HUMBER HARBOUR REORGANISATION SCHEME

HC Deb 13 February 1968 vol 758 cc1273-303

10.0 p m

Commander Harry Pursey (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I beg to move, That the Petitions of General Objection of:

1. (1) the Humber Conservancy Board, and
2. (2) the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom

against the Order be not referred to a Joint Committee. In moving this Motion, I am supported by my two Parliamentary colleagues, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) is also present, though I do not know his attitude. He has not informed me. Goole, however, has no objection, so there is no Goole case. He may have fallen for the brief of big business and vested interests. If so, he will be making a vain attempt to delay the early implementation—

Mr. George Jeger (Goole)

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for my hon. Friend to impute motives when I have not informed him whether I am for or against his Motion?

Mr. Speaker

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would come to the subject that he is proposing to talk about.

Commander Pursey

I shall forthwith state my qualifications in view of what I have to say. I served in the Royal Navy for 30 years and have a Board of Trade Master's Certificate. I have been the M.P. for Kingston upon Hull, East for 22 years, with the main docks of Britain's third port in my constituency, and I am well acquainted with the administration of both the docks and the river. I also served on the Committee on the Harbours Bill.

This Harbour Reorganisation Scheme has for its main objects the transfer of the undertaking of the Humber Conservancy Board and, I emphasise, its officers and servants to the British Transport Docks Board, the dissolution of the Conservancy Board and the formation of the Humber Local Board.

The scheme was opposed by some 20 objectors and an 8 days public inquiry was held in Hull in March/April last year. The other 18 objectors have either been satisfied with the modifications or ceased to pursue their objections. The Inspector who conducted the inquiry, on 17th May, 1967, reported in favour of the Scheme, with modifications, and the Minister, having made modifications, confirmed the Scheme on 3rd November, 1967.

Both petitioners now agree with the principle of unification and with the Docks Board being the estuarial authority; but, despite the Minister's detailed answers in the confirmation letter, they still belatedly argue for a port trust scheme, which cannot legally be set up, and a Local Board with executive power, which is impracticable.

There is little or nothing new in either petition—I have asked both petitioners in writing if there is—so all the matters raised have long been water over the dam.

There are no Amendments proposed to the Scheme and, therefore, no reason for a Joint Committee. The petitions are simply a Fabian Society Sunday School debate.

As the Scheme is one of Government policy it is eminently suited for public debate in this House and report in HANSARD, rather than that lawyers should go on wasting time and money before a Joint Committee, when the result is a foregone conclusion, because M.P.s can deal with the facts and the merit and the Minister responsible can deal with Government policy. I have no wish—

Mr. Michael Shaw (Scarborough and Whitby)

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this Order was in furtherance of Government policy. Yet if we look at the Government White Paper we see that the regional port authorities will in future have a wide measure of independence. The one thing that is not given to the Local Board under this Scheme is a wide measure of local independence.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope we will not have too many interventions. This debate can last only for an hour and a half and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Commander Pursey

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself and let me get on with my speech in my own way and in the sequence in which these points arise in the petitions, he will find that I will deal with that point adequately. As the Scheme is one of Government policy, it is eminently suited for public debate in this House and report in HANSARD, rather than that lawyers should go on wasting time and money before a Joint Committee, when the result is a foregone conclusion.—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is a foregone conclusion because it is Government policy.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

Oh.

Commander Pursey

Wait for it. Members of Parliament can deal with the facts and the merit, and the Minister who is responsible can deal with Government policy.

I have no wish to precipitate a clash between this honourable House and the legal profession, but it is high time that some Member spoke up about the nonsense in these petitions. It would appear that both solicitors and counsel consider that if they can fill up half a dozen sheets of foolscap paper with nonsense and irrelevancies and then plead that the petitioners "will be injuriously affected", when there is no injury, they will be able further to frustrate and delay the processes of Government simply to provide fees and expenses for lawyers.

This House should give serious consideration to allbona fidepetitions, and particularly so if the petitions are to be opposed and the petitioners denied the right to carry their case a stage further. Moreover, these are, I believe, the first petitions under the Harbours Act, and tonight case law will be started. On the other hand, petitioners, and especially their legal advisers, should realise that this House will give short shrift to largely bogus petitions which in fact and on merit should never have been presented. Twaddle wrapped up in lawyers' flannel remains twaddle.

Both these petitions are misconceived, incorrect in parts, irrelevant in others, largely nonsense, and contain no real or sufficient merit either for the argument for amendment or delay of this important harbour reorganisation scheme. Consequently, they should never have been presented to Parliament.

In fact, these petitions could well be used in a law school as an example of how not to draft Parliamentary petitions. There may be a model petition which lawyers regularly use. If so, it is due for drastic revision to provide sense rather than nonsense.

The standard of legal work for this honourable House should not be lower than for the High Court. I know little of the discipline of lawyers, but I assume that if such illogical petitions as these had been presented in the High Court they would probably have been thrown out, and both petitions referred to the disciplinary bodies of the Law Society and the Bar Council. Such action may well be taken with these two petitions. The names of the firms of solicitors are known, as they appear on the petitions. The names of counsel who acted at the inquiry are known, because these are in the Report, but I could do an injustice by mentioning them, as they may not have advised on these petitions.

I will now analyse the petition of that august body the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. The first 11 paragraphs of their 21 are largely preamble, are not in dispute and may be ignored. That is one-half of the petition scrubbed out. Paragraph 10 states that their members "would be injuriously affected by the Order", but this argument is not substantiated. It is nonsense. On the day after unification, the staffs of both Docks Board and Conservancy Board will be doing precisely the same jobs as the day before, so what injury can there be?

