Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill

HC Deb 28 October 1986 vol 103 cc226-66

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October]. That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid; That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House; That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session; That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with the New Clause as added on Consideration of the Bill as amended; That no further Fees shall he charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session; That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Question again proposed.

7.12 pm

Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have obtained a copy of a letter which has been sent by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, of European house. The Dock, Felixstowe, Suffolk. It is signed by Mr. George Blackhall, who describes himself as the managing director of that company. I ask you to rule on what I submit is a clear breach of privilege.

In the first sentence of the letter, which is headed Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Private Bill Mr. Blackhall writes: Dear member, As I am sure you are"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is raising a matter of privilege. If I have understood him correctly, I remind him that the procedure for raising prima facie breaches of privilege is to write to Mr. Speaker. If this is the case, he should write to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Boyes

I shall certainly do so but if I may just read the first sentence—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot do that. I have explained to him the procedure for dealing with what he alleges is a breach of privilege. I invite him, straight away, to write to Mr. Speaker, who will consider his point and eventually give his ruling.

Mr. Boyes

I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This letter is interfering with tonight's debate, at the end of which, I presume, there will be a vote. It is vital that there should be a free debate this evening, and I believe that this letter is directly interfering with the rights of hon. Members to take part freely in the debate. Mr. Blackball is trying to influence hon. Members by referring to the delaying tactics of a small coterie of Labour Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. What he is saying may be relevant to the debate, hut I wish to make two points. First, I have not seen the letter, and I think that it would be best if he could let me have the letter. I could then study it and perhaps give him further advice.

Secondly, hon. Members are free to make whatever comments they feel appropriate in the debate that is about to start.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If groups outside the Chamber attempt to put undue pressure on hon. Members, as the letter does, that is something to which the House ought to give some consideration before the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman appears to be alleging a contempt. If that is the case, he well knows that the procedure is to write to Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) will do so, and I invite him to let me have sight of the letter so that I can take advice. If there is any further guidance that I can give to the House after I have seen the letter, I will, of course, give it.

Mr. Bennett

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to point out that not only did we receive copies of this letter, but that we had the interesting example of a three-line Whip being issued. I realise that it is entirely for hon. Members to decide whether to issue a Whip, but it appears to be a considerable breach of the usual procedures on private business, when hon. Members are supposed to act in a semi-judicial function rather than act in the way that they would in a normal debate.

The difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that although you suggested that we should submit the letter to Mr. Speaker for a ruling, as it is especially germane to today's debate it would be far less satisfactory if the ruling were made after the debate than it would be if we could have some indication at this stage of Mr. Speaker's view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have already said that that is what I intend. I am at a disadvantage because I have only this moment received the letter. If there is any further advice that I can give to the House I shall certainly do so, hut 1 cannot do so until I have read the letter.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask your advice. This is not the first time that this particular private company, when bringing an opposed private Bill through parliament, has impugned the integrity of hon. Members. I believe that we are entitled to your protection, because a slur has again been cast on the impartiality of hon. Members who served on the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have already dealt with that point. We have well established procedures in this House. If a breach of privilege is alleged, the hon. Members concerned must write to Mr. Speaker, who will deal with the matter and give a ruling at the earliest possible opportunity. There is nothing further that I can add, because our rules are very clear.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

I wish to speak briefly against this carry-over motion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a point of order. I realise that he has put down his marker to speak in the debate, and I shall look out for him.

Mr. Boyes

On a different point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it possible for me to move the suspension of the sitting so that you have an opportunity to study the letter? I fully understand your earlier ruling, but because of the serious implications for the debate this evening I ask you to suspend the sitting while you study the letter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not prepared to do that. I have heard nothing that makes me think it necessary to suspend the sitting. Indeed, I suggest that we now get on with the debate.

Mr. Ken Weetch (Ipswich)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the debate I shall wish to quote from a document that has been issued by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, but which is marked "Copyright". Is there any obstacle to my quoting the document because it has a copyright mark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no bar—he is quite free to quote the document if he so wishes. However, I hope that he will not read very long extracts from it, in the interests of time.

7.22 pm

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

It is the Chairman of Ways and Means who has placed this motion upon the Order Paper. I think that that, of itself, demonstrates that what we are dealing with tonight is not a debate on the merits of the Bill, but simply one on parliamentary procedure. Essentially, the motion states: the Promoters … shall have leave to suspend proceedings … in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament. There is nothing unusual about that. Indeed, only yesterday no fewer than four major private Bills were brought before the House for carry-over motions —the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill (Lords), the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill (Lords), the Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill (Lords) and the Port of Fosdyke Bill (Lords). The House assented without debate to the proposal that all those Bills should he carried over for further consideration in the next Session.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while it is fairly common for carry-over motions to be approved by the House, it is exceptional for two carry-over motions to he sought? The interesting point is that 12 months ago the promoters came forward with a carry-over motion, and have now done so again. It is their intransigence that has necessitated two attempts to carry over the Bill. Can the hon. Gentleman give a precedent for that?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

The House will form its own judgment on why there has been protracted consideration of the Bill.

Because this is a procedural matter, I shall confine myself to the procedures that we have followed so far. On 13 May 1985, just over 18 months ago, the Bill received an overwhelming majority on Second Reading. There were consecutive votes of 201 to 54 and 195 to 59. The House voted virtually four to one that the Bill should proceed. It then went to Committee where, rather surprisingly for a private Bill, it remained for five months. The Committee devoted 26 working days to the Bill, beating the previous record for a private Bill in Committee by two days. There have also been four debates on the Floor of the House. Therefore, we have spent 15 hours on the Floor of the House and 145 hours in Committee— making a total of 160 hours of parliamentary time—discussing the Bill.

The time has now come for the House to reach a decision. Unfortunately, and certainly through no fault of the promoters, hon. Members have been able to delay a final decision. Consequently, with time running out, there is no alternative but to move the motion so that the House shall have an opportunity to arrive at a decision on a matter to which it has already devoted this extraordinarily large amount of time. It would be to the discredit of the House if, after that Second Reading vote and all the hours spent on the Bill, the House was to be prevented from reaching a conclusion on the Bill.

I therefore support the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

7.27 pm

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

I rise to speak briefly against the carry-over motion. I think that the public, as well as hon. Members, will be bemused by what is happening with this Bill. They will wonder why so much money is being spent by the promoters to get it through. They will wonder why so many people are putting their prestige at risk and why so much effort is being made to push through the Bill. They will wonder why so many reputations are being put on the line.

The public will find it odd that Conservative Members have been telling their colleagues at what time there would be a closure motion. I thought that whether or not there could be a closure motion was a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but Conservative Members apparently have it all worked out. They are saying that there will be a closure motion. That appears to be a form of contempt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would not be pushed around by anyone. Let us hope that there will be no closure motion.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—I bear him no ill-will; he is doing his best—has his facts back to front about the amount of time spent on the Bill. The one thing that is precious above all else in the House of Commons is time on the Floor of the House, and when a Bill has been debated for so long on the Floor of the House and cannot go through, it has had a fair wind, to use the term used by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds in a document that I saw today, and it should be dropped from the schedule.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that the Bill had been debated for 15 hours on the Floor of the House. That is more than enough time. The hon. Gentleman is helping my argument. I asked some researchers to find out how long the debate has taken, and they told me that it had been debated on the Floor of the House for 12 hours and 50 minutes. I ask the House to think back through all the private Bills that have gone through the House in the past 20 years and ask when the House was so generous with its time that it allowed debates on the Floor of the House for either my figure of 12 hours and 50 minutes or the staggering figure of 15 hours given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

Even as I speak, I am running through those private Bills chronologically and alphabetically in my mind. I am pressing buttons and they are all coming up in front of me, and I think that I am right in saying that six private Members' Bills have been debated for an exceptionally long time on the Floor of the House. No. 6 on the list, in 1970–71, is the Mersey Docks and Harbour Act, which was debated for eight hours and 10 minutes. I was not here then but I am told that, by the time the Act went through, after such a long time, there was pain and tension on the faces of hon. Members. No. 5 on the list is the Birmingham City Council Act, which went through during the 1984–85 Session. I was here at that time, so I know that it was debated for eight hours and 20 minutes and that tempers got so frayed at that length of debate that I heard one hon. Member—it was not recorded in Hansard, presumably because it was unparliamentary — call another hon. Member a cad. That shows the difficulties into which we get when we debate these matters for so long.

No. 4 on the list is the Isle of Wight County Council Act, again going through the House over the 1970–71 Session, which was debated for eight hours and 59 minutes. By the time that had gone through the House, the whole House was asleep. It was rather as though the Foreign Secretary had spoken uninterrupted for that length of time. Third on the list was the West Midlands County Act, which is the precedent for which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was looking when he spoke about two carryovers. The Bill was carried over from 1977–78 to 1978–79 and then to 1979–80. It shows the impartiality with which I approach these matters that I am prepared to show precedent against my side.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will my hon. Friend accept that neither of those carry-overs was opposed, and they were necessitated by a general election?

Mr. Sedgemore

I accept that. I am glad that my hon. Friend has hit the ball from our court and has left Conservative Members to answer the point.

That Bill was debated on the Floor of the House for nine hours and 15 minutes, and a kind of mental torpor was induced in hon. Members on both sides of the House. Then there was the Lloyd's Act, that famous Bill, conceived in scandal and with its scandalous result. Until this Bill, that was the leader. It was debated on the Floor for some 13 hours and four minutes and, even if my figure is right, that is bound to be exceeded by the time that this Bill goes through. Of all the Acts in the past 20 years, why has the House allowed the extraordinary lengthy debate on this Bill to continue?

The passage of the Bill reflects the falling of standards in public and private life which has been characterised too much by this Administration. I see the Bill, and the way in which it has been dealt with in the House, as a kind of soap opera rather like "EastEnders", where the standards of moral probity and integrity are set by "Dirty Den" and that gormless poor old sod who grows leeks that are inedible and is taking money out of the Christmas fund that belongs to the residents of Hackney, who are the victims of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East)

rose—

Mr. Sedgemore

I do not wish to speak for too long, so I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the pleasure of interrupting me. He wants to get the Bill through, so I am sure he can contain his impatience. He has had part of the 23 days over which the Bill was dealt with in Committee and heroically—no praise is too high—fought by my hon. friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).

Mr. Boyes

To which Tory Member was my Friend referring when he spoke of "Dirty Den"?

Mr. Sedgemore

I shall not go down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that you would interrupt me. My hon. Friend tempts me, as he always does, and I always try to behave properly and stick to the rules.

Mr. Sayeed

rose—

Mr. Sedgemore

I take the view that, if someone wants something in life, one should give it to him. Some people want to be Prime Minister, so one should let them be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is desperate to intervene, so let him do so.

