INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACTS OF 1956, 1963, 1968, 1979 AND 1981

HC Deb 10 November 1987 vol 122 cc344-404

Mr. Loyden

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 18, at end insert— '(cc) Section 21 of the Act of 1956 shall have effect as if, after the word "Minister", where it secondly occurs, there were inserted the words "and subject to such conditions as he may require", and as if for the words "harbour to its former condition" there were substituted the word "navigation".'. The House should applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for bringing to it his great knowledge of ecology. His contribution has made many of us aware of the possible consequences of the Bill. I do not intend to follow him. I am sure that if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order.

I want to deal with the navigation of the river itself, a matter as important as the ecology. We have been dissatisfied with the lack of evidence so far produced by the promoters on the feasibility study, which is central to the Bill. Although, I recognise the importance of the clauses we have debated, one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the effect of changes in the harbour on the meandering of the river and, consequently, the dredging that may be necessary. We are not satisfied that there has been a serious feasibility study which would satisfy us that the intrusion of the development will not result in navigational difficulties.

Mr. McCartney

My hon. Friend has alluded to dredging. I should like to ask, in view of his experience in the industry, about the condition of the British dredging fleet, which I understand has been almost decimated by the Government's policy. Does British industry have the ability to provide the services required to maintain ease of navigation in the channel?

Mr. Loyden

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The British dredging fleet, like the maritime fleet, is so depleted that Britain is almost wholly dependent on European, rather than United Kingdom, dredging fleets. We must take that into account in considering the Bill's implications.

I have had some experience of the industry, having worked for 28 years on the River Mersey. I have been connected with a hydrographical surveying section. When a minor development was taking place in the Mersey, four years of research were required by the local department of scientific and industrial research to carry out the surveys needed to decide the development's viability. Tidal and current observations and an examination of the salination level and of suspended solids and deposits were required. No scientist can predict what will happen when a development intrudes into a meandering river and alters it, thus causing siltation in other parts of the river. I have seen no evidence that such feasibility studies have taken place in this case. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) can convince me, although I doubt it.

Mr. Skinner

What happens if a person decided to start a feasibility study not because he was motivated by making money — unlike this exercise — but because, in the interests of the environment, he did not want to spoil the coastline or cause an intrusion? How much money would be involved in such a study? How long would the study take? Would it use British tackle? Would a feasibility study delay the scheme that we are considering and, if so, to what extent? Would the matter have to be considered in another Parliament? It seems to be a fairly long job.

Mr. Loyden

It is. I gave an example of a minor intrusion into the River Mersey. The department of scientific and industrial research and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were involved in research. I was a part of it for four years. It was a process of making tidal and current observations and watching where silt was deposited. No matter how well the development is carried out, there is no way of predicting the outcome of the intrusion into the river.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and emphasise the ecological arguments that my hon. Friend has put forward today. In that sense the adjacent port, as well as the immediate port, should be concerned about the consequences. A document in my possession states that the Harwich harbour authority, which lies across the river from Felixstowe, could be impeded and restricted by any development taking place at Felixstowe. Indeed, the Secretary of State would be responsible for invoking an order that would require Felixstowe to put the harbour back to its previous state. In other words, the dredging responsibility would be a matter for the Secretary of State. I have seen no evidence that that long-protracted, necessary work has been carried out in connection with the Bill.

Mr. Morley

When my hon. Friend refers to dredging, can he confirm that there are three types of dredgers in common use, the bucket dredger, the crane grab dredger and the suction dredger, whereby mud is sucked up from the bottom of the estuary? It is argued in the Bill that the company will be subject to noise limitations. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bucket dredger in particular makes one hell of a racket when it gets going, and that it is very hard to control the noise level of such a machine in the vicinity of residential areas?

Mr. Loyden

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. During my time at the dock board, one of the trade union officials who lived some three miles or more from the dock—he lived in a nice area, not a tatty area—complained that he was kept awake night after night by the workings of the engines of the bucket ladder dredgers. Bucket ladder dredgers are probably not part of the scene today, and the service is carried out by trailer suction dredging.

We must also take account of the cost of dredging. The ports of this country are affected by the fact that the whole cost of conservancy rests with the port itself, and in that respect our ports have to compete with European ports. A port with a dredging problem in addition to the normal port costs must impose on those sailing into the port the consequential cost of dredging.

Mr. Skinner

Suppose some hon. Members wanted to start a feasibility study dealing with dredging and we did not have much money or, not to put too fine a point on it, we did not want to spend money but we wanted a cheap job. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds had not been paid up fully by the police and they had only given him a six-month payment instead of a year's pay. What kind of dredging equipment would my hon. Friend suggest for a cheap job? Would he suggest the bucket job?

Mr. Loyden

Honestly, I think that my hon. Friend may have made a frivolous point. Certainly my hon. Friend's point gives me no opportunity to respond in the way that I would have wanted.

Mr. Clay

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Loyden

I want to finish this point first.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very serious. The most costly form of dredging is obviously bucket ladder dredging. I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is amused. There are probably machines down mines that I do not understand and he can probably tell me all about them. Bucket ladder dredging is the most costly and ineffective way of dredging. Usually it is used only around dock entrances and not in rivers. Trailer suction dredging involves moving a machine like a Hoover— using simple terms — over the bed. The machine sucks in the aggregates in suspension and lays out a river bed that can give access to navigational vessels and so forth.

Mr. Skinner

So that would be the dearest?

Mr. Loyden

That would be the most expensive, yes.

Such a study would take quite a long time. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who has worked as a river pilot on the Mersey, could tell the House that no pilot can take a ship down the river unless he knows about hydrographical surveying, where the banks are, and so forth. His information is dependent on two factors: surveying and dredging. There is no evidence that a serious, in-depth feasibility study has taken place so that dredging will not be a problem.

Mr. John Garrett

I do not think that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber earlier when we were discussing the ecological and wildlife effects of the development. Some of us referred to noise, and the disturbance that would be caused to nesting birds by construction and the subsequent operations. That consideration is of enormous importance in relation to over-wintering and nesting birds.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although the suction dredger to which he refers will not make the endless cranking sound of the bucket dredger which disturbed his friend some three miles from the Mersey, the awful sucking noise would almost certainly upset a wide variety of the bird life that we hope will stay in the area?

Mr. Loyden

Obviously, there is a correlation between the ecological argument and the question of navigation. The only bird that we have in Liverpool is the Liver bird, and I do not think that that will be affected. It has not moved for the last hundred-odd years, and there is little chance that it will hibernate or fly off somewhere. However, at Helbre island, in the mouth of the Mersey, there is an international conservation area. The birds there have been affected, even by the traditional way in which the dock company and the ecologists have tried to arrange for them not to be disturbed. The House is, I believe, concerned about preserving the ecology of an area, but I am trying to concentrate on what may, in a sense, be a more practical problem.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. He is a man with considerable experience of that part of the Mersey, where the mud flats are and wildlife abounds. I believe that the changing state of the mud flats is caused partly by the river system and partly by dredging. Once there is a stable bird population, it is not as large as it would be if the river were allowed to develop at its own pace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not discussing Merseyside or Liverpool harbours; we are discussing Felixstowe.

Mr. Loyden

I appreciate the point that you raise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But, in a Bill of this kind, it is necessary to draw on experiences of other ports to concentrate the mind of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and enable hon. Members to foresee the possibilities — indeed, the probabilities.

I do not know how many people know the Mersey. I am merely giving an analogy. People in the area will be very concerned, and will wish to draw on experiences of the Mersey. I do not know how familiar you are with the Mersey, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that some hon. Members will know that, at one time, there were three holiday resorts on the Mersey. New Brighton was one of them. When I was a child my mother took me to New Brighton, where I played on the beach. In the 1930s the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board decided to construct a revetment down the main channel of the river. If the natural meandering of a river is altered, nobody can foresee what will happen.

It took more than 20 years to build that revetment—a wall on the bed of the river—and it destroyed the beach at New Brighton. It also destroyed the fishing and every other amenity in the area. It is now derelict and unattractive. The working class people of Liverpool no longer go over to New Brighton by ferry to enjoy themselves. The environment and navigation are closely linked.

I spent 38 years on the River Mersey, and I know what happens when there is an intrusion into the meandering of a river. The development of another dock meant that eventually both the eastern channel and the Garston channel were closed.

Harwich and the other ports on the east coast will be affected by a similar development. No account has been taken of the feasibility study or of the consequences of that development. The board does not know whether the development will affect navigation. It will lead to additional cost, because it will be necessary to introduce dredging. The tides in East Anglia may make it necessary to dredge. The cost of trying to remedy silting will be enormous.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend says that amenities of New Brighton and other resorts have been destroyed and that there could be similar blight along the east coast. [Interruption.] The nature and character of that area could be changed by these proposals.

Mr. John Garrett

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am unable to hear what is being said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because of the continual gossiping and walking about of Conservative Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Background noise does not help. Too many sedentary conversations are being conducted on both sides of the House.

Mr. Frank Cook

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not so much the murmuring as the snoring that is making it difficult to hear.

Mr. Skinner

Because he worked as a dredger on Merseyside, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows what could happen at Felixstowe, Ipswich and elsewhere on the east coast. The natural environment could be altered because P and O wants to make a few bob.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Gentleman is going on at excessive length. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a close.

6.45 am

Mr. Skinner

I am drawing an analogy—it could be a parallel — that the Mersey experience could be transposed on to the east coast, with all the consequential development, the blight——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have just had to endure the longest intervention that I have heard in 23 years in the House.

Mr. Loyden

I was about to ask my hon. Friend to give way. I have tried to explain to the House—at the time I am speaking of there were 42 dredging components in the river — that a model was erected at Wallingford that simulated the tides and activities of the river. That model was observed for 18 months by scientists and people involved in hydrographical surveying. However, by the end of that 18 months they could draw no conclusions, in spite of the fact that they had a model that simulated the tides and winds.

Mr. Clay

will my hon. Friend move to the question of who will pick up the tab if things go seriously wrong? I am sure that he has persuaded all of us that they might. In my constituency the port of Sunderland is having continually to dredge the entrance to the River Wear because if it did not do so we would not only be finished as a port but as a shipbuilding town. In effect, the local authority is financing a port authority to dredge the river. Thus the ratepayer is subsidising British Shipbuilders. We do not object to that, because we need those jobs on the river and British Shipbuilders is a publicly owned company. If events at Felixstowe led to difficulties at Harwich what come-back would the Harwich harbour company have to ensure that it did not have to pick up the tab for the irresponsibility of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company?

Mr. Loyden

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I have already touched on that point. The Minister would require the Felixstowe authority to do the dredging.

Mr. Clay

Would he?

Mr. Loyden

Whether he would or not is a hypothetical question. He has the power to impose on Felixstowe the burden of dredging.

Mr. Skinner

By bucket?

Mr. Loyden

No, bucket dredgers are no longer used.

As to the model, will the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds tell the House whether a model has been made of the Felixstowe harbour development and whether the scientific observations of it have been analysed and what conclusions have been reached?

Mr. Ron Davies

My hon. Friend will recall the conversation that I had in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) who is now leaving the Chamber. He denied all responsibility for the Bill. He said that it was not his Bill, that he was not in charge of it, and that it was "Gummer's Bill". Will my hon. Friend reconsider his view? Is there any profit to be gained from addressing his question to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds?

Mr. Loyden

That is an interesting and important point. I am sure that, when he returns to the House, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will take it on board.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend accept that, to a certain extent, his experience on Merseyside is limited? On Merseyside, the docks and harbour authority was responsible for both sides of the river. Therefore, it made decisions about the welfare of the whole of the river. Unfortunately, the Felixstowe dock and harbour authority is on one side of the estuary and the Harwich port authority is on the other side. The House has just passed a Bill to give powers to the Harwich side to extend its docks.

Who is responsible if things go wrong and. for example, mud flats develop in the wrong places? Also, the port of Ipswich needs a free channel. We have the problem of three dock authorities. There is the difficulty of predicting which new works may or may not be necessary — [Interruption.]

Mr. Loyden

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. A solo authority on Merseyside—the harbour company, as it now is—is responsible for both sides of the river. I dread to think what would be the situation if there were two authorities. In such circumstances, the authority on the other side of the river would be concerned at any Merseyside dock and harbour authority development and what effect it might have on the other side of the river with regard to dock access. At the end of the day, it is nonsense to argue about the development of the port if the river is not navigable.

Mr. Skinner

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Loyden

I shall finish my point and then I shall give way.

In a buoyed channel, which is the way in which ships are guided into a port, the port authority must assure vessels as to the depths in the various channels. In that sense, it requires one or two things. The whole matter is based upon a datum, which is a benchmark from which tidal movements are measured. I do not say for one moment that those who promote the Bill have not considered the draft of vessels that would be able to navigate the river in the likely event that a problem occurs, necessitating dredging of the river——

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Harris (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise another point of order in a Division, but I am afraid that there is a repetition of previous trouble and there is obviously mischief in the Aye Lobby. Hon. Members are delaying; my suspicion is that a plot is afoot. Certain Opposition Members are anxious to wipe out the Opposition business later today, particularly Scottish questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It might be wise to avoid the extravagant language until I have found out the reason for the delay in the Lobby. Will the Serjeant at Arms please inquire into the reason for delay?

Mr. Frank Cook

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Every hon. Member is well aware that in each Division Lobby there a certain small house that may need to be used as a matter of emergency. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has been caught short on occasions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me ask the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries. I think that it would be sensible to await the outcome of his inquiries.

The House having divided: Ayes 4, Noes 139.

Division No. 60]	[6.53 am
AYES
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Derek	Tellers for the Ayes:
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Alan Meale.
Skinner, Dennis

NOES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Harris, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Hayes, Jerry
Atkinson, David	Hayward, Robert
Battle, John	Hind, Kenneth
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Bellingham, Henry	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Irvine, Michael
Brazier, Julian	Janman, Timothy
Brooke, Hon Peter	Jessel, Toby
Browne, John (Winchester)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Burns, Simon	Kirkhope, Timothy
Burt, Alistair	Knapman, Roger
Butler, Chris	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Lightbown, David
Carrington, Matthew	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Clay, Bob	Lord, Michael
Colvin, Michael	Loyden, Eddie
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	McCartney, Ian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Maclean, David
Cope, John	McLoughlin, Patrick
Cran, James	McNamara, Kevin
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Major, Rt Hon John
Curry, David	Mans, Keith
Dalyell, Tarn	Marek, Dr John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Martlew, Eric
Day, Stephen	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Devlin, Tim	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Dixon, Don	Moate, Roger
Dorrell, Stephen	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Durant, Tony	Morley, Elliott
Emery, Sir Peter	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Fallon, Michael	Moss, Malcolm
Farr, Sir John	Neubert, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Forth, Eric	Paice, James
Franks, Cecil	Patnick, Irvine
Gardiner, George	Porter, David (Waveney)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Portillo, Michael
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Redwood, John
Gill, Christopher	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Riddick, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Gow, Ian	Ryder, Richard
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Greenway, John (Rydale)	Scott, Nicholas
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Shaw, David (Dover)
Grocort, Bruce	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hanley, Jeremy	Steinberg, Gerald
Hardy, Peter	Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Wheeler, John
Summerson, Hugo	Whitney, Ray
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Wiggin, Jerry
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)	Wilshire, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Wood, Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm	Yeo, Tim
Thurnham, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)	Tellers for the Noes:
Tracey, Richard	Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Peter Lloyd.
Tredinnick, David
Trippier, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Loyden

I will try to pick up the threads of the argument on navigational dredging. I am glad to see that the Minister for Public Transport is here.

