CONSENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN WORKS

HC Deb 15 July 1986 vol 101 cc916-52

`(1) The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by Section 6 of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case where—

1. (a) the works include works of land reclaimed, and
2. (b) the area of land which is to be reclaimed is to be used for purposes which require close and convenient access to a berth which is to be constructed within the area of jurisdiction of the Company.

(2) The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that

1. (a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed;
2. (b) no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available on other land within the area of jurisdiction of the Company; and
3. (c) the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development.

(3) Where an application has been received by the Secretary of State from the Company for his consent under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, within the period of eight weeks following that receipt, give his consent or notify the Company of his decision to withhold it. (4) A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year or for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent and the duration of a consent so given may, at any time before its expiry, be extended for such further period or periods as the Secretary of State may specify by written notice given to the Company.'.—[Mrs. Ann Clwyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this new clause it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out 'or any land reclaimed,'.

No. 8, in clause 6, page 5, line 33, leave out 'enclosing an area of 95 hectares'.

No. 9, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'and' to end of line 41 and insert 'contained within the limits shown on the deposited plans and described as "Limits of deviation of work"'.

No. 10, in page 6, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 5.

No. 11, in page 6, line 2, after 'above', insert 'and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment,'.

Mrs. Clwyd

I should remind hon. Members of the contents of new clause 2. Subsection (1) reads: The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by Section 6 of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case where—

1. (a) the works include works of land reclaimed, and
2. (b) the area of land which is to be reclaimed is to be used for purposes which require close and convenient access to a berth which is to be constructed within the area of jurisdiction of the Company."

Subsection (2) provides: The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that—

1. (a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed;
2. (b) no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available"—

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

It is quite unnecessary for the hon. Lady to read out the entire new clause, because every hon. Member has it in front of him and is able to read.

Mr. Ken Weetch (Ipswich)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to read out the text of the clause. I take it that there is nothing in Standing Orders that prevents my hon. Friend from doing so. Could we have your ruling on that point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

If the hon. Lady had been out of order, I should have pulled her up, but what was said by her was in order.

Mrs. Clwyd

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was perfectly in order, because during last night's debate it was quite obvious that some Conservative Members had not read the report of the main discussions that took place in Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. It is proper that they should be reminded of what we are trying to do.

The new clause continues: (c) the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development. (3) Where an application has been received by the Secretary of State from the Company for his consent under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, within the period of eight weeks following that receipt, give his consent or notify the Company of his decision to withhold it. (4) A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year or for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent and the duration of a consent so given may, at any time before its expiry, be extended for such further period or periods as the Secretary of State may specify by written notice given to the Company.

Mr. Weetch

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport is listening to the debate, and presumably monitoring points about it for the Government, but most of the points that we shall discuss tonight will not be about transport. They will be very much about the environment. Is it in order to ask for the presence of a Minister from the Department of the Environment so that we can have some sense when environmental points are answered?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that who is on the Government Front Bench at any time is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that his comment has been heard.

Mrs. Clwyd

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has made a good point, because the fundamental purpose of the new clause is to subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State for Transport reclamation works of a primary nature which might otherwise take place well in advance of the company's need to construct new berths under the powers in clause 6. Our point is that the company has been given powers to do some work, but that monitoring by the Secretary of State for Transport and his Department is not enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, we need, in addition, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Clause 7 seeks to place a restraint on the deposit of any material of more than three years before the start of construction of the quay, or parts of the quay. We believe that three years is too long. Furthermore, valuable though it is to deal with peripheral dumping, clause 7 is full of weasel words. It requires the company to give notice to, but not obtain the authorisation of, the county and district councils which have legitimate local interests in the matter. We hope that clause 7 will receive support from both sides of the House tonight.

The powers sought by the company have a direct bearing on matters of more than local interest. They have an impact on several areas of national policy. Last night we heard much about the national importance of the development at Felixstowe docks. In Committee, we discussed national docks policy, national landscape conservation policy, in view of the adjacent area of outstanding natural beauty, and national nature conservation policy because of the damage that will be caused to a site of special scientific interest. The European Commission will take an especial interest in that site because of the United Kingdom's legal responsibilities under the directive on the conservation of wild birds.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Has the hon. Lady ever been there?

Mrs. Clwyd

Yes.

Mr. Rhodes James

When?

Mrs. Clwyd

Is this a dialogue, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I answered yes.

Mr. Weetch

My hon. Friend has just given way to an intervention from a Conservative Member. I am glad that my hon. Friend has been there. Does she know that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has described the area as a grotty piece of coastline? If the hon. Gentleman has described it in those terms, it is outrageous that he should show this synthetic concern and intervene in that way, trying to cause my hon. Friend the maximum embarrassment. It is disgraceful.

Mr. Rhodes James

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in an intervention.

Mrs. Clwyd

Those of us who served on the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, even for a relatively short time, were well acquainted with the arguments put forward by the environmentalists and had considerable sympathy with them.

Amendment No. 11 seeks to require the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment for works which involve the enclosure and reclamation of the seabed, the river and its foreshore. I understand that it is a normal provision of port and harbour legislation for the authority of the accountable Secretary of State for Transport to be required for such works. Section 12 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968, entitled Tidal works not to he executed without approval of Board of Trade, does just that. That provision is expressly re-enacted in clause 10, and provides an additional safeguard for other persons whose navigational interests might be affected by such works.

But who is to provide safeguards for our wildlife? Hon. Members spend many hours legislating to protect property and user rights, but we too infrequently protect the rights of other creatures or the rights of citizens to enjoy them. We are considering an area that attracts birds, and which is a national asset. We are asked by the people who support the development to allow wide open powers to a private company which intends only, as we heard so often last night, to serve its own financial interests. In so doing it will destroy thousands of birds of all descriptions which come to Britain in winter from many parts of Europe, and from Iceland, Greenland and Canada.

In European Community terms the area is recognised as warranting special protection in law. If, against the arguments of Labour Members tonight, the Bill passes into law substantially unchanged, it will almost certainly run into difficulties with the Commission in Brussels. All too often the Government have got into difficulties with the European Court of Justice and have been brought before it on some issues more frequently than many other countries. If we run into those difficulties with the Commission, there will be no long-stop power in the hands of the Government to halt damaging reclamation activities being carried out by the company while proceedings are taken against the United Kingdom in the European Court. As Department of the Environment Ministers must answer charges which undoubtedly, if the Bill proceeds, will be laid against the United Kingdom—not simply in court but in the Council of Ministers—it is appropriate that long-stop powers should be placed in their hands. Our amendments seek to do that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I rise to support the new clause and amendments. If I thought that this Bill would lead to the construction of a new dock within the next 12 or 18 months which would in turn create many new jobs, I should be happy for it to be enacted. But there is no evidence that it will create new jobs. The best that the promoters can claim is that it will create new jobs in Britain at the expense of jobs in Europe. Others say that it will take jobs away from Britain. Whatever the case, I can see no evidence for the Bill creating new jobs.

Until I have some evidence that the Bill will create new jobs, I can see no justification for a proposal that will damage the natural environment. We all have a responsibility to try to balance protecting the environment with the need to develop jobs and industries. I have always thought that we have a duty to try to leave the environment in as good a state as we inherited it from previous generations.

Mr. Rhodes James

The proposals involve 500,000 new trees being planted and 85,000 acres of additional woodland. Is that bad environmental practice? Moreover, the doubling of a dockland surely involves jobs.

Mr. Bennett

I thought that the hon. Gentleman had listened, like me, to last night's debate. It was forcefully pointed out then that the different types of environment are important. It is worth protecting these mudflats, because they attract certain types of birds. Trees may be attractive in certain places, but they will not provide a suitable environment for those birds. On occasion, I have severe reservations about the number of trees that are planted. Some of the Forestry Commission's areas do not enhance our natural environment at all. If there is to he a new development, let us screen it and make it as attractive as possible, but that does not mean that we would be improving the environment. We would merely be trying to screen the damage from others.

As I have said, genuine new jobs would he one thing. However, I understand that the promoters claim only that they are trying to take jobs away from Rotterdam or from other European ports, so we are not creating new jobs but merely moving unemployment around—

Mr. Rhodes James

Employment around.

Mr. Bennett

One can say that we are moving unemployment around, or the reverse of that, which is that we are moving employment around. The promoters argue that the development will take jobs away from Europe and give jobs to Felixstowe. But we rightly argue that it will take jobs away from Tilbury and elsewhere. No one has said that jobs will be created. There is a tendency for products to be smaller in size, so the number and size of items is falling. Consequently, as I have said, there is no evidence that the Bill will create new jobs.

Mr. Weetch

Does my hon. Friend realise that the port of Ipswich will be an early casualty of that dock extension? Before the Bill began its passage, I had detailed discussions with the trade unions and management at the port of Ipswich, and they are very worried about the employment consequences for Ipswich. The Bill would bring excess dock capacity to East Anglia, which would mean that dog would eat dog, and the port of Ipswich could become a ghost port in 15 or 20 years.

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go reasonably wide of the new clause; I am sure that he is now rapidly coming to the subject of the new clause, and the amendments associated with it.

7.45 pm

Mr. Bennett

I was trying to talk about the new clause and the amendments, but in passing I wanted to point out that I would have been sympathetic to the Bill if it had created new jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has just pointed out that it is likely to take jobs away from Ipswich. That brings me to the new clause, because we now come to the environmental argument. If new jobs were going to be created, it might be worth sacrificing some of the environment. But that is not so, so there can be no excuse for sacrificing wetland areas and mudflats.

