§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Harbour Development (Revocation) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 522), dated 8th April 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be revoked.The motion concerns section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. The Government's order is to revoke section 9 of the 1964 Act, and is a further example of the Government's ideological obsession with competition and the total rejection of the public interests and investments that are involved in our major port industries.The motion rejects past Tory policy on docks and harbours. The 1964 legislation was an implementation from the Rochdale inquiry into the nature of our major ports, which was started in 1962. It clearly exposed the tremendous under-investment and deplorable conditions in the port industries in the early 1960s. The inquiry recommended the development of a national ports plan, which would be necessary for the development of our ports, and which required the establishment of a National Ports Authority to see that those investment plans were implemented and our port facilities modernised.
The then Tory Administration fully accepted the recommendations of the Rochdale inquiry but were not prepared to introduce a National Ports Authority with the power to see that proper and adequate investment was put into our ports. Instead, the Government established the National Ports Council which was really an advisory body with no teeth—the Government later called such bodies quangos — but which could at least advise the Government on the various competing demands for investment that were made by the ports.
The problem of under investment and inadequate facilities in the ports in the 1950s and 1960s were exposed by Lord Rochdale. The problems of the 1980s and even the 1990s, as shown by the recent report of the National Ports Council, reflect the switch of United Kingdom traffic to a more European oriented traffic, and the problems of our major ports. For example, the 15 major ports that the Rochdale inquiry considered were then responsible for about 80 per cent. of the traffic. Today, the figure must be about 50 per cent. That highlights the great problem in our ports, of a tremendous overcapacity—of over 50 per cent.—not only in conventional port investment, but in the more modern container investment, as we are witnessing at present in the growth of some of the ports.
The other problem of the 1980s is the growth of the small wharfs, which the Jones-Aldington inquiry looked into. It was set up by a previous Tory Administration. It examined the difficulties of major ports competing with small wharfs. The third problem is that of a depressed price structure reflecting the excess capacity in our ports, the growing uncertainty of port future and—
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. PrescottI shall not give way. Past interventions by the hon. Gentleman have never been adequate.
Previous Tory Administrations, flushed with the idea of competition, and usually in the first 12 months of office, 242 have argued that the industry must stand on its own feet, and must not receive subsidies. As we have said at this Dispatch Box before to previous Secretaries of State, ports such as London, Liverpool, the Cyde and so on all required resources and subsidies, and all received them later, with some form of adjustment in view of their labour requirements. The Government's desire for ports to stand on their own feet led to one Secretary of State abolishing the National Ports Council. I was a member of the Committee dealing with that Transport Act 1981 and on 12 March 1981, it was said:
The Secretary of State will, therefore, retain his Harbours Act powers in order to ensure that in the ports industry we will not have speculative investment taking place in port facilities where there are no customers and where there are no firm arrangements to ensure that traffic is there to give the genuine potential for commercial return on the investment."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 March 1981; c. 944.]Hence the reason why the Government felt it necessary — they gave an assurance about it to the House — to retain section 9 of the Harbours Act so that they could still assess the quality and quantity of investment in our port developments.The order will accentuate the present problems in our ports. The Secretary of State, again within a few months of entering office, excited at getting his hands on the lever of power, and obsessed with the idealogical desire to see compensation introduced everywhere, announced in a speech in April 1984, at a diner of the British Ports Association that I attended:
Our predecessors saw the ports as part of the infrastructure needing to be centrally planned, protected from so called 'wasteful' competiton, regulated by Government, with investment vigorously controlled by the state … We see the ports industry as a normal industry like any other. Ports can and should compete among themselves. We have made them compete with each other as well as the continental ports".Here again is the belief that competition is the way to deal with excess capacity in the ports. That is the reason for the order. The Secretary of State is getting rid of his obligation and power of intervention. At the moment any port investment of over £3 million is considered by him.This naive belief in the absolutism of competition shows an ignorance of port activities and of the industry. I shall give some examples. Felixstowe is a major non-scheme port, with tremendous growth in investment in containers. One must understand the operation of the grid system of charges, so that the Felixstowe port operators charge the same to the Clyde whisky producers to send a box of whisky from Scotland to Felixstowe as anyone sending goods from any yard outside the gates of Felixstowe. It cross-subsidises its charges to maximise the flow of containerisation through Felixstowe. To believe that a port can compete against that is sheer nonsense. The flow of charges that is geared by the container consortiums is designed to maximise the flow of traffic and reduce the advantages of ports near to them.
§ Mr. PrescottNo, I shall not give way, as I do not have time to do so. I have only 10 minutes in which to present the Opposition's case and many Back-Bench Members wish to participate in the debate.
Secondly, any port with £100 million worth of investment has been required to secure a return on that public investment. Such a port cannot hope to compete with a small wharf with an investment requirement of only 243 £500,000. In the area that I represent, small wharfs have taken 2 million or 3 million tonnes of traffic from the major ports because the ports find it impossible to compete on the present terms.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State says that our ports should compete with continental ports. I wish that he had read the Touche Ross report, which was produced some years ago, which drew attention to the costs that British ports carry for dredging, rates and the police. These costs are not carried by continental ports.
§ Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East)And the dock labour scheme.
§ Mr. PrescottI shall deal with the dock labour scheme in a moment. It seems that Conservative Members are obsessed with it. If the hon. Gentleman listens to my other argumets he may learn something.
The charges that are carried by British ports are not borne by their continental competitors. The Touche Ross report assessed the difference that it would make to the charges of the ports of Bristol, Southampton and London if the costs were lifted. I have a copy of the report and so I shall be able to educate the hon. Gentleman. The report suggested that the charges in Bristol would be reduced by 32 per cent., by 44 per cent. in London and by 50 per cent. in Southampton. It is nonsense to talk about competition against the background of the costs which our ports have to bear. The Government should give consideration to the complaints that are made by ports when they are asked to compete within the Government's comparative philosophy.
The present excess capacity can only be made worse by the removal of the order. The Government must take account of the 50 per cent. over-capacity—that is the minimum in conventional containers within our port systems — and the applications that have been made under the order since 1979. I am informed by parliamentary answers that since 1979 there have been 51 applications to the Secretary of State that have involved £360 million. About 70 per cent. of the applications were granted and about 30 per cent. were rejected. Presumably judgment was exercised by the Government. I accept that some applications were withdrawn.
In 1979, the average application involved £3 million. From 1980 to 1983, the average value of each application was about 10 million. The most recent application, which seems to have sparked off the desire to get rid of the order, is from Felixstowe for a new container development, which involves £70 million. That would be a considerable investment. The application reveals the importance of the Government retaining control. It shows that there should be a body such as a national ports council or a national ports authority to give advice to the Secretary of State.
