House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jun 1990

Column 85

should have been tabled in Committee. The legislation to which the amendments refer was implemented more than 12 months before the Bill completed the Committee stage.

Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : I happen to have a copy of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. I glanced through it, looking for a reference to the date on which the amendments could have been put forward. The date has been revised to 31 October 1979. Therefore, surely the Lords amendments could have been made properly to the Bill during the past 10 years.

Mr. Barron : My hon. Friend's assessment is correct. I can do no more than agree with him.

A motion has been tabled to the effect that the Lords amendments be considered upon this day in six months' time. I support that motion. The Bill has had a long history, and we have had many debates on it. It has been scrutinised by a Committee and was passed on the Chairman's casting vote. The amendments laid were not accepted because of the Chairman's casting vote. We have had many debates about the Bill's implications for the coal industry. The amendments which were not accepted in the House of Commons or in the other place in Committee related specifically to that point.

My opposition to the Bill, because of its possible effect on the coal industry, has not wavered since the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Michael Welsh : It is obvious to everyone that great damage will be caused to the industry. Is not the Bill also important in terms of the great damage that it could do to the environment?

Mr. Barron : I am sure that that is true. I was about to say that that was a principal reason why I support the motion that consideration should be adjourned for six months. We are not saying that the Bill should be defeated, as we have done in the past--although, given the opportunity, I certainly would. We are asking the House to delay considering the Lords amendments for six months.

Our arguments on the Floor of the House and in Committee were as one in terms of the effect on the coal industry. Over the past five years, the industry has done remarkably well because of a massive improvement in productivity. Sadly, about 30,000 jobs a year had been lost over the past five years--150,000 jobs overall. This is hardly an industry that should be penalised for what it has done over the past five years, but we know what the Bill will do.

Some of those in the other place who had presented petitions against the Bill changed their minds. They argued strongly in Committee and on the Floor of the House that there should be environmental assessments of what will happen if the terminal goes ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) made that point.

Mr. Lofthouse : Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern expressed in the other place about the increased transport that would result from the extension of the ports--5 million or 6 million tonnes of bulk cargo a year? An attempt was made to table an amendment, but Sir Frank Layfield advised the Committee on behalf of the petitioners that there were sufficient powers in local government legislation to control that traffic. Expert witnesses speaking on behalf of Doncaster council,

Column 86

including the research officer--who was an agent for the Coalfield Communities Campaign in the other place--the director of planning and the director of the public works directorate, have suggested that there is no such power in that legislation. That being so, should not we delay our debate so that Sir Frank Layfield's evidence can be examined in the other place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I realise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is painting the background to the debate and to the amendments that may eventually be considered. But before he answers that point, may I remind the House that this is a comparatively narrow debate? We are discussing whether the Lords amendments should be considered, and we should remember that those Lords amendments are limited and technical. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind in his comments.

Mr. Barron rose --

Mr. Illsley : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 18(2) says that certain things may apply,

"subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below, in its application to development authorised by this Act".

I seek your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do the words "this Act" refer to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill or to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is a matter for debate, and if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye he may be able to make his points. The matter that he has raised is not a point of order.

Mr. Barron : I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). But, of course, my hon. Friend was quite right that the evidence given in Committee in the other place suggested that the lack of an environmental assessment study would not prejudice events away from the ports. We have discovered since that more relevance was attached to lorries having access to the main motorway network than to their coming out of the ports or arriving at their destination. The local authorities have discovered that, in those circumstances, they do not have the powers that the Committee in another place suggested.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). However, we are talking about not only the environment but jobs. In the past few days, there has been another pit closure in my constituency. British Coal has argued to the unions that closures have resulted from the fall in value of coal because of the availability of cheap foreign coal which is already coming into Britain. Much more cheap foreign coal will come in through our ports if the Bill is passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will stay in order in responding to that intervention. I remind the House once more that we are debating a comparatively narrow motion--whether the Lords amendments should be considered.