Sadly, dock developments have been allowed along the east coast of England and Scotland, and habitats have been destroyed. Recently, proposals came before the House that would affect Seal sands in the Tees and Hartlepool dockland area. Opposition Members resisted those proposals, but there was a great disappointment. Indeed, a much stronger case could be made for creating jobs in Middlesbrough or Hartlepool than for creating them in Felixstowe, but with the support of Conservative Members and with the encouragement of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, we fought hard to protect those wetlands. Substantial parts of the same sort of wetlands have gone for docks at Hull and Immingham, and all the ports round the Wash have gradually gone for reclamation schemes.

Therefore, there have already been many demands to take away the natural habitat of birds that use those estuarial areas. The same sort of habitat has also been lost along the Thames. A lot of work has been done to enclose land round the Solent in preparation for developments that have not taken place. There were proposals to extend that work, thus affecting—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter of importance to the House and of relevance to the new clause. It has been raised with you previously, but having thought about the issue, I realise that we are placed in a special difficulty. It is on record in the minutes of the Committee that the Secretary of State for the Environment said that there were certain detailed conditions which were relevant to the site under discussion. He then added that only proven national interests and a lack of alternative sites could justify any exception from what he said in 1982, in support of a site of natural beauty.

From my experience in the House I know that, technically, I am not quite in order. But a voice has to be heard and courtesies have to be established so that the Chair can consider the point that the House is in a weak position, because we cannot challenge a Minister from the Department of the Environment. That is an important point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will consider it. But I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for hearing me, as I know that I am technically not quite in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has dealt with his own point of order. He has raised a point of argument and not a point of order for the Chair, as he himself has virtually admitted.

Mr. Bennett

That was a very interesting point of order. Those of us who served on Committees under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) would have been pleased to get away with one like that.

We have lost a lot of similar estuarial land along the coast to port authorities that have every intention of developing it for extra port facilities. On many occasions, having carried out the reclamation, they have found that the economic circumstances have changed or that their future plans were too grandiose and they have not gone on to develop the dock or put the containers on to the site. They have stopped halfway through the process. Therefore, we have lost the natural environment but have not gained any jobs or docks.

Mr. Rhodes James

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read clause 16 of the Bill.

Mr. Bennett

I have read clause 16.

The current proposal is that the company will carry out reclamation on the basis that, within three years, it will continue the development. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that in three years all sorts of circumstances will change. I am not casting any aspersions on the integrity of the Tees and Hartlepool dock authority or the dock authorities at Immingham, Yarmouth, Tilbury, Southampton or Falmouth. All the people involved in those docks genuinely believed when they reclaimed land that they would be able to expand their port facilities and attract new jobs. All I am saying is that the evidence is that it is not as easy as that.

Unfortunately, at Southampton a considerable amount of the estuary was reclaimed with every good intention, but at present the land has not been used for dockland. It is logical, having enclosed the land at Southampton and taken it away from the birds, to let that harbour develop rather than run the risk of taking away more land at Felixstowe, with a question mark over whether the development will take place.

The new clause is to ensure that the company has to satisfy the Secretary of State that within a year it will go ahead with the development. That is a reasonable test of sincerity. I accept that even within a year circumstances may change. However, at least there is a reasonable possibility that the development will take place. Of course, there is always the risk that the reclamation will go ahead and that at the end of that period there is a financial crisis within the country or the company or a change of circumstances which leads the company to decide that it will not go ahead with the rest of the development.

The new clause says that to allow that risk over 12 months may be reasonable, but to allow it over three years is a little unreasonable. I would not be particularly happy about a development that took jobs away from other ports but I am sure that I should be very unhappy about reclamation taking place and then, at the end of two or three years, the company announcing that it could not go ahead with. the development.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

It would follow, in the purely hypothetical circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is postulating, that the promoters would have provided the new nature reserve, the many new environmental improvements, the tree planting and so on. Is the hon. Gentleman not able to recognise that even in the strange circumstances he describes, there would have been an environmental gain?

Mr. Bennett

I am not certain about that. Unfortunately, I am not a specialist in biology, so I cannot say whether the particular species of birds that use the mudflats at present will find the alternative proposals at Trimley marshes as attractive. I am certain that other birds will find it as attractive and I am also certain that some birds will find the trees attractive. However, the area was designated as a site of special scientific interest because of particular wading birds. The problem we face on the east coast is that it is that type of environment which is continually being taken for dock development or development associated with it. If the circumstances I described had occurred and the alternative land and trees had been provided, we may have had some environmental gains. However, if the land has been reclaimed and the jobs do not materialise and the dock does not develop, we have lost an environment which is at present attractive to the particular groups of migratory birds that use it.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

My hon. Friend, with some modesty, says that he is not an expert, although he is well known for his expertise in these matters. It may help if I quote the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is the Government's official adviser on things natural. In its comments on this proposal, referring in particular to grey and ringed plover and turnstone it says that it has advised the Department of the Environment that there are no sites on the Orwell estuary with features comparable to those at Fagbury Flats and that the passage of this Bill would prejudice Britain's international obligations towards nature conservation. Although my hon. Friend may not be able to reassure the House, I hope that the House will be reassured by the Nature Conservancy Council which, as the nation's guardian of the environment, feels that the flats are irreplaceable.

Mr. Bennett

I thank my hon. Friend. It certainly makes the case and answers the points made. Even if we got all the things that the company is saying it would provide for the environment, welcome as they are, they would not solve the problem of the area that is being lost.

My concern is that, once the land has been reclaimed, it cannot be restored as mudflats. Therefore, one suspects that if at some point the company is not sure whether it should go ahead, as the Bill stands it will go ahead and reclaim the land. At the moment the company has only to take the view that it would be reasonable to develop the docks within three years. At the end of those three years there is no way in which the House or anyone else can compel the company to go ahead and develop the dock if it decides that circumstances have changed. It can come back to the House to ask for a variation in the legislation and there is nothing that we can do in legislation to stop the company coming back.

The company can go ahead, reclaim the land, provide the environmental amenities it has promised and, if it decides not to go ahead with the development, it can stop. The company can then leave the reclaimed land, as much other reclaimed land along the east coast of Britain has been left, in an almost semi-derelict state. It may attract other birds and animals but not those that have been displaced. The company can then let the matter rest for several years before deciding to go ahead with the development.

The company can decide that, because of the change in trade, perhaps brought about by the Channel tunnel, that it will never want to go ahead with the development. What would the company do'? It would have a piece of reclaimed land on which it had spent a considerable sum of money, so it would have to look for ways to get the money back. The temptation is to use the land for some other purpose, such as a light industrial development or something else. It may be that the company would have to come to the House to get new legislation or it may be that it decides it has to go to the county council and apologise for taking the land, saying, "We know that it was of special scientific interest; however, at the time we had every intention of going ahead but, sadly, we were unable to. It would be a pity if we lost our money and it would be a pity for the local community to lose jobs. Let us use the land for some other purpose." That is the risk at the moment. If the company can say that it has every intention of going ahead within three years, it can do so, knowing that, if having reclaimed the land it becomes uneconomic to go ahead with the development, it can come to the House or go to the planning authority with a proposal to use the land for some other purpose.

The House would not have dreamt of allowing the company to reclaim this sort of marshland if it was to be used for light industrial purposes. The House would have insisted that there were lots of other sites within Felixstowe or East Anglia to use for that purpose. All we are seeking with the new clause is a safeguard so that there is a high probability that the land will be used for the purpose that the promoters are putting forward rather than a risk that, because of the passage of time, the very good intentions of the promoters will be thwarted by economic circumstances.

Mr. Rhodes James

The Bill ensures that 176 acres of Trimley marshes are preserved. The promoters and others will guarantee a sum of £145,000 to ensure its preservation. That is written into the Bill. How can the hon. Gentleman object to a Bill which, in my view, is unprecedented and which gives that kind of guarantee?

8 pm

Mr. Bennett

It is not a guarantee of like for like. One is taking away something which was prized in Europe—the wetlands area—and one is giving people something else in return. People are not objecting to this attractive alternative but it is an alternative; it is not a replacement, and that is the problem.

I am certainly not complaining because the promoters are offering something else, but they are not offering back the same environment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) read out an article which made the point that something else is being offered in exchange for the land. I can think of many cases when I would like to have traded an environmental improvement in one place for some damage elsewhere, but that does not justify the damage. We must have a certainty that the damage is absolutely necessary. So far I have not had that proof. No one has been able to convince me that the development will create new jobs. I have grave doubts that, over three years, circumstances will remain exactly the same to enable the promoters to carry through their undertaking, given in the Bill, to develop the area.

There are many uncertainties, especially concerning what will happen to ports policy in this country as a result of the possible building of a Channel tunnel. The future is difficult to forecast, and the Government are reluctant to predict the changes. Southampton is upset about the Channel tunnel, but what will be the reaction in Dover? If harbour activities are reduced at Dover because of the tunnel there will be tremendous pressure in Dover to try to grab some of the container work. Nothing would be more logical than for ships to put in at Dover, offload and bring containers into Britain. The containers could then go back through the tunnel to Europe. It is certain that Dover will fight for that work. Will shippers be encouraged to come to Britain or will they be encouraged to go to French ports and send goods through the tunnel? The future is extremely difficult to predict.

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says about the capacity of our existing ports to handle existing cargo. He may be interested to know that the port of Dover, both in volume and value terms, shifts more cargo than the port of Felixstowe. If we are to have a fixed link of some description, clearly the movement of cargoes through our ports will be seriously affected. I believe my hon. Friend is absolutely right in questioning whether or not the existing volume of cargo will be present when this dock development is complete.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not tempted to go wide of the debate, which relates to the consent of the Secretary of State to certain works.