Paragraphs 12, 13, 15, 16 and 19—that is another quarter—argue, in a confused way, for the port trust system which I demolished earlier. In paragraph 12, the Chamber of Shipping welcomes unification of port authority, conservancy and pilotage functions, approves the principle of the Scheme, but states that its main objection is the minor point that the port users will have no real participation in its administration—

Sir D. Glover

Hear hear.

Commander Pursey

This is complete nonsense, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman who is "Hear, hearing". A shipowner is a member of 'the main British Transport Docks Board and the Hull Chamber of Shipping will appoint three members of the local board, so the Chamber's main objection, which is not the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw), completely lacks both fact and merit and falls to the ground.

Paragraph 14 is entirely irrelevant to the Scheme, as it is a general discussion of port facilities with no reference to Hull or objection to the Scheme. Apparently, neither the Chamber of Shipping nor its legal advisers has heard of the British Transport Docks Board's major developments, in particular those on the Humber. These include a major extension of several major ship berths as well as roll-on roll-off berths in Hull docks and deep water river berths for the larger ships at Immingham.

In paragraph 18, the Chamber of Shipping states that the Docks Board is administered from London and argues that a e principal unit for administering the River Humber and ports should be one not remote from the area. The principal unit for administration is in fact not remote but at Hull. These ports are and will continue to be controlled by the Chief Docks Manager, Hull, with a greater autonomy, as I know personally, than in the bad old pre-nationalisation days of the London and North-Eastern Railway, when firm control was not at Hull but at York.

Would the Chamber of Shipping, and particularly its legal advisers, argue that the day-to-day operations of Portsmouth Dockyard are administered by the Admiralty? In paragraph 20, the Chamber argues that, in view of the Government's policy on public ownership of the ports by 1st January, 1970, it would be wrong to sanction this Scheme. The Minister, who is the best authority, has decided that the Scheme fits in with the Government's policy statements and that it will be beneficial to Humber development.

The Chamber of Shipping and the Conservancy Board both tried to play up the position of the then Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board when he suggested, in December, 1966, that the Scheme should be held back and adopted a neutral attitude. The short answer is that the Chairman is now Chairman of the National Parts Council and responsible for this Scheme. So this paragraph, like others, is simply water over the dam. The result of this analysis of the Chamber's petition is that no substantial case, either in fact or on merit, is made for amendment or delay of the scheme as the crux of its case is no more than a complaint that it will have no voice in administration which, unless by "voice" is meant "control", is complete nonsense.

I now pass to the question of the dissolution of the Conservancy Board and whether its existence ought to be further prolonged to the disadvantage of the River Humber and the four ports. For some 60 years this Board has neglected the development of the Humber, never carried out a basic survey of the river, and most of the soundings have been done because of pilots complaining of shoaling. For years all the buoys had the same timing flash, both red and white, and no spare buoys were available when required. Until recent years there was no proper communications system between pilot cutters and ships and the shore for docking. and the Board has had no model of the river.

One reason is that the Board has always been short of money and has never had any worthwhile development capital. The result is that this Conservancy Board has been, and still is, the most inefficient of those concerned with the major ports. I take strong objection to the Board, unknown to me as the Member of Parliament, canvassing inland constituency Members of Parliament—including miners' M.P.s—to deal with the Humber and to oppose this Motion, which is a constituency matter for me and my two Hull colleagues, and no business of these landlubbers with no knowledge—

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

Will the hon. and gallant Member give way?

Commander Pursey

Let me finish the sentence so that we get it on the record correctly—no business of these landlubbers with no knowledge of the river or of the facts or merit.

Mr. Wall

I hope the hon. and gallant Member is not calling a Royal Marine a landlubber. Is it not a fact that the Humber is used by a large number of people who are not concerned with the City of Kingston upon Hull?

Commander Pursey

I would not have thought that the hon. Member would waste time rising to that bait. I should have thought he would wait to make a more worthwhile interjection. I can ignore it with the contempt it deserves.

I will now analyse the Conservancy Board's almost incredible petition. The Board agrees with unification, which means its dissolution. Therefore, it realises that its days are numbered. So its only question should be, what are the number of our days? It is cheek and impudence for the Board to put forward this petition dealing with matters which are lacking in fact and merit, misconceived, irrelevant and no concern of this almost defunct Board.

The petition has two important omissions. The first is the number on the Board, which is—wait for it—37. This is not an efficient and effective Board; it is a ruddy circus. The second important omission is that there is no reference to the 114 Humber pilots and their attitude to unification. These self-employed men are the most important officers of the Board‥ When offered the choice of alternative schemes, they plumped heavily for the Docks Board. On what grounds, therefore, can the Conservancy Board argue against the Docks Board becoming the pilotage authority, when that is where the pilots wish to be?

In paragraph 3 the Board …allege that they are injuriously affected by the Order but does not argue how. The majority are representatives of other interests and their main employment will continue. Except for the sentence of death, they are well taken care of.

Paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10 and 14 traverse the argument about a public trust with executive functions, public ownership, the 1966 letter of the B.T.D.B. Chairman and the Local Board, all of which I have previously demolished. Paragraph 7 argues that the Board should continue until public ownership and that it …might be expected to provide many of the members of a new regional ports authority under nationalisation. This is misconceived and nonsense.

Paragraph 13 puts up a skittle simply for the fun of the lawyers to knock it down—with a complaint about lack of consultation which the Minister rejected and which the petition says "will not be pursued further." So this is more water over the dam. It leads me to ask the question: Why is this paragraph in the petition and what solicitor or counsel is responsible for it? From the first, the Board was definitely opposed to the Scheme, so how could there have been consultation when it refused to consult?

Paragraph 11 discusses the "premature disbandment" of the Conservancy Authority, but the executive officers and staff will continue their duties. The only disbandment will be the circus of 37, with their various harps to play. In paragraph 9 the Board raises the red herring that the Docks Board would surely be expected to have unified the management of its Humber ports. It does not lie in the mouths of an inefficient Conservancy Board to argue how the Docks Board should conduct its business.

