---

Column 730

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shelton, Sir William

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shersby, Michael

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Speed, Keith

Speller, Tony

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Squire, Robin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Stokes, Sir John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Summerson, Hugo

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trippier, David

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Alistair Goodlad and

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker-- proceeded, pursuant to Order [23 March], to put successively the Questions on motions made by a member of the Government.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.-- [Mr. Scott.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.-- [Mr. Scott.]

Question agreed to.

---

Column 731

Exmouth Docks Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.13 pm

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. [Interruption.]

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

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

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

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

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

It is necessary for me to show that the company has tried to keep the docks going. At that time the company applied to East Devon district council, the local planning authority, for planning permission to construct new berths. But the council said in no uncertain terms that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks and the company withdrew its application. In the 1980s the greatest increase in business that the docks company could obtain arose from the docks strike and the coal strike. At that time, the docks tonnages increased from below 400,000 tonnes gross weight a year to 523,00 tonnes in 1985, at which level it remained, give or take 10,000 tonnes, until the docks closed in 1989. For anybody to say that the docks were expanding or becoming increasingly successful would not be correct.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : It is important to know whether traffic through the dock was growing. It has been suggested that the miners' strike

---

Column 732

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Paragraph 6 of the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill talks about

"prosecutions being brought under the Public Health Acts.". However, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned only the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and a prohibition notice. The Health and Safety at Work, etc Act applies to people affected by a process, but substantially it is not the same as the Public Health Acts.

---

Column 733

Was action taken under the Public Health Acts? The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is not a public health Act.

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

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

Sir Peter Emery : It was the hon. Gentleman who did that, not me. The company complied with that requirement and applied for outline planning permission for the development of most of the land, including the docks. The company had earlier tried to obtain planning permission for residential development of the land containing holiday chalets round the docks, but the district council refused permission because of the proximity of the area to the working docks. Under the June proposals the dock basin would accommodate only pleasure craft, although facilities would continue, because there was originally an objection from the fishermen in the area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. They have now withdrawn their objection because arrangements have been made to facilitate the local fishing fleets ; I can supply the details if necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

I understand hon. Members on both sides of the House objecting to the private Bill procedure being used to

---