I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 14, line 44, at end insert 'and'.
With this we will discuss the following amendments: No. 38, in page 14, line 45, leave out from 'work' to end of line 3 on page 15.No. 39, in page 15, line 3, at end insert—
No. 40, in page 15, line 20, at end insert—'(1A) Neither the Company nor the owner of Trimley Marshes or any part thereof for the time being shall have power to promote a Bill in Parliament for amending or repealing this section.'.
' "The Company" means the Company or any subsidiary of the Company, any company of which the Company is a subsidiary, and any successor in title to the undertaking;
"owner" means any owner or occupier;
"subsidiary" has the meaning given to it by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.'.
This is the final batch of amendments in a debate that, by my reckoning, has lasted 23 hours and 35 minutes. I wish briefly to pay tribute to all those who have taken part in the debate, which has in no way been frivolous or trivial. I intend to explain why we want the amendments incorporated in the Bill, but before doing so I want to thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate over such a long time. It is obviously because they care so passionately about the environmental, commercial and long-term consequences of the development.Amendment No. 37 states, "at end insert `and'." It is simply a drafting amendment that would make the clause read better——
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate the considerable concern among Opposition Members who wish to expedite the proceedings without undue delay. It is obvious that the Government Whips have taken it upon themselves to bring in Government supporters, who are sitting idly chattering. It is of no concern to me whether they enter the Chamber, but is there not a responsibility on them to conduct themselves in a way that allows my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to make his speech and permits all those interested to hear what he has to say?
I thank my hon. Friend. I have not been a Member of the House very long, but, coming from local government, I have been surprised by the ignorance and rudeness of some Conservative Members. Those who have been here longer than I should try to set an example by their manners and standards.Amendment No. 38 seeks to deal with the fact that at the moment the construction of agricultural buildings is allowed on the marshes to the north of the docks that are being offered in compensation as a nature reserve. Many environmental groups, rambler groups and local people do not wish to see a site that is being offered as a compensatory nature reserve spoilt by any kind of agricultural buildings. Amendment No. 39 tests the good faith of the Bill's promoters in their commitment to the environment. It seeks a guarantee that the company, although offering Trimley marshes by way of compensation for the environmental destruction that will go with the building of the dock, will not at some later date seek to do exactly what it has done in this Parliament—move a private Bill to expand the dock, this time on the marshes that are being offered as a nature reserve. Amendment No. 40, which is linked with amendment No. 39, makes it clear that, should there be a change in the ownership of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, the new owners cannot come to Parliament and seek a private Bill in order to expand upon Trimley marshes, the area that is being offered for a nature reserve. I do not want to keep the House too long. Much of what I want to say has already been said in this 23-hour debate. However, there has been reference to the fact that the Nature Conservancy Council was not allowed to give evidence on the environmental damage and consequences of the dock.
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have had a rethink and that if the Bill were to be re-presented, the NCC would now be allowed to petition? That is the direct result of the circumstances that the original procedure illustrated. Therefore, it would now be possible for the NCC to voice its opposition fully.
I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite answer, but, as I understand it, there is that possibility.However, I have managed to obtain a copy of the NCC's report, which contains details of what it would have told the Committee had it been allowed to do so. Apart from emphasising the NCC's duties, the report goes into the effects of the proposed developments on the nature conservation interest and deals with the inter-tidal area, Fagbury flats, and the River Stour. It says:
It has also been pointed out that the site was identified by the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance, to which the Government are a signatory. The Government seem to be ratting on Ramsar by refusing to recognise an agreement that they entered into, simply for the short-term gain of the company concerned, so destroying a wetland of international importance. 6.45 pm The report also contains in great detail the work done by the NCC on the species in the area. It might interest hon. Members to know that, when we talk about the international context of this important site, ringing studies of birds in the area have shown that individuals using the Suffolk and Essex coastal sites, as well as many other parts of Britain also use, at other seasons, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, USSR, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Poland, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal and Congo Brazzaville. To save going through the whole detailed report. let me read the concluding paragraph of what would have been put before the Committee had the NCC been allowed to appear. It says:"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."
"In view of all I have said, the Nature Conservancy Council has advised that the passage of this Bill would lead
That is a detailed independent scientific examination of the situation.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 best be served if the Bill is not enacted."
Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of that statement by the NCC?
It is dated 24 May 1985. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is some significance in that.
During the course of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill and the negotiations between the county council and other parties, many changes have been made to the Bill—some, indeed, in the House, but particularly in Committee and in negotiations with the county planning authority—which I am sure would change the view that the NCC had at that time.
I am not in a position to speak for the NCC. It can speak for itself. However, I do know something of its research techniques and I should be extremely surprised if, having made such a detailed study as this, it would have changed its findings or recommendations in any way.
Let us be clear about this, because the point raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is important. My hon. Friend has recognised that he does not speak for the NCC, nor is he qualified to do so. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is not qualified or capable of speaking for the NCC on this matter either. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the NCC is the statutory body established by the Government and charged with the duty of advising them on nature conservation matters so that we can be clear about its function and role?
I shall be glad to do so. Let me summarise the NCC's functions. They are:
who does not seem to be taking it on this occasion—"the establishment, maintenance and management of Nature Reserves; the provision of advice for the Secretary of State"—
again, that is not going very far here—"or any other Minister for thedevelopment and implementation of policies for and affecting nature conservation in Great Britain ; the provision of advice and dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation"—
"the commission or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in the opinion of the Council is relevant to these matters.
