter. The matter has, however, been most meticulously examined, and on the question of amenities the evidence should satisfy anybody who looks at it, as the previous spokesman for the Ministry of Transport did on Second Reading. He certainly was not convinced by what was said by hon. Members representing that part of the country that the amenities would be badly affected.

What the former Parliamentary Secretary was able to show with complete conviction in the last debate on this matter was that the facts had been gravely misrepresented in some parts of Somerset and that the newspapers there had portrayed what would happen in the most scarifying terms. What he sought to do in that last debate was to put the matter in proper perspective, but he also said that the matter would be further examined by a whole fresh series of experts. That is what has happened between the last debate on this matter and the present one. Therefore, one could hardly imagine any subject which has been more carefully scrutinised than this has been.

Secondly, no blame whatever attaches to the company in this matter. I am glad that the accusations that were made against the company in the last debate by the previous hon. Member for Somerset, North have not been repeated by the present hon. Member for Somerset, North tonight.

Thirdly, and most important of all, the House of Commons must learn from this procedure. If we are to take as long to deal with all such matters as this as we have had to do with the Bill we can forget anything about the modernisation of Britain. This was a project which was strongly backed by probably the best steel man in the country, Sir Henry Spencer. Whilst he was proceeding with plans for the building of Llanwern, the most up-to-date steelworks in the country, he was also thinking ahead in terms of how he would provide and feed his steel industry with proper imports. That was years ago. Had he had his way, the country, and the whole of South Wales, would have been much better equipped much earlier.

Therefore, we in this House have some responsibility. We have Private Bills and we have this hopeless, archaic procedure. What the company of Richard Thomas & Baldwins has been trying to do in the face of great difficulties and, no doubt, at considerable expense is to overcome many of the delays and obstacles of the procedure and to try to get the Bill through in time, so that if eventually the National Ports Council comes to a decision, and after we have had further debate on the matter, there will not be a long series of months or years of delay afterwards. That is what we are asking for. Therefore, the House of Commons and the Government have some responsibility.

I hope that no hon. Member who dares to vote against the Bill will talk about the modernisation of Britain. I hope that nobody who held up the Bill would talk about his desire to see the steel industry being adventurous. It so happens that the most adventurous part of the steel industry is a publicly-owned section of it. Some of us on this side of the House do not find that surprising. We do not find it surprising that the most up-to-date steelworks in the country is publicly owned or that that company also has led the way in proposing plans for improving the import of steel.

Mr. Hastings

If the hon. Member really believes that, would he like to make comparison between the profits and losses of this company and of the other companies in the industry?

Mr. Foot

Profits and losses are not always the test of which company in an industry is the most efficient.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)

Order. We are getting a long way from the Question.

Mr. Foot

If I may say so, Sir Samuel, you should have thought of that when the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire interrupted. It may be that the word "profits" did not grate on your ears when it came from the other side of the House, as it did when it came from this, although I am not making any charge against your impartiality on those grounds.

However, it is a notable fact that the hon. Gentleman who interrupted and claims to be such an expert about the steel industry has not yet woken up to the fact that the biggest contribution to the steel production of this country—because I cannot mention the word "profits"—is being made by a company which is publicly owned and that that same company has shown great foresight not merely in preparing the plans for this scheme but also in trying to circumvent the appalling, labyrinthine procedure of the House of Commons. Some of those acting for the company who had to go to listen for tedious hours in the House of Lords and tedious hours before the Select Committee, and even the tedious hours we have had here tonight, must be wondering whether in fact the representatives of the people of this country really do want to modernise the country or not.

So I hope that when we carry this Bill tonight we shall do it not with an even larger majority than we had for a proposition last night but with an overwhelming majority so as to make it clear that the House of Commons regards with respect the foresight and enterprise and energy which this company has shown in trying to tackle the nation's problem, and respect for the way in which it has done it.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

One of the unique things about tonight's debate is that we have had harmony between both sides of the steel industry. We have had my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in an axis in full function. It was quite interesting to see this jolly bonhomie between both sides.

Mr. Michael Foot

Take note of it.

Mr. Webster

I should like to express my thanks to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his great courtesy to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) for renewing the assurances which have been very thoroughly gone into tonight by my hon. Friend. I should also give my thanks to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, who also did the same thing although he was a little brusque with us, as we perhaps deserved on Second Reading; but he went to Cleveland and to Portishead to see for himself the situation.