There is excess capacity in our ports and the scale of investment that Felixstowe envisages would have an effect on many ports, including Felixstowe. That is a judgment that should be taken into account. Such investment will require infrastructure investment in road and rail. We have a roads policy that is designed to provide roads to ports, but we have roads to ports that are not taking traffic and ports that are getting traffic that are demanding investment in roads. That will be the position in Falmouth, as everyone knows the shortcomings in the road-rail connection. A problem will be created and there will be 244 a demand for the Government to invest in infrastructure development. I do not pass judgment on the Falmouth investment, because I do not know enough about it. However, I believe that the Government have a duty to assess the obligation to provide public investment to accompany private decisions. There need to be balanced judgments. Therefore, it is a scandal for the Government to choose this moment to abdicate major responsibilities.
If the new investment further undermines existing port development, which many dockers and authorities fear, including those in Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, the fear will grow that the Government desire to withdraw from controls and regulations and from the possibilities of maintaining the dock labour scheme. It is feared that they desire to do so in the name of competition.
The Secretary of State said in April that it was his intention to eliminate the distortion. Does he believe that United Kingdom port costs are too high compared with those of our continental competitors? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will tackle the shipping conferences that fix the lines of export goods from the United Kingdom, about which shippers constantly complain? No, he does nothing about that. Does it mean that he will tackle the cross-grid pricing, which affects some ports disadvantageously, such as Felixstowe? No, he will not do anything about that. Will he tackle the unfair extra cost that United Kingdom ports carry compared to their continental competitors? No, there is not a sound from him about that.
It means that the Secretary of State intends to take on the costs of the dock labour scheme. It is the game of tackling what he sees as entrenched Labour trade union interest in the dock system and scheme. He would do himself a favour if he considered the Jones-Aldington report, which was accepted by a Tory Administration. It shows the difficulties that exist in the industry, and provides solutions to deal with them.
The Secretary of State seems to be giving a nod to those employers who wish to end the dock labour scheme and return to the conditions of the 1960s which Lord Rochdale condemned. If he thinks that the battle with the miners is bloody, so it will be with the dockers about the dock labour scheme. I wonder if the Minister will tell the House what the Government's intentions are regarding the conditions in the industry and the dock labour scheme.
The revocation of the Order is an abdication of Government responsibility, but it will not free them from the consequences of their actions. The problems facing our ports are as great as they were in the 1960s although they may be different in character.
The Government cannot disregard their duty to balance public and private investment within limited resources. The Government must retain control of the important developments of the interlink between water-borne transport and land-borne transport. The ports are an essential part of our economy, and the Government will soon regret their decision to abdicate responsibility for their development.
§ Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke at length about the iniquities of revoking the section. It is worthwhile to look at the wording of the order to see the 19th-century language on which it is based.
The Harbours Act 1964 states: 245
the Minister … may by order prohibit … construction … of a harbour.How in 1984 can a Minister have an interest in prohibiting the construction of a harbour? As Opposition Members continually remind us, we have a high level of unemployment. Would they wish the Minister to prohibit commercial development, if that increased employment?The Control of Harbour Development Order 1964, which was revoked, states:
no person engaged in … harbour operations, shall undertake … any project … except under an authorisation … by the Minister.That may have seemed appropriate when the order was made, but that is the language not of a modern industrial society but of Stalinism and Mussolini-type Fascism, in which all commercial decisions can be authorised only by the Minister representing the State. Therefore, I wholly commend the Minister's decision to revoke the Order.In large parts of the United Kingdom our port industry has become totally ossified. We have one of the finest distribution systems for goods and services of any industrialised country, yet world opinion generally is that its quality is easily stopped at the ports.
To take the example of the port that I am proud to represent in part, the port of Bristol is struggling to make a living, partly because of the weight of capital debt and partly because, wherever it attempts to bring in new initiatives and to take the most advantage of transport infrastructure, and the fact of its long tradition as a port, it has to fight against the twin weight of trade union and governmental feeling that they have a right to a finger in every decision in every port. Those twin attitudes are holding back the development of our ports, and it is the revocation of part of that attitude that the Opposition are criticising.
§ Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)Is the hon. Gentleman aware, with regard to the previous applications that were made for the building of a container terminal at Falmouth, that the port of Bristol opposed the proposal?
§ Mr. SternIt is not surprising. The hon. Gentleman bears out my point. Bristol opposed it because people are still tied to a 19th-century attitude.
If it is possible for a commercial organisation to develop at Falmouth, or anywhere else in the country, I am delighted that the Minister has said that he will not stop such a venture from going ahead, that commercial criteria will apply, and that the private market must now make its own independent judgment of any proposals that come forward. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind, if he receives any requests from the city or from the port for the consideration of development to increase the infrastructure, the fact that my constituents, who are already paying for past mismanagement by Government and by the unions of the port of Bristol, will not wish to pay twice in their taxes for the infrastructure of another port. I should like some reassurance from the Minister on this matter. Since the Minister is correctly adopting a stand-off attitude towards ports, I hope that he will make sure that those ports pay for themselves, not only in terms of private investment but also in terms of any necessary public investment.
I see a great future for the ports of this country. I see a new spirit developing in the port of Bristol with a greater realisation of the commercial realities that, in order to survive, it has to trade profitably and more cheaply than 246 its competitors. I see a realisation developing that competition is to be encouraged rather than to be feared, as in the past.
I hope that the House and the Minister will reject the outdated and dangerous arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, because there is no future for the ports if we try to drag them back into the 1960s.
§ Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)I support the excellent case put so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). My hon. Friend has a good knowledge of harbours, docks, piers and ferries, having represented Hull for many years and having for many years sailed from the port of Liverpool.
My hon. Friend visited the port of Liverpool earlier this year. He accompanied me. my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and other Liverpool Members to a meeting with senior management of the port of Liverpool and trade union representatives. He is well aware of the national position and also of the current feeling in Liverpool.
