EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order) (Hansard, 30 June 1975)

§ Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)
I beg to move, That the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, as amended, be now considered.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I say a little about the background of this Bill, which is referred to briefly in the preamble, before I go on to talk, again briefly, about Parts II, III and IV of the Bill.
The Bill is promoted by the Eastbourne Harbour Company, which is owned by the trustees of Chatsworth Estates. Those trustees own about 400 acres—150 hectares—of land adjacent to the coast about two miles to the east of Eastbourne. This land has been worked for sand and gravel for about 100 years. The site is a barren and featureless stretch of coast almost entirely unused for any purpose except the quarrying to which I have referred. Few people at present use this stretch of coast for any purpose.
About 14 years ago the former Eastbourne County Borough Council commissioned a report from a consulting engineer on the technical feasibility of constructing a harbour for small boats on this site. The report, published in June 1962, was favourable. Five years later 1096 the Eastbourne urban plan, adopted by the former county borough council, contained the following paragraphs: The consultant's report described the construction of a harbour of some 50 hectares by excavating gravel from the Crumbles promontory"— the Crumbles is the name by which this area of land is known— together with the construction of a harbour arm. Keel boats and larger craft cannot use the steeply shelving beach of the foreshore. The proposed yacht harbour would provide an area for parking dinghies in safety from the elements and moorings for keel boats and larger craft. The harbour would also provide other amenities for leisure which are associated with these facilities and include residential development, hotels, shops and small boat activities. The report concluded: It is significant that yachting is by far the fastest growing sport and that with the limited facilities in the Eastbourne locality the provision of a yacht harbour would be a real attraction. On the last paragraph of that quotation, it is interesting to note that the number of sailing clubs in the country has increased from 500 in 1950 to 1,567 this year. Sailing and small boats represent today, as they did when that report was written, the largest growing leisure-time activity in the country. Even after the proposed marina at Brighton has been completed, this part of the South Coast will still be totally inadequately served by harbours for small boats.
In 1970 the trustees instructed Messrs. Leonard Monnassey and Partners, chartered architects, to make preliminary planning studies, and it was decided after those studies had been completed to make a more detailed study of a plan which would involve not only the construction of a harbour but other developments, too. The planned harbour would contain an outer tidal harbour, and inner tidal harbour, and a completely locked inner harbour which would not be tidal.
The scheme which is involved in the Bill envisages the provision of moorings for approximately 1,700 small boats, plus 1097 —and this is very relevant in view of the debate we had earlier this evening—facilities for the local fishing fleet, which at present has no port and no haven. As things stand, local fishermen in Eastbourne and along the coast both to the west and the east have to drag their boats up on to the beach and can only put to sea at favourable tides and in favourable weather.
The Bill is necessary because the scheme requires the construction of two large breakwaters, sea walls, locks which would separate the inner tidal harbour from the lock basin, and quays, jetties, piers and moorings. An Act of Parliament is also necessary before dredging of the sea bed can take place.
Outline planning permission was obtained in 1971 from the former Eastbourne Borough Council for residential, educational, shopping, office, entertainment and water-based activities, recreational facilities and an open space in accordance with the county borough's urban plan. A revised application for planning permission was submitted to the East Sussex County Council by the Eastbourne Borough Council following reorganisation of local government last July. Last February the county planning officer and the county engineer for East Sussex issued a joint report to the council. Under the heading "General Consideration" they recommended to the county council in these terms: With the exception of relatively limited facilities for the shelter and servicing of small boats at Shoreham, Newhaven and Rye there is no large scale accommodation at present available for use in the county, although some should become available in Brighton in 1977". That was the marina to which I referred a moment ago. It continues: The development of the harbour and associated development could also provide useful stimuli to Eastbourne as one of the leading health and residential centres of the South Coast, not only for boating and its spectators but in the provision of housing and as a source of employment, and recreational facilities are likely to introduce a younger age group. There is a very serious population imbalance in my constituency, and the average age of the population is getting steadily higher while the number of young people seems to be growing steadily fewer.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
I would like to live there.

§ Mr. Gow
If the hon. Member came perhaps he would swell the Labour vote in the constituency where his party lost its deposit in February last year.
The report continues: Apart from the sand and gravel workings most of the Crumbles area is unused and uninteresting in appearance and could benefit greatly by properly controlled development to improve the eastern approach to the borough. The main considerations are threefold. The difficulty of acceptability of the general contents of the proposals, the time scale involved and the environmental effects. The applicants have already carried out extensive investigations into the feasibility of the harbour and tests are currently in hand on scale models as to hydraulic and other aspects. That report was submitted to the planning committee, and the county council and the committee subsequently resolved to grant outline planning permission not just for the harbour but for a primary school, welfare and health clinics, a library, recreational areas and office accommodation.
The trustees envisage that in addition to the harbour there would be some 2,500 dwellings as well as shops, holiday accommodation, including holiday flatlets, a swimming pool and a camping site. The trustees have agreed to make available to the county council free of charge land on which there would be built a new primary school, including playing fields for the school. The trustees have further agreed to make available free of charge land suitable for recreational facilities, as agreed between the trustees and the county council.
I have explained that the Bill is fully supported by the two local authorities concerned—the Eastbourne Borough Council and the East Sussex County Council. The construction of a harbour at Eastbourne is also strongly supported by the chief fisheries officer of the Sussex Fisheries Committee. It would be of particular value not just to the local fishing fleet but to fishermen who ply along that coast, because there is no convenient harbour, apart from the harbour of Newhaven, to the west, and Folkestone, 50 miles away to the east.
The new harbour and the moorings for the boats, the 2,500 dwellings and the community services would provide employment for 250 building workers over 15 years and permanent jobs on site for more than 1,000 people.
1099 Eastbourne's main industry is tourism. The construction of a harbour at the eastern end of the town would add significantly to Eastbourne's international reputation as a holiday resort, and, in my view, and in the view of my constituents, it would bring substantial additional benefit to the economy of the town, as well as creating additional employment for its inhabitants.
The proposal for an inland locked harbour is particularly suitable, because the area in which it is being constructed is one where the quarrying of gravel and sand, mainly gravel, is being carried out. Thus a substantial part of the essential preliminaries of constructing an inland harbour will have been carried out already because of the quarrying of the gravel and sand.
It is certainly not the intention of the promoters of the Bill that the 2,500 dwellings, flats as well as houses, should become simply second homes. On the contrary, it is the wish both of the trustees and of the promoters that there should be a permanent resident community with all the necessary supporting facilities.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)
Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the number of those properties that will be available for rent, and of the range of rentals that would be required? Will any nominations be available to the local authority for council tenants?

