HC Deb 05 July 1966 vol 731 cc331-47

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

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

The Bill is promoted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which is a public trust owning and controlling the Port of Liverpool. In the Bill the Board asks Parliament for certain powers to carry out what I can describe without exaggeration as the biggest and the most exciting and enterprising dock construction scheme in England in this century. I am humbly proud to represent the constituency in which this is happening. I am unrepentant that perhaps some objections which I have to the contents of the Bill have resulted in the facts of this scheme being brought on to the Floor of the House instead of being tucked away in a Committee upstairs. It is a project of immense national importance to our external trade.

I will sketch the background to the Bill and to the project set out therein. There are on the Liverpool Docks and within the Port of Liverpool 37 miles of quay in the 2,700 acres of the Port of Liverpool. In the 171 foreign berths, 43 coastwise berths and three petroleum berths there are two major inadequacies. "Inadequacies" is perhaps a mild word. It might be more apt to describe them as defects or strangleholds to development of the docks and of trade across the docks as it is envisaged in the next 10, 20 or, indeed, 50 years. The two major defects are, first, the lack of deep water berths—that is, berths—over 35 ft. in depth—and secondly, the narrow Victorian construction of the rail-served berths of the Port of Liverpool.

To overcome these defects the Board first envisaged a scheme which would have cost £65 million and would have provided 30 new deep water berths. That scheme would have been carried out over quite an extensive area to the north of Gladstone Dock, which, as hon. Members who know the Port of Liverpool will know, is the northernmost dock on the Liverpool side of the Mersey. That scheme of 30 new berths at a cost of £65 million would have bitten deeply into a pleasant and picturesque residential area of my constituency along what might be called the Waterloo Front. That full scheme may well come into operation at some future time, but that is not the scheme which is put before Parliament in the Bill.

The present scheme is likely to cost £36 million and to provide 14 deep water berths with wide areas of working space. On about 300 acres of land and foreshore at Seaforth just north of the Gladstone Dock and built out into the Mersey will be these 14 deep water berths having a depth of about 42 ft. and being able to take ships up to 650 to 800 ft. in length and of from 60,000 to 70,000 tons. These 14 deep water berths will be divided into two bulk cargo berths and 12 general cargo berths.

The need for this is clearly shown by just one simple statistic. I do not want to give many figures which it is not easy to memorise. The dry cargo in the Port of Liverpool has increased by nearly 100 per cent. during the last 15 years and is expected to increase by another 100 per cent. in the next 15 years, so I think that the need for an extensive scheme of this sort has been clearly proved and its national importance is shown by the past increase in trade and the expected increase in trade. Right hon. and hon. Members can appreciate that such a massive scheme of development cannot be executed without disturbance to the neighbourhood. About 300 acres are to be taken to build the dock buildings on the land. The piers of the docks them-selves will stretch out into the Mersey by about 3,500 ft.

In this respect the scheme differs from the normal development scheme which public authorities, local or otherwise, bring before the House in Private Bills. It is not just a simple development scheme of a corporation which wishes to develop a small area within its jurisdiction. These are docks comprised of slanting piers out into the Mersey, piers giving about 70 ft. quay margins, which will slant towards the north-west. The bunding wall will be about 3,500 ft. from the land. Slanting at that angle the piers will overshadow the residential front for a considerable distance and will damage the character of the residential area for a considerable distance along that front.

This is not easy to explain without a blackboard and a piece of chalk. I ask hon. Members to imagine the shore as running north and south. The docks will not protrude out from the shore at right angles from east to west, but will point towards the north-west, causing a sort of V-shaped overshadowing of part of the residential area. To the east of that coastline, on the land, there is a large rectangular area which will be used for the dock buildings and the dock installations behind the docks themselves.

The Board owns most of the land, so there will not be any very extensive compulsory purchase. But there will be an extensive effect on the property in the neighbourhood which is not compulsorily purchased. For the acquisition of the land, the Bill has certain of the normal provisions. Clause 3 introduces provisions for both acquisition and compensation under the Land Clauses Act.