In paragraph 15 the Board raises another red herring about the River Hull not being in the Scheme. The Hull is a comparatively small tributary of the Humber and was not included in the Rochdale Report or the Harbours Act, both of which dealt with only major ports. Moreover, Kingston upon Hull Corporation has been directly concerned with the River, which flows through the city, for many centuries; and when the Conservancy Board was established this tributary was excluded from its area. It is, therefore, not for the Conservancy Board to discuss the River Hull, which has always been outside its jurisdiction.

In paragraph 12 the Board makes the fatuous point that issues between itself and the Docks Board have found their proper resolution by a public inquiry and argues that this is a real advantage and reason for its continued existence. This is complete nonsense. It is a reason for its dissolution because, with one organisation, such issues would not arise and inquiries, with their waste of time and money in lawyers' fees and expenses, would not be necessary. The plain fact is that the Conservancy Board has an inquiry phobia and go on, in a pigheaded way, wasting time and money, when an early settlement should be reached.

Time will permit me to give only one example. Some few years ago Sir Robert Letch produced a basic pay scheme for pilots of the major ports. All the other ports agreed to pay the increased rates. However, the Humber Conservancy Board refused to pay and continued to work its pilots longer hours for less pay than any other authority. I met some representatives of the Board who were on sticks—almost on crutches. I threatened to bring the port to a standstill, but fortunately the then Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett, sent an inspector to Hull who forced the reactionary Conservancy Board to "Give them the money, Barney". The position of the Humber Conservancy Board can he summed up in one sentence: "You have 'Peen here too long; stand not on the order of your going—but go!"

The two petitions are largely bogus, lacking in fact and merit, and they should be thrown out with the bilge water with the contempt they deserve. This attempt to carry these misconceived cases forward to a Joint Committee, when it should have been known that the Motion will be carried by a Government majority, is an attempted prostitution of a procedure which was instituted for bona fideaggrieved but not bogus petitioners. I appeal to the House to pass the Statutory Instrument and so enable the British Transport Docks Board to become the estuarial authority for the Humber and the four ports, and start to make good the development which has been neglected for the past 60 years.

I hope that the debate will provide a salutary lesson for both branches of the legal profession, and especially the Bar Council and the Law Society, that if any further spurious petitions are presented to this honourable House drastic action will be taken to ensure a higher standard of legal work for Parliament.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I purposely did not rise to make this point of order while the hon. Gentleman was making his speech, because he spoke with great sincerity, but I should draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that for 27 minutes the hon. Gentleman has read every single word 6f his speech.

Mr. Speaker

The Chair was not unaware of what has happened during the past 28 minutes. May I again remind the House that the debate lasts for an hour and a half and that I want, if possible, to hear all sides of the question, including supporters of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey).

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shaw (Scarborough and Whitby)

I oppose what the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) seeks to do. I rise on a general principle which I believe to be absolutely vital to the rights of the citizens of this country in opposing the laying of Orders by the House. I came here tonight to object in general principle, but having listened to the hon. Gentleman for those 28 minutes I am more than ever convinced that I was right to be present. I do not intend to speak for long, nor to go over the merits, or otherwise. of the case. As I see it, we are tonight discussing the simple point of whether or not the Order should be referred to a Joint Committee. In considering that, let me briefly go over the history of Orders and general objections to them.

It was felt as long ago as 1945 that improved means should be available for objections to be heard against Orders. The late Arthur Greenwood, then Lord Privy Seal, speaking for the Labour Government, said: I cannot speak for any future Government, least of all for a Government drawn from the opposite benches, but I can speak for His Majesty's present Government. I do not want to mince my words at all, and I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to he considered.…By this Bill we hope to do something which will really improve our Parliamentary procedure and ensure that justice is done to petitioners authorities and statutory companies who feel a grievance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 2180–1] So that Measure went through. As far as I can discover, in the succeeding years, when general petitions have been made they have been heard in all except one case, apart from where the Government of the day have seen fit to amend or withdraw the Order in question. But that was not in due course considered sufficient, because in 1965 the law was strengthened; and, indeed, as far as I can see it was made almost automatic that a general petition of objection should go before a Joint Committee for a hearing and, ever since, every petition made has been referred to a Joint Committee.

This surely has a direct bearing on our debate. Surely, if it were decided that the Order be not referred to a Joint Committee there must be very important reasons indeed for that unusual situation. In the only case where leave to go before a Joint Committee has been denied, it seems that reason was because the Order was so fundamental to Government policy that, no matter whether or not the Order went through in its presented form, the Government would if necessary be prepared to bring in a Bill to further their ends.

So if, as precedent seems to show, a basic issue is involved, there is a ground, although not necessarily a final ground, for considering that the Order be not referred to a Joint Committee. But in this case there is no fundamental ground. Indeed, the objectors—and here again I take issue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman—are bodies of the utmost responsibility. They have serious objections to make. They are not against change, but they are against change as set out in the Order and they have a very important case to put before the Joint Committee.

On all the evidence, the Ministry does not believe that the Order is fundamental to its policy. It was said in a letter that on the policy issue referred to by the inspector after the inquiry the Minister had formed the view that it would be beneficial and worthwhile for the unification to proceed. There was nothing about its being fundamental to the whole policy of the Ministry. It is clearly stated in the White Paper, as I pointed out in an interjection, that in the final structure which the Government desire to have the local regional port authorities will have a wide measure of independence, but that is exactly what the Order will not give.

Futhermore, it is perfectly clear that if we have the Order as now drafted and then a further reorganisation in a couple of years' time, when the proposed nationalisation Measure goes through, we shall have two basic changes within a short time which cannot do other than disturb an area vital to the wellbeing of the whole of Humberside and the whole of Yorkshire.

