HL Deb 22 February 1988 vol 493 cc1013-27

7.53 p.m.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Twelve years ago your Lordships were instrumental in the tranformation of the Stour and Orwell basin from being the home of historic, important but essentially regional ports into the centre of maritime trade in this country. In those days Felixstowe was not a name with which to conjure alongside London, Liverpool, Bristol or Southampton. However, today it is the United Kingdom's largest container port. In the past two years alone container traffic has increased by almost 50 per cent.

In 1976, at Third Reading, the House overturned an attempt to have the privately-owned Felixstowe dock passed into the ownership of a then nationalised body, the British Transport Docks Board. A number of your Lordships described such a move as nationalisation by the back-door; that is to say, nationalisation by means of private legislation. So it was, and look at the results of your Lordships' wisdom in overturning that attempt! Even before the Labour Government of the day fell in 1979, Felixtowe was already contributing to that improvement in our economy which has accelerated so greatly under the present Administration—thanks to your Lordships, so to say.

As Opposition economic spokesman at the time, I played a small part in helping to defeat that back-door nationalisation. Sonic of your Lordships may remember that those were the heady days in which noble Lords were heavily lobbied by Felixstowe dock workers, who were members of the TGWU but were lobbying in favour of the position taken by ourselves in Opposition against the wishes of their national leadership. In that respect matters have not altogether changed, as I shall indicate in a moment. Some noble Lords may remember a wonderfully cogent and funny speech made by the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. As Master of Trinity, the great Cambridge College whose fortunes are so closely intertwined with those of the Felixstowe dock, Rab was highly interested in the Bill. He pointed out that Trinity harboured as many Nobel prize winners as France and that Felixstowe's development would allow his great college to keep up the good work.

I can honestly say that looking back on my 15 years of fascinating and always challenging work on the Front Benches—whether on this side or the opposite side of your Lordships' House—I can think of few cases where one had a positive effect for improvement or good. Sometimes it is possible to stop silly things being done and sometimes one can spread a little light in respect of individual cases or issues. However, in general it is given to few Ministers or spokesmen to make a impact with something which is wholly and unalterably for the better. If St. Peter ever asks my guardian angel what use I have been in British politics I hope he will say, "At least he did something to help Felixstowe".

We in this House now have a second chance to play a vital role in the future of Felixstowe—and not only Felixstowe but this country's trading position in the world. The port is now working at full capacity and urgently requires further room for expansion. The Bill before us will allow it to expand its boundaries by a futher 1,000 metres along the northern bank of Harwich harbour. In addition, some 95 hectares (226 acres) of land will be involved for cargo handling and storage and approximately half of that amount will be reclaimed from the shallows of the harbour.

It is the intention of the port to develop that area over the next decade in order to provide three container terminals capable of handling the largest container ships afloat. Nowadays the containers are carried on vessels as large as the "Queen Elizabeth II". They can carry over 4,000 of the great boxes at one time. Felixstowe's development plan aims to cater for those ships. The port already has an impressive record and I suggest that it can have an even more impressive future.

In 1986—that was 10 years after your Lordships' previous debate on the issue—the port opened Trinity container terminal, which was built at a cost of more than £42 million. It is by far the most advanced container terminal in the United Kingdom. Its quayside cranes are British produced, created through collaboration between the port and a British crane-maker. They have broken new ground in an industry where Britain used to be behind other parts of the world. The cranes can each handle one container a minute and on the strength of their performance at Felixstowe they have won valuable export orders, particularly from the Far East. This machinery has provided employment in its construction for suppliers in the Midlands, the North-East of England and Scotland.

Not surprisingly in view of such a success story the demand from ship operators to use the terminal has been very high. Hence the port desperately needs further land for expansion to satisfy both the needs of its existing customers and a number of potential new customers who are now seeking to visit our shores for the first time.

I should like to say a word about the cost. The cost of the proposed development is estimated at well over £100 million and the expansion would create a further 3,000 jobs in the port and ancillary industries. Not one penny of government money is involved in this exciting development. If this Bill fails then the jobs will be lost not only to Suffolk but to the United Kingdom as a whole. The reason is simply that the major shipping lines of the world will go to Europe where still subsidised ports are hungry for cargo. We risk leaving this country as an off-shore island of the wealthiest part of the Continental mainland.