Mr. Sayeed

The hon. Gentleman gave us a ream of statistics as to how long Bills have taken. Has he noticed that the longer he has spent in the House, the longer private Bills have spent on the Floor of the House? Is there a connection?

Mr. Sedgemore

I am a statistician and I have done the cross-correlations; the correlation in these cases is that the longer a Bill is debated on the Floor of the House, the worse it is. If the hon. Gentleman does not like drawing graphs to work things out, he can do it with algebra and the differential calculus. If he does it that way, he will find that the correlations hold.

Can one conceive what our grandchildren will say about this Bill? It is 1 January 2000—a new century is about to begin. I do not have a granddaughter now, but given that I may have one then, what will she say to me about the passage of the Bill and this vote? She will ask me, "Where were you, granddaddy, when the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act went through the House?" I shall put her on my knee and say, "Little one, I was there at the start. On 28 October 1986, on a debate on the carry-over motion, I had the privilege of being allowed to address the House, but the days rolled by from May till September, the years passed, one parliamentary Session merged into the next, and then there was special legislation to carry it over from one election to another and by the time that the Act came on to the statute book I had retired from Parliament and worse than that, some of my most revered friends and colleagues, good people that they were, were dead."

I shall then turn to my wife, who will be my little granddaughter's grandmother and I will say, "Do you remember old Kenny Weetch, that slip of a bloke from Ipswich, who was much tougher than you think, and the man who fought to stop the Act? The great thing about Kenny Weetch was that he could smell fiduciary trouble and could sniff out financial irregularities."

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Is it not possible that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is sniffing out an electoral advantage?

Mr. Sedgemore

The one hon. Member I would absolve from that type of scurrilous attack—except, of course, Mr. Speaker and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—would be my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). Nothing could be further from his mind when he goes to bed every night. His conscience is clear.

I wonder why I woke at five o'clock this morning and thought about whether we should vote for or against this motion. What worries me about this debate? When I breathe in the atmosphere, why, instead of feeling exhilarated, do I feel depressed, apart from the fact that I can hear my own voice? I think that part of the answer is contained in this letter from Mr. George Blackhall. I do not want to attack him but I am bound to say that this is not the type of letter that should be written by respectable people who try to gain consensus in the House. He referred to some of my hon. Friends — I take it he was not referring to me — as a "small coterie" of Labour Members. He is saying that he does not believe in the democratic process or in the right of hon. Members to say, "We have had enough time to debate the Bill. It now ought to be dropped because it has not secured the consensus of the House." I am sure that he wants the Bill to be passed because, presumably, there is money in it for him.

I do not warn Mr. Blackhall, because I do not like to threaten people℔I am usually the one who is threatened—but I say to him that he should remember the usurers in Dante's "Inferno". They were taken into circle seven and made to stand on hot sands beneath burning rains. That sort of thing will happen to him if he continues to write this kind of letter to Members of Parliament.

It is said that the Bill will pass because it has the support of local Members of Parliament and the present and, I believe, past chairmen of the Conservative party and the Committee. I do not intend to attack any chairman of the Conservative party because they could become an endangered species, rather like the birds that will be affected in this part of Suffolk.

There are problems. One of the local people concerned happens to have been — I accept that it is pure coincidence— the past chairman of the Conservative party. Part of his function—this is perfectly all right—is to get money for the Conservative party. As the Bill has been considered, European Ferries Ltd. has been pouring money into the Conservative party as though there will be no tomorrow. That is one reason why some of us are beginning to think that we will vote against the Bill, if indeed there is a vote and we get to the vote tonight.

I ask hon. Members to think about it. Is it not odd that not many private Member's Bills are before Parliament at the moment? Not many private companies give such an amount of money to the Conservative party. Therefore, one is tempted to ask why. Let us not condemn the chairman of the Conservative party. In addition to trying to get the Bill through Parliament with this free enterprise Whip with three lines under it—it is a wretched job; we all know that—and in addition to getting money out of European Ferries for the Conservative party, one has to gag the British Broadcasting Corporation, rig the courts and do all kinds of things that one would not otherwise wish to do.

When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds introduced the Bill, he said that he thought that it would be given a fair wind as it went through Parliament. Of course, the money would help to give it a fair wind, but, in addition to that, it was said that the parish, district and county councillors and local Members of Parliament were all Conservative loyalists and would ensure that the Bill was pushed through. It was said of previous developments, such as the Trinity terminal, that the massed ranks of the Conservative party had joined forces and tried to secure the development. A gale is raging against the Bill in the heartland of Conservative Britain. That is why we should not push it through tonight. Surely we have had enough of this.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's political meteorology is accurate. Which responsible bodies in East Anglia or Suffolk oppose the Bill on any economic grounds?

Mr. Sedgemore

I am coming to that point. I am glad the hon. Gentleman asked me that question. I am sure that he wishes to assist me.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

Which bodies?

Mr. Sedgemore

The hon. Gentleman must be patient. He must not act as though he is Robin Day, that type of out-of-work barrister. I am a real barrister. The out-of-work barrister says to the witness, "Answer the question, answer the question, answer the question." The real barrister is far more subtle about it. He gently draws out the answers. That is why such people win cases. If, God forbid, the hon. Gentleman became a barrister, I would not call on him to defend me.

A number of environmentalists, politicians and people concerned with navigational aids have joined forces to oppose the Bill. There has been a type of holy trinity; God the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost—the Labour party, the East Coast yacht club and the Trinity preservation society.

I do not wish to examine the merits of the Bill, because to do so would be out of order. It is interesting that, in order to discuss the Bill, I have had to talk to people who are interested in yachting. By and large, yachting is as far from my perspective as possible, although my son likes it. I went to the Royal Thames yacht club. Imagine my surprise when I found that it is in Knightsbridge. There is no water there. I thought that a ship needed water to keep afloat. I went through the door, and, after I said who I was, a flunkey said to me, "Quarterdeck, Sir?" I said, "Is that up or down?" I still do not know.

In order to debate the Bill, I talked to people, some of whom were disturbed by it, whatever the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds may say. I talked to people from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the royal college of ornithology, or whatever it is. Where did we talk? I stayed at Posty farm near Maenclochog in the Preseley mountains. At the top of the Preseley mountains birds were hovering and swooping. We asked ourselves whether they were kestrels or peregrine falcons. My son had his zoom lens camera. The zoom lens camera was invented by a Communist professor, whose son is a friend of mine. That is slightly off the track so I will return to the subject. We are waiting to see the photographic prints to determine what these birds were. I do not suppose there are any kestrels or peregrine falcons in this area, but many other birds will be at risk, and many people from the royal society will be worried about that. [Interruption.] My PPS, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), has handed me a paper. The chairman of the Tribune group is acting as my PPS. That is the type of power that I like to see.

Surely we cannot proceed with this carry-over motion when the status of the parent company is not known. As I understand it, the parent company of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is European Ferries Ltd. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds should comment on this because circumstances have changed vastly. We have discovered that P and 0 has bought a large slice of European Ferries. Ministers have also discovered it because they have referred that purchase to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under section 64 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Weetch

P and O has purchased 20.8 per cent. of the shares of European Ferries. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently conducting an inquiry into whether the shareholding should stand. The Department of Transport, which should be represented in this debate, has given written evidence and observations on whether the shareholding should stand. Whether or not it does will make a critical difference to the Bill. Would my hon. Friend welcome an intervention from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport so that hon. Members can learn the Government's attitude to the P and 0 acquisition of 20.8 per cent. of the shares of European Ferries?

Mr. Sedgemore

As ever, my hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter, asking the most penetrating and perceptive questions. It almost hurts me, on behalf of the Government, to have to listen to them because they are so powerful and poignant in their effect. The problem is that the inquiry will take some time to complete, so we need the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come before the House. It is a fair bet that if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry allows P and 0 to maintain its 20.8 per cent. interest, there is a real possibility that P and 0 will reconsider the whole scheme and may throw it out. It seems ludicrous that at this time, during the inquiry, hon. Members should say that we should carry over this tiresome debate to the next Session.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will my hon. Friend consider why European Ferries is encouraging P and 0 in its takeover? I understand that European Ferries is in some difficulty at Felixstowe docks because it spent a great deal of money expanding the Trinity quay on the basis that it would attract considerable extra trade. European Ferries put such predictions to the House, but it has not got the extra trade. Considerable capital costs are tied up in the Trinity quay and I understand that the company wrote to many of its employees more or less saying that, because of the problems of the capital tied up in the existing quays, there would not be a wage increase this year. It seems absolutely crazy to want to extend the quays when it looks as if the company will not be able to attract sufficient trade, thus putting it into an even worse financial position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he would not discuss the merits of the Bill because he realised that that would be out of order. That, of course, is perfectly correct. Incidental references to the merits of the Bill are, of course, necessary in a debate on a carry-over motion. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are dealing with a carryover motion and that the debate must be addressed to that.

Mr. Weetch

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having followed the proceedings on the Bill carefully and having read recently the debate on the carry-over motion last year, I know that the consensus was that matters in the carry-over motion could not be confined merely to the linkage of procedures, if I can put it like that, but could also focus on new material introduced into the debate. Does that still stand?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

What I said was that it would not be in order to go into great detail about the merits of the Bill. Clearly, it is not possible to argue for or against a carry-over motion without some reference to the Bill. I am simply saying to the hon. Gentleman that detailed references to the Bill would not be in order on a carry-over motion.

Mr. Sedgemore

I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that my hon. Friends and I are trying to get over is a large point. It is that the Bill may not have the same promoters. The financial control of those who are putting forward the Bill may be different by the time we come back. A powerful argument, in addition to the others I have used, is that the financial control of the promoters may be completely different in a few months. Conservative Members must combat that point. I do not have the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in financial matters, so I am not clear about the status or the financial solvency, or otherwise, of the existing promoters without P and O's stake.

I was astonished to read the submission of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is a wonderful submission, which is all about economics. It gives some backing to the points which my hon. Friend made.

A fair number of local people do not want the Bill to be carried over. The House has an obligation to consult and advise. Hon. Members have an obligation to come here and warn other hon. Members of what local people are saying. The problem with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is that he represents a certain high-powered establishment sectional interest, the moneyed interest, but not the other groups who are complaining about the Bill. He asked me, and I have already told him, the names of some of the people who are opposed to the Bill, the yacht club— [Interruption.]

Mr. Boyes

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) asked a question, but he is not listening to the answer.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am listening with one ear.

Mr. Sedgemore

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for saying that he is listening with one ear. I do not intend to attack him tonight because, as always, I am exercising rigid control.

