House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Feb 1991

Mr. Knapman : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I said that I did not quite catch the final sentence of his intervention. If he mentioned lagoons, I did not realise it until now.

The application is for the intake and outlet pipes only. That is the Bill's whole purpose. As far as I am aware, no one involved with the Bill dreamed that there would be objections to it, because it is designed purely to allow pipes to and from the power stations. However, private Bills sometimes have an unpredictable course, and there are a number of other options, but the one proposed in the Bill is by far the best environmentally, commercially and in every other way. The Bill does not refer to a lagoon as such.

Mr. Redmond : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening me, but I am sorry--once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the companies will not need to come back with another private Bill if they want to construct lagoons. They can simply go to the Secretary of State. If that is not the case, the hon. Gentleman can correct me, but I believe that the Bill authorises the Secretary of State to accept a further application from the companies without them having to resort to section 36 of the Electricity Act.

Mr. Knapman : The Bill is needed only because of the provisions of the Humber Conservancy Act 1905. If someone wanted to construct a 50-storey engineering block or a lagoon, he would have to go through the planning procedures in the normal way.

Mr. Redmond : I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but if the Bill were to mention extraction from the Humber into lagoons or standby lagoons, that would be all right. However, the Bill is a cheat and is not truthful ; hence my question to the Minister. I was not satisfied,

Column 1048

because I knew that discussions had taken place between the Minister and National Power, and it seemed appropriate to try to get the position clarified.

I wrote to National Power and received a letter dated 12 February 1991, which stated :

"I refer to your letter to John Baker on the lagoon option at Killingholme Power Station. As he and a number of other Executive Directors are out of town at the moment, in connection with the flotation of National Power, he is unable to reply personally. Ever since the inception of our Killingholme project we have considered various ways of securing the necessary cooling water in the light of the 1905 Humber Conservancy Act. Naturally, we have discussed our ideas with a number of interested parties, including officials of the Department of Energy. We have concluded that the proposals put forward in the Killingholme Bill represent our preferred solution and we remain fully committed to this." The hon. Member for Stroud says that the issue of lagoons never entered the argument. The Bill clears many of the obstacles and gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to grant all sorts of planning permission. There is no point in anyone trying to kid me. There is connivance between the two power companies and the Department of Energy. If everything is straight and above board, why can they not come forward and state their precise intentions?

It is right for the Opposition to look in great detail at proposed legislation and to lift stones, because we may find something nasty underneath. We have a right to examine the Bill in depth if we feel that that is necessary. The sponsor is being less than honest in not presenting all the facts about short and long-term plans. Because people are economical with the truth, we shall have to wait a long time for evidence to emerge. Of course, by then it will be too late ; when the Bill becomes an Act, we will not be able to touch it, as it has received all sorts of approval. This is the only opportunity that we have to look in depth at the Bill.

Is there a plan to build lagoons? If so, why has that not been mentioned? I am sure that the hon. Member for Stroud will apologise for misleading the House when such lagoons are eventually built. The hon. Gentleman lectured us about pipes and pollution. It was far too much for me to take in, and I should be grateful for a repeat of his speech.

Mr. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire, North-East) : The hon. Gentleman advances an interesting argument about lagoons. Where in the Bill is there mention of a lagoon? I have looked, and I cannot find one. He says that, although a lagoon is not mentioned in the Bill, one will be built, because the Bill gives permission for something.

Mr. Redmond : I said at the start of my speech that lagoons were not mentioned in the Bill. However, I know that they were discussed and will continue to be discussed for some time. Are the companies being deliberately misleading or deceitful about that matter, which obviously has implications for the environment and for the Humber Conservancy Act 1905? Perhaps, if lagoons had been mentioned in the Bill, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other conservation bodies would have taken a greater interest, made objections and organised petitions. Lagoons have been mentioned in private. Any hon. Member seeking confirmation of that should ask the hon. Member for Stroud whether lagoons were discussed.

The letter that I read to the House shows that pipes are the preferred option, but it does not state categorically that there will be no lagoons. I am sorry to labour the point.

Column 1049

The Bill permits the abstraction of water from the Humber, and it will allow the Secretary of State to take decisions without having to come to the House. I am willing to allow the hon. Member for Stroud to give a categorical assurance that no lagoons will ever be constructed on that site. Obviously the hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance. I shall move on.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : That is a good idea.

Mr. Redmond : I did not intend to be at cross purposes with such a charming lady, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are extremely tolerant and understanding. However, because of the leeway extended to Conservative Members, I sought to develop the point and seek clarification. It is clear that I am right and that the Bill's promoter is wrong.