That could not be any clearer in terms of what the NCC,an independent professional body, thinks about the development of the River Stour. I turn briefly to the objections to the replacement of the mud flats by Trimley marshes, which is agricultural arable land of low-grade quality. The NCC study points out:The Nature Conservancy Council has a duty under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to notify owners, occupiers, the local planning authority and the Secretary of State of any area of land which is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical interest. The Nature Conservancy Council has given notice of its intention so to notify the estuary and intertidal land of the river Orwell including the intertidal land which is the subject of the present Bill."
That deals with some of the points made earlier in relation to the offer of Trimley marshes for the area that will be destroyed."Intertidal areas represent one of the most natural habitats, little affected by man, remaining in Britain. Artificial creation of such areas has not been achieved, despite investigation of the feasibility of this elsewhere in the country. Even if such attempts were made, several years would be required, firstly, to acquire, design, construct and maintain such sites, secondly, to allow sediments to settle and stabilise, thirdly to enable small mud-dwelling animals to establish themselves, and fourthly to allow time for these to grow to sufficient size and density to provide for most bird species. Until this time had elapsed it will be impossible to test whether such creation of habitat is feasible."
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has tried during the past few hours to correlate the connection between the company, the Bill and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Minister of State, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Although there has been a denial of any involvement with either group, I have just watched the right hon. Member in deep conversation with the company. That is a sign of the arrangements that have been going on behind the scenes. It is absolutely disgraceful that a Minister responsible for agriculture and its protection has been acting behind the scenes. It shows what has been happening.
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is amazing that after all the things that I have told the House and the wealth of detailed evidence that we have about the impact of the development on our environment and on the international environment, Ministers with responsibility for the environment have not taken part in the debate. Although I accept that this is a private Bill, I am surprised that when a Government body, the NCC, advises Ministers, those Ministers, who are party to international conventions, have chosen not to take that advice or to consider the consequences of the development.
I try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but could you not call back the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) to give us an explanation of the discussions that have taken place? That might throw some light on what has been happening behind the scenes for the past 23 hours. Where is the right hon. Gentleman? He has rushed out of the House—and that says everything.
I have no jurisdiction to require any right hon. or hon. Member in the House to speak.
I do not wish to say much more, but having put forward my views on these four linked amendments, and bearing in mind that they are designed as friendly amendments to strengthen the Bill and to give some confidence to local people, especially to conservationists, I ask that we ensure that the company is serious when it says that it is prepared to accept the environmental consequences and to recognise that there has been environmental damage. We are asking for an undertaking that Trimley marshes will be protected and will not be vulnerable to any future expansion or development of the dock. It would be outrageous if, having given the undertaking to provide Trimley marshes as a substitute—presumably some money will be spent on it and it will be laid out as a nature reserve—the company reneged on that at a later date. That might be done by another company. We do not know, because we are talking about years from now and we have no idea what would happen in the circumstances.I respectfully ask the Minister for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), as a sponsor of the Bill, whether he is willing to accept the four amendments.
I hope that the House will accept that I am anxious to help hon. Members, especially on environmental matters. As a result of our discussions the Bill has been improved on the environmental side in several ways. I should like to suggest one or two other ways in which further environmental protection could be achieved. However, I shall deal first with the amendments.Clause 16, which the amendments would change, was included in the Bill at the Committee stage wholly at the insistence of the Select Committee—that is to say, our colleagues. In effect, they imposed a clause on the promoters to meet points of concern that had been put to them, primarily by local residents who expressed fears that once the proposed works were completed, additional dock development might take place further along the Orwell. Clause 16 was put in the Bill specifically to create a buffer zone against extending the limits of the Felixstowe dock. It achieves that by prohibiting any further developments in the adjoining Trimley marshes. However, there are three exceptions and, in fairness, I must tell the House what they are. The further developments that could take place in Trimley marshes, given the general prohibition of clause 16, are, first, developments that are connected with the nature reserve that is to be provided for public benefit by Trinity college and the dock company. The Committee wanted that provision so that the new nature reserve could be created there. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) would welcome that. He would probably like it to be bigger, and perhaps I would, too. However, surely that is a correct exception to the general bar on any further development at Trimley. The second exception relates to landscaping to ameliorate the effect of the proposed works. The Committee was absolutely right to say that that should be a proper exception to the general bar on any development. The third exception to that general bar is certain developments for farming purposes. As the hon. Gentleman said, that land is not particularly good arable land. Perhaps I could best describe it as modest. However, there are several farmers, who are tenants of Trinity college. During the passage of the Bill, the fellows of Trinity and especially its enlightened bursar, Mr. John Bradfield, have been at pains to say that they would not be party to a Bill that caused any environmental damage that was not more than compensated for by environmental enhancements. Trinity college has been in the lead in achieving the new nature reserve that is to be placed on Trimley marshes. However, the college has a number of tenant farmers and unfortunately one of them will be required to lose 176 acres of his land because it is needed for the proposed nature reserve. Trinity insisted, and the farmer agreed, that the land should be used for a nature reserve. I am sure that the House, while sympathising with the farmer, will welcome that. 7 pm I understand the object behind amendments Nos. 37 and 38, hut they remove the exemption from the general ban on any kind of development in respect of tenant farmers. Under the amendments, such farmers could not put up even medium-sized agricultural buildings without going through normal planning procedures. No other farmer has to do that. The House might not agree, but farmers have a right to erect agricultural buildings without planning consent. Perhaps the law should be changed, but it cannot be right that the only farmers who need to have planning consent are the tenant farmers on Trimley marshes.
