Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (Hansard, 23 May 1989)

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that this Bill is due to have its Third Reading tonight, but in Committee it was not discussed on its own. It went in with another Bill that had been given a Second Reading—the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. That Bill is missing from tonight's debate.
Is it in procedural order for this to happen, because it means that we cannot have a full debate on the Committee's proceedings?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House on this matter. He is quite correct to say that the two Bills were committed to the same Private Bill Committee and that only one of them is now before the House; but I cannot speculate on why the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill has not yet been reported by the Committee. There is no procedural impediment to the House proceeding with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman has arguments to deploy about why this Bill should not be read a Third time today, I am sure that he will advance them during the debate.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Committee has considered the Bill and—

§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a previous occasion when the Bill was being debated, I asked on a point of order whether it was hybrid, and Mr. Deputy Speaker made a ruling, with the aid of the Clerk, who had gone through the Bill and was convinced that it fell within the private Bill procedure. Both Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means accepted that it was in order because the Clerk was acting for and on behalf of the Speaker's Office. One man made that decision, a man who was not a Member of Parliament, and as far as I am aware, they crucified the only man who never made a mistake.
Even at this late stage I ask you to rule, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill is a hybrid for the following reason. The Committee's report said: In effect, we have been invited to make a strategic decision affecting UK energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade … The Committee does not consider that this is an appropriate decision to be taken by a small Committee". That point was agreed by both the promoters of the Bill and the people who were opposing it, Mr. Feickert, Mr. Morrison and Sir Frank Layfield. It concluded: The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national Government. I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the fact that, if a Bill affects a national interest, it must be hybrid and a Bill that the Government should be introducing. Therefore, I ask you to rule at this late stage, in view of the conclusions made by the Committee, that the Bill is hybrid and therefore should not be debated.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I can confirm that the Bill is not hybrid. Its provisions fall within our private Bill procedure. I have read carefully the report of the Committee and I am prepared to allow a wide debate on Third Reading so that hon. Members may refer to the report.

§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you explain why the amendments that have been tabled have not been selected? The House is entitled to such an explanation, because many of these amendments are important. I am aware that the Bill was not amended in Committee, but that should not preclude hon. Members from moving amendments on Third Reading. I would welcome an explanation.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I think I can clear this matter up. Had there been no points of order and had I been allowed to make a statement, I would have done so on behalf of Mr. Speaker, who has examined with great care the verbal amendments tabled to the Bill. He is satisfied that all of them either alter the effect of the Bill and are therefore out of order, or are not necessary for the correction of the Bill, which is the purpose of verbal amendments. Therefore, he has not selected them. Furthermore, in accordance with practice, Mr. Speaker has not selected the six-months amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and others.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, about three Fridays ago, there was an amendment to a Third Reading. It came about because the Government had passed on to a Back-Bench Tory Member a Bill that is called, in parliamentary terms, an "off-the-shelf" Bill. The hon. Gentleman did not know what was in it, and apologised for that. He was given the Bill, it was nodded through its Second Reading and not amended in Committee and then we came to Third Reading three Fridays ago. The Bill, the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill, was aimed at extending the areas where smoke control could be applied by local authorities and central Government, but it had the wrong long title, which was aimed at repealing all the Clean Air Acts.
The Government were very embarrased, as was the hon. Member who introduced the Bill. If only he had known what was in the Bill. As a result, at this embarrassing moment, the Clerks and Mr. Speaker together were able to find a way around the matter. Because it was not the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which will put tremendous pressure on the balance of trade, the Government went along—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Skinner
Just a minute. There is no need to start shuffling yet.
The Government went along and changed the title of the Bill on Third Reading, and they thought they could do this on the nod. However, one or two of us found out about it. This process had not been used for 19 years. The amendment did not result because somebody was earnestly trying, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), to amend a 861 Bill. It was because the Government and the Back-Bench Member had presented the Bill without its proper title. The Government managed to find a way around that.
I find it odd in this place, where we are supposed to be looking after the interests of everybody, that when on Third Reading, we table 20-odd amendments that are sensible and will change the nature of the Bill, they are swept aside by some ruling or another. However, if the Government make a cock-up of it, they are able to get away with an amendment on Third Reading.
As it happens, the Bill will have to go to another place, which may amend it. However, I say that this Bill should go back. As to all the more than 20 amendments to the Bill that have been tabled, Mr. Speaker should he called upon to enact the ruling that he gave three Fridays ago.
While I am about it, I want to know whether all those 70 Tory Members of Parliament who have connections with firms that trade in South Africa, will declare their interest. I want to know whether they will stand up and tell us how many free trips to South Africa they have had, how many are members of the goose-stepping tendency, how many are representing Johannesburg. We should know, because the Bill will allow South African coal to come into this country, cause a massive burden on the balance of payments and line the pockets of Tory Members.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
On the second point, I am sure that all hon. Members who have an interest will declare it. On the first point, I am certain that the hon. Member will understand that I have no authority to alter or vary Mr. Speaker's decision, which I am sure the House will uphold and respect.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the occupier of the Chair, you have to ensure that justice is done. As I understand it, on a public Bill, if there is a tied vote in Committee and the Chair of the Committee has to give a casting vote, that more or less guarantees that the matter is considered again when it returns to the Floor of the House, because it would be wrong for the person occupying the Chair to decide the details of a Bill.
Throughout the Committee proceedings on this Bill, the votes were tied to two each way with one of those two people acting as Chair and giving a casting vote. As I understand it, in those circumstances it is reasonable for the issues then to be further considered by the House. None of the amendments has been selected, so the second casting vote of the Chair has deprived the House of the opportunity to debate all the issues that were decided in Committee by that vote.
I understand that the promoters of the Bill went so far as to plead with the Committee that there should be no amendments so as to avoid a Report stage, when the House would have the opportunity properly to scrutinise the issues on which he Committee decided. That is a misuse of parliamentary proceedings. One individual should not be able, by casting his vote in the Committee, to ensure that the House does not have an opportunity to debate amendments that would be in order had one amendment been accepted in Committee.
Therefore, I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule on the way in which the casting vote was used in Committee, not only to avoid the issues being defeated in Committee, but to deprive the House of the opportunity of considering the Bill on Report, and therefore the 862 opportunity to question the way in which that hon. Member cast his vote. That seems a very odd procedure. I realise that a special Committee is examining procedures on private Bills, but it seems unique for an hon. Member to use a second casting vote to deprive the entire House of the opportunity to debate any of the amendments. That raises serious issues about the sovereignty of this country and Parliament over whether the import of coal should be decided in that way. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule that an hon. Member cannot use a casting vote to deny the House the opportunity to debate certain issues.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
We have to deal with the procedures of the House as they exist, and if we need to amend them, so be it. However, I cannot deal with hypothetical situations. Extremely valuable debating time is being used up. I know that many hon. Members, most of whom are in the Chamber now, wish to speak in the Third Reading debate. I hope that Members who raise points of order will bear that in mind.

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all recognise your difficulty, in that, Mr. Speaker having ruled, you cannot set aside that ruling, whatever new points have been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Belper and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is quite possible that, in reaching his conclusion not to select any of the amendments, Mr. Speaker did not have in mind the argument mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bolsover."] I seldom apologise at the Dispatch Box, but in this case I really should go down on my knees and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, because we all understand that the overriding requirement on anyone exercising a casting vote from the Chair is that he casts that vote in a way which enables the debate to continue and does not curtail it.
Since you are in no position to overrule Mr. Speaker's rulings, it might be helpful if you were to suspend the sitting and ask Mr. Speaker to consider the matters that have been raised and rule on whether the debate should go ahead.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Nothing has been said to make that necessary. The Bill is in very good order and the House would do well to begin the debate.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I shall take a point of order from Dr. Clark, which I hope is a point of order and not a point that has developed in Committee.

§ Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford)
It most certainly is a point of order. I take great offence at the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who implied that I used a casting vote improperly in Committee. I would not have raised this point of order had you defended my use of the casting vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, but since you have not done so, it is essential that I defend myself. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, probably by mistake, said that I used two casting votes on the same issue—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope all hon. Members will understand that the debate has nothing whatsoever to do with what occurred in Committee. We 863 have a Third Reading debate before us this evening, and according to our Standing Orders that is the only thing that we can debate.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We would be wise if we now proceeded with that Third Reading debate. Mr. Hardy.

§ Dr. Michael Clark
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I shall do my best to take all points of order in turn. I have called Mr. Hardy.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have three points of order, but as one is of substantial length it might be better accommodated in my speech. As you have said, the House is eager to start this wretched debate.
My first point of order is that I went to the Vote Office a few moments ago to obtain the Hansard for 23 June last year. As you will recall, the Second Reading debate on the Bill took place on 11 May and 23 June last year. I needed to look up something in regard to the report of the second day of the Second Reading on 23 June, only to find that that Hansard is out of print. It is hardly reasonable for the House to debate the Third Reading of the Bill when the Hansard for the Second Reading is not available.
My second point of order concerns amendments on Third Reading. When I looked into the matter, I discovered that oral amendments had to be presented some days in advance and had to appear on the Order Paper. I do not challenge that ancient and historic practice. However, I understand that sometimes in certain circumstances, verbal and oral amendments can be tabled. Outside the House, there may seem to be little difference between verbal and oral amendments, but there is a difference, and as none of our oral amendments has been accepted, can any verbal amendments be presented, considered or accepted on Third Reading? I hope that you can advise the House on both my points of order.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
No manuscript amendments can be accepted and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands my point about Mr. Speaker looking very carefully at the verbal amendments which were tabled and ruling them out. On his first point of order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Members might have found the Hansard in the Library, but I am sure his point will be noted.