Mr. Barron : I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for

Column 87

Mansfield, (Mr. Meale) have been debated when we have considered the Bill in the past, and I do not intend to cover old ground tonight.

Mr. Hardy : Does my hon. Friend accept that the House should act consistently? You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that less than an hour ago the House voted in favour of the Government amendment to the previous motion, which was highly relevant because it referred to the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is in order if he argues that we should not proceed to consider the Bill because the Government's commitment to the environment is imperilled by the Bills' progress.

My hon. Friend should continue to press for a delay in further consideration of the Bill so that the environmental impact assessment that has already been mentioned can be carried out. If that is not done, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will have to speak in terms that we can hear and understand, as we were unable to hear or understand him when he opened the debate. He must be able to convince us and to persuade those who voted less than an hour ago for the Government's commitment to the environment that the environmental impact assessment should not proceed.

The European authorities and everyone else take the view that no such proposal should be enacted until there is a guarantee that a thorough environmental impact assessment will be made.

Mr. McCartney : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising on a point of order once again but since my original point of order I have listened carefully to hon. Members' interventions and to your views, Sir, concerning the narrow nature of the debate.

It has come to my notice that the Commission in Brussels has corresponded with a number of bodies on the subject of the Bill. I should like to quote from a letter from the Commission to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds earlier this year :

"It is the opinion of the Commission that for a project to be exempted from the scope of the Directive it is necessary that an environmental impact assessment similar to that requested by the Directive is made in the process of adopting the new legislation." That was the view of the Commission--

8.15 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That cannot possibly have anything to do with the motion before the House.

Mr. Barron rose--

Mr. McCartney : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Mr. Barron.

Mr. Barron : I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) went somewhat wide and I accept your judgment on these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although what my hon. Friend said about the EEC directive was relevant.

Column 88

I was questioning the arguments about the environment advanced in the other place, both in Committee and on Third Reading.

Mr. Andy Stewart : The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is developing his argument well and cogently. Will he remind the House of the effect that a further 10 million tonnes of imported coal and the lorry movements that it will entail will have on the local environment? The 10 million tonnes of coal will mean 500,000 juggernauts travelling through the Humberside and Nottinghamshire villages, not on motorways but on unclassified roads.

Mr. Barron : I do not wish to go too wide of the motion, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a likelihood of that. I can only refer briefly to a letter from PowerGen to the chairman of Associated British Ports. One person whose constituency will certainly be threatened by the movements of lorries is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who is the sponsor of the Bill.

Mr. Meale : Is my hon. Friend aware of the damage that may be caused to roads by the movement of coal? Nottinghamshire county council recently had to take the CEGB to court because of such problems and Nottinghamshire ratepayers ended up having to pay millions of pounds to repair the damage. That is an important factor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will ignore irrelevant comments, from whichever side of the House they may come.

Mr. Barron : I thank you, once again, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I should like to move on--

Mr. Cryer : I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will not omit to consider the argument that we should delay our consideration of the Lords amendments--that is the subject of the procedural motion before us--because of the sweeping changes that are taking place in South Africa. The Bill is designed to facilitate the importation of South African coal and the motion suggests that we should delay our consideration of the Lords' amendments for six months. Is it not possible that, in six months' time, the South Africans, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, will refuse to export coal to Britain in the interests of preserving and securing jobs and in the name of international brotherhood? My hon. Friend should consider that.

Mr. Barron : I do not want to follow that line of argument too far, because I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order if I did. However, it is interesting to think about what would happen if the changes, which we all want, occurred in South Africa. We would then have to consider our attitudes to imports of coal from South Africa. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the price of that coal might rise if the South Africans began to pay decent wages in their coal mines. But as you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should not digress on that point.

Mr. Skinner : My hon. Friend is arguing for delay. We are all aware that the Bill has been progressing through the House for two and a half years. It has been subject to a

Column 89

modicum of delay already. What has delay provided us with? We have had an opportunity to say that, when the Bill began its progress two and a half years ago, this country had a balance of payments surplus. Two and a half years later, it has a massive balance of payments deficit of £20 billion and rising.