Mr. Skinner

Two Ministers.

Mr. Loyden

The Minister is responsible, and the Secretary of State for Transport is also responsible, because if a problem of siltation arose out of this development, it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Minister to pick up the tab for navigational dredging, to restore the navigational path to its original state.

Mr. Clay

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his speech, but he has got something wrong. It is not the Secretary of State who will pick up the tab if there is siltation or any other problem. But the Secretary of State may require the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to pick up the tab. I hope that my hon. Friend will develop this line, because we must clarify the matter. There are no clear guidelines on the considerations which the Secretary of State must bring to bear on whether he will require—[Interruption.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are having great difficulty hearing my hon. Friend. Will you ask Conservative Members to be a bit quieter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I said earlier that sedentary discussions on both sides of the House make it difficult for hon. Members including the Chair, to hear the debate. I hope that we can have a little more order.

Mr. Clay

My hon. Friend should explain what he believes will happen when the Secretary of State jumps the first hurdle of requiring the company to make amends for any disasters. What if the company no longer existed? The environmental disasters, including the changes in the meander of the river which he described, might last for many more years than the company. Some hon. Members may argue that if the Channel fixed link is built, many ports on the south and east coasts will be so adversely affected that they may cease to trade. In those circumstances, there would be no company which the Secretary of State could require to make amends. Who will pick up the tab then?

Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I apologise for partly misleading the House about the Minister's responsibilities, but in this case he would have to demand that the company restored the navigation channels to their previous state. My hon. Friend's question was rather wide of the amendment, but it is important to understand the effects of the Felixstowe development on other United Kingdom ports. There is a serious imbalance in port distribution and capacity, which will give rise to serious consideration about what will happen if there is a fixed link. It could make those other ports redundant. If that happened, the ports would become fallow and would experience problems of siltation. The cost of solving the problems would be enormous, and, in all probability, the ports would be left to wither on the vine.

Mr. Skinner

Why does my hon. Friend follow the path that was laid down in this debate several hours ago? Some hon. Members have a fixation about the Common Market. Now they are talking about the fixed link. Why does not my hon. Friend accept what I said earlier? The fixed link is dead. The company has had to catch some Russian gold to get the money——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This does not have much to do with navigation at Felixstowe harbour.

Mr. Skinner

It has some connection——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand what I said, I will tell him. His remarks are irrelevant and he must resume his seat.

Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to that point, but he may have gone a little wide of the debate. I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes, which is now on record, and I am sure that the House will have to concern itself with that issue, if not now then in the future.

7.15 am

On the question of navigation, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will be able to convince the House at the end of the day, but I think it highly unlikely that he will be able to convince those of us with years of experience of the ports and of dealing with the whole question of the conservancy of ports on this issue, and the points we are making deserve consideration by the promoters of the Bill. After all, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has no desire to see other ports adversely affected because the promoters have not seen tit to conduct a detailed analysis of the issues involved and reach the right conclusions concerning navigation.

I challenge anyone to contradict me when I say that there is no way, from a civil engineering or hydrographical surveying point of view, to predict many of these issues with any degree of certainty. Allowing for a margin of error, we insist on evidence being produced by the Bill's promoters to show that proper tidal and current observations have been carried out, along with silt-tracing surveys.

Much can be done in modern terms. For instance, it is possible to charge silt with radioactive material and then trace the silt by geiger counters fitted to vessels, following it down to see where it has gone. There has been a great deal of technological development in these areas. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is aware of these facts. Has the authority taken the trouble to see that such examinations have taken place so it can give assurances, so far as they can be given, that the navigation in that river will remain, because that is an important factor in regard to this Bill?

Mr. Clay

My hon. Friend thinks that the time has come for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—or the real master of the Bill, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to give some assurances. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also be expecting the Minister for Public Transport, who is in his place, to give some assurances? We have discussed the role that the Secretary of State for Transport may have to play in certain circumstances, but unfortunately throughout our discussion the Minister was busy talking to his hon. Friends. The time has come for Government spokesmen to clarify these issues.

Mr. Loyden

I am sure that, given the opportunity, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will do exactly that. I hope, too, that the Minister will give some assurances, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)

Is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) aware that it would be impossible for the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to give sensible assurances to the House in the light of what he has been saying? I have listened carefully to everything he has said for the last five minutes, and he has strung his sentences together in such a way that he has not made grammatical sense and it has been quite impossible to understand what he has been talking about.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few nights ago some tinpot Tories were talking about wanting Latin on the curriculum, and that was snobbishness in the extreme. Now we have this little whipper-snapper, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin)—just elected—attacking my hon. Friend, who spent years dredging with buckets and suction pumps and who is expected to know the English language inside out. I lay odds that my hon. Friend could match this Sloane ranger or whatever he is—a public school boy no doubt. I challenge the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) to make a speech comparable to that of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Loyden

I am shocked by the intervention from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I did riot go to a public school, I left school at 14 and most of my learning occurred afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman cannot follow what has been said it is clear that he knows nothing about the Bill.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the Minister are fully aware of what has taken place and understand the facts — despite the constant interventions from the Labour Benches. In fact those interventions are not always of value to me and have caused some incontinuity in my speech. However, do riot blame me for that. My hon. Friends are constantly intervening and that has broken the continuity of my speech. One must appreciate that I am doing my best and I am certain that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the Minister understand what is going on. They are knowledgeable people.

Mr. Frank Cook

I believe that my hon. Friend will be assured to realise that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who criticised his syntax, is a barrister. All students of the English language know that in the Oxford dictionary barrister is placed somewhere between bankruptcy and bastardy.

Mr. Loyden

I did not know the professional status of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, but I can never understand barristers at any time. Lawyers speak a different language and it is not one that anyone generally understands.

Mr. Grocott

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who has had all the advantages of an expensive education and long training. I have been listening to my hon. Friend for a short time, but it is clear to me that he has tremendous expertise on this subject. However, it may help in the wider context to judge the merits of an expensive education that has been received——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the personal exchanges have gone far enough and we should get back to navigation.

Mr. Loyden

I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South if he wishes to make a contribution. The House would be interested to listen to a barrister talk about navigation or anything to do with anything.

I am glad that the Minister is present. His interest in this matter is clearly established by the fact that he is here, at this hour, listening attentively. I hope that he will seek advice from the Secretary of State on the powers that the right hon. Gentleman will have in the event of a problem arising out the development of the Felixstowe dock, which in turn could create navigation problems. How would the Secretary of State empower the Felixstowe authority to put into the pre-conditions the navigational areas of river on which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company development will take place?

Labour Members are dissatisfied with the lack of evidence that the promoters of the Bill have put forward on all those things that I believe are necessary, based on my 28 years of experience working on the River Mersey, having spent nearly all my working life on the water—I do not drink it — and the consequences that I have mentioned. This is a serious matter, not waffle. What contingency plans do the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company or the Secretary of State have if those navigational problems occur?

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend said that the company should have undertaken a feasibility study. It should be paid for not by the ratepayers, who are probably rate capped, but by the company. He also said that the feasibility study may detail the changes that may occur. However, he admitted that the study may not show what may occur. Does it make sense to spend money on a feasibility study if we cannot be sure that it will project what will occur? Should the local authorities incur expenditure without the company having a model first?

Mr. Loyden

The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company would be responsible for the cost. There is no way of determining the consequences of any intrusion into the river on siltation and the forming of banks. Labour Members are concerned whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can tell us the extent to which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has experimented with simulated models or a feasibility study. I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that, at the end of the day, one has to consider that in any study there may be a margin of error that is acceptable.

The navigation of a river is a serious matter. If a river is not navigable, it dies. The draught of vessels is changing dramatically. Vessels now require a draught of 45 or 46 ft to berth in ports. Will the depth of the river be affected? I know that there are limits, but can the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company advise whether those depths will be affected?

Have the necessary steps been taken to ensure that the river remains navigable around Felixstowe and the adjacent ports? That serious question has not been answered. We have seen no evidence. The information should have been provided when the Bill was first promoted. It is a tragedy that at this late hour, long after the Bill came before Parliament, we should be discussing matters that could have been avoided if that information had been given to us earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth did the House much service by drawing our attention to these problems, and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has accepted some of my hon. Friend's arguments because of their strength. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will continue to show that sort of tolerance.

7.30 am

This is not a trivial matter; it is a serious one. It concerns the issue of whether the port and river will remain navigable, without being affected by the intrusion.

Mr. Skinner

The Bill started its parliamentary career in 1984. Is my hon. Friend saying that, in the intervening years, the company has had adequate and admirable chances to get the feasibility study under way?

Secondly, do we have any British dredgers, or will they have to be imported?

Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised that very point. The Minister will be aware of it because I raised it with him. Unfortunately my union did not lay on a champagne do for us tonight. It, of course, treats this matter seriously.

There has been a dramatic decline in the numbers of British-owned and manned dredgers. We now rely almost totally on European dredgers for these ports. The Minister must take that fact into account. In the long term, the Minister must realise that we need a dredging fleet. Twenty-four hours is a lifetime in politics. Anything could happen to take those vessels off to some other part of the world—some ply their trade in north Africa—and we could be left with no dredging fleet.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can give us assurances about the feasibility study and its effects. In that way we can ensure that the Bill will not entail navigational problems for Felixstowe and the environmental catchment area around it.

Mr. Frank Cook

Will my hon. Friend please be cautious? We have already received two undertakings from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on which he has reneged. I ask my hon. Friend not to invite the sort of undertaking that could not be substantiated later.

Mr. Loyden

I can understand the cynical view taken by my hon. Friend because of what has happened. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has taken seriously points that we have made. We want to know from him whether certain things have been done. We should be satisfied if we had an undertaking that the consequences of the development have been taken fully into account.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

There are few hon. Members who have earned and deserve so much respect as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has been in the House for as long as I have and perhaps a little longer. In response to his speech I should like to tell him that when I first arrived here I was immediately put on a private Bill Committee, which went on for nine weeks, to consider the effects on the navigation of the Severn river of a large new steel quay that was to be built in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean), now a Deputy Speaker. I learned a good deal from pilots, from masters, from hydrologists and from people like the hon. Gentleman who were expert in that subject.

Since then I have served for a time as a Transport Minister. During that period I was responsible for ports and harbours, and I had to learn—and enjoyed learning—much about the problems of navigation and dredging of the Humber and the Mersey. I might mention to the hon. Gentleman that I grew up on the banks of the Mersey. My parents had their honeymoon at Wallasey. I frequently crossed the river on the ferry to Birkenhead and to New Brighton before the tunnel was built. I share with the hon. Gentleman a great affection for that river.

No one takes more seriously the problems of navigation, of siltation and of dredging in the port of Felixstowe than the three surrounding port authorities. Harwich is very much involved, because the Harwich bar is at the opening of the river. Felixstowe is concerned because it provides for the large ships and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it has the deep water. Ipswich further up the river is concerned for its type of trade. The pilots in that river understand very well what the hon. Gentleman has been talking about, and so do I.

To answer his specific questions, there is a model which was produced some years ago; it has been updated. What it produced, among other things, was a strong recommendation that a bay on the northern side of the river ought to be filled in, because that would improve the navigation for all three ports. The Bill provides powers for that to be done so that the navigation can be improved. That is a product of the feasibility study or the model which was produced to examine that matter on behalf of all the ports. Of course, who is more concerned about the matter than those who are investing large sums of money and those who have to look after large ships and turn them round in the river? So what the hon. Gentleman has said is taken seriously.

Mr. Grocott

rose——

Sir Eldon Griffiths

No, I shall not give way. I am addressing myself to the hon. Member for Garston who made a serious speech and who is entitled to an answer.

Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am glad to tell him that the amendment which he has moved — I take it with the support of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) — is entirely acceptable to the dock company. If the House is willing, it will be inserted into the Bill.

Mr. Hardy

The House listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) when he informed the House that the Bill's promoters are prepared to accept the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). I do not wish to carp, because the hon. Gentleman has heard me express gratitude in response to his earlier acceptances. Unfortunately, although I in no way blame the hon. Gentleman, the fact remains that other acceptances have not provided the necessary harvest—[Interruption.] Hon. Members can make their speeches after me, if they wish. I am addressing the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I am not criticising him. We accept his statement gracefully, but I hope that he accepts that he cannot speak, and has not spoken, for his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

So that the record is accurate, will my hon. Friend place on record the fact that, in each Division, Ministers have led Conservative Back-Benchers into the Division Lobby in opposition to amendments that had been accepted by the Bill's promoters?

Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is right to ensure that that fact is on the record. Some less experienced Conservative Members, especially the young barristers and chartered accountants, could be forgiven for going into a different Lobby from that occupied by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. More senior Conservative Members and Ministers of the Crown who have deliberately gone into another Division Lobby after the hon. Gentleman accepted amendments have acted reprehensibly — [Interruption.] Hon. Members can make as much row as they like. The fact remains that each time I have voted—one can speak only for oneself—in accordance with my voice, and I shall continue to do so.

I do not question the acceptance of the amendment, but I should like to make some points on behalf of the conservation interest. Over the past hour or two we have heard much less about the birds and the fauna than about dredging. It was right that the House should be informed of the hydrographical and dredging interests that are so relevant to the amendment. My concern relates to the amendment directly. I think that I put the position fairly if I say that, if the harbour silted up, there would be approval for dredging to take place to restore it to its former condition. If mudflats developed because of deposition and that area were not required for the purposes of navigation, there would be no point in carrying out a dredging exercise.

In view of the acceptance of the amendment by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, my speech will not be as long as it would have been. I intended relating this point to a species that has not been mentioned in the debate—the redshank. I am sure that hon. Members who have looked at Britain's flora and fauna will acknowledge that it is an attractive bird. It is one of the species that is declining in number and may well feed in or on the mudflats that are likely to appear. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds accepted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that we can never be certain, no matter what trials and tests are carried out.

Mr. Clay

Will my hon. Friend clarify whether he is talking about the redshank or the spotted redshank? I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's comments closely, and we shall need to know the answer if we are to follow the full power of his argument.

Mr. Hardy

It has been a relatively long night and I had promised some hon. Friends that, to be accurate about a particular species, I would use the Latin name. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had reservations about the use of Latin in this Chamber. The species to which I was referring is a species that is——

7.45 am

Mr. Skinner

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hardy

I will give way in a moment.

The species to which I was referring is sometimes called the common redshank, but is actually the redshank tringa totanus. It is not absolutely in danger or really scarce, but numbers are declining quite perceptibly. That species is readily associated with this area of the east coast. If the appropriate vegetation grew on some appropriate mud flat and if the appropriate crustacea or invertebrates fed on those flats, and if those mud flats emerged as a result of tidal movements, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would agree that there would be no reason for those mud flats to be dredged or cleared, especially if they were not an impediment to navigation.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St.Edmunds will assure us that there will be no unnecessary dredging, not because some of us are repelled by the noise referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) earlier when he described the disgusting noise of the suction dredger, but because we do not believe that natural habitat should be removed unnecessarily.

Before we end the debate on amendment No. 42, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can obtain the relevant assurance from the sponsors and give the House satisfaction on that point. I am sure that there is general approval of my point. I hope that his assurance will be given in the full knowledge that a possible contribution to conservation can be obtained.

Mr. Skinner

I have been looking at these Latin names. Can my hon. Friend tell me what is the common name for tringula nebularia? That bird belongs to the shank family and that is my hon. Friend's first clue. When the dredging operations occur, and they may take place through bucket or suction pump operation, there will be much disturbance to nesting tringula nebularia. With all his knowledge about these birds, can my hon. Friend tell us which among the redshank and tringula nebularia will be affected most, either by bucket or suction pump operation, or by that other form of dredging referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) which I could not interpret? Will my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) shed some light on that?