These are very important issues which should be given the full rights granted by the House in the 1965 legislation. Tonight we have not yet heard one reason why this petition should not go before the Joint Committee, and for that reason I utterly oppose everything the hon. Gentleman has said.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger (Goole)

I wish to oppose the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), which was a disgraceful rehash of an old Marx Brothers film. It bore no relation whatever to the seriousness and the realities of the situation, or to the reorganisation of the Humber with which we are concerned, and it completely ignored the fundamental principle which was laid down in the 1945 and 1965 legislation—that objectors and petitioners should have the right to go before a Joint Committee to state their objections to a scheme or Order which a Minister puts forward. My hon. Friend sought to place himself in the position of that Joint Committee and to adjudicate on its behalf and in its place on an important issue of this kind, and his Motion seeks to deprive petitioners and objectors of their legitimate rights, as laid down by Parliament, to appear before a Joint Committee and state their case.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) quoted from the speech of Mr. Arthur Greenwood commending the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, to the House, but he did not quote a later speech when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, said that the bias under this procedure would definitely be towards the objectors being allowed to refer their objections to the Joint Committee. He was challenged by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who asked for assurances that that undertaking could be relied on, and my right hon. Friend replied: By leave of the House, may I speak again? The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) asks me for certain assurances. Let me assure him—if he does not know already—that the Labour Government is the Government of a party of social democrats. We understand what democracy is all about. With a strange view into the crystal ball he went on: I cannot spell out to him the exact way in which future events will unfold…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1192] At the same time he gave that pledge on behalf of the Socialist democratic Government that the bias would be in favour of the objectors and the protestors against any Order, and that they would have the right to be heard by a Joint Committee, sitting in a judicial capacity. The Motion that has been moved at such great length is a really disgraceful manoeuvre to deprive democracy of one of its Parliamentary safeguards.

There is a fundamental principle at stake here. It is the first case of its kind that has occurred since the 1965 Act under the new procedure. Even during the preceding 22 years under the previous procedure there was only one case where a hearing was denied to objectors or protestors who wished to go before a Joint Committee. I can understand that the Minister would want to avoid objections going to the Joint Committee if it would save time, money and procedure. After all, this has been hanging around for seven or eight months or more. If the Minister was in such a hurry to get his Order through he could have tabled it long before now.

In any case, if the objectors are prepared to spend the money of their organisations in seeing that they get a fair hearing, I do not see why my hon. and gallant Friend for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) should object to them spending their money in the way that they think is right. I also cannot understand why the Minister should be afraid of a hearing if he is so sure that he has a cast-iron case.

This matter has been discussed in another place, too. On 25th May, 1965, the noble lord Lord Mitchison, who was then the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of Land and Natural Resources, also gave a pledge and pointed out that this new procedure: …enlarges the scope of the particular provision, which is. I think your Lordships will agree, a provision for the protection of the individual and also a provision to secure the rights of the Legislature against the Executive."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th May, 1965; Vol. 266, c. 799.] That is the answer to the frivolous arguments advanced by my hon. Friend. With all these statements made on behalf of the Government of the day, it is inconceivable that action should be taken now to prevent this special procedure being adopted in order that objectors might be able to present their case in the proper way. There is an old maxim that not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. In this particular case it is not being seen to be done.

What is happening is that there is building up on the side of the objectors and petitioners to the Minister's Order a sense of grievance and bitterness, and that will be left as a legacy of the ministerial action. The Scheme is to transfer control of the Humber Estuary to the British Transport Docks Board. Opinions can differ as to whether that will mean that local control will be eliminated or will be left as it is, or strengthened. We cannot tell how the Board will alter its procedure.

We know that the Board is under sentence of death. The Board will be liquidated. Under the Minister of Transport's White Paper proposals the docks will be nationalised and put under a completely new authority. Why is there this necessity to transfer the assets of a going concern, run by the Humber Conservancy Board, to a dying organisation, which in the course of a very short time will be transferring its own powers and responsibilities to a new, at present, unspecified board? Why indulge in this temporary, interim transfer, which will disorganise things on the Humber, create new committees, be expensive and give a sense of frustration, and a lack of future planning to the Docks Board, since it does not know how long it will be in existence? That cannot be denied, because the Ministry of Transport has started circularising users of the ports, informing them along these lines: Reorganisation of ports. As you will probably know, it is the Government's policy to reorganise the major ports on the basis of public ownership. It is proposed to set up a National Ports Authority and Regional Port Authorities.…These proposals were set out in a memorandum issued last July. This is nothing but a confirmation of the fact that the Docks Board is itself a dying authority.

The Humber Conservancy Board has given me authority to say that it is not against the nationalisation of the docks. What it is against is the stupid waste of time and money in reorganising by handing over as an interim measure to the Docks Board which itself is doomed to extinction within a year or two at the outside. Since the Ministry of Transport is taking steps to liquidate the Docks Board, why does it has to go through the procedure of liquidating the Conservancy Board and disrupting the organisation in the way that it proposes?

If the Minister of State has any consideration for the welfare of the Humber, he will see to it that this Order is withdrawn; otherwise, he will be merely adding to the volume of protests about arrogance and high-handedness in the way in which matters are being um-ducted, and arousing considerable resentment that, for the first time under Parliamentary procedure, objectors are being denied a fair hearing in the highest court of the land.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) has now established himself in this House as a character. Many times in his speeches he has said that someone with whom he did not agree was talking nonsense. Experience has shown that, normally, the boot is on the other foot. But we respect his sincerity, and it is only right that he, in turn, should respect the sincerity of the petitioners. He has said on a number of occasions that their views should be treated with contempt, but that is the sort of remark which does him and, through him, the House no credit.