Mr. Bennett

The reason we want the consent of the Secretary of State is to have as near certainty as possible that if the reclamation is allowed to go ahead the docks will follow.

As the Bill stands, the reclamation will start on the basis that the company believes that, over three years, it is likely to go ahead with the dock development. I am trying to demonstrate to the House that, for all sorts of reasons. and whatever the company's good faith, that certainty cannot exist, because of the great doubt about the fixed link and the doubts over the attitude of other ports which may decide that is worth dropping their prices. Dover, which will see much of its work disappear, will try very hard to take on container work.

At the moment, approval will be given for the work to start, the reclamation will go ahead and land will be lost to the environment and the birds. In the end, the company may decide that it cannot go ahead with the proposal. We wish to ensure that the company will go ahead. When it wishes to start the reclamation it must make its case to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that, within 12 months, the company would be ready to continue with the remainder of the construction. That appears to be an eminently reasonable proposal. If the promoters are attempting to resist this new clause, there must be some doubt in their minds as to whether they really want to go ahead with this development. There may be some doubt that, having undertaken the reclamation, they will place the port facilities and container berths on that site.

That brings us back to the other possibility — that once they have the land they will decide to use it for some other purpose. Along the whole of the east coast there is land which was reclaimed—in most cases in good faith —for dock development but which is sadly unused and is no longer a good natural environment for waders and other birds.

One of the other amendments in this group requires the approval of Ministers when changes are proposed to the channels along the estuary. At present, we have the odd situation of competing measures for the enclosure of the water in the estruary. A competing measure has been put forward by the promoters of the Bill to enlarge the docks at Harwich. I understand that the question of working out tidal flows in river estuaries is extremely complicated and complex. Although models can be made in water tanks it is difficult to predict what will happen to the natural environment. If a dock is constructed on the Harwich side of the river and the Felixstowe enclosure is taking place on the north side of the river, the interests of those two developments could be in some conflict.

Both the projects wish to spend the minimum on retaining the navigable channels which would allow ships to pass up as far as Ipswich. Each Bill implies that the changes it will carry out will not alter navigation but that the other Bill will. The Minister's approval should be sought to guarantee that the implications of any changes to navigational channels which may occur as a result of this Bill will not adversely affect the ships which go up the river to Ipswich.

Once one starts to change navigation channels, one affects much wider areas of the mudflats. If the entrance to the river is narrowed it may start a scouring effect and damage much larger areas of the mudflats than those attacked directly by the Bill. It would be reasonable to call in the good offices of Ministers to arbitrate on the claims of the dock companies as opposed to the requirments of other users of the river, both for recreational purposes and as an attractive area for birds and other animals.

We should support new clause 2, the other amendments which pave the way for that and the further amendment which deals with the estuarine matters. I can see no reason why the promoters should not accept the new clause. If they want to demonstrate their good faith and confidence that they can carry out the development, I can see no reason for them not to accept it. If they insist on trying to persuade us not to accept the new clause, I can only suggest that it is because they do not have the confidence, like so many of my hon. Friends, that there is a demand for extra port facilities along the east coast or anywhere in Britain, or, for that matter, anywhere within western Europe, and they are interested in the possibility of enclosing the land if the development goes only halfway and then returning with another Bill with a suggestion that the land should be used for other purposes. Therefore, I hope that the House will support new clause 2.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer)

First, may I say, in answer to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), that I am informed that it is normal for one Minister to monitor the progress of a private Bill such as this, particularly when the Government have expressed their neutrality on the major issues of conservation and development. Therefore, there is nothing particularly untoward about my presence here tonight.

Mr. Leadbitter

The Minister is correct insofar as he has gone. It is not unusual for a Minister to monitor for another, but it is an unusual practice for the House of Commons to be deprived, not of monitoring, which is a matter between Ministers, but of the opportunity of challenging the Secretary of State for the Environment or the appropriate Minister on the firm undertakings given in 1982, as we have been. That is something that should concern the House. I apologise to the Minister because he is not answerable for that, but I hope that, as part of his monitoring function tonight, he will convey to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment that the House is disturbed about the matter.

Mr. Spicer

I shall convey the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in such a courteous and reasonable way. However, as I say, it is not abnormal for a Minister to monitor a private Bill such as this.

Amendment No. 10 would involve the deletion of clause 6(3) and would threaten the company's ability to undertake the works authorised elsewhere in the clause. Therefore, it could be construed as undermining the purpose of the Bill. It is the Government's view that, as the Bill has received its Second Reading and has now been approved in Committee, it would be perverse to wreck the Bill as the amendment could do.

Mr. Weetch

I am grateful to the Minister for monitoring the Bill and giving us the benefit of his advice, especially when he is heavily pressed on other matters. However, when I come to speak on new clause 2 and the amendments I have some environmental questions to ask, one of which is difficult. It is an environmental point involving the Nature Conservancy Council which is disputed by the company and I should like such questions answered. I know that the Minister is competent in his own sphere, but will he be able to give us information on such a point?

Mr. Spicer

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his flattering comments, but the Government are not the sponsor of the Bill—

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Thurrock)

The Minister should not be taken in by them.

Mr. Spicer

I have never been taken in, particularly by anything coming from the hon. Lady.

The sponsors of the Bill are responsible for guiding the Bill through and, indeed, for answering specific points. There are other opportunities to question Ministers about their responsibility for their Departments and policies. I think that. that is the best answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The Minister said that new clause 2 is a wrecking amendment. As I understand it, that is almost — I say "almost" — questioning the Chair's selection, because the Chair does not select wrecking amendments. I hope that the Minister will try to justify that comment or perhaps withdraw it.

8.15 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I did not regard the Minister's comments as a reflection on the Chair. He was making legitimate comments about the amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Spicer

I would not want to question the Chair's selection, nor was I talking about new clause 2. I was talking about amendment No. 10.

However, on new clause 2 and amendment No. 11 I have to say that the effect of the Bill would be to give Parliament's permission, which is, after all, the highest authority in the land, to the plans for this development.

If Parliament gives its approval, the Government believe that a requirement for the further consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment is not only unnecessary but creates ad hoc control by the Secretary of State which we would not favour. A well-established procedure is involved here by which Parliament is giving detailed consent.

My point is fairly minor: that we believe that the Secretary of State should not further intervene in the process which Parliament has approved. That is the only comment that the Government have to make on these amendments and why we would not favour them.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

Let me take up the point with which the Minister left us because in a sense it is at the core of the thinking behind this group of amendments and the new clause. As I understood it, the Minister was basically arguing that new clause 2 was not applicable because if the Bill had gone through the necessary stages of Parliament, Parliament would have so decided and therefore it was not necessary for the Minister to be consulted.

In the debate yesterday it became clear that if the Bill becomes law, it will override the wider Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as that appertains to sites of special scientific interest. Therefore, this Bill affects the overall judgment of the major Wildlife and Countryside Act of Britain. In that sense, an additional safeguard, which is only a time safeguard — essentially that is what new clause 2 and the subsequent amendments are about—is well justified.

New clause 2 relates to clause 7 which places a constraint on the types of operation and works which can be undertaken by the company.

Before I develop that point, let me return to the problem which seems to be causing a great deal of difficulty for some hon. Members and which is one of the reasons why we feel that new clause 2 is necessary. That involves the issue of the site of special scientific interest which will be affected, and, indeed, destroyed by the Bill. I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that. The only point of difference is that those who support the Bill say that the site will be destroyed, but it will be improved because 500,000 trees will be planted. It is worth making the point, crucial to new clause 2, that the site was declared to be of special scientific interest because of the estuary, the wetlands, and the bird population which, at certain critical times of the year, occupies those mudflats.

We do not really understand all the meanderings and wandering of birds. We cannot understand the migratory patterns of swallows or wintering birds. It is a finely tuned operation. It is quite clear that if we remove the wintering area of some of those birds, we threaten the species. It is as serious as that. I use the poignant example of Duich Moss. The reason why the EEC is threatening the British Government over Duich Moss is that, if that area, where about 8,000 to 10,000 white-fronted Greenland geese are present over the bad months, is excluded, it is quite likely that the whole species will disappear. I am not arguing that that will apply directly in this case, because it is not as critical as that. What we suggest in new clause 2 is a limitation of time which will allow the birds to continue wintering in certain respects.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I respect the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, as I hope he does mine. It is not fair to describe the alternative as the 500,000 trees. About 176 acres of arable land in the Trimley marshes will be converted to grazing marsh — that is, part wetlands. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said: with suitable management, such as that practised by ourselves in Elmley in Kent and elsewhere, it would be possible to create a worthwhile reserve on these Trimley marshes that would probably attract birds in nationally significant numbers. The hon. Gentleman and I have considered the RSPB's letter. The RSPB is specific that the development would create a reserve able to attract birds in nationally significant numbers. That is the important point.

Dr. Clark

I wish, in a sense, that the hon. Gentleman has not raised that point, for the simple reason that I had not intended to quote from the letter from the RSPB. Quite rightly and fairly, he quoted from the letter yesterday and today. What he said was absolutely correct. It is important to note that the RSPB—I know that the hon. Gentleman will check it—went on to say: We have considered this most carefully and have decided that we cannot restrict ourselves in this matter. The RSPB said that it would not withdraw its opposition and voluntarily enter into a `compromise' over the future of an internationally important SSSI". Additional land will be set aside. Hopefully, that will satisfy some, if not all, of the birds. However, we do not know that. I think that we all agree that it is a jump into the unknown. One can understand the RSPB, in a back-up or fallback position, writing in the way that is has about Trimley marshes. Let us not deceive ourselves. The RSPB still opposes the Bill. It has made that clear to me in a telephone message today, and by sending me a copy of the letter that the hon. Gentleman and I discussed earlier.