Mr. Hardy

Tringula nebularia is the greenshank. I have no evidence that the greenshank is a frequent visitor to that area. There is no evidence in the information provided for me of the significance of the greenshank as a breeding species in the locality. However, the greenshank would be disturbed by the noise of this suction dredger, but even Conservative hon. Members who have been remarkably silent and probably have been sleeping during the night might be disturbed by the noise of that dredger. I assure my hon. Friend that the tringula nebularia is not particularly relevant to the amendment or to the site of scientific importance. However, the redshank is a significant local resident. It is migrant and also breeds in the area. Because of the possibility that additional habitat and food supply can be found for the redshank and other significant, internationally and nationally important species in the area, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will be able to amplify his assurance and that his right hon. and hon. Friends will join him in the Lobby on this amendment.

Mr. Grocott

In an effort to be fair to Conservative Members, and as my hon. Friend is an expert on this matter and can tell us about the effects on birds of changes in the estuary, will he concede that while dredging activity might threaten species in the area now, changes in the estuary might encourage birds which do not nest in the area at present to come into that area? I am trying to be fair to both sides of the House. The news would not necessarily always be bad for species. Changes in the estuary could help other species to come in.

Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is entitled to suggest that possibility. He has always been rather more optimistic than many other Opposition Members. I hope that his assessment materialises, but I do not share his view. I think that the possibility of harm is much greater than the possibility of good.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I merely wish to ensure that the hon. Member for Wentworth and I, who are seeking to achieve the same result, understand each other. The hon. Gentleman said that we should see each other in the Lobby to carry the amendment, but there is no need for that. If his hon. Friends do not divide the House, the amendment that he and I want will be accepted.

Mr. Hardy

The hon. Gentleman's interpretation may be accurate; I would not dream of claiming omniscience. However, I think that, if he made some calculations, he would establish that the number of Conservative Members who have gone into the No Lobby greatly exceeds the number of Opposition Members who have gone into it with them.

Dr. Marek

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has said that he will vote against what he and his hon. Friends believe if Opposition Members divide the House. As far as I know, Opposition Members vote according to their beliefs. This is a free vote. I think it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that, if we do not divide, the amendment will be gained, but if we do, it will be lost. That is contorted logic, sadly typical of the Conservative party.

Mr. Hardy

This has been a very sad night. I am not critical of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, because his voice has matched his vote. When Conservative Members have had time to think — and. perhaps, a little sleep—they may regret having voted in a way that showed inconsistency. I accept that some of my hon. Friends have been through the No Lobby, but their number was greatly exceeded by the number of irresponsible Conservative Members in the same Lobby.

Mr. Skinner

I was one of the hon. Members in the opposite Lobby from my hon. Friend on the occassion when he believed that he was going to rescue those poor little birds. I did not join him for the very good reason that I could not put any trust in what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, and he could not guarantee that he would be able to deliver again.

Let us say—following the hon. Gentleman's logic—that he agrees with us on the amendment. Let us suppose that no Opposition Members shout the appropriate words when the Question is put. As a result, we might be outflanked by some hon. Members not abiding by what the hon. Gentleman said. We would think that there was to be no Division. There would then be a Division, and we would have lost everything. We cannot put any trust in what the hon. Gentleman said, in view of experience.

Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to his interpretation. I merely say that I believe the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to have voted honourably and properly, and I deeply regret that so many of his hon. Friends have placed him in a position that may be seen as embarrassing.

I do not wish to continue much longer; I did not intend to make a long contribution. I wanted to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who has been waiting patiently for some time to speak in this debate, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)

Much has been said throughout the night about birds. However, many other species will he affected by the draconian measures that are contained in the Bill. Are my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) able to enlighten the House about the effect on fish of these operations?

Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, although a great deal has been said about birds, very little has been said about other aspects of the British flora and fauna. The international importance of this habitat for certain species of birds has led to its designation as a site of special scientific interest. We seek an assurance that there will be no destruction of a habitat if it does not impede navigation.

Mr. Frank Cook

If my hon. Friend should seek an accommodation with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), would it not be prudent to recall that when there were discrepancies in the Lobbies a few Conservative mavericks voted against the agreement? Apart from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, there was a well-orchestrated and well-disciplined effort by Conservative Members to vote down the agreement.

Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is entitled to reach that conclusion, though not because of malpractice by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover reminded us earlier that the Bill has been before the House for a very long time. In all the Divisions the old school tie has taken the place of the three-line Whip and it has proved to be just as influential as the harshest discipline that can be imposed by the Minister. Because hon. Members should have been able to exercise their judgment, Opposition Members were horrified to find that Conservative Members voted to a man in favour of the destruction of this site of special scientific interest. I hope that maturity, good sense and a wish to assist the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will apply to this amendment. That would alleviate slightly the inconsistency that, sadly, Conservative Members have demonstrated in the Division Lobbies.

Mr. David Mitchell

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has helped the House on more than one occasion with his detailed knowledge of navigation. On this occasion he has helped the House by dealing with navigational safety and with the need for dredging. He expressed anxiety about the certitude of safe navigation in the Felixstowe area.

If carried, amendment No. 42 would empower the Secretary of State to request the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to remove any accumulation of silt resulting from new works that appear to him to impede free navigation in the Harwich harbour, or to cause this work to be carried out. That should reassure the hon. Member for Garston that his anxieties have been properly taken care of.

Restoration of navigation, as proposed in the amendment, seems to be a narrower objective than restoration of the harbour to its former condition. We are perfectly happy to accept amendment No. 42.

8 am

Mr. Tony Lloyd

I have sat here for about 12 hours waiting to speak, but on every amendment procedural motions have been moved to destroy debate.

I should like to draw attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) who has tried to speak in every debate but has not been called. [Interruption.] Tory Members seem to be raising a hubbub; some of them have not been here all night. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) has been here for a considerable time, but even he did slip out on certain occasions. I do not think that he would be in a good position to instruct the House as to what happened in his absence.

We are grateful for the progress that has been made in these amendments. I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not in his extremely brief speech spell out the circumstances in which he would want to use these powers. The amendment gives the Minister additional powers. It would have been to the benefit of the House if he had spelt out the circumstances in which they would be used.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment leaves the power with the Secretary of State for Transport? Some of my hon. Friends were wondering whether there should be joint power between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment. The point of the amendment is to balance the right of navigation with environmental rights. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to give an assurance that, in exercising the power given by the amendment, he will balance the environmental and transport considerations?

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I intended to raise. We have sat through many hours of debate, on the rare occasions that we heard from the Government Front Bench it has been from the Department of Transport, when it would have been of benefit if Ministers from the Department of Environment made themselves available. Possibly in these circumstances we should have heard from a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I appreciate that it may have found itself in a difficult position had it chosen to speak.

We heard at length from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, who with his experience of river systems was able to enlighten the House. I recall some years ago when I was a student that I took a course in fluid mechanics. I confess to the House that I understood little of it then and I understand even less now. However, I appreciate how difficult it is to make predictions about the movements of fluid and how much more unpredictable it is when those fluids come into collision with solid bodies. The ability to make long-term predictions about movement defies even those who are expert in those matters.

Mr. Grocott

Will my hon. Friend address his remarks to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) about a feasibility study? I came here with an open mind—I did not hear the previous debates—but I was unconvinced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who talked about a plan being considered, and tried to suggest that it was a suitable way of assessing whether changes in water movements were suitable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston talked about a full-scale feasibility study. It seems to be quite inappropriate to talk simply in terms of a model. A model could be a cheapjack way of assessing problems. We should consider whether a feasibility study or a model is sufficient.

Mr. Lloyd

I am not sure whether the charge of cheapjack can be levelled against an organisation that is prepared to spend a great deal of money entertaining Conservative Members to encourage them to stay here all night to vote. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) raises an important point. One of the criticisms that Opposition Members level at the promoters of the Bill is that they simply failed to make the information available to those of us who have taken a serious interest in the Bill for many years. Even less so have they made information available to those such as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, who, because he was temporarily absent from the House for some years, was unable to follow the Bill's progress in the last Parliament. For those reasons, even at the end of the Bill's stages through the House, we find that we do not know what reliability we can place on the company's feasibility study into the river system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Garston, who is a man of great experience, as has been conceded by all hon. Members, has had great compliments paid to him by the promoters of the Bill. From his long experience, he expressed the strong view that, without such a feasibility study, it would not be reasonable or responsible for the House to look at the future of the river system, particularly the navigation system, and have any confidence or certainty about what it would produce.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out the need to take environmental issues into account. Quite clearly, one of the major thrusts of the debate over the past hours has been the importance of the river ecosystem that has developed over many centuries. Quite clearly, changes will take place when the harbour is built. At the time of such changes, my hon. Friends——

Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members to be asleep? It is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker

It may well be that they are better able to concentrate with their eyes closed.

Mr. Lloyd

Even asleep, my hon. Friends make a bigger contribution than the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) does, with all his faculties seemingly intact. Nevertheless, I welcome him to the debate. That may have been his first or second intervention. It certainly was not the best contribution that has been made over the course of these long hours.

My hon. Friends have suggested that the changes that will be induced by the harbour system could produce results of all kinds. I am grateful to the expert in fluid mechanics who has tried to explain to me the intricacies of the manner in which the river will work. I am genuinely grateful for that. He did it with considerably more gusto than ability. Nevertheless, I am grateful for what little help I ever get from Conservative Members.

I was trying to make a simple point. All hon. Members recognise that the river system will change. Some of my hon. Friends suggested that it will change for the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was of the view that it would be rather for the worse. I share his view for the simple reason that the mud flats as they exist in the Felixstowe area are the product of many centuries of development. The precise balance of the system has developed over many a long year. Even the development of the new mud flats will not immediately mean benefits for crustacea, oyster beds or the great variety of life that presently exists. Clearly, the mud flats will be incapable of sustaining the present level of life on the beds. That means that the migrant and domestic bird populations will no longer have their present feeding grounds. It is inevitable that the environment and the bird population will suffer.

For all those reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the Minister should take into account environmental factors. I think that the hon. Gentleman is indicating that he will take them into account. However, it would greatly benefit the House if he would make it clear that he will consult his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to ensure that there is an agreed strategy, rather than a strategy led by the Department of Transport alone. The Minister is nodding and seems to be making that clear. The House will welcome that undertaking and expect him to keep it.

Mr. Loyden

I am guilty of omitting one point. There are two types of dredging — dredging for navigational purposes and commercial dredging, in which aggregates are dredged by private companies. Most of the environmental problems on the Mersey arose as a result of commercial dredging for aggregates for the building industry. Will my hon. Friend pursue that point and seek assurances that commercial dredging will be controlled, as well as navigational dredging?

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, with the knowledge and experience that his background has afforded him. I hope that the Minister will respond to it in the same gracious manner in which he made it clear that he intends to take the environment into account in his deliberations. Will he take into account my hon. Friend's important point about the commercial exploitation of the river system?

Mr. Skinner

rose——

Mr. Lloyd

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will correct me if I have failed to understand.

Mr. Skinner

The Department of Transport may decide to dredge the river for environmental reasons and may assure the House that the dredging is for that purpose alone. But someone who is in for making a few extra pounds, may come along and say, "Look, I've got a better scheme than that. Never mind about dredging the river system for purely environmental reasons. I've got a lorry and I've got a firm outside. I can dredge it and make some money by getting the sand and aggregates. I can make a big fat killing." If that happens, environmental reasons go by the board. The river system has been dredged but those dredging it have been motivated by the desire to make money. The net result is that the environment has not been protected but the pocket has been lined. In his discussions with the Minister, my hon. Friend should make sure that he establishes the kind of dredging that is to take place. I shall not vote with my hon. Friend if I believe that there is half a chance that there will be commercial dredging rather than dredging for environmental reasons. Therefore, notwithstanding what the Minister has said, there could be a Division.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend raises a serious point. I fear that, during the long hours of the debate, some cynicism has grown up among my hon. Friends who normally suffer from no such feelings about Conservative Members. Were it not for the long night I would find it almost hard to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is suggesting that a company such as P and O might put profit before other matters. Perhaps my hon. Friends feel that they have been betrayed during our proceedings, and their cynicism may not be totally unjustified.

Mr. Skinner

Come on: let's grow up. We know the score. P and O will come along and shoot all the little birds and put them on the breakfast tables of its liners the following morning while the commercial dredgers come in and pick up the sand and aggregates to make some more money. I do not intend to go along with that.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend obviously touches on matters of great concern to the House. For Conservative Members who have not been with us during the course of the night I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has been raising those issues for some hours now. He has expressed concern for the fate of the ringed plover. He has suggested that P and O may see the ringed plover as simply open to commercial exploitation, which will result in them being served up by the stewards on the various liners and that P and O's only interest in the whole exercise is one of profit. We have not heard a word from Conservative Members that could give any comfort to those of us who are trying to obtain satisfaction on that. Therefore, my hon. Friend does not raise those matters in a totally cynical way.

8.15 am

Mr. Morley

When dredging takes place, it is often expensive to move the spoil to deep water for disposal and, as we all know, competitive tendering can attract some undesirable people into the market who just want to cut corners in order to maximise profits. Such people may be tempted not to carry the spoil out to deep water but to dump it as close to the workplace as possible and cut corners, just as many private contractors have cut corners in the past. If dredging is to take place at Felixstowe, will my hon. Friend seek assurances on that from the Minister?

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend also seems to suffer from the growing cynicism among Labour Members that all may not be well with the private sector, or even with the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport is responsible for highway design on some of the roads under the control of the county councils. It was the Department of Transport which decided to institute the process of tendering and which refused, in certain circumstances, to allow the county council to tender for contracts above a certain size, because it felt that the contract would be carried out more reliably by the private sector. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) knows that we can trust local authorities to do the job. With that sort of background, my hon. Friend's concerns may prove to be not totally unfounded. What assurances can we be given that, in exercising responsibility for transport and. for maintenance and navigation, he will guarantee that a cheap and nasty job is not done in the interests of cutting a few corners and saving a few bob?

Mr. Skinner

One of the dredging companies, using the old bucket system, dredging for commercial reasons in order to make a quick buck, could deliberately move the aggregates, the sand and so on and leave it deposited close to where it removed it. That company could have a friend down the road with the suction pump system. The first company is saying "Everything's all right, Jack. I'm going to make some money out of this. I'm not going to shift the spoil very far." Along comes the bloke with the suction pump who will have to move the spoil for a second time. It will cost a small fortune and there will be two firms, one with the bucket dredger and the other with a suction pump dredger, making money out of the job.

Mr. Lloyd

I see that the Minister for Public Transport has been so struck by the force of the argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he has had to quit the Chamber and leave others to answer the questions. I hope that the Minister now occupying the Front Bench is able to give some reassurances, which his hon. Friend failed to give the House during the moments that he occupied the Dispatch Box. There is a belief that corners will be cut. There is a belief that in cutting those corners the private sector will look after itself and that the public interest and wider environmental interests — my lion. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn attention to the interests of the mammal and bird life in the area, particularly the ringed plover — will not be protected. We have had no assurances from the Government that those interests will be taken into consideration.

Mr. McCartney

Will my hon. Friend give way? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is awake!"] At least I have been here throughout the night, unlike other hon. Members.