As the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) has explained, this Scheme is unnecessary. It is an interim scheme which will not be conducive to better management on the Humber. It will be expensive both in manpower and money, and I suggest that the Minister would be much wiser to wait until the regional port authorities are set up and then complete the whole operation in one act. It is certain that such action on the part of the Minister will be much more popular in the eyes of the majority of users of the river Humber.

My real objection to the suggestion from the Government Front Bench is that petitioners, surely, have the right to be heard. The precedents are against the Minister. Since the passing of the new Act in 1965, I understand that there have been no refusals to hear objections. Since the passing of the original Act of 1945, only one petitioner has not been allowed to come to the Joint Committee to put his point of view.

I believe that this is a denial of democracy which will be resented greatly on the Humber. It is bad for this House, and it will be bad for the Government if it goes through.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

A good deal of heat has been generated in the debate so far, and I do not intend to stoke the fires any higher, but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) in this matter.

In view of the hour, I will confine myself to two points. I have listened carefully to what hon. Gentlemen opposite have had to say. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) began by protesting that the petitioners should be heard. He said that they are being deprived of the right to be heard. This is a statement of fact. But I say—though perhaps he knows—that the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, as amended by the 1965 Act, implies that a petition of general objection should in the usual course stand referred to a Joint Committee. He is correct about this. I accept it. However, Section 4(2) enables either House to resolve that the petition be not so referred. I deprecate this usually happening. This is a power which this House seldom exercises, but it is proper to do so where the petitions raise important questions of principle.

Here a matter of Government policy is involved which only the Minister can decide. The Government of the day intend to nationalise the docks in two years' time and the Minister feels, on the basis of the Inspector's report, that she is doing the sensible thing in getting on with this Scheme, which will be beneficial to the Humber and its development. She has decided that she will get on with this Scheme, because the quicker it is done the better. This is a step towards the realisation of the Government's longterm plan.

We feel that the petitions challenge a policy issue. Therefore, although I have had put to me the words of a former Member of this House, Arthur Greenwood—and I respect everything that he has said in the past—when a matter of principle is involved, I say that the Government should get on with the particular job.

I have been watching the clock, but I must mention two other points. It can be said, and it has been said, that the Docks Board, being a London-based body, would be unsuitable as a local conservancy authority. I do not think so. It is doing a first-class job. Judging from its performance as a harbour authority for the major Humber ports of Goole, Immingham, Grimsby and Hull, there is no doubt that it is well suited to become the conservancy authority for the estuary. I need not go into the many things that it has done, but there is its work concerning the possibilities of Spurn Head and its association with the Conservancy Board in the work on the Humber model and the development of docks elsewhere. It is doing a first-class job and it is eminently suitable, without delay, to get on with the task of preparing for nationalisation in two years' time.

In July, 1966, the Government's White Paper on Transport Policy stated that it was intended to create a national ports authority and regional port authorities with a wide measure of independence. I have heard it said that because there is a central authority in London there will not be the independence that is wished. I think they will have that independence. This Humber scheme fits in excellently with the Government's policy statement and it fits in with the working document proposals which were circulated in July, 1967. Both the Inspector originally and the Minister now consider that as a unification measure this scheme will be beneficial to the Humber and its development. I support this measure and I support the earlier statements which were made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

The case put up by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) was one of stupid abuse of the draftsmen of the petitions. He should know that these petitions are first examined by the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means, and could not come before the House if they were not in order. It was a speech of stupid abuse of the lawyers, and generally of the petitioners, and that was his case for stopping private individuals whose interests are affected by what we are doing in this House from defending themselves before the Joint Committee.

His only case for doing that was to go through the two petitions line by line, abuse by abuse, and say that they were twaddle, they were nonsense, and they were irrelevant. The people who drew these petitions have no right to come before the House and be heard, and they have no right to stand up in the Chamber and defend themselves against that sort of attack, and he is trying to prevent them coming before a Joint Committee and putting their case.

It has long been a fundamental principle of this House that if legislation presented to us affects a particular private interest, the person in whom that interest is vested is to come before the House in some form—in this case in the form of a Joint Committee of both Houses—and be heard. This rule has applied, whither it is legislation by Parliament itself in a Bill, or whether it is subordinate legislation by a Ministerial Order. It will be a sad occasion for Parliament when that rule is abandoned.

There could not have been a better example than tonight of the very reason for that rule—the example of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, the accusations that he made against these people who are trying to show their private interest, and his attempt to deny them any right to answer. This proves that the procedure is well worth while, and should be retained.

We have before us an Order under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, as it was amended in 1965. Parliament has provided this type of procedure for this type of Order. Parliament has said that this particular type of order, made under the Harbours Act, 1964, should be subject to the procedure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is merely trying to obstruct that procedure and to prevent the petitioners from defending themselves by putting forward a case for their interests.

The only reason for preventing private interests from putting their case before the House is if the Minister rises and says, "This is a matter of major policy. The Government are prepared to defend this Order at all costs ". This has been the accepted principle since the debate on the Llanelly Order in 1952. The only argument against letting a private person come before a Joint Committee on these occasions is if the Government are prepared to defend the Order, whatever case is put up.

As the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) said, that fact was confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Public Building and Works, and I am certain that if he were sitting on the Front Bench opposite now he would stand by the assurance that he gave me in that debate. He would not go back on the assurance that only if it is a matter of major public policy, not just a matter of abuse of the private interests, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to make it, the House should discuss it, and the private interests should have their chance before a Joint Committee, and the House should debate it, if at all, afterwards.

In this case no major policy has been put forward. In fact, it is only a little bit of policy of handing over a conservancy board to the British Transport Docks Board for 12 or possibly 18 months before the national port authorities are constituted, and before proper regional port authorities are governing the ports. This is the sort of proposition which has been put before the House tonight. I hope that the House will reject this Motion unanimously.