People are worried because of that problem. Farmers do not need to have permission to erect buildings on their land and that has led to problems in many rural constituencies. Perhaps the law should be examined at some future date.The tenant farmers have been around for a considerable time. I should have thought that they already had the buildings that they need. If we are to develop a nature reserve the last thing we want is for a large and ugly structure, such as a barn or crop drier, to disfigure the landscape.
I understand that, hut a private Bill is not the instrument for solving a general problem. The suggestion discriminates against farmers who live in a particular area. Tens of thousands of buildings erected by farmers might cause offence but it cannot be right to pick on a particular group.I have been involved in farming and I know that it is changing rapidly. Changes have been made in the common agricultural policy and in the uses of land. It would be unfair to sterilise a particular group of farmers who, being Trinity's tenants, will have to take account of Trinity's view of the type of buildings that they can erect. Trinity's own reputation is at stake and it will not want to be seen as desecrator of the environment. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 would prevent for all time the dock company, or any owner of Trimley marshes, from applying to Parliament for amendment to or appeal against the provisions of clause 16. It is a constitutional problem. Hon. Members who have been in the House for some years will see the difficulty of binding a future Parliament so that it cannot amend the clause. If the Labour party happened to have a majority in the House and it wanted to do something about clause 16 it would be prevented from doing so. That would wrongly and unconstitutionally fetter a future House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it. The Bill makes normal planning procedures unnecessary, yet the Bill's promoters use its technicalities for their own ends. The hon. Gentleman says that the amendments are unconstitutional and that they will fetter Parliament, but he cannot have it both ways. He must accept that some people will want to curtail his efforts.
I understand the hon. Gentleman. For my sins, I was a Minister responsible for planning. One thing that I came to understand was that a number of statutory bodies have no other place to go for planning consent but the House of Commons. For example, the British Railways Board has to come to the House every year with a British Rail Bill because only this House can deal with a statutory body's planning requests. The same applies to the CEGB. Felixstowe is a statutory company, set up by Parliament. Its access to planning is through this place. It has no other place to go. That became apparent to the Committee when it studied the Bill.The Bill does not give Felixstowe the ability to evade the planning law. As a statutory body it has to come to Parliament for planning agreement. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I am not able to accept the amendments but I understand the concern behind them. I want to help if I can. I respect the Nature Conservancy Council. As a Minister, I dealt with that organisation frequently. But during negotiations on the Bill enormous numbers of environmental additions were agreed. For example, 176 acres of land are to go into the new wetlands. There will be two or three huge new lagoons particularly suited to various kinds of water bird. Significant changes have been made to improve landscaping. About 500,000 new trees are to be planted—not all the kind that I like. As a result of debates in the House, new powers have been given to the Secretary of State to assist in the protection of navigation. That is important, not only to the big ships but to the small dinghies.
While the changes to the wetlands and the lagoons are beneficial, they will not support the same species of bird to be displaced. The fresh lagoons will attract some waders but the habitat for other waders will be destroyed. A habitat will be found for a different range of species but it will not compensate the species that loses its habitat.
One of the more agreeable features of proceedings on the Bill, despite the length of time that we have spent on it, has been learning to respect one's colleagues whom one has not known well before. The hon. Gentleman's contributions about wildlife last night were fascinating. I learned a lot from him. I hope that he will take that as a sincere compliment.Of course I recognise that the new provision will not entirely meet that which was available before, but it strikes a balance. When I agreed to promote the Bill I told the company that I would not do so unless I was satisfied that, on balance, the environmental disbenefits—there are bound to be disbenefits—were more than matched by the overall environment enhancements. I believe that we are achieving an improved balance overall. I conclude with a suggestion to the hon. Member for Wentworth, (Mr. Hardy). In the Felixstowe area there is a liaison committee between the dock company, the county council planners, the local Suffolk Coastal planning authority and the parish council that meets two or three times a year to discuss the interaction of dock company activities on the local community and on the environment. I would be delighted if the hon. Member for Wentworth and his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe would attend a meeting of the liaison group and openly express their concerns. They would find that they would receive a sympathetic reception and that perhaps some good would come from it. It is regrettable that in the course of last night's votes some of the amendments that I proposed were lost. We need not recriminate about that. When the Bill goes to another place it might be useful for there to be discussions with the promoters of the Bill to see—I cannot make any promises—whether they would be able to accommodate further amendments. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not feel obliged to press the amendments and that we can move on to Third Reading.
If I read the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) correctly, it is that, given the encouragement from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir Eldon Griffiths), that will probably go some way to satisfying us, as there are obvious possibilities of speaking to Members in another place. For that reason, it is not the intention of my hon. Friends to pursue the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion and Question proposed, That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
I think it is incumbent upon me to remind the House that this is a private Bill and explain that this is a single motion, the effect of which, if agreed to, is that the Bill will be read the Third time. There is no separate Question or Division on Third Reading. The Bill is now open for Third Reading. I call Sir Eldon Griffiths.