For a number of years I have worked and lived in Dover, and during that time a new terminal was constructed on the western arm of the dock. To construct that terminal, thousands of tonnes of cubic sand were removed from the Goodwin sands. There was miscalculation by the construction company. The sand was never taken back to Goodwin sands; it was left adjacent to the construction site. There is a need to look at this matter, because companies do make miscalculations and do not replace what they have taken out.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which is of such concern to hon. Members opposite that one or two of them have woken up. First, he is right to draw attention to Goodwin sands. Secondly, he reminds me of dredging by the Department of Transport some years ago in my area when the Department was sponsoring the M63 motorway which was built to the south of Manchester. At that time, an artificial dredging pump was created. Rumour has always had it — I do not know whether this is true, but it has never been denied—that in dredging the pond, those undertaking the work got the dimensions wrong. Instead of having it so many yards long and so many deep, the figures were reversed, so we now have the deepest but smallest dredging pond in the United Kingdom. If that can happen when dredging for motorways, I am sure that it is more likely to happen when dredging, with all the imprecision which my hon. Friend the Member for Garston has already explained is inherent in dredging on the sea front.

In order to make some progress, and as it seems to be quiet in the Chamber, the issues before the House are fairly simple. We have made some progress; it has been recognised that there is a wider interest than navigation needs. The Minister has stated that they will be taken into account, as will environmental interests. I would be more impressed if the Bill had something specific for the promoters — [Interruption.] I am told that our amendment gives power to the Secretary of State for Transport. This is not my amendment; it is tabled in the name of some of my hon. Friends. I say on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition that we are grateful that my hon. Friends have tabled those amendments to improve this Bill. It would be unreasonable to expect hon. Gentlemen — amateurs assisted by various under-funded groups such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—to have the competence, draftsmanship and design skills of those who pay a small fortune to promote these Bills, the highly paid agents who do regular work.

My hon. Friends have achieved the signal success of getting the promoters to accept so many amendments. I say to Conservative Members, particularly the sponsor of the Bill, that it is an odd state of affairs that, although these things have been discussed not just over the last few hours—we are coming into the fourth year of this Bill's progress through Parliament — at this late stage we are beginning to recognise, in the amendments which have been accepted, that the environment is important.

Mr. Grocott

In summing up, will my hon. Friend help those of us who have not had the benefit of being here during the last hours while all this has been going on? I am concerned that there have been so many unanswered questions, despite the length of the deliberations. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend would tell us, from his recollection—perhaps my hon. Friends will intervene to help here—what value we can place on assurances given by the Bill's promoters. We are told to accept assurances on this amendment on the grounds that a model has been constructed. We must have some evidence about the credibility of their assurances. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has more expertise than anyone, and he knows more about the costs of feasibility studies than can be considered in glib answers by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). Those of us who are new to debates on this Bill would be helped to know how many of the assurances given by the promoters have been fulfilled.

Mr. Lloyd

As ever, my hon. Friend has been most helpful and has drawn the attention of the House to an important issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially those who are fairly new, have begun to discover the credibility gap. Many of us discovered it a few hours ago, when we were led to believe that the promoters could deliver the vote — especially since it was obvious before then that the vote was being delivered on behalf of the Conservative party. Yet the promoters could not deliver their promises during the vote. We do not know what reliance we can place on comments made by the promoters, whether directly in the House or about the long-term future of the Bill.

I must disappoint my hon. Friend and admit my ignorance. I do not know how many times the promoters of the Bill have lived up to their promises. Perhaps my hon. Friends can help me, especially those who have a more intimate knowledge of the Bill than I have.

Mr. Grocott

Does my hon. Friend further agree that hon. Members who are in my position—there are many in the Conservative party—would be ill-advised to be anything other than deeply sceptical about the Bill? From what I have heard so far, there seem to be large question marks over whether the promoters will live up to the assurances that have been given. At the very least, we can assume that there will be abstentions from all Conservative Members who were not here for previous debates on the Bill.

Mr. Lloyd

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend attributes rational behaviour to Conservative Members, but rationality goes out of the window when the Government Whips are involved. We are told that it is not a whipped Bill, that this is private legislation, but the Chief Whip has spent many a happy hour with us during the night. He has played an important part in delivering the promoters' required votes on closure. There is no hope of rational behaviour among Conservative Members, who know little. The fact that Conservative Members are ignorant has not stopped them voting in the past, so there is no reason to assume that they will do so now.

Mr. Grocott

rose——

Mr. Skinner

rose——

Mr. Lloyd

For the sake of variety, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner

In that case, why did my hon. Friend advise the House to accept the word of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds that he would accept the amendment? I assume that my hon. Friend is leading up to the point of saying, "We will give it another ride." On the basis of what he said at 4 or 5 o'clock this morning, I believe that we should examine what happened in practice. Never mind the promises, the theory or the rationality : the fact is that they did not deliver between 4 and 5 o'clock this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who was probably in bed, obviously did not know what happened. The fact is that the promoters made a promise, but then did not deliver. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford will understand that some of us are not prepared to go down that road again. What advice will my hon. Friend give us? Has he made his mind up? Will he accept the word of the promoters this time? Will he give them a second chance?

8.30 am

Mr. Lloyd

I may well have given my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover certain advice on previous votes, but because of the procedural motions put forward by Conservative Members, I never had the chance to persuade my hon. Friends one way or the other. That is something that I bitterly regret. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, I believe that he should be given the opportunity to explain his absence during the course of the debate.

Mr. Grocott

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. At the beginning of the debate, before my short period of absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I did point out that politics is something of an endurance test and that Conservative Members had the huge advantage of constant hospitality provided to sustain them.

Hon. Members

No, not true.

Mr. David Shaw

rose——

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend should give way to the bald eagle.

Mr. Shaw

He should, because I am a jolly nice chap —[Interruption.]

Mr. Grocott

We discussed the matter of hospitality earlier on in our debate. I believe that that hospitality was beneficial to those Conservative Members who took advantage of it. We still do not know what that hospitality consisted of. I am wondering——

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give us advice on what is a statement, what is an intervention and what is a speech? We seem to be having constant statements and speeches from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).

Mr. Speaker

I sense that the House wishes to get on with this. I think that in his intervention the hon. Member for The Wrekin should be questioning his Front Bench spokesman and not making a speech across the Chamber.

Mr. Grocott

I wonder whether the hospitality team would now he serving breakfast? That gives Conservative Members a further advantage when considering the Bill. Those Conservative Members who, in common with myself, have not unfortunately heard the previous four years of discussion on the Bill might be sustained, helped and even persuaded about how to vote. I would be especially attracted by breakfast at the moment, but I am unable to leave in case I am criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

Obviously the night's events have been long, and it is only fair that I place it on record —Conservative Members would expect me to be that charitable to them—that all the entertainment facilities were called off literally at the last minute last night. Conservative Members were taken for a ride. They were brought here under the pretence that they would be entertained all night with films, drink and all kinds of things only to find that they have had to pay for their own all night.

Mr. John Garrett

I may be able to help my hon. Friend. I should confess that at about 9 o'clock last night I went into the Jubilee Room to find it empty and rocking slightly, rather like the Marie Celeste, having been evacuated, I imagine by a number of Conservative Members. All that I could detect of their presence was some 25 glasses containing the dregs of a rather unpretentious Bulgarian chardonnay.

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentlemen in question have my sympathy on the grounds that they had to pay for themselves. I assume that they had to pay as no hospitality was provided. That confirms my view that they were taken for a ride by the organisers of the non-existent thrash.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)

I can inform my h on. Friend that I have a copy of the letter that was sent to hon. Members on House of Commons headed paper and in House of Commons envelopes. I remind my hon. Friend that the letter stated : Refreshments will be served from 10.30 pm. You are most cordially invited to a late night champagne supper party at the St. James Court Hotel. Wives are most welcome too. There will be film shows from midnight onwards.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This has already been mentioned many times. When I was in the Chair earlier, I was given to understand that the party had been cancelled. so I do not think that there is much point in drawing attention to it now.

Mr. Meale

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the films were educational and whether Conservative Members were to be shown films on dredging or the effects of the Bill on bird life?

Mr. Lloyd

It is clear that we have come to that time in the morning when the House would like to make progress. However, before I sit down. I should like to respond to the challenge thrown at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who asked me whether I was going to be gullible and be led once again down the potential primrose path by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and whether I would be advising my hon. Friends to follow suit. I do not think that I can follow that second course. I have to tell my hon. Friends that they will have to use their own discretion. They are all people of judgment and integrity. Because I was brought up in the way that I was—to believe in charity—because: I have implicit faith in the persuasive powers of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and because I know how he has been betrayed by his hon. Friends, I cannot believe that he would fall into that same trap again. I am prepared to test that once more. Some of my hon. Friends may want to follow suit, but I can give no guarantees to the House about what may happen.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend has responded admirably. It is a free vote. Unlike Conservative Members, Labour Members will vote according to their conscience. The only reason that I asked my hon. Friend to comment was so that I could evaluate what he was prepared to do. not for him to give instructions to any other hon. Member. He has now explained that he will give the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds another run for his money. I cannot go down that road. It is a free vote and, because we have had to deal with matters such as this throughout the night, some Labour Members will be voting one way and some another way. Some of us believe that we cannot trust the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He led us down the wrong path last time.

Mr. Lloyd

I have two final points. First, the House will now vote and we will see whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right or whether I am right. Secondly, the debate may still be young. I believe that many of my hon. Friends still want to speak. It would be wrong of Conservative Members if they did not listen and consider what my hon. Friends have to say, as I am sure they will. They have not been charitable so far, but I am sure that they will want the debate to continue. At the end of the debate, the House may unite on the amendments. It is for my hon. Friends who want to speak so to persuade Conservative Members.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire) (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Division has been going on for a long time. Do you judge that it is time that the House knew the result of the vote? This has happened repeatedly throughout the night.

Mr. Speaker

I have already asked for inquiries to be made about what is happening in the Division Lobby. I am waiting to hear.

Later—

Mr. Speaker

I request that the Serjeant at Arms should find out what is happening in the Lobbies.

The House having divided: Ayes 164, Noes 32.

Division No. 61]	[8.38 am
AYES
Adley, Robert	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Aitken, Jonathan	Curry, David
Alexander, Richard	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Allason, Rupert	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Arbuthnot, James	Day, Stephen
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Devlin, Tim
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Dicks, Terry
Ashby, David	Dorrell, Stephen
Ashdown, Paddy	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Aspinwall, Jack	Durant, Tony
Atkinson, David	Emery, Sir Peter
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Fallon, Michael
Baldry, Tony	Farr, Sir John
Batiste, Spencer	Favell, Tony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bevan, David Gilroy	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Boswell, Tim	Forth, Eric
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Franks, Cecil
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gale, Roger
Brazier, Julian	Gardiner, George
Browne, John (Winchester)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Gill, Christopher
Burns, Simon	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Butler, Chris	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Gow, Ian
Carrington, Matthew	Gower, Sir Raymond
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Chapman, Sydney	Greenway, John (Rydale)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Cope, John	Hampson, Dr Keith
Cran, James	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David	Pawsey, James
Hayes, Jerry	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hayward, Robert	Redwood, John
Hind, Kenneth	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Riddick, Graham
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Rowe, Andrew
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Ryder, Richard
Irvine, Michael	Sayeed, Jonathan
Jackson, Robert	Scott, Nicholas
Janman, Timothy	Shaw, David (Dover)
Jessel, Toby	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Key, Robert	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Knapman, Roger	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Knox, David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lang, Ian	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Stern, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Stevens, Lewis
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Lightbown, David	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Summerson, Hugo
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Lord, Michael	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Macfarlane, Neil	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
MacGregor, John	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Thorne, Neil
Maclean, David	Thornton, Malcolm
Major, Rt Hon John	Thurnham, Peter
Malins, Humfrey	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mans, Keith	Tracey, Richard
Maples, John	Tredinnick, David
Marland, Paul	Viggers, Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Ward, John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Wheeler, John
Monro, Sir Hector	Whitney, Ray
Moore, Rt Hon John	Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Wiggin, Jerry
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)	Wilshire, David
Moss, Malcolm	Wood, Timothy
Moynihan, Hon C.	Yeo, Tim
Neale, Gerrard
Neubert, Michael	Tellers for the Ayes:
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)	Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.
Paice, James

NOES
Allen, Graham	Loyden, Eddie
Battle, John	McCartney, Ian
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	McNamara, Kevin
Clay, Bob	Marek, Dr John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Martlew, Eric
Dalyell, Tarn	Maxton, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Morley, Elliott
Dixon, Don	O'Neill, Martin
Dobson, Frank	Skinner, Dennis
Duffy, A. E. P.	Steinberg, Gerald
Foster, Derek	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Wilson, Brian
Grocott, Bruce
Hardy, Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Harry Barnes.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division ; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Mr. Speaker

We now come to amendment No. 21.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Division has proved to be abortive. In conversation with me, a few moments ago, the promoter of the Bill said that in his opinion a vote of no in the Division was to do the work of P and O. He may be right or he may be wrong, but as the promoter of the Bill he would at least be entitled to state certain views.

Although this may be a difficult matter for you to rule on, Mr. Speaker, as the Division was aborted, it has come to my attention that the Prime Minister went into the no Lobby some moments ago to cast her vote for—in the opinion of the promoter of the Bill the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds — P and O. Can you advise the House whether that is in order?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House makes its decision by Division. If there are no Tellers for the Ayes, I am bound to declare that the Noes have it.

9 am

Mr. Lloyd

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question was in no way intended to reflect on your decision to call off the Division. I accept that, without Tellers, you are not in a position to allow it to go ahead. I was merely seeking clarification.

If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is right, and the P and O vote was a no vote, is there any significance in the fact that the Prime Minister chose to vote no for P and O?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can have no knowledge of why Members of the House, whether they are right hon. Members or Back-Benchers, vote aye or no, provided that their feet follow their voices.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there were four Tellers for the Opposition and none for the Conservatives. Over the years, certainly since I have been an hon. Member, it has been customary to advise new hon. Members acting as Tellers, who may not have the necessary experience on where they should sit and what they should call. I cannot understand why on this occasion the Tellers were not given such advice.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I try to be as helpful as I can to new hon. Members, and both the new hon. Members telling for the Noes will be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I instructed them on exactly what they should do.

Mr. Forth

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not reasonable to assume that, as we have had a good many Divisions over many hours, all hon. Members attending the debate and following the progress who are prepared to act as Tellers know what they are doing? If that is not the case, their colleagues can advise them. To suggest that, at this stage in the proceedings, hon. Members do not know how to act as Tellers is patently absurd.

Mr. Speaker

Order. What has occurred has occurred, and we cannot undo it. I do not think that there is any profit in continuing.

Mr. Dobson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last night—if I may describe it thus—we asked you whether you had been informed by the Government whether they intended to make a statement on the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian. [Interruption.] Despite the obnoxious moaning of Conservative Members, you, in discharge of your duties as protector of the House, gave it as your opinion that such important matters should be reported to the House.

I wondered whether you had yet heard from the Government, or from the Leader of the House in particular, whether such a statement would be made. We understand that the Secretary of State for trade and Industry, Lord Young, is now announcing not only the outcome of the deliberations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but the Government's response to them. We think it only right and proper that, as Lord Young cannot come here, because he is a Stranger — apparently he is a stranger to the Prime Minister nowadays — the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should be present to explain exactly what is going on, and to report to the House.

The matter is particularly important because, although there are a good many Tory landowners from Scotland in the House of Lords, there is no elected member of the House of Lords from Scotland. The future of British Caledonian, the jobs that go with it and British Caledonian's connections with Scotland are very important to my hon. Friends from Scotland. It is not being suggested, however, that the Government will make a statement today.