§ Mr. Gow
The trustees are already in negotiation with non-profit making housing associations to sell to those associations, at a price agreed by the district valuer, land on which they could build property. As for the rental, it is relevant to point out that the cost of building a council house in London is now about £20,000, whereas some of these houses and flats will be built for about £12,000. I am speaking in 1973 prices.

§ Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)
Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question about houses for rent?

§ Mr. Gow
A decision on whether properties will be for sale or to let has not yet been taken. It will be taken in the 1100 light of the circumstances prevailing when the dwellings have been completed.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)
If housing associations are to provide housing, surely those properties will be let.

§ Mr. Gow
Of course. I mentioned properties which would be built by housing associations, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was asking me about properties which would not be built by them. I said that a decision about those properties would be taken by the trustees in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.
Clause 44 provides that no start can be made on the harbour works without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Although the promoters would like to start work as soon as the necessary financial resources are available they are unlikely to be able to do so in the current economic climate, and I repeat that they could not do so save with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Many amendments have been tabled—77 and a new clause. That means that we shall have an opportunity to discuss almost every clause. Therefore, in this opening speech I do not propose to refer to the clauses in detail, although it may be for the convenience of the House if I make the following observations.
The Bill was introduced into another place in 1973, and it completed all its stages there on 1st July last year. In accordance with normal practice it has been submitted to the Department of Trade, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At their request, a number of admendments have been made. All three—and in referring to them I am not saying that other Government Departments have any objection—are now satisfied with the Bill. The Minister will, no doubt, confirm that there is now no objection to the Bill as it stands from any Government Department.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Has the report of the various Departments, which is normally made on Private Bills of this nature, been deposited in the Private Bill Office, to be available for perusal by hon. Members so that they may substantiate the claim that the hon. Gentleman has just made?

§ Mr. Gow
I think that my claim will be substantiated by the Minister, who is 1101 closer to the hon. Gentleman than I am. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks his hon. Friend, who, I am sure, will confirm that what I have said is true.
Part I of the Bill deals with the definition. Part II sets out the works which are necessary in order to construct the harbour. Part III deals with harbour management. We shall be discussing all these matters later this evening.
For many years people in Eastbourne, successive members of Eastbourne Borough Council and those who live and work on this part of the South Coast, have recognised that there is a need for a harbour. That need does not arise just because of the increased demand for leisure activity in boats and small sailing craft. It is very much one for the fishermen. The promoters have agreed that fishermen will have the right to use the harbour on favourable terms, which the fishermen greatly welcome.
The waters of Eastbourne off Beachy Head are among the most dangerous coastal waters surrounding our shores. It is particularly appropriate that there should be an additional haven for small boats in distress, which would be provided in the outer tidal harbour and the inner tidal harbour.
The construction of the harbour would be certain to produce additional prosperity for my constituency. I believe that it would also attract a number of boats from neighbouring countries in the Community—visitors from France, Belgium and Holland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be pleased about this. It would be a source of much needed assistance with our balance of payments deficit about which we hear so much.
Here is a Bill—supported by the overwhelming majority of my constituents, supported by the East Sussex County Council, by the Eastbourne Borough Council, and by the fishermen—which will provide not just a harbour but also, if this scheme goes through, 2,000 additional dwellings, a new school, a church, recreational facilities, and opportunities for the smallest as well as for the largest boats.
This Bill is necessary only for the harbour aspect of the scheme. If the Bill is denied, all that will be lost—though I 1102 think it would be a grievous loss—is the harbour itself. The other aspects of the scheme, the construction of the houses, of the schools, of the church, and of the recreational facilities, will go on, probably, if planning permission is granted, round an inland lake. Those here tonight who may be uneasy about the non-harbour aspect of the scheme will not achieve their purpose by denying the Bill. If this Bill is denied the people who will be prejudiced will be the fishermen, the sailors in distress, and the economy, not just of my constituency but of other parts of East Sussex, which will, I believe, be gravely prejudiced.
For all these reasons I hope that this Bill will be considered tonight. I hope that it will go ahead and receive the Royal Assent, for I am convinced that the best interests of Eastbourne, of my constituents, of East Sussex, of the economy and of the country, will be served if this bold, imaginative and highly original proposal is carried through to fruition.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
This debate in some ways epitomises the present situation of Britain's economy, because while we all—not merely Labour Members but Opposition Members too—talk about cutting public expenditure or using other fiscal considerations to save the pound, when we get away from the abstract and into the specific there are always plenty of people—usually the same people as are calling for belts to be tightened and socks to be pulled up—who will say "Ah, but on this particular matter we should forget about all these macroeconomic problems and allow it to go through."
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) represents a town which is increasingly becoming Tory or Liberal. There are various shades and it changes every so often, but by and large he represents a town that is oriented against the classes I represent. I can therefore well understand the hon. Member wanting to see this massive pleasure port being developed, perhaps changing the balance somewhat, not between the red and the blue but between the younger blues and the older blues. That is principally what is involved.
I can well understand the hon. Member's problem, but our job on the Labour 1103 benches is sometimes to tell the establishment, whatever it may be at a given time—I hope it is not represented by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—that if it wants to carry out a policy of redistributing the wealth of our country in favour of the working class, when we are confronted with something like the Eastbourne Harbour Bill—minor though it may be in relation to the grand total of the gross naional product, representing about 50 million at 1973 prices, and probably a lot more than that now—we have a duty to come to the House of Commons and say that we cannot allow it to go through.
There was a good example of this in recent times. I well recall, not too long ago, the proposal to have a Channel Tunnel. I remember the establishment then, in the person of the Secretary of State for the Environment, telling us—perhaps with tongue in cheek, perhaps not—that we should allow that Hybrid Bill to continue its merry way through the House. Some of us said that we thought it should not, and then a few months later we were told that the Channel Tunnel project was to be scrapped, notwithstanding all the problems with France and the Common Market and all the other considerations involved.
Today we are discussing a not dissimilar project in that it does not involve public expenditure to any great degree at the outset but will do so eventually, using up men and materials which we think, in our simple view, ought to be devoted to resolving some of the problems facing the economy.
I want to make it clear that I did not enter this argument purely on the basis that the Duke of Devonshire lives in an adjoining Derbyshire constituency. The fact that I happened to stray across this proposal some considerable time ago, during the course of the miners' pay claim dispute in November 1973—and thereafter naturally allowed myself to draw a comparison between the kind of money needed to get the miners back to work, and resolve some of the other economic problems, as against this substantial expenditure at Eastbourne—does not affect what I am saying on this occasion.
1104 I concede that at that time the Opposition were in power and that we were talking about the current November 1973 economic crisis. Talking of economic crises, there has been one for the whole of the time that I have been in Parliament. We have always been in trouble. The Times leader is always exactly the same. It runs regularly, about once a month.
At the time of that November 1973 crisis, I thought that it just could not be true that there was a Bill going through the House of Lords to introduce a scheme to provide a yachting marina for the top people of Eastbourne, but on examination I found it to be true. Notwithstanding all that followed, the three-day week and the subsequent Labour victory, I naturally assumed that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would take certain steps to put a stop to its progress, but, this measure having started, it then fell to me and ray hon. Friends—less distinguished but nevertheless keen and avid—to stop this project in the only way that we could stop it, perhaps along the same lines as those we used in helping to stop the Channel Tunnel project.
I am not prejudiced at all by the fact that the Duke of Devonshire happens to own almost all of Eastbourne.