New clause 2 tries to restrict the time in which the operations of the company can be carried out. It has been drawn up carefully by my hon. Friends and me. We took as a model the now defunct Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which contained a similar clause. We believe that the clause is apposite to Parliament and is legally correct. The new clause would require the Secretary of State for Transport to give his consent for certain works involving reclamation. If the House permits the Bill to pass as reported from the Committee, we believe that it will allow the company to meddle in important matters of national and international policy. The key point is that the area is not only an SSSI. It is further designated as not only grade 1 status but supergrade status by being declared under EEC directive 79/409. That gives the area further status.

We believe that if a private company interferes in issues which are nationally and internationally important, it is wise for Parliament and for the Government to have as much restraint upon the company as possible. Therefore, when we deal with a site, such as an SSSI, and if it is to be disposed of, the final decision must remain with the Minister. That is what the new clause provides. We have given the matter considerable thought. We thought that perhaps the Minister should be the Secretary of State for the Environment, but we felt it was right that it should be the main Minister—the Secretary of State for Transport.

If hon. Members agree to the new clause — I wish that the promoters felt able to agree to it; it does not restrict them too much — it may prevent the death of literally thousands of birds if major reclamation works are started and not completed. One might justify that if the economic expansion and industrial operation had got under way, providing jobs and employment. There is no guarantee of that. The new clause would try to restrict the development work within a time constraint. That would be a sensible move.

The consequential amendments, Nos. 8 to 12, develop that further. We envisage the construction of a quay frontage along the lines intended by the company, but we would not allow the reclamation of the whole of Fagbury flats and the salt marshes immediately. In reality, we take a step-by-step approach. The amendments and the new clause require that. The company would have to justify every stage of development. We realise that the company has commercial interest to protect, and we acknowledge that, and we suggest that we concede powers to construct berthage, hard standing for cranes and the temporary storage of containers — in other words, the works and the facilities necessary for the ongoing construction.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has suggested, the development could be constructed on an island site rotated at the outer limits of the bay. That would allow the gradual development of the site to take place with the minimum threat to the wildlife. It would exclude the company from reclaiming a substantial area of mudflats and salt marsh on the landward side of the quay.

We suggest the island site because that could be constructed in such a way as to maintain the tidal flow in a partly contained bay of Fagbury flats. The whole venture would be constructed to try to restrain as large a part of the mudflats system as possible, because that is the area that is regarded as the most valuable when it comes to the bird feeding area. We believe that that could be achieved quite easily.

We submit that neither the company nor the Committee, when it reported on the Bill—we accept all its good endeavours — made any serious attempt to consider a port development which tries to retain, as far as possible, the necessary wildlife interests in the area. By tabling new clause 2 and the amendments, we have attempted to combine, as much as possible, what may appear to be diverse activities and to build in a kind of linkage system so that each stage of the development would not take place until there was an absolute necessity for it. By so doing, we would have the maximum impact on the protection of the environment and the wildlife that lives on it For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 2 and the amendments.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I hope that the House will follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister who spoke neutrally when he pointed out that new clause 2 would wreck the Bill. That is the intention of the Opposition and particularly of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who has never made any bones about it. 1 was surprised to hear him in one of his many interjections earlier suggesting that if this Bill were passed, in 20 years' time Ipswich would be a ghost port. That is the sort of exaggerated language that should have no serious place in such discussions.

8.30 pm

Ipswich is an important, well managed, municipal port and complements the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. It is one of a complex of ports in those estuaries which service not only eastern England. but, increasingly, the whole of our trade. There is an efficient division of labour between the group of ports. The growth of Felixstowe assists the growth of Ipswich. One port benefits the other.

Dr. McDonald

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I would prefer to give way to the hon. Member for Ipswich, but if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, she may do so.

Dr. McDonald

I do not regard the hon. Gentleman's remarks as being entirely a private row between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). The hon. Gentleman talked about a general division of labour between the ports. I do not understand what he means by that. Tilbury, for example, is an extremely important container dock and will be adversely affected by the development of a large new container berth at Felixstowe. Therefore, I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he speaks of a division of labour between the ports.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

If the hon. Lady had listened a little more attentively, she would have realised that I was dealing with the prediction that Ipswich would become a ghost port. I was saying that that was a hopelessly exaggerated statement which had no place in a serious discussion such as this.

These amendments are primarily directed to the reclamation of land. It is important to keep the matter in some perspective. The shoreline of the River Orwell where the development is to take place is 22 miles long. The proposed extension of the port area is about half a mile of that shoreline, which is 2.5 per cent. of the entire area. Therefore, the development cannot be described as an environmental catastrophe, which was the language used by the hon. Member for Ipswich. Some 97.5 per cent. of the shoreline will remain completely untouched.

Obviously, I regret any intrusion into an area of outstanding natural beauty. Indeed, I had some part in establishing those areas. However, I must remind the House that of that 151 square miles of outstanding natural beauty in Suffolk, one third of one square mile will be covered by the port extension. I am advised that that is just under 0.25 of 1 per cent. That puts the matter into some perspective.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the promotion of earlier Bills, in relation to the docks at Felixstowe? Does he accept that the argument is always that only a little piece of land will be taken, and that in the end all the extra pieces build up to the destruction of the whole environment?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I understand the piecemeal argument, but if the hon. Gentleman will study the Bill he will see that it provides a guarantee against the further movement of the port upriver. The promoters inserted that specifically to deal with the anxiety that he has raised.

I came across the problem of bird life when I sat on the Front Bench, taking the Maplin measure through the House. It was extraordinary how much time we spent on Brent geese. I am worried about the bird life, but it is to the credit of the promoters of the Bill that when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds intervened, they immediately financed 75 per cent. of the cost of an extensive bird survey — the best that has been done in the area. The survey was carried out by the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will accept that the trust is an entirely objective and deeply concerned body.

The report showed that the dock extension was in an area that was certainly important for three of the 30 species of birds to be found there. Therefore, we are talking about a small fraction of the bird population. Moreover, the count showed a considerable migration of birds in the Orwell and Stour rivers area. That has strengthened the view that development would displace a relatively small number of birds and would not disrupt the ecological balance of the estuary as a whole.

I must accept that any development such as this requires a balance. It would be absurd to suggest that there is no environmental impact, because obviously there is. However, one must balance that against the replacement of that lost proportion of land by alternatives. One of the alternatives, which I have already suggested in an intervention, is that a substantial area will be changed from arable land into grazing marsh. That will assist the bird life in the area. A great deal more assistance will be provided by flooding areas that are not now regularly flooded. The combination of the trees, the grazing marsh and the prevention of further movement up the estuary adds up to an enhancement of the total environment. Judged as a whole, there are gains and losses, but there is no environmental catastrophe of the sort forecast by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which of the three bird species the Suffolk trust said would be most affected, and whether the replacement land would be of any use to those birds?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I hesitate tonight to quote from the report, but I shall be pleased to obtain that information for the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to press me for it. I suggest that he writes to the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation.

Dr. David Clark

The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point that the ecology and environment of the area will he changed, and, rightly, talks about the flooded areas and marshes. However, it is not merely the ecology that could be changed, it is the ecology of those three bird species that is at risk. I think that they are the grey and ringed plover and the turnstone, which are rare birds. The marshes are of no particular use to them and are much more suited to Brent geese and other species. The key point is that we must consider not only the ecology of the area, but the existence of the three rare species of bird.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern in the matter and he will understand that my concern is no less than his. I remain of the view expressed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that with suitable management—all reserves need that these days —it would be possible to create a worthwhile reserve on Trimley marshes which would probably attract birds in nationally significant numbers. It is a matter of balance, but I do not believe that that balance was remotely accurately described by the hon. Member for Ipswich, when he described the proposal as an environmental catastrophe. That is an absurd exaggeration and he knows it.

New clause 2 would wreck the Bill because clause 6 is the essence of this development. Clause 6 confers powers on the docks company to construct the proposed works. Clause 14(1) provides that those powers may be exercisable for a period of 10 years from the passage of the Bill or for such extended period as the Secretary of State may allow.

The effect of new clause 2 would be to restrict the docks company's powers to construct the works by requiring the company to obtain the consent in writing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the company can exercise any of the powers where land reclamation was involved. Since the entire development requires land reclamation, that would mean that the Secretary of State and his civil servants would have to give their consent to every item of contruction or development that was required.

The docks company may have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking a sensible and objective view of these matters. I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)— sitting on the Front Bench. He represents the area where these developments are to take place. It was only because my right hon. Friend has many duties to perform in Brussels — which he performs so well—that he was unable to present during our prolonged debate last night. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would take a sensible view in that case.

Having listened to the language of Opposition Members and the interventions by the hon. Member for South Shields, I would not be surprised if a developer or customer of the port of Felixstowe, at home or abroad, believed that a Secretary of State of a Labour persuasion would take a biased and prejudiced view of the development of Felixstowe. The Opposition have demonstrated perfectly clearly — yesterday and today—that they would use the new clause to wreck the Bill if they were in office. That is a good reason why we should reject the new clause.

Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10, with which new clause 2 is grouped, would produce an absurd position. If passed, they would reduce the area over which the new works could be constructed by removing any power to reclaim land. I am advised that that could be the effect of the amendments. Since the works cannot be constructed without reclaiming and that is an essential feature of the work, the result of carrying the amendments would be to make it impossible to proceed. The amendments are simply nonsense.

