Exmouth Docks Bill (By Order)

HC Deb 29 March 1990 vol 170 cc731-68

Order for Second Reading read.

7.13 pm

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will those hon. Members who do not wish to remain please leave quietly?

Sir Peter Emery

Because of some suggestions in the national press, I make it clear that I have no shares or interest in Exmouth Docks company, the Exmouth Docks Steamship company, the land surrounding the docks or any land in Exmouth, or anything to do with the companies which suggest a development at Exmouth docks.

It is interesting to note that, according to the journals, a previous Bill relating to Exmouth docks received a Second Reading in July 1868—[Interruption.] I have been a Member of the House for a considerable time, but not that long. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading, but later on, mainly before it reached Committee, it ran into one or two difficulties and Standing Orders had to be repealed to let it go through. Two of the nominated directors in the Bill were removed from it, after which the Bill proceeded without difficulty. The most interesting aspect was that the total capitalisation necessary to make the docks and create the railway sidings ran to only £60,000, an amazing figure when one looks at today's costs.

One need not go back any further than the 1960s, when the docks fell into considerable disuse and remained so, with small tonnages going through, until the docks company was purchased in 1982 by new owners who attempted to revitalise the commercial life of the docks by encouraging the importation of animal feedstocks to serve the needs of the farming community in Devon and Somerset.

It soon became apparent that, if the docks were to be financially successful and a viable proposition, it was necessary to construct new deep-water berths for vessels larger than 2,500 tonnes dead weight. Such larger ships are essential for coastal traffic as the older generation of cargo vessels disappears. But because of the narrow docks entrance at Exmouth, vessels of that size could not enter the docks basin.

It is necessary for me to show that the company has tried to keep the docks going. At that time the company applied to East Devon district council, the local planning authority, for planning permission to construct new berths. But the council said in no uncertain terms that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks and the company withdrew its application.

In the 1980s the greatest increase in business that the docks company could obtain arose from the docks strike and the coal strike. At that time, the docks tonnages increased from below 400,000 tonnes gross weight a year to 523,00 tonnes in 1985, at which level it remained, give or take 10,000 tonnes, until the docks closed in 1989. For anybody to say that the docks were expanding or becoming increasingly successful would not be correct.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

It is important to know whether traffic through the dock was growing. It has been suggested that the miners' strike brought more vessels and coal through the docks and led to their growth. According to the figures that I have for the numbers of vessels and the tonnage, before the miners' strike the tonnage through the port more than doubled from 158,000 in 1978 to nearly 400,000 in 1982. The number of ships increased from 279 to 551. After the strike about 500 ships a year continued going through the port. It would be fair to say that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is implying, traffic through the port has grown not simply because of the coal strike.

Sir Peter Emery

I am sorry if my figures were misunderstood. Let us have the facts, as people should make a judgment on the exact facts. I was suggesting that the growth from 400 to 500 ships occurred during the two strikes. In 1985 the tonnage through the docks was 523,478; in 1986 it was 511,350: in 1987 it was 536,580; in 1988 it was 516,462; and in 1989 it was 523,223. Therefore, my original statement that growth has been at an average level since 1985 is fair.

The objections to the docks made up the largest single file that I had as a constituency Member about any factor in east Devon. The dust, the size of the lorries and the environmental disturbance that the docks were causing to local residents provided me with more complaints than I have received on any other issue. The complaints led to the dock company being taken to court and asked to meet restrictions on and requirements to deal with dust and nuisance. Although the company spent considerable sums of money trying to comply, it is almost impossible to stop dust when handling open feedstuff cargo and the company was prosecuted under the Public Health Acts, leading to the issue of prohibition notices under the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969.

Mr. Prescott

It is important to get some of the facts established at the outset as we shall want to discuss them. I could be wrong, but I understood that the prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive concerned the continued complaints from many people in the area which the hon. Gentleman has drawn to the attention of the House. I confirm that that is so, as I have visited the docks. They were concerned about the dust and dirt and complained that no action of any substance was taken by the docks authority to correct that. That is why the company was prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. As he said that considerable sums of money were spent by the authority for dealing with the problem of dust and dirt, can he give us some idea of the sums involved?

Sir Peter Emery

I cannot give the exact figures, but a new hopper complex with covering for the cranes that were unloading and air ducts to stop the dust blowing around was constructed. I know that the company visited docks throughout Europe to try to find modern equipment to meet the requirement to stop the nuisance. The company was very conscious of that, and I repeat that it went to considerable trouble.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Paragraph 6 of the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill talks about prosecutions being brought under the Public Health Acts.". However, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned only the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and a prohibition notice. The Health and Safety at Work, etc Act applies to people affected by a process, but substantially it is not the same as the Public Health Acts. Was action taken under the Public Health Acts? The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is not a public health Act.

Sir Peter Emery

I must look in Hansard as I had no intention of mentioning the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. I was referring to action under the Public Health Acts leading to the issue in December 1987 of a prohibition notice under the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969.

Mr. Prescott

I mentioned the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.

Sir Peter Emery

It was the hon. Gentleman who did that, not me.

The company complied with that requirement and applied for outline planning permission for the development of most of the land, including the docks. The company had earlier tried to obtain planning permission for residential development of the land containing holiday chalets round the docks, but the district council refused permission because of the proximity of the area to the working docks. Under the June proposals the dock basin would accommodate only pleasure craft, although facilities would continue, because there was originally an objection from the fishermen in the area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. They have now withdrawn their objection because arrangements have been made to facilitate the local fishing fleets; I can supply the details if necessary.

The dock basin has been closed since the beginning of the year.

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way and I do not intend to tire him, but a number of people and groups made objections and several of those objections have been withdrawn. It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman could tell us why the fishermen and others who registered objections are now in the process of withdrawing them or intend to withdraw them. The House should understand the extent of the objections, whether they have been withdrawn and the reasons for withdrawing them.

Sir Peter Emery

I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. If I had passed the outline of my speech to the hon. Gentleman he would have seen that an entire section deals with the five objections to the Bill.

The Bill is promoted by the Exmouth Docks company, which was established under the Exmouth Docks Act 1864. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the company to discontinue the operation of the docks and close them to commercial traffic.

It was originally suggested to the company that a harbour revision order might be the way to proceed. The company was happy to do that. It would have allowed the public inquiry, but the company had no reason to stop that. My hon. Friend the Minister decided that, legally, he was not authorised to grant a harbour revision order. I see that he is nodding in agreement. He might have considered granting such an order if that were possible, but he had to inform the company and East Devon district council that that was not within his legal rights. So the company considered the matter and that is why the Bill is now before the House.

I understand hon. Members on both sides of the House objecting to the private Bill procedure being used to circumvent planning law and planning applications. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has made recommendations on that, but they have not been carried through.

Mr. Prescott

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; it is inevitable that I shall ask him to do so to secure information. I know that he will reply to the debate at the end, but it may be better for him to answer my inquiry now.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point and I should like to hear his views because I have seen documents asking whether the Bill is necessary for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. I have been led to believe, and I have read statements from either representatives of the development company or the organisations involved, that the company has received legal advice that it is not necessary to proceed with the Bill for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. If so, why are we considering the Bill?

Sir Peter Emery

As with many legal matters, there is no simple answer to that question. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall try to deal with the matter in detail.

Sensibly, the company considers all the options because it is not gaining any income from the docks at present—

Mr. Prescott

Because it has shut them.

Sir Peter Emery

Of course. It has been advised that it would be unsafe to continue. I shall deal later with the cost to the company of proceeding.

Mr. Cryer

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery

I am trying to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer one question at a time?

The company took advice, and it was suggested that it might be possible—not that it was possible—to proceed without the Bill as long as the development was not challenged in the courts. If it was challenged in the courts, the development would be uncertain.

The planning committee of East Devon district council wants an assurance before granting planning permission that the structure that it suggested in the plans will remain. Later, I shall read a letter from it urging that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. One option is sure but the other is open to some doubt.

Mr. Cryer

The somewhat spartan statement from the promoters says that some consulting engineers have reported. It says that certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside. Has a copy of that report been deposited for hon. Members?

Sir Peter Emery

I cannot answer that question. I would judge that it has not been deposited because it has not been asked for, but I shall try to deal with it in my speech because it is an important matter. A Committee can deal with such matters better than hon. Members on Second Reading.

The company decided to bring a Bill before the House. I said earlier that hon. Members object to private Bills being used to circumvent planning procedures. This Bill has been through all the required planning procedures and has the approval of Exmouth town committee, which was set up by East Devon district council and comprises councillors from the Exmouth area. East Devon district council wrote to me saying: I understand that the Second Reading of the Bill is likely to take place next week and it may be useful for you to know this council's position on the matter. I can confirm that the Council's Planning Committee has given planning permission for the redevelopment of the Exmouth docks for a marina together with the associated residential development, subject to formal closure of the docks by the necessary legal process, ie the Bill currently before Parliament. That reinforces the point that I made to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The letter continues: The council has accepted the reality of the situation and that the days of Exmouth as a commercial port are over and that the docks should close. I understand that there are fears in some quarters that private Bills such as this may be used to circumvent normal planning procedures, but I can confirm that this is definitely not the case with this Bill. I would reiterate that the proper planning process has been followed and permission given. That is of considerable importance and I hope that it assures hon. Members who have been concerned about the private Bill procedure.

I now turn to the report of Hydraulics Research Ltd, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked. I am sure that details of the report can be provided to hon. Members if it has not already been deposited in the House. It makes it quite clear that expenditure of over £1 million will be necessary to make the docks safe, and that equipment to modernise and to meet restrictions under the health Acts is likely to cost about the same. It is impossible for the company to meet such expenditure, even if the company does not wish the development of the docks as a marina. The company has considered seeking financial assistance, but section 12 of the Harbours Act 1964, which allowed for grants to docks, was repealed in 1981. That grant facility is no longer available.

Originally, there were five objectors—two major objectors and three individuals. Initially, the major objectors were fishermen, who were concerned about their right to enter the harbour. They wanted to be assured that there would be a harbourmaster. They wished to have areas to unload fish, which traditionally they had done, and one or two other facilities. The company has given legally binding assurances that the number and size of vessels that the fishermen stipulated will be able to enter the port and that it will be open in emergencies or in bad weather. To meet the wishes of fishermen, the company has provided land for a refrigeration process which hitherto they did not have. The fishermen therefore withdrew their objection.