The hon. Gentleman asked me who was against the Bill. I was replying that the Labour party, the yacht club and the Trinity Preservation Society are opposed to the Bill. My parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, has given me a list which includes the Ipswich shop stewards, Ipswich borough council, Friends of the Earth, the Suffolk ornithologists and one other, which I cannot read. Most of those groups are environmentalists.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds could have said, "Look, the real reason we want this Bill to be carried over is that there will be a lot of jobs in this for a particular area. So we ought to carry it over and get it out of the way." My hon. Friends and I must combat that argument, and I intend to do so briefly. It is easy to put jobs in one area and take them away from another. It is easy to divide and rule. However, changes in economic circumstances make this carry-over motion much less desirable than it would otherwise have been. The Government have announced a profound economic change which will affect the course of this debate. They have said that monotheistic monetarism, based on the one god of M3, is now dead, but they are beginning to discover that pantheistic monetarism, which is based on the wisdom of a variety of gods —MO, M1, M2, M3 PSO 1, PSO2, broad money and narrow money—is also dying. The only way to get jobs for Felixstowe and the surrounding areas which will survive and allow the economy to expand is to stimulate demand and take steps about financial control and trade.

I shall not continue that debate, as it is taking me away from my main argument. However, in the light of the nature of previous debates, the moneyed interests which are pushing the Bill helter-skelter through the House, the environmental, political and navigational interests, and the overriding economic interests, there is a powerful case—I put it no higher℔for some of us to think about voting against the carry-over motion tonight.

7.59 pm

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)

I shall not follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) along the path of speculation as to whether the House of Sedgemore will survive into the next century. Nor do I intend to help him to advertise his moonlighting activities, about which I was surprised to hear, except to say that if he can advance a bad case as well as he has done tonight he should earn some handsome fees, and I wish him many happy briefs in the future.

The hon. Gentleman touched on some other private Bills which have had a lengthy consideration. In particular, he referred to the Lloyd's Bill. I, as the Member who took the Lloyd's Bill through the House, was annoyed to discover that what I thought was a record length of scrutiny was likely to be defeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), but. I could not wish to be beaten by a more splendid man.

However, there is one big difference. The Lloyds Bill, that excellent piece of legislation which is now being put into effect, went through the House thanks, to some extent, to the strong support that I had from the Labour party, and, indeed, from the Labour Front Bench, for which I am grateful. Any opposition and attempts to divide the House came from the Conservative Benches. I do not recall that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch expressed any opposition to that piece of legislation.

Mr. Sedgemore

I was not here.

Sir Anthony Grant

If the hon. Gentleman was not here, bad luck. If he had been here, he might have learnt a lot more about the Lloyd's insurance market and would not have made some of the errors that he has made subsequently.

The fact of the matter is that the Bill has had a record length of scrutiny by the House.

I support the carry-over motion because of a constituency interest. It is well known in the House that Trinity college, Cambridge, owns the land. I must explain that Trinity college is within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who is, unfortunately, unable to be here tonight because he is abroad. However, I think he would agree that he has played an active and responsible part in the promotion of the legislation on behalf of his constituent, Trinity college.

I have an interest because a number of members of the college live in my constituency. First, as I have said previously, when the Bill was considered by Trinity college it was supported by 48 votes to nil. It is no good suggesting that Trinity college is in some strange way an adjunct of the Conservative party—far from it. Some very different views have been expressed at Trinity, but by 48 votes to nil it decided that this was a right and proper measure and in the interests of the college and the area.

The money which will be derived from the venture will not go into the pockets of the dons. It will be used entirely to help assist poorer colleges in Cambridge, thus helping the education process and, in particular, improving higher education. Indeed, it will help foreign students. We hear a great deal from Labour Members about the lamentable nature of higher education and how more money must be pumped into it. Here is an example of the way in which, through free enterprise and passing the Bill, money will come into Cambridge university and help the cause of higher education. That is one reason, if not the only one, why I hope that if there is a Division some thoughtful Labour Members will give the Bill a fair wind.

In all the scrutiny and debate and the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, one group has not been referred to, and that is the people who work at the dock. They have a right to be heard in the same way as the RSPB, and so on. They know that 5,000 jobs are involved. They also know that if the scheme goes through there will probably be 3,000 more jobs in an area where jobs are needed. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will confirm that.

Indeed, the work force is remarkable. I have just been informed that it has broken a record. Felixstowe has just established a world record for the rapid discharge of containers by unloading 60 in an hour with the aid of the fine new British container cranes on the recently opened Trinity terminal. I have a cutting from the Felixstowe Mercury of 17 October 1986 which shows a happy group of workers at the Trinity container terminal who are celebrating as the terminal manager distributes champagne to crane driver Mick Potter and the rest of the team to mark their achievement in handling 60 boxes an hour on the new terminal. They look a tough and formidable lot.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

If the workers are doing so well on the existing quay and have increased productivity so much, is the hon. Gentleman sure that they need a further quay? Cannot they get the capacity through without it? The company has recently written to employees pointing out that it cannot attract sufficient trade to maintain that level of output.

Sir Anthony Grant

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes down to the docks and says just that to this group of men, who I was just saying are a tough-looking lot, as they stand drinking their champagne. If he made that sort of speech to them he might find himself ending up in the dock. I am sure that, being honourable men, they would fish him out again, but they might think that he needed a good wetting.

There has been long opposition to the Bill, some of it understandable. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), although misguided, has fought a valiant campaign in the best traditions of a constituency Member. Other opposition I can only describe as amusing but basically mischievous. We have had enough of it. The motion should be passed in the interests, not just of Trinity college, East Anglia and Felixstowe, but of the nation.

8.7 pm

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) in his justification for the carry-over of the Bill. I agree with what he says about more resources for further education and foreign students. I only hope that he can persuade the Government of the virtue of that idea. We cannot fund it through the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. It needs a development in a different direction.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about jobs and employment. Labour Members are concerned about jobs, employment and unemployment as we represent constituencies with high unemployment and are having to deal with the problem on a daily basis.

When we discussed the principle of the Bill we dealt with ports policy in a national context. If Felixstowe is developed in the way sought by the Bill, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that that would have a profound effect upon the ports of Southampton and Tilbury. There could be substantial redundancies and unemployment in those ports as a consequence of such development. We cannot speak about that this evening, but we have had those arguments before.

I recall standing at the Dispatch Box, probably a year ago to the day, although I may be a couple of days out, when I intimated to the Under-Secretary that both he and I had the unfortunate responsibility of drawing the short straw. It always seems to happen when the schools have broken up for half term and my wife makes her annual visit to London. This evening, I have to listen yet again to a debate on a carry-over motion on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. The Bill has had a longer run in the west end than "The Mousetrap". It certainly feels like that.

I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who gave the House a historical account of the precedents for carrying over private Bills. We have been debating this Bill for a long time, and here we are once again, in the overlap session before the Queen's Speech, being asked to reconsider the Bill and to allow it further time. There are reasons why we should not do that. I shall allow my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), to expound the important reasons why the House should not allow the procedure to continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, on a point of order, asked whether it was permissible to quote from a document which was marked "Copyright". I do not know why it has been marked "Copyright" as it seems to be a perfectly normal memorandum from the company to the work force. It states: The shortfall in income has been further aggravated by the fact that worldwide too many ships are chasing too few containers thus lowering freight rates and seriously and adversely effecting the financial health of all of our customers who cannot pay the rates we need and from the intense and sometimes unfair competition from Continental ports. It is true that there is unfair competition from continental ports. There always has been. The Opposition have tried to draw attention to the problem. If the problem is unchanged and even getting worse, should we allow the company to expand as it wishes, given the current economic climate?

The local Ipswich evening paper states: P and O chairman Sir Jeffrey Sterling already has a seat on the E.F. board thanks to a 20–8 per cent. slice in the group. Shipping experts believe European Ferries is becoming ripe for the taking because of the weak position of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which runs Felixstowe port. That did not happen last year. We were unaware of the P and 0 company's interest in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. That interest has come to light relatively recently. If a major company such as P and 0 wishes to take over or buy in a large proportion of the shares of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, it may take an entirely different view—given the economic climate and the fact that there will be, in principle at least, a fixed link across the channel — based entirely on economic reasons, as to whether this development should go ahead. If that is the case, it is important that Parliament should recognise that if the company is taken over it may not, as a point of principle, require the development to go ahead.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

That is not true.

Mr. Stott

The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true. I acknowledge his interest in the matter, but I am not convinced by his statement that that is not true because throughout the entire episode the sands have shifted daily. That is why, a year later, the promoters are asking for more time on the Bill. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will deploy those arguments to suggest that there has been a radical change in the past 12 months and that the House should recognise that change if it wishes to give the Bill more time.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to get the facts right? I know that he would wish to be fair. The evidence is that Felixstowe has shown a 20 per cent. increase in containers this year. There has been an increase of 38 per cent. in its freightliner business this year. The management of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company — the promoters of the Bill — says that the letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted was addressed privately to its employees. The management goes on to make it clear that it confidently stands by its predictions and that the letter in no way bears the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch).

Mr. Stott

I can only quote to the hon. Gentleman the contents of the memorandum dated 27 August 1986. It was signed by Mr. Blackhall, the managing director, and stated: The shortfall in income has been further aggravated by the fact that worldwide too many ships are chasing too few containers". Felixstowe is a very good port, as I have always acknowledged, and does a very good job. We object to its expansion because it would not be in the national interest and it would affect other existing ports because of the total volume of cargo handled in the United Kingdom.

I end by referring to the letter that was mentioned at the beginning of the debate on a point of order, again from the managing director, Mr. Blackhall. It states: As I am sure you are only too well aware the progress of the above Bill"— the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill— has to date been very slow, due largely to the delaying tactics of a small coterie of Labour Members. We have advanced our arguments on the principle of not accepting this private Bill. We have done that in the best spirit and intentions of the House. Our comments are on the record for all to see. I say to the management of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company that we were elected and it was not. We have a democratic right to do what we are doing. If the managing director of that company wishes to address remarks to the House, I suggest that he stands for Parliament and does exactly that. Those of us who were elected to the House will continue to do our duty despite that company.

8.18 pm

Sir Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

I shall comment briefly on the carry-over of this Bill. My interest in the matter was aroused mainly because it was my constituent, Gordon Parker, who started Felixstowe docks. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) say that Felixstowe docks has been one of the outstanding commercial successes in Britain. But I fear that jealousies have been aroused in neighbouring towns such as Ipswich. I am sad that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who is a very good Member of Parliament, supports those jealousies. I must urge the speedy carry-over and completion of the Bill because it affects all of East Anglia, where I was born and part of which I have represented for the past 20 years.

The whole region benefits tremendously from the Felixstowe docks. The amount of traffic there has increased and businesses have grown up round the docks. Opposition Members have made some good jokes about this affair, but it is a serious matter for thousands of people who work not only in the docks but in ancillary businesses, such as transport. Other businesses have also sprung up as a result of our entry into Europe. Traffic that used to travel north-south now travels west-east because of Felixstowe's proximity to the continent, thus generating much more employment along with, thank goodness, a necessity to bypass many of the market towns in my area.