Amendment No. 11 would also require the docks company to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before any work could be carried out — the same approach as that under new clause 2. In effect, that means that the company would be put into the leading strings of the Department of Transport. It would effectively make the company a branch of the Civil Service and tie it hand and foot to whatever view was prevailing on the items of contruction and reclamation involved in the work. The House would not sensibly wish to tie the hands of any private developer in that fashion. Worst of all, the amendment would effectively put the decision of the House into commission. Notwithstanding the view of the House — I remind the House of the overwhelming majority on Second Reading—

8.45 pm

Mr. Weetch

That was the payroll vote.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

If the hon. Member for Ipswich wishes to intervene, I will give way.

Mr. Weetch

One of the laughable things about this debate is the Government's "neutrality". It is the oddest form of neutrality that I have ever seen. Last night, the Opposition polled about 38 votes, but at least we made no attempt to make this a party political matter. The Bill has been pushed through by the payroll vote. This is a piece of Government legislation masquerading as private business.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman's comments illustrate the point that I have been making. Every hon. Member in this House is responsible for his vote to his constituents and to his conscience. It is a slur on the 140 hon. Members who voted last night for the hon. Member for Ipswich to describe them as he did. Only 38 Opposition Members could be bothered to support his shenanigans. It is rare for a private Bill to attract a vote of 201 to 54, as was achieved on this Bill's Second Reading. Since such a majority is unprecedented, the hon. Member for Ipswich should not have used such language to cast a slur on those who voted.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

As one of those hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading debate, may I remind the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that apparently the reason for the 201 Conservatives voting the way they did was that one of their colleagues, speaking on behalf of the Bill, made the assessment that all that was in question were some utterly worthless mudflats. The 201 Conservative Members who supported the Bill were prepared to accept that description and prepared for Britain to ignore an important international commitment to which it should pay much more regard.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will develop that point if he has a chance to make a speech later. I was trying to deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich, who cast a slur on those who voted. We have been in this House long enough to see major decisions taken on the nationalisation and denationalisation of industries carried by tiny majorities. A majority of this size should not be treated as lightly as the hon. Member for Ipswich suggests.

The crucial point is this: the purpose of new clause 2 and the opposition which the hon. Member for Ipswich has mounted is to wreck the Bill, and to deny to East Anglia—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we had established that the Chair does not select wrecking amendments. It is insulting for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to describe the selected amendment as a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair is not as sensitive in these matters as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggests. No hon. Member has been critical of the Chair. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is making a perfectly legitimate comment on the amendment, and he is in order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I repeat the words that I used. I said that the purpose of the amendment is to wreck the Bill. That has been the aim of the hon. Member for Ipswich right from the start. He seeks to deny to East Anglia the opportunity of modernising its leading port. He seeks to deny to our industry and trade the opportunity, through a modernised port, to compete more effectively, not only for the North sea traffic but for the great world-girdling container lines. He seeks to deny us the opportunity to compete more effectively for that trade of the future.

The hon. Gentleman seeks to prevent the jobs being created in Felixstowe and in his own constituency of Ipswich. In so doing he flies in the face of the stated wishes of the Transport and General Workers Union. Brendan Lambe, the regional secretary, has said time and again that that union wishes the Bill to proceed. The hon. Gentleman seeks to deny to that union the jobs that its members wish.

Dr. McDonald

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I shall not give way. I shall finish my speech.

The hon. Member for Ipswich further seeks to deny to that part of East Anglia the new investment that will enable us to improve our infrastructure. He is giving the lie to his party leader's frequent demand for more investment and more jobs. Here is more investment and here are more jobs. Here is a chance for us to be more competitive. I should have thought that a Labour party that brags about its desire to reduce employment and to create more jobs would have welcomed the Bill, instead of which the hon. Gentleman stands there seeking to wreck, to deprive, to deny and to destroy. He should be ashamed of himself. The House should reject the new clause.

Mr. Leadbitter

The House might show considerable interest in the manner, approach and vigour of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who, in view of his constituency responsibilities in Bury St. Edmunds, does not appear to me to have any particular interest in ports. I have an interest in ports as a constituency Member, and I have had some experience of such legislation, so I believe that the House should be wondering at the excitement, the aggravation and the charges that the hon. Gentleman is making. I wonder whether it is connected with the relationship that may exist between the Felixstowe docks authority and the Conservative party. I do not know. I have heard suggestions that that company contributes large sums to Conservative party funds. Of course, I do not know. 1 am merely wondering why the hon. Gentleman is behaving in the way that he is.

Mr. Rhodes James

rose—

Mr. Leadbitter

Another hon. Gentleman is rising. I understand that some of the land is owned by Trinity college, Cambridge. The hon. Gentleman is anxious to intervene, but I want to test the veracity of the words spoken by the Secretary of State. I want to put things in such a manner as to test the House, by asking a simple question. Where does truth really lie'? Who is shifting whose feet'? On the Opposition Benches, it is impossible for us to be charged in that respect, because this is not our Bill. We are merely reacting to submissions that have been made to us from communities in the area that is affected. We are reminding ourselves of the undertakings that the Secretary of State gave, to which I shall refer.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman says that he is representing the communities in question. I take it that he would suppose that the local authorities of the area in question would be representative. Suffolk county council does not oppose the Bill. Ipswich borough council does not oppose the Bill. Suffolk Coastal council does not oppose the Bill. Let the hon. Gentleman tell the House who those representatives of the local area are who oppose the Bill, because one thing is for sure — the hon. Member for Ipswich does not represent them at all.

Mr. Leadbitter

The hon. Member for Hartlepool who, for the hon. Gentleman's information, happens to be the person holding the Floor at the moment, never suggested that he represented the communities in Suffolk. I said that I had a port interest. It so happens to be the third largest port in the United Kingdom—the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I was saying that I had had some experience of such legislation as is now before us. I emphasise that in point of fact the hon. Gentleman's attitude raised self-evident questions in the minds of reasonable hon. Members on both sides of the House. But I said that I did not know. I am told that there is a relationship. I am told that there is a funding relationship. I am told that that has not been rebutted. The hon. Gentleman is not in a position to rebut it, either.

The only point that I am making in a debate as serious as this is that where there is genuine opposition to the proposals, the House must be concerned. In addition, we still do not have a Minister from the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds apparently has no port interest in the sense that his whole time in the House of Commons is concerned with two things. The first is his proper responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds. The second is that he is a paid officer representing the police.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am allowing the hon. Gentleman a fairly long preamble, but I am looking forward to his coming to the amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter

I apologise.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said in his intervention that Suffolk county council was not an objector. It so happens that Suffolk county council, not unlike some other county councils, changed its mind when pressure was put on it. Originally, it objected, as far as I am aware. The proposals are in direct conflict with the county council's structure plan, which was approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment in August 1979. It is interesting that there has been that movement in the county council from a position that was agreed to by the Secretary of State.

I now come to a matter that fascinates me. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds described the position thus: the proposal involves only half a mile in a shoreline of 22 miles. Experience suggests to me that, once there is an incursion into land which has been designated for a particular purpose — in this case, in the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment — that is a precedent for further incursions. The nibbling process continues after that first weakness of changing one's mind about the designation.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to the half mile out of the 22-mile shoreline to show the minimum impact of these proposals on the area, but he was not even correct in that respect. The Bill's sponsors sent out a memorandum which stated: The extension area is about one third of a square mile"— that is a bit of a difference— and comprises a relatively small south-eastern corner of a strip of roughly 150 square miles. Notice the trick—only a square mile, which is a linear measure, compared with a square measure. The innocent who reads the document may think that not much land is really affected because it refers to a minimum amount of land, as shown by the linear measurement, along the coastline.

9 pm

The sponsors are not content with that. After all, they think that hon. Members are rather innocent. The memorandum continued: The extension area therefore is about 0.25 per cent. of the area of natural beauty and comprises about 90 acres of poor — that is, heavy clay — low lying, level, agricultural land separated by a clay wall from an area of roughly 140 acres comprising a small area of salt marsh and creeks and a larger area of mud flats which are only exposed at low tide. That is all to tell us that we are making noises about an exceedingly small area and land of exceptionally poor quality.

On 29 July 1982 the Secretary of State for the Environment said: in general,"— referring to this land— "it would be inconsistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial and commercial development in AONBs. Only proven natural interest and lack of alternative sites can justify any exception" — [Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 708.] Why was there a change of heart within such a short period? I spent some days looking up evidence which might be helpful to the House, and to me, so that I might address myself fairly to the substance of clause 6. Part of my exercise involved considering the 23 sittings of the Committee. I noticed something strange but understandable. The Felixstowe port authority appeared to be bringing before the Committee witnesses who had a special relationship with it—they were either on friendly terms, were directly related to trading within the port or had shipping and other agency interests. One such person was Mr. George Patrick Gardiner who was sworn in on 5 December 1985. He agreed that he was a director of a number of companies concerned with transport matters and transport facilities". Further questioning brought out the fact that he had a much closer relationship with the company doing the main business in representing shipowners in the United Kingdom, sometimes but most specifically at Felixstowe. I was fascinated with that use of witnesses.

When Mr. Gardiner was cross-examined, Mr. Whybrow, representing the petitioners, said: You said last that it was essential for Felixstowe to continue to expand. Would you be prepared to accept the qualification to that expression of opinion, 'Unless suitable alternative facilities are available'? The witness replied: Yes. In the context of the national interest, of course". He was further asked: And you have already agreed with Mr. Fatchett that there are potentials in other sites, Bath Side I think? The answer was: Yes. That is a fascinating observation.

