North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill (By Order) (Hansard, 22 June 1988)

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that on 11 May we had a Second Reading debate on a private Bill not dissimilar to the one that is before the House. During that debate I asked the Under-Secretary of State if at any time there had been a meeting between anyone in his ministerial chambers and the outside promoters of the Bill. He said that he did not recall any such meeting. The following Monday, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State said in effect that the chairman of Associated British Ports had met the Secretary of State for Transport about the very matter that was up for debate. I raised this on a point of order with Mr. Speaker on Tuesday 17 May, the day after I had received a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State. He rightly said that he was obliged that the Minister, having said something about which he was not sure, had put the record straight by having a meeting.
I raise this point of order simply because this is a similar Bill, although it is not promoted by the same outside body. There is a close connection between that Bill and this, and the Secretary of State for Transport has a direct involvement with this Bill. It occurs to me to question whether this is a private Bill if such a meeting has taken place on this Bill, as it did on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I would like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give a ruling. Perhaps you could suspend the sitting for a few minutes so that you can consider whether this is a private Bill, in view of its close connections with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, and whether we should therefore be considering it in the time that you have generously allotted for the discussion of private Bills this evening.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Order. The Bill before the House must satisfy and has satisfied all the criteria for a private Bill, otherwise it would not be before the House. Discussions that may have taken place outside the House are not a matter for the Chair.

§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the contacts that my ministerial colleagues and I may or may not have had with the promoters could be a matter of interest to the House, I have caused inquiries to be made. I am informed that there have been no such contacts with relation to the Bill.

§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I visited the Examiner and asked him about the Bill, he assured me that it was of a localised nature and not a hybrid Bill. It is my submission that it is a hybrid Bill, and as such should not be debated this evening in the guise of a private Bill—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. He said that the authorities of the House had satisfied him that this is not a hybrid Bill. I cannot, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the hon. Gentleman is correct. Like him, I accept the advice that is offered to me by the authorities of the House and accept their assurance that this is not a hybrid Bill.

§ Mr. Redmond
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the Bill has grave implications that go far beyond Killingholme. Bearing in mind the Government's Whip, we are asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under the Standing Orders governing private business, to suspend the sitting pending an investigation by you and questions to the Minister and the Government. That is in accordance with Standing Order No. 85. I would ask you, Sir, to rule that this is a hybrid Bill, irrespective of what the Examiner said, because of the information that is coming to light.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I know of no grounds on which to give consideration to the hybridity question, and I can see no reason why we should not proceed.

§ Mr. Michael Welsh (Doncaster, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Bill, the company involved was Central Oil Refining Co. Ltd. a subsidiary of Chemical and Oil Storage Management Ltd.. In essence, my point of order is that no trace could be found of that firm. We finally went to the Private Bill Office and were told that Chemical and Oil Storage Management Ltd. is now Simon Engineering plc. We are therefore discussing a Bill that was not submitted by the people who are now in charge of it. Can one company put in an application for a private Bill and then sell to another company and most probably charge it money for the application, thus making a profit out of the workings of the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that that point is a matter for the debate. Clearly, the Bill has been scrutinised by the Examiners and it had to satisfy the Examiners before it came before the House. It has satisfied the Examiners.

Several Hon. Members
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have made it clear that it is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. If it becomes clear that there is a challenge to the ruling of the Examiner, am I to understand that hon. Members who have had no opportunity of questioning the Examiner are not permitted to challenge his certification on the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the rulings of the House, he is referring to the rulings of the Chair. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is not, uncharacteristically, challenging my ruling on the matter. Of course, it is for the House to exercise its judgment on these matters and I hope that that is what we shall do in the remaining two and a half hours or so. I hope that we shall reflect the decision of the House at the end of the debate.

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely such projects are normally within the ambit of local authorities, through their normal planning procedures. Those normal planning procedures give room for lengthy inquiries and scope for witnesses to be examined and evidence to be taken. As I understand it, we shall have only an hour or an hour and a half and not all Members interested will be able—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Bill before the House satisfied the Standing Orders and the criteria laid down by the Examiners. The hon. Gentleman may have doubts and reservations about our procedures, but I remind him that a Joint Committee of both Houses is considering all those matters at the moment. If he has any reservations about the way in which we proceed, he may care to submit evidence to that Committee. In the meantime, we shall continue to operate within the framework of the existing Standing Orders.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that, in a previous debate on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made it clear in answer to direct questions that he had no financial or other interest in the Bill. He referred the House to the Register of Members' Interests. It may be of benefit to him to recall that on 8 June, when the Select Committee discussed ports and he questioned Sir Robert Haslam, he declared an interest. He later said that he did not have an interest then but that he hoped to have one later. I do not know whether the Register of Members' Interests requires people to register if they hope to have an interest. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was joking but, considering his extensive travels to South Africa—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Neither the House nor I should be considering the hon. Gentleman's future itinerary, nor can we make a decision on the basis of a hypothesis. If hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate have a direct pecuniary interest, no doubt they will make it clear at the appropriate time. Perhaps the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) will soon allow the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to make his speech.

Several Hon. Members
Further to the point of order—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I visited the Private Bill Office today to inspect the papers in connection with the Bill, as I am sure all hon. Members have done. Among the papers are six petitions. They are from the Coalfield Communities Campaign, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, Wakefield and Doncaster councils and North-East Derbyshire council, in the area that I am proud to represent. There were 11 submissions in relation to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. In addition, extra papers are available for inspection, and an Ordnance Survey map—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. What is the point of order for me?

§ Mr. Barnes
—and plans and sections. In connection with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill that is before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his point of order to that.

§ Mr. Barnes
In connection with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill and the two Acts to which it refers, the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Act 1912, chapter clx, and the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Act 1931, chapter lxiv, reference is made, as with the Associated Ports (No. 2) Bill, to a book of reference being available for our inspection. However, no book of reference is available —

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for debate.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One problem that you and people in your position continually face is the fact that without any doubt there has been a change in the practice relating to private Bills since you were elected in 1964. Hon. Members are expected to serve on private Bill Committees—and can incur penalties if they do not—if they have no involvement whatsoever in the matter before the Committee. Geographically restricted private Bills are, on occasion, bound not to affect many hon. Members. However, in this Bill, and in the one that we discussed earlier—but which we are not here to discuss today—such geographical restrictions do not exist because it is inconceivable that any hon. Member could not be affected by the importation of South African coal. No hon. Member could be found to serve on that Committee who could say that he or she would not in some way be affected by the decision.
Therefore, the whole private Bill procedure is faulty in that context. There is bound to come a time when some of us—those in the Chair and those in authority—must take the decision whether we can allow this private Bill procedure to continue when the Committee has to order hon. Members to appear before it, with penalties, if they are not in any way involved. When one remembers that about 70 Tory Members have connections with companies in South Africa, one begins to realise that many hon. Members do have interests. If one also remembers that, to a man and a woman, Opposition Members are against the Bill, one realises that one is bound to run into difficulties in finding people who are not tainted in some way.
I suggest that reference should now be made to the appropriate authorities and the Examiners to see whether this kind of private Bill procedure can continue on the basis of not being able to get appropriate Members of Parliament on the Committee.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Let me deal with one point at a time. What the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said has no bearing whatsoever on the propriety of proceeding with our Second Reading debate this evening.

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and protection. When a private Bill affects public policy, as this Bill clearly does, how are we to be protected in terms of the 1191 amount of time available to hon. Members to debate the issue? As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not represent a coalfield community, but I am assured by those of my hon. Friends who do represent such communities that, although the Bill clearly and specifically relates on paper to the North Killingholme cargo terminal, it could affect the relationship between this country and the development of our policies towards South Africa.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me —quite correctly—that this matter has been considered by the appropriate Committees, which have looked at all the matters, and that your role now is simply to interpret what has been done before. However, I am concerned because the relationship between this country and South Africa has been consistently developing, changing and worsening. It has certainly worsened dramatically in the last few weeks, especially in relation to impending court decisions in South Africa, which affect not only our relationship with South Africa, but the whole of Britain's international standing—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. These are matters for debate, rather than ones on which the Chair can give a ruling.

§ Mr. Grocott
Just to complete what I am putting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if a public Bill is being considered by the House, in the normal course of events, and allowing for statements, private notice questions and the rest, that Bill will have a minimum of five or five and a half hours for debate between 3.30 pm and 9 pm or 9.30 pm. That is not long enough, in my view. For several major and important Bills, it is considered necessary to have two days for Second Reading. If a Bill has major national if not international implications, and if all my hon. Friends and Conservative Members—who I know are also concerned about our relationships with South Africa, but from a different point of view—are concerned that such a Bill has a full, final—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman's point. I repeat again that much of what he is saying is a matter for debate and one which hon. Members will take into account when reaching their conclusion at the end of the debate. Hon. Members may well argue that matters arising from the Bill are of such wide importance that they deserve further time. I must advise the House that, when I set down private business for the period between 7 pm and 10 pm, it is always open to me to ask the Government whether they will table a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule to enable the debate to continue beyond 10 o'clock. I have to be mindful of the demands on hon. Members' time and health and seek not to impose unreasonable obligations and duties on them. For that reason, I would be most reluctant to seek to extend any debate on private Bills beyond 10 o'clock, except where absolutely necessary.
I shall, of course, listen carefully to what is said in the debate and, when the House reaches its conclusion this evening, if it is necessary to do so, I shall reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, he has raised matters that should be taken into account in the debate and no doubt they will be weighed by hon. Members when they reach their conclusion at the end of the debate.