11.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

I hope it will be convenient for me at this moment to indicate the Government's view, and my right hon. Friend's view, of this Motion. Of course, the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) is quite right, that when the 1965 amendment was made to the special procedure, it was made clear that in general, petitions of objection should and would be referred to Joint Committees. It was generally agreed at that time on all sides, and we took that into account. But I think the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who has just spoken very passionately, will also recall that my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Public Building and Works said on that occasion in the 1965 debates that if hon. Members felt that issues of major policy were raised by petitions of objection, they ought to be debated on the floor of the House, and that the Act should provide for it. That was what Parliament decided. That is the right which my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull constituencies have used. They have put this issue before the House.

As we see it, the House, in coming to a decision on this occasion, will no doubt feel that what it has to decide is whether the petitions with which we are concerned tonight raise important points of policy or whether, as some hon. Members have suggested, they are points relating to the application of policy to local circumstances. That is a distinction which it is proper to make and a distinction that was well understood in the debates on the 1965 Amendment.

These issues of policy concern the rôle and functions of the British Transport Docks Board in the present structure of the port industry and in relation to the Government's plans for the extension of public ownership in the port industry. Both the petitions which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) was analysing, object to the Humber Scheme in the context of the Government's plans for reorganisation of the ports on the basis of public ownership. As is well known, it is our view that it is right to proceed —and my right hon. Friend has said this many times—with consideration of harbour reorganisation schemes before nationalisation of the ports.

This was put forward in paragraphs 112 and 118 of the White Paper on Transport Policy, Cmnd. 3057, issued in July, 1966, and approved by the House on 22nd February, 1967.

It is the Minister's duty to consider each scheme submitted to her on its merits and this is what she is doing. Her consideration of the Humber Scheme led her to conclude that it should be put into effect. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, none of the petitioners objects to the establishment of a unified authority on the Humber. They are objecting to unification under the Docks Board. Both were content with the Humber Scheme in principle if it provided for a public trust as estuarial authority. As I understand it, this is exactly what the petitioners say. This means that the petitioners are asking in effect that Parliament should approve the public trust system, but should reject national public ownership.

I do not think it can be seriously contended that the Docks Board is not able, or is not a suitable body, to take on the conservancy functions on the Humber. It is a strong, efficient and progressive harbour authority. It is significant that the objectors at the public inquiry which was held in connection with this Scheme did not dispute this assessment—nor do the present petitioners.

Moreover, it is not only on this side of the House that the Docks Board is seen to be a suitable body to fulfil the role of estuarial authority. I call in witness the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) who, on 29th June, 1964, in a statement on the National Ports Council's outline plans about estuarial organisation, said: I welcome the Council's proposal that the Docks Board should continue as a permanent feature of the ports industry. The Board… The nationalised Docks Board— has achieved a major success since its establishment under the Transport Act of 1962. In some areas the Council's proposals for estuarial reorganisation may mean the loss by the Board of certain ports. In other areas, where the Board is already the predominant dock authority, the proposals may involve the assumption of wider responsibilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964: Vol. 697, c. 938.] The petitioners in this case submit that the taking over of the Humber Conservancy Board's functions by the nationalised Docks Board would not be a worth while and useful step towards the wider measure of ports nationalisation proposed by the Government. This may strike the House as a rather curious argu ment. The answer to the petitioners is simply that the unification of control on the Humber which will be achieved with the Scheme will be retained under the Government's proposals for reorganisation of the ports on the basis of national ownership, because the British Transport Docks Board today represents national ownership as a significant feature in the ports industry.

Mr. Michael Shaw

The hon. Gentleman is singing the praises of the Docks Board. I accept that from his point of view, but the petitioners in their objection say: Having regard to this, the chairman of the Docks Board in December, 1966, suggested that the Scheme should be held back since the absorption of the Humber Conservancy Board by the Docks Board with only a non-executive local Board is not a step towards local autonomy and would not be so accepted by local opinion who would rightly contend that different powers would be required when nationalisation takes place. Your petitioners respectfully agree…

Mr. Swingler

I am coming to that point. It is not only my opinion, but I have called as witness the right hon.' Member for Wallasey. I have made plain that the right hon. Gentleman when Minister of Transport also conceded that the British Transport Docks Board, which he described as a highly successful and enterprising organisation, was a suitable body to be considered as estuarial authority. One of the matters we have to consider is the extent to which the petitions are of fundamental significance in that they suggest that the British Transport Docks Board, the existing nationalised Board in the ports industry, is not a suitable body as an estuarial authority.

Mr. George Jeger

I think my hon. Friend is slightly misstating the case of the petitioners. They are not saying that the Board is inefficient or incapable of managing the docks. Their objection is that this would be a mere interim holding operation of the Docks Board before they were eliminated in favour of the new nationalised Board for control. They do not object to the Docks Board but to the interim procedure.

Mr. Swingler

I certainly did not say that the petitioners have said that the Docks Board is inefficient, but they do suggest that it is unsuitable as an estuarial authority. They say, I believe, that the only sensible interim step towards the nationalisation of the ports, to which the Government are committed, would be a public trust authority or a local executive body on public trust lines. The Government, of course, cannot accept the argument—having declared to the world that the great thing for the future of the ports is the establishment of a strong national authority on the basis of public ownership—that the only sensible step in this direction is the constitution of public trusts.

It is my right hon. Friend's view that the placing of the Humber Conservancy Board's functions in the hands of the nationalised Docks Board would be worth while and help to achieve our aims for port reorganisation. This is the first reorganisation Scheme submitted to my right hon. Friend to propose that the Docks Board should be the estuarial authority, a proposal which, in the circumstances of the Humber, involves a straightforward transfer of conservancy and pilotage functions, compared with the upheaval in transferring the Docks Board's major ports in the Humber to a new public trust authority.