I am willing to listen to what other hon. Members have to say before I intervene, and I prefer so to do.
I was paying the hon. Member a tribute by giving him the first call. I call Mr. Peter Hardy.
Some hon. Members believe that we opposed the Bill to protect the mud flats, the coastal ecology, and the fauna and flora. I emphasise that our opposition to the Bill was based on the fact that the Government appear to have accepted, with an apparent eager and uniform readiness, that a firm, clear and specific international commitment should be disdained. That sad reality, above all, was the basis of our long hours of sustained, consistent commitment today.
I will not prolong proceedings. We have already been going over 24 hours. On behalf of Labour Members who have participated in the debate, I place on record our rejection of any suggestion that the debate has been anything other than serious. We have been accused of being frivolous and of deploying delaying tactics. No hon. Members who sat through the long debate with a genuine concern to see the best piece of legislation possible could say that we were anything but constructive, both in terms of the amendments that have been made and in what has been said in trying to extract concessions from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir Eldon Griffiths).We will be watching with interest what happens in another place. Through colleagues in another place, we will seek to improve the Bill even further. As the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated in the last few hours, hopefully there will be a genuine concern to ensure the best possible Bill, albeit there is a fundamental difference as to whether it should be passed.
Some 24 per cent. of the work force of the Felixstowe dock live in Ipswich. It may interest hon. Gentlemen opposite to learn that my Ipswich constituents who work at the Felixstowe dock are all members of the Transport and General Workers Union. What is more, they all support the Bill. They have told me so in no uncertain terms.
Where has the hon. Member been?
Where has the hon. Member been?
The hon. Gentlemen ask where I have been during the past 24 hours. I spent a good many of them in the Chamber. If my constituents who work in the Felixstowe dock had heard some of the incessant points of order, some of the crass meanderings and some of the filibustering that took place, they would have been not merely angry but aghast. I am glad to have seen in the most recent hours of the debate a much better spirit—the spirit of greater co-operation. That is very much to the good. I am glad to see it and I know that my constituents who work in the Felixstowe dock would agree.
The Ipswich dock.
Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further about the Ipswich dock, I would remind him that just as the port of Felixstowe has expanded and prospered over the past years, so has the port of Ipswich. It has done so by good management, by good labour relations and by turning ships around rapidly. Ipswich has its own plans for further expansion.On behalf of my constituents who work in the port of Felixstowe, I extend their considerable thanks to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who saw the Bill through the late and long hours of last night at considerable inconvenience to themselves.
I briefly congratulate my hon. Friends who, after a number of years, have succeeded in getting through a Bill that is of extreme importance to my constituents in the east Midlands. We shall look forward to Felixstowe becoming a great success. It will help our continental trade and, from visits I made to projects describing how much land was needed and other matters a couple of years or so ago, my constituents, industrialists and myself came to the conclusion that we had to get the Bill on the statute book.It was deplorable how time was wasted last night. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) spoke for over an hour, and I do not know why he took the view that he did. Perhaps he is an NUM-sponsored Member. Certainly, he has a constituency near the coalfields. But the consistent time-wasting last night by the hon. Member for Rother Valley——
Order. It appears that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there not a well-established and reasonable precedent in the House that if an hon. Member wishes to make a personal attack on another, he will at least have the courtesy to notify the other hon. Member so that the latter can be present in the Chamber to defend himself? The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) well knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is a former member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We all know why my hon. Friend made his comments about birds. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that the hon. Member for Harborough restricts himself to the normal courtesies of the House.
Order. We have had a good and constructive debate in the past few hours, and I hope that it will remain at the same high standard at which it has been held for the past two or three hours.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not true that when an hon. Member refers to another hon. Member he should get his constituency right? The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) mentioned the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), meaning my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). He also said that my hon. Friend was a member of the NUM. That is not true.
Order. The Boundary Commission often plays tricks on us.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. To establish the record, the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), as an official in the all-party conservation committee, should share the interests and commitments that some of us have demonstrated. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has contradicted his position outside the Chamber in a conservation debate. I am not a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, but I am a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
Of course, I accept unreservedly what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sorry that he thought that I was being rude or insulting if I suggested that he might be a member of the NUM. However, it was difficult to understand why he and his hon. Friends spent so much time last night on trivia and Divisions——
Order. This debate is very restrictive. The scope of the debate on the motion includes only the arguments for and against Third Reading, and I would appreciate it at this stage if the hon. Member restricted his remarks to the scope of the debate.
Possibly one says these things because one has been through the night and is short of sleep, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to point out that the behaviour of some hon. Members had been outrageous——
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is now trying to undermine the competence of the Chair. I sat through most of the debate and on no occasion did I hear trivia debated or see any outrageous behaviour exhibited by my hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman makes these accusations, he must specify what they are and say why he is not prepared to recognise the dignity of the Chair.
The hon. Gentleman should not worry about that—the Chair is pretty tough and can take care of itself.