§ Mr. Gow
It is not correct to say that the Duke of Devonshire owns almost half of Eastbourne. Nor is it true that those who go sailing in boats on their holidays or at weekends are very wealthy people. Quite poor people—many of them miners—go off in their boats on the canals or come and sail round the South Coast. I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand that there are very many people with comparatively slender resources who enjoy going out in their boats at weekends.

§ Mr. Skinner
I have no doubt that there are a few people—the fishermen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, perhaps—who are of slender means. But in this project we are considering a proposal to build about 2,500 houses—the hon. Gentleman now says—but, only a fortnight ago according to the people who made representations to me and my hon. Friends, the figure was only 2,300, and shortly before that it was even less. It is 1105 like the Brighton Marina. There are more flats and maisonettes being built with private moorings as each week goes by.

§ Mr. Gow
In a statement sent to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), I think on Thursday of last week, there were full details of this. The hon. Gentleman will see in that statement prepared by the promoters that the figure for the number of dwellings was given as 2,500, as I said.

§ Mr. Skinner
I made very careful notes at the time of the meeting. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) got the correct figures, too. No doubt they correspond with mine. We were told quite clearly that 2,300 flats and maisonettes would be built, half of which would have private moorings.
I want to answer the hon. Gentleman's other point about tht Duke of Devonshire not owning half of Eastbourne. Of course he does not. I was speaking metaphorically. But, speaking literally, I might make the point that he has plenty of County Limerick and quite substantial holdings in Yorkshire and the rest of Sussex, quite apart from his domain in Derbyshire. I do not suggest that under the Community Land Bill we expect to get back all that land, but it is a thought that we have to consider. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind that one of our reasons for putting down and pushing this motion is that the Community Land Bill is at present being discussed in this House and could to some extent countermand some of the proposals in this measure.

§ Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that "The Penguin Guide to Sussex, New Series", by F. A. Banks, refers to …the modern town built on land owned largely by the Duke of Devonshire…". That is a quite unambiguous statement. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address himself to that statement in what is an authoritative guide to Sussex.

§ Mr. Skinner
It would take rather a long time. In any event, I thought that my hon. Friend was about to discuss the Cavendish family and to refer to the fact 1106 that the first one had his head chopped off by the peasants in 1381.

§ Mr. Gow
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we are considering the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, is it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to refer to the manner of death suffered by ancestors of my noble Friend?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
It is not a matter contained in the Bill, but it may be that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should be allowed to expand his argument so that we may see where it is taking us.

§ Mr. Skinner
The analogy that I was about to draw was that this Bill, to some extent, was about grabbing. Whereas over the years the Cavendish family have grabbed land in all parts of the British Isles, on this occasion they are not so much grabbing land as grabbing the sea. Not satisfied with the many thousands of acres that they own up and down the country, they now bring a Bill before Parliament to take part of the sea.

§ Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your recent ruling, will it be in order for us to discuss some of the exploits of the Skinner family at Clay Cross?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Before hon. Members go further in this matter, perhaps I might make one remark. It is that good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language. I think that we should confine ourselves to the matter of the Bill.

§ Mr. Skinner
I do not necessarily want to talk about my family, but if the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) wishes me to, I could do so for about half an hour. However, I am certain that the rest of the House has not come to hear me do that.

§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)
Tell us how much land they have.

§ Mr. Skinner
We have not got an acre between us. There are a lot of debts. I will not go into those, but certainly we would need a lot of land to write off all our debts.
1107 As I was saying, this Bill is about taking over part of the nation's coastline, and this family who managed to get hold of a lot of land are now in the process of attempting to take over a substantial part of the area adjacent to Eastbourne which, I suppose is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. But who could argue about that? It is a relatively fine point.
Naturally, some of us have to make representations about matters of this kind. If the establishment is not in a position to stop Bills of this nature, it is our job to do something about it. A rather strange alliance had to be formed to try to stop it. It was not the easiest of formulae. I had to approach hon. Friends of mine with whom I have considerable differences on other matters—macro-economic matters, manifesto matters, and so on. But we were in accord about one subject. We were in accord about the fundamental principle of seeing to it, if we could, that the nation's resources were used in a way that would fit in with the general spectrum of things within the Labour Party—and that is difficult, anyway.
We then had to raise this question of a blocking motion so that this House, quite apart from whether or not it agreed with it, could for the first time hear what this Bill was about. It was slipping underneath the door. No one knew what was happening. Therefore, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House should be grateful to us for having the good sense, even the nerve, to put down this blocking motion in order to push the promoters into explaining to the hon. Member for Eastbourne precisely what they were proposing to do within and outside his constituency.

§ Mr. Gow
I was very well aware of this proposal long before the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends put down their blocking motion. Some of us take a great deal of interest in what goes on in our constituencies. I was briefed fully about this proposal long before the hon. Gentleman tabled his motion.

§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member. He came here in February or March of last year. He was elected at about the same time as 1108 this measure began its merry way through the House. I have no doubt that for a time he will be extremely interested in all that is happening in Eastbourne, especially in relation to those of his friends in the Tory Party in Eastbourne. So I am not surprised that he has managed to get hold of a little information about this affair, just as some of his friends on the Eastbourne council seem to know quite a bit about it as well. However, the measure was not accepted unanimously, as he would have us believe and as he indicated in his speech, by the appropriate planning committee. That is not the case, and I shall report to the House on that matter shortly.
As I was saying, the House should be pleased about the effort that we have made to see to it that this whole project was ventilated in the House of Commons. One of the most surprising, and perhaps disappointing, features of the affair is a meeting which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and I had with the representatives of the promoters. We wanted the meeting because this is a novel scheme. We had not been involved before. I assumed that we would be given all the information, perhaps some of that which the hon. Gentleman has had. We met a number of people downstairs. One of the staggering things about it was that all they wanted to know was precisely what we were going to do. They were not terribly interested in telling us what the proposal was all about. They wanted to know to what lengths we were prepared to go.
My hon. Friend and I began to ask the relevant questions, such as how much the project would cost. It is supposed to be finished, according to the Bill, by 1984. What a year! When we asked that one, we got a complete blank. I noted that the hon. Gentleman tonight was not able to tell us what the total cost would be even at 1973, 1974 or 1975 prices. When we questioned the representatives more closely, we were able to ascertain that even for the initial minor development, on harbour works and so on, the cost would be £9 million at 1973 prices. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

§ Mr. Gow
Yes. I agree precisely with the figure which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, except that it is slightly on the low side. The total cost of the harbour 1109 works, technical investigations and so on at 1973 prices is £9,700,000. A letter was sent to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on 26th June in which the figures were spelt out with some clarity.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Perhaps I might clear up the question of that letter. I assumed that, as a matter of natural courtesy, the promoters would have sent the same information to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as they sent to me. Apparently that has not been the case.