Mr. Speaker

The House knows that it is for the Government to decide whether to make a statement. Normally I am told at 12 o'clock. The Annunciator then shows that a statement is to be made immediately after Question Time.

Mr. Forth

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you recall any previous occasion when such a decision has been made the subject of a statement in this House? You know, as the House knows, that because Tuesday's business is not yet completed it is still Tuesday in the House. Is it not, therefore, illogical and absurd for something that is happening outside the House on Wednesday to be dealt with by the House on Tuesday?

Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has raised an interesting puzzle, but it is legitimate to seek your guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right to point to the difference between this case and many others. While the House is sitting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is giving information outside the House to a press conference. That information ought properly to be given first to this House. We should like you to look at the precedents. It is on that point that we seek your guidance.

There can be little doubt that the Secretary of State is being required to exercise his judgment on an important issue. It affects both competition policy and airline policy. Not least, it affects about 25,000 jobs. We understand the Secretary of State's problems, and we regret the fact that he cannot come to this House and make a statement. However, he has deputies—for example, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If he is still busy pulling Britain out of all further European space research, the Secretary of State could send another Department of Trade and Industry Minister. If a decision of such magnitude is being announced to others while the House is sitting, it is right that a Minister should first announce that decision to the House. To do otherwise is to treat the House with contempt.

During the last few minutes we have ascertained that even now we cannot obtain from the Library a copy of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report, or any indication of what the Secretary of State is about to say. That places the House in a uniquely disadvantaged position in relation to the whole of the press corps and all the parties to the decision. To add insult to injury, I understand that one of the parties that is most affected by the decision — British Airways — is to hold a press conference at 11 o'clock this morning. It will then be able to comment to the press at large on the Secretary of State's decision, before the House has been formally informed of that decision. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to defend the rights of the House.

Mr. Speaker

It is not for the Chair to dictate whether a statement should be made. I repeat what I said earlier. If there were to be a statement it would normally be made after Question Time today, and by noon I should have been informed that a statement was to be made. At that time I shall consider any other applications that may be made for information on this subject.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not expect that I should speak in this debate, but when I was lying cosily in bed this morning at about 7 am the "Today" programme came on the radio and I heard that a statement would be made today about the British Caledonian-British Airways merger. I assumed that the report referred to a statement being made in the House. I hurriedly dressed, washed and came to the House to hear the statement, like many other Labour Members. As I listened to the report, I realised that the statement would not be made to the House but to a press conference at some point in the morning. I felt it incumbent on me to come to the House to raise points of order should the House be sitting. [Interruption.] I had a lovely night's sleep and I would recommend it to Tory Members, some of whom are already taking my advice.

I came to the House to ask on a point of order that the Leader of the House—who is now present—should say why a statement cannot be made to the House on the merger before it is made public outside. Mr. Brian Redhead on the "Today" programme inferred that——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it is not a point of order. He has asked a question of the Leader of the House, which is not a matter for me.

Mr. McNamara

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that it is normal practice for the Government to inform you by noon whether they intend to make a statement. However, we are in an abnormal position. You will recall that there are precedents for the Government to interrupt business to make a statement. It is possible for the Government to inform you and the Officers of the House that, for example, at 10 am the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will come to the House to make a statement on the Government's decision about the proposed British Airways-British Caledonian merger. Is it not within the power of the Government to inform you that that is their intention? As we are still in Tuesday, in terms of the proceedings of the House, it is possible for the Government to interrupt today's business, albeit on Wednesday morning, to make such a statement.

Mr. David Shaw

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always understood that it is your duty, to look after the interests of Back Benchers, particularly those who are prepared to sit through the night and concentrate on Bills that affect their constituents rather than frivolous Back Benchers who were in bed last night and who do not care about the business of the House. Will you therefore return the business of the House to what concerns us today, which is still Tuesday, and allow us to get on with the Bill that affects my constituents and those of many of my hon. Friends?

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall deal with one matter at a time. It is possible for the Government to inform the Speaker that they wish to make a statement, but the normal time to make statements is after Question Time at 3.30 pm or at 11 am on a Friday. The disadvantage in making statements at other times is that hon. Members who would expect to be present for statements may not know about them. There are precedents, of course.

Mr. Allen

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to——

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is perfectly in order.

9.15 am

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, a few days ago, we tried to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House when many negotiations were taking place with regard to the BP sale. At one stage, it was agreed that the Chancellor would come to the House at the normal time. He did not appear. Further representations were made, and there were suggestions that he would appear at 7 o'clock. According to what you have had to say, Mr. Speaker, that would have been an unusual time. Generally speaking, 7 o'clock would be an unusual time for a statement to be made. However, he did not appear at that time; he finally appeared at 10 o'clock.

If it is right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the time to appear at 10 o'clock and explain the position regarding the BP sale, it would seem to me that, when it looks possible that the normal business for Wednesday will not proceed, it is practical for the Minister to come to the House before 2.30 to make a statement on British Caledonian and British Airways. Outside this place, it is an important day. It is 11 November. Some of the idiots on the Government side would say that it is 10 November. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Happily, I was having a conversation and did not hear what was said.

Mr. Skinner

I was speaking generally, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a much-respected Member of the House. If he said anything that was touching upon the honour of an hon. Member or out of order, I am sure that he will wish to withdraw it.

Mr. Skinner

It was a generality, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Generality or not, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a sport and withdraw it.

Mr. Skinner

It was not a matter of honour, it was a matter of intelligence. An hon. Member's intelligence can be questioned. In fact, if you had been here right through the night, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard it referred to several times.

This day, 11 November, is important for many people. On a day such as this, when there is a possibility of a statement being made outside the House by a peer of the realm, the Government should have the decency to get somebody to make a statement in the House before it adjourns.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

I shall call Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On many occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have made it clear that, as a matter of principle, you believe that Ministers should make statements to the House first and statements to the press afterwards. On this occasion, it appears that a Minister—albeit from the other place—deliberately set ut to make a statement to the press early in the day, knowing that, in normal circumstances, it would have been impossible for him or a deputy representing him to come to the House until 3.30. That suggests that he was trying to avoid making a statement in the House until the matter had been thoroughly discussed outside by the press and by the companies concerned, and that he intended to come to the House only after such discussions have taken place.

Judging by your comments, Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that you would see that as a deliberate affront to the House and would want to make some inquiries. It just so happens that the House is still sitting. It is possible for the Government to make amends by stating that, within the next half hour, they will bring a Minister to the House to make a statement. The fundamental question is why a Minister of the Crown deliberately set out to call a press conference at a time when he knew that it would normally be impossible for it immediately to precede or follow a statement to the House. You should be prepared to pursue the matter. If that practice continues, the right of the House to have the first opportunity to question Ministers, before the press or others, will be further eroded.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall deal with the points as they arise. I cannot be expected to divine the motives of Members of either House of Parliament. I have no knowledge of those matters and I have nothing further to add to what I have already said on the question.

Mr. Gould

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that the Secretary of State originally intended to give a press conference at a time when the House was not sitting, which would have rendered it impossible for him to make a statement to the House beforehand. By a happy circumstance, however, the House is sitting and there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State's deputy—it has to be his deputy for reasons that we understand—from making a statement to the House, if not before the press conference, as soon as possible after it.

I fully understand your position, Mr. Speaker. It is not for you to organise the business of the House or to decide when Ministers should make statements. However, the Leader of the House is present. could he not come to the Dispatch Box and tell us at what earliest possible opportunity a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry will come to the House to tell us what has already been broadcast to the press corps and to the nation?

Mr. McLoughlin

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not patently obvious that the Opposition are intent on losing Wednesday's business? Is it not the case that you could not know of any intent to make a statement on Wednesday until 12 o'clock and that requests made before that time fall outside the time limit? Would not the most sensible thing be for the House to get on with the business before it? If we did that, we might have some hope of saving Wednesday's business and, indeed, Scottish Questions. Anyone who looks at Hansard will see the amount of wasted time and false Divisions caused by Opposition Members throughout the night with the result that we are in danger of losing Wednesday's business.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House should get on with the debate. I shall take only one more point of order.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the Government could withdraw the Bill and bring it back another day. In two hours' time I shall be on local radio. My constituents are very up-to-date, keen and astute and they will be following all our business carefully. Is it right that I should have to try to explain to them why the Leader of the House has not come to the Dispatch Box at least to tell us when a statement is to be made? When I tell them all that has happened they will say that the House has been brought into disrepute by a Minister of the Crown by his treatment of the House, of hon. Members and of you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grocott

rose——

Mr. Speaker

I shall call the hon. Gentleman as he has been rising, but this is the last point of order.

Mr. Grocott

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you are not answerable for the Government, and I do not blame you for that. I am sure that you are happy with that situation. This afternoon we sat through a long debate—with you, Sir, in the Chair throughout, as I recall — on the procedures of the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House repeatedly argued that threats to democracy do not occur like flashes of lightning but by a steady erosion of hon. Members' rights. I put it to you that twice within the last fortnight hon. Members have been unable to question Ministers on key issues that are being raised across the nation. We have been misled by the Leader of the House in the past. When he raised it——

Mr. Speaker

Order. If we can get on with this matter it may well be that we shall have Question Time and that all these matters can be resolved. That seems to be the obvious solution to the dilemma in which the House finds itself.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. I am moving the motion because, as I understand it, the Bill has had a long and contentious passage through the night. Clearly it involves a measure of considerable significance that has aroused strong feelings on both sides of the argument. I appreciate that significance and the strong feelings, which have been shown during the past few minutes by the Government Back-Benchers as well as by my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is a strong case for accepting that we have, to use an English metaphor, had a good innings on the Bill and that there is every justification for the House to decide that we should leave the matter and return to it on another day.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. David Shaw

rose——

Mr. Dewar

There is an important matter involving the way in which we conduct the business of the House. I am interested in some measure of consistency. It will not be beyond your memory, Mr. Speaker—it is quite recent history—that since the summer recess we have debated a Bill relating to the finances of the Scottish Development Agency. It was put on at what we thought was an inconvenient time, starting well after 10 o'clock at night and we decided to debate it on the basis that it should have the same sort of consideration as it would have had if it had appeared at 3.30 pm, as happens in the normal course of events.

The Government then took the view—I understand their reasoning — that we should adjourn and report progress because it was not neat or suitable for the House to sit interminably, and that, as it did not concentrate the mind wonderfully on the subtleties of the argument or the merits of the business, we should truncate the debate and meet on a further day. I believe that the Government made that decision at about 2 o'clock in the morning.

I accept, and Conservative Members are entitled to say, that this Bill has had a lengthy parliamentary history. I have been aware of it engaging the attention of the House on and off. However, the fact that it is highly contentious is perhaps an additional reason why we should postpone further consideration and have it at a more normal time of the day. I urge that upon the House, if you, Mr. Speaker, are prepared to accept the motion.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a matter for the House to decide. The Question is, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Mr. Dewar

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say one or two other things.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman may say them now on the motion he has proposed.

Mr. Dewar

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

There is another important reason why the House should adjourn and that is the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the crowded agenda that is scheduled for the coming parliamentary day. — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to put forward reasons why he believes that further consideration should be adjourned.

Mr. Dewar

I refer to the business scheduled for today. If the Government continue their present course of action, that business is clearly at risk.

9.30 am

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan (Birmingham, Yardley)

It is a private Bill.

Mr. Dewar

Whether it is a private Bill or a public Bill, the Chairman of Ways and Means is in a position to produce more time, if that is necessary and is the wish of the House. I suggest that that is the wish of the House, or ought to be the wish of the House. Later today a number of items are scheduled, for example Scottish Question time at 2.30—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—I take the point. I make it clear that it is the business of the House to organise its affairs. It would be an unreasonable proposition that people who feel extremely strongly about the Bill being debated should artificially truncate their opposition and not debate the Bill as they see fit. I say that for hon. Members on both sides, because Conservative Members also have strong feelings. Because the House wishes to debate the Bill, the Government should not relentlessly insist on continuing the debate at the expense of other business, when the business can be easily rearranged to encompass a proper debate of the Felixstowe Bill and to allow the other business of the House to proceed. I would think that I am speaking for the vast majority of Hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. The vast majority of people will not understand why we have to sacrifice important business——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member seeks to make a case as to why further consideration should be adjourned. I ask the House to allow him to do it.

Mr. Dewar

I was trying to explain to Opposition Members that it is sometimes useful to stand back from this place, from the anger, and try to understand what people think of our democratic processes.

Mr. David Shaw

This is democracy!

Mr. Dewar

The hon. Member talks about democracy. It is important that we try to protect both sides of the House. We are being asked to accept that because there are strong feelings for and against the Bill, which will involve lengthy debates, we should either artificially truncate the debate—that is the choice the Government are giving us, which cannot be in the interests of democracy or the proper debate of the Felixstowe Bill — or we shall be invited to lose significant and important business. The fault lies in the fact that we are being invited either to sacrifice important business or artificially to truncate a contentious matter which hon. Gentlemen wish to debate.

Mr. Loyden

Anybody who sat through the long hours of the debate would reject the argument that the Bill is not being taken seriously by both sides. The Bill has been subject to great scrutiny, quite rightly, and I absolutely reject the argument that this has been purely a delaying tactic. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is aware that this has been a serious debate.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Those matters may be canvassed in the debate. This is a debate, and I ask hon. Members to treat it in that spirit.

Mr. Dewar

Many other hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief. As my words may have been lost in the babble coming from Conservative Members, I repeat and make clear my point ; there is a legitimate issue of contention in the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, and the House should allow time for its debate. We should not be blackmailed into the position where hon. Members on both sides of the House must either truncate their arguments or have to sacrifice——

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Harris

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It would not be appropriate to take points of order now. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to have their say in debate.

Mr. Gale

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

If this turns out not to be a point of order, I shall think very badly of it and I shall not forget it.

Mr. Gale

This is a genuine point of order for the Chair to decide. Is it not a gross contempt of the House for a Front-Bench spokesman to try to truncate an important debate on a Back-Bench Bill when that hon. Member has not even attended the debate?

Mr. Speaker

The House will decide whether the Bill should have further consideration. That is what we are engaged upon.

Mr. Gale

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Dewar

What I am saying should appeal to the hon. Gentleman, because I am trying to protect his interests.

Mr. David Shaw

Back-Bench Members should be saying this, not a Front-Bench spokesman. This is an abuse.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who has not been here for very long, that I decide whether there has been an abuse. This is a debate, and I ask the House to treat it in that spirit.

Mr. Dewar

I am taking longer than I thought on this, Mr. Speaker, largely because of the difficult circumstances in which I am trying to make a comparatively simple point.

I am not unsympathetic to the necessity for a proper debate on the Bill. But we should not do it on this long-drawn-out basis—an endurance race to a conclusion—when we could protect hon. Members' interests by adjourning now and returning to it another day. That would also preserve important business, which is significant to many hon. Members, although it seems to attract scant respect among Conservative Members, which I regret.

I remind hon. Members of what they are sacrificing by their perverse wish to continue the debate instead of adjourning it to another day, when there could be more sensible, considered and refreshed discussion. Scottish Question Time is of special interest to me. If we lose it today, we shall not return to the Government's policies in Scotland until Christmas looms.

It would be sensible for the Government to consider carefully whether their determination to continue the debate, despite the sensible advice that has been offered, will redound to their credit. We understand that there will be a statement on housing in Scotland on the publication of the White Paper. There is the British Caledonian-British Airways merger, which is of considerable interest to the House. There will be a debate on transport, which anyone who takes an interest in transport will appreciate is significant. In this instance I do not intend to dwell on why they are important because I think that anyone with half a wit would understand why. We have no wish to sacrifice them.