§ Dr. Michael Clark
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order is very brief. When chairing that Committee, I acted within the powers that existed for the Committee to use. I took my responsibilities seriously. I greatly resent the comments made by Opposition Members and I would greatly appreciate it if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will confirm that the casting vote was properly used.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
There is no doubt whatsoever that the Chairman of that Committee acted properly and used his casting vote in a very proper manner.

§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have ruled 864 that we should not discuss anything that took place in Committee but you are required to give us guidance before the debate proceeds, as a very unusual procedure took place. Although we have the Committee report, in its wisdom the Committee has presented a special report to Parliament. I believe that the House should know the standing of that special report to Parliament in our debate, as that report is unique. If I catch your eye later, I might make some comments on why it is unique.
Since the ruling was given that no amendments were to be considered—the House respects the fact that Mr. Speaker has given his guidance—a new light has been cast on the debate, which will proceed as a consequence of the special report. I want your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. What standing does the special report have? Without going into the merits of the special report—although we may do later on—to some extent it says to the House that we should not have been dealing with the matter in any case. That is a good reason why the amendments should have been allowed to be considered, why the debate should be suspended and why we should proceed no further.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman's point is a matter for debate. He may have missed hearing me say earlier that the special report produced for us by the Committee can form part of this debate.

§ Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last year, when the Housing Bill was on Report, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling. When over 170 Government amendments were tabled, including new clauses and substantial amendments to change the Bill in relation to ballots on housing action trusts, Mr. Speaker gave a ruling, after considerable debate, points of order and interventions from both Front Benches, that he would accept such substantive amendments on Report, and the debate subsequently took place. That seems to run contrary to his decision on our amendments tonight, which has curtailed the ability of Back Benchers to consider primary legislation. That is an affront to the House and especially to hon. Members with constituencies that will be substantially affected by the Bill. Mr. Speaker should come back to the House and reconsider his previous ruling.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has referred to a wholly different situation. Only in the rarest of circumstances are amendments taken on Third Reading, with which we are now dealing. I hope that the House will now proceed with Third Reading.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)
We have just heard a substantial discussion on the role of the Committee and the way in which decisions were taken in that Committee on the casting vote of the chairman. There is no doubt that that was a blatant political decision by the Conservative Members who served on the Committee. If the Government wanted the Bill, they should have introduced it themselves and should not have abused the private Bill procedure. When the Bill went into Committee, it was as clear as daylight what the result would be. The two key votes on the Bill were decided by the casting vote of the 865 Chairman. I do not know what the Chairman's position is on a private Bill. Should he intervene in this debate? I would welcome your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, in that regard.
I speak in opposition to the Bill not as an hon. Member representing a mining constituency, but as representing taxpayers and an inner-city area, which will be affected directly by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred a few moments ago to the balance of payments deficit afflicting us at present. It is worth reminding the House that the deficit is running at about £14.4 billion. The Bill will add to the deficit. We shall have imports of coal from areas to which the Labour party is politically opposed, such as South Africa and parts of south America. Polish coal will be imported and we are opposed to that as a basis for breaking the British mining industry and contributing to the balance of payments deficit.
The Bill will also directly affect the electricity supply industry. We have been told clearly that with privatisation, the electricity industry's previous commitment to take virtually the whole of its coal from British coalfields will be dropped. We know that at present, the electricity supply industry takes between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all coal produced in the United Kingdom. If that commitment is no longer there, what will be the effect on the British coal industry? What will be the effect on the areas that are supposed to be rich in coal and which have pits with a long life? I am thinking of vast areas of Nottinghamshire.

§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)
Even though we have excellent pits in my constituency in Nottinghamshire, we have almost 17 per cent. unemployment in the Worksop travel-to-work area. If the Bill is passed, that figure will double or treble. The Government have withheld permission for the West Burton power station until the Bill is passed. If the Government are to have power stations, they intend that they be run on the cheap coal about which my right hon. Friend is talking.

§ Mr. Orme
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention because he represents an area such as I have described. There are Conservative Members who represent parts of Nottinghamshire who happen to be here at present. They were elected—for whatever wrong reasons—to represent their constituents. It cannot be denied that they represent constituents who will be directly affected by the Bill.
We are debating tonight not a narrow issue of people trying to protect jobs—valid as that is within their own community—but an issue that has a direct bearing on the economy of the United Kingdom. We are debating not a small development, but an aspect of the United Kingdom economy which will have lasting effects. I know from reports that the proposals strike at the heart of Britain's coal industry and coal-fired generating capacity. Seven major power stations lie within 50 miles of the mouth of the Humber. Those stations took almost 37 million tonnes of coal from British Coal in 1987–88. Half the entire Central Electricity Generating Board coalburn is within 100 miles of the proposed development. The Nottingham power stations of Cotham and West Burton are the most vulnerable to imports through the Humber, but at import levels of 4 million to 5 million tonnes per annum, Eggborough, Ferrybridge, High Marnham and Thorpe Marsh will also be receiving foreign coal.
866 What did we hear from the Government about the mining industry during the miners' strike? They said that they wanted an efficient industry and that, although the future would be painful and many pits would have to shut, the pits that were to remain open were promised that Eldorado was round the corner and that they would have a rosy future. However, now—only a short time after the Government made those pronouncements—we are seeing the very pits and the miners who were praised by the Government being thrown on the scrap heap by their policies. What sense is there in such a policy? What sense in a country that is self-sufficient in coal? What is the sense in turning our backs on an industry that we shall need in the latter part of this century and in the next?
My hon. Friends who come from the coal industry do not need me to tell them the answers because they are fully aware that once an area has had its coal production removed, and once pits have been closed, it is impossible to reopen them and that fresh proposals and fresh developments would be needed.

§ Mr. Redmond
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that important point. Because of the problems of gas and water, the Coal Board still has to leave a significant safety margin before it can exploit any coal from exhausted pits in which all the seams have been worked, or rather from pits that deemed to have passed their useful life or which the Coal Board deem are not making sufficient profit. It is not just a question of reopening pits or of sinking new shafts in close proximity The danger is that not only has the pit been stopped, but the coal around it has, in effect, been sterilised.

§ Mr. Orme
I thank my hon. Friend, with his background and expertise, for making clear exactly IA hat would happen in such an area.
The proposals in the Bill would most directly threaten collieries in the east midlands, Yorkshire and County Durham. They go as wide as that, as I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent those areas will acknowledge. Those areas have already paid a heavy price for British Coal's rationalisation and restructuring programme. However, such communities now face the loss of their more efficient and more productive pits, many of which have received substantial investment in recent years.

§ Mr. Barron
From the examples that we have seen in the past, will my right hon. Friend confirm the multiplying effect? In the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who is in his place, Blidworth colliery has recently closed although it still has 40 million tonnes of coal reserves. A £30 million investment programme has just been completed there under the "Plan for Coal", yet its shafts were filled in five weeks ago because British Coal said that it did not want it any more. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the multiplying effect will affect many other areas if these proposed ports go ahead?

§ Mr. Orme
I was just about to come to a point about the collieries and the effect that the Bill will have on them. Over 25 collieries in the central and north-eastern coalfields have been identified as at risk from the Humber ports. Up to 10 pits will be displaced by 4 million to 5 million tonners, and at least 15 pits will be closed by the 10-million tonners. Even allowing for the wave of redundancies that was announced recently by British Coal, 867 24,000 miners' jobs are at risk. I advise those who are sponsoring the Bill that they are throwing skilled people on the scrap heap—[Interruption.] Yes, some people may laugh about it, but Opposition Members are not laughing. We are talking about communities, and I shall deal later with one community that will be affected by the changes that will flow from the proposals.
The coalfield economies are highly dependent on the coal industry and it is realistic to use a multiplier of two to assess the knock-on effects. Every colliery job that is lost will lead to one more loss in other sectors. If 15 collieries close, the total impact will be more than 30,000 job losses. That is what I am saying to those from the east and west midlands, from Lancashire and from the north-east. Indeed, that effect will stretch as far as the Welsh and Scottish coalfields. The coal industry will be weakened.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I lived through the miners' strike. I was an energy spokesman and heard the Government's arguments, which were, "We have a prosperous industry and if we concentrate on the prosperous and long-life pits and if investment is given to those areas, we will see not only a prosperous industry, but jobs, good production and good wages." However, at the heart of the current argument is the fact that people are being threatened with pit closures because of cheap coal being brought into the United Kingdom.
That importation of cheap coal will have a special impact on the coal-producing regions of Yorkshire. If new coal import facilities are provided on the Humber, their natural catchment areas will be the power stations in the Aire valley and in the lower Trent valley, which are now served largely by collieries in the Nottingham and Yorkshire coalfields.
If my hon. Friends from the Doncaster area will allow me to trespass on their constituencies, I shall deal specifically with the Bill's impact on that area. As I am sure my hon. Friends will confirm, the six collieries operating in the Doncaster metropolitan borough area all produce coal for use by local power stations. Coal from Rossington colliery is used at the Drax power station; coal from Brodsworth, Markham Main and Hatfield is used at Thorpe Marsh power station; and coal from the Askern Main and Bentley collieries is used at Eggborough power station. All the pits in the Doncaster borough area could be at risk from the importation of cheap coal. As my hon. Friends can confirm, we are talking about prosperous pits.
Reference to the Doncaster economy shows that the area already has severe economic problems which are the legacy of an association with the coal mining industry in the past century. Those problems include an unemployment rate which is nearly double the average for Great Britain as a whole.