I do not want anyone from any quarter of the House to tell me that my hon. Friend cannot refer to delay in terms of what impact the Bill might have on the economy or the environment. There has been a two-and-a-half-year delay, during which time Britain's economic position has been turned on its head. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand on the argument for delay so that the impact on the environment and on the economy can be examined. The Opposition are trying to delay the Bill because we have already learnt, during its passage, that it will make our balance of payments position even worse.

The delay in consideration of this Bill is important. It is also important that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and others can extend the debate so that we can prove to the country that we are doing a good job by delaying the Bill. It can already be argued that 10 million tonnes of coal- -

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is good enough for an intervention.

Mr. Barron : I thought that that was a very good intervention as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorely tempted to continue along those lines, but I am sure that you would call me to order if I were to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is aware that energy imports have gone into deficit in this country over the past 12 months. As people look round the country and see that we are rich in energy, they must be shaking their heads and saying what fools we are for importing more than we are exporting.

Mr. Hardy : My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is aware that it is more than 12 months since a cargo of extremely dangerous poison reached my constituency and was close to his. That stuff came into this country through a port. It could have come in through the port that we are discussing in the Bill. This country still lacks adequate legislation to control properly the import of such toxic materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that no new port facility or private Bill which facilitates such a development should be allowed to pass through the House until we have adequate regulations to prevent other people from suffering the anxiety, risk and severe disadvantage that beset my constituency. The Government have been powerless to do anything about that for the past 12 months.

Mr. Barron : I really do not want to pursue that line, although I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I have received many letters about recycling which I can pass on to my hon. Friend. The port to which my hon. Friend refers is not many miles from my home, which is almost on the doorstep of my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. McCartney : Far be it from me to take my hon. Friend down a road along which he does not wish to travel, but it is important to be clear that no attempt is being made through the Standing Orders to legitimise the gagging of hon. Members on either side of the House to prevent them from debating the issue.

Column 90

On 6 June this year, the markers that we had attempted to raise about environmental impact assessments and others matters, were properly debated in another place. For the life of me I cannot understand why, if unelected Members in another place could on 6 June consider those matters to be relevant to the Bill and reach a decision upon them, we should be prevented from doing the same this evening. Who is in charge of legislative procedures? Is it those in another place or the elected Members of this place? It is vital to make it absolutely clear that hon. Members will not be gagged and prevented from discussing the consequences of the Bill and the inability of the sponsor to bring forward environmental impact assessments as required by the European Commission.

Mr. Barron : I am grateful for that intervention. I shall refer later to comments made in another place about those points.

Mr. Redmond : As for the problems with imports, I do not recollect that we were given any guarantee by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about nuclear fuel being imported or exported via the new facility. The hon. Gentleman might want to give that guarantee now, but I do not recollect such a guarantee being made before.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes appeared on television several times saying that there would be no nuclear dump in his constituency. Given that the new port could import nuclear fuel, has the hon. Gentleman had a change of heart? Is he satisfied that nuclear waste could pass to and fro through the new port?

Mr. Barron : If I was to comment on that point in any detail you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order. However, it makes me smile wryly to wonder, if the Bill had been promoted by British Nuclear Fuels plc or Nirex, whether the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes would be its in-house sponsor. Perhaps he would not. He might cause a by-election if he did so.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : As a sober-minded citizen, as everyone knows, I believe that the motion that we are considering is, to say the least, absolutely reasonable. Six months is not a long time in the light of what is happening in the world. When the Bill first appeared, the political shape of the world was different from what it is today. Eastern Europe has changed massively. None of us thought that the miners in the Soviet Union could possibly strike, and suddenly we were alarmed when the miners went on strike in the Soviet Union.

Let us consider South Africa, where the situation is even more fluid than it was in the Soviet Union. The right wing was out in South Africa the other day and its supporters had their badges on their arms. I believe that they are fascists. The situation in South Africa--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech within a speech. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has got the drift, and that he will resist the temptation to get out of order.