The Secretary of State for the Environment laid down two conditions. First, there was the national interest; secondly, there were alternative sites. Those were the two conditions that had to be met before there could be an alteration of the designation. The witness to whom I have referred is a man of considerable experience and authority. He appeared before the Committee purportedly to assist in upholding the proposals set out in the Bill, but under cross-examination from the petitioners he admitted that other sites were available for the development that the docks authority had in mind. Once that has been made abundantly clear, the House must draw back from the emotive expressions of concern that we have heard lately and ask itself where the truth really lies.

The Conservative Administration made certain things abundantly clear. They stated that there were only two exceptions that would prevent an intrusion. One was the national interest and the other was the lack of alternative sites.

What were the three main reasons for the Bill and the proposed works? It is rather surprising that only three proposals in principle and in purpose were outlined in Committee by Mr. Ryan, QC. He said that the first reason for needing the land and for having works on it was that of international trade. He claimed that the facility was required for major shipping lines in the container business. The second reason was the justified expectation of a substantial increase in trade. We did not have any figures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the new clause and the amendments that are before the House. We are dealing with whether the consent of the Secretary of State should be required for certain works. We cannot go over the arguments that were advanced in Committee; nor can we have another Second Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be related to the new clause and the amendments that are grouped with it.

Mr. Leadbitter

I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself. The first two lines of the new clause read: The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by section 6"— I must refer, therefore, to section 6— of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case". The difference between section 6 and the wording of new clause 2 is that the section provides that the work outlined shall he allowed to proceed without the Secretary of State's permission. New clause 2 seeks to have the Secretary of State's permission attached to the same works. That being so, I must apologise to the House for finding it necessary from time to time to refer to the objectives and purposes that were outlined in Committee in the use of the designated area and the works that are outlined in section 6.

It was argued that the works should go ahead because of a justifiable expectation of a substantial increase in trade. I have seen no figures to support that expectation of trade. There are many imponderables, not the least of which is the Channel tunnel proposal. There are no projected statistics that make it clear that the designation of the land in question should be impinged upon in the interests of urgency or essential need.

The final reason that Mr. Ryan gave in his submission to the Committee was that the proposal was in the national interest. Therefore, this half mile of land, as it was described by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, or two thirds of a mile of land, as it was described by the Felixstowe harbour authority, apparently has become of national importance and interest. How can that be when it is agreed that there are sites available on the east coast and on the south coast? How can that be when there are areas already designated for industrial development at Port Harwich? Where does the truth lie?

There is clearly on the Conservative Benches a commitment to support the Bill, because the Bill is there and because it has come from a Committee set up to consider opposed private Bills. Conservative Members are not saying clearly why they turn their backs on their own assurances to that area and to the people in it. The land was designated for a particular purpose and accorded that designation by the Secretary of State, yet they say that it does not matter. If it does not matter now, am I to understand that, when the Secretary of State made the designation in 1979 and his statement in 1982, it did not matter then?

How can responsibility accrue to the House of Commons if hon. Members are conveniently going to forget their responsibilities and obligations to a community after firm commitments have been given? How can we test the House of Commons if Conservative Members are shy and coy about declaring the extent of their party interest? If the undertaking that was given does not matter now, and the Bill is essential for a small piece of land in the national interest, then we have to say that the Minister and the Secretary of State did not mean what they said in 1982 and in 1979.

Here is a situation of power and influence overriding the parliamentary protection of the people whom we represent. That is what it is—overriding roughshod and horse trading. How many hon. Members when the Bill is passed will sit in the dining room congratulating each other on how Parliament was used in this way, with the Opposition virtually neutralised?

Mr. Rhodes James

Is the hon. Gentleman alleging—and he is a member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen —that I am corrupt?

Mr. Leadbitter

The hon. Gentleman has a remarkable record in the House of Commons of which, I am happy to say, he ought to be proud, and the House should not in any way impugn his character by words of the kind that he has used. That is not the intention. It was not he, but the Secretary of State, in the name of his party, who gave certain undertakings only a short while ago; and those undertakings have been breached.

Private Bills should be channelled through the House so that proper opposition can be expressed with the ability to challenge the exercise of responsibility of Ministers who are answerable to the nation. I submit that the House should have concern in this respect, and shall express a view as forcibly as I have. In my view, the House should consider the necessity to change its rules. Opposed private Bills in Committee cannot have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We cannot go into private Bill procedure on this amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter

I shall try to make the same point and keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the example that I have described to the House, the use of this land in a further incursion into the environment would have devastating effects on an area that has been agreed by the Government to be an area of natural beauty. It is a pity that we have not been able to defend the Secretary of State's first assertion because the procedures of the House do not allow us to do so. I have made the points that I wanted to make, and there rests my case.

9.15 pm

Mr. Hardy

I shall be brief because my voice would not allow me to emulate the passion that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has deployed.

I was very angry during part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). He misinformed the House. I hope that he will allow the record to be corrected. He told the House that Ipswich borough council was not opposing the Bill. What I think he meant to say was that the borough council did not petition against the Bill.

Mr. Rhodes James

That is what he said.

Mr. Hardy

No; he said that the borough council did not oppose the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is a modest man. His local authority did not petition against the Bill because it knew that it need not waste ratepayers' money on the lavish fees that lawyers would have required. The council had every confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich would put the case against the Bill as well as a whole army of lawyers. Of course, the ratepayers of Ipswich have benefited greatly because my hon. Friend has demonstrated over the months that no one, whether or not a lawyer, could have opposed the Bill with greater consistency or ability. Even his political opponents must concede that my hon. Friend's efforts have been honourable and remarkably effective and competent.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had misinformed the House. If he had been here yesterday when we were dealing with the matter, he would have heard me say precisely that Ipswich borough council had not petitioned against the Bill. Tonight, in saying that none of the local authorities is opposing the Bill, I was using the word "opposing" in the technical sense in which we deal with these matters. It was open to the borough council of Ipswich to petition against the Bill. It elected not to do so. When the county council decided to withdraw all further opposition, the borough council of Ipswich could, if it had wished, have tried to introduce a petition. It decided not to do so. I was entirely correct in informing the House that none of the local authorities is opposing the Bill.

Mr. Hardy

The hon. Gentleman may indulge in semantics as much as he likes. The fact remains that the hon. Gentleman said that Ipswich borough council was not opposing the Bill. I presume that he wanted to create the impression that Ipswich borough council and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich are on opposing sides of the argument. That is not the case. My hon. Friend's local authority is opposing the Bill but it has not wasted ratepayers' money, for which the ratepayers will in due course be grateful. My hon. Friend has performed a remarkably effective role.

Mr. Rhodes James

Is Ipswich borough council opposing the Bill?

Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, whom I am sure the hon. Gentleman will believe, as I do, has assured me that Ipswich borough council is opposing the Bill. My hon. Friend knows his borough council and his constituency far more intimately than anyone else. I accept my hon. Friend's word. I hope that no Conservative Member is casting doubt upon it. It is a pity that doubts were cast.

I could not take part in yesterday's debate. Hon. Members may have gathered that my voice does not have its normal mellifluous quality. Even so, it would have been impossible for me to be here yesterday. I have an interest in the subject. I should declare an interest because I am a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I am concerned that the views of the society should receive proper respect. I have not yet had an opportunity to read Hansard, but I have been informed that a Conservative Member suggested that the RSPB was somehow in favour of the Bill. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has made it clear that he did not offer such an imputation. I do not wish to pursue the matter at length, because I want to confine my remarks wholly to the amendment.

Dr. David Clark

As aspersions have been cast on the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it is incumbent to put it on record that the society telephoned me today to say that it still opposes the Bill entirely.

Mr. Hardy

I am very glad to have that clear message from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). It confirms the view that I had formed.

I have not devoted a vast amount of time to the Bill, because the arguments that were advanced on Second Reading were sufficiently powerful to convince Her Majesty's Government about the proper and responsible role and attitude that they should have adopted. I regret that the Government have been pressurised—no doubt by the regional interests—to take a view. That is quite wrong, and it is an example of very serious misjudgment. I shall turn in a moment to that statement and to the reason for the importance of the amendment.

The evidence presented on Second Reading justifies the amendment. It demonstrated that the port is unnecessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out, Britain has adequate port facilities. The Government are pursuing a dreadful and inaccurate obsession. Britain is a mercantile country. At one time it had a great merchant fleet. The General Council of British Shipping used to be the biggest financial contributor to the Conservative party, but it is so busy developing ports that it seems to be paying no attention to the fact that the British merchant fleet is disappearing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Hardy

I shall not pursue that point. All I am trying to suggest is that the amendment would provide Ministers with an opportunity to reflect upon realities of this kind.

My major reason for involvement in this debate is that I am chairman of the Council of Europe's environment committee and that I have been acting as chairman and rapporteur on matters relating to the natural environment for a very long time. For the last few years I have been able to do so on a non-partisan basis. Conservative Members who serve on my committee have always agreed with the line that I have taken. That was certainly true in April of this year when I took the Committee through a report on the implementation of the Berne convention.

Throughout this period of five or six years, Conservative and Labour Members have sought on the Council of Europe—the leading international body on conservation matters — to try to ensure that Britain's leadership on conservation is maintained. I hope that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment will take note of the fact that, if we do not confer upon the Secretary of State the power that is contained in this amendment, our international position will be gravely embarrassed. Many other countries have copied the United Kingdom's example. If the other signatories of the Ramsar convention on wetlands see Britain going headlong into retreat in the face of the Ramsar commitment, they will do the same.