I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. As the name of my constituency denotes—Liverpool, Riverside—I represent a dockside area. My grandfathers, two of my brothers and numerous cousins and uncles worked in the docks for many years. Many of my friends and constituents also work there. I speak for the dock workers of Liverpool, because I know their feelings as they fear for their jobs. I am one of the few hon. Members in the House actually born in the dockland area, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Garston. In the words of the old Liverpool folk song "In my Liverpool Home", we were
born in Liverpool down by the dock.I am wholly opposed to the order, because it could open the floodgates to operators for harbour developments which would affect existing ports. It is essential that the Minister retains control over developments exceeding £3 million. There is a general agreement that there is overcapacity in existing ports. If the company called the Falmouth Container Terminal is given the green light to go ahead with the development of a container terminal at Falmouth, that will seriously affect all the major ports, especially London and Liverpool. The dock industry needs another container terminal like it needs a hole in the head.During the past couple of years I have tabled a number of questions on the Falmouth application. I led a deputation of hon. Members and dock workers to meet the then Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre). We told him in no uncertain terms that the Merseyside dock workers and those at other ports were opposed to the application and that industrial action would be taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has clearly expressed the strong feelings of those employed in the industry. The present container terminal at Seaforth is heavily under utilised. It is no exaggeration to say that if that terminal is seriously affected it could mean a death blow for the port of Liverpool.
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has reported a profit of just under £6 million for 1983, following a loss of more than £9 million in the previous year. It is also in profit in the current year. It is nonsensical that the Government, through their abdication of powers, could be 247 responsible for the closure of any port after the money they have spent on severance payments to reduce the labour force.
The number of people employed in the port industry has declined. When the Government were elected in 1979, 63,500 people were employed on the docks. The latest figure, for March 1983, was 44,500, and that figure has since been greatly reduced. A written reply on 4 June showed that in the second quarter of 1979, Birkenhead and Liverpool had 5,406 registered dock workers. By the fourth quarter of 1983 that figure had been reduced to 2,126. At Hull there were 1,856 in the second quarter of 1979, but by the fourth quarter of 1983 there were only 973—a reduction by half. For Southampton the figures are 1,732 and 1,130 respectively. In Bristol the figures are 1,248 and, in the fourth quarter of 1983, 603. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) should bear those figures in mind. On the Clyde the figures are 542 and 260.
Those figures show how many jobs have already been lost in the ports in England and Scotland. No doubt some of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies could give the figures for London.
The severance payments that have been made to registered dock workers under the Jones-Aldington arrangements are staggering. From May 1979 to 30 April 1984, a total of £183,284,000 was spent. It is the economics of the madhouse to give the go-ahead signal to any private developer to exacerbate an already critical situation in the ports. The Harbours Act 1964 controls developments of new ports costing £3 million or more, and it could be argued that, with the industry in its present state, all new port developments should be covered by that legislation.
Uncontrolled developments of cargo-handling facilities over the past 15 years, both on small wharves and on a large scale, have had a dramatic adverse effect on the traditional ports and have made the present and future position of many of them so uncertain as to discourage investment in new plant and the proper maintenance of docks, quays and warehousing. Existing United Kingdom port facilities are, on recorded trends of average increases since 1972, sufficient to accommodate any future increase in traffic through our ports.
§ Mr. MarlowThe hon. Gentleman has just said—effectively, for the second time—that there is a surplus capacity of ports in this country. If there is a surplus capacity, why is he frightened of people setting up new capacity? Is it because the new capacity might be more efficient, more effective or cheaper, or provide a better service for the customer? If that is the case, why is he against it? What is so different about the ports which makes the hon. Gentleman opposed to investment in ports, whereas in the motor industry, or various other industries, he would favour new factories, new plants and new facilities?
§ Mr. ParryI have made it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the dock workers, my union and my constituents. My constituency has the unenviable record of having the highest level of male unemployment in the United Kingdom—nearly 40 per cent.—and the effect of any dramatic closure or massive job losses in the docks on the port of Liverpool, the city of Liverpool and my 248 constituents would be tremendous. No case can be made for developments of new container terminals such as at Falmouth.
The development of facilities at existing United Kingdom ports has only been possible at the expense of other British ports and at the expense of unemployment for dock workers, which has made necessary Government financial intervention in an attempt to rectify a situation which may still lead to the collapse of one or both of our major ports—London and Liverpool.
That is the view of the national secretary of the docks and waterways group of the Transport and General Workers Union, who is au fait with the fears of the dock workers throughout England, Scotland and Wales.
It is not only the dock workers and the TGWU who are opposed to the Falmouth development. The Cornwall branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England is also opposed to it. Cornwall Transport 2000, the Falmouth Civic Society, the Falmouth Container Action Group, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Port of Bristol Authority are also opposed to it. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is watching the situation closely as, although the port is now viable, the recovery is fragile and the loss of any container traffic to a new container terminal at Falmouth or anywhere else would make its future insecure.
Loss of trade would mean that specialised equipment at the Seaforth terminal would be even more under-utilised. It is equipment which successive Governments and the taxpayer have helped to finance. Less work will lead to further surplus labour, the cost of which to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company approached £2 million in 1983. If ship owners switch their business from Liverpool to Falmouth the prospects of the newly created freeport would be seriously affected and the number of cargo owners who take advantage of the freeport status at Liverpool would be restricted. The port would not be capable of providing the tupe of service that industry in the north-west demands—I am thinking of large industrial complexes such as BICC, ICI and Pilkington Brothers, all of which are based near Liverpool.
The past year has been a period of stabilisation and consolidation for the port of Liverpool, and the proposed development at Falmouth or anywhere else would put those achievements at considerable risk. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) is not here, as the Seaforth terminal is based in his constituency. I should have thought that he would be here. The Minister's decision shows that he has decided to abdicate his responsibility for making a decision on the Falmouth application and any other similar developments. He is acting like Pontius Pilate. He is washing his hands of his responsibilities by supporting the Government's policy of a free-for-all economy.
I conclude by quoting a letter written by Mr. John Connolly, the national secretary of the TGWU's dock and waterways group, dated 14 May. He says:
We are convinced that the implications for workers in the ports industry arising from this decision are of a nature serious enough to warrant taking industrial action on a national scale if the developments at Falmouth commence.At a recent meeting of the docks and waterways group national committee, a decision to that effect was taken. That is no idle threat. A few years ago I met some national shop stewards and workers. I knew their feelings then. I have since met them again, and they are extremely angry. 249 We could have serious trouble in the docks. Nobody wants a national dock strike. The Government certainly do not, and I am sure that neither the TGWU nor the port authorities want one. The Minister should seriously consider the warnings that have been given.
§ 11.2 pm
§ Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)I wish to ask the Minister questions rather than to argue about this proposal. I must confess that, although I would not argue for no controls, I have always found that one of the most convincing arguments for investment, whether in Cornwall, Scotland, Liverpool or East Anglia, is people being prepared to put their money behind a project. That is not the only criterion, but one cannot help being impressed when people put their own money in.