§ Mr. Grocott
rose—

§ Mr. Redmond
rose—

§ Mr. Bermingham
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I call Mr. Grocott.

§ Mr. Grocott
I am simply seeking your protection on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members may well have looked at the Order Paper today without appreciating, from a glimpse of it, the major national and international significance of this Bill which masquerades as a private Bill, and many hon. Members who would have wished to contribute may not be able to do so. Indeed, it may well be—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs my protection. When hon. Members say that they are seeking my protection, I look at them and wonder who needs to be protected from whom. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have been left in any doubt during the past week or two about the importance and significance of this Bill.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I call Mr. Redmond.

§ Mr. Redmond
I asked earlier whether the Bill was a hybrid Bill. You gave guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were satisfied that the Examiner had examined and that he was satisfied that the Bill satisfied the criteria of a private Bill. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how an hon. Member can have discussions with the Examiner to satisfy himself that the Examiner's decision was correct? When I and a colleague went to discuss this private Bill with the Examiners, the Examiner was helpful but unfortunately could not take into consideration the views that we expressed, because the Examiner who had passed the Bill to your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had left the Examiners' office. Because hon. Members could not ask the Examiner who had passed the Bill directly whether he was satisfied with the decision, will you suspend the sitting under Standing Order No. 85 in order to satisfy yourself that it is not a hybrid Bill?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I share the general feeling that we have every confidence in the professionalism of those who serve us. Irrespective of the circumstances that the hon.Gentleman has just described, I doubt whether the Bill would have proceeded to this stage if there were any question about its bona fides and vires. I am confident that it satisfies all the criteria, and I hope that we can get on. We have spent more than 20 minutes on points of order, some of which would be more relevant to the debate.

§ Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it not be the case that the Examiner, having left the Private Bill Office, is not aware that the promoters of the Bill—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We cannot have a debate and inquiry into these hypothetical matters.H on. Members are not only calling into question the competence of those who serve us, but are getting dangerously near challenging my ruling. I must remind the House that rulings from the Chair are not a matter for debate.

§ Mr. Jack Thompson (Wansbeck)
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I hope that this will be the last point of order, and that we can proceed.

§ Mr. Thompson
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is different from the others, and I hope that it will help to clear up the matter. Normally, when we receive notice of a private Bill, we also receive from the petitioners a statement which explains the details of the Bill. Would it not be appropriate to receive a statement? I certainly have not seen one.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter within my responsibility. I understand that it is by way of information and a courtesy. I call Mr. Michael Brown.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the business before us tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred to the book of reference. How can we go about obtaining that so that we can have the information for the debate while an hon. Member is speaking—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have dealt with that matter. I said to the House that that was a matter not for me, but for debate. I call Mr. Michael Brown.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
The Bill will empower the promoters to carry out works—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Many of the points of order have not been bona fide points. The Chair deprecates business being delayed by procrastinating, bogus points of order. I hope that the House will be allowed to proceed with its business. I shall allow the Labour Front Bench spokesman to raise a matter and then I hope to get on with the debate. I intend to take no further points of order after this.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Hon. Gentlemen have just heard my ruling, and I hope that they will not challenge it.

§ Mr. Grocott
On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you were in the Chair during long stretches of the night when we discussed the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, I am sure that you will understand the natural anxiety about the conduct of debate on a private Bill. We all know that during its consideration it came to the attention of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends —and, to be fair, it disquieted many Tory Members—that the judgment of many hon. Members was being affected by the expensive hospitality offered by the Bill's sponsors.
This is an extremely serious point of order. On any outside reckoning, any neutral individual would take the objective view that wine, champagne and other drink, and hospitality for Members' wives—film shows were in operation and were being circularised by the Bill's sponsors—must affect the judgment, willingness to stay and stamina of hon. Members. Hon. Members and others need to be reassured whether, as we come to consider another private Bill—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. One private Bill at a time. Is the hon. Gentleman making allegations that hon. Members have been influenced improperly?

§ Mr. Grocott
My problem, which I am sure is shared by everyone outside and the newspapers which will want to report this, is that I do not know. But this is extremely important, and you will understand—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist with an attempt to make me rule on some hypothetical hearsay. I cannot get involved in these matters, nor can I rule on them. I call Mr. Michael Brown.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
—to carry out works required to reconstruct the jetty in the tidal part of the estuary.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I made it clear that I would not take any further points of order at this stage. I call Mr. Michael Brown.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
The jetty is already capable of handling vessels up to 30,000 tonnes deadweight and the jetty is now in need of strengthening and organisation. I can assure the House that the Bill is absolutely necessary because of the reconstruction of the jetty, which will interfere with the public rights of navigation.[Interruption.] Planning consent could not override those rights and would not enable the jetty to be reconstructed.[Interruption.] Associated with the jetty will be a cargo terminal, which will be located within an adjacent area already designated for industrial use and set aside for activities requiring access to the deep water channel in the Humber.[Interruption.] The local authorities, the county councils, Glanford borough council and the local authorities immediately around the—

§ Mr. Redmond
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) to read slowly so that we can catch what he is saying? He is deliberately speaking fast —he was guilty of that when he moved the Second Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—so that we cannot hear what he is saying.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for me, but doubtless the hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind.

§ Mr. Brown
Yes, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Because of the location of the terminal, it is most unlikely that there will be any adverse effect on the environment in the area, and consultations with the local authorities have resolved any problems of that sort. The area around North Killingholme has been in decline for many years. It was blighted by the proposal, which was thankfully withdrawn, to dispose of nuclear waste in the area, so we are delighted at this proposal, which will provide a large number of jobs for my constituents. In so far as I have an interest in this Bill, it is confined to the fact that I stand to benefit, as do my constituents, from the enrichment of the area by a large increase in the number of jobs.
The estuary is strategically located for the European Economic Community and is favourably placed for accessibility from industrial locations within the United Kingdom. A study undertaken for Humberside county council by Coopers and Lybrand as far as back as 1982 shows that Humberside's importance in terms of cargo moving through the area is tremendous; there has been a 5.5 per cent. increase in the amount of tonnage through the 1195 ports on Humberside as a whole. That is two and half times more than the rate for the United Kingdom, so it shows that there is tremendous potential for the port development, which the country requires anyway. As a result of their own market studies, the promoters are confident that they will capture a share of the existing import and export traffic.

§ Mr. Redmond
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked, through you, that the hon. Member should speak more slowly so that we might fully understand and appreciate what he is saying. While he continues to gabble—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has got the point.

§ Mr. Brown
My rate of speaking is about 110 words a minute, which is very slow compared to the average rate in a public debate.
More significantly, the new cargo terminal is intended to divert other traffic away from Rotterdam, where it is going at the moment. Traffic is going to Rotterdam, where large cargoes are split up to be sent to the United Kingdom. So we stand to gain through the revenue which will come to our ports initially.

§ Mr. Barron
The hon. Gentleman has talked about cargo going to Rotterdam. Could it be coal from South Africa? My hon. Friends and I have not failed to notice, not only that the cargo is coal but that the Minister responsible for coal has come to listen to the debate on this so-called private Bill because he wants' to privatise electricity. Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) be more forthcoming about what the cargo is likely to be?

§ Mr. Brown
The import and export traffic will be in bulk commodities, which include grain, coal, coke, aggregates, fertilisers and minerals. If Opposition Members think that by defeating the Bill they will in some way prevent commodities coming direct to this country which do not do so now, they are wrong. All that will happen if the Bill goes through is that cargoes which get to this country by means of small vessels, with the revenue going to the port of Rotterdam, will come to Humberside instead, with the revenue also coming to Humberside. That is the point of the Bill

§ Mr. Redmond
rose—

§ Mr. Brown
I have been very generous. The hon. Gentleman has raised several points of order. I should like to press on.
Opposition Members have expressed concern that the new port facilities capable of handling bulk cargoes could have an adverse effect on the coal industry. I should like to draw the attention of Opposition Members to two points. First, the CEGB has an 800-acre site immediately adjacent to the proposed cargo terminal. The site has planning permission for the development of a power station. When constructed, the power station will be served by its own jetty. Therefore, the promoters do not expect the CEGB to use the North Killingholme cargo terminal for coal movements.
Secondly, notwithstanding the Channel tunnel, United Kingdom industry as a whole relies, and must continue to rely, on an efficient modern port facility to serve its import and export needs.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
rose—

§ Mr. Brown
I hope the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is particularly relevant as 1992 approaches. If protection were to be sought for one sector of Britain's industry, it should surely not be at the expense of other sectors whose costs would increase if our port facilities are not as up to date as those of our rivals on the continent. Creating adequate competition in the provision of port services is surely vital to the health of our economy. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Before I call anyone to speak, may I remind hon. Members that it is fundamental to the nature of the House that we give others an opportunity to address the House, no matter how disagreeable we may find the views expressed. I hope that hon. Members will not upset that tradition too much.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I expect that your forecast that our speeches will be disagreeable will be fulfilled. I hope that my speech will be viewed as most disagreeable by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). It has been a difficult time for you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the occasion amply illustrates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, that we have reached a point in parliamentary history when the private Bill is used for purposes that are not appropriate for private Bills. This Bill may be ostensibly about one small part of the Humber estuary, but it goes to the very heart of Britain's trading, political and social problems. Because of that, my hon. Friends and I are implacably opposed to it, as we are to its sister Bill, which will be considered tomorrow.
We will spell out in considerable detail on Second Reading, and even more so if, unfortunately, the Bill reaches the Report stage, our total resolve to contest the Bill now and at any time word by word, line by line and stage by stage.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
The hon. Member has iust said that he thinks the private Bill procedure is inappropriate for such a measure. Does he accept that it is impossible for the legislation to be introduced in any way other than as a private Bill? Furthermore, there is an absolute stack of precedents, going back at least 200 years, for matters of this kind being dealt with by the private Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman must look at the precedents and accept what I have said.