§ Mr. Gow
I apologise. I am sorry.

§ Mr. Skinner
When I met the representatives a fortnight ago, I was told in no uncertain terms that the project would not cost £9 million but slightly less. Now, the information we ask for in relation to the initial development has also changed. That was the whole tenor of the discussion. All along the line, when we have tried to get away from vagueness and abstraction to talking about the scheme in principle, in detail and in costings, we have either received no answer at all or we have been promised answers some time later. I have had no communications with the representatives at all since then.
We asked them also about compensation. My hon. Friend correctly pointed out that there are many other property owners and tenants of all kinds in that immediate area. He asked about compensation in case of water level changes as a result of the development. They admitted that the water level would change. But when it came to the question of compensation, they did not want to know. The net result is that the answer to that question has not been given to us.
Now I come to the disadvantages of this scheme and why we want to stop it. I have referred to the scheme as exemplifying in some small way the situation of the economy generally. I have tried to indicate that one of Britain's problems is that we tend to want to resolve the matter in general but that when we come down to specifics we want to forget all about it and try to find some other excuse or answer. At least, that is the proposition put to us tonight by the hon. Gentleman.
1110 I believe that, if we are concerned about the drift away from manufacturing industry into services, when a specific situation confronts us we must do something about it. The Tribune statement recently published pointed out that 750,000 jobs had been lost in manufacturing industry, to be replaced by only 250,000. The hon. Gentleman has told us that one of the things this project will do, quite apart from provision of the leisure activities, is to stop some manufacturing operations which are at present carried out—such as quarrying—from being continued.

§ Mr. Gow
The quarrying is continuing. After the quarrying of this part of the Crumbles has been completed, when all the gravel has been removed there, conversion will be made. It will be done only after extraction of all the minerals. The mineral extraction is continuing and will do so until the base is ready; then it will be converted.

§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Gentleman is saying that for a short while—not until 1984; that is for sure—the manufacturing will continue to take place. A relatively small amount of extraction may be taking place, but it is nevertheless manufacturing industry. Thereafter it is to be replaced by service industry eventually. That is the point I am making.

§ Mr. Gow
The quarrying of all the available gravel will continue until the gravel is exhausted.

§ Mr. Skinner
But I am concerned about all the bye-laws written into the Bill and the ways in which the trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement will be in a position to do a lot of things, perhaps even to stop the quarrying to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I have had some letters from constituents of the hon. Member who, unlike him, are concerned about the Bill and the prospect that quarrying and other forms of manufacturing will be stopped.

§ Mr. Gow
I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the charge about my interest in the Bill. I am deeply interested in it. As to the bye-laws, I would point out that no bye-laws can be made by the Eastbourne Harbour Company unless approved by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Skinner
One cannot be sure who the Secretary of State will be. That is one of the things that is worrying me. I am not saying that one need be worried now, but a future Secretary of State could be a lot like the members of the Eastbourne Planning Committee. He could be a member of the hon. Gentleman's party. He could be a member of the same party as the Duke of Devonshire who was once a Minister in the Harold Macmillan Government. Why should I, representing the other class, have any faith in a Secretary of State who will administer final jurisdiction over a matter like that? If I had continuing faith in Secretaries of State for the Environment I should not even be raising this matter. The Secretary of State for the Environment can stop the Bill anyway. However, it is because I am not satisfied that the Secretary of State for the Environment—whoever he might be—is likely to take the same view as I and my hon. Friends that I am speaking on the matter today. If that had been the case, the Channel Tunnel would still be proceeding. Some of my hon. Friends decided to take alternative action, and told the Secretary of State, as kindly as possible, that he was wrong.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there might be a Secretary of State who is a member of his own party—he could be a member of the Walker clan, the Joseph clan or any other clan—but he could not guarantee that he would fit in with his economic or other policies. The hon. Gentleman must not get carried away and put his faith lock, stock and barrel in Secretaries of State of any Department. It is his job, as well as mine, to watch over the interests of his constituents even though in this case—

§ Mr. Ryman
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Duke of Devonshire—and his family, who own, amongst other properties, a small country house at Chatsworth with about 60 bedrooms—is very influential in the Conservative Party today as he was in the days of Mr. Macmillan? Moreover, in the event of a Conservative Government he would undoubtedly influence a Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment to bring about policies contrary to the views at present expressed by the mover of this motion?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) that criticisms of a Member of another House are permitted only in certain circumstances, only in connection with activities which he may have outside the other place.

§ Mr. Ryman
I am much obliged. I was not criticising a Member of the other House. I was describing him.

§ Mr. Gow
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was within your hearing that the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) said that my noble Friend might use his influence, and, the implication was, improperly. In view of your ruling, should not the hon. Gentleman withdraw his remarks?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I pointed out to the hon. Member for Blyth that criticism referring to a Member of another place in connection with his duties in that place was unparliamentary. The hon. Gentleman should couch his words with care.

§ Mr. Golding
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the reference was to the Duke's position within the Conservative Party and not to his position in another place or in Government. It must be proper that we can make comments on the rôles that the dukes and the earls play in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party?

§ Mr. Ryman
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your rebuke was addressed to me, so perhaps I should have an opportunity of answering it. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), no doubt for understandable reasons, is far too sensitive about the subjects of Chatsworth and the Duke of Devonshire. I was not criticising the Duke of Devonshire for any performance in the other place. I was simply, as a matter of historic record, reciting the facts as acknowledged by the autobiography of another Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Harold Macmillan, about the part that the Duke of Devonshire played in the Conservative Government between 1951 and 1964. During those 13 years of Conservative misrule the Duke of Devonshire, according to Mr. Macmillan, had a substantial influence.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is correct insofar as the detail of what the hon. Gentleman said is concerned. However, I was giving a general warning to the hon. Gentleman so that we did not stray outside the rules of order.