I think it incontrovertible that Felixstowe is for most of the world's container shipping lines the preferred United Kingdom port of call. No other United Kingdom port has the capacity or the record to handle these vessels. I acknowledge that there are a handful of ambitious plans to develop ports in the South-East of the country, but new container facilities are required urgently here, required now and not at some distant point in the future. Felixstowe and only Felixstowe is prepared to start work on a new container terminal at once. The port's parent company, the P&O group, has said that an immediate investment of £35 million is available to develop the first phase of this scheme virtually as soon as the Bill is enacted, as I sincerely hope it will be with the minimum of delay.

I believe that this need for expansion is not liable to be affected in any significant way by the Channel Tunnel. The container vessels at Felixstowe usually hail from outside Europe and in any case, British exporters will require a mix of routes and systems for their goods in the future.

I have talked about the need to avoid delay. I must remind your Lordships that this Bill has already been severely delayed since its first appearance in Parliament just over three years ago. It was the subject of record-breaking scrutiny by a committee in another place, which concluded: There is no alternative port to Felixstowe if the United Kingdom is to maintain progressive, deep water container facilities to rival those found in continental Europe". This sensible conclusion was achieved in the teeth of what can only be called an Opposition filibuster.

The debate was protracted, for example, by the following enlightening topics. There was the issue as to whether the giant-killing exploits of Colchester United Football Club in the FA Cup could be due to eating local oysters. There was the imitation of the cry of a Brent goose, which Hansard with its customary ingenuity transcribed as "gruk, gruk, gruk." There was a debate as to whether the Brent geese would end up on the plates of diners on P&O cruise ships. There was the issue of the lack of parrots on Fagbury mudflats. There was a debate comparing the population of little-ringed plovers to the strength of the Alliance. There was a debate as to the effect of a wood preservative on bats. There was a debate on the comparative efficiency of bucket and suction pump dredgers. There was a debate on the proper use of House of Commons notepaper and envelopes and on the poll tax in Scotland.

It is that sort of to-do which gives another place a bad name and even the least partisan of your Lordships might think it give the Labour Party a bad name. I notice that a great hero of mine in the Labour movement—the scourge of Militant— the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is the Opposition spokesman tonight. Surely he will be aware that Labour programmes do not come inexpensively and a future Labour Government would need all the economic activity or tax revenue that it could command.

I believe that it is in our urgent national interest to allow Felixstowe to expand further to cater for major world shipping lines. If we fail in this way, the shipping lines and trading routes will pass us by. The result will be that more and more cargo will be unloaded at major Continental ports like Rotterdam and Antwerp. The cargo will then be moved onto smaller ships for transport to the UK. That will inevitably lead to delays, double handling charges and all the predictable knock-on costs which will add to the costs of our exporters and of consumers and places us all at a great disadvantage in world markets.

This threatening mode of transport is described as transhipment and has increased so alarmingly in recent years that the Department of Transport is worried by the rising trend and has instigated an investigation into that area. Surely in the face of that kind of concern we should do nothing to lead to any increase in transhipment.

Today we have been debating the Employment Bill. One of Felixstowe's major attractions to ship operators has been its excellent labour relations and these have been a major feature of the port for the past 30 years. Throughout that period employment has risen steadily and emphatically from fewer than two dozen people to the current figure of 1,850. Unhappily, this industrial peace has not been mirrored in other British ports during the same period. I am informed that, while industrial relations have improved in the port industry as a whole, still nearly 19,500 working days were lost through stoppages in British ports in 1985 and 1986. In the same period not a single working day was lost in Felixstowe.

In many ways Felixstowe is a model of industrial relations. We hear much today about the advantages of single union agreements. That was a trail blazed in Felixstowe many years ago. Of course I acknowledge that it is a closed shop with all its employees belonging to the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union at the port is fully in support of the development, which it sees as not only securing present employment but also as providing new employment for the future. However, regrettably some things have not changed in the last 12 years. Not for the first time, both at Felixstowe and elsewhere in this country, local union members are at odds with their leaders nationally. At national level the TGWU opposes the expansion of the port. The reason is that Felixstowe remains outside the National Dock Labour Scheme—that fascinating piece of legislation which promises dockers jobs for life. If anything has reduced employment in docking, it is so elitist a concept (if I may put it that way). Felixstowe seeks to add to the stock of real and, therefore, maintainable employment.