Consequently, I support carrying over the Bill, indeed, it is a tragedy that it will have to be carried over. Opposition to it has been a disaster for the region. No sane man, no matter of what political hue, could want the region to be damaged as severely as it will be if the Bill is not carried over or given a fair wind.

8.21 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) challenged me to talk to dockers. But I recently went to Southampton to talk to dockers who are extremely concerned about the Bill continuing. They legitimately say that in the past two years they have tremendously improved productivity at the port of Southampton. The port is now handling a substantially increased number of containers. Moreover, capacity at Southampton could be dramatically increased within the existing area of hardstanding.

Southampton's dockers also point upriver to several miles of what used to be attractive mud flats that supported a substantial population of waders. The flats were reclaimed on the ground, originally, that Southampton docks would be extended. There is nothing that we can do, and that area is now lost as a natural habitat for birds. But if there is an absolute necessity for more container berths, a strong argument could be made for developing those flats, where the natural environment has already been lost.

Hon. Members must consider whether the House should continue with what is, in many ways, an archaic procedure. I refer to the private Bill procedure. At the beginning of the debate, we argued about the number of hours that had been spent on the Bill. But Opposition Members can cite precedents going back to 1945 showing that there have never been two opposed carry-over motions on such a Bill. During the last century, Parliament spent far more time on private business than it does now. In some sessions more than 50 per cent. of parliamentary time was devoted to private Bills. A tremendous amount of work was done on Bills promoting the railways and canals. For example, in, I think, the 1890s, the Manchester Ship Canal Company had to make three attempts at getting the ship canal legislation through.

People came to believe that the private Bill procedure was unsatisfactory. Alternative procedures such as public inquiries were developed, which I mentioned last year when we debated the carry-over motion. It is always difficult to persuade people that they have had a fair hearing when they do not want something to be done to their environment. Many people are unhappy if they lose their case at a public inquiry. But the majority of people would feel that a public inquiry was more likely to give them a fair hearing than the private Bill procedure would.

Members of Parliament do not have time to scrutinise all the planning arguments involved. Those who have seen the proceedings in the Channel Tunnel Bill will have tremendous sympathy for the few Members of Parliament sitting on that Committee. They will also feel that ultimately none of the objectors will think that they have had a fair hearing or that their objections were considered. Inevitably, hon. Members have other duties and cannot devote half a year or more to the arguments adduced.

The Channel Tunnel Bill gives us an extreme example, but the Felixstowe Bill well illustrates the problems facing objectors. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the ramblers and some other interest groups managed to find people to put in objections, but if they had not done so, it would have been difficult for local objections to be heard by the Committee.

The promoters could engage barristers to put their case, but the opposition often had to use people who were not legally qualified. Consequently, the odds were stacked against them. There was little opportunity for the ordinary individual to put his case to the Committee. However, as long as someone had a clear interest in an issue, the public inquiry inspector would normally let him put forward his case or his objections. Therefore, I believe that the public inquiry procedure is far more satisfactory.

Last time we debated the carry-over motion it was said that the promoters could not proceed via a planning application or planning procedures, and that because the original development had been covered by a Bill, there would have to be another Bill. But it would have been easy for the promoters to go for a local public inquiry into the planning issues and, having gained permission, they could have gone for a Bill to implement that public inquiry's decision. Instead, the Bill tries to eliminate any opportunity of a public inquiry.

The House should consider the procedures surrounding private Bills. As a result of the fuss made about a quorum, a committee of inquiry was set up to look into the question of private Bills. I believe that the House should consider the issues carefully. Perhaps it should make it clear to promoters that they will not get an easy ride unless they have gone for a public inquiry where local and national issues can be tested.

The sad thing is that, although we have debated the issue for 15 hours or more, the idea of a national ports policy has not been developed. We have not managed to persuade a Minister to say whether the Government believe that there is a surplus port capacity or an overwhelming deficit. No one has been able to say what the impact of the Channel tunnel will be on the demand for container berths in this country. Until we have that information, it will be impossible for the House or anybody else to judge whether there is a strong case for such a development. Against that, we must weigh the question of protecting the natural environment.

It has been strongly argued that the estuary is one of the few large estuaries in Britain that has not been substantially encroached upon. Encroachments have been made onto similar marshes at Southampton and Tilbury. Until the land that has already been lost has been fully developed, there is no substantial case for continuing at Felixstowe.

In spite of all the hours, the issues have not been resolved. A planning inquiry would have dealt with the issues more effectively. The Government should make a statement to the House on national ports policy. They should state whether they believe that there is surplus capacity, whether it is right to move trade from one port to another and whether they genuinely believe that extra trade could be created at Felixstowe, since no one else believes that.

The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West suggested that by selling off the land and developing it as a dock, money could he raised for higher education. I have no doubt that we could sell off many parts of our national heritage. Much of our coastline and many ancient monuments could be sold, but I am sure that the majority involved in higher education do not want us to sell our national assets to provide an acceptable level of higher education. I am sure that those involved believe that we should not finance higher education by selling the environment to make a quick profit.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

How does the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) square that argument with the fact that Trinity college, Cambridge, which certainly qualifies as being part of our higher education system, is the owner of much of the land provided for the expansion? Its fellows unanimously concluded that on all grounds—to help Trinity with its higher education, to help the environment and to help the future of East Anglia —they would support the Bill.

Mr. Bennett

I am aware of the greed of individuals. I can understand how some may argue that selling off the environment is worth while to help a particular cause such as higher education. However, it is a sad fact that most of our natural assets have disappeared because someone has wanted to raise money. Almost all the slag heaps and slate quarry tips were created in the name of raising money either for an individual or for a good cause. As a result, we have lost some of our natural environment.

I am disappointed that the fellows of Trinity college do not have more interest in our environment, but I can understand why they believe that raising money for the college is more important than protecting the natural environment.

The House should not, at this stage, agree to a carryover motion. The House should decide that the Bill has had sufficient time. It should suggest to the promoters that they take the Bill away and then make up their minds whether the company will continue as a company or whether it should be taken over by P and O. I understand that P and O has considerable interests in other ports and if it takes over it might decide not to make any proposals.

Having sorted out its own financial situation, if the new company wants to go ahead, it should make a planning application so that an inquiry can take place to test the national interest in connection with ports policy against the protection of the environment. An inquiry could test local implications for communications, the impact upon East Anglian roads and the impact on rail traffic through Ipswich. If the inspector then recommends to the Minister that the proposals are acceptable, have decided upon local requirements, conservation and parks, the company can come back to the House and say that it has been through all the consultation. In those circumstances, the House would give an easy passage to a new Bill.

Until the promoters are able to convince a planning inquiry and convince the objectors that they have had a fair hearing, some hon. Members believe it unfair to allow the Bill to proceed and will not only oppose the motion tonight but will continue to oppose the measure through its remaining stages.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) seems to think that it is important to get the Bill through. We have heard about how concerned the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West is to get the Bill through. The last time that we debated the Bill they were so busy talking about it among themselves that they did not move the right amendments at the appropriate time. That was unfortunate. I question whether the House should have to find extra injury time. They thought it very important to press the measure, but they did not supervise the way in which hon. Members were encouraged to vote.

Sir John Page (Harrow, West)

Is there not something rather creditable that during proceedings on a Private Member's Bill, on a private occasion, the Whips were not nudging hon. Members and asking them to say something or other? That shows that amateurism is alive and happy and living at Westminster.

Mr. Bennett

This is not a Private Member's Bill but a private Bill. Surely it was incumbent upon the promoters to ensure that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill knew what was happening. The hon. Member was advised by a respected hon. Member who used to be a Clerk in the House, so it was unfortunate that he got the procedure wrong.

How serious are the promoters? The evidence is that they want a blank cheque from the House so that they can develop the site—possibly. There is no certainty that the company will exist or that the trade will exist to make an economic and viable port.

I hope that the House will reject the motion so that the promoters have to start again.

8.37 pm

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

I intervene only briefly because the motion is strictly procedural. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) has had his half-term arrangements spoilt. I sympathise with him, because I have a similar problem.

The hon. Member for Wigan and others have said that the Bill has taken up a great amount of time. That is true. The Bill is controversial, and hon. Members have understandably used the parliamentary procedures to extend the debates.

The Government believe that the Bill is sufficiently important for the House to have a further opportunity to consider the arguments for and against it on the basis of the Select Committee's recommendations, which incorporate various amendments and safeguards. It would be unfortunate not to agree to the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I urge the House to agree to the motion and allow the Bill to be carried over.

8.38 pm

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

The promoters want the Bill, and although it is a private Bill the Government are involved in it. The Bill is wide in its implications and not what we usually expect from a private Bill. It is limited in scope, but it has serious implications beyond the port of Felixstowe to ports in other regions.

Much has been said about Felixstowe's record and in that sense I support the Felixstowe dock workers. I do not want to see them deprived of their jobs. Since 1983, however, there has been a 24 per cent. reduction in the labour force of registered dock workers at certain ports in the northern region and the south-west, and a 30 per cent. reduction at Southampton and London.

The Bill will achieve what the Government have wanted to do since they came to power in 1979. The Government's plan embraces the National Dock Labour Board and the dock labour scheme and is not confined to Felixstowe. The Government know that if the non-scheme ports are extended, the number of workers employed at scheme ports will eventually decline and the scheme will wither on the vine.

The opportunities that the Government had in the early 1980s to attack the scheme were deferred. They did not want a confrontation with registered dock workers and the union representing them, so they sought a more subtle approach. First, they removed the limited but important planning regulations that governed how, when and whether ports could be developed. Financial constraints had been placed on ports and their development, and these were removed by the Tory Government as a deliberate act of policy to ensure that the development of non-scheme ports would eventually lead to the abolition of the dock labour scheme and registered dock workers.

I worked on the Mersey for 28 years, and I am concerned that the port authorities have not carried out a feasibility study into the consequences of the proposed construction on the natural meandering of the river and the effect on other ports. I have seen nothing so far that suggests that there has been a suitable feasibility study. I worked with a scientific and industrial research organisation on a major development in the port of Liverpool that took the best part of two years to complete. We carried out tidal and current observations and water sampling for salinity and suspended solids. Various new technological methods were used to try to ascertain what effects the construction would have. It is almost certain, however, that there is no way of predicting with certainty the tidal consequences once a construction of the sort that is proposed has been completed. No hydrographical surveyor, for example, would give any undertaking of what would happen to the meandering of a river once such a construction took place.

Merseyside ports other than Liverpool were adversely affected following the completion of the Liverpool development. For example, the Garston docks were cut off entirely as a tidal port for a while. A section of the river miles away from the construction began to silt up, creating major dredging problems. This can have an effect on a port's viability because of conservancy costs.