§ Mr. Hardy
The hon. Gentleman should understand that some of us may never pose as experts in constitutional politics and practice, but he might care to refresh his memory about the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988, to which reference has already been made. He will understand that many people suspect—the suspicion is not restricted to this party or to these Benches—that there are now many occasions when the private Bill procedure is used to circumvent alternative procedures.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be to the advantage of the House, and not least to that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. 1197 Brown) himself, if he had given an assurance that he had no hope in future of being involved financially in any of the companies? It might have helped the House if he had told us whether, on a recent visit to South Africa, with all expenses paid, he discussed the landing of South African coal at these ports. Furthermore, did he discuss with the South African coal company representatives who were in London the landing of coal at these docks?

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not deal with the point now. Later I shall refer specifically to the South African link. It might have been appropriate if the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes had said a little more to explain the nature of the trade in South African coal. He did not do so. We shall shortly do it for him. I trust that he and his hon. Friends will remain in the Chamber so that we may ensure that ignorance will be no excuse in the House's consideration of the Bill at later stages.
I want to deal specifically with our implacable resolve to oppose the Bill. We are totally opposed to the Bill because it is a foolish duplication of existing port capacity. We had arguments about Felixstowe. My hon. Friends who attended that debate know that a vast sum of money is to be spent on a port at Felixstowe when other ports are underused. After protracted consideration, the House, in my view foolishly, approved the Felixstowe development. So we have even more port capacity than we had a year ago. There is no evidence that the volume of exports is increasing. If it were, that would justify additional port capacity.
That is the first argument. If and when the Minister for Public Transport chooses to contribute to the debate, I hope that he will tell us whether the Government consider that we have any great inadequacy in port capacity. If we have not, there is no justification for spending vast sums of money in the pursuit of duplication.

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Does he consider that the reason for setting up these ports on Humberside is one of geography, rather than one of capacity? They will be within 50 miles of some of the biggest coal users in electricity generation in the country. They are designed to penetrate that market, and no other market that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned. There is over-production in the grain market.

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend is right. There is over-production in Europe of cereal and other agricultural products.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said that the CEGB owned land adjacent to the port. He suggested, or sought to mislead the House by suggesting, that the CEGB owned a nearby site and had the capacity to provide its own jetty to operate a power station nearby. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the facility is not designed to serve a power station in the immediate vicinity of the port. The facility is designed to replace British coal in power stations such as West Burton, which is not very far away, or in other power stations in central England. That is one reason why we are implacably opposed to the duplication of port facilities, but there is a variety of other reasons for our view.
1198 People are increasingly paying detailed attention to the case that is at the heart of our argument, because such a development is very much against the national strategic interest. We believe that developing an energy reliance on imported materials is foolish and that the promoters of the Bill are contributing to that folly. The strategic interest of the country is being ignored and the most shortsighted decisions are being taken.
The hon. Gentleman may consider that his constituents unanimously support his very doubtful position, but we have an obligation to our constituents, whose jobs will go where jobs have already gone. The economic heart of our communities will be further damaged, when damage enough has been caused in the last few years. The hon. Gentleman might be prepared to disregard morality and the strategic interests of the country to serve his constituents, but I wonder how many people in Brigg and Cleethorpes are also supporters and upholders of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

§ Mr. Pat Wall (Bradford, North)
My hon. Friend referred to the capacity of British docks. If I remember rightly, the total capacity of British docks is about 47 million tonnes per year. At the height of the use of the docks industry, no more than 42 million tonnes of capacity have ever been used. That shows that there is over-capacity in Britain's docks. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that ships coming to Britain with bulk cargoes go first to Rotterdam, the cargoes are broken down and transhipped to Britain. That is because of Government policy. The Government do not direct the ships into port. They allow a laissez faire system in which owners bargain for individual cargoes. That leads to chaos. Not only the jobs of miners and power workers threatened, but dockers' jobs throughout Britain are threatened.

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend illustrates the position that was argued when points of order of some doubtfulness were raised and the Bill was described as having the widest possible implications which do involve not merely a small part of the south Humberside coast or the nearby mining communities, but the nation's energy policy. I shall refer to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes scarcely mentioned South Africa. All the documents that I have received from the promoters of the Bill contain not a word about South Africa, Colombia or anywhere else. They contain no reference to coal. The hon. Gentleman confirmed our suspicions by mentioning coal and coke in his introductory remarks. We believe that it is a sordid link, and it is a pity that any hon. Member should be involved or have sympathy with such a sordid link. The promoters of the Bill appear to have a tolerance of deceitful practice. One would hope that the House would deplore deceitful practice. Coal is being imported into this country which is labelled as, and known to be, South African coal, but a greater tonnage is coming from South Africa in disguise. It is being landed at Rotterdam, and it is then described as Dutch or Netherlands coal being brought to Britain. The fact is that the Netherlands produces not one cobble of coal.
Some years ago I visited an establishment in the east of the Netherlands. As we drove to the establishment, which was an important base for the Western alliance, I said to the chap who was sitting with me on the bus, "This looks 1199 like a coal mining community and the building that we are approaching looks like a coal mine." It was perhaps the last coal mine in the Netherlands. It is used for European security purposes, and is certainly not used to produce coal. I know of no Dutch politician who would dream of claiming that the Netherlands produces any coal. Therefore, it is quite reasonable for hon. Members to question the import of Dutch coal, when we know that no coal comes from the Netherlands.
Some of the coal is described as Luxembourg coal. Luxembourg produces no coal at all. Some is described as Belgian coal. One or two Conservative Members may know a little about the coal industry, and they will know that the Belgian coal industry has been contracting rather faster than ours during the past decade and is now of a negligible size. It is certainly not capable of exporting substantial quantities of coal.
The coal that is blended in Rotterdam is, to a substantial extent, from South Africa. The people who are bringing it in know that people in this country, perhaps not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in many others, are rather more critical of South Africa than are Treasury Ministers. Therefore, they are disguising the trade by their description of the coal. That is deceitful and sordid and is another reason for our hostility to the Bill.

§ Mr. Redmond
The promoter of the Bill does not care where the coal comes from or whether blood is on that coal, so long as he and his friends make a profit from the blood, the sweat and the death. He would import coal from Bolivia and Colombia, which to a large extent is produced by women and children.

§ Mr. Hardy
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes lays himself wide open to that accusation. Although he was able to measure his speech in the number of words per minute, he offered not one word of justification for his political or moral position. It may be that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends met Rand Mines, Anglo-American, Glencor and Johannesburg Consolidated which visited Britain on 22 April. I believe that I know why they came to Britain. They came because they believed that the climate was ripe, and that people in power in Britain were receptive to the idea of more coal being imported. Such imports have been stopped in Denmark, and, I think, in Germany. The Swedes and Norwegians will not touch this coal. Even the French have banned it. South Africa thinks, therefore, that it can send more to Britain.
We once had a decent tradition here, but it has to a large extent been sacrificed by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes may have met the companies in April. Another reason they came is that they believe that they can get in on the ground floor of electricity privatisation and that by establishing, directly or indirectly, more port facilities they can influence not merely the export of coal from South Africa but its consumption here. That is another pretty shoddy pass that we have reached.
Such an approach is sad and foolish for Britain, because it ignores the facts as we approach the 1990s. I do not like reading speeches, but I must make a brief quotation: Increased United Kingdom imports would inevitably force up world prices. The amount of steam coal traded internationally is not much more than the size of the United Kingdom market. 1200 We are not a huge part of the total energy consuming world, but large-scale imports would have a major effect on prices. They would narrow the gap between the price of British coal and the price of world coal.
Hon. Members who think that we can defy the laws of economics and develop a huge dependency on imported coal without suffering any economic consequences are labouring under a serious delusion, because as soon as we increase the demand for coal on world markets the price will inevitably increase substantially. That fact goes to the heart of our argument, and it presents serious dangers for Britain.
The Bill is shortsighted and foolish in economic and energy terms. It is time that we began to understand the realities of energy. We have 0.8 per cent. of the world's proven oil resources, but we are producing almost 4.5 per cent. of the world's oil. We are therefore producing at a rate five times faster than is sensible. As each year passes, the Treasury will have to make more and more concessions to oil producers to invest and increase the rate of extraction from British fields, the bulk of the best parts of which may already have gone.
We have about 0.6 per cent. of the world's gas, but we are producing more than 2.5 per cent. of the world's current output, and have done so for some years. That means that we—a supposedly intelligent nation—are rushing to embrace energy dependency again. As our oil and gas resources are depleted at an astonishing rate of blind prodigal folly, we shall develop dependency on imported coal, because it is cheap at the moment, and wipe out viability in the British coal mining industry.
That lies at the root of the matter and it is why my right hon. and hon. Friends are here tonight, hoping that some Conservative Members will have some sense. A few moments ago, I said that I was quoting. I had hoped that a Conservative Member would ask who I was quoting, as I was quoting what the Secretary of State for Energy said at the Institution of Mining Engineers conference last month.

§ Mr. Michael Welsh
When the Secretary of State said that imported coal would hurt British pits, but that if the price of coal went up we would have a chance to compete, he made an important statement, but is that not an example of economic madness? Does my hon. Friend agree that, once a pit has been closed, output cannot be increased just to suit demand? Once a shaft is closed, no more coal can be brought out. The critical path of a pit is 15 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State was talking economic nonsense to the engineers, and they must have known it?