The next objection came from a strange source—one might say that it was somewhat impertinent. It came from Exeter city council.

Mr. Prescott

Impertinent?

Sir Peter Emery

Yes, I said impertinent, but perhaps I should put that in inverted commas. The council objected because it would lose income. Its real objection was that the dues of £168,000 a year which it obtained from the operation would be lost if the docks did not operate. However, as the docks are closed, the council is receiving no income, so it seems strange to me—I do not represent Exeter—that Exeter city council is trying to interfere in what Exmouth and East Devon district council saw as the best development.

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Gentleman has come to a more controversial point. He refers to the impertinence of the authority. Exeter city council is, as I understand it, the navigation and conservation authority for the river. It is entitled to impose charges on all vessels on the river to pay for the lights and navigational aids required under merchant shipping legislation. The money does not go into the coffers of Exeter city council for playing fields, for example, but goes to maintain navigational aids on the river and to make it safe. The problem now for the council and the citizens of Exeter is that if the charges are not secured from other vessels or in other forms, the navigational aids will be a charge on the authority itself. Exeter will find not only that it is losing income, but that it still has costs for which it can no longer levy charges. The council is not simply picking up money; its position is a dead loss. It will have to finance navigational aids, which is no loss to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but is a loss to Exeter.

Sir Peter Emery

I had better withdraw the word "impertinent". However, some of the costs will not be incurred because the harbour will not be operating as a commercial harbour. I cannot estimate the variation, but there will be a considerable saving. I do not believe that one local authority should impose charges on another authority which is unable to continue with an operation because it is no longer viable. That is, perhaps, the best argument.

I can now give certain assurances to the House. The House will be pleased to know that a recommendation will go to the relevant Exeter city council committee on Monday 2 April that the objection of the Exeter city council be withdrawn because arrangements have been made between the present company and the authority which allow it to withdraw its objection. I am delighted that that is the case. I was informed that the Committee would have liked to have had the recommendation before this debate, but 2 April is the first date on which it can go to the Committee.

Mr. Prescott

What about compensation?

Sir Peter Emery

I cannot say exactly. All that I can say is that that is the recommendation.

There were three private objections. One was a private objection from a previous employer, which has now been settled, and two are outstanding. Mrs. Susan Winters, a chandler, used to sell goods round the docks. She has claimed that her income has been affected by the closure of the docks. I accept that that is the present position, but Exmouth docks are not her only source of income and her business is likely to be far greater with a marina. She will be able to supply more to the boats in the marina than she could to the slightly larger commercial vessels which previously used the docks. If the Bill goes to Committee, she has the right to make her case and I do not have to make it for her.

The second outstanding objection is from Mr. Stephen Lytton, who is a former assistant pilot. He is not employed by the company, but he is working with only 18 months' service. Even if he had been employed by the company, he could not have claimed a statutory redundancy payment; but the company, realising his position, has made an offer to Mr. Lytton. However, he wants a settlement that would put all the former employees of the company, who have agreed to redundancy payments and other benefits, into a wholly unfair position. The company is still willing to make a fair settlement to the two objectors and it will continue to take that stance.

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Gentleman referred to two previous employees who, I believe, were shipping agents in the port. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that they were shipping agents who had to move to another port because the company arbitrarily finished commercial operations at the port in December? Were they shipping agents and, if so, what—if any—compensation did the company pay them?

Sir Peter Emery

A shipping agent was supposed to be putting in an objection. I believe that he never put in a formal objection, but I should have to consult on that. He was a shipping agent in the port. Negotiations took place between the company and the gentleman, and he was happy to accept the terms. I cannot say what he is doing now. I believe that necessary compensation, which was acceptable to him, was negotiated. I am right in saying that no objection to the Bill was lodged by that individual.

The company strongly believes that it is not financially possible for it to reconstitute the dock as a commercial operation. If it were to be a commercial operation, the company would have to consider—this would not appeal to the Opposition—building up a trade in the importation of coal. Some of my hon. Friends might want that, but some hon. Members would definitely object strongly.

Mr. Prescott

Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that it would be commercially possible to import coal and to meet the expenditure necessary to allay the anxiety about safety at the docks? He is now telling us that it would be possible to make the port profitable by importing coal. I thought that he was telling the House that the money needed to make the dock safe made it impossible for the dock to operate commercially. Which argument does the hon. Gentleman want to deploy?

Sir Peter Emery

The hon. Gentleman is being—

Mr. Prescott

Mischievous?

Sir Peter Emery

The hon. Gentleman would never be mischievous. However, he is putting words into my mouth. I have made it clear that the dock company considers that it could take no action to make the dock commercially viable again. I asked the company where, if it could choose, it would go for cargo and I have told the House its answer. The answer does not imply that there is any likelihood of that cargo alone reconstituting commercial activity in the dock. The company has made it clear that even its previous trade in agricultural feedstuffs has now gone elsewhere and the company's chance of winning that trade back are negligible. Clearly, there is no way in which the company or East Devon district council believes that the dock can be made a commercial proposition once more.

I want now to consider the benefits that would accrue for Exmouth. For a long time many people have believed that the area along the south coast to which I have been referring needs a marina. There is only anchorage in the estuary, and no marina along the east Devon coast in my constituency from Uplyme to Exmouth. One has to go round the Exe to Torquay before one finds such a facility.

Exmouth is a major tourist area and its income is dependent on tourism. The council and the overwhelming majority of people in Exmouth believe that a marina and the kind of development that we are discussing today would be excellent commercially for the town, and that is what they have recommended.

Mr. Prescott

There is some contention over a piece of land to which I believe the hon. Gentleman referred and which is mentioned in the promoter's note. That piece of land is known as Shelley Sands. Does the Bill cover Shelley Sands? If it does, it is a legitimate matter of concern for us this evening. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an apparent dispute about the ownership of Shelley Sands? I have seen the deeds, titles and the correspondence between the local authorities and the people who contest that the port authority involved in the Bill has a right to that land. Is there a dispute? Will the courts have to decide it? Is there any uncertainty about that piece of land?

Sir Peter Emery

I am delighted to answer that. Under the section 52 agreement, the company handed over the Shelley Sands area of the basin to the East Devon district council. There can be no dispute about it. The company was quite willing to do so and that was part of the agreement in the planning application. I am glad that we have got rid of that problem.

Mr. Prescott

So that land is not covered by the Bill?

Sir Peter Emery

It is part of the planning application, but it is not dealt with in the Bill.

I apologise fo having detained the House for so long. I have tried to answer all the questions that were asked. If there are other questions, and I have no doubt that there will be, the right place for them to be asked is in Committee. As there are petitioners, the Bill will go to an Opposed Private Bill Committee and the Committee will examine it rigorously. I urge that the Bill be allowed to receive its Second Reading and proceed in the way that private Bills have proceeded for centuries since the first of these Acts, the Exmouth Docks Act, was introduced in July 1864. It should be brought to a determination sensibly and reasonably for the benefit of Exmouth and of everyone concerned.

7.53 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) set out quite properly to make it clear to the House that he has no interest in these matters. I am sure that he meant also that his company, Shenley Trust Services has no involvement in the matter either.

Sir Peter Emery

Not at all.

Mr. Cryer

When the hon. Gentleman was referring to himself, I realised that he was referring to the company that he owns and controls, and of which he is chairman.

Sir Peter Emery

I want to make it clear that neither I nor any company with which I am associated in any way—minority or majority—have any interest in the matter.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I wish that other hon. Members were as frank and open as he has been tonight. Sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, hon. Members who may be shareholders in a company maintain that that company's involvement in a certain matter does not involve them because their personal property is not affected. The hon. Member for Honiton has made it clear that neither he nor his company has any involvement in the matter under consideration today.

Although it may not be the hon. Gentleman's fault, I thought that the statement on behalf of the promoters was poverty stricken. The hon. Gentleman said that the company consulted the Minister to discover whether an order would be possible, and under that order a public inquiry would have been necessary.

I do not anticipate that a public inquiry would be confronted with a statement consisting of three pages of double-spaced typescript to substantiate the case. The promoters may argue that a procedure is available in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. I am not concerned about that procedure. I am concerned with the private Bill that is being dealt with on the Floor of the House, and that hon. Members should have access to the maximum amount of information to help them judge the merits of the proposal. Frankly, three pages of typescript, which is all that is available to us, is less than adequate.

I was interested to learn that consultations had been carried out before the Bill was promoted and that the company had approached the Minister and sought an order. However, during those consultations, were local trade unions involved? Trade unions are a very important part of our community, although the Government try to crush them. I believe that they should be consulted about major developments such as the proposal in the Bill because jobs are involved. If there was the potential for jobs, the trade unions would have wanted to know about it and perhaps would have encouraged the venture.

No doubt, if the sponsor could say that the Transport and General Workers Union and the General Municipal Workers Union had given unstinting support to the proposal, that would have been prayed in aid. It is not often that Conservative Members like to stand shoulder to shoulder with trade unionists, but there are occasions when that happens.

Sir Peter Emery

I am not the fount of all knowledge and I have had to consult about that. I am told that consultations with the TGWU did take place.

Mr. Cryer

I am pleased about that. I should be happier if I knew the outcome of those consultations.

Paragraph 5 of the statement on behalf of the promoters states: Following the acquisition of the Company by its present owners efforts were made to revitalise the commercial life of the docks, in particular by the importation of animal feedstuffs— and the hon. Gentleman elaborated on that.

I wonder who the new owners of the company are. All that we have been given is the name of the company. I have not had the time to ask the Library to dig out the names of the directors and their interests. If I knew that, it would help me to be convinced that the directors are interested primarily in transport and not in making a killing from an increase in land values. There is a suspicion that the company could have been taken over, not because the directors were interested in developing the area as a dock, but because they were taking over an old company, with a relatively low capital value but which owned a large area of land, and because its potential value therefore far outweighed its actual capital value. If the planning consent was obtained and the dock transformed into a marina, hugely enhanced capital values could have been achieved for little investment—

Sir Peter Emery

rose—

Mr. Cryer

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.

I can well recall that early in the 1970s my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I dealt with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, which was of much the same character as this Bill. One of our arguments was: why is so much money available for the development of marinas when so little is available for the development of proper long-term jobs in manufacturing industry?