We should know why the Government have persisted in pressing this private Bill through the House. If the Bill had received a fair wind, it would not have taken such a long time to complete its passage through the House. Those of my hon. Friends who have opposed it have advanced serious reasons for so doing. They are concerned, as I am, about the consequences of the Bill's enactment for Ipswich and ports in other regions, including the north-west and the south-west. I have referred already to job losses in other areas, and if the Bill is enacted and the scheme goes ahead, other ports will suffer further erosion. That is inevitable, because demand in finite. There is no evidence that the Felixstowe port will attract new business, and the proposed development, if it takes place, will be to the detriment of other ports.

This measure should never have come before the House as a private Bill. The implications are far too serious and far-reaching for it to come before us in such a form. Those of us who represent port constituencies have a right to draw attention to the serious environmental consequences of the Bill's enactment. The balance between the north and the south must be restored and nothing should be done to increase the division that exists between the northern regions and the south of England. I am mindful also of the effect that the proposed development at Felixstowe would have on London and Southampton.

When the Chairman of Ways and Means was questioned by myself and others on this issue, he showed some concern about the way in which private Bills proceed in the House. It appears to me and many of my hon. Friends that the Bill is one of the worst examples of the way in which such measures are dealt with in this place. I hope that cognisance will be taken of that by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chairman of Ways and Means, so that no private Bills come before the House in future—

Mr. Cash

rose—

Mr. Loyden

—that have such serious implications and disguised political intentions, which in this instance are intended to destroy the dock labour scheme. It was established in 1947 by the late Ernie Bevin to remove the inhumanities that had been suffered by dock workers. Ernie Bevin was mindful of the impoverishment and sweated labour that existed in our ports. It seems that the Government want the old system to prevail once more, but perhaps in a different form. The motion should be opposed for the reasons that 1 have advanced.

8.47 pm

Mr. Tim Yeo (Suffolk, South)

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has deplored the job losses that have occurred at some scheme ports. I am sure that everyone recognises that the only reason for these losses is the failure of the scheme ports to compete. I am glad to say that that is a failure of which Felixtowe has never been guilty. Even those who oppose the Bill, or the motion, have never suggested that the port has failed to compete domestically or internationally.

The hon. Member for Garston is a regular contributor to our Felixstowe debates, and some other regular contributors have spoken this evening, including the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott). I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan was unable to remain at home with his wife during the half-term holiday because of the need for him to be in the Chamber this evening. Having heard his remarks, many might have concluded that it would have been better for his wife and the House if the hon. Gentleman had remained at home.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) who has been fighting for the Bill in various ways for 18 months. His work deserves a warm tribute from all my hon. Friends and all who are interested in the prosperity of East Anglia.

We should issue a welcome to some newcomers to the Felixstowe debate. At the beginning of this evening's debate we had a contribution from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore).

Mr. Sedgemore

I could not get in the previous debate on the Bill.

Mr. Yeo

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that. The hon. Gentleman made no contribution to the previous debate and it appears that he did not stay for the Division, despite his great interest in the matter. He wanted to contribute to the debate but he could not stay for the vote. The same was true on Second Reading. He made no contribution to that debate, nor did he stay for the vote. He made some allegations about the closure motion, but it was he who asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about a closure motion. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was very keen to get away, because had he stayed too long he might have been forced to vote for the first time. That reveals the hon. Gentleman's positition on this matter. All we can say is that his interest in Felixstowe seems to be of rather recent origin.

The public may conclude that the hon. Member for Hackney. South and Shoreditch is here this evening solely for the purpose of making trouble, but not out of concern for parliamentary procedure or anything to do with Felixstowe or the Bill. He managed to make a few irrelevant and cheap jibes about monetarism, but then threw his full weight against the carry-over motion and, by implication, agains jobs in Felixstowe. That makes his position on employment clear.

Earlier, we had the presence of another newcomer, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I am sorry that he has not stayed. I was hoping that we might have had a contribution. If we had, that, I believe, would have been the first contribution from any member of either the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party. Like the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not vote either on the carry-over motion in July or on Second Reading. But I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Gentleman was at least present for part of this debate, as hitherto the alliance has been conspicuous by its absence. What else can we expect from the alliance, which is always so ready to proclaim its concern about unemployment and lack of infrastructure spending, yet which, when it must stand up and be counted, quietly melts away into the night? It is then left to my hon. Friends to press ahead with specific and practical proposals.

The voters seem to have rumbled this habit of the alliance. I gather that today's opinion polls show a substantial reduction in alliance support. I believe that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has spotted that trend, because he has announced that he will not contest his seat—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the carry-over motion.

Mr. Yeo

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds made an eloquent speech this evening, as he has done on previous occasions. He briefly outlined the progress that has led to this stage. The history is one of consistent obstruction by the Labour party, consistent disinterest by the alliance and consistent support by Conservative Members for a Bill that will enhance employment prospects in Suffolk and elsewhere in East Anglia. It will bring prosperity to the region and strengthen our international trading links with Europe and elsewhere.

As has been pointed out by other hon. Members, Felixstowe is a great private enterprise success story. That fact has no doubt provoked the Labour Opposition and the disinterest of the alliance. Perhaps there is another reason — that an expanded and successful Felixstowe, which a couple of years ago showed its reluctance to join other dockers in politically motivated industrial action, might make it harder for the Opposition's friends to bring the country to its knees in support of a destructive and politically motivated strike.

I have referred to the support of Conservative Members for the Bill, but really impressive is the wide support that it has enjoyed from others. It is much more impressive than the pathetic list of sectional interests consisting of bodies concerned only with Ipswich that was referred to by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. In contrast to that, every significant and reputable industry and commercial organisation in East Anglia has expressed support for the Bill. Several tiers of local government responsible for the Felixstowe area have, after some discussion, given their support as well.

Apart from the valuable contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, South-West (Sir A. Grant), I am particularly impressed by the way in which the trade unions have given their support. I do not refer necessarily to the trade union headquarters in London or to the trade union leaders who are remote from the action at Felixstowe. I am referring to the local members of the Transport and General Workers Union who work at Felixstowe. They know quite a lot about the situation, and they know how the Bill will serve the interests of the local work force and local community. They have a more direct interest than anyone in the success of this measure.

I am sorry that so far we have not had a contribution from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). His contributions have enlivened these debates on previous occasions. I merely note a curious reluctance on his part to speak this evening. He seems to be leaving it later and later. I noted his absence from the Chamber for a considerable period. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now in his place, and I look forward to his contribution. I shall ensure that there is plenty of time for it.

I do not wish to go into much detailed argument. about the Bill. We have had plenty of opportunity to do that in the past. It was debated perfectly adequately on Second Reading, and it was in Committee for a long time. I congratulate the Felixstowe company on the considerable lengths to which it has gone to respond to local expressions of concern about the environment, the effect on navigation and so on. The real issue with which the Bill—and, by implication, the carry-over motion — deal is jobs. Anyone who fails to support the motion is seeking to block the creation of thousands of new jobs in and around Felixstowe. I have no doubt that the public will form their own conclusions about any hon. Member who decides to oppose the motion.

Labour Members have tried to raise the issue of the P and O shareholding in European Ferries. The relevance of that shareholding seems to be obscure in the extreme. Even if P and O decided to make an outright takeover hid for European Ferries, the Felixstowe dock company will still remain in the private sector. It will still be the subsidiary of a public limited company whose shareholders will still have the same interest in the successful and prosperous expansion of the dock. They will have precisely the same interests as the present shareholders in the parent company of European Ferries.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

Does not my hon. Friend, with his great authority on these matters, also agree that it would be most unlikely that a company such as P and 0 would contemplate investing in the Felixstowe port unless it was confident of its future prosperity?

Mr. Yeo

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, it would be of additional comfort to know that a major company such as P and O, headed by such a shrewd investor as Sir Jeffrey Sterling, should be contemplating a takeover of the parent company. The fact that he has made a substantial investment is of great encouragement to us all.

As a veteran of the Second Reading and the previous carry-over motion debates, I very much hope that this is the last time on which I shall have to speak on the Bill until it returns to us for Third Reading. I urge the House to pass the motion.

8.58 pm

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I have been present during the long debates on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill—not because I want to delay its passage unduly but because I am profoundly concerned about its contents. I strongly object to the carry-over motion. I do not want to rub salt in the wounds of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), but I and some of my colleagues were amazed when we saw him talking busily with another hon. Member at the point when he should have called something in this Chamber. I am sure that he will not be in a similar position tonight. I notice that he is without company. I am sure that he is giving his complete concentration to tonight's debate.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is complaining about. Is she complaining that the amendment that she supported was carried? Is that what is upsetting her? I should have thought, since she voted for it, that she would want to see it in the Bill.

Mrs. Clwyd

I am saying that it is rather strange that the hon. Gentleman should have started his speech tonight by saying how long the Bill had taken when it need not have taken so long had he been fully awake on the last occasion we debated it.

I am profoundly concerned about the Bill's implications. On many occasions I have spoken of its environmental and employment implications and the fact that it will affect ports policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) spoke passionately about that. He knows better than any hon. Member in the Chamber tonight how much the Bill will affect docks and dockers. The areas that he represents are profoundly affected by the Government's policies.

The Government are giving the Bill a nod, a wink and a nudge, as they have done on many occasions since we first considered it. As my hon. Friend said earlier, so wittily and humourously, one of the reasons there has been such dedication by Government Members to ensuring the passage of the Bill, regardless of what other important business the House should be considering and instead of giving us extra time to consider the Bill in the next Session of Parliament—there are all sorts of interests at play in the consideration of the Bill and ensuring its passage—is that the company in question was one of the largest contributors to the Tory party. Last year, the managing director—

Mr. Yeo

rose—

Mrs. Clwyd

The hon. Gentleman has taken up enough of our time, and I shall not give way.

Obviously, there is great interest on the part of the Government because I understand that in 1985 the company did not make its normal contribution to the Tory party. It did not want to be seen as oiling the hands of those who were supposed to be sitting in judgment on the Bill.

Mr. Yeo

rose—

Mrs. Clwyd

I was a member of the Opposed Private Bill Committee. Four Members of Parliament sat in judgment on important considerations — ports policy, employment policy and environmental policy. Those matters are of great concern to everybody, not least those dockers in other parts of Britain who will be affected if the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill becomes law. As a member of that Committee, I felt concerned that we, as people making a judgment at the end of the evidence, were unable to call independent witnesses.

We were never able to find answers to these questions. What will happen when the fixed Channel link is in place? How will it affect container traffic in this country? What will that do to the port of Felixstowe? Will the extra container capacity be necessary when the Channel tunnel will have a greater impact on the carrying of containers in future? Every time the Minister was asked those questions he refused to answer. How could people sitting in judgment reach a proper conclusion at the end of the day that the Bill should be supported, when an essential part of the evidence was not before them? In no way could one — [Interruption.] There is so much noise in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I cannot hear myself think.