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend is right. It is a pity that there are no Ministers from the Department of Energy to hear our balanced and justified critique. The Secretary of State's comments on prices were recognised as important at the conference, and not all of those who attended are Socialist or Labour supporters. Indeed, some of them may still be clinging to the coattails of the Conservative party. Nobody with expertise in mining of energy, however, would dream of endorsing the shortsightedness that the Bill represents.
The Secretary of State acknowledged that Britain has huge and rich coal reserves. He said: You all know that, and I know it. He acknowledged that the mining engineers know it and claimed to know it himself, but he has not had a word with 1201 the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to say that his Bill and that which, unfortunately, the House is to consider tomorrow night contradict what the Secretary of State said at the Blackpool conference on 13 May. He said: We have discovered a resource which if allowed to could compete with the world for as far ahead as we can see. How far ahead do the Government look? How far ahead does the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes look? He does not have to look far to see such turmoil, stress, strain and bloodshed in South Africa that would imperil the source on which he wants Britain to depend.
The Secretary of State went further than recognition of the facts. During his speech to the Institution of Mining Engineers he confirmed the enormous investment that the Government have put into mining. We all recognise that vast investment has been made. There are not many Conservative Members present, but some of them might pause for just a while and consider whether it is wise for a Conservative Back Bencher to present a Bill to the House which destroys investment on that scale and about which the Secretary of State boasted.
This is madness economics. It is the financial practice of lunatics. The hon. Gentleman is sabotaging public policy. If we were at war and the hon. Gentleman decided to destroy the armaments on which the country depended, he would probably be shot in the Tower as a traitor, even though we do not currently have capital punishment. If he carries on in this way, he will no doubt appear in an honours list before long. We have spent £9 billion on the coal industry, and the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are cheered for introducing a Bill that will ensure that that investment proves worthless.
I cannot say that I am always an enthusiastic adulator of British Coal, but it regularly keeps hon. Members informed. Indeed, I suspect that some Conservative Members may have been informed more quickly than Labour Members. I received a press release from British Coal which stated: The national productivity record has been broken at Britain's collieries for the fifth time in the last 12 weeks. Miners last week achieved a new peak performance of 4.42 tonnes output per man shift. That is a significant achievement and has been made because of the very real change in the industry. There are now 260 heavy duty coal faces, whereas three or four years ago there were over 500. Three years ago there were five collieries in my constituency; now there is only one. We have made a bitter contribution to the colliery output records achieved by British Coal. The consequences to areas such as mine have been enormous, yet those changes, sacrifices and burdens are mocked by the Bill.
In the Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is saying that we shall have to do even better to compete with South African coal. The British mining communities will not be made the coolies of western Europe. They have made an enormous contribution to the history of this country, and we do not intend to see ever-increasing demands, hardship and deceit.

§ Mr. Redmond
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that the installations would create some jobs. They may well create a few jobs, but when one considers the devastation that will take place in the remaining mining communities, one feels that the hon. Gentleman 1202 should broaden his horizons, see what is happening on the other side of the hill, meet the people and understand what is happening in those industries that are suffering as a consequence of the policies of the Government and of people such as the hon. Gentleman who seek to import further blood coal into this country.

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend is right. His constituency is next to mine and, in the past three years, the number of collieries there has fallen from five to one. In the past three years the number of collieries in my constituency has also fallen from five to one. As other hon. Friends in the House this evening could testify from experiences in their constituencies, the effect on the social and economic structure in areas such as mine has been brutal and cruel and is now mocked by the Bill.
The one remaining colliery in my constituency, Silverwood, is a profitable colliery, as many of my hon. Friends know. It has made enormous profits since it was sunk in 1912, both for the owners before nationalisation, and since it has been owned by the state. It provides coal for Drax and West Burton. The port that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wishes to develop will bring in South African coal to replace that of Silverwood. I am not prepared to sit by and let that happen.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that the threat of electricity privatisation and of the proposal in respect of this port is estimated, in a recent report by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which, to some extent, Sir Robert Haslam endorsed in the Select Committee recently, to mean the loss of another 50,000 jobs? The greatest tragedy is that the average age of miners is now 34, so we are talking about 50,000 jobs involving men of 34 and under, without any compensation in the form of weekly payments.

§ Mr. Hardy
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to develop that point, either tonight or in the relevant debate tomorrow, by referring to an aspect of the matter that causes me serious concern.
The House will be aware that, in addition to representing a mining constituency that has seen its mining interests dramatically reduced, I am sponsored by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which is holding its conference this week. I shall speak at that conference on Friday, and I hope that I can convey to the members the information that the House is not completely daft and that it has some compassion for, understanding of and obligation to all parts of the country, instead of only to the affluent parts of the country that Conservative Members may know better than I do.
As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) might remember, that association has a fundamental obligation, not merely to supervise production, but to ensure that the laws and regulations of this land are observed to ensure that the mining industry is operated as safely as possible.
I want to draw the House's attention to the question of safety. We are concerned about South Africa, not only because of the political injustice or the racial obscenity, but because South African workers are largely abused and do not enjoy the structures of legal protection that any civilised society would think it right to afford. It is appropriate for me, as a Member sponsored by NACODS, to make those points.
1203 One of the South African firms that came to this country in April to discuss opportunities for electricity privatisation, Glencor, is known as the butcher in South Africa because of the fatalities in the underground colliery operations for which it is responsible. There were 177 dead at the Kinross gold mine.
Mining has been practised in my constituency for over 300 years, and it has taken a Conservative Government to bring about the prospect of having no mines at all. I did a great deal of research in local history when I was younger. We could easily travel round and see where 100 people, 50 people or 180 people were destroyed by explosions and by practices which may well have been slightly more tolerable because technology was not as advanced in the 19th century as it is today. There is now no need for scores of men to be killed underground.
A colliery deputy in Britain must be at least 25 years old and have worked underground for five years and on the face for two. Those are very much the minimum requirements. It would be most unusual, as any of my hon. Friends with a great deal of underground experience can confirm, for an official to have those legal responsibilities with only those qualifications. In addition, the official must pass the appropriate examinations.
In South Africa, the requirements are that the person must be 20 years old, and have worked 75 shifts at the face and 400 shifts underground. I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West smiles. His smile cheers me up, because it is sad that we should face this situation without an ounce of sympathy from the Conservative Benches. South African coal is not cheaply won. The wages are low, but the price is high, because people like those who came to meet the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes employ people responsible for safety who have worked only 75 shifts underground. That is why 68 men died in a fire in Hlobane mine.

§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about safety and fatalities in the mining industries. Is he aware that, in speaking about the representatives of South Africa, he is speaking about the apostles of private enterprise? Is he further aware that if the Government win the next general election, they intend to privatise the coal industry? Is he also aware that in this century nearly 58,000 miners have been killed, my father among them, and most of those deaths occurred in the days of private enterprise?

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend is right. Some people make mock of colliery nationalisation, but as a little lad I was with my father, outside Manvers colliery in 1947, to see the vesting of that pit into public ownership. My father, all his work mates and their families knew that one of the blessings of that act was that priority would be given to safety, a priority which was not given before, and which we suspect will not be given again if the Government are returned after the next general election. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads. The profit motive will dominate all other responsibilities and it will be short-sighted—

§ Mr. Illsley
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hardy
Yes, I will in a minute, because I know that my hon. Friend will have an important point to make.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I suspect that the debate might be turning into one about the privatisation or otherwise of the coal mining industry. We had better turn our eyes to North Killingholme.

§ Mr. Hardy
I accept that point because we ought not to stray too far, but this port is being developed in response to the opportunities that privatisation will create. so privatisation is partly related to the Bill. I accept that we should not range too widely, although we do not need to range too widely, because the material in the Bill gives us sufficient scope to debate it for many a long day, week, month or year. It is no good the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes smiling, because if ever this Bill gets to Report, he will not be smiling after the hours that we are prepared to devote to it.
I have been looking at the Bill, and I consider that it will be necessary, if it reaches Report, to table many amendments. I hope that the promoters will decide to cut their losses, because losses there will be. It is not an inexpensive matter to promote a private Bill, and if a large part of the House resents that Bill and deplores the motives behind it and feels it necessary in the interests of the country to issue a challenge, then the promoters must understand that the Bill will be an expensive undertaking.
Some of us devoted a great deal of time, quite properly, to the cause of the red grouse and the little ringed plover when we debated the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act. I will not mention all the species that were mentioned, although I would be in order to do so. In this Bill, our concerns go a good deal further than the avian. There are concerns about our areas, about our people and our country and about this fact above all. Conservative Members, like Nero in ancient Rome, ignore the reality of the economic evidence that is looking increasingly large. The trade deficit, approaching or exceeding £10 billion in 1988, cannot be brused aside by even the most irresponsible politician.
At the moment, the Government know that the trade deficit of £12 billion can just about be borne because of invisible earnings and the £4 billion or more of oil revenues. There will be problems the moment they go, and we have much less than 1 per cent.—little more than 0.5 per cent.—of the world's oil resources. We have been producing at nearly 5 per cent. of world oil production, so the Government, despite their disdain of economic reality, are merely ensuring that we approach energy dependency as fast as possible. They do not consider the consequences. They have seen the economic devastation of many parts of England and the eradication of large sectors of our manufacturing industry. When the oil income diminishes, the trade deficit will press hard.
It may be that, by that time, the pound's value in the world's exchanges will be diminished, and the price of coal, which will rise in any case, will in real terms be a burden that the country cannot afford. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and his friends are seeking to wipe out large sections of the British coal industry, and to develop a dependence on imported energy. If that happened in very few years, we would not have the economic capacity to go into the world markets and buy the energy on which we depend. That is at the heart of the matter. I do not know what brief or advice the Minister has been given for his inevitable contribution to the 1205 debate, but it will be interesting to see whether he is prepared to offer some modest comment about the economic implications of the Bill.