I wish to place on record our strong disapproval of the comments made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), who, as far as I am aware, played a sedentary role in our debate, as he did in previous debates. He certainly did not play a remarkably active role. The hon. Gentleman has tapped the rich vein of the subject of those whose contributions were or were not worth while.I also want to place on record the warmth of feeling felt by my hon. Friends for the work of Ken Weetch, the former hon. Member for Ipswich, who did a great deal of work over a period of many years to expose the faults in the Bill. We have continued to try to highlight those faults in the past 24 hours. Ken Weetch takes considerable credit for the fact that the Bill has taken so long to get through. We have received a degree of co-operation on some aspects during the past 24 hours, but the Bill is fundamentally flawed because, by its very nature, the process by which it has come through the House provides no acceptable way for allowing planning permission and the planning system to act. That should be possible, given that the Bill affects huge communities and will have a national impact on industry and conservation.
Does my hon. Friend accept that I agree that this procedure is not acceptable for local authority planning decisions? Does he also accept that one of the beneficial offshoots of the Bill's passage has been that the media are looking with fresh eyes at lobbying procedures and the suborning of hon. Members, which was brought into sharp focus by the proposed champagne party? People outside the House are looking afresh at the lobbying interests, because they have brought the House into disrepute.
Of course, my hon. Friend has raised an important point. One of the problems of this planning process is that it leaves us open to the lobbyists, who are virtually unaccountable, save that they have considerably greater amounts of money to spread out on largesse and information than those who are trying to protect their own local interests. So the planning process, as pursued by the private Bill mechanism, is severely flawed. My hon. Friends and I welcome the fact that there is to be a review of the entire process, and we look forward to the prospect of proper local control over planning with the fallback position of the Secretary of State for the Environment, which already applies to the bulk of planning applications that are not put through by those who are very rich.The Bill is inadequate in a number of ways. The promoters say that it is effectively about the port of Felixstowe, and see it, therefore, as a transport Bill. Opposition Members are concerned about a form of unregulated planning for the private sector, because the Government are prepared to reward their friends in the private sector in a way that does not occur in other ports around the country. Felixstowe has always enjoyed a privileged position. It is privileged in any case because of its geographical location. That is an accident of geography, but it is ironic that the Bill is being promoted at a time when the amount of traffic through the ports of this country is beginning to stabilise. Indeed, some would say that it is on the point of decline. We have the prospect of the Channel tunnel—I oppose it—in the not-toodistant future. That will affect Felixstowe as a port and render some of the changes sought by the Bill's promoters less than useful. We also condemn the Bill because the Government's ports policy fails to be rational. It consists of a piecemeal approach whereby some are rewarded and some find themselves disadvantaged. We also criticise the Bill because it begins the process of erosion of the national dock labour scheme. [Interruption.] Conservative Members must know that their own Government are not in a position, and do not want, to begin to take out the scheme, because, although they know one of the benefits of eroding the whole scheme, they also know two of the difficulties. They want to do it piecemeal, sneakily, through back-door methods in the way that the Government always work, in a low-key, underhand, shifty way.
As my hon. Friend knows, I have been in Brussels until now discussing with some of the European Commissioners the transport implications of the Felixstowe development. Given that we are to have a Channel tunnel, the Commissioners can see no reason why there should be such a demand for extra container capacity—a point that the Opposition have been making all along. The points that my hon. Friend is making so lucidly are underlined by the fact that we have now set up a Joint Committee of the two Houses to review private Bill procedures. That is because of the exploitation of the system that has been revealed in this exercise.
I gave way to my hon. Friend for two reasons. One was because of her role in ably pursuing certain issues on behalf of the members of the trade union by which she is sponsored, the Transport and General Workers Union. My hon. Friend played a great role in trying to expose the unsatisfactory nature of the private Bill procedure.
Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a great deal of indignation about this Bill because of the connection between its promoters and, probably, the financers of the champagne party and the Department of Trade and Industry and the Conservative party. I noticed that one of the main beneficiaries may be P and O. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has put that on record. The chairman of that company is Sir Jeffrey Sterling who, since 1983, has been a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Not only that, but P and O is a substantial contributor to the Conservative party and Sir Jeffrey is a close friend of the Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend find it extremely disturbing that the Government are operating what is, in effect, a three-line Whip? The Prime Minister was brought in at odd hours of the night. What was the reason for that? Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me.
My hon. Friend touches on a rich seam when he draws attention to the close personal relationships that exist between senior personnel in P and O, now the sponsoring company, and members of the Government.
I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair to the House on this point. He draws attention to the close personal relationship that may or may not exist between Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the Prime Minister. Will he also draw the attention of the House to the similar relationship that must exist between Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the right hon. and learned Member for Monk lands, East (Mr. Smith) who appointed him to the board of British Airways?