§ Mr. Redmond
My hon. Friend has made a valid point because the Rossington pit has produced 1 million tonnes of coal so far this year and is turning in a hell of a profit. I wonder whether those who are sponsoring the Bill understand the poverty and despair of a pit village once the centre of its life has disappeared. Is their concept of poverty the same as that of the Secretary of State for Social Security? I cannot tell the House what constituency he represents. I do not think that he lives in a constituency in 868 this country, as he has not yet met poverty. The sponsors of the Bill cannot have met poverty, or they would not have sponsored it.

§ Mr. Orme
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am referring to an area with which he is familiar to show the effects upon one area. We can talk globally, but sometimes it is difficult to grasp the full effect. The closure of any of the remaining collieries in the Doncaster borough will have a dramatic effect on the local community and will exacerbate an already serious problem.
The Askern community is an example of an area that is dependent on one traditional industry and the problems that will arise if a colliery is closed down. Other mining communities are in a similar position. Askern is within the Doncaster area. The Doncaster metropolitan borough council wishes to make known the likely severe economic and social consequences that will arise if the Bill is passed, and it has petitioned hon. Members to that effect.
The Doncaster metropolitan borough forms part of South Yorkshire. It has a population of 290,000 and an area of 225 square miles. The coal mining industry in that area includes the Bentley, Askern, Thorne, Armthorpe, Rossington and Mexborough collieries. Most of the area's economic problems stem from its narrow economic base. Its economic base is narrow because it was built on coal, and it still needs coal and depends on it. One cannot say that the collieries are not producing efficiently or have no life. In other parts of the world they would be regarded as prosperous. They are being sacrificed so that cheap coal can be imported into the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Skinner
Cheap for how long?

§ Mr. Orme
My hon. Friend asks a good question.

§ Mr. Skinner
A good analogy is the 1960s, when we were told that there was a lot of cheap oil. People said, "We will replace the dear coal in Britain. We want to get miners out of the pits. We will shut the pits, as we have all that cheap oil in the middle east." After about 10 or 15 years, there was a change in the middle east, the price of oil quadrupled and miners were suddenly wanted again. All the talk about cheap imports should be regarded against that background. As soon as other countries get a grip on the energy industry in this country, they will do what was done with the oil industry.

§ Mr. Orme
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When such people break the power of British industry, they will be in a position to extract from Britain what they want at the time, especially if we are dependent on coal imports. Would any other major industrialised nation, with the oil, gas and coal resources that we have, turn its back on its wealth and say, "We will leave it in the ground"?
I have been endeavouring to illustrate the economic problems that face small areas such as Askern. It is worth noting that, in many areas, the mining industry employs a high proportion of the local work force. Although efforts have been made to broaden their industrial bases, the economic prosperity of such areas is still substantially tied to developments in the coal mining industry. In 1984, the latest year for which figures are available, the industry employed 16 per cent. of the work force in the Doncaster metropolitan borough area, compared with 1.1 per cent. throughout Great Britain.

§ Mr. Michael Welsh (Doncaster, North)
Askern is a special case. It will be bumped if the Bill is passed. It is a special case for me also because I lived at Askern, and my father was killed in a pit there in 1935. Askern means a lot to me. Also, 73 per cent. of its male population works at Askern pit. There just ain't any more work. In the summer of 1987, 190-odd kiddies left school, and only 44 got jobs. Those people live in a beautiful area and they should be looked after. Any hon. Member who would introduce a Bill to close that quarry has no compassion. If hon. Members have no compassion, they should not sit in this Chamber and talk about politics.

§ Mr. Orme
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the knowledge that he brings to the House. I regret the tragedies that he has seen in that area. I referred to Askern as an example of what happens to a community when a major industry closes down.
I live in and represent the Salford constituency in the Greater Manchester area in the north-west of England. We in that area have seen coal, steel and engineering virtually disappear. As I said only the other night in a debate on the manufacturing industry, our community was a major engineering area. It was almost within throwing distance of the start of the industrial revolution. Having seen those industries disappear, we have seen rising unemployment, despite the alleged improvement in unemployment figures. There is still large-scale male unemployment—never mind female unemployment—in inner-city wards in my constituency. If we proceed with the Bill tonight and it reaches the statute book, the effects which have been felt in Doncaster will be felt in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

§ Mr. McCartney
My right hon. Friend has referred to colliery closures in Lancashire. The last colliery in my constituency since the miners' strike is now to be closed.
In addition, the support industries and mining technology industries, including the long-wall mining technology industry in my constituency—which includes Gullick Dobson—have suffered hundreds of redundancies because the deep-mining industry in Britain has been run down. We risk losing that industry completely. At the moment there is an expansion in the world coal industry of which we cannot take advantage because this Government's policies have disrupted the home market.

§ Mr. Orme
My hon. Friend is aware that imported cheap coal will have the same effect in Lancashire as it will have in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere.

§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)
My hon. Friend is talking about areas being run down. He should consider the Barnsley coalfield which used to be one of the most prosperous in the country. I had 13 collieries in my constituency; I now have none. We must also consider the fact that we brought men down from Scotland and Durham to work in our collieries. The collieries which are now in danger, including Darfield, Houghton, Grimethorpe and Denby Grange are the only collieries left in the Barnsley coalfield in which hundreds of immigrant miners from other areas made their lives and married the girls. We have an obligation to them. Will my right hon. Friend consider the miners who might be made redundant?

§ Mr. Orme
I acknowledge the wealth of experience which my hon. Friend brings to this debate. He is absolutely correct: what he describes will happen if cheap coal is imported.
I am advised that many of my colleagues want to take part in the debate, and I will therefore be brief.

§ Mr. Ashton
My right hon. Friend is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. The Labour party is undergoing a review of its policies on which we will light the next general election. I hope that the people listening and the sponsors of the Bill will understand the consequences. I hope that we will send a message loud and clear that when the Labour party wins the next general election, these ports will not see the light of day. They are wasting their time laying down the foundations and spending money even if the Bill receives its Third Reading.

§ Mr. Orme
There is no doubt about where the Labour party stands on this issue. We are completely opposed to the Bill. We will not see these proposals implemented.

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this point for me? If the ports have been constructed and are operating when the next general election is held, will a future incoming Labour Government shut them down?

§ Mr. Orme
We would not allow the cheap importation of coal through those ports. That is a categorical pledge to the House.
I could have quoted more instances of local areas which would be affected by the Bill. Hon. Members are aware that the Bill will not help British industry. It will be against the interests of the coal mining industry and of the economy as a whole. We should not proceed with the Bill, and I hope that the House will take that decision this evening.

§ Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford)
I want to begin by referring to a comment made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who asked whether it was usual for Committee Members to speak in a Third Reading debate. I inquired into that and was advised that as a general rule Committee Members did not speak in Third Reading debates. I discovered that it was a general convention, not a rule, that all Committee Members decided jointly that they would abstain from speaking in debates following Committee meetings. We agreed in Committee that we would not speak during the carry-over motion for this Bill, but when we discussed what should happen on Third Reading Labour members of the Committee decided that they wanted to speak because they were, rightly, the most informed people in the House with regard to the Bill.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and his colleagues will confirm that they wanted to speak. As the convention was not a strict convention, but could be modified according to the wishes of the Committee, we agreed that we would, if called, put our points of view on Third Reading. At the request of Labour members of the Committee, we agreed that each of us would speak if called.

§ Mr. Redmond
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so kind and considerate to the Labour members of 871 the Committee, but why was he so tolerant on that occasion? Why did he not use his casting vote to rule that they could not speak?

§ Dr. Clark
I want to consider another point made by the right hon. Member for Salford, East with regard to influence that might have been brought to bear on to Members on the Committee, particularly Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Eadie
Since the hon. Gentleman has decided to take part in the debate, he must take part in what I would call the rough and tumble of debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked him a fair question. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour members of the Committee were the best informed about the Bill. If he concedes that they are the best informed, why did he vote against them in Committee?

§ Dr. Clark
I said that the Labour Members said that Committee members were the most informed Members of the House in respect of this Bill. It would be wrong to deny the most informed Members of the House the opportunity to speak and to present their views.
I will present my views very briefly and I imagine that the hon. Member for Bradford, North will try to present his views. It would be wrong for the hon. Member for Bradford, North to keep quiet when he has heard 26 days of evidence on the Bill. He must wish to present some of his views and findings to the House. I conceded that he had a good point and we agreed jointly that we would speak. I believe that I have answered the point.

§ Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend has decided to speak tonight. The House will be aware that on an earlier occasion and again tonight, often from sedentary positions, my hon. Friend's honour has been called into question. There have been comments that he has an interest. I know that the vast majority of hon. Members know my hon. Friend to be honourable. In his best interests, perhaps he should try to show in his speech before he considers the Bill just what is this rather strange and tenuous interest of which he has been accused.