Sir Peter Emery

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I simply want to provide him with information. He asked about the company that took over the ownership of Exmouth docks. It was a grain-importing company. It took over the docks so that it could import grain through that area for the rest of its business. That is the background to the company of which the hon. Gentleman has requested knowledge.

Mr. Cryer

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like further information. I should like to know whether the company feels the need to diversify into land. After all, that is the growth area of the present enterprise culture.

Page 2 of the promoters' statement reports: The Company applied to East Devon District Council in February 1986 for planning permission to construct the necessary berths, but the Council informed the Company that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks facilities and the application was withdrawn. By a happy chance, a matter of a couple of years later—the date is not clear because we have not had sight of the report—some consulting engineers reported that the docks were in such a seedy condition that certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside. I do not wish to cast a shadow over the consulting engineers, but that was a most convenient report because the argument about the massive investment that is required to restore a port that has been so arbitrarily closed to dock work rests on that very report.

One of my complaints about this procedure is that we have been given only a sparse amount of information. I am slightly surprised by that because the sponsor of the Bill is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure which, at this very moment, is considering private Bill procedure—

Sir Peter Emery

The hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable about the workings of the House, ought to know that the Select Committee on Procedure does not have any powers whatever in relation to private Bills. Our terms of reference limit us to dealing only with the public Bill procedure. We have nothing to do with private Bills. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Cryer

I am pleased to hear that the Select Committee on Procedure is not considering the private Bill procedure, which is certainly the impression that is abroad in the House. Knowing how well versed the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is in the promotion of private Bills, I must advise him that the House expects the maximum possible information. We have certainly not been provided with that tonight.

As I said, that engineering report is crucial—because the promoters have suggested that the cost of restoring the dock facility would be about £1 million and that a further £1 million would be required for new machinery.

Other courses of action may well be necessary. The alleged danger of the docks at the moment—the fact that certain dock walls could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles were used at the dockside—might be a bald statement and might not reflect the position in 70 per cent. of the port. We do not know—it might apply to 80 per cent. of the port.

I digress to give an illustration. In the early 1960s two or three of us went walking along the then closed British Rail branch line from Keighley to Oxenholme. We examined the track and the bridges. We thought that the line could be made into a viable proposition. However, some people said, "Oh no, you cannot run a railway without ripping up all the track, cleaning and renewing the ballasts, replacing it or adding new ballasts, levelling the track, tamping it and all the rest." They said that some of the bridges needed renewing. Over the years since we opened the line on 29 June 1968, we have taken some track out of use and have done that work.

I use that as an illustration of the dangers of following such reports too closely. A couple of civil engineers gave us reports of great gloom and doom. One of them said that we would need £1 million to reopen the line. That demonstrates that if one considers an issue in different terms, one can produce a programme that does not require the investment to be made all at once. It is possible to plan a programme of renewals that can be implemented over 20 or 25 years. The service—in this case a dock—could still be operated to 50 or 60 per cent. of capacity, perhaps rising to 70 or 80 per cent.

We must ask: what proportion of the dock walls is unsafe? As the port is not working at full capacity, the dock walls that are unsafe may not be needed in the operation of the port. We simply do not know.

I am simply a Member of Parliament carrying out my job of scrutinising private legislation. It might be an unfortunate procedure—it was the procedure under which all the railways of this country were built—and it has unsatisfactory aspects, but as we are using that parliamentary procedure, we have the right to know precisely what is involved in the application. However, we are not being given the necessary information.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) recalls that I asked the hon. Member for Honiton some questions at the beginning of the debate. If the information had been deposited in the Private Bill Office while the hon. Member for Honiton was elaborating on the promotion of the Bill, I should have been able to have a quick look at it. It is a matter of great regret that that information is not available.

Mr. Prescott

On the contentious matter of the consulting engineers' report, which stated that the walls were not safe and that the docks should be closed, I understand that some of the objectors asked for the report, but were denied it. I do not know who was given the report —perhaps the Exmouth authority or the Devon authority was given it—but those whose livelihoods were at stake were entitled to ask for the full report on which they could make a judgment. As I understand it, they did not receive it.

Mr. Cryer

That is interesting information. I wonder whether copies of the report were available for the consultations with the Transport and General Workers Union. As my hon. Friend knows, that union and others have always assisted in planning for the future development of their areas. That is a characteristic of the trade union movement, although it is often not recognised.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

My hon. Friend is putting questions to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)—or Botswana or whatever it is called these days. I saw the hon. Gentleman nod and wink to the people who are responsible for the Bill. If my hon. Friend were to hang around a bit longer—and I am sure that he has a lot more to say—he might see a message being passed from the promoters' representatives to the hon. Gentleman to enable him to answer questions. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he play the game. He should ask questions fairly slowly and deliberately, and intersperse them with the necessary arguments. The hon. Member for Honiton, in his state of health, cannot afford to keep running over to the promoters' representatives for answers. My hon. Friend must have a lot of questions to put to the hon. Member for Honiton, as, apparently, have other people. Wearing another hat, he has been asking questions at another level. This private Bill procedure is very murky. We know that these matters should not be dealt with on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend should give the hon. Gentleman some time to get answers. I want to know the answers, as does everybody else in the Chamber, including those in the Gallery.

Mr. Cryer

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I raised the question of this report right at the beginning in order to give people time to provide the information. It is outrageous that people should come to Parliament for powers to close a dock, and expect to get those powers on the basis of two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript, with no report on the case on which the whole argument hinges—that the dock has to be closed as parts of it are unsafe. We are not told to what extent traffic is affected. We are not told whether the whole dock, or half of the dock, is affected. We are not told whether the dock could carry on at 50 per cent. capacity. I say to the promoters that this is not the way to go about things.

Mr. Prescott

My hon. Friend should bear in mind a point that has been made to me by people down in that area. The authority in east Devon has changed its position as to whether legislation should have to pass through the House before the granting of planning permission in respect of dock land. I think that the words that are now used are something like, "use their best endeavours". The reason given for the change was that several Members of the House of Commons are rather awkward about private Bills. Because of that awkwardness, promoters cannot be assured that they will have Bills passed by the House. I do not want to burden the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) with unnecessary journeys across the Floor of the Chamber, but we must have answers to the questions that we put quite legitimately. The hon. Gentleman has a problem because a few truculent Members of Parliament do not co-operate. The point that my hon. Friend has been making is substantial. Where is the consultants' report? Hon. Members need to see that report before they can judge whether the process of closing the dock should be started.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is quite right. Parliament would be a poorer place if it did not have a few truculent, investigative Members. Actually, it would be best to deal with this matter by public inquiry. Such an inquiry would be presented with rather more than two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript. At inquiries, people produce great quantities of documents to substantiate their cases. Inspectors call for information, and witnesses are cross-examined. Anybody who treats Parliament as being less important than a public inquiry is just asking for trouble. Happily, there have always been dissident Members of Parliament who do not say simply, "Private business. It is time to be off. We do not have to be bothered with it." There are Members who take an interest in private business. It is all a matter of priorities in the expenditure of public money. It seems that making money is regarded as more important than making machines. That is why this country has a balance of trade deficit of £20,000 million. The Eastbourne harbour syndrome has been going on too long.

Mr. Skinner

I do not like my hon. Friend's reference to truculent and dissident Members of Parliament. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know only too well, I am against the private Bill procedure. The whole thing stinks. It is about a few people coming here and making money on the side. These moonlighting Tory Members of Parliament have pocketfuls of money. Nearly every Tory Back Bencher has about five moonlighting jobs. We heard the other day about all the money that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had received from Blue Arrow. He said that he had given it back, that it had been returned.

My hon. Friend and I are exposing this business of making money. Tory Members do not mind what they do. They put people out of work; they close docks; they bring South African coal in through the Humber ports. They do not give tuppence for Parliament. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, yet he is in the middle of it. So I will not have this reference to dissident Members of Parliament. I come here to protect the public purse. I do not believe that public money should be spent in this way. The hon. Member for Honiton has problems—his Tory colleagues have deserted him. I do not know why. This must be a very murky business. Normally, one or two little Tory bootleggers trot between the promoters and the hon. Member who is presenting their case. The hon. Gentleman does not have anybody to do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Briefly.

Mr. Skinner

The Bill is brief, and it is very costly. Every line in it will make a packet of money—probably for the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Emery

Wait a minute.

Mr. Skinner

I do not know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Skinner

I am just checking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not casting aspersions on another hon. Member. That would be quite out of order. Secondly, his intervention has been quite long enough. I hope that he will clarify his remark.

Mr. Skinner

If the hon. Gentleman is disclaiming today, then he is disclaiming today. If he is disclaiming today, one has to buy it. But that does not mean that I will buy it tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will satisfy me that he was not casting aspersions on the honour of another hon. Member.

Mr. Skinner

Let me make it absolutely plain. If the hon. Gentleman says that he has nowt to do with this Bill, that he is just sitting there for the good of his health—

Sir Peter Emery

The good of my constituents.

Mr. Skinner

If the hon. Gentleman satisfies you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you want to buy it, that is okay by me. All that I am saying is that my hon. Friend must expose the private Bill procedure. Somebody has to do it. Somebody has to stop this evil practice. It has nothing to do with Parliament. We should not be debating these things at all. It is high time that they were dealt with properly under local authority planning procedures. The local communities should be able to play a part—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall begin to forget who has the floor. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend makes some useful and cogent points. On the matter of dissident Members of Parliament, we are in agreement. Dissident Members of Parliament are those who challenge the received ideas about which my hon. Friend has been talking. One of these received ideas is that Members of Parliament may have jobs outside. We are full-time Members of Parliament, and that is a matter that could be taken to heart by many Tory Members.

To pursue the question of the information which has been provided, I have not yet finished commenting on the engineers' report. The hon. Member for Honiton said that this is a Committee point, but Opposed Private Bill Committees are not like Standing Committees where questions are argued, amendments are tabled and hon. Members can demand reports. The proceedings are conducted by lawyers who receive expensive fees for presenting a case. Happily, I have never been on an Opposed Private Bill Committee and I do not wish to serve on one, I hasten to add. Hon. Members who have served on them tell me that they get a strong impression that the lawyers are paid by the hour and spin things out.

Mr. Prescott

By the word.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend says that they are paid by the word. There is not much opportunity for hon. Members to sift through engineering reports. The engineers' report is pivotal to the Bill, but the Committee stage will be conducted on the basis of submissions, so there will not be an opportunity for detailed examination. Questions may be asked, but the procedure is based on the position of the petitioners. Hon. Members do not undertake the examination. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Honiton that the procedure is satisfactory.