At the moment we are discussing P and O and the relationship that exists between that company and the legislation now before the House. That is massively different from any relationship to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. His intervention points to the sensitivity of Conservative Members on these issues. They feel vulnerable because they know that this system of planning allows for graft and for a degree of familiarity that ought to be unacceptable.The Bill goes back many years. But for the sterling work of our colleague, the former hon. Member for Ipswich, Ken Weetch, this Bill would probably have shot through its various stages. The fact that it did not was a source of great annoyance to the promoters and to their friends in Parliament. Many of us did not know until fairly recently just how high those friends in Parliament were. One of my hon. Friends discovered in the Division Lobby the other day that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is really the cat and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is merely the cat's paw. We found that the voice and the vote were separated on at least one occasion. It is possible to go a little deeper because last year P and O spent about £30,000 of its shareholders' money in this new shareholding democracy. As far as we are aware, there was no ballot about that and no thought of the political levy being introduced. From the point of view of P and O, that money is a reasonable investment because we are nearly at the final stage in the passage of the Bill. We know that the P and O return from Felixstowe will be very high. Some people say that P and O no longer wants to develop Felixstowe because it knows that Felixstowe may not have quite the future that it appeared to have some years ago. However, the company wants outline planning permission so that, if it wants to sell the area its capital value, its asset value, will be increased. The House is transforming an asset into an item of considerably greater value and we are performing a useful role for the private sector. Conservative Members may want to do that, but the Opposition do not. We have spent a considerable time looking at the Bill with deep suspicion because we do not think that it is satisfactory. We know about its defects in terms of ports policy and my hon. Friends have given sterling service over the last 24 hours, and before, by drawing attention to the environmental damage that the Bill will cause. We have received some help, and in that respect I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. However, the help was on nothing like the scale that we wanted. The Bill is defective on environmental grounds and nothing that we have seen at its various stages satisfies us. We are grateful for what we have got, because it ameliorates the worst consequences, but it does not transform a basically bad Bill into a good one. That makes all the more galling the eventually-to-be-cancelled Jubilee Room party to which Conservative Members were invited. Those who had a late night and perhaps succumbed to the temptation of whatever was on offer——
We did not get it.
The hon. Gentleman insists that he did not get it. He will have to speak for himself about what that means. We know that the party was cancelled because of the massive publicity generated by my hon. Friends. They drew attention to what was going on and to an unacceptable system. That system adds a further level of graft to the already defective planning system of private Bills. The House must take that seriously because it is an unacceptable kind of lobbying.Conservative Members know that, and they made great efforts to deny that the whole thing was taking place until they were found almost with their fingers in the till. We think that they were just quick enough to pull out heir fingers, but the better interpretation is that P and O said, "We have already got these people for our mugs. We will not deliver the goods." P and O must have wondered whether Conservative Members would squeal and say, "They bought us but they refused to pay." Conservative Members know that they were duped and taken for a ride at very little cost. We know that the Prime Minister was overheard saying to the Leader of the House that she did not care if' the Government lost Wednesday's business. Perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm or deny that. The Prime Minister did not care about losing Wednesday's business because she does not care about Scottish Question Time. She did not care about the Opposition day, although she did care about the Bill, her friends in P and O and the £30,000 pay-off to the Conservative party from the company, which, because of its terrible publicity this year, as a result of events at Zeebrugge — which will eventually come before this House — is seeking rehabilitation. The patronage system operates throughout the House. Opposition Members believe that this planning system is corrupt. It allows corruption to take place within these walls. That is a very serious charge to make, but it must be made. The private Bill system stinks to high heaven and it is time to we got rid of it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on his handling of the Bill during the last 24 hours. I very much appreciated the comments made by Opposition Members who know and care a great deal about the conservation elements in the Bill. I served for five months with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) dealing with this Bill in Committee. We concluded that we had committed to the House a balanced Bill which matched the national interests of ports with a healthy respect for the environment in the area. The debate during the last 24 hours has shown that this concern is shared by the House.We have a good, though perhaps not perfect. Bill, but Bills never are perfect. I commend it to the House, and I particularly commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. We have tried to meet the points that have been raised. The Bill is worthy of support.
It would be appropriate spoke before my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). He paid graceful tributes to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and some of his colleagues, for their comments on environmental matters. Clearly, the Bill has examined industrial interests, port policy and environmental interests. Some tributes have been earned during the debate, although some things may have been said of which, in the light of day, some hon. Members may not feel so proud.My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has guided this Bill through. It has been more exhaustingly considered, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, than many other private Bills. My hon. Friend has guided it with courtesy, good humour and, as hon. Members will accept, tolerance in the face of provocation. I also want to pay tribute to all Committee Members because the Committees took a good deal of time and people recognise that serious efforts were put into the Bill at those stages. I recognise also that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had not been barred, he would have been able to do in the House what he does in his constituency—promote the interests of his constituents. I ought to declare an interest in the matter. I was lobbied two years ago by shop stewards at Felixstowe. On Second Reading, on 13 May 1985, Ken Weetch, to whom tribute has been paid, said that Felixstowe had earned its expansion and that there had been associated improvements for Ipswich, although the good fortune of Ipswich was not linked solely to Felixstowe. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), the Minister of Public Transport, talked about environmental interests. I want to repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds when he pledged that he would be a party to the Bill going on to the statute book only if the disbenefits it may bring to the environment are outweighed by the environmental benefits. The Government's well established transport and ports policy is not to interfere with or influence port investment decisions. We believe that port capacity should be provided to satisfy those who use ports—shippers, shipowners and members of the Transport and General Workers Union working, for example, at Felixstowe. Those who want to provide ports should be free to do so provided that they obtain any necessary statutory powers and do not look to the taxpayer to finance the development. Clearly, users have wanted to see Felixstowe expand. Its container and ferry business has trebled since 1975 and it is now the leading container port in the United Kingdom and fifth in Europe. It has won a worldwide reputation. On my visits around the world promoting British business in connection with transport, the consultants from Felixstowe are well regarded and are doing a good deal of work for British manufacturers as well as for their own reputations. There has been enormous investment in Felixstowe and it is one of the most modern ports in the world. The developments proposed in the Bill raised questions about the safety of navigation in Harwich harbour. Those are important questions and I am glad that they have been satisfactorily resolved during the progress of the Bill. The Government also have an interest in the impact of the proposed extension of the port on the local environment and wildlife. Those questions have been debated extensively. No one can deny that the port development would have an adverse impact. The promoters have been very willing to accept many provisions in the Bill to minimise that impact and give real protection to environmental interests. The Committee considered very carefully the petitions that were brought on those points and made strong and positive proposals for strengthening the Bill, especially in connection with the protection of Trimley marshes and the landscaping of the new port development. I want to deal briefly and relatively lightly with some of the comments that have been made during the debate. The involvement of P and O with Felixstowe began after the Second Reading of the Bill on 13 May 1985. All hon. Members, ranging from the Chairman of Ways and Means to Back Benchers, wanted to see the issue resolved rather than have the House continue with debate after debate which merely showed that the debate had become stuck. For that reason there was a motion to lift the Ten o'clock rule. I do not believe that comments picked up outside the Chamber in relation to whether people were prepared to lose Wednesday's business stem only from hon. Members of one party. People entered the debate today with their eyes open. Indeed, those who contributed most to the debate may want to take most of the credit for losing Wednesday's business. The Bill has been a classic example of what can often be a real and difficult conflict between industrial and environmental interests. The arguments have been fully rehearsed and considered in depth. The Bill has had a very good run in the House and the Government recommend that it should receive a Third Reading.