We are extremely interested in adjourning the debate as that will allow hon. Gentlemen with a particular interest in the Felixstowe issue to come back on another day after a decent night's sleep.

Mr. David Shaw

Why should we? We have been here all night.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) must contain himself.

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)

Is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) aware that Mr. Speaker accepted his motion some minutes ago? If he believes in democracy why does he not allow the House to decide the matter? Is he not contradicting himself by speaking at great length on a matter already decided upon by Mr. Speaker and given that his complaint is that the House is not getting on with the business?

Mr. Dewar

I believe that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) should recognise that it is normal to offer some explanation. That explanation would be considerably briefer if I were not constantly interrupted by shouts and calls from the Conservative Benches. If the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who I understand represents local interests, and who has been especially vocal in the past few minutes, wants to argue about adjourning now and coming back in a calmer atmosphere when matters can be properly considered, he should think about his conduct in the past 15 minutes. That conduct seems to be a remarkably good advertisement for suggesting that we all need time for reflection and time to come back in a rather more rational state of mind.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) not understand the anger that is felt on the Conservative Benches when a Johnny-come-lately comes here, after a night in bed, when we have been discussing this Bill in detail—

Mr. Grocott

This is the first contribution from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Bennett

We have been obstructed by the hon. Gentleman's friends from England and Scotland. We are prepared to carry on with this debate and we are not prepared to sit here and listen to your arrogance [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"!] I apologise, I meant the arrogance of the hon. Member for Garscadden in coming here at this time of the morning, interrupting a debate which has been going on since 8 o'clock last night and speaking to us in this manner.

Mr. Dewar

I always enjoy the rather bouncy contributions of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He is fairly prominent when he is on his feet or present in the Chamber because he cannot keep out of anything. I understand that he has not been exactly prominent during the debates on this Bill, but that is a matter for his conscience.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

In response to the rather synthetic anger on the Conservative Benches, [Interruption.] will my hon. Friend explain to those Benches that, far from waiting since 8 o'clock last night, Scottish Members have been waiting for a month to ask questions.

Hon. Members

Oh!

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is possible that I may be able to give the hon. Member the opportunity to say that in the debate if he wishes.

Mr. Dewar

It is clear to me that there is a great deal of anger in the House. At the end of an all-night sitting tempers get ragged and it is not sensible to conduct our business in this way. I return to the point that it is worth considering the public perception of the House and Parliament and the way that we conduct our business.

Mr. Grocott

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to put the record straight, because the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) misled the House by suggesting that he has been taking part in the debate throughout the night. I have been listening at length to the contributions in the debate and so far I have not heard any serious contributions from Conservative Members, least of all from the hon. Gentleman.

9.45 am

Mr. Dewar

I hope that my hon. Friend will not resent this, but I think that a lucid examination of the activities of the hon. Member for Pembroke is not something that should delay us. However, I leave that for private discussion.

The perception of the House is important to me and, I believe, to every hon. Member. People will simply ask, "Is there not a better and more rational way of conducting our business?" If there is an issue that raises the strength of feeling that has been displayed by the uncharacteristic, I am sure, shouting of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), it seems to me that we have to recognise that there should be a proper and due time for debate, but at a reasonable and civilised hour.

I suggest that it must be right that, having had a long bash at the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, we should adjourn the House and ask those who are in charge of private business to look for another day when the debate can be continued in a calmer atmosphere. That, surely, must be in the interests of the promoters of the Bill and the people who are interested in the future of the Felixstowe dock as presumably there will not be such a fevered atmosphere on another day and we will be able to look at the arguments that are at issue. It must also be clear, if I may say so on behalf of those of us with an interest in the business of the House, that the Government will do no good by forcing on private business in this perverse and prejudiced fashion and, in the process, sacrificing so much business that is worthwhile and of importance not just to my hon. Friends and myself but to every hon. Member.

9.45 am

Sir Eldon Griffiths

With great respect to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and to my hon. Friends, the Bill is not the business of the Government. Therefore, it is for the promoters of the Bill to answer the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that we should now abandon our proceedings. I am bound to say to him that, listening to his speech, it sounded to me as if the Labour party had dug its own grave and had now fallen into it. The plain situation is that the Bill has been before the House for just on four years. It has had no less than 152 hours of debate. It has had the longest Committee stage of any private Bill since the war, and probably this century.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths

I am sorry, but I will not. It has had no less than seven days' consideration and one night's consideration on the Floor of the House. In those circumstances, I think that it is totally unfair to the promoters of the Bill, to the dockers of Felixstowe, to the merchants, to the shippers, to the pilots, and to all concerned with the Bill who have waited four years for the House to deal with it, if the motion of the hon. Member for Garscadden were to be accepted. It surely would be grossly unfair to those who have been looking to this House for a conclusion on the Bill. I am bound to say that the responsibility for the fact that the House has been prevented from reaching a conclusion on the Bill, not only tonight but throughout the months and years and the debates, lies solely with those on the Labour Benches.

Of course, I understand—although I do not think the hon. Member for Garscadden does — that some Opposition Members may well feel exhausted after sitting through the night. For my part, I have never felt so fit and ready to carry through this Bill for as long as it takes to arrive at a conclusion. My right hon. and hon. Friends, including senior Ministers with heavy responsibilities, have turned up regularly, which demonstrates that they, too, are fit and ready to carry the Bill through. So it ill behoves the hon. Member for Garscadden, who will lose his Scottish questions and his debate about BCal, to come here and squeal—for that is exactly what he has done. When it comes to a vote, I believe the House will reject his motion.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that this was private business. However, some of us saw the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister going into the Division Lobby this morning. So are we sure that this is private business? Usually, Prime Ministers of the day do not go into the Lobby to vote on private business.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not for the Chair to follow the footsteps of any right hon. or hon. Member through the precincts of the House.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

If the Conservative hon. Members who have stirred up this synthetic indignation were really interested in the issues raised here, they would want to deal with them in a more sensible way. If, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, this is private business, why are Government Whips scuttling around like little mice among the Conservative Back Benches trying to orchestrate this verbal hooliganism? If we are really dealing with jobs and dockers and all the other matters connected with Felixstowe, why are we not dealing with them in a far more practical way?

Perhaps the proceedings are about something else altogether. Those of us who were here in the early hours of the morning were conscious that a deliberate exercise was afoot. It had, and has, little or nothing to do with the port of Felixstowe, and has everything to do with trying to ensure that the Government's humiliation in Scotland—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Robertson

It is only a matter of months since the Conservative party in Scotland was whittled down to a meagre 10 Members of Parliament out of 72. I suppose, therefore, that it is scarcely surprising that the Government want to spare themselves the further humiliation that stems from Scottish Question Time once a month. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, it was clear from the fact that even the Prime Minister participated in this business that it was an exercise designed to rob the Scottish people of the brief period of accountability when Ministers come before the elected representatives of the people.

In the last Session of Parliament the Government brought to the House another important piece of legislation, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. That was the legislation that enacted the Single European Act that the Government were committed to implementing by the discussions that took place in the European Community. The Single European Act and the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 are of vast constitutional importance, and the Opposition wanted adequate time to debate issues that affect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom within the European Community. We said that we were willing to go through the night to allow adequate time to debate the legislation.

What was the response of the Government and the party of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds who just now made his speech and promptly departed from the Chamber? The Conservative Government's response was not to say that it was a matter of massive constitutional importance that demanded the attention and the time of the House. Their response was to bring a guillotine motion to the Dispatch Box and to get rid of that Bill, with all its ramifications and important consequences for Britain. They disposed of it in one afternoon and did not permit a single hour of debate into the night. That is where the double standards come in.

I am sure that Conservative Members are exhausted, but if they expect to be taken seriously they must tell the people that an element of consistency is involved. All their noise and synthetic anger counts for absolutely nothing to a populace that recognises that a device is being played here that will drive this sitting right through the morning specifically to prevent—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Robertson

That device is specifically to prevent the Scottish people from having an opportunity to cross-examine Ministers who are too frightened and timid to come to the Dispatch Box and justify their policies in Scotland.

Mr. Gale

rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I have called the hon. Gentleman to order several times and must ask him to resume his seat. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Robertson

I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members do themselves and the House no good in the eyes of the public by these orchestrated displays. It is eminently possible to have a debate that involves a clash of opinions without the hooliganism that they manifest. It persuades nobody outside.

Mr. Gale

Before the hon. Gentleman accuses us of delaying business, would he care to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) how long his speech lasted? Will he reflect on the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke for 40 minutes from the Opposition Front Bench and delayed our Bill still further?

Mr. Robertson

We must come to a conclusion as quickly as possible on this motion. If Conservative Members would stop interrupting, shouting and catcalling in a juvenile, public school way, I could terminate my speech at an early opportunity.

This is an important debate. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds did not even have the courtesy to stay for the speech that followed his, but I am willing to concede to him that this is an important issue that requires debate. However, when it is used simply as a device to protect Scottish Office Ministers from those who were elected to represent the people of Scotland, it is a wholly illegitimate use of parliamentary time and does no service to the House.

I commend the motion to the House because we should return to this Bill, as we return to so many others, at a proper time, in a proper place, with proper opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House to participate. It is essential—this is the right of the people of Scotland—to ensure that we are not denied our one opportunity to cross-examine Scottish Office Ministers because of a device invented, orchestrated and masterminded by the Government Whips' Office.

10 am

Mr. McLoughlin

We should review the events of the past 13 or 14 hours before we are lectured by the Opposition about us somehow wanting to talk out Wednesday's business—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member needs to be heard.

Mr. McLoughlin

I am trying to trace the evening's events. Since we moved on to the Bill, there have been some 20 Divisions, one of which was called on a motion moved by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that strangers do withdraw. Only two hon. Members voted in favour of the motion. If hon. Members care to check the Official Report they will find that points of order were raised during several Divisions about the time that it was taking various hon. Members to pass through the Division Lobbies. At one time, some 32 hon. Members passed through one Lobby, but the other, with more than 100 hon. Members, was cleared well in advance. That wasting of time and eating into the debate must be put on the record.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is leaving the Chamber. Obviously, he arrived here this morning and saw what his Back Benchers had been doing. He is embarrassed by that and, to give him his due, extremely anxious to have Scottish questions. But it is nonsense to blame Conservative Members for preventing Scottish questions. People outside this place, including those in Scotland, should look at Hansard and see the contributions made during the evening by the Opposition and some of the matters which we have been discussing. It has been a total waste of Conservative Members' time.

Mr. Battle

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been here listening to the debate all night. I have been struck by the fact that it took seven days and a long night of debate before three amendments were conceded by Conservative Members, because of the arguments put tonight. That is the reason for supporting our case.

Mr. McLoughlin

I have heard of home goals. Why did the Opposition force Divisions on amendments that had been conceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and go on to waste more time?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin

I have given way enough. Other hon. Members want to speak.

It is obvious that the hon. Member for Garscadden has seen the shambles here and the shambles of press reports in Scotland during the past few months. He has now gone because he does not care. I do not know where he has gone.

Many Conservative Members are tired, but we cannot accept the lecturing from Opposition Members who have not been present in the Chamber all night. It is unacceptable for those Opposition Members to tell us that we should sacrifice this Bill in which we passionately believe and which we believe should be passed by the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, the legislation has been around the Chamber for quite long enough.

Mr. Forth

I can help my hon. Friend and the House by stating that I have just been told that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) left the Chamber to talk to the press. The hon. Gentleman is not showing the House the courtesy of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin).

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was very interested to hear those comments from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). He complained about the Opposition Front Bench spokesman talking to the press, but this morning on "Good Morning Scotland", which I managed to hear in London, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said how important it was that Scottish questions should take place because he wanted his English colleagues to take part and hear what was going on. However, he is now saying something entirely different. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to have two views? Is an hon. Member allowed to have two views, one for the House of Commons and another for consumption in Scotland?

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am not the keeper of hon. Members' consciences.

Mr. McLoughlin

rose——

Mr. Allen

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) following a precedent in the House in that he speaks in the House before he speaks to the press, unlike Lord Young who this morning is giving a statement on a major merger between British Caledonian and——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. We have been all through that. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McLoughlin

I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly, the Official Report will show that what has happened over the past 12 hours was not the fault of Conservative Members. I hope that the people in Scotland will get the chance to read the Official Report.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is doing the House a considerable favour. I understand that he is presently appearing on television and that gives the House a unique opportunity to switch him off.

Mr. McLoughlin

We have had a very long debate and many points have been raised and conceded. However, even after points were conceded, the Opposition forced Divisions on those issues, thus wasting a considerable amount of time.

We must pursue the measure today. Had the Opposition not wasted a considerable amount of time on points of order and this motion to adjourn, had we had a more responsible Opposition, we might have been able to finish the debate in time for Wednesday's business. It is clear from the Adjournment motion that the Opposition intend to continue to filibuster the Bill and keep hon. Members here throughout the day.

Mr. Gale

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now over an hour since the motion was moved. Many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate all night have constituency interests in the Bill. May we have some indication of how long you propose to allow this debate to continue before the debate that was in progress can proceed?

Madam Deputy Speaker

That depends on how many hon. Members seek to catch my eye. But it is not over an hour since the motion was moved: it was moved at 9.25 am.

Mr. Hardy

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would have been better if the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who mentioned me in his contribution, had waited until I sat down before making his point.

I have been here all night, and, unlike many Conservative Members, I have made a modest contribution. Conservative Members who wonder why so much time has been spent might consider more than the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). They might then understand the reason for our detailed opposition to the Bill. They should realise that, if this country tells the European Community that a wetlands site in East Anglia is of major importance under an international convention to which it has attached a national signature — a convention that requires observance of its conditions unless there is a dire national emergency — there can be no excuse for frivolous departure from that international commitment.

It is surprising that, after hour upon hour of debate, Conservative Members have decided that the Bill should be amended. The acceptance of our suggestions illustrates the need for that lengthy debate.

Mr. David Shaw

Get back to it.

Mr. Hardy

Surely the hon. Gentleman, whose sole contribution to the debate is to announce that he is a jolly good fellow, can restrain himself for a moment longer.

It is not only right hon. and hon. Members from Scotland who wish to reach Scottish Question Time; I do as well. I have a question tabled. It may surprise Conservative Members to learn that some of us take a genuine interest in conservation—such as my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken throughout the night rather than slumbering on the Government Benches. If an English Member wishes to pursue matters involving timber and forestry, he has to intervene in Scottish Question Time. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden's case is perfectly valid. But let not Conservative Members claim that there has been no legitimate and conservationist argument to advance against a Bill that should take very much longer to debate before it sees the light of day.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

I regard the conduct of the Opposition as being as squalid as any I have ever seen ; and I regret to say that I regard that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) as utterly schizophrenic. Having slept soundly in his bed, the hon. Gentleman woke up in the morning to find that the idiots around him had walked straight into a minefield that they themselves had planted. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman went to his Chief Whip and said, "What are we going to do?", and that the Chief Whip said, "I tell you what you must do. Put your hand on your heart and pretend that you are interested in reaching Scottish questions—but make sure that you take 40 minutes to do it."

It is humbug and hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman is not trying to reach Scottish questions; he is trying to pretend that he wants to. But the insult goes further ——

Mr. Dewar

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman advise his hon. Friends to call my bluff by letting me reach Scottish questions?