There is another source of opposition to this Bill. Inevitably in this crowded island no development can take place without some impact on the neighbouring environment and in the few moments I have left to me it is to this area I wish to turn. The land involved in the port's expansion plans is owned by Trinity College, Cambridge, being part of a larger agricultural estate which the college acquired, with uncanny prescience, half a century ago. The port development is supported by the college and its governing body. The college council voted in favour of the development by 48 votes to nil, subject to a number of environmental safeguards. These have now been met in full by the promoters.

Because the extension impinges on the edge of the Suffolk coast and heath area of outstanding natural beauty, the promoters have had to pass a more stringent examination of their proposals than would otherwise be the case. That is completely right and just, even though we must remember that the area of outstanding natural beauty in Suffolk covers 150 square miles whereas the port extension with which I am dealing covers one-third of a square mile; about 0.25 per cent. of the whole.

I have recently returned from a visit to the area. There is much validity in the argument that the particular stretch of land involved is less valuable and less beautiful than other areas near to it further up the River Orwell. At these upstream points the estuary valley is wooded and undulating. The expansion area is, by contrast, low lying drained marshland comprising 90 acres of rather poor agricultural land separated by a sea wall from an area of approximately 140 acres of salt marsh, creek and mud flats—the latter exposed at low tide. I have arranged for an exhibition of photographs of the area to be put in the Moses Room to demonstrate this point.

The dock company, sensitive that it is developing into a greenfield site, proposed a large-scale landscaping scheme to soften the impact of the development on the surrounding areas. About half a million trees will be planted, mainly deciduous, creating close to 85 acres of additional woodland, copse and hedgerows—something which I suggest East Anglia generally badly needs. The company has also reached agreement with the Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council on a detailed environmental package. Neither of those important local authorities oppose the port expansion. Moreover, the company has listened intently to the environmental lobby and in negotiations has offered to provide a nature reserve of more than 200 acres immediately adjoining the proposed port expansion area.

I suggest that that will serve two valuable purposes. It will act as a further buffer between the port and the surrounding landscape and also provide an alternative habitat for birds who may be displaced by the port development. If your Lordships will be so kind as to visit the Moses Room exhibition you will see that this is not some way away but on land immediately adjoining the proposed infill.The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has agreed that such a nature reserve could, if properly managed, attract birds in nationally significant numbers.

The port authority has entered into a written agreement with Trinity College, Cambridge and the Suffolk County Council to provide this nature reserve and a suitable lump sum for its immediate establishment costs. Perhaps I may also add that once this new nature reserve is in place it will make any further development or extension of the dock pretty well impossible on that line.

The proposed port development, the nature reserve and the woodland, will be removing agricultural land from production at a time when we are facing enormous food surpluses and I know that this House has often expressed a wish that this should be so. In addition—and this is where the shades of Rab Butler may be smiling upon us—the development will provide Trinity College, Cambridge with additional income for education and research; research not only in Trinity but in other colleges by way of the inter-college support system.

My Lords, if this Bill is good for Trinity it is, even more importantly, good for Felixstowe, good for East Anglia, good for employment and good for the British economy generally. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)

8.16 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, the promoters of this Bill must be grateful that they not only have the Holy Trinity on their side but also the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. It is good to see him back making a major speech in this House. One wonders why he ever left us, though he gave us some indication at the time. I have only one quarrel with the noble Earl; that is, he said that Felixstowe is not a name to conjure with like Liverpool. As a Mancunian, I would dispute that.

The only reason I feel it necessary to intervene tonight is that I notice that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, apart from voting on the side of the angels, did not intervene and I therefore felt it proper that someone should speak from these Benches, though this is not strictly a party matter.