I should also like to express my sincere thanks to the members of the Select Committee and to its Chairman, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who is here and who intervened in the debate. I was grateful to him for that, and also my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). It is thanks to them that there is now Clause 26, which goes a great way to allay the anxieties I expressed on Second Reading and which I do not wish to express at any great length tonight.

I do not thank them for Clause 25. There was, I believe, on Second Reading, a tacit assurance that this was only to be a jetty for the import of iron ore and the materials of the steel works. Now I see that it is for oil and natural gas. This makes a new set of circumstances which make it important that I raise this matter tonight.

I think that the procedure which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale has attacked as the labyrinthine procedure is far better for Private Bills than what we have today under the Harbours Act, to Section 27 of which I moved Amendments, which had a good deal of support from both sides of the Standing Committee on the Bill, concerning the special Parliamentary procedure which is less a safeguard than the Private Bill procedure as it exists today. Under the special Parliamentary procedure we should have 14 days for objecting only, and instead of the Select Committee procedure as we have it now we should have a joint Committee, and the onus of proof would not be on the promotors but on those objecting. So I prefer this procedure and I propose to take the fullest advantage of it.

I am uncertain whether the Instruction passed by this House to the Select Committee made much difference, because that Instruction occurred almost as a photo finish with the decision of the Committee on its findings, but I am certain that I am being utterly consistent in my opposition to the method in which the Bill was brought in, and I plead in aid the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, speaking on another Measure of this nature, regarding Port Talbot, on 28th April, asked, "Is there to be one terminal for the whole of South Wales? Are there to be two? Are there to be three? Is there to be one for each works, or are there to be groupings of two or three?"

These things are very relevant because we have seen slipped into the Bill Amendments which, although I will not say they were unnoticed, perhaps surprised some of my hon. Friends, such as the one about providing for crude oil and natural gas. I think that astonished them. I must not quote further what they said to me privately.

I should like Amendments to make the structure a more solid one and with proper regard for the Severn Estuary. I shall have a great deal to say about that in due course. I expressed some of my anxieties on Second Reading, and, first, as to how the structure would affect the Severn Estuary, where the tidal flow is about eight or nine knots and the rise and fall is of a very considerable height. It is the second highest tidal rise and fall in the whole world, second to that in the Bay of Fundy. This is causing anxiety in Weston-super-Mare, primarily that the current will eventually possibly erode a good deal of our beach. It may be said by some people that we have too big a beach already, but the fear is that it may become too small a beach eventually.

Secondly, the anxiety is that there may be a circular motion of the current which would bring sewage to the beach. Ever since my Second Reading speech, when I talked about this, some Welsh Members called me "Weston sewage". However, if these fears were proved to be substantial it would mean the com- plete ruin of the economy of my constituents, and it is for that reason that it is my duty to raise this matter tonight.

What has happened since Second Reading? The then Parliamentary Secretary said that he believed in the experts. He said that the Minister's view was shared by the leading authorities in the country on these matters. They did not convince the Committee in another place. He went on to say that it was his experience that these experts had a habit of being right. Then Mr. Fisher, leading counsel for the promoters, is recorded on the thirteenth day of the Committee's proceedings—it sounds a bit like the Old Testament, this thirteenth day of business—as talking about the one thing which was agreed by all witnesses was that the work proposed for the jetty was of remarkable stability. This is the unanimous view of the experts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher has disappeared, rather like the drilling rig which they put in this area of remarkable stability. I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. He has now emerged, which is more than the drill ever did.

I was interested to see that after the Second Reading, and while the Bill was under consideration by the Select Committee, the drilling rig took a number of test borings, but not in the area of the Bristol Deeps, where the main head of the jetty was to be, and it is this factor of instability which is my main objection to the Bill.

It was interesting to note that the first time they put a jetty in this area in the Bristol Deeps it began to cause scouring of the sand. The sand was then removed. Two of the legs began to wobble, and that again caused more scouring of the sand until eventually, having dislodged 6 ft. of sand, it went through the soft marl and bent and collapsed. It was done with the most superb timing. Sir Edwin Leather, the then Member for Somerset, North, was not seen for some time, and I thought that he had done a good job of sabotage. It was beautifully timed, and coincided with the Committee saying that it must have a model, and writing in Clause 26, for which I am grateful.