The Falmouth harbour development does not fall within my constituency, although it is within the Carrick council of which I probably represent the largest portion here. Many of my constituents look across the bay towards Falmouth, so the development will probably affect my constituency as much as any other.
On the whole, I welcome any hope that Falmouth has for development. Hon. Members have spoken of unemployment in their constituencies, including the rate in Liverpool, and I agree that they are tragic figures, but they are not far short of the unemployment rates among men in Falmouth, of up to 30 per cent. We do not want a competition in agony by quoting our unemployment rates. The solution to Britain's unemployment problems does not lie in one area arguing with another. Instead, let us look at each proposal as it arises and say whether it is good or bad.
As hon. Members will be aware, what we are discussing revolves around the Falmouth Container Terminal Act 1971, a copy of which I managed to obtain after some difficulty. That is a remarkable measure which gives enormous permissions to the company; and many people in my constituency would like to see that great God-given natural resource, Falmouth harbour, developed so that it can provide employment for the community it serves, as all logic suggests it should.
That being the case, it is clear that many people are concerned about exactly what is being proposed for Falmouth. This is the biggest single planning application that may have affected the good county of Cornwall. Certainly it is the biggest in living memory that has affected the district of Carrick.
Consider some of the permissions that are given. The references to works states in works No. 1 that it can, for 1,250 ft north-east, build a pier and, on the end of that, for 1,200 ft north north-east, build another one. Under works No. 2, the pier is to be 1,050 ft north north-east, with another 300 ft north-east and another 2,200 ft east south-east. Apparently the second works terminate 200 ft south of the first works. One gathers that that is the gate through which the boats enter.
This is a massive development which would spread one third of the way from Falmouth across to St. Mawes. It cannot be dismissed out of hand, and a number of questions must be answered. In normal circumstances, one would expect such questions to be asked and answered under what one has understood to be the normal planning application procedure. Clause 14 of the 1971 Act gives the Minister power to demand an hydrographic study of the estuary. I gather that that provision in the Act still stands. 250 Such a study would reveal whether the estuary would silt up quicker or slower or not change at all. It would also show whether the sewage which Falmouth and Penryn produce—that would be from the landward side of this large obstacle—would succeed in clearing itself.
One must also consider the wildlife in the harbour. This whole river basin is an extremely beautiful area which already provides a considerable leisure industry, and one would expect it to provide more. Some believe that the harbour would provide work, but in, say, 25 years' time we could find more leisure jobs having been destroyed as a result of this development. I do not know the answer to these issues, and when my constituents question me about them, I have to admit that not only do I not know the answers but that, as matters stand, there is no way in which my local authority can take the necessary steps to obtain the information.
The Minister should conduct a full hydrographic study of the entire river basin. I am told that such a study might cost £300,000, but, relative to the damage that could be caused if the development went wrong, that might be a very small sum indeed. County and district councillors are beginning to express concern about the matter.
The 1971 Act was passed before I became a Member of the House, although I must confess to a degree of guilt in that it was renewed in 1980 and I was not aware of its full significance at that time. I had always assumed that the powers under the 1964 Act gave the community a longstop, an appeal to the Minister, so that the questions to which I have referred could be posed, considered and answered, followed by those giving the answers being questioned by the people concerned. Without that facility, there will remain a lingering concern on the part of the local community, a concern which will remain until their fears are proved to be false.
I have outlined my basic attitude towards what the Minister has done. However, there is some fear that protection for that beautiful area may be reduced. On the whole, I wish things well. If there was a public inquiry, I hope that answers would be provided to my questions. There would seem to be an employment opportunity in an area—Cornwall—that has the lowest wages in Great Britain. No doubt a good number of members of the Transport and General Workers Union would be employed, as that union is dominant in the area and does a good job for its members.
Therefore, there are questions to be asked. I am not being at all aggressive when I seek an assurance from the Minister. I suspect that tonight will be our last chance to discuss this issue on the Floor of the House before someone is halfway across Falmouth bay driving piles and digging large works. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that on behalf of the community of Cornwall and those who want to work in the docks and preserve the chance of earning a living in other areas, he will at least insist on a full hydrographic survey being made of the entire bay. Anything less than that would be inadequate compared with the damage that may be done.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)Let us at least agree from the outset that the proposal to abolish the provisions of section 9 of the 1964 Act are consistent with the Government's general market philosophy. There is to be a "bonfire of controls", whether or not those controls are appropriate. It has been asked why the Government 251 should stand in the way of entrepreneurs who are prepared to risk their money in harbour developments, and possibly to create employment, regardless of whether there is excess capacity in our harbours. It seems to be said that the market should rule, without any qualification.
One has to concede that, under the current system, if there was no objection from the Government, the promoters could claim that they had Government approval for particular projects. The arguments thus adduced have a certain surface appeal, but I believe that the abolition of the current control beyond £3 million removes even the residual Government power to delay development for considerations of wider national implication, as argued strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). I believe that the Government have the wrong approach, and to some extent my views coincide with those of the British Ports Association. It shares that reservation, although I accept that it is not in favour of the basic concept of resource planning, on which the 1964 Act was based.
Section 9 can be a useful long stop in preventing major harbour developments which are irresponsible from a national viewpoint and damaging to other ports, and which could be undertaken by powerful and wealthy interests on a speculative basis. As Conservative Members have argued, harbour authorities are commercial bodies, but they are not just that. They share some of the characteristics of public utilities. A major port development that is financed by the market may have, as a consequence, substantial infrastructural investment that falls on public authorities. Therefore, the public has an interest in such developments. The questions posed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) are relevant in that context.
I shall briefly cite some examples that I have come across in my parliamentary experience. They show that the public interest may be ignored if the order is accepted. I think, for example, of the Bristol Portbury development in the late 1960s. I concede, of course, that the National Ports Council agreed that development at the time, in the face of much opposition, but it had a substantial effect on the ports of the then British Transport Docks Board in the Bristol channel, and substantial regional employment and strategic planning implications. All those are proper matters for public consideration. Now the burden of carrying that lame white elephant in the Bristol channel falls on Bristol's ratepayers.
Secondly, I think of the ferry terminal project at the Pembroke dock. In the mid-1960s, a company at the ferry port of Swansea, which is in my constituency, B and I, which is an Irish Government-owned company, decided to relocate from Swansea to Pembroke dock, and this was financed by money from the European regional development fund. It left public facilities, financed by the public, redundant at the ferry port at Swansea, with no customers for the past seven years or so. Clearly, there was a public interest that was worth airing and considering in this major port development.