Clause 5 states the land which may be acquired by the Board. It says: Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may enter upon, take and use such parts of the bed, banks and shores of the river Mersey and of the sea and such of the lands in the borough of Crosby in the county and in the borough as are delineated on the deposited plan and described in the deposited book of reference as may be required for the purpose of the works authorised by this Act … and for the reclamation of land in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Later, the works are set out for the purpose of which land can be acquired. Compensation for damage done during the execution of the works and from the act of carrying out the works is provided in Clause 16, subsection (1) of which sets out the works to be carried out.

Clause 19(3) provides that In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section the Board shall cause as little detriment, and inconvenience as the circumstances permit to any person and shall make reasonable compensation for any damage caused by the exercise of such powers. So any of the neighbouring properties that suffer injury while the works are being carried out are properly protected by that Clause.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

Am I right in thinking that Clause 19(3) is confined to the subsidiary works? There is no parallel protection, so far as one can see, regarding the main works described in Clause 16.

Mr. Graham Page

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. I was perhaps concertinaing—if that is a good word—my remarks, because I have been unable to discover the difference between carrying out main works and the subsidiary works, which seem to include all those things which might damage adjoining property in the carrying out of building docks and installations and so on. It is true that Clause 19(3) relates to subsidiary work, but I think that it would cover damage caused to neighbouring property through the building of the docks and the erection of buildings on the dockside, and so on. This, then, deals with the owners whose property is taken in compulsory purchase powers. The Land Clauses Acts deal with this aspect and gives compensation. Clause 19 deals with those injured during the execution of the works.

Clause 8 deals with the acquisition of part only of certain properties: No person shall he required to sell a part only of any house, building or factory, or of a park or garden belonging to a house, if he is willing and able to sell the whole of the house, building, factory, park or garden unless the tribunal determines—

  1. (a) in the case of a house, building or factory, that such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without material detriment to the house, building or factory; or
  2. (b) in the case of a park or garden, that such part as is proposed to be taken can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house to which it belongs."
It means that, if the Board requires only a part of a person's property and the rest of the property left in his hands is damaged or deteriorates in value or is deprived of amenity or convenience, he is entitled to claim compensation. But many owners retaining all their land adjacent to the dock development will lose perhaps a great deal more than the man who has had part of his land taken away from him. I do not think that, as against the Board, I really need argue this with any great force because the Board itself has recognised the principle. When the Bill came before a Committee in another place, the Board gave an undertaking to certain adjacent owners, to a body calling itself the Crosby Residents' Association.

I assure the Minister that I hold no brief for this body. In fact, I have suffered severely at its hands for supporting the Bill. I had to face a meeting in my constituency of about 500 of my staunchest supporters in the ordinary way. I supported this project and I only escaped through the back door with my life I think. I have never had such a violent meeting in what is usually a very peaceful constituency. Nevertheless, I hope to support the Association not in its opposition to the Seaforth works project, but in its desire to obtain a fair deal for the residents adjacent to the development.

The Board also recognises this because it has given an undertaking that, on the roads bordering the dock area, it will give notice to the owners of these properties when it intends to start work and the owners may then give a counter-notice to the Board requiring it to purchase their property. The undertaking relates to two sides of a rectangle which will form the working part of the docks. This area is now a pleasant part called Potter's Bar and is bounded on two sides by dwelling-houses, on the third side by the existing docks and on the fourth side by the Mersey.

In respect of the houses bordering it on two sides and which are outside the area to be acquired for the purpose of the scheme by the Board, the Board has nevertheless given the undertaking that, if an owner of these houses feels that he is injured by the dock development, he will be entitled to serve on the Board a notice and it will purchase him out. I always prefer undertakings of this sort to be embodied in a Bill. I would much rather see this one plainly stated in the Bill as part of the powers of the acquiring authority. But even if it were in the Bill in that form, I think that these powers would stop short of the implementation of a principle obviously recognised in this undertaking.

If it is accepted that something ought to be done to relieve the hardship of those who suffer a loss by a project of this sort, it is surely quite illogical to restrict it to those who merely face the land where the project is to be carried out, who are on the road adjoining it, and to refuse it to those who in this case will suffer damage by the docks themselves slanting out into the river in front of their properties.

The undertaking does not give the Board any alternative whether to pay compensation for the loss or damage suffered by those residents, or to buy them out. The undertaking obliges the Board to buy them out. I would have thought that the right thing to do was to include in the Bill some provision that any of those whose property is damaged by this development should have the same right as the man who has part of his property taken from him and receives compensation for the damage done to the remainder of his property, but that their genuineness in this should be tested by the Board being allowed to say that, instead of paying compensation, it will buy them out.