In paragraph 9 of the promoters' statement—

Mr. Skinner

rose—

Mr. Cryer

I shall proceed with the question of the five petitioners after this intervention.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend has talked about the Opposed Private Bill Committee procedure and said that it is not like other Committee stages. He talked about lawyers making pocketfuls of money. There is another serious consideration. My hon. Friend should explain at length what the Bill is about. An Opposed Private Bill Committee is composed of two hon. Members from the Government side and two from the Opposition side. The chances are that there will be a Tory Chairman who will have a casting vote, so there will be three votes against two. A recent private Bill, the Associated British Ports Bill, was in Committee for some 20 days. Throughout the proceedings the Chairman cast his vote against every amendment. My hon. Friend is well versed in those matters. He knows what happens when a Bill is not amended in Committee. There is no Report stage on the Floor of the House and it goes through like a dose of Epsom salts.

The hon. Member for Honiton talked about a Committee point, but my hon. Friend will not get a chance to raise it in Committee. My hon. Friend cannot serve on the Opposed Private Bill Committee because he has already played a part in the proceedings. Therefore, he cannot speak in Committee. If the Bill is not amended, because the hon. Member for Honiton's Tory Friends defeat every amendment, there will be no Report stage and the Bill will go straight to Third Reading when it comes back to the House. It is an evil system. My hon. Friend would do well to spell it out.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has, as usual, made a cogent, relevant and emphatic intervention. I well remember the Associated British Ports Bill. Unfortunately, there were no amendments to the Bill, so it went straight through. As I recall it, it was on that Bill that the promoters, P and O, arranged a champagne supper to keep Tory Members here.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend is a stickler for the truth, so I want to put him right. Yes, there are usually champagne parties organised to keep Tory Members here to vote the legislation through at the appropriate time, be it 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock or midnight. The champagne party to which my hon. Friend refers was on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, whose aim was to put money into the pockets of those who wanted a port system on the other coast.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are straying miles away from the Bill before the House.

Mr. Skinner

I appreciate that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Skinner

People are bound to get excited sometimes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is quite enough for an intervention.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend has made another relevant and cogent point. He is correct. That champagne party was not arranged for the Associated British Ports Bill; it was for the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. My hon. Friend is pointing to the fact that the Government have used the private Bill procedure to get legislation through and we have been inundated with private Bills, so much so that Associated British Ports, Felixstowe and champagne parties blur into one another. The hon. Member for Honiton has made it clear that there are no champagne suppers for this Bill. I suspect that that is why there will not be too many hon. Members here this evening.

I was about to deal with paragraph 9 of the promoters' statement. The hon. Member for Honiton explained that there were five petitioners. He said that fishermen have withdrawn their petition because they have had a legal, binding assurance. I should like to know what a legal, binding assurance is. An assurance does not normally vary legal weight. If something has legal validity, there has to be a means of applying it. Have the fishermen entered into a legal agreement with the company? Will there be a breach of contract if the company fails to honour its commitment?

An assurance is not a guarantee. It is just a claim that people will do their best. They give an assurance that something will be all right but that assurance does not provide the sanction of court action, which I should have thought was necessary to ensure that the fishermen had a guarantee, not just for the next five years, but for as long as fishing is to go on in the area. There should be a restrictive covenant on the building of the marina and a means of enforcing the covenant.

As the marina has not been built, I should like to know what provisions will be made. When the hon. Member for Honiton sums up, I should like him to tell us what he means by 'legal, binding assurance'. I do not want the fishermen of Exmouth to be sold short. I am concerned about them.

Mr. Prescott

I refer my hon. Friend to the note that we have been given on behalf of the promoters. In it they say: the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made the point that agreement had been reached with the fishermen who originally were not to continue their activities at the dock. We are all pleased to hear about the agreement. The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be refrigeration work; one assumes that heavy vehicles and machinery will have to be used in that work. There seems to be a conflict. If the fishermen are to continue their commercial activity, presumably lifting machinery and heavy vehicles will be necessary. That seems to be in conflict with the whole point of the debate—that the walls are unsafe for any commercial activity.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point. I was coming to it in a moment. Of course, there will be the refrigeration facility that the hon. Member for Honiton mentioned. There may be a restrictive covenant on the land on which the refrigeration facility is to be built to ensure access from the estuary and from the land. There must be some guarantee for the future. My hon. Friend is right in his more general point on paragraph 8 of the promoters' statement. If a refrigeration facility is to be provided, heavy plant and equipment will be needed on the dock to provide it. There must be lifting machinery to move the fish from the boats on to the dockside and into the refrigeration plant, and the refrigeration plant must be substantial. All that must mean building, machinery and heavy vehicles on the dockside. My hon. Friend is right to point to the discrepancy.

The engineering report is crucial. It is curious that, just when the planning application was rejected and it was decided that a marina was the way forward, a report was produced which matched the case and helped to support the argument that it would cost millions of pounds to retain the dock facilities and that something else should be established.

That type of procedure helps to convince, among others, trade unionists. When workers are presented with a claim that there is a report and they do not see it, they should always double-check. The lesson for trade unionists is, always check what the employer puts forward. They may have been told that a report has been produced showing that the docks cannot work again because it would cost too much to make them work. The report being so pivotal to the argument, its absence makes me doubt the validity of the company presenting the matter to us. It shows contempt for our procedures and for Parliament.

Mr. Prescott

The more I listen to my hon. Friend and the valid points he is making, the more I am reminded of a further contradiction, which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) might wish to clarify. Its seems curious that an examination was undertaken which led to the conclusion that the dock walls might collapse.

The company made an application in the mid-1980s to the East Devon district council to modernise the docks so that they could deal with even bigger vessels, plus the construction of some riverside facilities. Surely engineering work must have preceded that application and should have revealed problems with the sea walls. To find those problems being revealed now is a little coincidental.

Mr. Cryer

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is curious that the undertaking of the report, although not its publication, should have assisted the company in presenting its argument. My hon. Friend is right to say that applying for planning permission involves submitting documents about what will be done and where. That should have involved a detailed examination of the circumstances in which the docks would be built. That, in turn, should have brought to light the condition of the dock walls. Apparently, it was overlooked.

One is bound to question the competence of the company in going ahead with a planning application to seek consent, having apparently overlooked a serious engineering defect, yet that defect suddenly comes to light two years later, when it is thought that a marina would be a better alternative. That calls into question the bona fides of the company in bringing the matter to Parliament without providing us with the information we need.

Unsatisfactory though the private Bill procedure may be, when we have discussed other Bills, the promoters have taken the trouble to circulate us with information and deposit plans in the Private Bill Office. No such efforts have been made in this case.

Mr. Skinner

Promoters of private Bills of this type do not always provide the necessary information and plans. We had a similar problem recently, when the promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill did not even provide a map. This place is treated with contempt because the Tories, having a majority of 150, say, "We will use the private Bill procedure. We will not need every Tory Member to back it. Only perhaps 200 Members will be needed, including 100 for the closure motion."

We now know why the Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), came into the Chamber while my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was speaking. That Whip, an important member of the royal household, must have asked the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), "When will you want me?" He was saying, in other words, "Under the private Bill procedure, forget about free votes and voting according to conscience. When do you want me? When shall I bring the troops in to bring debate to an end?"

That is how the system works, and it is high time we did something about it. Let us stop this farce by which people give the impression that a matter is being brought to Parliament and is being dealt with by us, with every word—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is long enough for an intervention.

Mr. Cryer

Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover makes a cogent, important and relevant point. I noticed the oleaginous figure of the Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), enter the Chamber. As my hon. Friend says, he is organising matters.

We do not have the report of which I have spoken, because somebody has told the promoters, "Don't bother with the report. It could be a bit controversial. Different interpretations could be put on it and it might be said that dock work could proceed at Exmouth. But don't worry. All is organised. We have told the lads that they will be needed at 10 o'clock. They will come in then and vote." That is why the Whip came into the Chamber. Every now and then he comes in to check how things are going.

So my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover hit the nail on the head. This scrutiny is a facade and a formality. The Tories are using their majority as an elective dictatorship, a phrase used by Lord Hailsham when the last Labour Government had a tiny majority, if not a minority.

Mr. Skinner

We had a majority of one—Stonehouse—and we could not find him.

Mr. Cryer

Even though we did not have a majority, Lord Hailsham called us an elective dictatorship. Now that the Conservatives have a majority of 150 over Labour, the noble Lord says nothing.

Private Bills are supposed to have a separate path in Parliament. They are supposed to go through on a free vote, with independent scrutiny. It would be appalling if the Government used the private Bill procedure to impose their wishes on Parliament in contravention of tradition. But that is what they are doing, and the public outside are appalled. That is why they gave a massive thumbs down to the Tories at Mid-Staffordshire and why at the next general election the Tories will be run out of office.

The five petitions deposited against the Bill are detailed in clause 9. I have dealt with the position of the fishermen, and I look forward to the comments of the hon. Member for Honiton relating to so-called legally binding assurances that the marina will be open to fishermen in difficulties. The hon. Member for Honiton seemed to qualify the circumstances in which it would be open to fishermen in trouble. I should have thought that human compassion would have provided that guarantee, but a company that is seeking to convert a dock into a marina cannot be assumed always to have human compassion at the forefront of its thoughts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke about the loss to Exeter of £168,000 a year in dues, due to it as the navigation and river conservation authority. I should have thought that £168,000 in dues suggests a fair amount of traffic. The hon. Member for Honiton said that arrangements are being made by the company to allow the petition of Exeter local authority to be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East then asked him what the present position was. He could not say, because a committee of Exeter council has yet to meet to discuss the position on the closure of the docks and loss of fees. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me, he should intervene.

Sir Peter Emery

I just wish to make certain that the hon. Gentleman understands the position. A recommendation has been made by a committee of Exeter council which has to go forward for confirmation. That will happen on 2 April. But the council is agreed that the petition should be withdrawn. I am simply giving the facts. That is the position with the Labour-controlled Exeter council.

Mr. Cryer

I wanted to confirm that position. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will realise that one of the glories of democratic procedures is that one is never sure of the outcome. We cannot guarantee the position at this stage, but we can expect a certain decision to be made. None the less, my argument is that Parliament should know that decision before it considers the Bill. It is an outrage that we are considering the Bill when committees have yet to meet and decisions have yet to be made. We cannot know the decisions, because the timing is wrong.