It is said, and it has come out on the Floor of the House today, although I was not given notice of it, that Weston had been obstructive in this matter. If that is so, I shall find out. I met the Town Clerk yesterday. He is a man of remarkable frankness. He said that the company was forthcoming about the experiment. On the other hand, this was the first time that a drilling rig had appeared in the Bristol Deeps, and it was proved that the scouring caused the collapse. Never again was a drilling rig put in the centre of the Deeps.

Mr. Blackburn

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the examination of the witnesses at that time about the rig before he makes comments of that kind.

Mr. Webster

I should like a more considered examination of these witnesses, because I think that I am right in saying that this was done within 48 hours—and certainly no more than three days—of the collapse of the jetty. It was still in such an unsafe condition that no diver could be sent down. I think that we have yet to have evidence that a diver was sent down to examine what had happened, so we are going on the hypothesis of what these experts will prove.

Mr. Blackburn

There is no connection between the size of the rig and the depth to which the pillars for the jetty would be sunk. Therefore, that is not a good example of what might happen.

Mr. Webster

In that case, a smaller rig has had the effect of scouring so much sand away. Heaven help Weston-super-Mare if a more substantial jetty caused deeper scouring and erosion of the Bristol Deeps.

The fact there was never again a drilling rig is about as eloquent as the situation of Sherlock Holmes in the story "Silver Baze", when it is said, "Is there any point to which you wish to draw my attention in the curious incident of the dog in the middle of the night?". The dog did nothing in the middle of the night. That is the curious incident. The drilling rig was never again used. A drilling rig was not employed in the area that we are discussing because of the great doubt that existed.

The second development is the inclusion of crude oil and natural gas. This is very surprising. Many of us were under the impression that this jetty would be used solely for material to be used by the Steel Company of Wales and I think that the inclusion of crude oil and natural gas has surprised even a number of supporters of the Measure.

When one sees the development of greater concentration into the South Wales area, and the development of super tankers—and I see from the newspapers this week that they can be of 200,000 tons, or even 250,000 tons—one realises that this is not just a parochial matter, but a matter which the House of Commons should consider, because, if these developments took place, the Bristol Deeps could be used for only two hours at each peak tide because of the possibility of obstruction of the fairway into the Port of Bristol and the projected port project put forward by the Port of Bristol.

If we are to have oil tankers discharging, we may eventually have a refinery. We welcome this development, and also the possibility of tankers discharging natural gas there, but we think that this is something about which the Committee will want to think further, because it will have a great effect on the main fairway into the Port of Bristol.

This is the main substance of my argument against the Bill. It is not, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale says, that there has been nothing doing since the very thorough review the Bill was given in the Select Committee; on the contrary, there have been developments which have shown quite clearly that the Bill is worthy of rejection, and I hope that the House will join me in seeking to reject it.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth)

I do not wish to delay the House, but it so happens that the steelworks which we are discussing at Llanwern, where the jetty is to be built, is in the centre of my constituency. It is in my capacity as the Member for Monmouth that I wish to make one or two observations. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been made.

The House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) put their cases with complete restraint and balance. No accusations were made against the company, or anything of that kind, and the House appreciated that. The points that my hon. Friends made were quite proper ones for Members representing their constituencies and expressing concern about the amenities of one of the loveliest counties—perhaps second only to Monmouthshire in its beauty. The serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare about the possibility of silting will have to be considered.

But the House has other interests to balance and consider. One is the future of this great steelworks. I shall not enter into questions of ownership, but we can all be proud of this steelworks. It is not only one of the greatest steelworks in this country; it is one of the greatest in Europe. On its efficiency and its ability to turn out steel which is competitive not simply with the steel of other British steelworks but with any steel in the world the modernisation of this country in the future must to some extent depend.

This is not a party matter. We must back the company up in anything which it can do, prudently and carefully, and after full consideration, to ensure that its iron ore, which is its raw material, is imported on competitive terms. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) about that.

It is necessary that urgent action should be taken in this matter. I am not concerned to enter into a debate about the procedures of the House of Commons. It is said that the mills of God grind slowly. I am sure that the House will agree that the rules of our procedure, in allowing us to reach a decision on matters such as this, certainly do not grind very fast. I am not complaining about that. It is right that every point of view should be heard. But no one—and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) knows this—could say that we were rushing a decision in this case. We have gone through the matter with a toothcomb. Every conceivable point has been examined and re-examined.