This is not the time for crowing or sniping. It is the time to go home after a very long sitting. No hon. Member who has served on any Committee in connection with the Bill at any stage will ever forget it. The Bill has been before the House for four years. By present estimates, it has been debated for 189 hours and it received a record consideration in Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). Tonight it has probably received the most vigorously contested Report stage for a long time.
With regard to the precise point about the length of time that the Bill has been debated and the period during which it has been debated, will the hon. Gentleman concede that it would be wrong for those hon. Members who did not have the privilege of being hon. Members of the House during most of the time that the Bill was being considered—in total about 140 hon. Members, including 70 of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who are clearly baffled by the Bill as none of them has spoken or contributed to the debate—and did not have the benefit of listening to the four years of debate, to vote tonight? Does he agree that the proper course would be for them to abstain?
I repeat what I said at the beginning of my comments—that there will be no crowing or sniping at this stage.The Bill has received record consideration by the House. I am sure that it will lead to some reconsideration of the private Bill procedure and I need say no more about it than that. I want to say a word about my colleagues who have been involved with the Bill. The Bill has made it possible for me to get to know many Opposition Members whom I did not know so well before. I have enjoyed getting to know them and have appreciated their knowledge of birds and the environment. Opposition Members may not always have been at their best, but they have not always been at their worst. I want to thank them for their contributions to the improvements of the Bill. Finally, I want to thank my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. There are too many for me to thank personally. Perhaps I may just say that I have the fortune—or the misfortune—of being the neighbour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Felixstowe and Sizewell are in my right hon. Friend's constituency and somehow or other, because my right hon. Friend is a Minister, I always seem to get stuck with dealing with my right hon. Friend's constituency affairs. That is a pleasure and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is present in the Chamber tonight. I have been particularly grateful to receive the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). I am also grateful to so many of my hon. Friends who remained in the House when it was inconvenient to be here. I believe that we have achieved something which is good for the dockers of Felixstowe, for the shippers, the business people, the merchants of the area, for East Anglia and for our country. I wish the Bill well.
This may be a rather unusual procedure, but this has also been a rather unusual Bill. As has already been reported to the House, it is intended that both Houses of Parliament should consider the future of private Bill procedures.We have faced a curious situation over recent days and nights. Faced with a Bill that was putting forward a somewhat anarchic ports policy, removing the national dock labour scheme, advocating a policy likely to inflict environmental damage on the area, an area of outstanding natural beauty and of special scientific interest, it seems that the Bill was substituting the judgment and procedures of the House for the normal planning control procedures that apply in most parts of the country. That means that the outcome of the Bill is a substantial financial advantage for the promoters. They might have achieved many of those things simply by seeking planning permission like anyone else who cannot afford to promote a private Bill and who did not have friends in high places to help get the Bill through. We have heard much from my hon. Friends about redshanks and greenshanks. However, the blueshanks have been the most important birds in this matter. Why has there been an iron determination on the Government's part to get the Bill through to the extent of involving the personal intervention of the Prime Minister exhorting people to vote and join her in voting? There is nothing special about the Bill. It has nothing to commend it to hon. Members from all parts of the country. The Opposition believe that the only thing which demands special attention is the nature of the Bill's promoters. In those circumstances, it behoves us and you too, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of the reputation of the House, to consider what restraints and restrictions would have been placed on the members of district and county planning committees had they been making similar decisions to those made by the House tonight. If we examine the report of the Salmon committee on the standards of conduct in public life, we see that many requirements that would normally be applied to a member of a county or district planning authority have certainly not been met. Had the members of a planning authority been promised wining and dining so that they could sustain their attention and come and vote, that would have been a criminal offence on the part of both those offering and those taking. When we know, as we do, that P and O is a major contributor to Conservative party funds, we accept that as a generality—just as Conservative Members tend to accept that trade unions make substantial contributions to the Labour party. They do so because they believe that the generality of Labour's policies will suit them. Similarly, those in private industry tends to support the Conservative party on the ground that the generality of the policies of that party will suit them. You, Mr. Speaker, are bound to exercise your influence on the procedures to be followed in future on private Bills. When the future is discussed, you will draw on your experience. Surely we move into an entirely different area when a private company puts money into the funds of a party while promoting a private Bill at the same time, and receives the sort of response that has been received from the Government. We know that the former chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), is the local Member of Parliament and has been a prominent member of the Tory party. We also know that the chairman of the company has been heavily involved with the Tory party, and in giving industrial advice to t he Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We know that even some Conservative Members were embarrassed by the ludicrous lobbying procedures that were attempted yesterday, until the company and its advisers were persuaded by bad publicity to drop them. If the House is to retain a good reputation in future, we should not be faced with the squalid financially and politically motivated manoeuvres that today led to Scottish Questions not being reached, and to a debate on transport covering the whole country not being reached. All that has been sacrificed so that Conservative Members can continue to benefit from financial contributions from the Bill's promoters.