I believe that we ought to look to Felixstowe as a good indication of what this country can do when it really tries. I do not want to follow the noble Earl on some of the more partisan remarks that he made, but the fact is that Felixstowe has been a success. It is an example of enterprise. Being in favour of a mixed economy, as we are on these Benches, we are very glad to see this part of the mix succeeding, as it undoubtedly has done. There is no doubt that anything which helps to win business back from Rotterdam in particular, and from the Continent in general, must be good for the country. One of the great problems that we have had in this country is that so much of the container traffic which is essential to our development, as well as Europe's, has gone via Rotterdam and, as the noble Earl said, has been transhipped here, which cannot be the most efficient or cheapest way of dealing with such traffic.

A study of what was said in another place on this subject, going back over a number years, makes it a little difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, the all-night sitting to which the noble Earl referred was largely unhelpful in terms of dealing with the issues at stake. The noble Earl gave us a quick rundown on many of the subjects that were discussed that night. I do not pretend that we have any right in this House to be censorious about what goes on in another place, which has different rules of conduct—that is entirely up to them. In this House we tend to listen to what is being said, whereas in the other place they have to resort to other methods to produce the results they want. The result in the case of the all-night sitting was the loss of Scottish business the following day, which did not endear some of those Members to their Scottish colleagues.

When all is boiled down, there seem to have been two principal objections raised over a long period of time. They are: the effect on other ports and the effect on the environment. As was pointed out in the other place at some length, there are about 299 other ports, and I suspect that most of the honourable and right honourable Members who represent those ports rose at some stage in the course of that long night's debate to refer to their local constituency.

It seems to me that it would be wrong to restrict the development at Felixstowe in order to force business to go to other ports. As we have seen, historically, business does not necessarily go to other British ports. It tends to go to Rotterdam or Antwerp as the noble Earl has said. The way around this dilemma is surely to try to produce the most efficient cargo handling facilities that we can have in this country. Felixstowe has undoubtedly led the way in relation to container terminals.

Behind all this there is no doubt that a great deal of the pressure has come from national officers of the Transport and General Workers' Union and their supporters in another place. I do not want to be too censorious about that but it is very easy to make a comparison between Felixstowe, which has been an expanding port over a number of years, and places like Liverpool and Southampton, which have been contracting. It is perfectly understandable that people who see their jobs at risk, as they have done over many, many years. tend to become embattled and to hide behind restrictive practices of one kind or another. It may not be very admirable but it is a perfectly human way of dealing with the situation.

That is not to say that we should attempt to reproduce at Felixstowe what has happened in other ports up and down the country to the detriment of trade in this country and to the long-term detriment of jobs in places like Liverpool and Southampton. That applies also to my home port of Manchester—a fairly considerable port not long ago. Changes in the world economy and in the cotton trade together with various other factors have come to bear on these subjects and we must move with the times. Felixstowe has been able to expand because of the way in which the European Common Market has got its act together and the way in which trade has moved from the west to the east coast.

I worked for a company in the petroleum chemical industry which had a large plant on the western side of the country. We suffered badly because another very large company based at Billingham and Wilton found it much easier to supply raw materials into Europe from the east coast rather than from the west coast. These are the facts of economic history; we have to adapt to them. Nevertheless, one has to understand that the adaptation may not be easy for individual people working within a particular industry and in a particular place.

These objections are not to be pooh-poohed. They have to be taken seriously. On the other hand, they must not be allowed to act as roadblocks in the way of progress. The other objections are, as I say, environmental objections to which the noble Earl has referred. It seems, on a fairly cursory examination of what was done in another place, that most of the environmental objections have in truth been dealt with. I well understand that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds can hardly withdraw its objection totally when it is dealing with an area of outstanding natural beauty. It would be too much to ask that it should just back away. There is no doubt, I believe, that it will wish to present its case again to the Select Committee of this House.

I hope that today the Bill will be given a Second Reading and sent to the Select Committee. It seems strange, does it not, that we have to go through this protracted procedure. Surely, we must find a way of getting our act together with another place when it comes to Select Committees on these kinds of Bills so that we do not have to go round the same piece of track over and over again. There may be those who say that the Private Bill procedure is not appropriate for dealing with major developments of this sort. That is not a matter for debate tonight, but it is something that has to be borne in mind. There must be better ways of dealing with important Bills and issues of this kind rather than spending year after year with the same objections coming up over and over again, being answered and dealt with, and then raised once more.