On Second Reading, Conservative Members said that this was an area of unimportant, valueless and uninteresting mudflats. Conservative Members appear to have learnt a little during the proceedings on the Bill, because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. They now recognise that this is an area of both national and international importance. It would be remarkably injurious, not merely to the ecology of the Suffolk coast but to international integrity and to the example that our country should continue to set, for this project to go ahead. If the amendment is accepted, it should be borne in mind by Ministers that this port development was demonstrated by the RSPB study to be utterly unnecessary.

That is a particular cause of offence no doubt to those in Suffolk and certainly in the rest of this country, who are concerned that we should fulfil our international commitments. If we do not fulfil our international commitments to conservation, it will be little use hon. Members saying what should happen in other parts of the world. That is the nub of the argument, and as I have said, I do not want to speak for too long.

I urge Ministers to recognise that the voice of constituency interest should not necessarily be paramount. Ministers from the Suffolk region may feel that they can dictate Government policy but no wise Administration would ever set such a precedent. The views and advice of Ministers from that locality should be discounted as a matter of principle; that is particularly true when national and international interests are before us. If the Minister allows the national interest to be subordinated to the commercial interest that Conservative Members so ably serve, he will be acting in a very damaging way. One of the most important wetlands in western Europe will be destroyed or imperilled. Moreover, if he allows that to happen, it will greatly embarrass the significance of Britain's international conservation lobby.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton (Crosby)

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but, having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), I felt that I had to comment. He asked where the truth lies. Well, it certainly does not lie in the distortions that we have heard from Opposition Members.

Mr. Leadbitter

rose—

Mr. Thornton

I should like to finish my point. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with some attention. But aspersions have been cast on me and other Conservative Members, if not by name by implication. If the truth lies anywhere, it lies in the 23 sittings that took place when only two of us, as the original members of that Committee, listened to every word of evidence put before us. I am prepared to be told that we are wrong, but I am not prepared to told that I was subjected to influences that in any way affected my judgment of the facts put before me. I bitterly resent some of the statements made tonight, last night and in Committee.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool talked about the neutralising of the opposition, but the opposition neutralised itself by refusing to serve on the Committee. The Committee had to have its quorum reduced to two in order for the Bill to proceed in the way that the House had determined. It is important to say these things. The onus on the promoters was to deal with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1982. That was all that they had to do. I say that, but it was a major task, because they had to prove that an incursion was being made into an area of outstanding natural beauty and into a site of special scientific interest that was in the national interest, and that there were no suitable alternative sites. That is what they had to do, and we thought that that is what they achieved.

As I said, there were 23 sittings of the Committee. We heard witnesses on behalf of the promoters. If the hon. Member for Hartlepool is somehow suggesting that the promoters should not bring forward witnesses to testify to their case, I wonder what he feels they should bring witnesses forward to do. He, as an experienced Chairman, knows full well that the private Bill procedure is quasi-judicial and that the witnesses who come before us are on oath. Therefore, in the course of examination and cross-examination there are statements which conflict from time to time. However, extracting one statement here or there and having no regard to the vast weight of the evidence of the witness is the sort of distortion I was referring to.

9.30 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have allowed most hon. Members to have a fairly long preamble. The hon. Gentleman must now come to the amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Leadbitter

I suggested to the House that there were two major conditions laid down by the Secretary of State. One was national interest and the other was the lack of alternative sites. My submission is that in the 23 sittings of the Committee the national interest was not made out and it was substantially proven that there were alternative sites. That was my point.

Mr. Thornton

That may well have been the hon. Gentleman's point. However, in seeking to make that point he introduced other factors. I am sure that he will understand why I took such grave exception to them. I reiterate all that I have said. I merely wanted to put it on record.

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that the new clause, which would destroy the Bill, does nothing to circumvent the Secretary of State's powers in this matter. It is for the House to decide having gone through the proper procedures.

I cannot see that the clause will do anything other than destroy a Bill which was given massive support on Second Reading, which has been the subject of lengthy deliberations in Committee and which is now properly on Report. In the interests of all that we have done so far, the new clause should be rejected.

Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

I seek to intervene for two reasons. I thought that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) cast a serious slur on my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), on Opposition Members and many Labour councils up and down the country. I also feel it important to intervene because there seem to be fundamental planning implications in this legislation. I noticed, as no doubt you and the House did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we had a fleeting visit from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Alas, it was too short because many Opposition Members are concerned about the environmental and planning implications of the Bill.

My first point relates to the remarks which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made about m) hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and about the Labour party, represented in different parts of the country. He was, in effect, saying that the main reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, myself and others were opposed to the Bill was that we were opposed to industrial and commercial development. At least, that was my understanding of what he was saying. He then went on to suggest that the Labour party, or a future Labour Government, would do everything possible to prevent such development and therefore allow the persistence of unemployment in areas such as Felixstowe and other parts of the country.

That is pretty ripe coming from a Member of the Conservative party supporting a Government who have caused the present massive unemployment. It is even riper when one considers the magnificent record of the Ipswich borough council, the Greater London Enterprise Board, the West Midlands Enterprise Board, and m) own borough council, to name just a few Labour authorities, which have played a major part, in spite of the Government's economic and employment policies, in bringing jobs to their areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has given his preamble. He must come to the new clause and amendments.

Mr. Barnett

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was precisely what I proposed to do.

You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the previous Labour Government I occupied the position in the Department of the Environment which is currently occupied by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold). A number of planning decisions came my way on appeal. I am taking part in this debate because I am seriously concerned by the general principle that the planning power as laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 should be derogated and that the situation should arise whereby the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to have no say about the forms of development which may take place, anything up to 10 years after the Bill becomes law.

The amendment which has interested my hon. Friends and myself is amendment No. 11 which proposes to insert and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.". That is absolutely vital. In clause 14 there is considerable derogation under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 which will allow a development to take place at any time over the next 10 years without any intervention from the Secretary of State for the Environment.

I began my preamble in the way that I did because decisions of this kind are inevitably extremely difficult. My hon. Friends and I are very concerned about the environmental development in and around Felixstowe and the effect that it would have on bird life. Those arguments have to be balanced against developmental arguments. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds clearly believes that these outweigh the environmental argument.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

indicated dissent.

Mr. Barnett

The hon. Member shakes his head, but that was the purport of his speech, to which I listened with care.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am quite sure that it is, as the Committee reported, in the national interest that this development should go forward. I am certain that any economic development has an impact on the environment. On Second Reading, I said that I could not support the Bill unless it contained an environmental enhancement as well as an economic development. The balance between the two is the result of the Committee's work and the negotiations between the promoters and the petitioners. We have achieved a balance that enhances the environment and also achieves the substantial economic expansion of the port.

Mr. Barnett

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not know how he knows such things. How does he know what will happen in the future? Let us take a parallel case which is of great concern in my area of London.

Under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 the Government introduced legislation—late in the Committee stage—to make possible the development of enterprise zones. This measure was passed into law and the assumption behind it was that it would enable small businesses to develop with the minimum of interference.

One enterprise zone was set up on the Isle of Dogs. An enormous international combine has come along and wants to build a vast office complex on the Isle of Dogs —Canary wharf. I am told by the Secretary of State for the Environment that he has no power to intervene. That is why I am disturbed by attempts to derogate from powers contained in town and country planning legislation, thereby removing from the Secretary of State any power over future developments.

The hon. Gentleman has only to re-read clause 6 which gives the promoters enormous powers over the future development of the land in question. One of the consequences of one piece of development may be that it would have a serious impact upon the bird life there. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is an expert on bird life and knows a great deal about the way in which they react to environmental changes. But how do we know how migrating birds will be affected and whether they will cease to come to Britain or perhaps die as a consequence of any development that may take place?

That kind of thing needs to be monitored, and that is why I am strongly in favour of amendment No. 11. That is vital in the Bill in order that the national interest should continue to be protected over a period of development or redevelopment, as is contained in clause 6, which may take place som years hence. The right way for such things to be considered is through the planning procedures that are now a vital part of the protection of Britain's environment. For that reason, I give my full support to this vital amendment.

Mr. Weetch

I wish to say a few brief words in support of new clause 2, but I really want to address some remarks across the range of the first group of amendments. Let me cut through a great deal of what I wanted to say because it has already been said and at this late stage in the debate it is better for me to come to the brass tacks of what new clause 2 is about. Its centrepiece is contained in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c).

At the beginning, my hon. Friends and I took close professional advice on the new clause. In no sense was it put forward to wreck the Bill. We have taken a great deal of trouble over the amendments and they are as thoughtful as we could make them. My hon. Friends and I have not flooded the Order Paper with amendments, as we could have done. We have a small number of groups of amendments which we wanted to make as thoughtful as possible.

I shall not respond to all the flak that has come in my direction because I want to deal with the meat of the new clause which I thought, among other things, would help the environmental purposes of the Bill which, at the end of the day, is what we set out to do.

Sub-paragraph (2) says: The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that—

1. (a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed".

That means that we want to keep within a reasonable time limit because there are many uncertainties in the growth of traffic and there are many complexities in considerations of this kind. We want to be sure that if land is reclaimed and developed it is needed. Once this wildlife facility is destroyed, it is destroyed for ever and paragraph (a) was put in to try to help the environmental cause of the Bill.

I should have thought that paragraph (b) could have been accepted by the promoters without any arguement. One of the conditions is outlined in paragraph (b) which states: no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available on other land within the area of jurisdiction of the Company". In other words, the company should look carefully before damaging the wildlife irrevocably. It should see whether any other land is available. That is a simple proposition. I should have thought that it was a valuable part of the new clause. Paragraph (c) reads: the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development That point sprung directly from the Committee's evidence that I read carefully. One of the principal things in dock economics that is becoming a marked feature of dock development all over the country is that with modern equipment, dock work requires a smaller space. If space is to he an integral part of dock economics, I should have thought that that part of the new clause would have appealed to the promoters.