§ Mr. Gow
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you ruled that the words of the hon. Member for Blyth, in referring to my noble Friend, were unparliamentary, should he not withdraw his remarks?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I merely made it clear that we should be careful about where we are going. It was perfectly correct up to a point, but there was a danger that the hon. Gentleman might stray beyond the normal proprieties. We should leave the matter at that point and continue with the debate.

§ Mr. Ryman
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A most serious criticism has been made of me and I wish to answer it. It is a criticism without foundation by—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Mr. Skinner.

§ Mr. Skinner
I was about to turn to the question of the planning committee's decision. The hon. Member for Eastbourne had given us the impression that the decision taken by the planning committee was one in which the "old pals together" seemed to agree and announced to the awaiting Press, and especially to the Chatsworth Settlement, that their plans had gone through without any demur. According to the Eastbourne Herald of 1st March, a Tory said that there was a danger that if development other than that of the harbour itself went ahead first, the developers might suddenly say they could not finish the whole job.
I do not want to draw an exact parallel with the Brighton Marina but on examination of that project it is clear that some of the propositions advanced at the time that was going through the House were substantially altered with the passage of time. Strangely, the Brighton Marina scheme was a £9 million scheme as well at the beginning. Of course £9 million represented in real terms considerably more. However, at the time it was a £9 million scheme, and it was made clear that there were to be only 330 flats and 1114 houses for the yachtsmen. Those yachtsmen are part of the fast-growing industry to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred. However, after the Bill left this House and because there was overall planning permission under Section 52—which this Bill also has in relation to local planning permission—it was then possible, by various manœuvres within the Brighton council chamber, or wherever the decisions took place in Sussex, to change from 330 flats to 1,450 flats in the space of a year.
However, what is more important from our point of view is that the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to some of those amenities which might attract the attention of some of his more moderate, rather than extremist constituents. Hon Members who were present would have been enamoured of the possibility of knowing that a primary school was to be built and the land was to be given free of charge by the Chatsworth Settlement. They would have been pleased to have heard about some of the other amenities that are contained within the Bill. None of them is in the initial project and none is to be developed within 27 months after the project has begun. All of these so-called amenities for the moderate majority of the people of Eastbourne were not included initially, neither were they at Brighton.
What happened at Brighton? The proposals for building a boat store, a dinghy yard and some of the other entertainments were dropped. The proposal for a cinema for workers was also dropped. A bowling alley and various items of that kind were dropped as well. They are not now included in the Brighton Marina project. I suspect that the proposers of this Bill— the Tory Eastbourne Council, the Tory District Council and the Tory Member of Parliament for Eastbourne—will have so wide and generalised powers in the Bill that they will weld together. If by chance they happen to have a Tory Secretary of State as well, what will then happen to the Bill? What would happen to some of the nice things about which the hon. Gentleman told us earlier?

§ Mr. Gow
I cannot, of course speak with knowledge about the Brighton project, but I know that from the start of the plans for the development at Eastbourne there were provisions for a school 1115 and other recreational facilities. I have an extract from the minutes of the planning committee of as long ago as 18th November 1971 in which reference was made to educational purposes. Therefore, there is no question of this being slipped in later.
I should like to make one other correction. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will be glad to know that the Eastbourne Borough Council is controlled not by the Conservative Party but by the Liberal Party.

§ Mr. Skinner
I made it clear from the beginning, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, that by and large I regard those two parties, or all Opposition parties, as representing the same interests. It is true that on occasions there is a marginal difference between them and it is sometimes shown at elections. But by and large the Tory Party gets most of its income from big business and the Liberal Party gets nearly all of its income from big business. Indeed, they are attempting to get even more from big business by sending round their treasurers to try to win more money and support for proportional representation, which in my eyes is just the same. So when I talk about Eastbourne Borough Council representing those interests it does not matter whether it is composed of Tories Liberals, Ulster Unionists, Scottish Nationalists or whoever they may be.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are not having a series of election addresses. Could we return to the Bill?

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
The hon. Gentleman, who has referred to the Liberal Party, might be aware that we had a dispute in the Isle of Wight, about which his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will know, regarding a harbour project. I have sat here for over an hour listening to the proposition of the scheme and I have followed the hon. Member's speech closely. If he has any evidence that there is opposition to the Eastbourne harbour scheme from local residents, parish councillors or borough councillors, may we have it now?

§ Mr. Skinner
Yes. I was just coming to the report in the Eastbourne Herald 1116 of 1st March which gives a description of the scheme. This report is not likely to have been written by a Marxist. The journalist, Robert Wells, even stripping off everything else, says that not only is a Tory worried about the prospect of developers leaving the scheme high and dry, but a Labour man is worried. I am surprised that there is one there. But a Labour man, Don Ranger—not Sam Taylor—said that more research should be carried out into the scheme. He said that with over 2,000 dwellings—it was only 2,000 at that time; it is now 2,500—there will be more expense with road works.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne wanted to leave the House with the impression that all the infrastructure costs relating to roads and all the other facilities would be met by the developers. But the hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee that the spin-off will be borne by the developers. Indeed the developers, when we met them, would not even give us a guarantee about compensation for those poor people living close to the proposed development who run the risk of having their homes flooded as a result of the raising of the water level.
When the developers refuse to tell me and my hon. Friends that they are prepared to consider compensation, why should I take it from the hon. Gentleman, who has a brief from the representatives, that all the infrastructure costs arising from the development will be paid by the Chatsworth Settlement? Of course not. The hon. Gentleman cannot measure what will happen. Neither he nor the developers can tell us at what rate of progress the development will take place.

§ Mr. Golding
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the meeting with the developers. I am confused as to whether the water level is to be raised or lowered. Can my hon. Friend explain this to me, because it will have some significance for my arguments later?

§ Mr. Skinner
My hon. Friend missed a very important meeting. The Tribune representatives met these people in a downstairs room. I have news for my hon. Friend, who wanted to be present but could not be there because of other pressing engagements. He will be interested to know that the developers, the engineers and everyone who could 1117 be remotely connected with the Bill could not tell us whether it would be 1 metre, 2 metres or half an inch. They could not say because, in my view, they are interested only in getting the harbour development through. Their main interest is to see that houses associated with the development are built, not houses for the 5,000 people on the waiting list in Eastbourne. I shall refer to that matter later. The developers are interested only in making sure that the rate of return on the project is sufficient to warrant the investment that they are putting into it.
We are told again and again that one of the main problems facing this country —everybody talks about it—is that investment is going in the wrong places. Most of it is going abroad. It has been going to the Common Market for many years. Yet when we have about £50 million floating about—in private hands, I agree —what is happening to it? What is happening to the people who waved the flag? What happens when they have £50 million to spend? Do they put it in industry where we can get a spin-off of jobs? Of course not. They take part in the drift away from manufacturing industry by ploughing it into service industries.