I hope that the members of the Select Committee will give a fair hearing to the petitioners who come before it. I am sure that they will. I hope, at the end of the day, if any new genuine objections are made, the promoters of the Bill will see their way to meeting those objections as best they can and as they have done, I believe, so far. Having done so, I believe that this Bill should pass through all its stages as quickly as possible.

8.25 p.m.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for introducing this Bill in such a detailed and, if I may say so, such a masterly way. We have heard from the noble Earl of the great success of Felixstowe. In 1987, 744,000 containers were moved, which puts Felixstowe among the largest and most successful ports in the world.

This growth has been very rapid in the past seven years, helped by the new container berth developments which the noble Earl touched upon. The general success of Felixstowe has come about for a number of reasons. It happened to be expanding in the 1960s at a time when the shipping industry was undergoing profound change. The container and the roll-on/roll-off business was getting under way. Felixstowe was well placed at that time to construct what was the first purpose-built container quay in the country.

As we have heard, since then Felixstowe has gone from strength to strength. It has been helped by its location. It is only just across the sea, so to speak, from the great Continental ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, Hamburg and others. This proximity greatly facilitates the shipping industry. It is very easy to add Felixstowe as a call for ships before they head off to other destinations around the world.

The third reason for the success, which the noble Earl outlined very well, has been enlightened management and good labour relations. The management has been quick to take up any new development. It was a pioneer of computer customs clearance that has now been copied throughout the country. The second phase of development is about to come on stream. Another example of the enlightened management comes from the magazine Freight Forwarding. A gentleman whose company has just moved its business from the Medway to Felixstowe says: The attitude here is so different from other ports; if we anticipate a problem and go to the port, they say 'we'll overcome it', then tackle it head on". The labour relations side, as I have said, has been extremely good thanks to the enlightened decision taken by this House some 12 years ago. But, fairly recently, there has been what I might call a slight hiccup. I think it was part and parcel of the problems of a new management taking over and wanting to do things in a slightly different way. I understand that these problems have now been resolved.

It has been argued that the success of Felixstowe has been gained at the expense of the other UK ports and to a certain extent I suppose that is true. But if Felixstowe had not been there, that business would have undoubtedly gone across to the Continental ports. This success also breeds success. I believe it is true to say that some of the success of Felixstowe has rubbed off onto the other haven ports, as they are known, which are Ipswich and Harwich. However, this successful growth has brought with it its own problems the chief of which is a lack of space. Congestion has now become a major problem in the port. I quote what one agent said recently: The port side is the best in the world; but the land side is becoming the worst". That lack of space is causing all kinds of problems to agents, to freight forwarders, to lorry drivers and indeed to the whole commercial network that uses the port. It is also hindering the attraction of new traffic to the port. Potential customers come along and ask, "Where is the additional traffic going to go?", and at the moment the port cannot always give them an answer. The company P&O which runs the port is aware of these failings. It is recruiting more staff and introducing more machinery. It is also extending the new Trinity quay to the present limits of the port's authority, beyond which it has nowhere else to go if the Bill is not accepted.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the conservation issues. These have been thoroughly debated in another place and a number of additions have been made to the Bill which help with this matter. I feel, however, that on balance commercial reality should prevail in this instance. A successful port such as Felixstowe greatly facilitates and enhances trade, the lifeblood of our nation, from which we all benefit indirectly. Customers are queueing up to use the facilities at Felixstowe and this logical extension of its limits should be allowed to proceed. I say "logical" because if noble Lords look at the map in the Moses Room they will see that there is nowhere else for the port to go. The sea is on one side and the town of Felixstowe is on the other. This is the only possible direction in which it can expand.

If your Lordships' Select Committee which is to hear the petitions against the Bill is able further to improve what I might call the environmental discredits of the Bill, I shall give it my wholehearted support, but not at the expense of stopping or stalling further this very necessary and overdue development.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who opened this debate. It was good to hear him and his cogent arguments. I am certain that the Select Committee—and I am assuming that the Bill will go to a Select Committee—will find his remarks most helpful in considering the evidence.