Subsection (4) reads: A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year for for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent". In other words, we are talking about a reasonable time scale in the whole of the development. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the point — he made it much better than me—that we are saying, quite emphatically—we have taken a good deal of professional advice on the new clause; it is the principle of the group of amendments — that while the Bill provides authority and power to make work and to do certain things, it is by no means the end of the matter. We believe that any development that takes place should be thought about carefully and should be supervised on environmental grounds so that we can engage in the process of environmental damage limitation. Even though the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has permission to do certain things, the amendments try to establish a framework of safeguards to say that it should do so in a certain way in order that the process can be monitored.

9.45 pm

For the life of me, I cannot see that that is a wrecking proposition. I have been accused of trying to wreck the Bill when, frankly, all I have tried to do is to avail myself of my constitutional rights to scrutinise what the company is doing. If at the end of the day I am accused of trying to wreck the whole measure, as far as I am aware, I have not spoken out of order. I have stuck to the point. I am trying to make the points that are directly relevant to to the amendments.

The new clause requires the consent of the Secretary of State before certain works can be undertaken. I hope that officers from the Department of the Environment are here in spirit if not in person. Perhaps the Department is rather like the Phantom of the Opera. I want to bring out a number of points on which I genuinely need guidance on environmental grounds. The new clause relates to clause 6 of the Bill which gives the company authority and power to make work under subsection (2), to which our new clause relates. It gives the company power to reconstruct, renew, alter, replace or relay the work and may maintain the same as reconstructed. renewed, altered, replaced or relaid. Clause 7 relates to the deposition of spoil material in connection with land reclamation. I shall not develop the point because it has already been dealt with.

The Secretary of State for Transport is required to give consent to certain works containing reclamation, but not all. In addition, the provision does not apply to works which are not works of land reclamation, landscaping works, peripheral reclamation or deposit materials of any kind, although we argue that some of the amendments will damage wildlife in the areas to be reclaimed.

The purpose of the new clause is to provide certain safeguards for wildlife in the interests of international and national conservation. Unless the reclamation takes place in closely monitored conditions, we shall lose some of these facilities for ever more. The new clause seeks to ensure that that should not happen needlessly.

The evidence states that the development will mean "legalised concrete". I have not come across that phrase before, but I could not find a better description in the evidence if I tried. Together with all the hack-up and buildings which go with quay and related development, the Secretary of State must have powers of permission and control to see that any development is carried out in as thoughtful a way as possible. That is in accord with our other amendments, to which I shall speak shortly.

I refer the House to the evidence of Dr. Michael Edward Moser, the national estuarial officer for the British Trust for Ornithology, given on Wednesday 26 February. He was a most distinguished witness and one can quote from almost any part of the conservation evidence. Dr. Moser examined the significance of the Orwell estuary and, within the estuarial area, the significance of Fagbury flats as a feeding and roosting area for wader and wild fowl populations. All the information was scientifically gathered from a birds of estuaries inquiry based on monthly bird counts on fixed dates which has been continuing since 1969. I am advised that all such counts are made at high water and with great thoroughness and industry.

I would not emphasise the point but for the tone adopted by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and underlined by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—that, since only a small proportion of the estuary will be affected, it does not matter. The heart is only a small proportion of the body, so, purely on size and area, its critical function is completely underestimated. All the evidence given to the Committee showed that that small area was absolutely critical.

We are making our case in the light of the dismissive attitude to the new clause. It is necessary to have these procedural safeguards over the company's actions, although overall permission is given in clause 8 for the power of work to he exercised for reclamation.

Some points need to be cleared up and I shall ask some questions because I am genuinely seeking information on one or two matters. I am holding a letter from the Nature Conservancy Council which relates to the Orwell estuary and notification under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The letter sets out the responsibilities to the developer. In paragraph 4 it states: You are required to give written notice to the Nature Conservancy Council (directed to the Assistant Regional Officer), of your intention to carry out any listed operation and you may not proceed with the work unless:

1. (a) the operation is carried out with the written consent of the Nature Conservancy Council;
2. (b) it is carried out in accordance with a management agreement under section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 or
3. (c) three months have expired since the Nature Conservancy Council received notice of your proposal to carry out the work".

I understand that that point is in dispute by the promoters of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would listen to me, I would like him to clarify that point. I am genuinely seeking information on these points.

The letter from the Nature Conservancy Council contains an appendix headed Operations requiring prior consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. There must be certain forms of notification before development can take place. In that appendix, 13(b) states that there must be notification of Modification of the structure of watercourses, [e.g. rivers and drains], including their banks and beds, as by realignment, regrading and dredging. Appendix 17 refers to reclamation of land from the sea, estuary or marsh. As I understand matters from the original letter, the developer is required to give written notice to the Nature Conservancy Council. I understand from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that that point is disputed by the company. If that is so, I would like to know whether the promoters can tell me whether that is right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has stressed the international importance of the area. He was absolutely correct to do that. The crux of the points which the Opposition are trying to make about the procedures for the framework of protection, occur in amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11 is very important. It states: Page 6, line 2 [Clause 6], after 'above', insert 'and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.' Whatever alterations take place and when the company exercises its power to put works into operation, the Secretary of State on behalf of the environmental interest of the country should seek close monitoring of the position.

Amendment No. 11 requires the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment for works which involve the enclosure and reclamation of the bed of the sea, the river and its foreshore. It is a normal provision of ports and harbour legislation for the authority of the Secretary of State for Transport to be required for such work.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put;

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 100.

Division No. 259]	[10.00 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Ancram, Michael	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Arnold, Tom	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Maclean, David John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Major, John
Baldry, Tony	Malone, Gerald
Bellingham, Henry	Marland, Paul
Best, Keith	Mates, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Mather, Carol
Blackburn, John	Maude, Hon Francis
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Bottomley, Peter	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Miscampbell, Norman
Bright, Graham	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Moore, Rt Hon John
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Moynihan, Hon C.
Bulmer, Esmond	Neubert, Michael
Burt, Alistair	Newton, Tony
Butcher, John	Norris, Steven
Butterfill, John	Osborn, Sir John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Conway, Derek	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Coombs, Simon	Pollock, Alexander
Cope, John	Portillo, Michael
Couchman, James	Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Cranborne, Viscount	Powell, William (Corby)
Crouch, David	Price, Sir David
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Raffan, Keith
Dickens, Geoffrey	Rathbone, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Dover, Den	Roe, Mrs Marion
Dunn, Robert	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Eggar, Tim	Rowe, Andrew
Evennett, David	Ryder, Richard
Eyre, Sir Reginald	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Fallon, Michael	Sayeed, Jonathan
Farr, Sir John	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Shersby, Michael
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Gale, Roger	Sims, Roger
Galley, Roy	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Spencer, Derek
Glyn, Dr Alan	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Gorst, John	Squire, Robin
Gower, Sir Raymond	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry	Steel, Rt Hon David
Gregory, Conal	Stern, Michael
Ground, Patrick	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Gummer, Rt Hon John S	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Haselhurst, Alan	Temple-Morris, Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)	Terlezki, Stefan
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Henderson, Barry	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)	Thornton, Malcolm
Hordern, Sir Peter	Thurnham, Peter
Howells, Geraint	Waddington, David
Jackson, Robert	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Jessel, Toby	Walden, George
Jones, Robert (Herts W)	Waller, Gary
King, Rt Hon Tom	Watson, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Lawrence, Ivan	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Wheeler, John
Lester, Jim	Whitfield, John
Lilley, Peter	Wiggin, Jerry
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Wilkinson, John
Lyell, Nicholas	Winterton, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil	Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Younger, Rt Hon George	Mr. R. Rhodes James and
	Sir Eldon Griffiths.

NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Hardy, Peter
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Heffer, Eric S.
Ashdown, Paddy	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Ashton, Joe	Home Robertson, John
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Barnett, Guy	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Janner, Hon Greville
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Bermingham, Gerald	Kennedy, Charles
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Lamond, James
Boyes, Roland	Leadbitter, Ted
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Litherland, Robert
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Caborn, Richard	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	McGuire, Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	McKelvey, William
Clay, Robert	Madden, Max
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Marek, Dr John
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Corbett, Robin	Maxton, John
Corbyn, Jeremy	Maynard, Miss Joan
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Michie, William
Craigen, J. M.	Mikardo, Ian
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dalyell, Tam	Nellist, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Deakins, Eric	O'Brien, William
Dewar, Donald	Park, George
Dixon, Donald	Parry, Robert
Dormand, Jack	Patchett, Terry
Duffy, A. E P.	Pavitt, Laurie
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Pike, Peter
Eadie, Alex	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Eastham, Ken	Radice, Giles
Ewing, Harry	Randall, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek	Redmond, Martin
Faulds, Andrew	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Rogers, Allan
Forrester, John	Sheerman, Barry
Foster, Derek	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Skinner, Dennis

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)	Wareing, Robert
Stott, Roger	Weetch, Ken
Strang, Gavin	Welsh, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)	Tellers for the Noes:
Tinn, James	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)	Mr. Eddie Loyden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

The Question is, That the clause be read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

Hon. Members

Aye.

Mr. Speaker

Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The Question is, That the clause be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

Hon. Members

Aye.

Mr. Speaker

Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Mr. Speaker

Bill to be further considered, what day? No day named.

Later—

Sir Eldon Griffiths

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was, of course, listening carefully to your calls from the Chair on new clause 2 to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. Due to the noise in the Chamber I was unable to hear the motion that was put. Consequently—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I put the Question very slowly and I was looking at the hon. Gentleman when I put it. I did not hear any objection to it.