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Member for Honiton has put one construction on events, which is not a complete construction. He says that it is a Labour-controlled authority. That is true. I hope that many more areas, including Honiton, will be Labour come the next election.

I chose to speak to Exeter council. It was maintaining an objection to the Bill. It was told that, as East Devon district council had withdrawn the stipulation that the Bill was a first condition before it could agree to any commercial activity on the dock, all that was now required was best endeavours. The legal advice secured by the company was that it did not need the Bill.

Exeter city council was faced with either coming to a deal and obtaining compensation—I believe of the order of £70,000 for one year but it would be left with the bill after that—or proceeding with a legal action against the company. The cost would then fall on the ratepayers. We know that, when anyone goes through the courts to obtain an agreement, it is highly expensive. The agreement arrived at left Exeter with little choice once East Devon district council took its decision.

Mr. Cryer

It sounds as if the agreement is force majeure. It is blackmail, which I shall come to later. It sounds as if Exeter council has virtually been blackmailed into accepting the decision. It is all linked up with these best endeavours—the phrase used to cover the fact that it was just conceivable that the Bill would not slide through the House like a dose of salts. That is an unscrupulous attitude. It makes our procedure simply a facade. Either we have power or we do not. It must be made absolutely clear. Either we are dealing with the granting of powers to close the dock or we are not. If the Bill is superfluous to requirements, it means that there is some skulduggery at work.

Sir Peter Emery

rose—

Mr. Skinner

Let skulduggery speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Member for Honiton wish to intervene?

Sir Peter Emery

It was just that I heard certain comments which obviously did not reach you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I read to the House earlier? It is not a matter of best endeavours. The letter from East Devon district council said: I can confirm that the Council's Planning Committee has given planning permission for the redevelopment of the Exmouth docks for a marina, together with the associated residential development, subject to formal closure of the docks by the necessary legal process". That is not a matter of best endeavours. It refers to the Bill currently before Parliament. I read that letter to the House an hour ago. I am sorry if I was not clear, but that was the letter dated 23 March 1990 and signed by the chief executive.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for interjecting. The problem is that a statement has been provided by the promoters for Members of Parliament. It says: The council is, however, concerned to ensure that the docks will be permanently closed to commercial traffic and, as part of the planning process, is requiring the Company to do its best to procure the enactment of the Bill, which would guarantee that the docks may be so closed. That is a statement in support of the Bill. I assume that we must take it at face value. It is the basis of at least part of the debate. The hon. Member for Honiton is saying in effect that that statement is otiose and irrelevant because the local authority has said specifically that it requires consent to close the dock from a private Bill process in the House.

Why on earth was a supplementary statement not issued by the promoters, based on the information that the sponsor has given to the House tonight? We are bound to question the whole nature of the statement. What other parts are not quite right? For example, the statement said: Consulting engineers have reported that certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside.

Will we receive another statement that says, "That is not quite right because we have had a letter from the company that says that the dock walls could be unsafe, but we are not quite sure"?

We cannot ignore phrases in the promoters' statement. We must challenge and examine them. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights to say that the local authority has put a different emphasis on it. We must inevitably put a question mark where we have two conflicting statements from the same source, both of which apparently seek to promote the Bill. The hon. Member for Honiton will at least agree that it is confusing.

Sir Peter Emery

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is confused; he is usually too intelligent to fall into that trap. Best endeavours are being made to put the Bill through the House. That is normal and proper phraseology. If the hon. Gentleman considers it inadequate, I went further, to find out what it really meant to East Devon district council. I see no conflict in best endeavours being used. That is what I am doing. I am doing it not for the company but for my constituents. Therefore, I am making absolutely clear what East Devon district council says. Surely that is the information that the hon. Gentleman wants; it gives him the assurance he requires.

Mr. Cryer

There is clearly a gap here. The promoters could have used words such as "the local authority requires the company to procure the enactment of the Bill." The qualifying phrase, "to do its best" is not needed. If I examine the words carefully, it is because for years I have been a member of the Select and Joint Committees on Statutory Instruments. Words have importance in the delegated powers that Ministers use when issuing rules and orders.

Very often the careless use of words gives rise to court actions. That is why I examine words scrupulously. It is confusing for the promotors to use words in one way and then for a different emphasis to be provided by the Bill's sponsor, the hon. Member for Honiton. We should avoid such confusion, as we need the case to be clear and unambiguous, especially when so much information is not provided to hon. Members, but we are expected to make a judgment.

Mr. Prescott

This point is vital. I pushed the Exeter authority on why it changed its position. It is clear that something material changed in order for it to withdraw its objections. It was not simply that it would receive compensation of £70,000.

I talked to the legal advisers of the authority, who made it clear that things had changed with regard to the East Devon council. I was told that section 52 of a certain planning agreement was important to East Devon council, as it laid down that no more commercial development and housing would be developed on the dock should any plan be proposed. That was a proper concern, and the council wanted to be satisfied about that requirement. Just a couple of weeks ago, however, things changed, and we are now talking about best endeavours.

The information supplied by the promoters relates not only to best endeavours but to the company's ability to procure the Bill which would guarantee that the docks may be so closed". How often have we debated the words "may" or "should"? They are at the heart of our legislative process. There is no doubt about what the promoters mean, as that is consistent with what I was told at Exeter. That information, however, seems to contradict what the hon. Member for Honiton has described as the position of East Devon council.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend has thrown some light on a confusing position. We have not yet received a satisfactory answer. The promoters speak of actions that guarantee that the docks may be so closed. We insert the word "shall" in primary legislation if we want something to be mandatory. We are now supposed to be dealing with such a mandatory decision, since we are not talking about a casual alternative to be available at some stage in the future when the company so wishes. The company has made an application to close the docks permanently after the temporary closure which it brought rapidly and arbitrarily to the port of Exmouth.

We are right to question what lies behind this Bill. It is not an inexpensive procedure to come to the House. Why are the promoters not saying that the company shall procure the closure powers? Why are they hedging it? It must be costing them thousands of pounds to come here to do all the preparatory work. Promoting private Bills is an expensive procedure, not a casual hobby. Why should people undergo such a procedure when they do not appear to be convinced of the need to undertake it in the first place?

If the information in the promoters' statement had been widely circulated in the area earlier, there might have been more petitioners. Five petitions alone have been deposited. I have already mentioned the fishermen, and I do not believe that the guarantees that they have received are satisfactory. We have already spoken about Exeter losing £168,000 per annum in dues. It is clear that there is some money connected with the dock, and it is not entirely without trade. The dock handled about half a million tonnes of goods a year, so it has had some traffic, which is important to remember.

Mrs. Susan Winters feels that her livelihood has been taken from her, and she is perfectly entitled to petition. Mr. Stephen Lytton, a former assistant pilot, wants a settlement. It is argued that he cannot be given a settlement different from other employees, as the redundancy terms have already been agreed and the company cannot go beyond them. The Committee stage of the Bill would enable Mr. Stephen Lytton to present his case, but if he is unemployed, how will he be able to afford to get down to London? I do not know the financial position of Mrs. Susan Winters, but she must come down to London to make her case.

Most of the petitioners want to employ a brief, but they do not come cheap. They are much more expensive than people who do useful jobs, such as engineers, social workers, nurses or firemen. They cost a great deal more—we are talking about fees of hundreds of pounds a day for a lawyer.

Mr. Skinner

It could cost thousands of pounds.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is right, because if one employs a barrister one must also have a solicitor.

All the lawyers on the Tory Benches—they are not here now, of course, as they are resting after their activities in court, having picked up thousands of pounds in fees—will go into the Lobby after the recess to vote for the continuation of the duopoly between solicitors and barristers. Those self-same lawyers went through the Lobby to attack the trade unions because they claim that they do not like a closed shop. However, they will merrily vote to continue their own closed shop, and seem to be able to satisfy their consciences in so doing.

The people who have made petitions against the Bill will face a considerable expense in coming down here to represent their case. That is unfair.

Mr. Skinner

It is an ill wind that blows no one any good. My hon. Friend has already pointed out that only five petitioners have come forward because the scheme was not well advertised down there. This "Howard's Way" scam has been spread around the harbour and the docks.

Given that the Bill might now receive some publicity in the Devonshire press, there is a slim chance that more petitioners will come forward. They might be able to get together to come down to the Committee to petition.

My hon. Friend has performed a useful service tonight, because we are now depending on the local press—no doubt some of them are hostile to the scheme—to use some of my hon. Friend's comments to get the mass army of non-poll tax payers from Devon, who are against the "Howard's Way" scam, to come to Parliament to petition in greater numbers.

Mr. Cryer

I hope that that is the effect of the debate, because it would be a great pity if people living in Exmouth who wish to oppose the Bill lost the opportunity because of a shortage of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right: by emphasising the circumstances, we are hopefully providing those people with a public service.

There was an interesting exchange earlier, when the hon. Member for Honiton talked about a complaint that he had had concerning the dock's activities. Because of the research carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, it turned out that some of the complaints arose because the dock company was not doing very much, for example, to suppress the dust caused by its activities. Is it possible that the same dock company that produced the report—which was so convenient, but which was not sent to hon. Members or published—was not doing very much, because it wanted to create as much strife and nuisance as possible, so that people would say, "For goodness' sake, close the port down, if you can't cover the dust or make the thing more quiet and effective"? That is a real possibility: certainly it has been done before to achieve the desired result.

As for the benefits for Exmouth, I am all in favour of benefits for all parts of the United Kingdom, but we must know who the benefits are for. Will they be for the company—the owners of which we do not know—or for the ordinary working men and women of Exmouth and their families? Will this be simply a device for converting land that has a use to the community and to the nation as a dock to an area where land values can start to soar?

The company directors may feel that grain is not a profitable activity, and decide to go into land. They will sit in their detached houses in the better part of Exmouth—or wherever they live—and watch the price of the land rise, without doing anything.

That is not uncommon. In many areas, local entrepreneurs have established factories making useful products such as lathes, milling machines and diesel engines—there is a long history of it; I can name the companies involved—but their sons decide that they do not like soiling their hands with industry. They then sell out—especially if the factory has an enhanced land value—buy a farm in Sussex and live the life of a country gent. That is not unknown. However, such family businesses—which are much hailed by the Conservatives—may have no sons to carry on the trade, and the daughters may not want to do so. Therefore, they sell up and start another life that they regard as superior to the values that form the basis of employment prospects in our country.