§ Mr. Illsley
My hon. Friend has spoken about the conference that he will attend this week and about the regulations that govern deputies in mines. Is my hon. Friend aware that already the Government are dismantling the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and have published 15 sets of new codes of regulations which will decrease the safety standards applicable to deputies in the British coal industry?

§ Mr. Hardy
I am aware of the matter, and it will be figuring quite largely in the discussions that I shall have in Glasgow over the next two days. It is a matter that causes NACODS real anxiety. I only hope that no Minister, although he may believe it, will have the gall to say that we have to dismantle the safety structures so that British coal can compete against South African coal. I hope that Ministers will not argue that we have to put at risk life and limb in Britain to compete with Colombia. I know that Colombian coal is selling at $28.20 a tonne on world markets, but it is being sold at well below the production cost, which on average is $33.90. I was interested to see in the documents that I have studied that the companies that own Colombian coal, which are rather more intelligent than some Conservative Members, have said that they are prepared to subsidise Colombian coal until such time as world markets recover and profits are within their grasp. That will happen when the port to which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is dedicated is constructed.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
The proposals to substitute the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 by codes of practice, not by regulations, are designed to enable British Coal to increase its profitable element. That Act contains absolute safety provisions, which are statutory provisions. On the other hand, a code of practice is not a statutory provision, and breach of it is not even an offence; it is taken to the courts only when the court case is considered. In other words, the dismantling of that Act represents a massive reduction in safety standards precisely to compete with cheap coal coming through ports such as the one suggested here.

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend is an authority on employment law and health and safety matters, on which he has a distinguished record. The Government cannot deny opportunity to the House to consider the serious matter on which he has touched, which concerns me.
Before I proceed with my speech, I wish to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I remember that I promised to allow him to intervene. I shall be glad now to remedy my failure to do so.

§ Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)
A short while ago my hon. Friend referred to the Minister and asked rhetorically whether he had been briefed. My hon. Friend and I know what is going on and the Minister is aware of the Government's policy. The Government favour the Bill because it fits their policy on the privatisation of electricity. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) —that little lad on the Front Bench below the Gangway who knows nothing about mining—is having an education this evening. He now knows what the Bill involves.
1206 I received some visitors today, and when I was with them I saw the Secretary of State for Energy, who was also with some visitors. I asked him whether he would be in the House this evening, and he said he would. Why would the Secretary of State be in the precincts of the House this evening when a private Bill is being discussed? It is a fact that the Government have fixed the vote to secure the Bill's passage. This is a serious matter and I ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to remove the grin from his face. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman has received an education this evening.
There are 19 pits in Nottinghamshire. If the Bill is enacted, coal imported from South Africa, for example, through the proposed port would close nine of them. There are nine pits in Nottinghamshire which supply coal for the power stations on the Trent.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions should be brief.

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend's intervention may have been lengthy but it was relevant and important. My assessment suggests that he may have understated the position. I hope that no Conservative Members will deny my claim that it is by no means an overstatement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield referred to Nottinghamshire. I talked earlier about the astonishing achievement of the county in establishing the highest productivity record for British coal nationally. The productivity record established in Nottinghamshire in the recent measured period shows output per man shift exceeding 5 tonnes for the first time in British history. The attitude of the lackeys on the Government Benches, with the connivance of the Government, unless the Minister can make an extremeley convincing speech, means that Nottinghamshire pits are under threat. What a reward for all those in Nottinghamshire who have been praised and congratulted by Conservative Members in the past.

§ Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)
The intervention of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) was not relevant to the debate. Indeed, it was entirely false. I put it to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that the Government are not involved in the Bill. If they were, all Opposition Members would be aware of the fact. If that were the position, the payroll vote, as it is affectionately known, would be expected to support the unofficial policy of the Government. Some Parliamentary Private Secretaries have been told that there will be a free vote this evening and that they may speak against the Bill. Indeed, some will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that they may do so, and vote against the Bill.

§ Mr. Hardy
The hon. Gentleman has touching faith in the Government's objectivity. I thought he said that a certain section of the House is known "affectionately" as the payroll vote. I realised immediately afterwards that I had misheard him and that he said that it was effectively known as that.

§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
I said "affectionately" and I meant "affectionately." Those of us who are part of the payroll vote resent the term because we do not get paid.

§ Mr. Hardy
In a better world and at a better time I was part of the payroll vote when the Labour Government were in office, and in a position similar to that which is held by the hon. Gentleman. There were many occasions when 1207 I and others in the same position, whether we were regarded affectionately or not, were not given advice on Bills of this sort. We were never given advice on private Bills. Our Whips recognised that it was not for them to contemplate any interference by the Government. I shall need a great deal more convincing than has been offered in the hon. Gentleman's reassurances.
I know that the Minister will not speak at length in this debate. Ministers never do on these occasions. However, I want him to tell us three things when he gives us advice on the Government's position. I want him to tell us whether the Government are prepared to adopt the same attitude towards South African coal as other member states of the Western Alliance and the European Economic Community. I want the Government to advise the House whether it would be sensible to enact a Bill that would nullify public investment in the British coal industry. I want the Government to advise the House whether it would be intelligent for the Government or the country to allow a port to be established, in massive duplication of other facilities, which would ensure that strategic interests were not served. That is not much to ask.
I have been involved in a number of private Bills in the past 12 or 18 months and I have been appalled by the attitude that has been displayed by various Ministers. We had a classic example. A Minister assured the House that the Government were neutral. Having heard that, I voted and went quickly to stand outside the Aye Lobby. I saw Government Whips and Ministers flocking out of it. That happened immediately after a Minister had told us that there was neutrality. According to that Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment was neutral. He voted in favour of the Bill when the two public agencies which reported to him were petitioning against it.

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend may recall that the very same Minister, who is on the Government Front Bench tonight, when speaking about the Associated British Ports Bill a few weeks ago, said that the Government had no position on the Bill but he hoped that hon. Members would vote with him to give it a Second Reading. I suspect that the Minister will say very much the same tonight.

§ Mr. Hardy
The Minister is developing a reputation for frankness and integrity, which may mean that he has reconsidered his position. Only last Monday, I asked a question of him—I recognise that this is not strictly relevant, so I shall be brief—concerning red seats on railway platforms. At Grantham station the seats are blue, and when I commented that that was inevitably because of the Prime Minister's connections, and suggested that the right hon. Lady's attachment to railways is meagre and wretched, the Minister said that that was not the case because his right hon. Friend had told him that she had enjoyed a railway journey. That was frank of him; he could at least have avoided the singular. He did not do so. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's reputation rose in my estimation.
It may be that he has decided that the course of integrity and responsibility is such, even with demanding masters, that when he stands at the Dispatch Box he will recognise the merit of our argument. If he does, his reputation will be improved beyond that of the tawdry level of so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends who occupy the Government Front Bench.
The Government have divided Britain in an astonishing 1208 way. I mentioned the plight of my hon. Friend's area and mine, which is relevant to the Bill. In each of our constituencies, we have one colliery remaining that could be threatened by a dependence upon imports. Our constituents are angry—as are those of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who has had a similar experience—and we are angry al the way in which we are treated by the Government and by Ministers. About four years ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister about what would happen in my constituency. A few weeks later she replied saying that I had overstated my case and that only 2,800 mining jobs would be lost.
On several occasions since I have raised the matter again. Four weeks ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister, saying that the position was worse than when I had written to her a month previously. Last week, she replied, and it is disgraceful that a Prime Minister should put her name to a letter designed to be grossly misleading. For example, the right hon. Lady insisted that unemployment in my area is falling when it is not. She claimed that my area is receiving special priority under the urban programme when it is not. There are still a few Government supporters north of the Trent, and there may be present Conservative Members from areas that I could name, where unemployment is half the level it is in my own constituency and that of my hon. Friend, but which—despite the fact that their average population is one third of that in my metropolitan area—are receiving larger sums in urban area support. Some special priority!
An even more unacceptable development, which would be aggravated if the Bill is passed, is that the Government have changed the rules for derelict land grant. The House knows that I am committed to the cause of conservation. One hon. Member mentioned that I embraced it long before many other hon. Members did, and sometimes I am cynical about their support. Nevertheless, I am committed to seeing the Dearne valley, where I live, made green again. We have lost the pits and we are now losing hope. The remaining jobs there are under threat, yet the Prime Minister informed me that the area was being greatly helped by the derelict land grant, when in fact the Government have changed the regulations and made it virtually impossible for any public moneys to be devoted to reclaiming colliery spoil heaps or the area within the curtilage of any colliery. In my own constituency there are in one colliery complex 675 acres that cannot be improved and which will remain desolate, despairing and disgraceful because of the Government's insensitivity—an insensitivity that is compounded by the Prime Minister's great deceit. I am waiting for the right hon. Lady's explanation of the various points that were made in the letter.
That area, with the adjoining constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) to the east and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) to the west, has seen the most colossal job losses.
It may be that the Minister will tell the House that he can offer all sorts of assurances that this is a reputable private company which can give guarantees, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that after my experiences in my constituency over the past 12 months I am cynical about taking the word of private sector businesses, unless I know them very well indeed.

§ Mr. Redmond
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important is jobs for the youngsters? In its prime, prior to the strike, the coal board employed approximately 650 1209 apprentices each year. After the strike, in 1985, in 1986 and in 1987 there were no more apprentices. How many apprenticeships will replace that loss?