Column 91

8.30 pm

Mr. Barron : I shall indeed resist that temptation, although I was quite enjoying the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)--

Mr. Flannery : I had not finished my sentence. I was saying that, in the past six months, the position in South Africa has been fluid. Certain people have attempted to overthrow the state and threatened to kill President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I think that, as patient people, we should wait another six months before we discuss this matter.

Mr. Barron : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his ingenuity in asking for the six-month delay in this motion, which involves eastern Europe and South Africa. I shall be even more grateful if it makes hon. Members vote with the Opposition tonight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield touched on an important point when he referred to the constitutional aspects of the Bill and the amendments, which all relate to planning matters. If the EC directive were implemented by another country, or by an individual or group of individuals in this country, we could be passing legislation knowing full well that we are supporters of that directive. I shall tell the House briefly what is in the EC directive

Mr. Skinner : Some of us are not too keen about that.

Mr. Barron : I understand my hon. Friend's keenness on the question of European Community directives. I shall refer to directive 185/337/EEC. Article 4(1) of directive 185/337/EEC says : "Subject to Article 2(3), projects of the classes listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10."

I shall resist the temptation to waste the time of the House by reading out all of it--

Mr. McCartney : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has rightly quoted from a number of important articles. However, unless he gives us clear indications of the precise nature of the subsections, Opposition Members will not be able to follow his argument as well as we would like. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to insist that my hon. Friend reads out the appropriate article.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It would be better to let the hon. Member for Rother Valley make his own speech in his own way.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An interesting issue arises here. During debate on Government Bills, if a Minister quotes from any document, he is required by Standing Orders to place a copy of that document on the Table. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would tell the House what the position is with regard to these documents, copies of which have not been placed on the Table. As my hon. Friend is quoting, will he have to place a copy of the directive on the Table?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I must protect the hon. Member for Rother Valley, who is being put off by all these bogus points of order.

Column 92

Mr. Galloway : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to be bordering on a contempt of the House for such an important document to be quoted without any hon. Members having access to it, without its being placed on the Table and without my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) giving the House the benefit of reading it. I implore him to do that, as it is absolutely germane to the debate.

Mr. Barron : I do not wish to upset my hon. Friends ; I may need their support in the Lobby later. If hon. Members would like to see a copy of the directive, I could put it through a photocopier later, and perhaps they could read it before they go to sleep.

Mr. McCartney : My hon. Friend could move the Adjournment of the House until appropriate copies of the regulations have been made available, so that hon. Members can consider them in detail. It would be more appropriate for hon. Members to see them now, rather than after the Division.

Mr. Barron : May I take my lead from the Chair, and say that the Adjournment of the House is not a matter for me? I was quoting from the EC directive, and explaining what article 4(1) meant. Annexe 1, which is mentioned in article 4, relates to planning matters that should have an environmental assessment, according to the directive. I am sure that all hon. Members know that Britain is a signatory to that directive. It refers to

"Trading ports and also inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1,350 tonnes."

In those circumstances, it is relevant that the Bill fits the EC directive. I question whether it is right for the House to pass the Bill now, and not to wait the six months proposed in the motion so that an environmental assessment can be made.

All hon. Members know that the proposed terminal would make this facility the largest bulk terminal in the United Kingdom, other than ports used exclusively for the use of British Steel. It cannot be considered a mere extension of the existing facility, as it would scrap the existing facility.

The terminal is aimed primarily at a new market--those needing steam coal for power stations--rather than intended as an extension for existing customers. In those circumstances, it fits the directive.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I support the point that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is making.

It is almost unnecessary even to debate whether this is a modification or not. Associated British Ports has already argued that it wants the new facility to compete with Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. If the port authority is seeking to compete with ports of that size, there cannot be a shadow of a doubt that the directive is relevant. Therefore, the environmental considerations have to be taken into account. We are wasting our time debating the matter until that question is resolved.