§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
Why?

§ Mr. Skinner
Why, darling? For the good reason that there is more money to be made at the end of it. They are interested only in what is in their pockets at the end of the day. That is why, apart from any other consideration, my hon. Friends and I have a public duty to oppose the Bill. It would serve the interests of some Opposition Members to oppose the Bill on those grounds. Does the Liberal want to come in?

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am still waiting for the evidence for which I asked. Will the hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the fact that in the building industry at the moment there are said to be 150,000 out of work and over eight weeks' supply of bricks—many millions of bricks? Is not that a manufacturing industry? Would not some of that material and labour be put to good use if the Bill went through?

§ Mr. Skinner
It would if it were a continuing process. We have been told by 1118 the hon. Member for Eastbourne that as a result of the project 1,000 jobs will be available from 1984. These people will be employed not in building houses but in service industries to provide increased leisure for many people.
What I am saying is that we as Socialists have to make up our minds on this issue. Do we want to provide an extra 1,000 jobs for leisure activities at a time when the nation is supposedly on its knees, or at any rate the system is? Do we want to provide another 1,000 jobs in service industries where there will be a greater spin-off and the dynamism that will be built into the project will provide even more jobs? The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is saying that we should build as many marinas as we like because, for a short time, to do so would employ a few more bricklayers. My planning does not carry me in that direction.

§ Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol, North-West)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of the jobs will be of a seasonal nature? One of the major employment problems in this area, as with other seaside resorts, is that it is seasonal work which throws a heavy burden on the social services in terms of payment and other ways after the workers have been exploited by Tory Members for a few months.

§ Mr. Skinner
This is the old philosophy of the Tory Party. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree that their philosophy is to make a fast buck, and they are not interested in what happens afterwards.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that those who have invested money in marinas in the Isle of Wight in the last few years wish that they had never done so? I invite the hon. Gentleman to come to my constituency. If he does, he will see how much money has been lost in marinas over the last few years.

§ Mr. Skinner
I have not been to the Isle of Wight. In fact, I have not been out of the country since I have been in this place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, notwithstanding some of the temporary and minor problems that some of the developers are experiencing with their marinas, we are being saddled with the prospect not of one marina at Eastbourne but of another 29 scattered 1119 around the South and East Coasts of Great Britain. I am suggesting that we cannot afford to allow the Bill to go through because it will give the green light to the other 29 marinas and other prospective developers who are interested in providing leisure facilities along the South Coast. That is bound to happen if we allow the Bill to go through.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne put his finger on it when he said that this is a growth industry. Any growth industry in a capitalist system is bound to get a better rate of return than one would get in a declining industry or one that has to be assisted. That is the basis upon which the capitalist system works. If there is a demand for marinas, money will go into them. It is our job as Socialists to recognise that this money will go into a project that will not provide the results that we think are ideal and important for our society. That is why we are against the Bill.

§ Mr. Gow
One of the reasons why I want the Bill—the hon. Gentleman put into my mouth words which I did not use —is so that fishermen in my constituency and in the neighbouring areas can have a port and a haven from which to operate. I am anxious that those who want to enjoy leisure-time activities should have the opportunity to do so. Using small boats is not a rich man's game, and the philosophy of the Tory Party is to extend the area of choice and meet what to me is a genuine need.

§ Mr. Skinner
If the hon. Gentleman truly represented all his constituents he would be concerned about the young family to which I have referred and the plight which it disclosed to the local paper some time ago. They get £30 a week, and £17 of that goes for rent. At present there are 5,000 people on the waiting list at Eastbourne and in the adjoining district of Wealden. It is those 5,000 people whom we have to represent because Tory Members are not interested in them. What the hon. Member for Eastbourne and people like him—and this includes the Liberals—are interested in are the yacht owners who can buy a £50,000 house with a private mooring. There are 2,300 of these people, and it is with them that Tory Members are concerned.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
What are your Government doing about the housing problem? Absolutely nothing!

§ Mr. Golding
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) at liberty to ask you what your Government are going to do about the housing problem?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made a slight procedural slip. It is clear what he really meant.

§ Mr. Skinner
I repeat that 5,000 people have their names on the council waiting list at Eastbourne, and yet the same council and the developers, the trustees of the Chatsworth Estate, have the gall and audacity to come before Parliament and ask for the opportunity to build 2,300 houses, flats and maisonettes at £50,000 a time with private moorings so that those who already have a roof over their heads can have another home to use at the weekend. This is what the Bill is all about. Those concerned here do not look after the people in need of houses. They look after the people now represented by hon. Members on the Tory and Liberal Benches.
I think that the situation is summed up by another of the constituents of the hon. Member for Eastbourne who wrote to me because he is concerned about this matter. He is concerned not only about rights of way but about some of the reasons for this proposal. He feels strongly about this project, and perhaps he exemplifies the kind of people about whom we should be concerned. He says: Originally two friends of mine and myself went to view the proposed plans for Eastbourne marina. He puts the case in better langauge than I can use. This is an Eastbourne man who is concerned about his town and its development.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
May I place it on the record that the representative of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is so concerned about representations from local residents, has left the Chamber at the very time that my hon. Friend is giving the sort of evidence for which he was asking?

§ Mr. Skinner
That is typical of the Liberal Party.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
He found the hon. Gentleman's speech so disgusting that he could not stand it any longer.

§ Mr. Skinner
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has gone. There is just a chance that he has gone out to get a second mortgage. It might cost him 280 per cent. if he goes in the wrong door. But that is a different story.
The two friends to whom I was referring thought that they would be told about this exciting and beneficial addition to the town. They were disappointed. At first, they encountered tactics to stop them even seeing the plans. I quote: Finally, when we pressed the matter and gained entry, we were even more alarmed to hear a spokesman"— I do not know whether he is present today or whether he was one of the people that I and my hon. Friend met— say, 'We do not want the general public cluttering up the marina and launching areas.' That was what one of the spokesmen said—

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
So you say.

§ Mr. Skinner
It is all here.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
And you believe it.

§ Mr. Skinner
The letter goes on: I asked what they would do about sightseers and he replied, 'Well, we will have the right to make many of our own byelaws'"— on some of the things that I mentioned— 'so that, when you are in our house, you will do as we say.". These are the exact quotes of the proposers, retaliating when the correspondent who has written to me, who is resident in Eastbourne, along with one of his friends, asked some relatively innocent and, in my view, proper questions.

§ Mr. Gow
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who it was who is alleged to have said this to his correspondent?

§ Mr. Skinner
I shall be in touch with the correspondent who has written to me and, privately, I suppose I am at liberty to let the hon. Member know who it is as well.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Why not the House?