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend is right to ask the question, but I cannot answer it. However, I doubt whether the commitment to training and education in the private sector generally is anything like adequate. It is most unlikely that the training being given by the public sector to young people in the steel and coal industries and other sectors of the economy will be replaced once privatisation has been completed.

§ Mr. Illsley
Before my hon. Friend leaves the point that he was making about private companies and the assurances that he would take from them, will he comment on the matters raised at the beginning of the debate when we seemed to have some difficulty in identifying the promoter of the Bill? He might recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) had elicited that Chemical and Oil Storage Management Ltd. did not seem to exist and that it may have been taken over by a company called Simon Storage. Does that not emphasise my hon. Friend's point that we should be wary of who we are dealing with in this matter?

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is one of the modern tragedies of Britain that the captains of industry should have allowed within their ranks men whose word cannot be believed. I am not suggesting that the company is dishonourable, nor that the people within it are dishonourable, but the fact remains that we have had such experiences over the past few years as to make us extremely suspicious of the word of big business men.
It would be wrong to detain the House for long, but my experience of the Guinness company, which cost us 500 jobs, after promises were made, caused me both anger and contempt. When the company, having twice offered me written assurances, then told the local newspapers that it had not given me any assurances at all, we really had reached a pretty pass. It is a pass which means that, in the interests of our constituents, as the Bill proceeds, if it does proceed, we must subject the companies involved in the Bill— the Central Oil Refining Company Ltd., a subsidiary of Simon Engineering plc, and another subsidiary of Simon Engineering plc, Immingham Storage Company Ltd.—to careful scrutiny.
That scrutiny will be a great deal more careful as a consequence of the experience that my hon. Friends will have had in their constituencies—an experience that I certainly had when Guinness became involved in misleading and cheating the ratepayers, the community and the representatives at national and local level in my constituency, creating a situation in which 500 jobs were lost directly and an additional number of jobs are still being lost as a consequence. That came at a time when Kilnhurst and Manvers collieries were closed and unemployment became even worse.
For the Prime Minister to say that unemployment is still falling in my area is in plain and stark defiance of the facts, even though the Minister and I and every Conservative Member know that the Government's unemployment figures are fiddled anyway. Even on their fiddled figures, the situation in the coalfield areas is 1210 disgraceful. What made me even more angry was that the Prime Minister said to me, "We can demonstrate our commitment to your area: 17,500 young people there are on youth training schemes." That is true; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) knows full well, last year only 9.8 per cent. of them obtained jobs.
We shall need an awful lot of convincing from the Minister, and I do not think that he will allow himself sufficient time or energy to present a detailed and convincing case. However, if he does, I hope that he will address the relevant questions that I put to him.
We recognise that the matter may be the responsibility of the Department of Transport, but it is nevertheless of fundamental importance to the Department of Energy. I cannot expect the Minister to refer in detail to energy, but, as it is fundamental to the Bill, we are surely entitled to ask Conservative Members to comment on my quotations from the speech that the Secretary of State made at Blackpool to the annual conference of the Institution of Mining Engineers. We are also entitled to suggest that a Minister from the Department of Energy should have been here. It is absurd that a matter of such enormous importance to the economy—the making of energy policy and the mining industry, a matter of enormous relevance to the hundreds of millions of pounds invested by successive Governments on behalf of the taxpayer—is to be put at risk without a single Energy Minister being present.
I wonder where they are. Are they interested in their responsibilities? Do they not approve of the words of the Secretary of State for Energy being quoted with approval by Opposition Members, including myself? Do they not notice that we believe that the Secretary of State was absolutely right in referring to the prospects of British Coal—provided, of course, that it operates on a basis of common sense?
We are entitled to ask the Government to take a long-term view, but they must understand that we shall need a good deal of persuasion. After the Secretary of State for the Environment had been given the official advice of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, which strongly opposed the Bill, the Minister came to the Dispatch Box and pledged the Government's neutrality. The Secretary of State, the Chief Whip and all the other minions led the troops, happy and laughing, through the Lobby in support of the Bill when their duties and responsibilities should have persuaded them at least to abstain.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
We understand the Government's position. We understand that there is no neutrality—in fact, there is an unofficial Whip in support of the Bill. But, given the case that my hon. Friend has made about the effect on our communities, should not the Government be organising their troops to vote against this private Bill?

§ Mr. Hardy
That is right.
I do not want to detain the House for long this evening. I must make progress because I still have four or five small points to make.
I referred a few moments ago to safety in South Africa, but omitted to inform the House that the death rate in South African coal mines is well in excess of six times the rate per thousand men employed in the British mining industry. Life and limb should be regarded as important 1211 by all hon. Members. We accept that Conservative Members may give them a slightly lower priority than we do, but they will give them some—

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
My hon. Friend said earlier that the miners of western Europe could become the coolies of western Europe—a fundamental point. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), with his connections with South Africa, never conveys that point. The Tories can never be neutral about the miners. Anyone who remembers the miners' strike knows full well that the Conservatives' aim is to weaken the mining industry in this country. They hate the miners, and have no consideration for South African miners, either. Nelson Mandela has been in gaol all these years. The Sharpeville six will be executed shortly. Are the Tories bothered about British miners? They will have the South African miners, with blood on their coal, competing with our miners to lower the standards of our mining safety and to close our pits.

§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend is right. We suspect—the Minister had better note this—that one reason for the port is to provide another lever for the Government's attempts to dismantle the structure of safety in the British mining industry.

§ Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)
As a former miner, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who worked in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, I should like to take this opportunity to mention our real fears. Before we close the debate I want to clear up a misunderstanding about our worries. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), when he goes to the conference of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, to give its members our assurance that we shall fully support their defence against the attacks on safety standards in the mining industry that have been made by the Government in preparation for privatisation.
Even the present legislation is inadequate. We should be strengthening, not weakening, it. I speak as a former union secretary in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, and I had the unpleasant duty of attending six inquests during my period of office. On each of those occasions the legislation proved inadequate to save the lives that were lost. Hon. Members will appreciate what it is like to have to go to a home in a mining community and tell a family that its daddy is not coming home. That explains our real worries about safety standards.
I think, too, of safety standards in, and blood coal from, South Africa. I can well understand what happens there when—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he may be called.

§ Mr. Hardy
I believe that my association recognises that Opposition Members remain committed to giving safety a high priority. We are worried about the attitude of Ministers and Conservative Members.

§ Mr. John Cummings (Easington)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given way, lest people think that the debate revolves solely around Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire. I represent a constituency in the north-east that contains four of the remaining six collieries in the old Durham area. I am sure my hon. 1212 Friend recalls the Prime Minister's remarks during the miners' strike to the effect that we were the enemy within. We have broken productivity records. Productivity has never been higher; nor has morale. Perhaps the enemy within sits on the Conservative Benches. Conservative Members are selling the country short by introducing this Bill, which will place the coal reserves of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the hands of international coal cartels. Does my hon. Friend agree?

§ Mr. Hardy
That is right. Unfortunately, the gentleman who held the trust and support of the Government was certainly taking Britain along the road of Mr. MacGregor's basic interest, which was to see Britain developing as a major international coal factor rather than a major international coal producer. I was pleased that he did not get his hands on British Gas after having dealt with British Steel and British Coal.
Some Conservative Members and Ministers may be so busy pursuing other interests that have attracted their attention that they have overlooked the reality of British electricity generation. Given that disregard, which has been made patently obvious in the debate, it is useful to remind the House of the coal generation market in the United Kingdom.
Conservative Members seem to believe that the Government have forced the CEGB to buy British coal, and that there are some printed rules and regulations requiring the CEGB to do that. That is not the case. There is a joint understanding. The trouble is that, whilst a joint understanding can properly be applied to public sector industry, private sector businesses do not operate on understandings. They cannot trust each other and they have to have laws.
Above all, I want the House to understand my next point. Over three quarters of British coal is used for power station generation and 55 per cent. of the CEGB's operating costs are devoted to coal. Conservative Members think that that is a lie and that that coal cart be replaced by cheap foreign coal. They do not understand that 12 million tonnes of coal are purchased by the CEGB at world prices. There is no possibility of a £750 million bonanza waiting round the corner. That is why the Bill is misguided in its potential social effects and in its financial aspirations. That is why I and my hon. Friends will maintain what I said was an absolutely implacable resolve to contest the Bill in every detail. We will contest every word, every line and every paragraph at every stage of the Bill's consideration.

§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)
It may be helpful to the House if I intervene briefly to give the Government's view on the Bill. It is conventional on a private Bill for the Government to take a neutral stance, but in doing so to advise the House that the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading. This does not imply that the Government support the Bill. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) asked for the Government's view about whether the Bill involves the provision of excess capacity in the ports industry. We think that matching capacity with demand is best handled by those who put their money at risk on whether their judgment is right. Their judgment is at least as likely to be 1213 right as the judgment of politicians, and probably more so. The Government have no objection in principle to the proposals in the Bill. My Department has a minor point outstanding which it is discussing with the promoters, and it is expected that it will be satisfactorily resolved.

§ Mr. Barron
What is the minor point?