Question put, That Standing Order No. 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 101.
Division No. 67]
|Adley, Robert||Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Benyon, W.|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Bevan, David Gilroy|
|Allason, Rupert||Blackburn, Dr John G.|
|Alton, David||Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Amos, Alan||Bonsor, Sir Nicholas|
|Arbuthnot, James||Bottomley, Peter|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Bowis, John|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard|
|Ashby, David||Brandon-Bravo, Martin|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Brazier, Julian|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Bright, Graham|
|Atkins, Robert||Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)|
|Baldry, Tony||Burt, Alistair|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Butcher, John|
|Beggs, Roy||Butler, Chris|
|Beith, A. J.||Butterfill, John|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Latham, Michael|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Carrington, Matthew||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Chapman, Sydney||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Lightbown, David|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Livsey, Richard|
|Colvin, Michael||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Lord, Michael|
|Cope, John||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Cormack, Patrick||McCrindle, Robert|
|Couchman, James||MacGregor, John|
|Cran, James||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Maclean, David|
|Curry, David||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Madel, David|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Day, Stephen||Malins, Humfrey|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Mans, Keith|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Dunn, Bob||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Durant, Tony||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Eggar, Tim||Mellor, David|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)|
|Fallon, Michael||Mills, lain|
|Farr, Sir John||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Fearn, Ronald||Moate, Roger|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Forth, Eric||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Moss, Malcolm|
|Franks, Cecil||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|French, Douglas||Neale, Gerrard|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Neubert. Michael|
|Gill, Christopher||Newton, Tony|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Onslow, Cranley|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Gow, Ian||Page, Richard|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Paice, James|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Patnick, Irvine|
|Greenway, John (Rydale)||Patten, John (Oxford W)|
|Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')||Pawsey, James|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Portillo, Michael|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Harris, David||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Hayward, Robert||Riddick, Graham|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Hind, Kenneth||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Ross, William (Londonderry E)|
|Howard, Michael||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Ryder, Richard|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Irvine, Michael||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Janman, Timothy||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Shersby, Michael|
|Key, Robert||Sims, Roger|
|Kilfedder, James||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Speed, Keith|
|Knapman, Roger||Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Stanley, Rt Hon John|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Knowles, Michael||Stern, Michael|
|Knox, David||Stevens, Lewis|
|Lang, Ian||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Sumberg, David||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Summerson, Hugo||Wallace, James|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Waller, Gary|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Ward, John|
|Taylor, Matthew (Truro)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)||Wheeler, John|
|Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret||Whitney, Ray|
|Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)||Widdecombe, Miss Ann|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Thorne, Neil||Wilkinson, John|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Thurnham, Peter||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)||Wood, Timothy|
|Tracey, Richard||Woodcock, Mike|
|Trippier, David||Yeo, Tim|
|Viggers, Peter||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Waldegrave, Hon William||Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Jerry Hayes.|
|Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Janner, Greville|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Beckett, Margaret||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Bell, Stuart||Macdonald, Calum|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||McLeish, Henry|
|Boateng, Paul||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Maxton, John|
|Buchan, Norman||Meale, Alan|
|Buckley, George||Michael, Alun|
|Caborn, Richard||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Clay, Bob||Morley, Elliott|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Mullin, Chris|
|Cousins, Jim||Murphy, Paul|
|Crowther, Stan||Nellist, Dave|
|Cummings, J.||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||O'Brien, William|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Patchett, Terry|
|Darling, Alastair||Pendry, Tom|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||Primarolo, Ms Dawn|
|Dixon, Don||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Dobson, Frank||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Douglas, Dick||Reid, John|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Dunnachie, James||Robertson, George|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|Faulds, Andrew||Skinner, Dennis|
|Flannery, Martin||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|Flynn, Paul||Snape, Peter|
|Foster, Derek||Stott, Roger|
|Foulkes, George||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Fraser, John||Turner, Dennis|
|Fyfe, Mrs Maria||Wall, Pat|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Galloway, George||Walters, Dennis|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Warden, Gareth (Gower)|
|Graham, Thomas||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Grocott, Bruce||Wilson, Brian|
|Hardy, Peter||Winnick, David|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Hinchliffe, David||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Mr. Allan Rogers and Mr. Ian McCartney.|
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.