§ Mr. Skinner
As for the House, I have not consulted the gentleman who wrote to me—

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Why not?

§ Mr. Skinner
—so to that extent it would be unfair to mention his name at this stage. But I am prepared naturally to give it to his own Member of Parliament so that the hon. Gentleman can go to see his constituent and perhaps hear a similar story to the one that I have heard.

§ Mr. Golding
Is it not important for my hon. Friend to reconsider? The person who has written to him may be a tenant. It would be utterly wrong, if that person were a tenant or in any way beholden to the Chatsworth Estate or the Duke of Devonshire, to reveal his name.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
They have their rights too.

§ Mr. Golding
My hon. Friend, as a miner, should know of the evils of victimisation in this country of one class by another.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is completely out of order to make these allegations that the Chatsworth Estate would victimise someone because he wrote to a Member of Parliament. That is really outrageous.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not in fact a point of order. It is a matter outside the scope of this House.

§ Mr. Skinner
I cannot be sure what they will do. I have no experience of their tactics. As my hon. Friend said, I have experience in another sphere. I know the victimisation that my own father suffered for 50 years. To that extent, I fully understand the considerations that my hon. Friend has placed before the House. I will, as he suggests, not give this information publicly.

§ Mr. Cryer
Is it not true that when the Labour Party puts forward proposals to end tied cottages on agricultural holdings, of which the Chatsworth Estate must have many, they are opposed tooth and nail by hon. Members opposite? It is not true that people who live in tied cottages feel very strongly that they 1123 are in a vulnerable position and that that might apply in this case?

§ Mr. Skinner
Of course that might apply—

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Will the hon. Gentleman recall that, according to the Tavistock Report, the majority of occupiers of agricultural tied cottages had no complaint in the matter? They know very well that in serving the stock and the farms that they love, they are at no disadvantage in occupying a tied cottage, although miners and others may well be.

§ Mr. Skinner
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can assist you. I get the impression that we are beginning to stray somewhat, and it is no fault of mine.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member and the Chair are in agreement on that point.

§ Mr. Skinner
But there is a lot to be said about the Bill. I think you will agree, Sir, that I have kept within the fairly generous bounds of the Bill. It would be wrong if we were to waste time discussing matters like tied cottages, to which the hon. Lady referred. We all know that we shall almost certainly be dealing with that matter in the next Session.

§ Mr. Ron Thomas
I take my hon. Friend's point. However, would he not expect the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to answer the points in that letter? I agree with my hon. Friend; I do not think that the letter should be passed on to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, but I think that he should answer the points raised in it.

§ Mr. Skinner
I think we should get on. Some of my hon. Friends want to say a few words about this.

§ Mr. Gow
I have two points. First, before the hon. Member decided to read that letter to the House, did he make inquiries and check the story which is given in it? Secondly—here I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas)—if the hon. Gentleman had referred the matter to me, of course 1124 I should have been only too glad to have discussed it with him. Will he kindly tell me about this afterwards so that I can check the matter up with my constituent?

§ Mr. Skinner
I can see that I have touched the hon. Member on a very sore point. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman's constituent wrote to me for a very good reason. He knew that I was trying to stop the Eastbourne Harbour Bill from proceeding through this place. He also knew that the hon. Member—his own Member—was trying to get it through. That was apparent from some of the comments the hon. Gentleman had made in response to some of my comments. So my correspondent naturally wrote to the person with whom he thought it necessary to communicate to get his point of view across.

§ Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making a point in relation to the particular situation, but will he not confirm that he has had correspondence with a number of people from other constituencies and that it is not his practice to refer these matters to the Member of Parliament concerned? While the hon. Member is on his feet doing his famous act as the most famous angry young man in the world, perhaps he will put the record straight in that respect.

§ Mr. Ryman
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, whose constituency I cannot name because I have forgotten it—I presume that the hon. Member knows it—to make these disgraceful allegations against my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has been barracked and harassed by repeated and unjustified frivolous interventions from hon. Members opposite?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Chair ruled earlier that the characteristics of the House are good temper and moderation.

§ Mr. Skinner
I know that if I run into serious trouble, from whatever quarter—

§ Mr. Golding
We will look after my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Skinner
I can turn to my hon. Friends, of course, but I can turn to the Chair and I have no doubt that if things got exceedingly hot I would be in a position to seek some measure of assistance from the Chair.
I was going on to refer to the letter which the hon. Member's constituent sent to me. It talks about the Brighton Marina development. The constituent said: If the construction of the Brighton Marina serves to provide a lesson it would clearly show that latitude to deviate"— that is one of the proposals within the Bill, to which my hon. Friend will be referring later— from proposed constraints is blatantly exploited to profit by the construction of luxury hotels and weekend flatlets at the expense of public amenities. That is precisely the point I have been making. With the passage of time many things can be dropped and other things put in their place, as was the case with the Brighton Marina project, because of the deviations that were allowed within that Bill and which are allowed in this Bill as well.
My correspondent also talks about the fact that a large area of land will be lost, land that is at present natural beach. We are told by the hon. Member for Eastbourne that according to his value judgment this area of beach is worthless. How can it be?

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
My hon. Friend did not say that.

§ Mr. Skinner
It is a question of what any particular group of people see in such areas. How are we to decide? How are the proposers to decide that because an area is somewhat desolate it has no value? Perhaps there are many people who visit that area week after week bird-watching or doing one of many other things, who spend a very pleasant time in that area and who will be deprived of whatever pleasures they get in that area as a result of the various constraints that are to be placed upon it.
One thing that the hon. Member's constituent says is that as a result of taking away this natural beach, at the same time the value of the duke's land will increase many-fold. We all know that. He says: 1126 The Duke is a professional man employing professional staff … when I put questions to principal members of the local planning authority, I was alarmed at how little they seemed to know about the situation. That refers to the Eastbourne Planning Authority members. He goes on to say: It is my opinion that once the concrete has been poured, legal issues lodged … and the Duke obviously knows the value of time gained by such stalling attitudes, Eastbourne will have lost a considerable area of coast, visited only by an exclusive few.

§ Mr. Skinner
He goes on to say: At the same time the value of our outlying land will be forced up, and put even further beyond the reach of the ordinary family.

§ Mr. Viggers
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Skinner
Not until I have finished reading this letter.
The hon. Member's constituent sums up the situation in a way in which most of us would sum it up: At a time when national unity is a phrase much in use"— I could almost have written this letter myself— how can one really expect someone who has to labour for their living not to feel upset when so much can be seen to be openly exploited by such people? I am sure that taxing property speculators will not provide the revenue to get the country out of the woods.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Neither can the Labour Government.