§ Dr. Clark
I will gladly answer my hon. Friend's point. I did not declare my interest at the beginning of my speech because I did not believe that I had one, but I will elaborate on the point.

§ Mr. Barron
The hon. Gentleman is the only Member who took a Government Bill through a Committee but did not get a ministerial salary.

§ Dr. Clark
If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) listens, he will discover that I do not have much of an interest to declare. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill were taken at the same time. An hon. Member said that I had an interest which I should declare because one of the two joint sponsors of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill was a subsidiary of a company called Simon Engineering. Another subsidiary of Simon Engineering was a member of a trade association to which I am parliamentary adviser. It so happens that we are not today discussing the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill but the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I have no 872 connection, however tenuous or contrived, with any interests in that Bill. It might also interest hon. Members to know that I voted against the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill going through unamended, so I do not know how they can accuse me of having a biased interest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking about my interest in this matter.
I declare two other interests. I declare an interest in that I was born, brought up and went to school in Nottinghamshire, and I went to school with many coal miners' sons. Some of my own family worked in the pits in Manton and Bevercotes, so I declare an interest in the coal mining industry and in making sure that it thrives in my home county. I also declare an interest in Lincolnshire, where other members of my family live. My grandfather came from there and all my cousins live there. I therefore declare an interest in wanting Lincolnshire to be prosperous, and the Bill will help to achieve that.

§ Mr. Hardy
I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect at least. As Chairman of the Committee, it may be unusual for him to speak, but it may be appropriate in this debate, as he will recall that his Committee struck a serious note about the consequences for the British mining industry of the imports that we are debating in the special report provided by the Committee. I expected the hon. Member for Briggs and Cleethorpes, (Mr. Brown) to comment in his speech on the serious note that that Committee struck, but all we had was sniggering, brief, arrogant introduction, without a word of justification and without a word of observation on that serious report. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has this chance to comment on that report in view of the negligence or hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who failed to do so.

§ Dr. Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My speech, which I hope will be short, revolves around that precise point—the importance of the special report.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East said that this was a political Bill, probably sponsored or influenced by the Government or the Conservative party. I wish to state categorically that before sitting on the Committee I had no contact with my party Whips. No approach was made to me during that Committee, which sat from October to February, and there has been no contact since. [Interruption.] I say in all seriousness and on my honour that there was no approach by my party Whips before, during or after the sittings of the Committee. Lest there be any confusion, I also state that there was no approach by Ministers or any office of the Conservative party or the Government before, during or after the Committee sittings.
It is generally accepted on both sides of the House that when a promoter, in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), is anxious to get his Bill through the House, it is usual for him to circulate his hon. Friends to see whether they will support the Bill on Third Reading. Whether or not my hon. Friend has done that—I suspect that he has—I have had no request from him to vote for the Bill today and I suspect that he has not sent any such request to other members of the Committee.

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
The hon. Gentleman tells us about his family background and talks about his honour, but there is a general view among 873 Opposition Members that the hon. Gentleman protests too much. The hon. Gentleman's party is determined to get the Bill through and its promoter makes a habit of going to South Africa and, disgracefully, does not speak properly.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), despite all his piousness, tells us that he had something to do with the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which my hon. Friends—many of whom have long experience—feel should have led him to say that he would not chair the Committee due to his deep interest in the Bill. I am at a loss to understand how an hon. Member so deeply embedded in a cause could have chaired the Committee. Two Bills have been divided and there is something sick and wrong going on here tonight. Many of us believe that it should be looked into before the Bill proceeds any further.

§ Dr. Clark
I thought that it would be a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that I had an interest in the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. I explained the accusations that were made against me. I did not declare an interest.

§ Mr. Skinner
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Dr. Clark
I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman is brief.

§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Gentleman should really come clean and explain to the House that he is a paid parliamentary adviser to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association, a subsidiary of which in Hull is one of the promoters of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had any decency he would not be taking any part in the proceedings on the Bill.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has had to say and what he has left out, I believe that proceedings should be brought to a halt.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
Order. I hope that the House will not impugn the motives of members of the Committee who sat for many hours and produced a special report which is before the House. The House would be well advised to discuss the merits of the Bill and the special report which came from the Committee.

§ Dr. Clark
I must respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Once again he is totally wrong.

§ Mr. Skinner
No, I am not.

§ Dr. Clark
The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong.

§ Mr. Skinner
It is in the Register of Members' Interests, but that does not say how much money the hon. Gentleman gets.

§ Dr. Clark
The Bill is promoted by Associated British Ports which, so far as I know, has nothing whatever to do with Simon Engineering.

§ Mr. Skinner
Simon Carves.

§ Dr. Clark
It has nothing whatever to do with Simon Engineering or Simon Carves. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is getting it all backwards and has not the integrity to try to speak the truth when accusing other hon. Members of impropriety.
874 It was generally agreed in Committee that, had it not been for the coal issue, the Bill, promoted by Associated British Ports, would probably have gone through Committee and the House largely unopposed. Associated British Ports wanted facilities to import iron ore, other chemicals and raw materials necessary for industry in Lincolnshire and the north of England, and to export steel, cereals and finished products.
It was also clearly stated that Associated British Ports needed a larger facility on the Humber if it was to compete with Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp. If it did riot have larger facilities it was feared that our port industry would decline even further than it has done so far. The Committee was sympathetic to extending Britain's ports to make sure that we were not dependent on continental ports and break cargoes from the continent to Britain. It is therefore fair to say that had it not been for the coal issue there would have been little opposition in Committee and perhaps in the House.
British Coal was one of the petitioners against the Bill. There were many others—local authorities, the National Union of Mineworkers arid the National Union of Railwaymen, but all of those wanted to reject the Bill in total. British Coal wished to make an amendment to the effect that no coal should be brought in through the port until 1996, by which time British Coal would have managed to increase its productivity still further, reduced its production costs and generally got its cost of coal down closer to the price of cheap coal on the world market. British Coal said, in effect, "Give us six or seven years, through an amendment to the Bill, and at the end of that time we shall no longer need to be protected because we shall have made fantastic strides in bringing down the price of British coal." British Coal therefore said, "Protect us for those years and we will be content—we shall require no protection after 1996."
The question then arose of how much coal was likely to come in through the dock if it were constructed, and the promoter said 2.5 million tonnes. The Committee in general—Labour Members in particular but Conservative Members, too—thought that that perhaps was a modest amount—[Interruption.] The NUM said that it would be 7 million tonnes, but some said that even that was on the low side and that it could be more. In Committee we did a quick calculation which showed that with a change of cranes and dockside procedures, it was possible that as much as 10 million or even 12 million tonnes could come in. That gave us cause for concern.

§ Mr. Terry Patchett (Barnsley, East)
Is it not a fact that the figure quoted by the NUM was in respect of total capacity, with the port at full production?

§ Dr. Clark
Yes, the NUM's figure of 7 million tonnes was in respect of full production, but some of us felt that the NUM had understated the position. We thought that, in fairness, it could be more than the NUM figure. We feared that it could be as much as 10 million tonnes. We on the Committee tried to do our job diligently, considering what the figure could be and examining the consequences.
Many Opposition Members are from coal mining constituencies. In Committee, we totally sympathised with the effects that could come from the massive importation of coal through the facilities of the port, first if it were to be built and secondly if it were to be used for importing 875 coal in massive quantities. As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, as many as 15 pits could be shut if the dock facility were used exclusively for bringing in cheap Colombian, Polish, South African and Australian coal. Those 15 pits, with an average of 1,000 miners per pit, would mean the loss of 15,000 jobs, with a knock-on effect for the local coalfield communities. We appreciate, too —as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, who is no longer in his place—that that energy would be sterilised for ever and would not be available at a future time when coal prices on the world market might be more expensive and we would wish to use indigenous coal.

§ Mr. George J. Buckley (Hemsworth)
The hon. Gentleman has made much of the Committee's concern about the import of large quantities of coal. He said that all the figures given to the Committee were under-estimates of the tonnages that the Committee considered might be brought in through the port. In view of that, and in view of the consequences of the closure of 15 pits, why did he not support the amendment that British Coal wished to make to the Bill?

§ Dr. Clark
The hon. Gentleman asks a legitimate question. We thought that the special report and the conditions that we placed on ABP covered the point better than the British Coal amendment.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Committee asked in the recommendations for certain assurances from the Government. So far as I know, no such assurances have been given. In view of that, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Bill should proceed any further?

§ Dr. Clark
If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to proceed with my speech a little further, I shall deal with that point. I promise not to ignore his question.
Before the voting, the Committee discussed what would be the consequences of building the dock facility if it were used entirely for coal, and we did not like the consequences that were revealed. But we also had to consider what would be the consequences for trade in general in the north Midlands, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire if there were not more port facilities to allow general cargo trade on the Humber. We came to the conclusion—although it was contested in the vote, and that was when I used my casting vote—that we wanted to ensure that facilities were built so that they could be used for general trade. We also wanted to be sure that there was not a flood of cheap imported foreign coal, with all the horrendous consequences about which we had heard from the petitioners.
It seemed to us far more appropriate to build something so that it could be used for general trade, but to bring to the attention of the Government—here I answer the intervention of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)—the danger of the port facility being used exclusively, largely or damagingly for coal, and asking the Government to be aware of the danger. So that the Government would know the size of the danger, we put a condition on ABP—which it later granted us—to report quarterly the amount of coal brought in so that the figures could be in the Library for hon. Members, and be available to the Department of 876 Energy. By that means, hon. Members interested in coal, as well as the Department, would be aware of what was happening on the Humber.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. The report says at paragraph 24: The conditions imposed by the Committee are as follows. They were agreed to unanimously. In bold print at the bottom of the page we read: In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry. Has the hon. Gentleman received an assurance from the Government that the conditions imposed by his Committee will be fulfilled by the Government? If not, does he believe that the Bill should proceed any further?