Perhaps I may make it clear that, although the noble Earl referred to me as being the Opposition spokesman on transport, on all Private Bills we do not take an official party line. Therefore I am speaking entirely in a personal capacity. As he said, the Bill has had a very difficult career since it was first introduced. It was deposited first in the other place in November 1984, three and a half years ago, and had its Second Reading in May 1985. It had a very complicated passage through another place. Although the noble Earl referred jocularly to certain of the protracted discussions, for my sins I have not read the detailed evidence before the Select Committee. However I read 350 pages of Hansard of another place and I can say that the matter is not entirely on the lines that he suggested.

It ought to be appreciated that after the Second Reading the original committee had to be reformed and that two carry-over Motions were hotly contested. The reformed committee proceeded with only two members. I shall not go into the arguments as to why this happened but there were only two members. During a debate in July 1986 there were complaints that the procedure followed enabled a commercial company such as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and an absentee landlord such as Trinity College, Cambridge, to which reference has been made, to make a profit from a commercial development while not going through normal planning procedure. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In fact it was said that in effect the company became its own planning authority.

Noble Lords will recall that only last Wednesday we debated the 13th report of the Nature Conservancy Council. I shall quote the following extract from page 55: The NCC is concerned at recent proposals for port developments and other proposals which affect SSSIs and, in particular, estuaries of national and international importance for wildlife. By contrast to the planning system, through which such developments would normally proceed, no environmental impact assessment is required". In its main conclusions the Select Committee of another place said: The Committee believes that for commercial and strategic reasons Britain must have ports which are capable of providing the service that is expected of them in the market place by the users". That point was made some two years ago. The Select Committee also concluded: The only real alternatives, it seems to us. to Felixstowe, are Southampton, London and Harwich, but these ports have a variety of problems which discourage their growth and they have not shown any active intention to expand the provisions of container berths. It therefore appears that there is no alternative port to Felixstowe". So the committee concluded that the expansion of Felixstowe capacity is in the national interest.

In debates in another place, Member after Member stressed the availability of container capacity in their respective constituencies. Those remarks were not confined solely to the three ports referred to in the Select Committee's conclusions. It is now generally acknowledged that there is already an excess of deep-sea container capacity in the country as a whole. The argument that the development is vital in the national interest does not appear to hold water. The noble Earl referred to the Channel Tunnel. I know that one can take things out of their context but I understand that the managing director of the Felixstowe company admitted to the Select Committee that the Channel Tunnel had not entered into his traffic considerations. One can understand that point because the project for the Channel Tunnel had not then been determined and the Bill had not then been through the other place or through this House.

The Select Committee has been somewhat overtaken by events. It referred to the fact that the three ports had not shown any active intention to expand the provision of container berths. But the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill had its Second Reading in another place on 3rd June 1986 and its Third Reading as recently as 13th July 1987. At the Second Reading of the Bill—and noble Lords who know their geography better than I do will realise that Felixstowe is on one side of the estuary and Harwich is on the other side—it was stated that the Harwich Bill provides for 300 acres of mud to be reclaimed. a substantial seawall to be created and development to be undertaken for the handling of 100,000 containers a year with an overall investment plan of £100 million.

It should be remembered that this proposed development is on the side of the estuary opposite to Felixstowe. The Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill had its Second Reading, without discussion in your Lordships' House, only on 26th October 1987. It is still in your Lordships' Select Committee. When there are two developments of that kind—and I have no authority for saying this—does not common sense suggest that they should be considered in tandem because they are each side of an estuary?

Apart from the development argued as being in the national interest, there is the equally important aspect of the environment as has been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The Felixstowe port expansion is in a north-westerly direction up the Orwell Estuary in an area of outstanding beauty. It is argued that the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill does not hold such a danger to the environment.

I referred to the consideration given to the 13th report of the Nature Conservancy Council. On page 10 one finds the following: Impact assessments are needed in such cases to estimate the consequences to the natural environment so that the balance to the national interest of conservation and development can be properly determined". That seems to be a vital question, whether the interests of environment and of development can be properly determined.