§ Mr. Skinner
The letter goes on to say: I am sure that the feeling of natural justice resulting from the clamp down on speculators would make a tremendous difference to the attitudes of a person whose biggest single outgoing is to maintain the roof over their heads. It would also put an end to the trend to invest in property instead of industry which gives us our real wealth … if the Duke has other plans he must be refused planning permission and reminded that he can keep himself and the country by investing in new machinery for industry. I enclose photo copies of extracts of the Eastbourne Herald … That was written by one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Eastbourne several weeks ago. I told him that I would be raising this point in the debate. This to a large extent sums up 1127 many of the reasons why we are opposing the Bill. We oppose it on the question of investment. We oppose it on the question of the drift from manufacturing industries to service industries. We oppose it on the question of the availability of resources, of men and materials, whether it be public or private investment.
I think that apart from environmental arguments, something could be done with this land. If the Duke of Devonshire, benevolent despot that he supposedly is—

§ Mr. Gow
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to refer to the duke in those terms?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member must be temperate in his description of Members of another place. He is going too far.

§ Mr. Gow
Further to that point of order—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will amend his expression.

§ Mr. Skinner
I am prepared to withdraw the "benevolent" bit.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No. I think that the hon. Member would be well advised to withdraw both parts and to continue with his speech.

§ Mr. Skinner
On the basis that one of the Duke of Devonshire's antecedents—I think it was the second Cavendish—was the man responsible for putting down Watt Tyler, just after the peasants' revolt, and he got £40 a year for doing it from the then king, I am prepared to rephrase it and to say "a descendant of a benevolent despot"—I beg pardon, I mean "despot". That took some working out, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Therefore, it is on these grounds that we believe that the Bill should be opposed. If there is a desire to do something for the social good of the area, why not build a gigantic workers' convalescent home? It need not be just for miners. It could be for pneumoconiosis, railwaymen and others. Perhaps the duke could be reminded of the many different types of workers in his home county of Derby- 1128 shire. Many of those could well spend a month on the Eastbourne coast. If this area is to be developed and something is to be done for the nation, that kind of proposal might be acceptable.
Labour Members—I hope—have not been sent here to accept, as we shall certainly have to accept, certain measures to be brought forward next week. Some will oppose them, some will not. If we are to have to accept the kind of argument that will be put in this House about workers having to suffer wage cuts or, alternatively, public expenditure cuts, and if it means, for instance, that the school at Whitwell in my constituency will not continue as a result of these cuts, quite apart from whether that is carried through —anyway, we cannot, according to our philosophy, tolerate a project of this kind. It has nothing to do with whether private or public money is involved. The fact is that the men and the resources could be used in a different fashion.
Labour Members have to acknowledge that if we are to resolve the problems in the economy it is no use talking, as many economists on these benches talk, in totally general terms. We have to be concerned when we are faced with specific issues. This, like the Channel Tunnel, is one of the specifics. Our job tonight is to stop it.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)
I should like, briefly, to try to cool down the flames of class warfare coming from the Labour Benches by advancing one or two practical arguments in support of the Bill, which has so ably and cogently been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who comes from a landlocked constituency, I have the honour to represent a constituency which is on the coast and has had the benefit for hundreds of years of an excellent and flourishing harbour.
The main harbour in my constituency is Ramsgate Harbour, which was created by Royal Charter from George IV—someone even more privileged than the Duke of Devonshire now is. He is lucky that he did not have the hon. Member for Bolsover to oppose him.
Ramsgate Harbour has brought definite benefit to the community of my constituency. The main benefits are jobs. The 1129 harbour today, either directly or indirectly creates some 200 or 300 jobs. It also brings the benefit of a fishing fleet which is operating in the same coastal waters as the putative fishing fleet from the putative harbour of Eastbourne. It also gives a safe haven to some 150 small boats, many of which are operated by people of modest means and not at all the rich plutocrats presented by the hon. Member for Bolsover. Ramsgate Harbour also operates two lifeboats which have a proud record of lifesaving. I do not doubt that the total of 150 rescues over the year would also be equalled by a lifeboat operating from Eastbourne Harbour.
Above all, the harbour at Ramsgate brings an enormous visible and invisible benefit to the prosperity of the town in terms of trade, indirect business and tourism.
I entirely support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne when he said that a harbour of this kind in Eastbourne could do much to correct population imbalance. So many of these coastal towns in the South-East are in grave danger of becoming the geriatric wards of Britain. This is the long-term trend. Unless some sort of light operations on the coast are developed in order to bring young people into the area, the outlook is bleak from the point of view of population imbalance.
I think that I have shown just one or two brief arguments, why, in a community which is not particularly dissimilar from that of Eastbourne, a harbour has brought enormous social benefits to my constituency. As a result, the harbour is very popular with all sections of the community—not least, incidentally, with the East Kent mining community living in Ramsgate, who much enjoy boating and fishing.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the case presented by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in so far as he presented a case at all, was that he failed to produce any item of credible evidence that there was any measurable number of people of any section of the community who were opposed to the Eastbourne harbour being created. He completely avoided answering the questions of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) as to where the opposi- 1130 tion was coming from. The inference must be that it does not exist anywhere other than in a tightly-knit group of politically motivated Members of Parliament. As regards Eastbourne, there seems to be no opposition. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House are imposing their selfish will on the people of Eastbourne.

§ Mr. Ryman
As a Member who represents a constituency which has a successful harbour which cries out for investment and development, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his excellent speech, to deal with this specific point? He says, among other things, that no evidence has been adduced in this debate to prove opposition to the objects stated by the promoters of the Bill. Surely he would concede that quite apart from specific evidence of opposition, there is a general duty upon Members of this House to safeguard the public interest, whether or not the public interest has been articulately stated by people living within the Eastbourne constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a residuary duty upon hon. Members to safeguard the public interest whether or not specific opponents have come out within his constituency?

§ Mr. Aitken
I would not concede any such thing. I think that the people of Eastbourne, the borough council and the East Sussex County Council have exercised their public duties perfectly responsibly, and they support the Bill. The only opposition I have heard from the Government benches tonight has been mischievous opposition. I believe that it is based on the worse possible form of the politics of envy.
As I have listened tonight to the comedy show produced by the Dad's Army of the Tribune Group, as they perform one after another, I have kept asking myself what their motives are for wrecking this Bill, which does so much good to Eastbourne by creating a safe haven for fishing boats and a harbour which will benefit the community so much. Their motives can be summed up by the words "They do not like dukes".
We have all heards of Reds under the bed, but dukes on the seabed are a new form of paranoia. It is no reason for denying Eastbourne its harbour, its fishing fleet, its lifeboat service and the 1131 whole range of benefits so ably mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne which this community will derive from the Bill.
The wrecking tactics we have seen tonight may be regarded by some people