Thirdly, there is Falmouth, which does not affect my port of Swansea. Swansea is far more affected by the smaller wharf developments in the Neath estuary — of the sort described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—which do not have to carry the overheads that Swansea does, and which 252 can have a substantially adverse affect on employment in my constituency. It is obvious that the deep sea container ports are worried by the development at Falmouth. I make no point on the merits of this development, but there are clear implications, if the development goes ahead, for road and rail infrastructure developments in the west country. For example, one would anticipate section 8 railway grants and other public subsidies and investments, which would arise directly as a consequence of allowing this project to go ahead.
All these examples are decisions in which the public interest is involved. The move to the market—letting the entrepreneurs risk their money where they will—is an illusion in harbour development. Clearly, in every case, there are public expenditure and regional implications that should not be ducked, whether that public investment decision be by section 8 grant, by road developments or by ERDF grants. Therefore, it is wrong to remove the possibility of state intervention, particularly at this time of excess capacity in our ports industry and to avoid the opportunity for a wider debate on the implications for the public interest.
§ Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East)I can understand the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) being against the revocation of this order. He has a profound interest in a particular port. As a Member who has asked for money for Bristol, I am embarrassed when I have to remember that we are not sent here purely as constituency Members, but also in the national interest.
I find it extraordinary—although I understand what the hon. Gentleman says—that the Labour party cannot understand what has happened to the ports. What has happened to them is that there are fewer ships because there are bigger ships, and those ships have a far faster turnround, there are fewer cargoes to deliver because of the recession, there are shorter journeys, and the economic realities have meant the trade has moved from the west coast to the east coast, from break bulk to container and therefore there is less requirement for the facilities that the ports offer. We have a large number of ports, but some of them are not capable of taking the larger ships. We have too many ports—not too few. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) complained about the Conference line. I was a little baffled by that, because the Conference line does not necessarily put up port charges. It has semi-cartel system for fixing rates and sharing cargoes, even when it is uneconomic to send cargoes to certain ports. He ignored pilotage, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with it. The vast number of pilots have put up the cost to port users. However, I understand that that does not come under this measure.
Another reason for the very high cost of ports is the dock labour scheme. There is no way anyone can ignore that. It is obvious that the jobs for life system of the dock labour scheme has put up the costs of ports well beyond the cost to our continental rivals. Consideration should be given to increasing severance payments so that the number of dockers can be reduced; and new entrants as dockers should not come under the old scheme.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about the grid system as though it was a horrific idea 253 invented at Felixstowe. I can tell him, because he obviously does not know, that it is in operation at most other major ports in this country.
§ Mr. PrescottSo how do we get competition?
§ Mr. SayeedIf the hon. Member wants an answer to that, it is very simple: there is competition because Felixstowe, which is a non-scheme port, operates efficiently and scheme ports do not. Despite having a narrow constituency interest, possibly, in keeping the order, I support its revocation because it is in the national good and I hope that this little measure is just a forerunner of the continued deregulation of ports and their progress to economic viability.
§ Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and also the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), both of whom made speeches attacking their own port and its future. Let us make no mistake about it. This order, which will revoke the power of the Minister to control port development, will attack every scheme port in the country, not only Liverpool, but Bristol and others, especially those on the west coast, which trade not with Europe but with the rest of the world, because that is where the balance of our trade is.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West asked why the Minister should have power to prohibit the construction of harbour. I would ask why a Minister should have power to prohibit the construction of a motorway or why he should have power to prohibit anything which is anti-social. Of course Ministers should have power to take decisions on balance in relation to the public interest on harbours and motorways. The motorway analogy is not false, because the consequence of this order will be that an unnecessary container terminal will be built at Falmouth, on the wrong side of Britain. Because of the revocation of the order the Minister will not be able to prevent construction from going ahead, even though his predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) gave assurances on that when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I took a delegation to see him.
The building of the Falmouth terminal will affect Bristol, as it will affect Liverpool and Felixstowe. A large part of the port of Liverpool, including the container terminal and the grain terminal, is in my constituency. We took a delegation of dock shop stewards and others to see the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hall Green who gave one undertaking. He did not say that they would never give the go ahead for the Falmouth development but he said that it would have to justify itself if it was to get the go ahead on the basis of attracting new trade; not trade from other ports such as Liverpool or Bristol, but trade from the continent of Europe, for instance. I challenge the Minister to say clearly whether he has been given the undertakings that are necessary for that undertaking by the hon. Member for Hall Green to be borne out. I do not believe there is any chance of the Falmouth terminal, when it is built, surviving without attracting trade from Bristol and Liverpool.
The Government talk about competition and free enterprise. What has free port status granted to Liverpool by the Government got to do with competition and free 254 enterprise when Falmouth and Felixstowe do not have that status? We beat Felixstowe, thanks, we are told, to the intervention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside. They will not have freeports. If Falmouth terminal is built, the Government will destroy at a stroke any value which is attributable to the freeports and which has come to Liverpool. They will destroy the experiment. Any trade which Liverpool's freeport would have attracted will go to Falmouth, if it is to be a non-scheme port, or to other non-scheme ports. We need to know from the Minister whether Falmouth is to be such a port.
I clearly remember meeting the hon. Member for Hall Green, the then Minister, who was subsequently sacked by the Prime Minister. We put many arguments to him. I remember the chairman of the dock shop stewards, Dennis Kelly, asking whether there were any natterjack toads in Falmouth. He said that if there were the terminal would not be built, because natterjack toads are a protected species and one cannot build where they are. The environmentalists are much stronger and more powerful than the dock shop stewards, he argued. He is quite right. But, whether or not they are more powerful, the dockers and the Minister have made it clear that there will probably be a battle about the scheme and scheme ports and the protection that dockers enjoy under that scheme. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said from the Front Bench, the Government put the miners first, and they might put the dockers second. Dockers will not take that lying down. They will fight to protect their jobs and the scheme.
I want to know from the Minister whether the revocation of the order is the first step towards destroying the scheme. If it is, the Government are biting off far more than they can chew and they are taking on a lot more than they imagine.
The port of Liverpool is profitable and competitive. It is the slimmer, trimmer port. In its advertisements it is the slimmer, trimmer freeport. In co-operation with the trade unions — the TGWU and others — a lot of labour has been shed. The port has reduced its manpower dramatically. It is making a profit. It is doing everything for which the Government have asked and has implemented all the requests and taken into account the pilot studies done by consultants who came to the ports to find out what needed to be done. Tonight, the Government could be destroying at a stroke all that has been done by management, by the unions and by Governments, both Conservative and Labour.