§ Mr. Mitchell
It is a minor technical point about lighthouses and Trinity House. As I have said, we anticipate that it will be satisfactorily resolved.
A number of petitioners are against the Bill, and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are in this debate to examine in detail the issues involved, and they will have the added advantage of expert advice.
A number of hon. Members referred to the coal industry. It has never been the Government's policy to restrict the import of coal. The best protection for the United Kingdom coal industry is to produce secure supplies of coal that are competitive on the world market. The success of British Coal in competition with world coal suppliers depends on its ability to continue to get costs down and to maximise productivity. The purchase of coal, whether imported or indigenous, is a matter for the commercial judgment of individual consumers.
The hon. Member for Wentworth asked me two further questions. He asked about South African coal. I have no reason to assume that the pattern of sources of imports will be altered by the Bill. That pattern shows that the largest overseas supplier to this country is Australia and that the second largest is the United States of America.

§ Mr. Hardy
In order not to delay the House, I did not mention Australia. Australian coal capacity is under severe limit because, at the prevailing level of prices, not enough can be recouped to pay for investment, with the result that the collieries and coalfields in Australia are not operating at full production. That is a relevant point to make when we are considering the Bill.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing that Australia still has surplus capacity that is not being mined. Australia is already the leading overseas supplier to this country. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends implied, South Africa. The second largest supplier is the United States of America. There is no reason to believe that the building of a new terminal will alter the pattern of imports and lead to South Africa, which is very low on the list of overseas suppliers, moving to the top of the list, as has been implied.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Mitchell
Let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for Wentworth raised. He questioned whether the development of the terminal would nullify British investment in the coal industry. I have already explained what the Government consider to be the most effective way for the British coal industry to ensure its future. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for investment in the British coal industry to enable it to continue to compete successfully in the United 1214 Kingdom and world markets. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the Government are investing about £650 million a year in the British coal industry.
We believe that we should not use limitations of port capacity as a form of non-tariff barrier to imports in order artificially to protect the United Kingdom industry. That industry is now becoming so efficient, competitive and effective that it does not need such artificial discrimination to ensure that it can sell in the United Kingdom market.

§ Mr. Barron
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Mitchell
I have tried to answer the points that have been raised in the debate so far. I know that a large number of hon Members want to participate and it would be unfair to them if I were to continue at any length.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration of the many issues that hon Members have made clear are likely to arise then.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)
It is an unusual exhortation to the House that a Second Reading should be given on the nod and that we should dispense with the entire Second Reading debate because the Government feel that the Bill should be given a chance to prove itself in Committee. In not so many years' time, when we have a Labour Government introducing their own legislation, and if the present Minister survives that general election, will he be prepared to accept Labour Ministers inviting Conservative Members to give a Bill a Second Reading on the nod so that detailed examination can be given to it in Committee? The Minister knows that that is nonsense on a private Bill or a Government Bill, because the whole reason for Second Reading is to seek answers to detailed questions.
Tonight's debate has been a contempt of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made an excellent speech, if a little brief, and he is certainly absolved from that charge, because he took the debate seriously. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), spoke in total for five minutes at, he told us, the rate of 110 words per minute. In 550 words, he made the case for the Bill having a Second Reading, but totally failed to answer many of the important questions that had already been raised, or to anticipate those that might be raised.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
rose—

§ Mr. Lloyd
I will give way in a moment.
The Minister is responsible not only for the Government's ports policy, but for representing the Government on the many issues that have been raised tonight. He gave us almost no reason for believing that the Government have any view whatsoever of the important issues which have been raised. I warn hon. Gentlemen that during my speech I shall invite them from time to time to respond to specific points that I raise because it is in the interests of the House that they be addressed tonight by the promoter and the Government, and that we should not have to wait until the Bill is in Committee.

§ Mr. Brown
Although you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Speaker, I commenced my speech at 7.30 pm and ended it at either five minutes past or 10 minutes past 8 o'clock. The only reason why I was unable to do justice to 1215 that amount of time and to develop my argument was that many of the points of order were raised in the middle of my speech.

§ Mr. Lloyd
In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I should say that he does not do justice to his speech even when he is not assailed by points of order.
Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the House if I quote from a letter which he sent his hon Friends, a copy of which has fallen into my hands. If I may beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, it is important that you take account of what is in the letter which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes sent to all Conservative Members—

§ Mr. Michael Brown
No, not to all.

§ Mr. Lloyd
Well, possibly not to all. [HON. MEMBERS:"HOW many?"] Well, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes certainly sent it to one of his hon. Friends, who has let it fall into my hands—that is unless he made the mistake of sending it to one of my hon. Friends.
The letter states that this Bill is similar to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It says that both Bills are "very controversial"—he is right about that—and that Labour Members are "totally opposed" to the Bills. My hon. Friends have already made that point clear, and I reinforce it.
The letter continued: A filibuster prevented me from obtaining a closure on the first bill and there is a risk that this could re-occur on Wednesday. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would not accept that any filibuster took place, because you were in the Chair that night. The hon. Gentleman then stated: Nevertheless, I cannot take any chances and I wonder if I can impose on your goodwill by asking you to be present to support a closure which I shall request at 10 pm. That is an unusual device. Indeed, it is unusual that I announce to you, Mr. Speaker, from the Opposition Front Bench, that the hon. Gentleman will seek to move a closure at 10 pm. I hope that you will take into account when you take your decision the total paucity of the debate and the speeches that have been made by both the promoter and the Minister. I urge that because the Bill is tremendously important in many different ways.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recognise that a long speech does not necessarily contain more facts, figures or information for the House than the short, concise replies that I gave to the questions asked earlier by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

§ Mr. Lloyd
That might be sound as a principle, but I assure the Minister that when brevity consists of emptiness, it is irrelevant in a speech from a Minister or a promoter of a Bill. I shall make points which, because the Minister will not speak again, he will presumably allow to go unaddressed.
Important transport issues have not been addressed, and I intend to turn my attention to them. There are also important issues about the coal industry itself, some of which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and by our hon. Friends in their interventions. There are also important international dimensions, such as the role of South Africa and the apartheid regime.

§ Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central)
Conservative Members are apologists for the apartheid regime.

§ Mr. Lloyd
My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Some of the real issues concern how far we allow the apartheid regime to penetrate the British economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth pointed out that the South African economic regime is looking greedily at the CEGB. By purchasing those who use the coal, the South African coal industry can guarantee a ready market for its coal supplies in this country.

§ Mr. Barron
I tried to intervene in the Minister's speech when he made the specific point that both this Bill and its sister Bill had no direct implications for South African coal. Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) not only went to South Africa this year on a visit paid for by the South African coal industry to look at plants there, but at the same time publicly called on the South African Government to lift restrictions to improve exports from South Africa to Europe?

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am always happy to allow my hon. Friend to intervene. The hon. Gentleman visited South Africa to demand that all bans on coal from South Africa be lifted. On 6 April 1988, in the Daily Mail—an apologist for the apartheid regime and the Right-wing Conservative party —its industrial correspondent, David Norris, wrote: It is understood they"— that is, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and some colleagues, including the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who is the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee— told the business leaders that the best way to go about getting the ban on coal lifted was to take out a stake in the planned privatised set-up. The hon. Gentleman may wish to deny or confirm that report, but it seems that those hon. Gentlemen were inviting the South African mining industry to take a stake in the CEGB, knowing that they would support the Government's privatisation of it next year.[Interruption.] Yes, Botha's friends will be voting to allow Botha's friends to buy a stake in this country's assets. The hon. Gentleman should make some statement about that. Although he tells the House that he has no personal interest, it is obvious that he has a strong one.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Does my hon. Friend think that it would be for the benefit of the House if the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) staled categorically whether he discussed with the South African coal owners the possibility of buying British electricity and possibly the coal industry?

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am happy to repeat my offer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes: if he wants to confirm or deny the report in the Daily Mail, I shall certainly give way. Was he one of those who told South African business leaders that the best way to get rid of the ban on coal imports into Britain was to take a stake in the planned privatised industry? That is a serious allegation. Not only does the hon. Gentleman want to serve the apartheid regime, but he wants to subvert United Nations resolutions and the whole climate of world opinion in order to prop up that disgraceful regime, which lives on an industry based on slave labour. He wants South Africans to reap the benefit of that slave labour through British industry.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Lloyd
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him before my hon. Friends. Since he does not, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall).

§ Mr. Wall
Does my hon. Friend not think it significant that the issue of South African coal has been avoided? Is he aware that Britain is a signatory to the EC code of conduct in relation to South Africa? That says that, as a minimum, there should be total opposition to the use of migrant labour, which is widely used in the South African mining industry, and that British firms which have interests in South Africa should pay wages at least 50 per cent. above the minimum level. Under this Government, they have been reduced to 28 per cent. above the minimum in South Africa. Surely the Government have a duty to be bound by the European code of conduct. Therefore, we should ask whether proper wages are being paid and whether the Government are meeting the conditions laid down by the EC. If not, it is a disgrace that the Bill is being sneaked through.

§ Mr. Lloyd
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. I am not surprised by the Government's hypocrisy. I draw his attention to the recorded vote in the United Nations in November last year on resolution 42/23B when Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany, also an importer of South African coal, and the United States, with its dubious record on South Africa, were the only three countries which voted against the resolution asking members to prohibit the import of South African coal.
The Government are schizophrenic about South Africa. The Minister of State, Foreign Office is clearly embarrassed by her own Prime Minister. Obviously the Minister of State wants to do something serious about the apartheid regime, but the Prime Minister gives way to the apologists in her party and to the Right-wing hawks who would have us deal with South Africa as if it were governed by civilised, fit and decent people. Inevitably the Prime Minister will win the argument. That means that any code of conduct which the Government have entered into is as nothing when they are determined to prop up that awful regime.

§ Mr. Jack Thompson
Should we not consider another point on South Africa? If the Dutch Government follow the line of the Dutch people and decide to ban the import of South African coal to Rotterdam and Amsterdam, is it not likely that the South African coal will come to Britain to be exported to western Europe?