If the owner, having given notice that his property had deteriorated in value, had claimed compensation and then had had the reply from the Board to say that it would not pay compensation, but would buy him out, he should be entitled to withdraw his claim and remain as he was. This would be fair to both sides. I would have thought that it was right to put a straightforward provision of that sort into the Bill for compensation for what is well known in law as material detriment to property.

It is no answer to say that this has never been done before. A project of this sort has never been done before. It is quite an exceptional project and it needs exceptional treatment, both from the point of view of the authority carrying it out, and the individuals who are affected by it. Every year, we have public authorities acquiring new powers in Private Acts. I recollect that only last year the City of London came to the House with an entirely new proposition for making owners of adjoining streets into criminals for the acts of other people. We were promised then that that particular new law for the City of London was quite exceptional and would remain to only the City of London. This year, the Greater London Council included it in its Bill and has been given the power.

This sort of thing has happened again and again. Many local authorities are proud of being pilots for schemes of this sort for trying out a new law for the benefit of their communities. Perhaps in this case we can try this out as a pilot for the individual's rights, as so frequently we are asked to try them out for the rights of public authorities.

Because of Clause 8 recognising a principle, but only partially recognising it, and because of the undertaking which recognises a principle, but only partially recognises it, I hope that the promoters will see that an appropriate Clause to this effect is included in the Bill.

There is another matter which should be included. In this, I refer to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Statement of the Promoters, which, no doubt, hon. Members will have seen in their post this morning or yesterday. In paragraph 3 the promoters describe the works and the phasing of the works and go on in paragraph 4 to say: The promoters are satisfied that these new works are required as a matter of urgency to meet the requirements of the trade of the Port of Liverpool. This view is fully supported by the National Ports Council who in their Interim Plan for Port Development published in July, 1965, in referring to the proposed works, stated at page 75 that they will be required as soon as they can be built and that the work on them should be treated as a matter of urgency. They went on to express their alarm that the berths of the first phase were not expected to be in use before 1971 and that, as contemplated at that time, those in the second phase would not be completed until 1975. They added the works should be completed sooner if possible.' I imagine that on that encouragement the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board will try to get on with the work as quickly as possible, and from the point of view of the work being done, I hope that it will.

But that means it will use its power to expedite entry under Clause 9. This allows it to enter land at very short notice and to take possession; in short, to evict the owner of that land. But if the compensation is not at that time agreed, the Board has no power to pay it. If, for example, the owner is convinced that what he is being offered by way of compensation for the compulsory purchase of his property is not a good enough figure, he is entitled to have that tried by the Lands Tribunal. But it will take his a very long time to get his case before the Lands Tribunal. The Board will not wait for that, because it will want to get on with the job and it will use its powers to enter.

The individual may be turned out of his home, perhaps without the resources to buy another. He may be turned out of his business without the resources to acquire another business. The Minister has heard me put this argument upstairs on more than one occasion, but it applies particularly to these provisions. Here is an authority coming forward and asking for special powers to carry out a special project. It is recognised that people will be injured through this project being carried out, but it is a project for the benefit of the community. If it is to be carried out quickly, there will undoubtedly be cases when it is impossible to agree the compensation at the moment when the Board will have to enter to carry out this development work.

The Ministry of Transport has a rule that in such cases the Minister may pay to the owner 90 per cent. of the district valuer's valuation and leave the rest to be argued out before the Lands Tribunal. Payment is without prejudice and the owner fighting it at the Lands Tribunal may have to pay back some of that 90 per cent. But it enables the owner to acquire other property if he is displaced and it enables the public authority to enter into property without feeling that it is causing grave hardship to some individual if it can provide him with funds to rehabilitate himself in a home or business elsewhere.

I would have thought this would be a right provision to put into the Bill, having regard to what is said in the promoters' statement when they say that they want to get on with the job and do it quickly. A disputed claim for compensation will not be settled in the three years within which the Board wants to take its powers under the Bill. If it is disputed, it will take a long time to be settled before the Lands Tribunal. I would hope that the Board might be permitted to advance at least 90 per cent. of what it would regard as the compensation to which the man would eventually be entitled.