§ Dr. Clark
I have not received any assurances from the Government on that point. [Interruption.] I have tried to play this straight. I have not spoken to Ministers on the matter, and I do not intend to do so until after the Third Reading.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Dr. Clark
I cannot give way to everyone at once.
As for conditions, the two referred to in paragraph 24 are conditions of the special report and of ABP reporting on coal imports. They are not conditions on Government, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we have included in heavy type the sentence that he quoted.

§ Mr. Allen McKay
The argument seems to centre on the Committee's findings and the details for which it asked. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there could be a loss of 30,000 or 40,000 jobs and that great damage could be done to Britain's economy. The Minister will shortly reply to the debate. If the Minister does not give the assurances about which we have heard—remembering that we are on Third Reading and that this is our last chance to debate the matter—will the hon. Gentleman join us voting against the Bill and advise his hon. Friends to do the same?

§ Dr. Clark
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up he will refer to our special report and will consider the reason behind it, which is to support the domestic coal mining industry. I shall be disappointed if my hon. Friend does not say that the Government will take note of the special report's contents. At this stage, I shall not go so far as to reveal my voting intentions, but I shall share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment if my hon. Friend the Minister does not refer to the report.

§ Mr. McCartney
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to why he acted as he did, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, on the issue of guarantees. Does he agree that the guarantee given by Hitler to Neville Chamberlain had more substance than the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman has been given about miners' jobs?

§ Dr. Clark
The difference is that at the moment umbrellas are being used to keep the sun away, not the rain. In this case, we seek understandings with our own Government about our own people. We are not debating a guarantee by a foreign Government to protect our nation, so the hon. Gentleman's analogy is not worth pursuing.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South)
I have just stumbled on this debate, but clearly I should have been here earlier. Those of my constituents who produce oil, mutton and 877 wool ought to have been represented on my hon. Friend's Committee to secure a guarantee that those products would not be imported. It seems amazing that we should be seeking to limit coal imports by restricting their passage through a particular port.

§ Dr. Clark
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we try to restrict imports by failing to provide dock facilities, we shall destroy all free trade in and out of this country just to protect one commodity. Even though my hon. Friend has been in the Chamber only briefly, he hits the nail on the head. We must provide adequate facilities for imports and exports, but if a part of our economy comes under serious attack or is in danger as a consequence of excessive imports, the Government of the day—whatever their political complexion—must take whatever action is necessary to protect the home industry from dumping. But to fail to construct port facilities in the first place is no way to control imports.

§ Mr. Barron
Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question that was asked earlier? Why did he not support the amendment that would restrict only imports of steam coal? He could then have got on with promoting general trade, which we also want to do.

§ Dr. Clark
I did not support that amendment because I felt that the special report was a better way of achieving the desired effect. I have described that report in some detail and I have given way to several interventions. The debate—

§ Mr. Redmond
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be having great difficulty in answering a direct question. Will you use your good offices to get the Minister off his backside to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think that it would be better if the House got on with the debate.

§ Dr. Clark
The House must not assume that if and when the port is built it will be used exclusively, or even mainly, for coal imports. It will provide jobs and business opportunities in the Humber area, and will have its own knock-on effects in Humberside, north Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. We should not forget that the Bill covers also King's Lynn and Port Talbot, but that aspect is not contentious.
The special report, which was the Committee's idea, and the quarterly reports sought from ABP are intended to alert the Government to the dangers of importing massive amounts of cheap foreign coal and to give them an opportunity to take whatever action is necessary to protect both national and local interests. I am surprised that the special report has been criticised to the extent that it has because it was prepared only to protect and assist the domestic coal industry. Some Opposition Members could be a little more sympathetic to a report that is intended precisely and specifically to draw to the Government's attention the dangers that might arise in many of the constituencies served by Opposition Members. I suggest that the House should think carefully about the Bill. As to the port facility, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not throw out the baby with the bath water.

§ Mr. Terry Patchett (Barnsley, East)
It is becoming apparent that there is more to the Bill than meets the eye. At first glance it seems harmless, having the purpose only of providing competition with European ports and creating direct access to the United Kingdom rather than through Rotterdam or Amsterdam. The Bill would also provide jobs on the east coast that are badly needed. All that seems reasonable, until one starts delving further. From the debate so far, it is obvious that there is a sinister move afoot and that the Bill goes much deeper than merely creating a port facility that may handle a small volume of coal imports.
Why have some Conservative Members who support the Bill been to South Africa? Who paid their expenses, and why did they visit South African coal mines?

§ Mr. Hardy
I take this opportunity to withdraw an implication that I made in a recent debate when I suggested that Associated British Ports was responsible for sending Conservative Members to South Africa. I informed ABP that I unreservedly withdraw any imputation of that kind. However, having done so, I may say that the House is entitled to ask Conservative Members who went to South Africa, who paid their expenses, because none of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that they provide that money from their own resources.

§ Mr. Patchett
My hon. Friend takes an honourable course of action in withdrawing his earlier comment, and I hope that his request for information will be honoured by Conservative Members. I am happy to give way if any Conservative Member wishes to respond, but I see no movement on the Government Benches.
I would like to know also why the Government have so much enthusiasm for the Bill. Why have there been unofficial whippings? If one is unaware of the answers, one has only to read the special report to find them. It states in paragraph 21: The petitioners' arguments put the Committee in a position of great difficulty. In effect we were invited to make a strategic decision affecting United Kingdom energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade, because it relates to whether protectionist measures are justifiable to safeguard the interests of an important sector of British industry. We do not consider that this is an appropriate decision to be taken by a small committee consisting of four backbench MPs, three of whom are serving in their first Parliament. It is a great burden of responsibility to place upon a private Bill committee. There has been no technical breach of private Bill procedure, but we do consider that that procedure has been stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government. I pay tribute to the Committee for its honest assessment of the position. That is what has been said time and again in the House about the same old gambit. The Government are presenting part of their energy policy in the guise of a private Bill: we need only observe the payroll vote and, indeed, the Prime Minister herself, going through the Lobby to support it to see that that is so.

§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
"Payroll vote" is a term that I love to hate, because parliamentary private secretaries are not 879 paid, but does the hon. Gentleman concede that four PPSs voted against the Bill on Second Reading? If so, I trust that he will withdraw what he has said.

§ Mr. Patchett
I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention rather confusing, as I did not think that I had used an unusual term. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will correct me if I have stepped out of line, but I thought that it was a term used quite commonly in the House.

§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
It is.

§ Mr. Patchett
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the vast majority of the payroll vote have been through the Lobby to support the Bill. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has picked on that point. If this is education so be it, but it seems to me that those who are supposed to live by the rule of free market forces are encouraging the import of cheap foreign coal because it will spur on people interested in buying our electricity industry.
The Bill's supporters show a callous indifference to both the evil of apartheid and the future of our own coal industry. I have said that jobs will be created at the ports; I believe, however, that for every hundred created a thousand will be lost in the rest of the country—in constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is running at 20 per cent. and is even higher among the young.
The Coal Board is in a dilemma, and I understand the confusion caused by the Government's lack of a coherent energy policy. Despite our high unemployment, according to the Coal Board review a colliery in my area is likely to lose nearly 800 jobs. So dishonest is the board, and so lacking in confidence in its own arguments, that it has used deceitful tactics and threatened workers with the loss of some of their redundancy money—a rather dubious threat, we suspect.
That Barnburgh colliery was supposed to have obtained 2.5 million tonnes of coal from another colliery that had closed—for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I am referring to Cadeby. The confusion resulted from the fact that the Coal Board does not know where it is going.
Those who voted for the Bill—the greedy ones, the "I'm all right Jacks"—are doing long-term harm to the country. While they profit, the Government pay out more and more unemployment benefit, lose income through not receiving tax and face the ever-growing problem of its balance of payments. When they have decimated our own coal industry we will run the risk of a rise in world coal prices when cheap foreign coal has served its purpose.
Already a section of our electricity generating industry panics if a tanker goes aground or an oil well goes out of commission, and world oil prices start to rocket. That is the stupidity of the Government's energy policy. The debate is about energy. This is much more serious than what will happen to one or two ports. The Government have been responsible for a disgraceful misuse of Private Bill procedure. The payroll vote, along with the proximity of the ports to coal-fired power stations which the Government intend to privatise, proves that the Bill is an expression of Government policy and should have been dealt with in Government time.
880 I ask all hon. Members who respect the House to vote to keep the Bill out, on that basis alone, and to let the Government put the subject forward for more open and honest debate, with all hon. Members understanding their true purpose. If we allow the Bill to be passed, we shall damage parliamentary procedures and make a laughing stock of Mr. Speaker's office. Even if some hon. Members are in favour of the Bill, I ask them not to favour deceit.

§ Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood)
The infamous Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, if enacted, would strike at the very heart of Britain's coal industry. When it received its Second Reading 11 months ago with a majority of 47—110 were for and 63 against—there were serious recriminations. Who was responsible for allowing this to happen? Was it the fair weather synthetic supporters of the coal industry who had skived off home early at 7.20 pm, or the many uninformed hon. Members who happened to be still around at 8.20 pm when the Division was called, and who drifted into the wrong Lobby? I cannot speak for the former category; they will have to live with their consciences.

§ Mr. Redmond
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Stewart
Not now.
Let me direct my efforts tonight towards persuading my hon. Friends who, when the coal industry was equally threatened in 1984–85, packed the Conservative Benches in support of the Nottinghamshire miners and their families, to do the same tonight.
The Nottinghamshire coalfield is particularly threatened by proposals to build coal handling cargo facilities on the Humber estuary which will be capable of handling 10 million tonnes of imported coal. An increase in the amount of artificially cheap coal imported to the British market will imperil a significant amount of investment already made by British Coal, leading to further colliery closures. Up to 80 per cent. of Nottinghamshire's deep-mined coal is burned in power stations in the Trent valley. The loss of that market, even in the short term, will lead to the closures of several pits in the county.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the threat to jobs in his constituency and others. Will he make it clear to the Nottinghamshire miners that it is his own party that is to bring about those job losses by voting for the Bill?

§ Mr. Stewart
I am not the conscience of my brothers.
It is estimated that up to 11 collieries in Nottinghamshire could be at risk, directly or indirectly, as a result of large-scale coal imports. Today the coal industry makes a major contribution to Nottinghamshire's economy. As well as being the largest industrial employer, paying wages in excess of £300 million in 1988, the industry and its employees generate further employment as consumers of services and manufactured goods. Putting it another way, for every job in the mining industry it supports up to two jobs in other sectors.
Although regarded as one of the most prosperous in the country, the Nottinghamshire coalfield has lost more than 13,000 jobs since 1984 in a drive towards greater productivity and competitiveness. Having completed this painful exercise in human terms and the latest financial 881 figures showing an operating profit of £65 million, it would be unthinkable to put at risk a further 11,000 jobs, as would happen if this ports Bill were approved.
Approaching half of British Coal sales to power stations are within about 60 miles of the Humber ports and the central coal fields send over 80 per cent. of their output to power stations with the lowest transport costs from the Humber—West Burton, Cottam, Thorpe Marsh and High Marnham. Last year these stations took over 60 million tonnes of British coal and over 11 million tonnes from Nottinghamshire. This represents 45 per cent. of the total supplied to those stations. Moreover, 40 per cent. of the total sales of the Nottinghamshire area went to those four stations, which clearly shows that the dependence of Nottinghamshire on this market can hardly be exaggerated.
The Union of Democratic Mineworkers, in its submission to the Committee, emphasised that its opposition to the proposed facilities in the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill does not arise from a wish to prevent legitimate competition; it arises from a desire to allow the industry's present policy of restructuring to be brought to a successful conclusion without short-term disruption of the markets by imports sold at prices unlikely to he sustainable in the medium and long term. Failure by my hon. Friends to recognise this would prejudice economic fuel supplies to the privatised electricity industry in the longer term.
By comparison the United Kingdom enjoys lower domestic and industrial tariffs for its electricity supply than our major competitors. In fact, at 3.8p per kilowatt they are 50 per cent. lower than those of Japan, Germany and the United States. Our price is in keeping with the prices of the major coal-exporting countries, such as Australia and Poland. How can the international coal producers capture a market share in the United Kingdom other than by loss leader prices, which raises a fundamental question—do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners?

§ Mr. Barron
Can the hon. Gentleman explain to us, since we are a hit puzzled about his defence of the coal mining industry, why he did not join us in the Lobby against the Electricity Bill which privatises the electricity industry and will kill the Nottinghamshire coalfield along with others?

§ Mr. Stewart
We are talking tonight about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill; we are not talking about the privatisation of the electricity industry.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)
Before my hon. Friend addresses himself to that point, will he address himself to why, when this Bill was being read a Second time, the Opposition attendance was so dismal? Far from complaining today, if they had attended on that occasion instead of sloping off home, the Bill would never have proceeded to a Third Reading. He should accept no strictures from the Opposition when his position on this matter has always been consistent.

§ Mr. Stewart
Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am not giving way. There are many people wishing to speak.
I accept what my hon. Friend has said and agree with him entirely.

§ Mr. Redmond
Give way.

§ Mr. Stewart
I am not giving way any more.
Do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners or do we support British coal and our miners, who have served the electricity industry and the customer well? Over the past four years they have reduced their prices to the CEGB in real terms by £650 million a year. In the current year there has been no price increase at all despite the high rate of inflation. Should all this be squandered for the illusory benefits of foreign coal?
Compared with a year ago, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was introduced, there are clear signs that overseas coal producers are determined to increase their prices to ensure the future viability of their operations. Low heavy fuel oil prices, which had a significant bearing on the coal price freeze agreed with the CEGB last November, have sinced moved upwards by over 50 per cent. Also, sterling has shown a downward trend against the dollar, in which international coal is traded, despite heavy Government intervention which amounts to a further £7 a tonne on imported coal. This shows beyond any doubt why the new power generating companies cannot rely on spot or short-term international coal contracts.
The ESI must give both domestic and industrial users some price guarantee indication and can do so only if raw materials are predictable at cost. Only British coal can offer this. Its unique selling point, which cannot be paralleled by any importer, is that it can offer long-term contracts, up to 10 years if need be, with prices based on the retail price index for secured, established coal supplies. It now has a proven record of quality of supply and performance, backed by the example set by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers offering real stability of supply.
In their evidence to the Committee the port developers have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that they are not basing their project on handling any significant tonnage of coal. Frankly, I do not believe them. However, that is what they have said. If that is the case and this Bill receives a Third Reading, they cannot claim that the project will be imperilled if a new clause is moved in another place excluding them from handling coal for the first three years or so after the port has been completed in 1992. This will eliminate the severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the Government encourage an early free-for-all on imports.
My hon. Friends should remember that British Coal already—

§ Mr. Lofthouse
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you give us some guidance? Do you think it right that the hon. Member who gave the casting vote to put this Bill through to the Third Reading should be discussing with the—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not privy to what goes on outside this Chamber.

§ Mr. Redmond
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman, having made several statements, now tell the House that he is willing to discuss the Third Reading with the people who are seeking to promote this Bill. Is that correct?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is a matter for debate. As I say, what happens outside the Chamber is not a matter for me. I have a big enough job controlling what happens in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Stewart
My hon. Friends should remember that British Coal already sells the equivalent of 25 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB at prices—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Ashton
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is supposed to be the impartial Chairman of the Committee. Is it right for him to be consistently holding discussions with the sponsors of the Bill?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is quite customary for Ministers and others to seek advice outside the Chamber, but I am sure that all hon. Members will respond at all times to the mood of the House.

§ Mr. Stewart
rose—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I get the impression that this matter is resolving itself.

§ Mr. McCartney
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) became Chairman of the Committee, the House was given a categorical assurance by him that he had no connection whatsoever with the sponsors. We accepted that assurance from him as an hon. Gentleman. Only minutes later, however, we found that that was not the case. There should be a ruling about his conduct. He has broken the categorical assurance that he gave to us.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope that we can get on with it.

§ Mr. Stewart
British Coal already sells 25 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB at world prices, so no further price advantage would accrue until the 26 million tonnes of imported coal arrive. While seeking that advantage, the cost in pit closures, job losses and destroyed coalfield communities would be tenfold. For me, the risks to my constituents, 30 per cent. of whom work directly for the coal industry, are too great. Therefore I beg my hon. Friends to listen to the argument and to stand full square behind Nottingham miners and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)
I ought to register, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the House, the fact that we do not have even the Chairman of the Committee—

§ Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yet again we are debating the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It has been debated on many previous occasions. About 25 minutes of the debate have been taken up by hon. Members who represent coalfield community areas. That is all the time that they have had to participate in the debate. The Chairman of the Committee that considered the Bill spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain how much effort he had put into considering the Bill over many weeks. Hon. Members with constituencies in the north-west have spoken in the debate. There are no coal mines in their area. An hon. Member with a Humberside constituency is 884 promoting the Bill. Now the Opposition Front Bench spokesman is called. Is this debate to be concluded at 10 o'clock? If that is so, hon. Members from coal mining areas will not have had an opportunity to participate in the debate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I well understand that the hon. Gentleman, and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, are seeking to catch my eye. However, I remind the House that, when spokesmen from the Front Benches rise, it is customary for them to be called. That is why I called the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