Then there is the view of the Countryside Commission that the siting of major industrial and commercial development in an area of natural beauty should be permitted only where there is proven national interest and lack of alternative sites. I understood that that was also the view of the Government. I do not believe the environmental case against Felixstowe has been adequately answered. It was opposed by the RSPB and also by the Ramblers Association. I understand that the RSPB will be tabling a petition to the Bill if it goes to a Select Committee in your Lordships' House.

Also the Nature Conservancy Council, which is the official body which advises the Government, did not give evidence to the committee. To quote from the 13th report of the NCC, which was considered only last Wednesday: By convention the NCC has not usually petitioned Parliament against Private Bills; instead we reported to the DoE which has undertaken to annex our report to the department's own submission to the Parliament Select Committee. While this arrangement may have worked well in the past, the fact that it did not permit the NCC to present evidence directly or to question the inclusion led us to believe that the conservation case could be made more effectively if we were able to petition the Select Committee directly". In other words, the NCC is complaining that the procedure followed did not enable it to give evidence directly to the Select Committee considering the Felixstowe Bill.

I understand that the report of the Nature Conservancy Council presented to the DoE, to be added to its own submission, stated as follows: The Nature Conservancy Council note that the Bill would result in the destruction of nature conservation interests in an area identified as a proposed site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and as a site which qualifies for protection under international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. This destruction would represent a further loss of habitat following the loss of approximately 10 per cent. of the saltmarsh which. together with adjacent mudflats. was covered by the present docks and industrial developments". The concluding paragraph of the Nature Conservancy Council report on the matter is: In view of all I have said, the Nature Conservancy Council has advised that the passage of this Bill would lead to serious damage to nature conservation interests and the national and international status of the Orwell Estuary. The Nature Conservancy Council consider that the interests of nature conservation would be best served if the Bill is not enacted". That is the conclusion of the official body set up by the Government to advise them on conservation matters.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could help me on this. I am genuinely asking for help. What was the date of that submission? Was it before the Select Committee of another place or afterwards?

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the reference I have is May 1985.

Lord Aberdare

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again but the noble Lord may be aware that the Nature Conservancy Council has in fact petitioned us against the Bill in this House, and it will therefore be heard by the Select Committee.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I was aware of that, and I was endeavouring not to refer to a petition that may be presented, because it will be a matter for the committee to consider, and undoubtedly it will follow up the evidence which at the moment has been submitted through the DoE.

We have the position where the area in question comprises land which forms part of an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is part of a site of special scientific interest. It is part of a site which is a candidate for listing as a wetland of international importance under the RAMSAR Convention. It is part of a site which qualified for special protection under EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds. Those four very important points cannot be dismissed idly.

The evidence seems to suggest that there is an excess of container capacity elsewhere; and it is correct that the Harwich Parkston Quay development is also going through your Lordships' House for large-scale container development. The definite conclusion of the Select Committee in another place, which I would remind your Lordships finished with only two members, is that this Bill is in the national interest and also can surmount the environmental problems which have been raised.

I suggest that what has been said tonight indicates to the Select Committee that it should give the most serious consideration to the petitions that may he presented—I understand that there will be petitions, as the noble Lord said—because the last thing one would want is a development taking place which may not be necessary in the light of other excess capacity in the country and because there is a complete absence of any national ports policy in this country, a policy for which my party has been pressing. In addition, by considering this in isolation we could be creating serious damage to the environment in the area.

8.47 p.m

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

My Lords, permit me to echo the words of other noble Lords and say how good it was to hear from my noble friend Lord Gowrie again this evening after too long an absence.

As my noble friend said in his excellent opening speech, this Bill is one of the most controversial Private Bills ever to have reached your Lordships' House from another place. The controversy has been inevitable because two diverse interests are competing for the same area of land. The interests are the country's maritime trade, represented by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, and the conservation of the landscape and the wildlife, especially birds, that use the tidal flats that the company wishes to develop.