Mr. Skinner

Is my hon. Friend saying that closing down the docks and releasing land is perhaps only partly about building a marina? Is the marina a disguise, enabling the land to increase in price and the owners to sell it off for yuppie houses? If there was a marina, perhaps it would be only a relatively small one that would not take up all the land, and a big killing could be made by selling that land. Is my hon. Friend's interpretation that there is money to be made out of the price of the land, and that the marina is just a hook to hang it on?

Mr. Cryer

That is an interesting development of my thoughts. We are dealing with people who abandon useful activities that benefit the community and the nation. Those activities include providing employment, importing and exporting goods and maintaining the traditions of expertise and handling that have been built up over the years, with sons following their fathers into the docks and maintaining their expertise and knowledge. When all that is swept to one side by people who think only of making money, and not of maintaining a facility that is of great utility and benefit to the community, anything is possible.

The marina may be a sprat to catch a mackerel, and companies may have realised that they have to convince the local authority—even a Tory-controlled one—that they will bring a definite benefit. Therefore, they say "What about a yuppie marina?" There are only a few houses round about—not too many. There are problems with the marina, so they decide to make that tiny, fill in the rest of the land and develop it as a huge housing estate with enormously enhanced land values. I raise those matters simply to point out that we do not have the necessary information to make the sort of informed judgment that we should.

Interestingly, there was an affirmation of the importance of maintaining and developing traditions. Mr. Steven Spielberg, the noted film maker, spends millions of pounds making films which have attracted a substantial following. He invests a lot of money making them. When the closure of Elstree studios was being discussed, I asked Steven Spielberg why he came to this country to make films; after all, Hollywood is the repository of great traditions and expertise which have been built up over the years, provide a large part of television viewing and have a worldwide reputation. He said that it was because the craftsmanship in the United Kingdom at Elstree and Pinewood was better.

Steven Spielberg did not come here because of the dollar-sterling ratio, but because of skill and tradition. The crews in British studios contain an age range because the older members carry on and hand over the expertise to the younger members and the level of experience is maintained. In Hollywood the older members simply leave for other jobs and the average age of camera crews, set dressers and prop builders is much younger.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend has a real feel for the subject, does he not?

Mr. Cryer

The answer is yes.

Every job is important, quite apart from the glamorous nature of film and television, although not all of them are given the degree of importance and emphasis that they deserve. However, the same sort of expertise and tradition is necessary to enable them to carry on. There is a real question mark over the pattern of employment available in the area.

The hon. Member for Honiton quoted from paragraph 10 of the promoters' statement which said that new job opportunities would be created. However, he did not say how many, which is crucial. Will they be equivalent to the number of people who worked in the docks—or will there be more or less? What sort of jobs will they be? Will they be in the leisure and tourist industries much beloved of the Government?

The invisible earnings about which the Government so often boast are becoming invisible because there is a deficit in invisible trade. Will the jobs created be in tourism? That sector of employment is badly organised, generally poorly paid and does not have the sort of career development of many other occupations. We have gained our position as a nation, not through subservient jobs such as waiting on tables, but through jobs which added value to materials such as steel and wood.

Mr. Prescott

What is wrong with waiting on tables?

Mr. Cryer

There is nothing wrong with waiting on tables. It is a perfectly good job, as dignified as anything else. But there is a limit to the development of the skill and its application, whereas manufacturing has a much wider range.

Mr. Skinner

You have been in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ever since I have been here for the debate, but we are in some difficulty now because the so-called sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is no longer present. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has been asking questions from time to time, and that is fair enough. Some the hon. Gentleman has answered, some he has not, some he cannot, and some he has plainly not wanted to answer because they were too difficult. But in view of his absence, can we proceed any longer? He has done a runner. Of whom can my hon. Friend ask questions? Will the Minister take notes on his behalf? If he does, he will turn the Bill into a Government Bill. There is a real problem here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have consulted the Clerk on it, but nobody who is in favour of the Bill is in the House to answer the questions that my hon. Friend is asking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me, and if he keeps on interrupting he will put the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) off.

Mr. Cryer

It will take a good deal more than my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to put me off. Members of Parliament have the important job of scrutinising legislation. My hon. Friend's interjections are the result of his anxiety to carry out his duty as a Member of the House to scrutinise legislation. I have been speaking for rather longer than I intended because of the number of interventions.

The hon. Member for Honiton has sought to give me information and my hon. Friend is right. I am deeply dismayed that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I wanted to ask him about the number of jobs that will be provided. That is crucial. When the hon. Gentleman was present I said that I would come on to paragraph 10 in the promoters' document which refers to benefits not only to those who have in the past suffered from the effects of the dock's commercial operations, but also to the town of Exmouth as a whole". Those benefits should be quantified much more accurately. The sponsor's speech was mostly a series of platitudes, claiming that the Bill would be of benefit. If we are to authorise the closure of the docks and their replacement with a marina in which a great deal of money would be invested, we should have much more information about how that would benefit the town. That is one of the most important aspects in obtaining consent for the legislation.

I am sure that if the hon. Member for Honiton had given us an account which, as the lawyers say, demonstrated beyond peradventure that there would be benefits in the form of good jobs with training and prospects which would give satisfaction and pleasure to those who undertook them, we should have been only too anxious to see the Bill through. But we have not even been told how many jobs will be created.

I would have welcomed any proposal from the company to create a number of jobs and to encourage manufacturing. I know that manufacturing is not a high priority in the enterprise culture, except when it is imported from Japan. The Government sit back and say, "We do not have to invest in research and development or factories; we do not have to encourage people to invest, as the last Labour Government did through the ferrous foundries scheme, the wool textiles scheme and half a dozen other schemes, because the Japanese will come over and provide the factories." But the Japanese also provide the design and the technology. It is a step towards an economy in which we shall become a nation of assemblers and warehouse keepers. We need an economy with an important manufacturing component.

The hon. Member for Honiton has not demonstrated that the Bill will provide permanent jobs. There will be building jobs for building the marina. No one would deny that they are important, but there would be building jobs if the company decided to rebuild the dock walls and purchase machinery for the dockside. One would hope that such machinery would be bought in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Skinner

While my hon. Friend has been speaking I have been reading the Bill. It says nothing about providing jobs. My hon. Friend has a document which refers to various jobs, but does it add up to a row of beans? We are considering the Bill. My hon. Friend can have all the documents that have been dished out and the hon. Member for Honiton can make a speech about jobs, but the Bill is about closing the docks. It says nothing about providing jobs. I return to my original point. The chances are that the Bill is about making money out of land, closing the docks, concreting them over and making a big fat killing. The marina has been brought before the House as a possibility and no more. What does my hon. Friend have to say about that?

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is right. I have in my hand not the Bill but the promoters' statement. I was analysing that statement. My hon. Friend is quite correct to draw attention to the fact that we are not examining the promoters' statement; we are being asked to pass the Bill. The powers are contained in the Bill, not in the promoters' statement. The promoters' statement is designed to encourage us to pass the Bill. My comments on the promoters' statement go back to the Bill.

There is absolutely no reason why the Bill cannot contain a commitment, although that would represent a legal obligation, to provide jobs. That is not extraordinary. In France, under successive Governments, not just that of Mitterrand, which was not very Left-wing, but under Christian Democrat and Socialist Governments there has always been legislation ensuring that no person can be sacked for economic reasons without the consent of the employment Minister. The Labour Government should have introduced such legislation. We should have introduced much more legislation to provide workers' rights. We should have legislation equivalent to that in France, but we have not.

We can have legislation that provides for employment, and my hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill contains no such provision. We are providing the power for closure and concreting over for a range of alternatives about which we are not sure and we have not been provided with much information.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend agrees with me that we are considering the Exmouth Docks Bill which would close the docks and no more. He has a bit of paper that has been passed along from the promoters. It contains a lot of inaccuracies and innuendos. That document could be similar to the Al Fayed document; it could be packed full of lies. That is what they did when they got hold of Harrods. They had a little document—a bit of paper that did not add up to a row of beans. The document that my hon. Friend has must be examined very closely. I reckon that we have to concentrate on the fact that the Bill is talking about losing jobs, not creating jobs.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Bill does not mention jobs—

Sir Peter Emery

Jobs cannot be included in the Bill.

Mr. Cryer

The hon. Member for Honiton says that jobs cannot be included in the Bill. The point that I am making is that legislation in France protects jobs. We could easily follow France's example. Why cannot the docks company set a pioneering trail? People would come from all over the country to see how it worked. Instead of sitting on its backside watching land values increase—Labour Members suspect that that is its intention—it could give a commitment to provide jobs.

Jobs are important. There are almost 2 million people unemployed in this country, according to the Government's dodgy figures, which have been fiddled more than 21 times, and under the old figures probably almost 3 million. It is important to consider legislation that affects jobs.

We may be misjudging the docks company. Tory legislation in 1981 removed grants aimed at ensuring that dock companies kept docks as docks and did not turn them into marinas or other yuppified pursuits. The Harbours Act 1964 provided grant aid for dock work improvement schemes, but it was repealed in 1981. We no longer have a scheme to encourage the company to provide the dock work facilities or career opportunities that must have existed for years in Exmouth.

A number of my hon. Friends wish to express their concerns about the Bill, so I shall conclude by commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton. He said that if the docks company is not allowed to proceed with the marina and land development it may consider importing coal.

Sir Peter Emery

I did not say that.

Mr. Cryer

The hon. Member for Honiton says that he did not say that, but that was the general tenor of his remarks. It seemed to be an attempt to blackmail the House into giving the Bill a Second Reading. It leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth that an hon. Member should say to the House, "If you do not pass the Bill, something will happen to which you are deeply opposed." The hon. Gentleman may not have intended to imply that, because he knows that such a threat would be a matter for the Select Committee on Privileges.

Mr. Prescott

Not the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Cryer

No, that would not be fair. I know that the hon. Member for Honiton would not want to become involved in such an argument, so I shall push that to one side. We should not entertain for a moment any threat of that nature from the company, the local authority or the sponsor, who did not really mean it in the first place.