§ Mr. Prescott
As the Chairman of the Committee has sought advice or instructions from the sponsors of the Bill, I think that at least he should have listened to what hon. Members have had to say in the debate, particularly as he has played such an important role in having the casting vote. We have heard that his casting vote was used to decide all the matters that were in front of the Committee. However, you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not in breach of the procedures of the House.
One appreciates that the sponsor of the Bill—in this case the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—would naturally seek advice from the sponsors, but it is a bit much for that role to be taken on by the Chairman of the Committee, whose own independence has been constantly questioned by the Opposition. I can only hope that he will return to the Chamber after discussing with the promoters of the Bill the information that he wants to impart to the House. We should welcome the Chairman back to the Chamber.
The real issue, however, is not what the Chairman of the Committee may have to tell us. The real issue is the Government's view of the matter. That is what we have asked for in every debate on the Bill at each stage. Now we are at Third Reading. Certain recommendations have been made by the Committee. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has made it absolutely clear that there is no argument between the NUM and the UDM, or between him and Opposition Members, as will be shown in the Division Lobby. I do not know what has motivated him to embark upon such a course. However, the point that concerns me is why the Government do not note that all those hon. Members who represent mining constituencies are expressing the same grave fears and doubts about the consequences of the Bill.
If anyone doubts that, one can point to the fact that the Committee published a special report because it was extremely concerned about the consequences of the Bill. Cheap coal and the consequences for the coal industry of privatisation are significant matters that lie at the heart of the debate. They are matters of national interest and concern. Those who ought to speak for the national interest are the Government.
I have read the reports of the debates that have taken place at the various stages of the Bill, including the Government's position at each stage. I draw that to the attention of the House, bearing in mind that the Committee's report calls on the Government to take whatever steps are necessary in the overall national interest to protect our indigenous coal mining industry. Perhaps the industry and the Government are doing that, but they have not yet convinced me.
885 I should be glad if the Minister for Roads and Traffic would say whether he intends to give the Government's point of view. I look with interest at the man who is never afraid to get up to lecture us about all sorts of things. Is it the Minister's intention to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate, in view of the Committee's special report? I will gladly give way to him—The Minister obviously does not intend to get up. He has obviously got his seat belt on for this ride.
I remind the Minister what other Ministers have said at various stages. I presume that he has read the report of the debates. Obviously he is the fall guy; he has been sent here to say nothing in this debate.
The Minister of State at that time told the House: 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."—[Official Report, 22 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 122.] That is the view of various Governments on all private Bills.
The Government were also asked to state their position when the House was considering whether the Bill could be transferred from one Session to another—a procedure that is now all too common. The Minister of State said: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about the Government's views on the carry-over motion. The Government believe that the motion should be supported. That will provide the opportunity for this important Bill to continue to be discussed."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 257.] That was the extent of the Minister's contribution.
The Bill has been in Committee and we have before us certain recommendations, on which we are entitled to ask for the Government's view. If one is led to believe that the Government were indifferent and did not want to be identified with the Bill, a quick look at the voting record will soon make it clear that not only did ordinary Government Back Benchers vote, but Cabinet Ministers were involved, with 26 members of the Cabinet voting. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who is known to operate in the Government's interest, is hardly the sort of fellow who is likely to vote against the Government's interest. He spends all his time defending it.

§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
The hon. Gentleman is making great play about which Members on the Government side voted for or against the Second Reading of these Bills. I have only the Hansard of Thursday 23 June. Among the Members voting against the Bill were 11 or 12 Conservatives, but I do not see the hon. Gentleman's name in either Division list on that day. In view of the synthetic indignation that he is generating now, I wonder if he voted against the Second Reading of any of the Bills.

§ Mr. Prescott
The hon. Gentleman said that he had not read the whole record. If he looks at the record, he will find that I voted on them all, with the exception of that one. I can give the reasons why I did not vote on that occasion, if the hon. Gentleman wants them, but I do not think we need go into them.
The real point is, what is the position of the Government? We are talking about the Secretary of State for Employment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Social Security. One could argue that each of those 886 Departments, apart from the Northern Ireland Office, will be directly affected by the consequences of the Bill. The Department of Social Security will be affected by the payment of benefit to those who become unemployed because of the Bill, and the Treasury may be concerned with the balance of payments deficit. Perhaps those Ministers took the view that all they were doing was enabling the debate to take place; perhaps they just happened to be about that evening and voted for the Bill. We will accept that argument, if that is the case.
What will be the position tonight? What is the Government's position on the Bill, since the Committee was unanimous in its recommendations? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) whether he had received any assurances from the Government. He was at pains to make it clear that he had had no discussions with the Government. I am glad that he was not asked about discussions with Associated British Ports. If we leave that aside, the Government have not approached him.
I want to ask only one question, because many hon. Members still want to speak. What is the Government's position on an energy policy, a coal policy, jobs and employment, the balance of payments and social security benefits? All those matters are directly involved. Is the Minister prepared to get up and tell us what the Government's position is? Has he been briefed on the Government's position, or will he be voting tonight on a Bill on which he does not have a view? Has he been told to vote in a certain way? Is that the kind of order that Ministers get from on high?
I shall give the Minister another chance. Will he now get up and give us an indication of the Government's view on the matter—or, more so, on the recommendations of the Select Committee? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.—He does not wish to intervene. It is clear that the Government—

§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)
Clearly the Minister does not intend to get to his feet because it is all part of a big fix. It is the height of hypocrisy. Some Nottingham Tory Members will vote with Labour tonight against the Bill, yet next week they will vote against the Nottinghamshire mining industry by voting for privatisation, by supporting a cut in the CEGB coal target and by voting for West Burton B not to go ahead. Those Tory Members are being allowed a night off tonight—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

§ Mr. Allen
—when some other Back Benchers on the Conservative side—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Prescott
It is clear from what my hon. Friend has said that views on the matter are strongly held. They will be even stronger if the Minister refuses to intervene. It seems that the Government do not intend to give any opinion about the Bill, despite all the recommendations of the Private Bill Committee and despite the statements made by the Chairman and members of the Committee. We are witnessing a shabby use of Parliament in the private Bill procedures. More and more, the Department of Transport uses the private Bill procedure to avoid accountability. It has been argued that this is the place 887 where the Government will be held to account, but here we have a Government entirely silent on a major issue that will affect thousands of miners, that will close pits, that will have a massive effect on our balance of payments, and that will affect the economy, but there is not one word from the Government.
The country will register precisely what is happening. The Government are working behind the scenes, sending in their troops to secure victory for this Bill. The country will register disgust at these private procedures and at the cowardice of the Minister, who could not answer our case.

§ Mr. Barron
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears from the Minister's inaction of the past few seconds that he is refusing to give the House an interpretation of the Committee's report on this Bill. You will be well aware of that report. It said that the procedure was stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. Now the Minister appears to be refusing to tell us the Government's opinion of the report. Is that in order? Surely, before Third Reading, the House should know the Government's attitude to the Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
Whether a Minister rises is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall call an hon. Member who served on the Committee. Mr. Pat Wall.

§ Mr. Pat Wall (Bradford, North)
On the face of it, this is an unexceptionable Bill promoted by Associated British Ports, which runs 21 docks, whose holding company made £38 million profit in 1987—more than half of it from its docks operation—and which requested permission to build a deep water jetty that could take Panamax boats of up to 80,000 tonnes and Cape-sized boats of up to 120,000 tonnes, in competition with the ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp, and possibly provide a number of jobs on Humberside and help to develop the Humber area. However, this supposedly unexceptionable Bill spent five and a half months in Committee, with sittings held three days a week, morning and afternoon, except during parliamentary recesses—the longest period in Committee of any Private Bill for many years.
As my hon. Friends have said, senior Ministers and the Prime Minister were seen marching into the Lobbies to cast their votes on Second Reading. That is unusual for a private Bill. Having attended every sitting of the Committee, apart from the first, and having been responsible in part for the report, which was unanimous, I observe that the Committee reached its decision only on the casting vote of the Chairman, that it rejected amendments only on the Chairman's casting vote, and that the Bill is controversial and deeply political.
The Bill is inextricably concerned with major political, social and economic issues of the deepest regional and national impact. It has to do with the massive importation of foreign coal and the effect that that would have on the already horrendous balance of trade figures. It deals with possible sanctions busting in connection with importing 888 South African coal, and possibly with importing coal from the semi-slave coalfield of Colombia. It is concerned with the future of British Coal as a viable national organisation and with the future of at least 15,000 miner's jobs in some of the most productive pits in Britain. The Bill concerns those miners' futures and those of their families, and the knock-on effect on other jobs in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
The Bill is about the future of the electricity generating industry—about supplies of steam coal, which is the basic fuel for the generating industry, and will be for the privatised generating industry if the legislation goes through. It means putting the basic raw material of the industry in the hands of foreign suppliers in half the major coal-burning power stations in Britain. It means enormous costs in redundancy payments, unemployment benefits, social security payments and the considerable social costs that to with a further massive wave of redundancies in areas already suffering large-scale unemployment and social deprivation.

§ Mr. Lofthouse
Did the Committee have all this in mind when it framed paragraph 22 of its special report, which says: Before the Committee came to make a formal decision on, first, the amendment proposed by the British Coal Corporation, and, secondly, the Preamble itself, we agreed that if the Bill were allowed to proceed, this would be subject to conditions set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 below. As far as I am aware, the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), has not given us any assurance that those conditions will be fulfilled. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Committee said that the Bill should go through only if those conditions were agreed?