One talks about why competition should matter, and why should there not be freedom of competition. If we destroy the port of Liverpool and take trade away from it to any extent, and if that trade goes to Falmouth or elsewhere, the port will be destroyed. The social consequences of suffering, job losses and public expenditure in the hinterland of Liverpool will be tragic and dramatic. The Government are playing with massive amounts of extra public expenditure as a consequence of establishing new freeports. We already have too many of them. The rules of a free market are not taken into account at all.
If we believe in a free market and free trade, let us import goods. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is a farmer, intervened earlier to attack subsidies. It is ironic that he talked about free competition. If we are in favour of free competition, let Britain buy food 255 where she can in the world, as cheaply as possible. Let us not have tariff barriers. Food could come in through Liverpool. There would be imports of cane sugar and rum from the Caribbean. Liverpool would not be in these difficulties if we truly believed in free competition. Labour candidates for the Merseyside West and Merseyside East constituencies did so well in the recent European elections because of the damage that restrictions and tariffs imposed by the Common Market did to the port of Liverpool.
If we talk about competition, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East did and about continental ports, we have only to consider Hamburg. I am all in favour of free and fair competition with the port of Hamburg. Let us have the conditions of the port of Hamburg in Liverpool. Let us have the dredging of the estuary, lighting, roads and footpaths and the policing paid for by the appropriate Government grant, in exactly the same way as in Hamburg, and even in Rotterdam. Let us have fair competition with European ports. We would attract much more trade away from Europe and into Liverpool and, if Falmouth is ever built—if the order goes through—into Falmouth, too.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) produced the classic Liberal argument: he is for Falmouth port if it works, but he is against it if it does not. I am against it whether or not it works; I am especially against it if it works, because the social consequences will be dramatic. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way to deal with unemployment in Falmouth, Merseyside and Bristol is not to play one area off against the other, or to offer one goodie to Liverpool, such as the free port, and another goodie to Falmouth, such as the new container terminal. We need a complete change in the economic and industrial policies of the Government, which means planning ports and docks policy. It means considering the direction of shipping—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh about the direction of shipping, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, the positioning of motorways and other infrastructure indirectly affects shipping, and the Government, who take such decisions about the direction of shipping——
§ Mr. SayeedThe hon. Gentleman is suggesting moving traffic from the east coast to the west coast. Does he recognise the difference in cost between sending a ship from the east coast to the west coast and sending a truck overland from east to west, whether or not there is a motorway? It would cost about £2,000 to £3,000 to get a ship round the coast, but a truck would cost only about £200.
§ Mr. RobertsAs I said, the arguments are fallacious, and I shall not examine them now, because I do not have time. There is already an indirect direction of shipping, and the free market ushered in by this order, which will distort the economy of our ports, could have severe social consequences, severe consequences for public expenditure, and could destroy everything that even this Government have done to develop the port of Liverpool. The consequences could be tragic not only for Liverpool and Bristol, but for every port in Britain, whether on the east or west coast. I hope that the House will oppose the order.
§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)It is significant that the Secretary of State for Transport should be listening to this debate because, during the passage of the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, he was the most vociferous anti-dock worker from the Opposition Benches identified by the docks and waterways executive committee of the Transport and General Workers Union at that time. We must remove the arguments from Falmouth to what the Government intend for the docks industry and the ports transport industry. Falmouth may not be massively important to the future of the docks industry. However, having heard about the Secretary of State's performances in Committee, and the attitude of the Government to the National Dock Labour Board, it is clear that the Government wish to wreck the board's scheme. They have made it clear in every debate in the House that they intend to destroy the scheme.
In the post-war period, Liverpool failed to get the investment necessary to transform it from a long, winding river and estuary into a deep-water port, soon enough because those who controlled the destiny of the port had a vested interest. They were both the tenants and the landlords of the ports, as is true of all traditional British ports.
Before the war, some dockers were casual labourers. It was possible for about 24,000 registered dock workers to be on the stand every morning looking for work. Some 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of them might be employed and the rest would go home and sign on the dole. That situation prevailed in the ports before the National Dock Labour Board was introduced and established. No matter what arguments are used, it is clear that the Government want to return to the basis of casual labour in the transport industry. To break the back of those in the traditional ports, the establishment of new deep-water ports has been at the forefront of Governments' minds in the whole of the post-war period.
It is a question not only of Falmouth but of how the Government are proceeding to break the back of the trade unions in the docks industry, and therefore the back of the registered dock workers. The Government abhor and hate the National Dock Labour Board, and have made it clear on every occasion that the issue has been debated in the House. There was a struggle in the docks industry to establish civilised — not good — conditions compared with when thousands of dock workers presented themselves to be chosen, almost like animals, by the overseer. That is the sort of world that the Government want to return to. The Falmouth situation is a further opportunity of breaking the national ports structure and the National Dock Labour Board.
We should consider the number of jobs that have been lost in Liverpool. Sympathy constantly pours out by the train load from Conservative Benches. Since 1962, 12,000 jobs—nigh on 14,000 jobs if one goes back a year or two before that—have been lost in the docks industry, to registered dock workers. There are now fewer than 3,000 people employed as registered dock workers in the port of Liverpool. The consequence of the development of ports is that the country is now "overported".
The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) argued about competition. I wonder whether, if people start building factories in Liverpool, and if there is a new car industry on Merseyside, people will argue that that is part 257 of competition. People argue competition when it suits their ideological purpose. The docks industry in Merseyside has developed and the men have fought for better conditions, but the Government will add to the problems through the establishment of deep-water ports in other parts of the country.
The Government have contributed largely to the demise of Merseyside. The docks industry was central to its economy. The ancillary and related industries were attracted to the port because there was warehousing and transport. Advantages have been gained through co-operation by the Transport and General Workers Union, the union operating in the port for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Nothing should undermine that.
In Liverpool, there are six miles of derelict dockland and a major deep-water port at the mouth of the river that are now capable of dealing with modern container roll on, roll off systems and any system that is necessary in modern dock technology. There is no argument for further ports being developed. We are not against, nor should we be against, another port being established in any other part of the country, if it was essential, but it could be done only at the expense of traditional ports. They have already been run down, so that fewer people are employed there, and businesses related to the ports have gone. The whole economy of places such as Liverpool has been driven downwards because the port no longer plays an important part in the local economy. The Government are arguing that the development of ports should be given a free hand, but controls are not confined to ports, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said. There is planning control in many other sectors, and why should it not exist in the ports?