§ Mr. Lloyd
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I invite the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who did not address the issue in his speech, to tell the House what he knows of Van Ommeren, the Dutch transportation company. Earlier this year the Financial Times, in relation to the North Killingholme cargo terminal, said: Dutch transport group Van Ommeren and UK industrialists Simon Engineering plan to open a deepwater mixed bulk cargo port on the Humber in summer 1989". I have heard no denial by the proposers of the private Bill that they are in business with Van Ommeren. I have heard no denial of the suggestion that Van Ommeren and Simon Engineering are working together on this. It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman would tell us what the role of Van Ommeren is. Is the Financial Times right when it says that Van Ommeren is involved? The hon. Gentleman says that he does not know.
1218 My hon. Friends may want to know what Van Ommeren is. It is one of the largest Dutch transportation companies, responsible for taking a considerable amount of coal from South African mines, at the behest of Shell and BP, to the Dutch market in Rotterdam where it is mixed with coal from other sources such as China. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth has already said, the coal is sold in Britain and in other areas as Dutch coal. As any hon. Member with the slightest inkling of the geography of the Netherlands or the history of the coal industry in Europe will know, the Dutch coal industry was expended a considerable time ago. The concept of Dutch coal is nonsense, unless it is coal which the present-day Dutch inherited from the Dutch who went to South Africa many years ago as Voortrekkers and which they are reimporting from that former Dutch colony.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to tell us what the role of Van Ommeren is. Van Ommeren already has a dubious record as a trader in apartheid and all its works, prepared to do the dirty business in Rotterdam by laundering the coal that comes from the Shells and BPs. If it is involved in North Killingholme, can the hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House that the company will not see this as a perfect opportunity to cut out the middle market and bring South African coal straight into the heart of Britain, into the midlands and the northern coalfields to destroy jobs in those areas, while at the same time creating profits for the South African coal industry?
Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us a simple fact. There is a very old quote about a nation built on coal. We are still a nation built on coal, and the House is testimony to that. Many of my hon. Friends come from that tradition, which is deeply respected in the Labour movement, but unfortunately it is despised in the Conservative party. The Government were prepared to pretend to miners in the UDM during the NUM strike that the Government were backing the UDM, but the UDM miners and the NUM miners will now find that their jobs will be sold to the apartheid regime.
Can the Minister of State explain to me, to the House and to the world how a nation with all those coal reserves could contemplate importing through the North Killingholme terminal and through its sister terminal at Immingham 10 million tonnes of coal a year? The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he can give the House some information that he was not prepared to give a few moments ago. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what those ports are all about. If he knows more than I do, I invite him to ask me to give way; I shall be delighted to do so.
The information we have is that the capacity of the two ports will approach 10 million tonnes a year. That will be equivalent to a balance of payments deficit of £250 million to £350 million each year. We are worsening our already parlous balance of payments policy when the coal could be produced in Britain, creating and maintaining employment in the British coalfields. Instead of wanting to maintain that employment and to improve our balance of payments, the Secretary of State for Energy wants competition. He says that the Government do not believe in trade barriers or artificial devices to restrict competition.
The Secretary of State for Energy told the Institution of Mining Engineers: We believe that competition makes industries stronger, not weaker. That is why we will not put up trade barriers to coal imports. Not only would this run against our 1219 international treaty obligations. It would also, in the long term, result in a weaker mining industry at home. British Coal will be a fitter, more confident and secure employer if it wins its business on its merits. Tonight, the Minister of State echoed that point. Will he tell the House how he seriously expects miners in the Nottingham and Yorkshire coalfields to compete with slave labour in South Africa? How does he seriously expect the British coal industry to compete with an industry which has blood on its hands because it does not even have the basic safety levels that were taken for granted in British pits before nationalisation? A safety regime would not be tolerated in South Africa.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman asks how the United Kingdom industry can compete. May I remind him that the United Kingdom industry competes very effectively? May I help the hon. Gentleman and the House on the level of throughput which the installation will be capable of' achieving? The hon. Gentleman mentioned 10 million tonnes. That is typical of the exaggeration which we have come to expect from him. I understand that the company hopes to attract various bulk cargoes, including coal, aiming for throughput of 2 million metric tonnes a year. The installation is thought to have a maximum capacity of 4 million metric tonnes a year. It is planning to have a varied cargo and not to be a single commodity terminal.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am always grateful to the Minister for intervening, as he makes my job far simpler. Perhaps I may refer to the Financial Times coal report, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has not wished to challenge. It said that the ABP port at Immingham, which we debated not long ago, will have an annual throughput of 6 million tonnes in three years. As the Minister said, it is proposed that North Killingholme should have a starting capacity of 1 to 2 million tonnes and a final capacity of 4 million tonnes. If the Minister bears with me while I explain that four plus six equals 10, he will understand that my estimate of 10 million tonnes for the two ports is not awfully wide of the mark. I shall leave him to dwell on that.
The Minister may be absolved of not understanding the arithmetic of coal. He may even be absolved of not understanding the nature of the vicious regime in South Africa. But he cannot be absolved of not understanding the transportation system serving Immingham and North Killingholme. He did not comment on the difficulties that will be created for roads and railways in the area.
I am led to understand that it is uncertain whether the coal will be carried by road or rail. There is severe doubt whether the roads can carry even 1 million tonnes of coal. The constituency Member, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, said that there would be little environmental damage as a result of the Bill. If l million tonnes of coal is put on the roads, that means 800 extra heavy lorries on roads in his constituency each day. The hon. Gentleman might not think that an environmental nuisance, but his constituents might think differently. If I were one of his constituents, I would be severely worried about my Member of Parliament's ability to represent me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider the problems that may arise as a result of there being 800 extra heavy lorries, loaded to 32.5 tonnes, on the roads each day.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
We have railways, and we use them.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The hon. Gentleman tells me that he has railways—but are they capable of taking up to 10 million tonnes of coal? All the evidence that I have suggests that they are not. If the Minister had said that a detailed analysis of the railways' coal-carrying capacity was made, we might have been reassured about the system. The 800 lorries a day I mentioned would carry only 1 million tonnes. If the railways cannot cope, and the whole 10 million tonnes has to go by road, there will be an extra 8,000 lorries a day in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Is he aware of the death and accident rate on roads in that area? If he is, I should like him to give the House the figures.

§ Mr. Brown
I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. In about 1982, some 5 million tonnes of British coal was exported through the port of Immingham, and it was taken there by lorries and trains. Whether coal is carried by rail or by road, just as much coal dust is likely to be dropped if the coal is going out of Immingham as when it is coming in through Immingham. Opposition Members would like nothing more than to have their coal exported through Immingham.

§ Mr. Lloyd
My hon. Friends would be delighted to have coal from their areas exported. There are, however, a few little difficulties, such as the fact that British coal is put on the market at about £40 a tonne. Coal in Rotterdam from the apartheid regime in South Africa costs $40 per tonne, which is much cheaper. The opportunities for my hon. Friends and their constituents to export coal are nullified because the means of production in South Africa is slave labour.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes may be aware that there have been some significant changes in the rail system. Perhaps he would like to tell the House what has happened to the rail system in that area since the days when Immingham was a major exporting port. The rail connections are now worse than they were at that time, and the capacity to carry by rail has diminished. The capacity to carry coal by road to power stations is not feasible in all circumstances.
I shall be travelling through the hon. Gentleman's constituency on Friday. He appears to be under the impression that the A180, on which the coal is carried, is of motorway class. He is talking nonsense. It is an A road, not a motorway. He might like to know that there were 16 serious accidents on that road last year.

§ Mr. Brown
That shows how little the hon. Gentleman knows about my constituency. I am delighted that he is going up to Brigg and Cleethorpes on Friday, and I wish him a happy visit. I am sorry to hear that he will only he passing through the area, probably on the A 180, which is of motorway standard, has dual carriageway in both directions and is the exact equivalent of a motorway, except that one can turn off at roundabouts.

§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)
Is my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) aware that 500, and sometimes up to 1,000, lorries pass through rural villages in my constituency each day? Those villages have no street lighting and no pavements and were never built for heavy lorries going to pits with which the existing rail system cannot cope. There will be a new power station at West Burton, where the railway runs through a tunnel on a one-line track. Under the existing system, it can barely 1221 cope with the movement of coal. If the development of this port goes ahead, it will be absolute murder for the people living in those villages.

§ Mr. Lloyd
My hon. Friend is right, but perhaps he should also say that it would be murder for the constituents of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the dual carriageway is of motorway standard, but those people injured on that road and their families might not consider that to be so.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes obviously thinks that there has been enough debate about the traffic system in his constituency, but he has scarcely participated in the debate. Some of the coal that will come through the port will go to Eggborough power station, but I am advised that that power station 1222 does not have the capacity to take that coal by rail. It will have to go by road. At present, the power station consumes about 1 million tonnes of coal each year, which would come along roads of various classes. His constituents will complain bitterly about the destruction of those roads, the damage done by those heavy lorries to the roads, the congestion on those roads and the increase in the number of accidents on those roads.
The hon. Gentleman should take that into account, as should the Minister. The Minister did not tell the House of any plans to upgrade the roads or the railway system, although he has some responsibility for making sure that the House is advised about the possibility of any such plans, about the rights and wrongs of the proposal and about the transport services involved. That is a matter of great regret.

§ Mr. Barron
My hon. Friend will know that I represent a coal mining community that has suffered greatly, especially since the end of the strike. The problem of the movement of coal in many of the villages of my constituency is quite substantial.