The promoters have not made the case for the Bill. I have great reservations about it. The Bill does not guarantee jobs or anything except the closure of a dock that has already been closed. If the company has to seek authority to close the dock and if it does not receive it at some stage, it must have an obligation to open the dock. If not, why does it not just let the grass grow over and leave things as they are? The Bill seeks to remove an obligation from the docks company and we should be slow to agree to that. The sponsor should take back the Bill and talk to the trade unions to see what they think. He should amend the Bill before it is submitted again so that there is guaranteed employment. It should be decent employment, not routine labouring jobs with no prospect of developing manufacturing enterprise.

The promoters should ensure that they do the job properly, that they consult adequately and that they give guarantees about employment. They should also give a guarantee that Exeter city council does not have to foot the bill resulting from the decision of the docks company to close the dock. The Labour-controlled local authority—about which the promoters probably do not care—should not be left having to make up the money lost from the closure of the dock. It is clear that I have reservations about the Bill and I shall not give it my support.

9.25 pm

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)

It may be helpful for me to give the House the Government's view on the Bill. It is traditional for the Government to take a neutral stance on a private Bill and this Bill is no exception. The Government have considered the contents of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the Exmouth Docks company. To obtain the powers, the company has no recourse but to promote a private Bill, as I shall explain.

As the House has heard, there is an alternative procedure provided for harbour authorities to obtain authorisation for the interference with private rights by means of a harbour revision order under the Harbours Act 1964. The Act also makes it possible for harbour authorities instead to resort to the private Bill procedure. The Exmouth Docks company applied in July last year for a harbour revision order under section 14 of the 1964 Act to permit it to close the dock to cargo traffic and to convert it into a marina. It was claimed that the order would have been within the purpose of the Act because the conversion of the dock to a marina would have constituted an improvement.

However, I decided on legal advice last October that that would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Act and thus that an order for the purpose would not be lawful. It may be interesting to note in this context that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which has been referred to this evening, recommended that the permitted scope of orders under the Harbours Act 1964 should be broadened to allow general powers to be included for a wider range of developments to be authorised. The Government are considering the Committee's report and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council hopes that it will be possible to announce before long how he intends to take the matter forward.

It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they seek are justified. There are three petitioners remaining against the Bill and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Committee. The Committee will be in a far better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill—

Mr. Prescott

The Minister has explained precisely what the Department's role has been in the matter and how it considered whether the company could be given an order under the 1964 Act. As he said, the conclusion was that it would not be lawful under the interpretation of the Act. A Department of Transport press statement on 26 October 1989 said: Mr. McLoughlin has decided that an order for this purpose would not be lawful, therefore no public inquiry will be necessary. The explanatory note to editors makes it clear that the Government and the Minister took the view: This would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Act. Does that mean that the Government do not consider that the change of use from a commercial dock to a marina is an improvement? Will the Minister confirm that? Has he received any requests from the dock company for financial assistance to help with its safety problems?

Mr. McLoughlin

I cannot add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not usual for Ministers to disclose legal advice that they have received. If I had pursued the other procedure, there would have been cause for a public inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman said, I announced on 26 October that we could not follow that route, so, as I explained earlier, this private Bill procedure is the only recourse for the company.

I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to a Committee for more detailed consideration.

9.30 pm

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

Many of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) merit answer; we would want to reflect on them before we vote on the issue.

The Minister's response highlights the difficulty that we face with private Bills such as this. We face the ever increasing practice of various port authorities of different kinds coming to the House to request the power to change their constitution in one form or another. The common factor binding those authorities is that they have discovered that a land bank is involved in docks and harbours. They realise that, if the rules and constitutional practices can be changed by closing the dock or changing the trust arrangements, a considerable amount of wealth can be acquired by developing the land.

That is obviously quite a proper consideration. Some people may believe that profit should be made from developing marinas and land. However, the Opposition are worried about port development. We want to ensure that Britain has an adequate port network, particularly as we are an island nation. The central argument is whether it is necessary to accept the judgment of the company that the port is no longer necessary and is unsafe and the company does not have the resources to meet the safety requirements for the port to carry on as a commercial enterprise.

The company's conclusion was not helped by the Government's early actions in port policy in the early 1980s when the Government removed powers to offer assistance to port authorities to make ports safe. The removal of the Government's role in those matters has complicated the issue. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has had the privilege of seeing the consultants' report to which he referred. However, Opposition Members have not seen it and I know that some of the objectors have not seen it either. All they have seen is the three-page statement.

Sir Peter Emery

The report was seen by the East Devon district council and by Exeter city council. Therefore, it is not fair to suggest that the report has been kept secret.

Mr. Prescott

I said that a number of the objectors have not seen it. The hon. Member for Honiton referred to the objectors and referred to the fishing industry and the individuals. I had thought that the Tory party was concerned about individuals. It is the individuals who will be losing their jobs. The council will not be put out of work.

Sir Peter Emery

Only two.

Mr. Prescott

It is all very well for the hon. Member for Honiton to say that there are only two. There were 4,000 objections to the proposal, and there is a dispute. The hon. Member for Honiton knows better than most of us that there is a dispute in his area. He knows that there is a controversy over whether the docks should be closed and changed from a commercial operation as a port to a marina and profitable housing development. That is a matter of contention, as the hon. Gentleman knows; I have visited his constituency, and I am aware of it as well. About 4,000 people signed a petition—

Sir Peter Emery

In Exmouth?

Mr. Prescott

Well, I do not know whether the hon. Member for Honiton has walked along the dockland area—

Sir Peter Emery

I have.

Mr. Prescott

Yes, I am sure he has, but perhaps he met different people from those who came to me to protest. He knows that there has been correspondence complaining about this in the local papers. He knows from his files that there are divided views about the dock. I shall come to that in a moment, because it is an area in which any Member of Parliament has a legitimate interest. We must represent those constituents who live by a dirty dock and who legitimately complain to their Member of Parliament in an attempt to seek redress for those complaints, either through the public health authority, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, or through another forum in the hope of ensuring that better circumstances will prevail.

At the heart of this argument is the mixing of commercial activity and housing, some of which is historical—although much of the housing must have been developed after the dock was opened, because the dock has been around for a long time. As I understand it, East Devon district council had a legitimate concern about changing its position on the laying down of conditions on housing developments in the dock area. It had to be satisfied that it did not have a commercial claim on the operation of the dock. I know that the council was concerned about the files of letters that it had received—no doubt from the hon. Member for Honiton—about whether a commercial dock activity should continue in the area. There are legitimate concerns about that and about the environment that is directly affected.

I stress my earlier point that, over time, I have noticed more and more private Bills being introduced which ask the House for permission to change, for example, the purpose and operation of a dock. Indeed, only two weeks ago we considered the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority Bill, which sought to change that port authority from a trust authority into a private company. That issue arose because a lot of money was tied up in trust arrangements that had been settled many years before, and, by law, the company was denied the right or the possibility of using that money for other purposes. It therefore decided to change its constitution. Again, that was a controversial matter about which legislation was brought before the House. We have not seen the last of port Bills coming to the House, asking for the privilege either of changing the law—by changing the original legislation—or of introducing a new Bill that would change the obligations of the existing port company.

At the outset, the hon. Member for Honiton asked whether we were concerned about the points raised by the Select Committee on Procedure in relation to the avoidance of planning inquiries. That is a legitimate concern, on which a Select Committee of this House has expressed its view. Those concerns are shared by hon. Members of all parties. However, as the hon. Member for Honiton himself said, that is not the case with this Bill. We are concerned about docks which, in some cases, have been in operation for hundreds of years and about the fact that their owners or operators decide that they want to change the terms of operation. We are concerned to establish whether the House has a legitimate right to examine such Bills and to decide whether the operators are making a legitimate request to change the character of a certain port.

The Exmouth Docks Bill seeks to provide that Exmouth docks will no longer operate as a commercial port. That means that shipowners and others who have access to those commercial port activities will no longer have the rights that were given them under the old legislation. The Bill seeks to change the port into a marina with dock housing. The development will basically be concerned with leisure activities.

However, the hon. Member for Honiton has now pointed out that fishing activities will continue in the area. We should like some answers on fishing, because we now know that those who had fishing rights—and those with trawlers who were allowed to land their fish—will be allowed to continue with those activities. As we have seen some movement on that matter, I am sure that the House will rejoice that some objectors whose livelihoods had been threatened have found some satisfaction.

As I understand it, when the proposals were first put forward, those people were told that they should go to another port if they wanted to continue with their fishing activities. I am sure that, like other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Honiton will welcome that move. We are glad that some satisfaction, however marginal and whatever the circumstances, has now been achieved by some of the objectors.

Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we welcome the retention of fishing at Exmouth, the legal assurances that the promoters have explained are their guarantee that nothing will change in the future have not been spelt out? We really ought not to be overjoyed until we have been told exactly how the legal assurances will operate.

Mr. Prescott

That is a matter for concern. I see that the hon. Member for Honiton wants to give us some satisfaction on that point. I am delighted to give way to him.

Sir Peter Emery

If we had not had a speech lasting an hour and 33 minutes, I might have been able to give this information earlier.

The fishermen are protected by a condition under the planning consent and by an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, both of which are legally enforceable.

Mr. Prescott

I hope that that will satisfy the fishermen. After all, they are the best judges, as I think hon. Members will recognise. The memorandum provided by the promoters says that the real concern is the safety of the dock. It is argued that the walls can no longer take the weight of heavy lorries or heavy machinery. But we have been told that freezing operations will be carried out at the dock.

Anybody who has been involved in the fishing industry, especially anybody who knows anything about freezing, realises that this operation involves the use of heavy lorries, heavy equipment and heavy warehouses. Are the promoters satisfied that the walls of this dock are strong enough? Would it be safe to carry out this commercial operation? If the walls are strong enough, I am confused as to the purpose of the Bill. Admittedly, the legislation has been put forward in a rather rushed form. We are told that the dock is no longer safe—so much so that commercial activities could cease at the end of December.

Sir Peter Emery

I shall try to assist the hon. Gentleman, as I have tried to do throughout the debate. Refrigeration operations will not be carried out at the dockside. In fact, the facility will be just away from the dock, in an area that would not be affected by the collapse of the dock walls. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the equipment required for unloading small fishing vessels is very different from that which is needed to unload commercial bulk cargoes. The fishermen are satisfied that the guarantees that have been given, which are legally enforceable, are adequate.

Mr. Prescott

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. As I come from a fishing port, I am a little troubled. I assume that the situation in Exmouth must be similar to that in Hull.

Sir Peter Emery

No.