Registered dock workers are losing employment opportunities. For example, Glasgow is likely to lose 50 per cent. of its registered dockers. The losses are not confined to Liverpool, for they are to be found in all the traditional ports. They are suffering as a consequence of the Government's policies. It is clear that the Government have no concept of the real nature of the port and transport industry. It is clear also that the Government wish to establish a deep-water port at Falmouth and to undermine existing ports. Further, it is clear that they wish to undermine the National Dock Labour Board. It is their self-confessed ambition to do away with it.
I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I spent 28 years working in the transport industry. I can tell the Government that dockers hold sacred the retention of the board. If the Government feel, in spite of all that has been said, that they can undermine and eventually demolish the board, they will come up against the greatest possible opposition from registered dock workers and ancillary workers. We are faced with a serious attempt by the Government to undermine the scheme, to make further inroads into the registration of dock workers and to abolish the conditions which have been established over many years of struggle by dock workers and trade unions.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)I have two main reasons for rejecting the Opposition's motion. First, I believe that the fears which have been expressed are unjustified and exaggerated. I shall seek to illustrate why I take that view as I deal with a number of issues which 258 have been raised by individual hon. Members. Secondly, the debate has demonstrated the old-fashioned and outdated concepts which lie behind the Opposition's thinking on port policy.
We are an exporting nation, and we are facing cutthroat competition in world markets where we have to fight inch by inch to get opportunities to sell our goods abroad. It is essential that we should be in a position to enable our exporters to compete successfully. We suffer the disadvantage of being an island. Most of our raw materials have to come in from abroad as do many semifinished products. All our exports have to cross the sea. It is essential in an effort to protect jobs in manufacturing industry that we minimise cost disadvantages in going through ports and in suffering the penalty of being an island that is separated from its markets.
It is true that jobs in our exporting industries are dependent upon our ability to compete, and that means that we must have ports in the right place responding to the changing shipper requirements. The needs of ship operators, importers and exporters are changing constantly and it is impossible to foresee the right place in which future port developments should take place.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) hankered after the period of the Rochdale report. He is right to say that that report was the origination of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. That itself demonstrates the weakness of the assumption that Government, Ministers or committees can foresee where future port development should take place.
The Rochdale Committee foresaw a need to concentrate new port development on selected existing ports. In the intervening period the committee was proved to be wholly wrong. Ship sizes meant that ports had to move downstream to estuaries, which was not foreseen. Our entry into the European Community and the alteration in trading patterns meant that we had to develop ports on the east coast at the expense of ports on the west coast. None of that was seen at the time of the Committee. North sea oil meant that terminals have had to be built there. In its exhaustive inquiry, the Rochdale Committee lumped together Harwich, Parkeston Quay, and Felixstowe as minor ports, which did not matter nationally; and Dover was not even mentioned. Yet today Felixstowe is in the top half dozen container ports in Europe, and Dover is the busiest ro-ro port in Europe. In older parts of Liverpool, Preston, and in the upper London docks there have been unfortunate closures. In other words, the scene is constantly changing, and even the wisest Committee, sitting for the longest time and studying in the greatest depth, anticipated future needs wildly incorrectly.
The real question is: how do we determine whether, and if so when, changing demand warrants new investment? There are two basic options. Either one believes that there is a fountain of wisdom in the hands of Ministers—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East does not seem to think that there is such in my hands, nor even in the hands of the Secretary of State—or one relies on the investor, whether private or institutional, to decide whether a facility is missing so much so that it is worth the vast expenditure that is required today to develop new facilities.
I shall examine those propositions. Do hon. Members think that Ministers are better at investment appraisal than investors, and, if so, what is the evidence for it? Is it that Ministers should decide on political grounds and overrule 259 the market? Should Ministers defy the needs of a shipper to protect a constituency interest and, by so doing, saddle the exporter with higher costs than are necessary? The changes which hon. Gentlemen fear will not be made unless substantial cost savings can be made. New ports will not attract cargo unless it is cost effective to use them. The real risk is the fossilisation of yesterday's ports at the expense of competition for tomorrow. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was honest enough to recognise that what inevitably follows from what he sought is the direction of shipping. That view would not commend itself to many hon. Members, or to the shipping industry. The fundamental question that one cannot escape, about which hon. Members have expressed anxiety, is that, if a new port is to be developed, it will cost a substantial sum of money. That can be worthwhile to the investors only if it can attract substantial amounts of cargo. It can attract substantial amounts of cargo only if it can do it cheaper than the existing ports. That opportunity should be available to the exporters of the country so that the jobs of those who work in manufacturing industry can be protected by the opportunities to sell successfully abroad.
I deal next with some of the specific points raised. On the suggestion that new proposals would wreck existing ports, an existing port has major advantage, because its expenditure has been written off, and new investment will be expensive to service. There is a significant cost advantage where old investment has taken place to extend a new port or to create a new port. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also argued that at present there is excess capacity, and it can only be made worse by the order. He illustrated that by saying that some 30 per cent. of applications had been rejected, or withdrawn, over a particular period. I am sorry to say that the facts do not bear him out. Over the last 20 years, there have been 200 applications and, I repeat, only seven refusals. In the past five years, 23 applications have been authorised, and one has been refused. The last Labour Government were more generous, because they authorised 46 approvals, and only one was refused. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the context of the answer at which I observe he is now looking, he will find that it refers to the proportion of investment that required Government approval. There is, of course, a large amount of investment which takes place without its coming within the gamut of being over £3 million and, therefore, requiring the application of section 9. It is that reason which has led the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) expressed the hope that any infrastructure costs on new port development at Falmouth would not fall on the taxpayer. The promoters envisage most traffic being trans-shipped by sea or going by rail. They plan to pay for certain improvements to the Falmouth branch railway and, if the development goes ahead, the traffic that it would bring in would be good news for the future of railways in Cornwall.
On roads, the promoters have been told that, in view of the trans-shipment basis of the project, my right hon. Friend would not expect to approve any increased expenditure on highways in the area solely on account of the terminal development. It will be for the Cornwall county council, as highway authority, to decide within its 260 transport programme and policy the priorities that it sees for any road improvements which might become necessary in the course of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) raised the question of pilotage, and asked whether I would deal with this in the course of a few minutes. One thing that I have learnt about pilotage is that one cannot deal with its problems in the course of a few minutes. I therefore hope that the House will forgive me if I go on to the points that were raised by my hon. Friend on the subject of the dock labour scheme. I fear that he was only exposing the growing pressure for change in the scheme, and the growing anxiety about the situation in a number of scheme ports.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), who has tabled a number of questions on the matter, referred to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's turn-round from loss to profit. I agree that that has occurred. I take this public opportunity to congratulate the board on its success. I visited the port recently, and was impressed by the work that it is doing. He expressed fears that the needs of north-west industry would not be satisfied if the Falmouth terminal trade went on through to Liverpool. I cannot visualise cargo being landed at Falmouth to be dragged all the way across the country to satisfy needs in the Liverpool and Merseyside area. It is not in the realm of reality to express that fear.