§ Mr. Wall
I shall come to that point, which will take up much of what I have to say.
I was speaking of the deeply political effects of the Bill. It will lower the purchasing powers of those areas—Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire—affected by the redundancies and it will deeply affect the work that local authorities have done in trying to counter the effects of the redundancies which have already hit mining communities so severely in the post-war period. It would also have a serious affect on the already overcrowded road system and consequential effects on the environment if the coal is carried from Immingham to the Aire and Trent valley power stations by a vast fleet of lorries.
All these issues were raised and discussed in Committee. The Bill makes political decisions, and that is not the role of Members of the House under the private Bill procedure. For three of the four of us, this was our first private Bill. We are all Back Benchers, and three of us were Members of less than two years' standing.

§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

§ Mr. Wall
No, I will not.
We do not say that in any modesty. All three of us feel that we have the ability to proceed on the Bill, but we did not have the experience of private Bill procedure, and are still learning the general procedure of the House. This private Bill was concerned also with issues of deep and national significance.
On Second Reading, the promoter made no case for the Bill whatever. No case has ever been made out for the Bill in the House. Only in the 26 sittings of the Committee were 889 these issues debated. However, because of the Chairman's casting vote, there is no Report stage, with the result that the House has no opportunity to debate amendments, even the important ones suggested by British Coal and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, which would have placed a restriction on the import of coal for three years after the passing of that Bill. I feel sorry for the Chairman.

§ Mr. McCartney
As a member of the Committee who served with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Gentleman a question? When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the sponsors of the Bill a minute ago, did he say, "I am totally in your pocket and I had better come across to you"?

§ Mr. Wall
What is wrong with this Bill is that the Chairman of the Committee was placed in an impossible position. When we debated private Bill procedure in the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in a shrewd intervention, said that hon. Members are supposed to sit on a private Bill Committee to exercise independent and fair judgment. He did not use exactly those words, but that was what he meant. Normally, private Bills concern planning decisions which can be controversial. If they involve proposals to build a railway through Kent or a road through the Shipley constituency next to mine, or to build a tunnel under certain areas, they are controversial, but not politically controversial in the way that the future of the coal industry or the electricity generating industry in Britain is controversial.

§ Mr. Bellingham
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members
Give way.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. One at a time, please.

§ Mr. Wall
I shall not give way.
Such Bills are not controversial in the way that this Bill affects social services and local communities. The Chairman of the Committee has had to try to justify what happened to the Bill in Committee because the promoter of the Bill has not had the guts to explain the Bill to the House; nor has the Minister been prepared to explain the issues to the House.

§ Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why Ministers might be scared to come to the Dispatch Box is that the Conservative Members enjoy wrapping themselves in the Union Jack and calling themselves the party of patriotism? While they stand at the front door defending this country, they are kicking the back door open with their heels and allowing our competitors to ransack our industries.

§ Mr. Wall
I wish to deal with the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

§ Mr. Eadie
I want to raise an extremely important point with my hon. Friend because he was present when a whole series of points of order were raised about amendments which were not selected. The occupant of the Chair promised me that the special report would be debated in the House and would be perfectly in order. This is our only opportunity to find out about the special report while my hon. Friend is making his speech. Will he explain to the House why the special report talks about energy policy, the Government being concerned and the free market when the Committee must have been well aware that the 890 privatisation of the electricity supply industry was passing through the House and one of the Government's main points was that there would be a free market in the coal industry? Will he explain to the House how the Committee reached that decision?

§ Mr. Wall
That is the crux of the debate and the reason why the report was produced. A reasonable and modest amendment was proposed by British Coal, calling for a time limit, or a free period, of three years in which coal could not be imported in excess of current figures into the Humber ports, given the exceptionally and unusually low stock prices for steam coal on the world market, and to allow the modernisation programme, which in the past was largely financed by Government money, to go ahead to allow steam coal to be produced more competitively and to allow British Coal to plan ahead. No private or state-owned coal industry can possibly plan ahead and invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the Selby coalfield and other new coalfields on the basis of a fanciful and theoretical market in the future.
For those reasons, we moved our simple, modest amendment, which was not accepted by the Committee. We then made a statement. The fact that we had to make a statement shows that this is not a normal—

§ Mr. Bellingham
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) does not want to give way, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) should not persist.

§ Mr. Wall
I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. He came in late—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Committee sat for five and a half months. We took the trouble to bring our report to the House and it is worth discussing. We said: The petitioners' arguments put the Committee in a position of great difficulty. In effect we were invited to make a strategic decision affecting UK energy policy, and one which affects also Britain's general policy on trade, because it relates to whether protectionist measures are justifiable to safeguard the interests of an important sector of British industry. We do not consider that this is an appropriate decision to he taken by a small committee consisting of four backbench M Ps, three of whom are serving in their first Parliament. It is a great burden of responsibility to place upon a private bill committee. There has been no technical breach of private Bill procedure, but we do consider that that procedure has been stretched to its limits by the various arguments advanced before the Committee. The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national government.

§ Mr. Ashton
Is my hon. Friend aware that he should, perhaps, give way to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who may have something to tell us? In October 1988, according the Register of Members' Interests, he paid a visit to South Africa financed by the South African Government. We should know what has been going on in the background.

Hon. Members
Come on, Bellingham.

§ Mr. Wall
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am not a vindictive or suspicious person, but the Bill is being considered by the House after three Conservative 891 Members have visited coal interests in South Africa. We should know who paid for those trips, what the connections were and what happened on the trips.

§ Mr. Bellingham
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Wall
I am not giving way. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Wall
I want to draw a contrast now. The Bill concerns the Humber ports. One of the interesting things about the Bill is that Conservative Members have been pushing the idea that Associated British Ports is wonderful. We have been told that it is a company whose total tonnage has risen since it was privatised from 77 million tonnes in 1972 to 90 million tonnes in 1987, with profits of £28 million. The total investment in new ports by the company is £80 million. Yet we are told that scheme ports are not viable, cannot operate, cannot attract investment and are not successful. On the one hand, we are told that Associated British Ports is a company that really needs and can really develop Immingham jetty; on the other hand we are told that we must abolish the dock labour scheme because scheme ports cannot provide such work. That argument is nonsense.

§ Mr. Bellingham
rose—

§ Mr. Wall
The Prime Minister—

§ Mr. Bellingham
I seek your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) has given way on several occasions to his hon. Friends, but not to any Conservative Member, including myself. I wish to tell him that my support for the Bill—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order for me.

§ Mr. Bellingham
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) wants to tell the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) something, he must not do it through me.

§ Mr. Bellingham
My support for the Bill has nothing whatever to do with a trip that I made to South Africa —[Interruption.]—but everything to do with that part of the Bill which relates to King's Lynn and to the £4 million that will be spent there to bring jobs to my constituency.

§ Mr. Wall
Although a scheme port is proposing a £30.5 million investment in the Humber jetty, when the Government are arguing for the abolition of the dock labour scheme they tell us that there is no investment in scheme ports. Although the total amount of investment proposed over three years around Immingham on the river Humber is about £370 million, the Government say that investment cannot be attracted to scheme ports. That is what they say when they want to reduce dockers to the kind of conditions experienced by my grandfather in Manchester, and that is why I am political and here in the House.
The secret of these ports is their geographical position and it is that which affects this decision about bringing coal into the river Humber, which will then be used to make 892 bigger profits for the privatised electricity industry. I quote yet again from the Committee's report, because it is not first a question of jobs. The Committee also decided that if the petitioners' assessment of the amount of coal likely to be imported through Immingham proves correct, then the consequences for the British coal industry could be, to use the word employed by Counsel for the Coalfield Communities Campaign, 'horrendous'. Those consequences might include the closure of as many as 15 collieries, the loss of 15,000 jobs, the permanent sterilization of energy resources, and knock on effects on local communities across Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. The Committee is aware of the dangers of allowing the import of coal on this scale, and is very sympathetic to the petitioners in the case they have made concerning this. We must also consider the social costs of the proposals. The evidence given to the Committee by Dr. Benn Fine, reader in economics at Birkbeck college, stated: According to our figures, the economic and social costs of pit closures will be made up of three components. First, lump sum redundancy payments will be of the order of between £191 and £360 million, depending upon the extent and consequences"—

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

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am on my feet. I cannot accept the closure.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. I know that a heavy task is placed upon you in protecting the rights of Back Benchers and I want to facilitate that difficult task. I know also that you will be sympathetic to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) because he attempted to move the Third Reading as soon as the Division on the previous business was completed. He was called at 7.29 pm. There were points of order for more than half an hour and all those points of order were ruled out of order by Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it was quite clear that all those points of order were entirely bogus—[Interruption.] The first speech from the Opposition, from the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), lasted over half an hour. It is clear that this is not an attempt to debate the issues, but to waste time.
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would want the House to move to a decision on these important matters. Therefore, can you give me some intimation about when the Bill might be brought back to the House, because as we saw clearly in the vote on Second Reading, a large majority of hon. Members want freedom of trade—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide when the Bill is to be debated again.

§ Mr. Hardy
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on an aspect of the matter. We have not had a full three-hour debate, as points of order lasted until about 10 minutes to 8. We have had a substantial debate that has lasted over two hours, but we have not heard a single word in support of the Bill, either from its promoter or from any other hon. Member, apart from one reference to its minor King's Lynn content. If the House is further to consider this wretched Bill, I hope that Conservative Members who support it—whether or not they have been to South Africa as guests of the South African coal industry—
893 It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 25 May.