I must, therefore, state clearly that the Government believe that, where unification, with which they also agree, under the Docks Board is a sensible step towards national ownership and planning in the ports, as is clearly the case on the Humber, this step should be taken. For these reasons it has been made clear by my hon. Friend that the petitioners go to the root of the subject in suggesting that the Docks Board is unsuitable as an estuarial authority. This is a major policy matter and a proposition which my right hon. Friend and the Government could not possibly accept. Therefore, on those grounds, I commend this Motion to the House.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Langstone)

The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) introduced, as one might have expected, a great deal of ideological bilge-water into the debate. He seems to have attended courses at the anti-university on anti-law, and asked us to respect such things as the detailed answers and foregone conclusions of the Minister as though they were some form of revealed truth handed down to us. He asked us to accept these as the best authority. Let us put this to the test.

The Minister recently began to move towards giving all the necessary permissions and authorities for the first major British container and bulk terminal in Southern England to be moved several miles down river from Tilbury. This was announced this morning, but it is happening even before the concrete is dry at Tilbury. What respect can we have for the Minister's authority and her revealed knowledge in port matters when this is an example of what the Ministry is doing?

I turn to the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) and compliment him on his defence of what he called sound, fair Parliamentary procedures, because that is our concern tonight. The Minister said that these petitions raise important points of policy and asked us to draw a distinction between important points of policy and the application of policy. This is interesting because I have racked my brains, such as they are, to see if there is any policy which never finds a local application. I have not yet encountered one. This is, therefore, a superficial distinction to ask us to make. All policy has ultimately to be applied in local circumstances; and it is precisely the purpose of procedure of this kind, and in these local circumstances, that people should be able to make their difficulties clear and heard in the House in the most effective way.

We are told that the petitioners are asking Parliament to approve the public trust system but not, the Minister says, public ownership or nationalisation. What is wrong with public trusts? Do not the petitions show a profound instinct which needs recognition today—the importance in the phrase "public enterprise" not of the word "public" or its relation to "private", but the word "enterprise". We should realise that, within the whole spectrum of public oraanisation, the public trust is probably, in the broad field, the one enterprise most likely to flourish.

Mr. Swingler

As this is the nub of the problem, we should get it clear. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in his view and the view of those he represents, the National Docks Board, which has existed since the 1962 Act, is unsuitable as an estuarial authority? This point must be faced. It is raised in the petitions and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend has approved estuarial schemes involving the establishment of public trusts. What we are here involved with is the recommendation that the Docks Board should become the estuarial authority. I should like the hon. Gentleman's view on that.

Mr. Lloyd

Nobody is criticising the B.T.D.B. for those functions which it performs with success in its own sphere. Like the petitioners, we are saying that, at this time and in these places—particularly in view of the Government's announced policies—the Board should not, with all these elaborate procedures of Parliament, be taking over these functions at public expense and great inconvenience to the ports concerned.

The essence of this procedure is of fundarrmental importance. It is suggested that, in this case—because, as the Minister states, central principles are involved —a petition of general application should not lie. This has already been discussed and I will merely emphasise that, since the passing of the 1948 Act, 15 Orders of this kind have been the subject of petitions of general objection and only one—and that in very special circumstances—has not gone to the Joint Committee. Even since the passing of the 1966 Act, five Orders have been subject to petitions and only one has been refused a hearing before the Joint Committee of both Houses. Four were not referred and in no cases were the petitioners refused a hearing.

This is the essence of this procedure. It is that where, by general agreement, the petitioners withdraw their petition, justice is seen to have been done, and that where there is no general agreement—and it is clear from the detailed and careful petitions which have been presented to the House that important matters are involved—there should be discussion and, under the procedure laid clown, petitioners have the right to expect it to operate in their favour. The Minister is chargeable on this point of central policy because, in the right hon. Lady's letter confirming her decision on the Scheme, she made this interesting remark: The Minister's view is that in principle it is right to proceed with the consideration of harbour reorganisation schemes in the period before nationalisation. This is in line with the policy expressed in paragraphs 112 and 118 of the White Paper on transport policy. The decision letter, after referring to the working document on ports reorganisation, which had been circulated after the Inspector's report was written, continues: On the policy issue referred to by the Inspector, the Minister is therefore firmly of the view that it will be beneficial and worthwhile. I emphasise those words, which are the key words. She does not state that the Orders are absolutely central to her policy and that she will not be able to proceed with ports nationalisation in two years' time unless they are confirmed now. Had she stated that, the Minister would have had a case for what he said earlier and have been able to sustain the point that this was a central issue of Government policy and that therefore the procedure fell to the ground.

It seems to me, therefore, that we can conclude that the Government are treating port nationalisation as a fait accompli, and that they are assuming that the objections of both the Humber Conservancy Board and the Chamber of Shipping are of no account. A large number of interests in the country will listen with great care to the numerous speeches by hon. Members opposite which have alleged that their views are of no account. The Government are denying these organisations a right of objection denied only once in 22 years.

Finally, and equally important, the Government are going back on assurances given to similar petitioners as recently as 1966. They are relying on the fact that the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport did not give a specific assurance in 1964 that petitions of general objection would always go to a Joint Committee. Why should he have bothered to give such an assurance when precedents gave over-whelming reassurance in all cases? The Lord Privy Seal has said that the purpose of the original Act was to ensure that justice was done to petitioners. Some justice!

It cannot be argued that the 1966 Act was intended to make matters more difficult for petitioners, because it was the clear intention of the subsequent procedural Act to simplify procedure in the interests of petitioners. The statement then by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the bias in the future would be towards allowing a petition of objection to go to a Joint Committee seems to confirm that absolutely. My comment on that is, some bias!