The hon. Member for Bootle said that he did not believe that it was viable for Falmouth to go ahead without attracting trade from Liverpool. I have tried to deal with that point already. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) raised a point about Falmouth, which has been raised with me by several other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). Section 9 is seen by many hon. Members as a protection against imprudent investment. The real danger for future port investment is that it would be artificially distorted by a section 9 authorisation, seen as a sort of royal appointment guaranteeing good product. That is not so. The removal of section 9 means that now promoters of new ports must convince investors —unaided by the spurious aura of Government backing—that the scheme is viable and will pay for itself.
Falmouth is a significant matter that has been considered by the House in the past, and it would not be right for me to raise the whole matter again tonight.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 235.
263| Division No. 376] | [11.56 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) |
| Alton, David | Caborn, Richard |
| Anderson, Donald | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Canavan, Dennis |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Ashton, Joe | Clarke, Thomas |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Clay, Robert |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Clwyd, Ms Ann |
| Barnett, Guy | Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Cohen, Harry |
| Bell, Stuart | Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. |
| Bennett, A, (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Blair, Anthony | Craigen, J. M. |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Crowther, Stan |
| Boyes, Roland | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Cunningham, Dr John |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) |
| Deakins, Eric | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Dewar, Donald | Martin, Michael |
| Dobson, Frank | Maxton, John |
| Dormand, Jack | Meacher, Michael |
| Douglas, Dick | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Dubs, Alfred | Michie, William |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Mikardo, Ian |
| Eadie, Alex | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Eastham, Ken | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Ellis, Raymond | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Ewing, Harry | O'Brien, William |
| Fatchett, Derek | O'Neill, Martin |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Park, George |
| Fisher, Mark | Parry, Robert |
| Flannery, Martin | Patchett, Terry |
| Forrester, John | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Foulkes, George | Pendry, Tom |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Pike, Peter |
| Golding, John | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Gould, Bryan | Prescott, John |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Redmond, M. |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Haynes, Frank | Robertson, George |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Rogers, Allan |
| Home Robertson, John | Rooker, J. W. |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Skinner, Dennis |
| John, Brynmor | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Stott, Roger |
| Lambie, David | Strang, Gavin |
| Leighton, Ronald | Straw, Jack |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Litherland, Robert | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Wareing, Robert |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Welsh, Michael |
| Loyden, Edward | Wigley, Dafydd |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| McKelvey, William | Winnick, David |
| Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| McNamara, Kevin | |
| McTaggart, Robert | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| McWilliam, John | Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Allen McKay |
| Madden, Max | |
| Marek, Dr John |
| NOES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) |
| Alexander, Richard | Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) |
| Amess, David | Boyson, Dr Rhodes |
| Ancram, Michael | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
| Arnold, Tom | Bright, Graham |
| Ashby, David | Brinton, Tim |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Brittan, Rt Hon Leon |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Bruce, Malcolm |
| Baldry, Anthony | Bruinvels, Peter |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Buck, Sir Antony |
| Batiste, Spencer | Budgen, Nick |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Burt, Alistair |
| Beith, A. J. | Butcher, John |
| Bendall, Vivian | Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) |
| Benyon, William | Carlisle, John (N Luton) |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Carttiss, Michael |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Cash, William |
| Body, Richard | Chalker, Mrs Lynda |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Chapman, Sydney |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Chope, Christopher |
| Bottomley, Peter | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Lang, Ian |
| Conway, Derek | Latham, Michael |
| Coombs, Simon | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Cope, John | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Couchman, James | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Crouch, David | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Dicks, Terry | Lester, Jim |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lilley, Peter |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Dover, Den | Lord, Michael |
| Dunn, Robert | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Durant, Tony | Maginnis, Ken |
| Dykes, Hugh | Major, John |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Maples, John |
| Fallon, Michael | Mather, Carol |
| Farr, John | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Favell, Anthony | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Forman, Nigel | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Moore, John |
| Forth, Eric | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Fox, Marcus | Neubert, Michael |
| Franks, Cecil | Normanton, Tom |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Norris, Steven |
| Freeman, Roger | Page, John (Harrow W) |
| Gale, Roger | Parris, Matthew |
| Galley, Roy | Pawsey, James |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Penhaligon, David |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Porter, Barry |
| Gorst, John | Powley, John |
| Gregory, Conal | Raffan, Keith |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Ground, Patrick | Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) |
| Grylls, Michael | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Rowe, Andrew |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Ryder, Richard |
| Hannam, John | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Harvey, Robert | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Hayes, J. | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Shersby, Michael |
| Hayward, Robert | Silvester, Fred |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Henderson, Barry | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Hind, Kenneth | Speed, Keith |
| Hirst, Michael | Spencer, Derek |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Holt, Richard | Squire, Robin |
| Hordern, Peter | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Howard, Michael | Steen, Anthony |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Stern, Michael |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Howells, Geraint | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Sumberg, David |
| Hunter, Andrew | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Jackson, Robert | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Jones, Robert (W Herts) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Key, Robert | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Tracey, Richard |
| Knowles, Michael | Trotter, Neville |
| Knox, David | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Lamont, Norman | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Vaughan, Sir Gerard | Whitfield, John |
| Viggers, Peter | Whitney, Raymond |
| Waddington, David | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Wakeham, Rt Hon John | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Walden, George | Wolfson, Mark |
| Walker, Cecil (Belfast N) | Wood, Timothy |
| Walker, Bill (T'side N) | Woodcock, Michael |
| Wallace, James | Yeo, Tim |
| Waller, Gary | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Wardle, C. (Bexhill) | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Warren, Kenneth | |
| Watson, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Watts, John | Mr. Douglas Hogg and |
| Wells, Bowen (Hertford) | Mr. Tim Sainsbury. |
| Wells, John (Maidstone) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
-
c263
- STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c. 18 words c263
- TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT 23 words c263
- DANGEROUS DRUGS 27 words c263
- EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS 18 words
- NUCLEAR ENERGY 52 words
-
c263