As a member of that Committee, I could no longer come to a proper conclusion without hearing the evidence. The evidence was denied us. It is still being denied us, and I cannot see how in all honesty the House can come to a proper and well-thought-out conclusion on the matter without knowing what effect the Channel fixed link will have on container traffic in the future. Not only that, hut, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston said, we believe that the measure is a way of rolling back the dock labour scheme as we know it, giving the private ports that are not in the scheme an opportunity to encroach further into the area of ports such as Ipswich which at present are members of the scheme. As my hon. Friend said, there will be profound policy implications for the whole of ports policy.

Those are the issues that we have not been able to discuss properly in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. That is why, if I am glad of one thing, it is that the whole procedure will now be reviewed by the House so that in future, we hope, a private company with vast resources will not be enabled to get planning permission by the back door while the objectors who have so few resources in comparison cannot present a proper case. What has happened in Committee and during the debates on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill is an anachronism. In the 1980s, it is intolerable that we should make policy in that way because a private company has the money to get planning permission by the back door.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd

I am concluding on that point. That is why I vigorously oppose—

Sir Eldon Griffiths

rose—

Hon. Members

Order.

Mrs. Clwyd

I was about to conclude. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I was tempted to carry on, given the fact that so many hon. Members are becoming agitated by what I am saying. However, I know that some of my hon. Friends also want to participate in the debate.

I vigorously oppose the carry-on motion because I believe that the matters raised by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill should properly have been the subject of a public planning inquiry, and not brought in by the back door through Parliament.

9.7 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is well acquainted with the procedures of the House in regard to private Bills. I recall that she spent a considerable time—I say this with the greatest respect to her—seeking to make sure that she did not sit on that Committee.

Mrs. Clwyd

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening.

Mr. Cash

Furthermore, on Second Reading, when I spoke, it was clear that the hon. Lady was doing as much as possible to make sure that she would not attend the proceedings in the earlier stages of the private Bill procedure. It strikes me that she is singularly ill-qualified in this instance to criticise the procedures upon which we are now engaged.

The hon. Lady's point, which was verging on a point of substance, was whether it would be desirable not to adopt the private Bill procedure in view of the fact that a Committee is due to be set up in the next Session to deal with the private Bill procedure. She wondered whether it would be appropriate for the procedure to be replaced by the so-called normal planning procedures. I have news for the hon. Lady, or at least I think I have. The normal planning procedures would be far more likely to lead to all the potential corruption in dealing with planning permission and the difficulties that we have had with local authorities in the past than would a distinguished Committee of the House.

Such a Committee is not composed only of Conservative Members, but, in fairness to petitioners for and against the Bill, includes Opposition Members such as the hon. Lady. It is bizarre for the hon. Lady to criticise a procedure which she first avoided and then, having participated in it, to criticise that procedure despite the fact that it follows ancient tradition and procedure hallowed by many years of usage and going back to the 18th century. It has enabled many major projects to go through by means of a fair and quasi-judicial system.

Mrs. Clwyd

The hon. Gentleman obviously speaks from some ignorance. If he had followed the previous debates, he would know that one of the reasons why I left the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill Committee was that I was profoundly worried about the way in which it was proceeding. Mr. Speaker knows of my anxiety about that, because I wrote to him at various times asking to be released from the Committee. I made the point that I thought the Opposed Private Bill Committee procedure ought to be overhauled. That was the only way that we were able to get a three-hour debate on that subject. As a result of that, a Committee is reviewing the procedure. That should be applauded, not denigrated.

Mr. Cash

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks, because they reminded me of a similar and analagous procedure related to what was then the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill 1976. At that time the Labour party singularly failed to achieve its objective of ensuring that ship repairers were nationalised. The hon. Lady may have engaged in certain tactics on the Committee on which she served in order to improve and enhance the procedure. I take that to be the meaning of what she has said.

The hon. Lady is making her points against the background of a long and ancient tradition which, through impartial procedures, enables petitioners and promoters to have a fair hearing before an all-party Committee. All-party Committees of that kind, including Select Committees, deserve rather more respect than some hon. Members have given them in their speeches.

Hon. Members will know that I rarely filibuster on matters of this kind and I have no intention of doing so now. I wish to make substantive points. It is important to bear in mind that the privileges of the House and the importance, respect and integrity with which the House is credited depend to a great extent on the impartiality which is evident to anybody who has had an opportunity, as the hon. Lady has had, to participate in the private Bill procedure. I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that.

I know that the hon. Lady's remarks were in no way intended to be a reflection on the Committee on which she sat. If the hon. Lady wishes to dispute that, she can intervene immediately. She does not intervene and by implication is agreeing with me that that Committee was an excellent one. I shall now move to my next point, which is why there should be a carry-over motion despite the carry-on of the hon. Lady, and why it would be desirable for us to pass this motion to ensure that the Bill continues in the procedure on which it has already embarked.

Sir Anthony Grant

Is my hon. Friend not being unfair to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)? I think that he is, because it is clear from column 1014 of Hansard of 12 February 1986 that she was led down the garden path and led astray by no less a person than the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who persuaded her not to do her duty.

Mr. Cash

These revelations leave me completely dumbfounded. I sincerely hope that the reference in question will not be expunged from the record, on the ground that it contains a scurrilous attack upon the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. I invite her to intervene if the allegation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) is untrue. However, as the hon. Lady, as on the previous occasion, has decided not to challenge me by intervening on this point, I have to infer that it must be carried in favour of Conservative Members.

In view of the attacks that have been made upon Conservative Members, other substantive points have to be put on record. I recall that during the Second Reading debate reference was made to the Transport and General Workers Union. I am tempted to ask myself, as I did on Second Reading, whether the activities of the Opposition have anything to do with TGWU policy. I invite the Opposition to dispute that point with me, if they wish to do so. There seems to be a strange connection between the TGWU and the importance of enterprise both to the people of Felixstowe and those in the areas adjoining Felixstowe. Could it be that the TGWU — in other words the Labour party and its representatives on the other side of the House—wishes to deny the people of Felixstowe the job and enterprise opportunities that the Bill offers?

Mr. Loyden

The TGWU is concerned about all its members, including those in the ports of Liverpool, Bristol and Southampton. The union has to take an overall view. It will defend the rights of the Felixstowe workers, but it will not—and in my view it should not—adopt a policy that would result in an increase of labour in one port at the expense of a diminution of labour in another port. It is not the job of trade unions to create further unemployment in areas such as Merseyside. Unemployment there is already high.

Mr. Cash

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that philosophical point. He has made it quite clear that a balancing act takes place within the TGWU. It believes that prosperity in a given area depends upon the diminution of prosperity in another area. The Felixstowe dock and harbour proposals are generating enterprise in that area. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that enterprise opportunities should be equally available in his area.

It would be unfortunate if a dog-in-the-manger attitude were to develop. For reasons that may have something to do with the activities of Militant Tendency in his part of the country, the Liverpool dock and harbour system is not merely crumbling into the River Mersey; it is falling into it. It would be sad if the people of Felixstowe had to face a similar catastrophe. Conservative Members would resist it at all costs.

We wish the hon. Gentleman's area to be prosperous, just as we wish the area that is now under discussion to be prosperous. [Interruption.] The amount of barracking that is to be heard because I have made that perfectly sensible point merely illustrates the difference between the attitude of Conservative Members and the attitude of the Opposition. We want the whole of this country to be prosperous. The Opposition want only those areas that they can pick and choose to be prosperous, which means only those parts of the country where they have an electoral advantage. They seem unable to understand the idea of something being created virtually out of nothing, as is the case with Felixstowe. It was the late lamented Keith Wickenden, whom 1 knew and who used to be the Member of Parliament for Dorking, who had the initiative and enterprise to start this great venture. By carrying the Bill over to the next Session we shall be paying tribute to the memory of a great man of enterprise.

I have referred to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley rather quaintly described as a carry-on motion. I have some sympathy with her choice of words, but it might be helpful to remind the House of the circumstances in which such motions arise.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

May I move, That the Question be now put?

Mr. Speaker

I shall not accept that motion until the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has finished his speech. After that, I shall consider it.

Mr. Cash

The circumstances are set out in page 1041 in the 20th edition of "Erskine May" under the heading, "Further suspension of bills". I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for not ending my speech, as this is an important issue which is germane to the subject under discussion, and it often crops up in regard to private Bills.

Because the private Bill procedure is essentially judicial, it is important to have continuity between one Session and the next to ensure that important private business, in the course of which many people have gone to considerable trouble, time and often expense—I refer to petitioners for the Bill and objectors to it—

Mr. Sedgemore

Say something that we understand.

Mr. Cash

That is an interesting intervention. I am merely referring to "Erskine May". The carry-over motion—

Mr. Sedgemore

I have not understood a word for 10 minutes.

Mr. Cash

I am disturbed to hear that. In his books, one of which is suitably entitled, "Power Failure" and another of which is called "Mr. Secretary of State", the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) describes himself—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that that is a bit wide of the Felixstowe dock and I cannot relate the carry-over motion to it.

Mr. Cash

Perhaps I might just finish my sentence. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch describes himself as a practising barrister, but if ever there was a case of the hon. Gentleman demonstrating that he could not handle a dock brief, this is it.

I hope that by that slight aside I have demonstrated — [HON. MEMBERS: "This is a filibuster."] I am demonstrating—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech relative to the matter and would you now accept the closure?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I said that I would not accept the closure until the hon. Gentleman had finished. He has been speaking for a good length of time and I think that he is making his point.

Mr. Cash

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I am making a relevant point about the carryover motion. I can do no better than refer to that part of "Erskine May" which specifically deals with the suspension of Bills. I cannot think of anything that is more germane and relevant to the proceedings in question — [HON. MEMBERS: "Filibuster."] If I may proceed despite the barracking and the filibustering that is taking place on the Opposition Benches, I shall get to the point that I wish to make.

The conduct of the Bill and whether or not it is to be carried over is directly related to the procedures that are hallowed by the words of "Erskine May". I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, know all about this.

Mr. Sedgemore

Get on with it.

Mr. Cash

It is important that Opposition Members, as they do not have any interest in the matter whatsoever, should have the benefit of what is said in "Erskine May". As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has reached for the book in question, I refer him to page 1041.

Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

I have come into the chamber because I am interested in what is being discussed. I have looked at the list of Members who have spoken, and I note that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is now accusing my hon. Friend of filibustering, spoke for 32 minutes. That was a filibuster of the worst order, and my hon. Friend should be allowed to continue.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)

In view of what is happening on the Conservative Benches, I think we ought to put it to you again, Mr. Speaker, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker

I am not prepared to accept that, because I understand that the proposer of the motion has not yet spoken, although he moved it formally.

Hon. Members

No, he did not.