I am grateful to the House for bearing with me for this length of time. To us on Merseyside this is a vitally important project. Wt hope that it will go forward as quickly as possible in the national interest, for the benefit of the local communities, and for the benefit of the Port of Liverpool and the City of Liverpool. But in carrying out this project, I hope it will be seen that protection is given to the individual who might suffer hardship from being deprived of his property.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for bringing to its attention the problem of compensation. As the House knows, he is an expert on local authority legislation, on their powers and how they should be used. Naturally I agree very much with what he has said about the greatness of the port of Liverpool. Colleagues on both sides of the House would agree that it is not only the port of Liverpool, but the port of Birkenhead, Wallasey, Crosby and Bootle, and I hope to see the day when it will be the port of Greater Merseyside. But that is quite another matter. Many of us had the privilege of being guests of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on a lovely autumn day and being taken aboard the Dock Board yacht to be shown the site of the new dock.

Quite rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has referred on many occasions to this great development, but I regret that technically at least he wants to put it back by at least six months. Of course we all have sympathy with many of his constituents. I have the privilege of living in Liverpool and my house has the most lovely view across the Mersey. I would object if the town clerk of the Corporation of Liverpool planned to build something which deprived me of my view.

Whatever might be said, I do not believe that a Private Bill of this kind is the right measure to use for changing the general law of compensation in Britain. We must all agree that no one has any legal right in either a view or a property which is affected by what may happen to contiguous properties. One knows what might be the feelings of those who live immediately under, say, the Hammersmith flyover. One has great sympathy with those who have lived, as my hon. Friend's constituents have done, in a charming part of Merseyside, looking across the wide sweep of the Mersey and knowing that in a few years' time that view, the delight of their children and friends, will be changed substantially.

But it would be changed for the betterment of the people of Merseyside and of Crosby. I do not believe that one can change the general law. For instance, if there is a by-pass around a city or a small village, is my hon. Friend wishing to compensate the shops whose trade will diminish and the petrol stations which may no longer serve passing motorists because of the by-pass? Laws have to be changed in due course, but this is so fundamental that I cannot believe that it is right to change it in a Bill of this kind.

It would be grossly unfair upon other citizens of Merseyside and of Crosby who may not be allowed compensation under other legislation while some would be allowed compensation if the House were to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend. Since 1906 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has held powers to develop the estate into Crosby up to the Cambridge Road area. Anyone who has bought a house in that area in the last sixty years had only to look at the town map to be aware of the ultimate plans of the Board.

My hon. Friend referred to further developments north. I have no doubt that, as the Dock Board has already shown great understanding for the needs of his constituents who wish to conserve their property, when this addition is made those living on the Esplanade or Marine Crescent or any of the other delightful roads of Crosby will be considered. The Crosby Residents' Association has already made its complaints and the Board has agreed to consider any representations made by the Association about the appearance of the northerly portion of the work.

After the consultations and discussions between the residents and the Board, I have no doubt that the view may be bettered by agreement between the two parties. The Board has also said that a limited number of properties on the northerly side site, that is the northerly side of Crosby Road South and in Cambridge Road, will or could be purchased. The Board is prepared to purchase them at an agreed price. I take the view that on this development the valuation of the property is much more likely to go up in the years to come than to go down. The Board has said that it is prepared to pay a price which the owners would have received before the announcement of the proposals. I hope that the House will bear in mind that the only owners of property to be acquired by the Board are the Crosby Corporation, British Railways, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster other than those whom I have already mentioned and whose property could be sold by private agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to see a fair deal for his constituents, although I am not at all sure that it would be possible to provide compensation of 90 per cent. of any purchase price paid according to the custom rather than the rule of the Ministry of Transport.

I should like to quote part of a letter which I have received from the Chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which says that the Board may be expected to acquire the land they need immediately but there will, in fact, be very few, if any, cases in which a reference to the Lands Tribunal is at all likely to be necessary. It goes on to say that the Board would give sympathetic consideration to any application by the owner of land which they are proposing to acquire for payment of a substantial proportion of the Board's own valuation of the land—either on taking possession or in a case of hardship even prior to taking possession. I hope that that will satisfy the National Federation of Property Owners, which has written to many hon. Members, and the House. I believe that it is academic to put into a Bill of this kind a Clause mentioning compensation of 90 per cent. or a change in the general law.