Mr. Prescott

In the respect that I have in mind, the docks are similar. I refer to the fact that trawlers tie up alongside the walls. I do not know that trawlers could tie up in any other way. The hon. Gentleman says that the warehouse will not be at the dock, and that the walls will not have to withstand the weight of heavy lorries, but it is admitted that the walls are not safe. They might collapse under the weight of a heavy lorry, or they might collapse anyway. It is generally admitted that the walls are unsafe. I assume that that is still the position.

Sir Peter Emery

I have no wish to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the reinforcement that will be necessary for the marina will make Exmouth suitable for small fishing vessels. The hon. Gentleman's reference to trawlers shows that he does not understand the offshore fishing industry at Exmouth.

Mr. Prescott

I have been on that part of the coast, sailing and diving, and I have seen the vessels to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As he knows very well, I have actually been photographed on the dock. I have talked to the fishermen and looked at the facilities. That does not alter the fact that the central point is that the dock is unsafe. That is why it has been closed, why people have been made redundant and why the port authority says that it cannot continue commercial operations.

I take the point that apparently the dock authority is prepared to carry out the necessary work, but it only wants to do the work that is necessary to make the dock safe to build a marina and housing. I understand that 440 houses are planned. I read in the press that they are to cost £120,000 each; I do not know whether that is true. We are talking about a lot of money. It seems that money can be provided for work on the docks to provide a marina and housing, but not for commercial activity. It is not that the company has not got the money; it just wants to use the money for a different activity.

Each time we go through the argument, different conditions are made. I was under the impression that it was difficult to improve the dock and that the company did not have the money. Now we learn that it will come out of the leisure development. As is often the case, leisure developments provide more money than commercial activity. That is the argument here, that people want to make more profit from a marina and housing instead of carrying out the dirty work of a commercial port.

Mr. Cryer

There is an interesting thought. Perhaps the repairs should have been carried out under the legislation that established the dock, or under the Exmouth Docks Act 1870. Perhaps the company should have done the repairs and should be carrying on work as a dock. If the company has come to us for approval of closure, it must have been incorrect in closing the docks without our approval.

Mr. Prescott : That point should be borne in mind. It is

causing confusion. The argument is that the company suddenly discovered that the walls were unsafe, despite the fact that it made an application in 1985 to extend the dock for more commercial activity. One would have thought that the weakness in the dock walls would have been discovered then. The assumption is that the company has only discovered the weakness in the walls; how convenient that the discovery was made after the Minister told the company that it could not pursue its proposals by order under the 1964 Act.

It is interesting to note that, if the change in activity could have been pursued by an order rather than by a private Bill, it would not have cost the company anything. The Government can bring in an order to change the use from a commercial dock to a marina. One can see why people want to pursue that course. They do not need lawyers; they just ask the Government to do it and it does not cost them a penny. It costs plenty to bring forward a private Bill, involving legal advice and a parliamentary agent. Everyone knows that it is an expensive business. We have read about it in the reports of the Select Committee on Procedure.

I hope that the hon. Member for Honiton is listening. I know that he is being pressed on all sides by people seeking his advice—

Mr. Skinner

He is trying to organise two tellers.

Mr. Prescott

I do not know whether tellers are involved. We will have to wait and see whether the Government will organise support, as they do in so many of these cases.

Is the hon. Member for Honiton aware of the information that I have received from people in the area, that an application to develop housing was made not only just after the company found that the dock walls was unsafe? According to the information given to me, the company has made applications over the years for housing, but they have been refused. If that is correct, it did not happen when the company found that it could not operate a commercial dock because the walls were unsafe. It always wanted to develop housing.

The company which owns the dock has its own development company. Some of the directors on the board of the dock company own the development company which is making the bid for the development. The general view is that they have always wanted to change from dock activity.

Continuing that theme, it is possible within a few years, if there is a refusal to allow housing development, to make a public nuisance of the dock, so that eventually people demand that the dock be closed. The owners in that situation do not tidy up the dock but leave it scruffy, with the maximum dust and dirt. Lorries are allowed to stand around the dock area, so that people complain about them. That is not unique to Exmouth. Action of that kind is taken in many dock areas in Britain.

In other words, we are not discussing the fact that it cannot eventually be used as a commercial dock. The owners want to develop it for houses and so on, and they have wanted to do that for some time. I am sure that the hon. Member for Honiton has files about that, spanning a number of years. I thought that it was a dirty terrible dock. The fact that the company was prosecuted shows that it was not too concerned to clean it up.

The company wants it to become a public nuisance. It wants the public to clamour for the dock to be closed, because it is more profitable to develop a marina and housing. It is more profitable for the yuppies in London than for people who want to live and work there, dockers and others involved, such as shipping agents. I am talking of the ones and twos, as the hon. Member for Honiton contemptuously described them. We are talking not of ones or twos but of thousands of people who have protested and written about this matter.

The facts that I have given put a different complexion on the application that is before the House. Should the dock be closed because it is unsafe? It always was the considered intention of the family who owned it to close it. They wanted to do that not simply for the development of the dock. Apparently they wanted to use it for a massive development, of which there have been reports, involving much more than we have heard.

I am told that the dock company wishes to sell the dock to invest the rollover money in a golf course, a restaurant and a leisure complex on Woodbury common. May we be told more about that? This is the first stage of a massive development in the area, and it has always been the intention to undertake such a development. All the arguments about it being an unsafe dock and so on have the objective of making more money from the development of a marina and housing.

Sir Peter Emery

If the hon. Gentleman is making a serious rather than a nonsensical point, he might have examined the capital expenditure and repairs and renewals expenditure over the period to which he is referring. In the last four and a half to five years, over £1,593,000 has been spent—hardly the expenditure of people who are planning to waste the dock or put it into a useless situation. Please let us leave emotion out of this. The people of Exmouth want the improvements, and the hon. Gentleman should remember that.

Mr. Prescott

It is not unknown for me to become emotional. On this matter, the hon. Member for Honiton is clearly emotional. He is talking of people who are planning a development that will cost £63 million, so £1 million is chickenfeed compared with the money that will be made out of the development. In any event, it might take the sum he mentioned to keep the dock legally in line with work that must be done.

We have been told that the company wanted to do additional development, and that is a legitimate point to make. The company asked for permission to develop the riverside facilities almost opposite what is known as Shelley beach. East Devon district council was not prepared to permit plans that mixed housing and dock development, which is a reasonable point of view.

Is it suggested that that meant the end of the dock because it would be closed to traffic? The hon. Member for Honiton said that trade had been stabilised and that it was not a growing dock. If he knew anything about dock traffic, he would know that it fluctuates. The figures of movements must be taken over a number of years. He made a good point when he said that, over five years, the movements had stabilised at 500,000.

The trend of what has been happening to the docks shows that in 1978 it had 279 vessels going through it. By 1988, it had achieved 532 vessels. An awful lot of vessels were coming in. In 1978, the total traffic was 158.000 tonnes. The hon. Member for Honiton gave even later figures than I had; he gave figures for 1989. By his own admission, the total traffic had grown to 523,000 million tonnes by 1989. We cannot accept his argument that somehow the increase in traffic was due to the coal imported during the miners' strike. Presumably, the dock does not import as much coal as it did. The port is growing, with ever more ships coming into it and more trade.

What alarms me is that, for the first time, an application has been made by a port authority to close a port that is growing, not one that is dead. We often have legislation to close ports that are dead. We have far too much port capacity in this country, and we have to close some of it. Sometimes it is necessary to come to the House and apply for permission to do so. That is not the case here. We are faced with property developers who want to close an expanding port, not a declining one. Many people in the area feel that the port is absolutely necessary.

When the hon. Member for Honiton gave us some explanations earlier, he said, "Why should Exeter be an objector?" He said it almost with contempt, because, as he threw in, it is a Labour council. He did not want to consider the arguments. He did not seem to be aware that Exeter city council is the navigation authority. It has responsibility for maintaining navigation lights and all the facilities on the river. That is why it imposes a levy on the ships. The levy that it received—the hon. Gentleman said it was £160,000—goes towards financing that.

If the council loses that money, as it clearly will next year, where will it find the extra money? Either it will take it from Exeter residents or from yachts that ply up and down the river or it will increase the charges or cut the costs. Either way, Exeter is not in a happy position.

All that Exeter has done is obtain an agreement that half the money—about £70,000—will be paid over to it. It is a raw deal for Exeter. Someone will have to pay for the navigational lights; they must be maintained even if only one yacht goes up and down the river. Exmouth port authority has relieved itself of the burden by simply shifting it on to the Labour council. That does not seem to worry the hon. Gentleman, but even in that area there will be Tory ratepayers, and they will pay the difference. I hoped that he might be worried about that because they will have to finance the charges.

Sir Peter Emery

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 16.

Division No. 149]	[9.59 pm
AYES
Arbuthnot, James	Carrington, Matthew
Atkinson, David	Chapman, Sydney
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Dorrell, Stephen
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Dover, Den
Boswell, Tim	Durant, Tony
Bowis, John	Emery, Sir Peter
Brazier, Julian	Favell, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Burt, Alistair	Fishburn, John Dudley
Butcher, John	Fookes, Dame Janet
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Forth, Eric

Freeman, Roger	Norris, Steve
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Patnick, Irvine
Gill, Christopher	Patten, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Hordern, Sir Peter	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Squire, Robin
Hunter, Andrew	Stern, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Stevens, Lewis
Irvine, Michael	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Jack, Michael	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Janman, Tim	Thurnham, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Lawrence, Ivan	Walker, Bill (T'Side North)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Warren, Kenneth
Lightbown, David	Wheeler, Sir John
McLoughlin, Patrick	Widdecombe, Ann
Mills, Iain	Wood, Timothy
Moate, Roger	Yeo, Tim
Morrison, Sir Charles
Neubert, Michael	Tellers for the Ayes:
Nicholls, Patrick	Mr. Roger King and
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Mr. Jacques Arnold.

NOES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Beckett, Margaret	Murphy, Paul
Boateng, Paul	Pike, Peter L.
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Prescott, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Sheerman, Barry
Dewar, Donald	Vaz, Keith
Dixon, Don
Home Robertson, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Livingstone, Ken	Mr. Bob Cryer and
McFall, John	Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Speaker

Fewer than 100 Members having voted in the majority in support of the Question, I declare that the Question is not decided in the affirmative.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 April.

c768
1. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 23 words