Mr. Barron : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. More to the point, because direct competition with European ports is involved, it is more likely that there will be a challenge on the ground that the Bill is against the EC directive. If the Bill is passed, Britain could end up in the European

Column 93

Court. Consequently, as legislators, we would all be made to look fools because we did not take the right course when the Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend mentioned the European Court. The decision on Spanish trawling rights is even more serious, as it has meant that legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament can now be suspended, for the first time. The precedent has been established that legislation approved by the House can be suspended pending the outcome of the final hearing. It is even more serious than my hon. Friend has suggested. Because there is an EC directive, any other organisation, port authority, port, shipper or transport organisation can go to a British court and ask for an injunction suspending the legislation. In view of that, it behoves us to defer any consideration of Lords amendments until the position is clarified.

Mr. Barron : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I feel that it would be hasty at this stage for us not to take heed and have a six-month break. Article 1.5 of the EC directive appears to provide an exemption from having to conduct an environmental assessment. It is an exemption relating to

"projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this directive, including that of supply and information are achieved through the legislative process."

No information was supplied by the developers. Therefore, the exemption should not apply.

I have a note on environmental assessment. I am sure that hon. Members will be more than pleased to hear this as well. I have a list of projects that are going through parliamentary procedures and which have conducted environmental procedures. They include the King's Cross redevelopment by British Rail and London Underground, the light rapid transit project in the west midlands and the Jubilee line extension by London Underground, which will shove its head out somwhere near the House. Other Bills include measures in respect of the port of Hull and Associated British Ports. An environmental assessment of more than 200 pages has been published since that Bill was published. We have not had one sentence on this Bill.

Mr. Hardy : Hon. Members will recall--I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will attend to this point--that we have had several debates, and all that the hon. Gentleman has wanted to do is formally move the Bill and get it through. The hon. Gentleman is again trying to pull a fast one by gabbling his introductory words when no one could hear them. I do not know whether he was trying to give information. I hope that the authorities of the House will take the view that was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)--that the exemption cannot apply in respect of this legislation because at no stage has the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes provided necessary details of the environmental assessment.

Mr. Barron : I agree with my hon. Friend. I have a small list of projects in accordance with annexe 1 of the directive. They include the Isle of Grain gas importation and the other was the Isle of Grain container port with Highland Participants plc. Another was the Pittenween development by Fife regional council and another was the Hayle harbour development by the Hayle harbour company. All those projects involved inland ports and waterways that needed environmental assessments.

Column 94

My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth is quite right. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and Associated British Ports have not given one detail about environmental assessment.

Mr. Redmond : Will my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) willingly give way to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) if he wishes to clarify that matter and perhaps explain why he has not done so previously? May I have an assurance that my hon. Friend would give way to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Barron : I am quite prepared to do that.

Mr. Michael Brown : I take a strong view on matters of this kind. I was one of those hon. Members--probably in the minority, but we were joined by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)--who voted against our entry into the EC. I did so because I believe that this House, and this House alone, is the determining factor in the government of this country. I am not impressed by any impost that is forced upon this House or any legislation that it chooses to pass. I have a low opinion of anything that the European Commission might be inclined to do to contravene legislation passed by this honourable House and the other honourable House. I have a low opinion of any European legislation that would override decisions taken in this House.

Mr. Barron : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not recall that he has opposed every European issue that has come before the House. I do not want to be distracted from the points that I am trying to make. This matter is about the environment and the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The hon. Gentleman should have made sure that the environmental impact of the development was taken into account before it was forced on to his constituents.

8.45 pm

Mr. McCartney : The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) cannot get away with that anti-Europeanism. In 1988, the House passed two set of country planning and environmental assessment regulations. Local authorities are now required to act on assessment studies under the regulations, which are not precisely based on European regulations. The House has passed legislation that the company and the hon. Gentleman should take into account.

Mr. Barron : I agree with my hon. Friend.

Next Section

Home Page