Even tonight we are not coming to a decision: Heaven forbid! We are not getting anywhere near that. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the most that we are doing is getting to a point at which we are saying, "We could make a decision if we were really forced to, after the various inquiries have been completed". I would remind my hon. Friends that we are not voting on the question whether or not this jetty should be built; all that we are saying is, "If, in due course, we wish to build this jetty, should power be given to do so?" I should have thought that that was an exceedingly modest request. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, "We must modernise". To suggest that we should do all this in six months' time does not indicate that sense of urgency which I feel that my hon. Friends have in their hearts in respect of this matter.

Nevertheless, I know that the points which have been put will be considered in every detail. I am not in any way dismissing the seriousness of those points. All I hope is that the House, when it comes to its conclusion on these matters, will recognise that this Government have repeated in every detail the pledges given by their predecessors about inquiries and the matters which will be inquired into and the tests which have to be carried out. They have not wasted their time. Condition after condition has been built into this. All the considerations will be incorporated in the Bill, and they have been re-emphasised by the Parliamentary Secretary. In those circumstances, I hope very much that the House may get on with this matter and give to this great company the power and authority to which I think it is entitled.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Swingler

If I may have permission to speak again, I wish to respond to what has been said by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). I wish to repeat and to spell out quite clearly the two assurances which we have given and after I have done so, I hope that we may avoid voting on this matter.

We say quite clearly, on the basis of these proposals, that we await the report of the National Ports Council about what is most advisable over development in ports in South Wales. After the recommendations are made we wish to expedite the matter. The second assurance is that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will consult the local authorities concerned on amenity aspects. That assurance we definitely give and it will be carried into effect before there is any debate.

We regard this matter as very important economically for many people and for industry. Hon. Members must take into account the balance of factors. They must consider that we wish to make progress in the matter as soon as we have the recommendations. There has been a long waiting period for a report on this business from those who are technically qualified to give it. We wish to get the Bill on the Statute Book so that, as soon as recommendations are made, we can make progress as rapidly as possible.

We do not wish that progress shall be obstructed, so I implore hon. Members to face the fact that there will be further opportunities for discussing the recommendations and the amenity aspects. In view of what has been said, I hope sincerely that the Bill may be allowed to proceed unopposed.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER having directed that the doors be locked—

Mr. Cyril Bence(seated and covered) (Dunbartonshire, East)

On a point of order. The doors are locked, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)

The order was given to lock the doors.

Mr. Bence(seated and covered)

On a point of order. My recollection is that the clearing of the Lobbies was declared about thirteen minutes to nine. It is now ten minutes to nine. It therefore appears to me—and I was watching the clock—that we were given only a maximum of three minutes to enter the Lobby.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is right. There has been a mistake in the clock on the Table. I will, therefore, put the Question again.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 5.

Division No. 46.]	AYES	[8.50 p.m.
Armstrong, Ernest	Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)	Orme, Stanley
Atkinson, Norman	Harper, Joseph	Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Hatteraley, Roy	Pavitt, Laurence
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hayman, F. H.	Pentland, Norman
Barlow, Sir John	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Prentice, R. E.
Bence, Cyril	Holman, Percy	Probert, Arthur
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Hooson, H. E.	Rees, Merlyn
Bessell, Peter	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Reynolds, G. W.
Bishop, E. S.	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blackburn, F.	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hoy, James	Robson Brown, Sir William
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Bradley, Tom	Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Rowland, Christopher
Buchanan, Richard	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Carter-jones, Lewis	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Cronin, John	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Silkin, John (Deptford)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.	Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Dalyell, Tam	Kelley, Richard	Silverman, Sydney (Neison)
Dodds, Norman	Kenyon, Clifford	Skeffington, Arthur
Doig, Peter	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Solomons, Henry
Ensor, David	King, Eveiyn (Dorset, S.)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)	Ledger, Ron	Stones, William
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lubbock, Eric	Swingler, Stephen
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	MacColl, James	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	MacDermot, Niall	Thornton, Ernest
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)	Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)	Tinn, James
Gammans, Lady	Manuel, Archie	Tuck, Raphael
Garrett, W. E.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Gower, Raymond	Millan, Bruce	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Grey, Charles	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Murray, Albert	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)	Neal, Harold	Woof, Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Newens, Stan
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Norwood, Christopher	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hale, Leslie	O'Malley, Brian	Mr. Michael Foot and
		Mr. James Johnson.
NOES
Box, Donald	Hunt, John (Bromley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)	Mr. Dean and Mr. Webster.
Goodhart, Philip

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.