Mr. Graham Page

My hon. Friend said that the Board would be prepared to pay a "substantial proportion" of its valuation of the lands. Would he enlighten us a little more about the phrase "substantial proportion"? It would then be easier to judge the value of the Board's undertaking.

Mr. Tilney

The Board, like the Corporation of Liverpool, is made up of eminent citizens in their directorate. I believe that it will treat my hon. Friend's constituents fairly and that, on a valuation, it would be prepared to pay a reasonable sum. Obviously it cannot say that it will pay 90 per cent. because a small property may be involved and the extra 10 per cent. might be swallowed up in expenses. But I am virtually sure that it would more than meet any average commonsense suggestion about price by my hon. Friend.

7.53 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey)

I hasten to intervene to provide reconciliation between the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). I am sure that, because of the cogency and lucidity of the case which he advanced for the Bill, the hon. Member for Crosby does not intend to press his Amendment. He has taken the opportunity to raise two substantial points. In the context in which he has raised them, he can rest assured that there will be no harshness or injustice. There has been reference to the assurances, and I am sure that the Crosby Residents' Association will be well content with them.

The hon. Member for Crosby has taken this opportunity to argue the case for altering the law. I can only briefly repeat what the hon. Member for Wavertree has said, equally effectively. I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby recognises that there is always a reluctance to change the general law by private bill legislation. There is a particular reluctance, when dealing with compensation because, as the hon. Member said, this would cause inequities between adjoining land owners, and we are always anxious to avoid it. It would be very difficult to justify that in equity. But, apart from that, while we are obliged to the hon. Member for Crosby for opening the discussion, he will recognise that this is a matter to which we have to give much thought before changing the law.

There is the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman raised that this is a very wide concept. He talked about the character of the area. He mentioned the illustration of a bypass of a village or town. It would be difficult to conceive of any public or, for that matter, private development which might not have some adverse effects on somebody's property.

The other point which the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned concerned what I might describe as "enhancement". As he is well aware, we are not discussing betterment. I have used a different word. We are concerned not with development value but with current use value. I am not saying this to discourage the hon. Gentleman. He has served a purpose in calling attention to this. All I have done is to say that before we even accepted his case that the general law should be altered we should have to pursue the matter further.

We have elsewhere discussed the second question which the hon. Member for Crosby raised about compensation of 90 per cent. In view of what the hon. Member for Wavertree said, I would emphasise that there would be no injustice in accepting the assurance which he gave that this matter is largely academic. We are mainly concerned with the land held by the Crosby Corporation and the Duchy of Lancaster. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the experience of the Ministry of Transport. It was that experience which led me to the view that we should allow the vesting procedure for the Land Commission. But the difficulty in the proposal which the hon. Gentleman has made lies in reducing this to a statutory form. We should certainly have to look at this more carefully before we altered the general law.

The hon. Gentleman has raised two specific points on the law of compulsory purchase. These are matters which should be considered. I know his particular interest in the law of compulsory purchase. If he thinks that he has other matters which he should draw to our attention, I would welcome his doing so. But we cannot effectively deal with these matters in private bill legislation. If there is a case for a revision or review of the law of compulsory purchase, let us do it generally. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the two points which he has raised will be seriously considered by the Government.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

It was because of the failure of the general law on compulsory acquisition that I put my name to one of these Instructions. Far be it from me to intervene in matters concerning the Mersey, but it has been my experience that considerable hardship has been caused by compulsory acquisition all over the country and certainly in the Midlands.

Having listened to part of the debate—and I apologise for coming into the Chamber late—I should have thought that we should not allow a Bill such as this to go through without amendment, as is suggested, if it were against the general law. If the general law has been found to be faulty, we should ensure that no other Acts were passed which perpetuated the fault.

As I have said before, there is considerable hardship on many people who have their land compulsorily acquired. Very often they have to wait years for the cash to find alternative accommodation. It is dreadful to think that some of these people may have their land acquired, entered upon and their property taken over without having the money with which to provide other accommodation.

As I see it, it is within the competence of the House to do something about it, although it is against the general law. In a case like this, it does not look to me that the House must be controlled by Acts of Parliament which it has passed on other matters. I would have thought that it was within the competence of the House to put it right so far as other Acts are concerned. If there is not to be any change of the general legislation and no Government come along with such suggestions, I hope that we shall see to it that there is a fairer deal for people who have to lose their land.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I have no wish to trespass into Merseyside, but, as an hon. Member representing a constituency on Severnside, I have views and a few thoughts which I would like to give to the House.