10.15. am

Mr. Fairbairn

I know that the hon. Gentleman may think that I am a mug, but if Labour Members think that they can get away with destroying the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill without seeing that they will achieve neither objective, God help them.

The humbug goes even further than that. Let the Scottish people listen to this. The hon. Gentleman says that we are all tired little men and that because we have been up all night we are not fit to talk about the Bill. We are mentally exhausted; we cannot think. But these are the people who will have to consider Scottish questions. So if the hon. Gentleman wants a lot of dead-beat flunkeys—[Interruption.] Furthermore, when they had not been up all night and had only just got out of bed for the previous time we had Scottish questions, they gave the impression to the people of Scotland that the 50 Opposition Members were zombies. They say that they want devolution, that they want an assembly, and that we in the Conservative Government are not entitled to rule in Scotland because we do not have a mandate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

If that is so, where are all the braw Highlanders with their claymores? Have they not the strength? Are they not allowed to go to their Whips and say, "By the way, old fellow, I wonder whether you appreciate that if your dog-tired malingerers filibuster all through the night in an attempt, for doctrinal reasons, to defeat an excellent Bill"—which will have considerable effects on Scotland—"we shall lose Scottish business."? I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that if the firearms legislation requires amendment, it should be a measure to protect the Labour party from shooting itself in both feet—[Interruption.] I shall come to the nasty bit later.

The hon. Member for Garscadden forgets that all the questions that have been tabled will be answered. Every single one will be answered. There is not a single question to the Secretary of State that will not be answered. But what Labour Members have succeeded in depriving themselves of, for doctrinal reasons and by filibustering and malingering all night, is supplementary questions. I cannot believe, knowing the genius of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, that since the previous lot of questions, Labour Members have done a crash course in intelligent supplementaries. If they have, I should vote for the closure just to see how successful it has been. But I do not have the slightest doubt that in the circumstances those who had run the course would be arrested for fraud.

Let us be clear about the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. It has major and important implications for the port of Perth, which I do not suppose many Opposition Members have heard of. It has major implications for the oil and supply industries at Aberdeen. This is an important Bill which is being deliberately stopped for doctrinal reasons of pique at not being able to nationalise the company, and I dare say that it will be outside the dock. The measure will also create many new jobs.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

Would my hon. and learned Friend care to state the reason why Labour Members, whom we must put up with talking a lot of sanctimonious claptrap on unemployment, should oppose a Bill which creates 2,000 or 3,000 new jobs?

Mr. Fairbairn

When it comes to a choice between supporting the tenets of Marxism, which the Labour party pretends to have dropped, and the tenets of employment, which it pretends to promote, the tenets of Marxism always triumph.

The Opposition have no case. Let Scotland understand how lucky it is that there is a United Kingdom Parliament when those who cannot even see a 90 ft trench full of mines before their eyes and fall into it would otherwise be ruhng it. If we ever get devolution ——

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

We would have time for Scottish business.

Mr. Fairbairn

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is Scottish. There is the line.

If ever we get devolution, I think that the people of Scotland would vote to go to Felixstowe.

This is all humbug. Labour Members have been hoist on the petard of their own doctrinal stupidity. They are not only blind, but purblind. It shows the bankruptcy of Socialism. For hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to pretend that they oppose the Bill because they are interested in the conservation of butterflies, trees and birds is absolute hypocrisy. Oh ye hypocrites, ye of little faith, you have done your own damage and you have done no harm to Scotland whatever.

Dr. Reid

I shall speak more briefly than the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) because I have a genuine interest in ensuring that the debate is adjourned and that Scottish questions are answered this afternoon.

First, if the hon. and learned Gentleman stayed awake throughout the debate, I congratulate him. He will have extended a compliment to the people of Felixstowe which he did not manage to extend to the people of Scotland as he slept through the last debate we had on Scottish issues.

I think that it would be helpful if we brought a few cool heads into the debate. Therefore, I appeal to the rationale of Conservative Members which, despite all the evidence I must presume to prevail, and ask them to support the Adjournment motion. We are not asking that the debate be truncated—a word used earlier—or abandoned, but adjourned. We appreciate the importance of Felixstowe. Few places in England are nearer to my heart than Felixstowe. It is exceeded only by Dartford and Thurrock. The name of Felixstowe constantly drips from my lips. Therefore, I do not demean its importance to hon. Members.

Extremely important Scottish business is tabled for this afternoon. In the absence of any other explanation why the Government Whips should be pulling hon. Gentlemen into the Chamber to hear a debate on a supposedly private Bill, we are left with no other conclusion than that it is a deliberate ploy to engineer the loss of Scottish questions this afternoon.

Mr. Home Robertson

There is more at stake than just another Scottish Question Time. We understand that the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland, the leader of the minority Administration in the Scottish Office, intended to make a statement later today introducing a White Paper on Scottish housing, which is likely to have far-reaching effects and implications for tenants the length and breadth of Scotland by forcing up rents and further reducing the availability of rental housing. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is to introduce an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the crisis in the Scottish penal system. The Government are trying to sabotage more than Scottish Question Time.

Dr. Reid

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point. Two other issues which are of vital importance to Scottish people will not be taken today.

Of course, it is only once a month that the Lord Lieutenant, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) faces Scottish questions in the House. It is almost a state visit to Scotland on such occasions. There are a number of issues. Quite frankly, the Government are frightened to answer questions. I shall mention only one matter, and that is the poll tax. It is becoming plain that the poll tax will not only affect every individual in Scotland but will be twice the amount— about £500 per head— that the Government have been predicting. I do not wish to dwell on it, but it is an important point and we wish to raise it this afternoon.

Tangential to that matter is another scandal regarding the poll tax. It would have been raised had the Government not tried to talk it out. Every minister, priest, nun and religious institution in Scotland will have withdrawn from them the 100 per cent. rates rebate or discount that they presently enjoy. In that sense, we should congratulate the Government on their role in the ecumenical movement. Almost singlehandedly, through the poll tax, they have managed to unite Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus and Muslims, and that will cost British churches about £10 million a year.

I said that my remarks would be brief. I intend to say a little more. As I said, in the absence of a genuine attempt to support the adjournment of the debate, and allow further discussion, the only conclusion that Opposition Members, my constituents and the people of Scotland can draw is that the Government are so frightened to face up to their lack of responsibility in Scotland that they are not even prepared to go to the Dispatch Box once a month and answer questions on behalf of a country that they purport to represent.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I was expecting that we would deal with Scottish business today. I imagine that there is something about the way in which I am dressed that would give that impression. I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). It was interesting to note how the Labour party can change its views, attitudes and arguments in relation to adjournments. It was proposed to adjourn the Scottish Development Agency debate in the early hours of the morning. It was said that that was hideous and odious. Now, of course, because this Bill——

Dr. Reid

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we opposed that adjournment so that we could have a debate on Scottish issues? We support this adjournment so that we may have a debate on Scottish issues this afternoon. There is no inconsistency in that.

Mr. Walker

There is an inconsistency. The hon. Gentleman is standing his argument on his head. He cannot have it both ways. However the hon. Gentleman views the matter, the motion to adjourn the Scottish Development Agency debate gave an opportunity to have a debate in prime time at a later date. That was opportune. But Opposition Members in turn objected to the adjournment. You will recollect that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House will recollect that during the debate on the Scottish Development Agency, the subjects of Ford in Dundee and the private hospital to be built in Clydebank were discussed. Both projects would create jobs. It is rather interesting that Opposition Members were not prepared to endorse either of them—first, because of trade union disputes and, secondly, because of their doctrinaire attitudes.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Opposition Members in any way failed to support the attraction of inward investment into Dundee through the Ford plant. That has been consistently supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and me.

10.30 am

Mr. Walker

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have been prudent and careful in deliberately restraining from commenting on the Ford plant. I understand the ghastly situation in which the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) found themselves. The trade unions, who are their paymasters and supporters, were not behaving properly. Consequently, we had uncertainty. That is the best description that I can give the hon. Gentleman. In the light of the television programme about Dundee last week, one can understand why hon. Members do not want to talk too much about the matter. Sadly, if the city regains its previous image—which one hoped was disappearing — very few employers will want to come to Dundee. I would find that terribly distressing, as many of my constituents commute to Dundee.

The loss of Scottish questions today, which looks likely, means that those of us who wish to question Ministers are being denied the opportunity to do so. We are being denied the opportunity because throughout the night, Opposition Members have kept up what can at best be described as a protracted debate. Others, less charitably, would describe it as a filibuster. Anyone who reads the report of our proceedings will realise that this has been a deliberate attempt to prevent the Bill's passage through the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, given the number of Scottish Opposition Members'—of which they constantly remind us—had they bothered to turn up for the debate on the Bill they could have had a preponderant influence on the Opposition and might indeed have managed to get the business done with sufficient despatch to save the Scottish business today?

Mr. Walker

My hon. Friend has focused clearly on the problem that the Labour party faces. The Scottish members of the party form its largest single element. Unfortunately, however, Scottish Labour Members seem to have no influence whatever on the conduct of business in this place. They are constantly shooting themselves in both feet, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) said. It is clear that the loss of Scottish business today is the direct result of the Labour party's Scottish representatives being unable to persuade their colleagues of the importance of Scottish business to them and to the rest of the House.

Mr. Fairbairn

Does my hon. Friend accept that the motive that led Scottish Labour Members to bed was that Felixstowe is in England and so did not matter? Regardless of what happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom their attitude is that provided that business relates to Scotland they must have time to discuss it.

Mr. Walker

My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. There is no doubt that one constantly hears Opposition Members who represent Scottish constituencies girning and greeting about lack of time. Yet they are unable to organise their own troops to conduct a meaningful debate on a very important Bill. Instead, they ensure that the Bill makes little progress. They do so because it is clear that the Bill is important. It will create jobs, it will create new attitudes and it will improve existing attitudes in the very fine port of Felixstowe. The danger, as the Opposition see it, is that the Bill will make Felixstowe even more successful and will show the way for the other United Kingdom ports. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross said, we in Scotland will be unable to ignore the effect that Felixstowe will have after the Bill is passed. It will he vital to North sea oil operations and to the factories and production units in Scotland which export the great majority of their goods. A good example is whisky.

The people of Scotland should understand that we are in this position today because of the incompetence of Scottish Labour Members.

Mr. John Garrett

The tenor of the debate during the past hour has been rather excitable. It is time for reflection. I have been here all night ; I have followed every amendment ; I have spoken briefly on some of them; and I have tried to express a deeply felt concern about the environment, which is threatened by the Bill. The environment and ecology are major issues in East Anglia, as the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) will know from his mailbag, as I do from mine. It was my duty to represent the protests about the damage that will be caused to a major site of special scientific interest in East Anglia, because no Conservative Member has done so.

It is remarkable how many of our amendments have been accepted by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), whom it is proper to call the sponsor's surrogate, since in my hearing he called the Bill "Gummers's Bill". The fact that he accepted many of our key amendments shows the value of our debate. We needed several hours on each group of amendments to convince him to convince the promoters of the Bill of the need to accept the amendments.

We have debated four of the 10 groups of amendments, and we now have time to pause and reflect. There are many more important amendments: on explosives in a nature reserve—I ask you; on access; on the planning process; on the effects of construction; on the use of Trimley marshes; on the innovative concept of changing arable land into a nature reserve, which has not been done before; and on future safeguards for the dock development. Those amendments deserve many more hours of consideration; we should not abandon the debate, but we should adjourn it to another day.

Mr. Forth

It may surprise the House to know that I share many of the views expressed by Labour Members. I had been looking forward with great anticipation to Scottish questions. I and many of my hon. Friends remember the events during last Scottish questions when there was a shambles on the Opposition Benches and a triumph on the Government Benches, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Ministers came to the House and gave a full account of their stewardship in Scotland and displayed to the people of Scotland the complete ineptitude of the Opposition.

Not only was that bad for the Opposition on that occasion; Conservative Members are now being denied a repetition — something to which I have been looking forward for some time. Many of my hon. Friends have tabled Scottish questions — so interested are we in matters north of the border, and so eager are we to see my right hon. Friend and his colleagues displaying yet again how well matters are going north of the border.

Nevertheless, some hon. Members from south of the border are concerned about how well the Scots are doing and how generous the Government are being to the Member. That is one reason why we wanted to question my right hon. and learned Friend — although I know that he would have provided perfectly good answers to the questions.

I wish to explain to the House why Scottish questions are in jeopardy. We have still to deal with the Bill in detail, as many Labour Members have said. The House should be aware that during the night Opposition speeches lasted for as long as 32 minutes, one hour and five minutes, 43 minutes, 72 minutes and so on. I have a complete list of them. The great bulk of this parliamentary day has been taken up by Opposition Members—and mainly English Members.

It is now obvious to the House that Scottish Labour Members, having slept through the night, have come to the House only to be appalled to find that their English colleagues have detained the House for so long that Scottish questions are in danger. I feel sorry for Opposition Members, because they will have to sort this out for themselves. I have no doubt that the Labour Chief Whip is at this moment trying to calm some of his colleagues who are probably grasping each other by the throat. However, that is not a concern of Conservative Members——

Mr. Fairbairn

Is it not even more painful for Scottish Labour Members to know not only that they will lose their business, but that they were so stupid as not to have realised that that was inevitable?

Mr. Forth

Indeed, that is becoming obvious. There was shock on the faces of Opposition Members as they trickled into the Chamber, having had a night's sleep. The way in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has moved this unfortunate Adjournment motion, interrupting the business of the House and our detailed consideration of the Bill, shows that the tragedy is that Opposition Members cannot make up their minds whether they want to destroy an excellent private Bill or whether they want to go through a further shambles at Scottish questions and submit themselves to humiliation. That is why it is quite obvious to us——

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

The hon. Gentleman referred to a shambles on the Opposition Benches and the way that the Scottish people have listened to the Secretary of State on his stewardship. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in the many local government by-elections since June, because of the vacancies created by former Labour councillors entering this House, in by-election after by-election the Tory party has come fourth? Is it not true that the only reason that it has come even fourth is that the Green party and the Communist party did not put up candidates?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

Order. We must not stray from the comparatively narrow procedural motion before the House.

Mr. Forth

Indeed not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the truth is that the hon. Member for Garscadden scurried out of the Chamber to speak to the press a short time ago because the Labour party received such an appallingly bad press following the last Scottish questions. He had to ensure that he salvaged something for the next Scottish questions. There is fear on the faces of Opposition Members as they contemplate what happened during last Scottish questions, and that gives the lie——

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) had to come to the Chamber to move the Adjournment of the debate shows that the Opposition are divided? Does it not show that Scottish Members cannot persuade their other colleagues to reduce their opposition to such a worthwhile Bill?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend, as ever, puts his finger on the problem. The Opposition are hoist by their own petard. They cannot decide whether to filibuster the Bill or to have Scottish Questions. However, that is their problem, not ours.

We know that the main business of the House today—this is why we shall vote against the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Garscadden — is to complete our consideration of the Bill and dispatch that business. If other business has to fail, the country and the Scots people will know that the reason for that failure lies at the Labour party's door alone.

10.45 am

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

I start with the confession that during the night I showed as much interest in the Bill as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) would welcome that non-intervention as a contribution to the expedition of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Garscadden said that today's business would be worthwhile and of importance. That is perfectly clear. Only once every four weeks do we have Scottish questions and the opportunity to question Scottish Office Ministers on a range of subjects. The business consisted of a statement on housing in Scotland and a debate on transport on the very day that we expect an announcement on the proposed merger between British Caledonian and British Airways. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that there was also the formal presentation of the hon. Member for Garscadden's Bill for Scottish home rule.