Mr. Cash

I have only one more point to make. With reference to suspension orders, "Erskine May" states: Members may speak more than once in debates on suspension motions, and having spoken to the main question may then move amendments. In view of that and the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) wishes to speak more than once in the debate, I am glad to sit down.

9.28 pm

Sir Eldon Griffiths

In view—

Hon. Members

With the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need the leave of the House to speak again.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Because the unusual nature of the procedure might not be entirely familiar to hon. Members, I thought it would be helpful if I brought "Erskine May" with me and quoted the relevant section. With regard to motions dealing with the suspension of Bills until the following Session, "Erskine May" states: Members may speak more than once in debates on suspension motions". That is what I am proposing to do.

At the beginning of the debate, I confined myself simply to supporting the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I have not, therefore, in any way dealt with the issues that have been raised, quite properly, by Opposition members. The most important thing to recognise is that the House has been seized of this matter for a total of 160 hours, a great proportion of which was spent in Committee.

Mr. Sedgemore

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all know that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir F. Griffiths) has already spoken. Is it your intention to allow all of us to make another speech?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) moved the motion formally, as I understand it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, that is what the hon. Gentleman told me. I understood that he had moved the motion formally.

Mr. Sedgemore

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in the House when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds proposed the motion, and he made a speech; he did not move it formally.

Mr. Cash

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall give a ruling on this. I understand from "Erskine May" that it is possible for hon. Members to speak more than once on a suspension motion.

Mr. Sedgemore

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I return to my original point. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has already made a very forceful and able speech, is it your intention to allow other hon. Members to speak again?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, according to "Erskine May", hon. Members may speak again.

Mr. Boyes

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that, as a point of clarification, it must be stated that the motion was not moved formally. In fact, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) spoke for a minimum of five minutes, and possibly for a little longer. The record will show that. I think that that must be taken into consideration when you make your ruling.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you accept that the fact that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has the right to speak twice does not prevent you from accepting a speech only once or from accepting a closure motion? You are not in any way prevented from accepting a closure motion because the hon. Member is seeking to catch your eye for a second time. On that basis, I ask you once again whether you will accept a closure motion.

Mr. Speaker

I shall not do so at this point. The debate can continue until 10 o'clock, and it is already half-past nine. I am not prepared to accept a closure motion at this stage. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has quoted from "Erskine May". He has spoken more than once, and other hon. Members may also do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the record will show that you said that you would be inclined to take a closure motion at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)— Sir Eldon Griffiths: No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The record will show that. The hon. Member for Stafford has finished his speech. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds caught your eye and has exercised his right to speak. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you can accept a closure motion. You gave us—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have dealt with that point. I may have misunderstood what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said to me, but I thought that he had moved the motion formally. He speaks for the promoters of the Bill and has the right to speak again. However, I hope that he will do so briefly so that we may then come to a conclusion.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Lest there be any misunderstanding of what I said to you, 1 want to make it clear that I spoke at the beginning of the debate very formally because I dealt only with the procedural points. It would not be correct to say, nor did I intend you to understand me to say, Mr. Speaker, that I had merely moved the motion formally. In fact, the Chairman of Ways and Means placed the motion upon the Order Paper and I spoke to his motion. I very scrupulously avoided going into the substance of the matter because I understood this to be largely a procedural debate.

However, as the debate has developed, inevitably — and I suppose rightly—hon. Members have gone into the substance of the Bill. It was quite impossible for the Chair to prevent that. It is only right that, as I have been speaking for the promoters of the Bill during the long hours that the House has been seized of this matter, some of the questions that have been raised about the Bill and the intentions of the promoters should now be answered. It would make for an inadequate debate, certainly not a debate that could be closed at this point, if the other side of the case were not put. I shall briefly do that.

One issue raised was whether the Committee had had adequate time or opportunity to consider the matters before it and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) went into great detail about that. She was appointed to the Committee. It has always been my understanding that when one is appointed to a private Bill Committee by the House one has a duty to discharge the responsibilities of members of that Committee. The hon. Lady chose to absent herself. It is true, as I understand it, that she wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, about that, and no doubt you sent her a reply, but it is quite unacceptable for the hon. Lady to come to the House and say that there was no opportunity to consider the Bill fully in Committee when she had voluntarily removed herself from the Committee.

Mr. Cash

Does my hon. Friend accept that in the review of private Bill procedure which is due to take place next Session one of the items that we might hope will be top of the agenda of the Procedure Committee will be that of people absenting themselves from Committees, as a result of which there is grave inconvenience to the petitioners, the Committee and the public in general?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

That may be, but I am dealing strictly with what has been said on the Floor of the House tonight on the subject of the Bill. I say again, in case the hon. Lady did not hear me, that it is not satisfactory for her to complain that the Committee was not able to deal with the issues put before it when she removed herself from the Committee and did not listen.

In view of the hon. Lady's speech, it is also right to say that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke at some length on this matter, quoted the relevant passages from "Erskine May" which make it clear beyond peradventure that the hon. Lady should have stayed on the Committee and done her duty. She went to him and he said that he had advised her—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the hon. Member wanted specifically to reply to today's debate. He is going back over earlier debates. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, although concerned about this matter, are also concerned about the debate on Stansted. As I understand it, there is an extension for an hour and a half, but many hon. Members had understood that there would be a vote at about 9.30 pm so that there would be a reasonable distribution of time between the two debates. We were led to believe that there would be some sympathy from the Chair for a closure at about 9.30. I press the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to reply to this debate and not to the earlier debates.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I hardly need any advice from the hon. Gentleman about delaying this matter. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley made a complaint, to which I have responded. I am entitled to quote the fact that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said this: She therefore came to me .… I advised her to quit the Committee. I said to her, 'Go down in history, Ann, and be bloody well fined.—[Official Report, 12 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 1040].

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) would care to tell us who the hon. Member for Hamilton is.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I beg pardon. I am speaking about the hon. Member for Fife, Central. His remarks in Hansard make it clear that the complaints made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley about this procedure were bogus. If she were unable to form a judgment on the Bill, it was because she accepted his advice to remove herself from proper consideration of the promoters' case, or the petitioners' case.

Mr. Speaker

Order. What does this have to do with the carry-over motion?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

The hon. Lady—

Mrs. Clwyd

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

No. I am responding, as I must, to Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady's earlier complaint was that she had been unable to form a judgment and that the motion should not be carried over because she had had inadequate time in which to consider the issues. I was replying to that point and I now move to the next one.

Mrs. Clwyd

The hon. Gentleman has obviously missed the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has a sense of humour; the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has not.

Mr. Boyes

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is with reluctance that I raise this matter. I am not one of those who usually raise points of order. The proceedings started with a point of order suggesting that there might have been a breach of privilege in a letter written by George Blackhall, the managing director of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, in which he talked about delay tactics by a small coterie of Labour Members. I am delighted about that. I have deposited a copy of the letter with the Clerks' Department. I believe that the debate is ending in farce. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled very carefully and precisely, as you usually do, and asked the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to be brief and to the point. His remarks are neither brief nor to the point. Therefore, I should like to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker

I have said three or four times that I am not prepared to accept that motion.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

The second point made by way of objection to the carry-over motion is that there had been a change in the circumstances of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company as a result of the purchase of some shares in it by P and O. I have procured from the promoters a letter that makes it clear that they remain confident of their predictions about the tonnage that will need to be handled in Felixstowe and the absolute necessity to provide the new facilities which the Bill will allow. Therefore, the argument that the carry-over motion be denied because there has been a change in those circumstances is bogus.

Since the managing director's letter was quoted widely in support of that view, it is right that the House should be aware of what the managing director told me. In his letter of 22 October he stated: Some weeks ago, in the light of difficult trading conditions, I sent a letter to all of our 1,900 employees explaining the circumstances and emphasising the need for economies … Although the letter was a private communication and declared copyright, the Member for Ipswich who has vigorously and consistently opposed our Bill obtained a copy. That letter was mentioned in the debate on the carry-over motion an hour or so ago. The managing director stated: Distorting its intention he"—— the hon. Member for Ipswich— publicly proclaimed it confirmed his long held contention that there was excess port capacity in the United Kingdom and as Felixstowe could not make use of its facilities extant he was even more determined in his opposition to the Bill". The managing director concluded: Despite present and temporary shortfalls from our target figures — our confident predictions indicate by 1989 we shall need to expand our container handling capacity to meet increased demands. There are figures to support that. The second objection to the carry-over motion falls to the ground.

Turning to the third objection, I quote the words of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He said that in East Anglia there was a "gale" of opposition to the Bill. I refute that view. There is a gale of support for this carry-over motion so that the House may arrive at a conclusion on the Bill in due course.

Those who favour the expansion of this port include East Anglia's industrial, commercial and farming community. They include the regional organisations of the CBI and the Institute of Directors, all of the chambers of commerce, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the East Anglian branches of the Transport and General Workers Union unanimously. They also include all the trade unions that are represented in the port of Felixstowe. Therefore, the objection put by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, that the carry-over motion be denied because there is a gale of opposition to it, falls to the ground. There is no such thing.

Mr. Cash

Does my hon. Friend have any light to throw on the fact that there was some original opposition to the Bill by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who on Second Reading spoke for half an hour, but so far today, for some reason which is obscure to the House, has not opened his mouth?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

That is a matter for the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch).

Let me deal now with the point made about the environmental problems. Several petitions were directed against the Bill on environmental grounds, but it is important to recognise what has happened. Suffolk county council at first objected. It then reached agreement with the promoters on a planning package, including everything from landscaping to noise, building control and nature conservation. Consequently, the Suffolk county council has agreed with the promoters that the carry-over motion is required and should be passed. Similarly, the Ipswich port authority was originally an objector but it reached agreement with the promoters on the navigational priorities and systems.

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch also claimed that the Royal Yachting Association was opposed to the Bill. I have never identified him with the RYA, but I have to say that the RYA has reached agreement with the promoters. It wishes the Bill to proceed, and it would dissent completely from the manner in which the hon. Gentleman sought to pray the RYA in aid against the motion.

The local district council, the Suffolk Coastal council, was originally a petitioner, and would have originally opposed the carry-over motion, for it did not want the Bill to be passed. It has reached agreement on a 200-acre nature reserve and now I am confident that it would wish the carry-over motion to proceed.

I could go on. A whole range of petitions have been considered. In most cases there has been agreement between the promoters and the petitioners, and that is precisely what the private Bill procedure is intended to achieve.

The central issue in the debate tonight is whether the House of Commons should enable the next Session of Parliament to arrive at a decision. None of us can predict what that decision may be, but it is right that a Bill that has had an overwhelming vote on Second Reading, that has received a series of large majorities on the Floor of the House, and that has the clear support of a Committee of our fellow Members which considered it for 26 days should receive the mature consideration of the House.