So we come to Section 18(4) of the Harbours Act, 1964, which provides that if the Minister of Transport confirms any such scheme it …shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure Despite all the procedure, precedent after precedent, and quotation after quotation, the Government ask us to let this go by because of the extraordinary arguments produced by the hon. and Gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and to consider that the very serious arguments of the two petitioners are of no account. The Humber Scheme is the first to be tested in Parliament. It is therefore an acid test of the Government's good faith. The Opposition naturally disapprove of the Motion, but only the Government can reject it.

I now turn briefly to the main objections in principle. Has the Chamber of Shipping, with its vast range of interest and experience in the matter, deliberately concocted a document which can be described as frivolous? Has the Humber Conservancy Board, the organisation principally affected, simply written something which it has given to its Parliamentary Counsel and asked them to bring here, without very careful thought to the consequences for itself? I find that hard to believe.

We must now come to a firm conclusion about the matter. Whether or not this procedure is operated, as they said that it would be, is a test of the Government's good faith. Will they let the country down once again or will they show us that they can change their mind on this relatively minor issue? No great abandonment of principle is involved, because if they are here in two years' time the circumstances will come again, and doubtless they will seek to nationalise the ports. In the meantime, very serious objections have been made, and they deserve to be considered.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I want to make only a brief contribution to this debate, but I rise in support of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) who urged upon the House the need to reject these petitions. I do so because we have been over all this ground before; many times before. The nub of the issue is whether it is a question of policy, and I believe that it is—the policy of what is to be the future organisation of the ports, not only on the Humber, but throughout the country as a whole. This is a pilot scheme for the pattern to be adopted when the ports are nationalised. This is a policy matter, and all the issues raised in the petition by these bodies have been fully ventilated in the past, and every opportunity has been provided for them to be fully heard.

There has been a full inquiry before the inspectors, at which arguments were produced beyond those heard at previous inquiries, and arguments when they are carried on and on tend to contradict themselves. We are now to have a unified body in the ports, the British Docks Board, and both of my hon. Friends have demonstrated how the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) when Minister of Transport, himself—

Mr. Graham Page

Is it not irrelevant that there have been these previous inquiries when it is Parliament itself which has said that the petitioners should go before a Joint Committee and be heard?

Mr. McNamara

Yes, the petitioners should go before a Joint Committee if they were raising something new, or if their case had not been adequately heard. In this case, that has been done in the light of what is known and declared to be Government policy. It seems to me that it is a waste of the time of both this House and of the joint committee to proceed further, and it is on that ground that my hon. Friends have urged this Motion.

Everything which is suggested has already been done, but I would make this further point. I should like to think that the port users would be the sort of people one would want to have on the Authority, and, in the Reorganisation Scheme this right has been given. They are getting something which they have not had before. The Immingham, Goole, and Humber docks had not this right of representation on the Board before, and I say that this is a step forward in user consultation. That is right. What we do not want is user dictation. Where the users have been in charge of ports they have shown a short-sighted policy, and many of the difficulties in the port in

Division No. 51.]	AYES	[11.30 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Garrett, W. E.	Millan, Bruce
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Gourlay, Harry	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Anderson, Donald	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)
Archer, Peter	Gregory, Arnold	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Armstrong, Ernest	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Murray, Albert
Beaney, Alan	Hannan, William	Oakes, Gordon
Bence, Cyril	Harper, Joseph	O'Malley, Brian
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Orme, Stanley
Bidwell, Sydney	Haseldine, Norman	Oswald, Thomas
Bishop, E. S.	Hattersley, Roy	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hazell, Bert	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Booth, Albert	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Palmer, Arthur
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Horner, John	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brooks, Edwin	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pavitt, Laurence
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Pentland, Norman
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Huckfield, Leslie	Perry, Ernzst G. (Battersea, S.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Buchan, Norman	Hunter, Adam	Reynolds, C. W.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Cant, R. B.	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.J
Carmichael, Neil	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Rose, Paul
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Judd, Frank	Ryan, John
Coleman, Donald	Kenyon, Clifford	Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Dalyell, Tam	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwlch)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Leadbitter, Ted	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Swain, Thomas
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Swingler, Stephen
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lomas, Kenneth	Thornton, Ernest
Dewar, Donald	Loughlin, Charles	Tinn, James
Dickens, James	Luard, Evan	Urwin, T. W.
Dobson, Ray	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Varley, Eric G.
Doig, Peter	McBride, Neil	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack	McCann, John	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth, (Exeter)	Macdonald, A. H.	Watkins, David (Consett)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	McGuire, Michael	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Eadie, Alex	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Wilkins, W. A.
Ellis, John	Mackie, John	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Mackintosh, John P.	Winnick, David
Fernyhough, E.	MacPherson, Malcolm	Woof, Robert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Manuel, Archie	Yates, Victor
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Marks, Kenneth
Ford, Ben	Marquand, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Forrester, John	Mendelson, J. J.	Mr. James Johnson and
		Mr. Kevin MacNamara.

NOES
Baker, W. H. K.	Clover, Sir Douglas	Mapp, Charles
Biffen, John	Hill, J. E. B.	Monro, Hector
Chichester-Clark, R.	Jeger, George (Goole)	More, Jasper
Cooke, Robert	Kershaw, Anthony	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire.W.)	Kitson, Timothy	Ridsdale, Julian
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyn, N.)	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Foster, Sir John	MacArthur, Ian	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

dustry have existed because of these shortsighted policies in such matters as the supply of equipment and of capital, and the use of men employed in the docks. What we are discussing tonight is an essential element in the rationalisation of the Humber ports. It is an essential element as much as was decasualisation throughout the port industry of this country.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 28.

van Straubenzee, W. R.	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Weatherill Bernard	Worsley, Marcus	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wells, John (Maidstone)	Younger, Hn. George	Mr. Patrick Wall and
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William		Mr. R. Graham Page.

Resolved, That the Petitions of General Objection of:

1. (1) the Humber Conservancy Board, and
2. (2) the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom

against the Order be not referred to a Joint Committee.