The Labour Front Bench appears to have a slow learning curve. On at least one occasion during debates on the Bill which abolished the GLC in the previous Parliament, the Labour party tried to take business through the night and panicked at about nine o'clock when it found that it had gone too far. The Government then stepped in to complete the business earlier than would have otherwise been the case.

That has happened again today. We all know a parliamentary filibuster when we see one. Last night, points of order were taken at considerable length, encouraged by the Labour Front Bench. I seem to recall that they were about trying to obtain a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry before a statement was made to the press. If we continue to sit this morning, and if the horse has not yet bolted, that might still be possible.

The point is that the Labour party's antics have taken us through the night and it has scored an own goal.

Mr. Hind

I, like the hon. Gentleman, have tabled a question for Scottish Question Time that I should like answered. Does he agree that if this motion had not been proposed, the one and a half hours that have been wasted on it could have been used to debate the Bill and make it more likely that we would have reached Scottish questions?

Mr. Wallace

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I regret taking an intervention about such an obvious point that, in itself, has taken up time.

The hon. Member for Garscadden has now proposed a parliamentary lifeboat to save the Labour party's face. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that the Government are now trying to protect Scottish Office Ministers. With respect, if one looks at the list of speakers during the night, there were precious few Conservative Members. Most of them came from the Labour Benches.

This is the second occasion in the few weeks since the summer recess that the Labour party's shambolic tactics have lost us an opportunity to challenge the Scottish Office. The Labour party's shambolic tactics on the Scottish Development Agency Bill meant that we lost a debate on the Scottish economy which the Secretary of State for Scotland would have had to answer.

Mr. Maxton

If the Labour party lost an important debate on the Thursday evening, why did the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) stand up in the House of Commons at 2 o'clock, when the motion on the Adjournment of the House was being debated, to oppose it? He said that he wanted the debate to continue throughout the night. We would have completed the Bill if it had not been for the idiotic tactics of Government Whips.

Mr. Wallace

I well remember the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He was scathing about the Labour party's tactics, which lost us a debate. I was present and I clearly remember my hon. Friend's speech. We lost a debate on the Scottish economy which would have brought the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] — There are many issues on the Scottish economy which go beyond the Scottish Development Agency. That is the point.

We are in danger of losing important Scottish business again today. The people of Scotland will know that it is the Labour party's shambolic tactics that are denying us the opportunity to challenge the Scottish Office.

Sir Eldon Griffiths

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 5.

Division No. 62]	[10.50 am
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Adley, Robert	Barron, Kevin
Alexander, Richard	Batiste, Spencer
Allason, Rupert	Battle, John
Alton, David	Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Anderson, Donald	Bell, Stuart
Arbuthnot, James	Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Benyon, W.
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Bevan, David Gilroy
Ashby, David	Blackburn, Dr John G.
Ashdown, Paddy	Blair, Tony
Atkinson, David	Boateng, Paul
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Boswell, Tim
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Bowis, John

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Golding, Mrs Llin
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gordon, Ms Mildred
Brazier, Julian	Gower, Sir Raymond
Bright, Graham	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Greenway, John (Rydale)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Browne, John (Winchester)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Grist, Ian
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Grocott, Bruce
Buchan, Norman	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Buck, Sir Antony	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Buckley, George	Hampson, Dr Keith
Burt, Alistair	Hannam, John
Butler, Chris	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Harman, Ms Harriet
Canavan, Dennis	Harris, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Carrington, Matthew	Hayes, Jerry
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hayward, Robert
Chapman, Sydney	Henderson, Douglas
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hinchliffe, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hind, Kenneth
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Holt, Richard
Clay, Bob	Home Robertson, John
Clelland, David	Hood, James
Colvin, Michael	Hordern, Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Howard, Michael
Corbett, Robin	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Cormack, Patrick	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Couchman, James	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Cousins, Jim	Hoyle, Doug
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Curry, David	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Darling, Alastair	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Irvine, Michael
Day, Stephen	Jackson, Robert
Devlin, Tim	Jessel, Toby
Dewar, Donald	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dickens, Geoffrey	Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Dicks, Terry	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dixon, Don	Key, Robert
Dobson, Frank	King, Roger (B'ham N'thlield)
Dorrell, Stephen	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Douglas, Dick	Kirkwood, Archy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Knapman, Roger
Duffy, A. E. P.	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Dunn, Bob	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Knox, David
Durant, Tony	Lambie, David
Eastham, Ken	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Eggar, Tim	Lang, Ian
Emery, Sir Peter	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Lewis, Terry
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lightbown, David
Fallon, Michael	Lilley, Peter
Farr, Sir John	Livsey, Richard
Faulds, Andrew	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Favell, Tony	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fearn, Ronald	Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Fisher, Mark	Lord, Michael
Flynn, Paul	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	McAllion, John
Foulkes, George	McCrindle, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	McFall, John
Fox, Sir Marcus	MacGregor, John
Freeman, Roger	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Gale, Roger	McKelvey, William
Gardiner, George	Maclean, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan	McLeish, Henry
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	McNamara, Kevin

Major, Rt Hon John	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Malins, Humfrey	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mans, Keith	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Marek, Dr John	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Marland, Paul	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Shersby, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Sims, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Martlew, Eric	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Maxton, John	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Meale, Alan	Speed, Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Speller, Tony
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Stanbrook, Ivor
Miscampbell, Norman	Steinberg, Gerald
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Stern, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector	Stevens, Lewis
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Moore, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Morgan, Rhodri	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)	Straw, Jack
Moss, Malcolm	Sumberg, David
Moynihan, Hon C.	Summerson, Hugo
Murphy, Paul	Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'tord)
Neale, Gerrard	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Neubert, Michael	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Newton, Tony	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)	Thomas, Dafydd Elis
O'Brien, William	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Onslow, Cranley	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Paice, James	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Patchett, Terry	Thorne, Neil
Patnick, Irvine	Thornton, Malcolm
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Tracey, Richard
Pendry, Tom	Twinn, Dr Ian
Pike, Peter	Viggers, Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Porter, David (Waveney)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Portillo, Michael	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Redwood, John	Wallace, James
Reid, John	Waller, Gary
Renton, Tim	Walley, Ms Joan
Rhodes James, Robert	Ward, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Warren, Kenneth
Riddick, Graham	Wheeler, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Robertson, George	Wiggin, Jerry
Roe, Mrs Marion	Wilkinson, John
Rogers, Allan	Wilshire, David
Rooker, Jeff	Wilson, Brian
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Winterton, Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew	Wood, Timothy
Rowlands, Ted	Yeo, Tim
Ryder, Richard
Sackville, Hon Tom	Tellers for the Ayes:
Salmond, Alex	Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Eric Forth.
Sayeed, Jonathan
Shaw, David (Dover)

NOES
Dalyell, Tarn
Hardy, Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Ian McCartney.
Skinner, Dennis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

The House divided: Ayes, 119, Noes, 205.

Division No. 63]	[11.00 am
AYES
Allen, Graham	Anderson, Donald
Alton, David	Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Ashdown, Paddy	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Loyden, Eddie
Battle, John	McAllion, John
Bell, Stuart	McCartney, Ian
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	McFall, John
Blair, Tony	McKelvey, William
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	McLeish, Henry
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	McNamara, Kevin
Buchan, Norman	Madden, Max
Buckley, George	Marek, Dr John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Canavan, Dennis	Martlew, Eric
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Maxton, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Clay, Bob	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Clelland, David	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Corbett, Robin	Morgan, Rhodri
Cousins, Jim	Morley, Elliott
Dalyell, Tam	Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Darling, Alastair	Murphy, Paul
Dewar, Donald	O'Brien, William
Dixon, Don	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Dobson, Frank	Patchett, Terry
Douglas, Dick	Pendry, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.	Pike, Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Prescott, John
Eastham, Ken	Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Reid, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Robertson, George
Faulds, Andrew	Rogers, Allan
Fearn, Ronald	Rooker, Jeff
Fisher, Mark	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Flynn, Paul	Rowlands, Ted
Foster, Derek	Salmond, Alex
Foulkes, George	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Skinner, Dennis
Gordon, Ms Mildred	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Grocott, Bruce	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Hardy, Peter	Snape, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet	Steinberg, Gerald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Straw, Jack
Henderson, Douglas	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Hinchliffe, David	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Thomas, Dafydd Elis
Home Robertson, John	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Hood, James	Wall, Pat
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Wallace, James
Hoyle, Doug	Walley, Ms Joan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Wareing, Robert N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)	Wilson, Brian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Kirkwood, Archy
Lambie, David	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lamond, James	Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Frank Cook.
Lewis, Terry
Livsey, Richard

NOES
Adley, Robert	Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Alexander, Richard	Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Arbuthnot, James	Brazier, Julian
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bright, Graham
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ashby, David	Brooke, Hon Peter
Atkinson, David	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Buck, Sir Antony
Batiste, Spencer	Burt, Alistair
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Butler, Chris
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Benyon, W.	Carrington, Matthew
Bevan, David Gilroy	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Boswell, Tim	Chapman, Sydney
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bowis, John	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	MacGregor, John
Colvin, Michael	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Maclean, David
Cormack, Patrick	McLoughlin, Patrick
Couchman, James	Major, Rt Hon John
Cran, James	Malins, Humfrey
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Mans, Keith
Curry, David	Marland, Paul
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Day, Stephen	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Devlin, Tim	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Dickens, Geoffrey	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Dicks, Terry	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Dorrell, Stephen	Monro, Sir Hector
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Dunn, Bob	Moore, Rt Hon John
Durant, Tony	Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Eggar, Tim	Moss, Malcolm
Emery, Sir Peter	Moynihan, Hon C.
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Neale, Gerrard
Fallon, Michael	Nelson, Anthony
Farr, Sir John	Neubert, Michael
Favell, Tony	Newton, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Onslow, Cranley
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Paice, James
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Patnick, Irvine
Fox, Sir Marcus	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Freeman, Roger	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
French, Douglas	Porter, David (Waveney)
Gale, Roger	Portillo, Michael
Gardiner, George	Redwood, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Renton, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Rhodes James, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond	Riddick, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Greenway. John (Rydale)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Rowe, Andrew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Ryder, Richard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Hampson, Dr Keith	Sayeed, Jonathan
Hannam, John	Shaw, David (Dover)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Harris, David	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Hayward, Robert	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Hind, Kenneth	Shersby, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Sims, Roger
Holt, Richard	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Hordern, Sir Peter	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Howard, Michael	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Speed, Keith
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Speller, Tony
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Stern, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Stevens, Lewis
Irvine, Michael	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Jackson, Robert	Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Jessel, Toby	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Sumberg, David
Key, Robert	Summerson, Hugo
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Knapman, Roger	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Knox, David	Thome, Neil
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Thornton, Malcolm
Lang, Ian	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Tracey, Richard
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Lightbown, David	Viggers, Peter
Lilley, Peter	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Lord, Michael	Waller, Gary
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Ward, John
McCrindle, Robert	Warren, Kenneth

Wheeler, John	Wood, Timothy
Whitney, Ray	Yeo, Tim
Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Wiggin, Jerry	Tellers for the Noes:
Wilkinson, John	Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Eric Forth.
Wilshire, David
Winterton, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware that last night the Opposition demanded a statement from the Department of Trade and Industry on the proposed British Caledonian-British Airways merger. At 9 o'clock this morning that request was renewed. At the very time when it was refused in the House, a press conference was held by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, details of the merger were given, questions were answered and the report was put in the House of Commons. It is outrageous that the House has been denied an opportunity to respond to this report.

Conservative Members may not care about the interests of consumers, the interest of employees or competition policy. The Opposition do care about those things. This is an important matter of public interest and the House has been treated with contempt. We must have a statement today from the Department of Trade and Industry.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall deal first with this point of order. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that on a number of occasions during the night Mr. Speaker and other occupants of the Chair dealt with this matter. Mr. Speaker dealt with it as recently as two hours ago, when he made it very clear that it was not a matter for the Chair and that there was nothing that he could do to assist the hon. Gentleman. I can add nothing to what Mr. Speaker said on that occasion. I will, of course, take further points of order. However, I want to remind the House that a moment ago the House agreed that the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill should continue. It is my job to ensure that the wishes of the House are carried out. I therefore hope that those hon. Members who are rising on points of order will reflect on what I have said and, if they believe that they must persist, I urge them to be extremely brief.

11.15 am

Mr. Fairbairn

Can you assist me on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In the previous two Divisions, Labour Front Bench spoksmen voted in both Lobbies. Since I understand that Labour Members are in a state of warfare, perhaps the House could adjourn for five minutes to allow Labour Members to meet in separate rooms—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The voting habits of hon. Members have nothing to do with me, thank goodness.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)

I want to raise a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker and particularly I want to consider the British Caledonian and British Airways merger. This is a very important issue and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree, although I accept that you said that it was not a matter for the Chair. Nevertheless, the future of the air transport industry, and the merger's effects on jobs and on air fares are matters which should be debated as soon as possible. You were quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pass comment on my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who explained that a press statement had been issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Although this is not a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appeal to the Leader of the House to come to the Dispatch Box as soon as possible and make a statement. This is a very important and vital British industry, and the merger will have an effect on international trade.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not really a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and I am sure that he will seek other opportunities which are in order to raise the matter that he seeks to ventilate.

Mr. Tim Yeo (Suffolk, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Conservative Members have been up all night and have voted in all of the Divisions. They are very anxious to make progress with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. One of the reasons why we are anxious to make progress is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) explained that we want to get on with Scottish questions and other Scottish business this afternoon so that we can hear just how successful our Ministers are being in Scotland—[Interruption.] In those circumstances, is it in order for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the House—and he has not been here for the past 15 hours—and raise a point of order upon which Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker have already ruled twice in the past two hours, especially when it has been the practice of both Conservative and Labour Governments not to make statements on Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

None of the points that have been raised so far are points of order. I am gaining the strong impression that we are wasting time that should be devoted to the debate. The House has recently decided that the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill should continue.

Mr. Malcom Bruce (Gordon)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that this is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Bruce

I accept that you and Mr. Speaker have already ruled on this issue. However, I want to stress that on many occasions Mr. Speaker has said that he does not approve of the way in which the Government refuse to make statements. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a statement to the press that the merger should go ahead, and that totally flies in the face of the stated Government policy to promote competition. We are entitled to have a statement in the House. As the Leader of the House is present, will he consider doing the House the courtesy of saying when a statement will be made to the House so that business can proceed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Again, that is not a matter for the Chair. I apeal once more to the House: we really should get on with the debate. I hope that the next point of order will be genuine.

Mr. McLoughlin

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it is still entirely possible for a statement to be made; that notice must be given to Mr. Speaker's Office before 12 o'clock ; and that any action taken before that would pre-empt any decision, that might be made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is correct.

Mr. Blair

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The demand has been made through the usual channels a number of times. The Leader of the House is here now. Why does he not tell us whether we can have a statement? Must a statement on such an important matter be made outside and not inside the House? If so, that is wholly wrong.

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The statement about the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian is dated Wednesday 12 November, but we are still on Tuesday 11 November. How can we discuss something that is in the future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Again, that is not a point of order for me.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know of the concern of the Chair to protect Back-Bench Members. Four items of important Scottish business were to be debated today, and 67 out of 72 Scottish Members are Back Benchers. Can you explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how it is possible for the usual channels, which normally involve the Front-Benchers of both major parties, to bring us to an impasse in which four matters of vital importance to the Scottish people are in danger of being lost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady has reinforced the point that I have been trying to make for some time—that we should get on with the debate.