What is proposed tonight is that a carry-over motion be denied so that the Bill is not determined on its merits and the House is not given an opportunity to judge and vote and determine in the national interest; it is simply proposed tonight that the whole matter shall dribble away in all the wrecking amendments and tactics that Labour Members have thrown against it. The carry-over motion has a long-standing tradition of support in the House. Four carry-over motions were carried yesterday without dissent. About 27 carry-over motions have been carried within the term of this Parliament. This carry-over motion is also entitled to be carried.

9.49 pm

Mr. Ken Weetch (Ipswich)

As I was frequently mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), I must at this late stage reply to some of the main points that have been raised. I strongly resent the fact that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has accused some of my hon. Friends and myself of being a coterie responsible for the promotion of delaying tactics. I resent that because I have a strong constituency interest in this Bill. As everyone who has heard me speak on this matter knows, I have opposed the Bill from start to finish on grounds of principle, and I shall continue to do so.

In reply to a point that has been made frequently. I must say that I do not represent anyone at all in my opposition to the Bill. I received a letter this morning from the East Anglian branch of Friends of the Earth, thanking me for my opposition. It states: If this development goes ahead it seems to us that many `safe' sites will be considerably 'less safe' and so we believe every effort must be made to save the area if conservation at a national level is to have any meaning at all. That is a firm letter of support from Friends of the Earth in East Anglia. But more to the point is a letter from another environmental group saying that I should stand firm in the face of some hostile attacks from the few who are set to make huge financial gains. That has been the important issue in this debate.

I oppose the Bill being carried over. Moreover, it should not be discussed again in the next Session of Parliament without the promoters, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, having to go right back to the beginning to explain themselves again in the light of the new points that have emerged not only in these debates but outside the House.

The only sound thing that has gone into the Bill so far is the new clause on environmental control, which was carried a little while ago on Report as part of the first group of amendments. It is self-evident that there is still much to be said on Report, especially as clause 4 starts in a piecemeal and hole-in-the-corner way to dismantle the national dock labour scheme. If the Government wish to do anything about that scheme, they should have the honesty to put it formally to the House and should not act in a hole-in-the-corner way.

My opposition to the Bill is not party political. From time to time I have to report to my general management committee on what I am doing about the Bill. It constantly asks why I so often receive support from card-carrying Conservatives in the constituency. Political opinion in that part of East Anglia is very divided.

I do not adopt a political stance. My interest in the Bill stems from the fact that it fundamentally affects my constituency. When the whole thing first began, I saw the work force in the port of Ipswich. I held an emergency meeting with it as soon as the Bill's shape had become known. Those people expressed their fears for the longterm future of their jobs, and they have been behind me from the beginning.

Whatever else the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is, it is not daft; on the other hand, it cannot always be right. In the local press and elsewhere it has said that I must feel some malevolence towards the whole issue, as I disagree with the Bill. But I feel no such malevolence; this is a constituency issue from start to finish. I have already expressed grave concern about the long-term future of the port of Ipswich.

One fear has not been quelled by the arguments adduced; that is, that a free-for-all in port development would disrupt the port framework of East Anglia. We have already had one example. Nearly 100 jobs have been lost at Harwich. It was nothing to do with my constituency, so I did not become involved, but the warning was writ large. When Freightliner transferred its operations from Parkeston Quay to Felixstowe, there was a sharp lesson to be drawn about what would happen to jobs in Ipswich if excess port capacity was developed in East Anglia.

The extra capacity proposed is not needed in any shape or form. Two things will result from it. First, there will be a cut-throat war in an attempt to attract deep-sea trade from elsewhere, which will affect many other deep-sea ports in Britain. Secondly, and even more importantly, if there is any commercial shortfall in trade, there will be an immediate push for short-sea container trade and disruption throughout East Anglia, with Ipswich in the front line.

In opposing the carry-over motion, I should point out that no one is threatening one job in Felixstowe, but that there is a real threat to jobs elsewhere. We have had recent evidence from the company concerning the need for economy. When the memorandum from the managing director of the company, Mr. Blackhall, came round, it was marked "copyright" in order, I understand, to prevent me from quoting at length from it in the local press—

Sir Anthony Grant

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

Question put, That the Question be now put—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Boyes

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on a number of occasions, Opposition Members proposed the closure. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) rose to speak, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke for 21 minutes and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) spoke for 20 minutes. My hon. Friend spoke for only 10 minutes and then you accepted the closure motion. Some of the points made by Conservative Members were well wide of the motion and it is important that they are answered. I think that it is a little unfair — if I might use that word — for you to accept the closure at this time after turning down our application. Conservative Members were well wide of the mark and you had to remind them to get to the point.

Mr. Speaker

The House knows that this debate would normally run for three hours. When the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) rose, I understood that he was the last hon. Member who wished to speak. As it happens, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) rose, as was his right, to speak again. Then the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) rose. It is normal for the Chair to accept the closure at one minute to ten o'clock, and that is what I did.

The House having divided: Ayes 174, Noes 39.

Division No. 299]	[9.59 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Favell, Anthony
Alexander, Richard	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ancram, Michael	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ashdown, Paddy	Forth, Eric
Aspinwall, Jack	Franks, Cecil
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Fry, Peter
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Gale, Roger
Batiste, Spencer	Galley, Roy
Bellingham, Henry	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Best, Keith	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gow, Ian
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gower, Sir Raymond
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Grant, Sir Anthony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gregory, Conal
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Browne, John	Grist, Ian
Buck, Sir Antony	Ground, Patrick
Budgen, Nick	Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Carttiss, Michael	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Cash, William	Haselhurst, Alan
Chapman, Sydney	Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hayes, J.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Hayward, Robert
Conway, Derek	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cope, John	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James	Hickmet, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Hirst, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Holt, Richard
Dover, Den	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Durant, Tony	Hunter, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Emery, Sir Peter	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Eyre, Sir Reginald	Kennedy, Charles
Fallon, Michael	Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Key, Robert	Raffan, Keith
Kirkwood, Archy	Rathbone, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lang, Ian	Roe, Mrs Marion
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Ryder, Richard
Lester, Jim	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lightbown, David	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lilley, Peter	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Shersby, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Silvester, Fred
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Sims, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Maclean, David John	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Speller, Tony
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Spencer, Derek
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
McQuarrie, Albert	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Madel, David	Steel, Rt Hon David
Major, John	Stern, Michael
Malone, Gerald	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Marland, Paul	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Marlow, Antony	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mates, Michael	Temple-Morris, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis	Terlezki, Stefan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Merchant, Piers	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Thorne, Neil (llford S)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)	Thurnham, Peter
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Moore, Rt Hon John	Tracey, Richard
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Neubert, Michael	Waddington, David
Nicholls, Patrick	Wainwright, R.
Norris, Steven	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Onslow, Cranley	Walden, George
Osborn, Sir John	Watson, John
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Pattie, Geoffrey	Whitfield, John
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Wiggin, Jerry
Pollock, Alexander	Wilkinson, John
Portillo, Michael	Wolfson, Mark
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.	Wood, Timothy
Powell, William (Corby)
Powley, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Sir Eldon Griffiths and
Proctor, K. Harvey	Mr. Tim Yeo.
NOES
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	John, Brynmor
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Lamond, James
Boyes, Roland	Leadbitter, Ted
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Loyden, Edward
Caborn, Richard	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Campbell-Savours, Dale	McNamara, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Clay, Robert	Maxton, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Parry, Robert
Dalyell, Tarn	Sedgemore, Brian
Dewar, Donald	Skinner, Dennis
Dixon, Donald	Snape, Peter
Dubs, Alfred	Soley, Clive
Duffy, A. E. P.	Stott, Roger
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Weetch, Ken
Godman, Dr Norman
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Tellers for the Noes:
Home Robertson, John	Mr. Tony Lloyd and
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mr. Peter Pike.
Janner, Hon Greville

Question aaccordingly agreed to.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 38.

Division No. 300]	[10.12 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Alexander, Richard	Lester, Jim
Ancram, Michael	Lightbown, David
Ashdown, Paddy	Lilley, Peter
Aspinwall, Jack	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Lyell, Nicholas
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Batiste, Spencer	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Bellingham, Henry	Maclean, David John
Best, Keith	McLoughlin, Patrick
Bevan, David Gilroy	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	McQuarrie, Albert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Madel, David
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Major, John
Browne, John	Malone, Gerald
Buck, Sir Antony	Marland, Paul
Budgen, Nick	Marlow, Antony
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Maude, Hon Francis
Carttiss, Michael	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Cash, William	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Chapman, Sydney	Merchant, Piers
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Conway, Derek	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Cope, John	Moore, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Dorrell, Stephen	Neubert, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Nicholls, Patrick
Dover, Den	Norris, Steven
Durant, Tony	Onslow, Cranley
Dykes, Hugh	Osborn, Sir John
Emery, Sir Peter	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Eyre, Sir Reginald	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Fallon, Michael	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Pollock, Alexander
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Portillo, Michael
Forth, Eric	Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Franks, Cecil	Powell, William (Corby)
Gale, Roger	Powley, John
Galley, Roy	Proctor, K. Harvey
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Raffan, Keith
Goodhart. Sir Philip	Rathbone, Tim
Gow. Ian	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Gower. Sir Raymond	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Grant. Sir Anthony	Roe, Mrs Marion
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Grist, Ian	Ryder, Richard
Ground, Patrick	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Gummer, Rt Hon John S	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hargreaves, Kenneth	Shersby, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)	Silvester, Fred
Hayes, J.	Sims, Roger
Hayward, Robert	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Speller, Tony
Hickmet, Richard	Spencer, Derek
Hirst, Michael	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)	Stern, Michael
Hunter, Andrew	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Temple-Morris, Peter
Kennedy, Charles	Terlezki, Stefan
Kershaw, Sir Anthony	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Kirkwood, Archy	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Thurnham, Peter
Lang, Ian	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Tracey, Richard

van Straubenzee, Sir W.	Wiggin, Jerry
Waddington, David	Wilkinson, John
Wainwright, R.	Wolfson, Mark
Wakeham, Rt Hon John	Wood, Timothy
Walden, George	Yeo, Tim
Waller, Gary
Watson, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)	Sir Eldon Griffiths and
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)	Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.
Whitfield, John
NOES
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	John, Brynmor
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Lamond, James
Boyes, Roland	Leadbitter, Ted
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Loyden, Edward
Caborn, Richard	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Campbell-Savours, Dale	McNamara, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Clay, Robert	Maxton, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Parry, Robert
Dalyell, Tarn	Sedgemore, Brian
Dewar, Donald	Skinner, Dennis
Dixon, Donald	Snape, Peter
Dubs, Alfred	Soley, Clive
Duffy, A. E. P.	Stott, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman	Weetch, Ken
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mr. Tony Lloyd and
Janner, Hon Greville	Mr. Peter Pike.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered, That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered, That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.

Ordered, That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with the New Clause as added on Consideration of the Bill as amended.

Ordered, That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered, That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.