May I say, first, that I hope very much that the interest of my hon. Friends the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) will be reconciled. No two hon. Members have striven harder to achieve local progress in their area and to see fair play and proper compensation.

What I am now going to say may be cold comfort to them. In looking at the great clock undertaking which Merseyside wants so badly, I hope that some lessons can be learned from the way in which the Port of Bristol has tried to achieve its undertaking at Portbury, near Bristol. In my view, it went the slightly better way round and acquired the land first, and it is only the present Government who have frustrated its efforts. It may be that in looking for new schemes in the future, and perhaps even to resolve some of the difficulties in the present scheme, the authorities in my hon. 'Friends' area will be able to acquire the land and go ahead with its works, but the present Government may frustrate even that.

I conclude by wishing my hon. Friends well in their efforts. I hope that the Government will get on with both schemes, particularly the Portbury scheme, near Bristol.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I do not wish to detain the House very long, and I hope that no one else will. ft is unfortunate that the Bill has been held up as long as it has.

Mr. Graham Page

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that by putting down the Motion on the Order Paper the Bill has not been delayed one moment in its next stage.

Mr. Heffer

That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Graham Page

It is not.

Mr. Heffer

We have had two speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite support-mg the Amendment. We have also had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) with which I agree entirely. He has put the case admirably. But we have heard contradictory speeches. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said that the position is quite exceptionable and that he is arguing purely from an exceptional point of view. He says that it is quite different from anywhere else, and he bases that on the argument that part of the new dock will be slanting out into the river. That is his case.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) said that he was arguing for people all over the country who were affected by the development. Well, either it is an exceptional case or we are arguing a general principle. I believe that the hon. Member for Crosby is arguing a general principle and is using the Bill to try to introduce something that he wants to see brought in as a new law. If that is so, I go a long way with him. I, too, am concerned about the small people who are affected by redevelopment. I want to see them get a square deal. Every hon. Member has these problems in his constituency and knows of people who are affected by redevelopment and need some assistance.

If we look at the exceptional circumstances and not the general principle, let us see precisely what the exceptional circumstances are. A new dock is being built in the Port of Liverpool. It needs a large wharf going round the dock. There are large wharves round all the docks there now. It is only an extension of the dock. There is nothing exceptional about it except that I hope that perhaps it will be a little more beautiful architecturally than docks we have had in the past. If it is to be exceptional, I hope that it will be exceptional in that direction.

There is nothing new about the building of a dock. Docks are being built all over the world. Wherever a new building is put up, someone is affected. In my own constituency, an extension has been put on to a factory called Reads, which is part of Courtaulds. It could be argued that that is exceptional, because people living nearby can hardly sleep at night. There is also a new bakery being built in my constituency. People affected by that kind of thing have an important case, but it cannot be legislated for in the Bill, as my right hon. Friend has made perfectly clear.

I would appeal to the hon. Member for Crosby not to push the matter further and make this the occasion to introduce something which is of national concern into a Measure which is concerned only with Merseyside.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for the dock being well understood by all hon. Members from Merseyside. I hope that that goes for the whole country. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) tried to make a party point, and, accordingly, I feel that I am entitled to do the same. We in the Labour Party have argued for the dock for many years. It has been before the Liverpool City Council. Reference has been made to it in our manifestoes. We believe in it, and it is what we want.

I understand that the Conservatives have argued for it as well. Everyone in Liverpool is for it—Conservatives, Liberals and members of the Labour Party. I ask the hon. Member for Crosby not to push the matter further and enable us to get it through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Graham Page

Having regard to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech on a Second Reading debate, unless, of course, he wishes to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is what I hope the House will permit me to do. However, I think that I am in order in saying why I wish to ask for a certain course to be taken.

Having regard to the very encouraging statements of the right hon. Gentleman that the principle which I have enunciated might well become the law of the land, although I still think that my constituents are entitled to special preference, and having regard to the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I think that I would be correct in asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment to postpone the Second Reading for six months.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Graham Page, I take it that you do not wish to move your Instruction.

Mr. Graham Page

indicated assent.