The customary approach of governments to Private Bills at the Second Reading stage is to suggest that they should be given a Second Reading. This is not because the Government necessarily support them but because they believe that the best way for a judgment to be formed on the merits of Private Bills is for them to be examined in detail by the Select Committee. It is then for the promoters of a Private Bill to attempt to convince the committee of its merits, while any petitioners will attempt to persuade it that it ought to be rejected or amended. That was the attitude taken by my honourable friend the Minister responsible for public transport when the Bill came up for Second Reading in another place. We all know that after being examined at some length by a Select Committee the Bill was returned to the Floor of the House with some amendments and that it only completed its stages there with extreme difficulty.

At this stage perhaps I should say just a few words on the point which has been raised this evening about planning procedures versus the private Bill. I fear that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of this subject. I very much hope that the deliberations of the present Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedures will do much to dispel it. The fact is that generally promoters cannot seek a Private Act as an alternative to the use of planning procedures. They can only use a Bill if other authorities are needed which can only be got from Parliament; for example, amendments to powers, rights or restrictions granted by Parliament. Where a Bill is needed anyway, it makes sense for Parliament to consider too the planning matters, to avoid double process. The exception is harbour proposals where the Harbours Act 1964 gives a choice between an order made by the Secretary of State (following public inquiry, if necessary) and a Private Bill. The Felixstowe Bill does, however, in addition, contain provisions which could not have been included in an order.

I recommended that your Lordships too should now give this Bill a Second Reading. In doing so, I am only following the usual precedent. I am not suggesting that the judgment of this House should in any way be bound by the judgment of another place. I know too well how much your Lordships value the independence of this House and I am second to none in cherishing this independence myself. However, there are seven petitions against the Bill and there is much detailed argument to be heard. I do not think that justice could be done to the case for this Bill without its appearance before a Select Committee. I therefore recommend to your Lordships that the Bill should be given a Second Reading today.

8.51 p.m.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken and indeed for their welcoming me back. This made me feel that I almost ought to have asked for your Lordships' indulgence as a maiden speaker. Nevertheless it was very kind, and the debate was also gratifying to all those who believe that this House is perhaps the best House for measured consideration of issues of this kind.

My noble friend Lord Brabazon was admirably impartial and judicial when he talked about two diverse interests being represented this evening: the country's maritime interest, to which as a member of Her Majesty's Government he can hardly be indifferent, and the interest of nature conservancy. Like me, he is probably one of those Tories who want the blue always to be tinged with green. But my view is that the nature conservancy argument is not an argument that we who believe in this Bill would seek in any way to belittle. We believe that it should be taken on and that it should be tackled as a problem rather than as an argument.

Certainly what convinced me was walking the ground. I hope that as many of your Lordships as possible who are interested in this issue, and I dare to hope as many members of the Select Committee as possible, will physically walk the ground or at the very least examine most carefully the photographs. They will then be able to measure its interests against those maritime interests of which my noble friend spoke. They will be able to see what else is available in the area for the contemplation of beauty and for the activities of wildlife and also consider what the Bill's proponents wish to put into the area so as to augment its natural beauty and improve its habitats for wildlife.

Nature is a much tougher old lady than we sometimes give her credit for being. One of the things I noticed on my walk was how tame the birds appeared to be, how little disrupted by the port that they were working alongside. If the proponents of this Bill were talking of projects which were a considerable distance away from the port, one might view their arguments with a little more suspicion. But the fact is that everything that is being proposed for improved conservancy is beside the port.

It is also important that a lively human scene, a scene of bustle and purpose, has always been compatible with all but the most romantic wildernesses of nature, and East Anglia is almost entirely a man-made creation. I personally find very exciting the combination of the natural beauties of the Stour and Orwell basin with the cranes and rigs out to sea, which is how they appear when one is walking by the river. Certainly in the classical world and in the art of the Mediterranean countries it is the interaction between landscape and human activity that has always been of special appeal.

The Bill received a strong degree of support in your Lordships' House tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as we would expect of him, was scrupulously fair and simply outlined to your Lordships some of the objections which may be made and which may have to be considered. But I was certainly very pleased that no one suggested that this Bill should not go forward to the Committee of your Lordships' House, and in that spirit I again commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.