Pipes will take water from the Humber and that water will circulate in the system and then be pumped out. We are told by the experts on pipes, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, that that will cause very little pollution in the Humber. I do not know what pollutants the water will pick up on its travels round the cooling system. Will there be some mechanism to extract pollutants before the water is returned to the Humber?

Mr. Dickens : I am certainly not an expert on pipes. I asked for some briefing material before I came to the Chamber. From the briefing material that I have read and my study of the subject, I know that the issue of lagoons does not arise. Containers or catchment areas are not needed. In my speech, which the hon. Gentleman will be able to read and study tomorrow at length, I dealt with the imperfections and materials in the water. They are taken care of because there must be a clean system.

Mr. Redmond : The hon. Gentleman is too modest. His speech showed that he was articulate and had a good knowledge of the subject. What he said about pollution raised the question whether filters would remove pollutants before the water was discharged. It was said that there would be some pollution, but that, because of the controlled way in which the water was released, pollutants would be slowly dispersed in the Humber, and tidal waters would carry them far away. There is bound to be pollution. A power station somewhere in the north causes pollution about which the Irish complain.

Mr. Dickens : Perhaps I can clarify this point. The water released into the Humber would be no more polluted than the bath water in which we immerse ourselves--warm, chlorinated water. Indeed, bath water is soapy, and that is dangerous.

Mr. Redmond : There would be pollution, and the effect would be long -term. Only after many years have we begun to understand the effects of pollution on the ecosystem. I assume that the water being discharged would be warm. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will comment on the effects on mussels and other wildlife. It is necessary that the extent of the pollution be understood, but no one has asked any questions about its nature. Obviously it is necessary to be wary. If the Bill goes to Committee, the Committee members will want to examine this matter very closely.

Column 1050

Then there is the question of sludge. It is necessary that water discharged into the Humber be free of silt.

Mr. Jack Thompson : I have not heard any answers to the questions that my hon. Friend is asking. We have not heard whether the water would be discharged by gravity or by means of a pumping system. The discharge of water under pressure has significant safety implications. Eddies are created, and the estuary bed is disturbed.

Mr. Redmond : My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The promoters of the Bill have made no reference to this matter. I assume that water would be discharged under pressure. Of course, I cannot be sure about that. [Interruption.] Apparently it would be. Mr. Michael Brown rose --

Mr. Redmond : The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wishes to intervene. On a number of occasions when I sought to intervene, he refused to give way. However, as I am a gentleman, I shall give way.

Mr. Michael Brown : Of course, I am only a secondary modern schoolboy and probably did not have as good an education as the hon. Gentleman. I shall have to be trained in these matters.

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about pollution, let me tell him that this power station would emit virtually no sulphur dioxide and about half the carbon dioxide and one quarter of the nitrogen oxide emitted by the power stations that I drive past when I am going round the Ferrybridge area.

Mr. Redmond : Pollutants of that sort will be produced from South African coal. But I shall not be diverted by the hon. Gentleman. We could argue about whether there are solutions. The Government ought to put their hands in their pocket and provide the necessary cash to help eliminate the problems. The technology needed for their elimination is there ; what is needed is the cash. We can find billions of pounds to wage war overseas, but the war against pollution has to take a back seat. It is right that we should be concerned about pollution.

Clause 13(2)(a) says :

"the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the appropriate company".

It should be noted that the word is "may" ; it ought to be "will". Because of such wording, one has grave reservations about whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading. I hope that, in spite of the three-line Whip, Conservative Members will see the need to reject it.

Clause 12(4) refers to "21 days' notice in writing". Throughout the Bill there are variations--seven days, 21 days, 28 days. There really ought to be some consistency. Perhaps the period provided throughout the Bill should be 28 days. I hope that the promoters will take note of that point.

I am also unhappy about clause 14, which is entitled "Provisions against danger to navigation". There have been difficulties, but I think that the situation is picking up, and I hope that it will go from strength to strength. The more ships that use the Humber, the greater will be the danger to navigation. One must take into consideration any additional obstacles created by this Bill. We know only too well how serious can be the pollution caused by damage to a ship.

Clause 16 says :

Column 1051

"The Secretary of State may at any time,"--

again "may", where the word should be "will"--

"if he deems it expedient, order a survey and any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in any such survey or examination shall be recoverable from the appropriate company."

My understanding is that the Secretary of State would be able to say to a company, "The survey cost £5,000. I now require that amount from you." That is as it should be. It will enable the Secretary of State to monitor activities, and also to ensure that the companies are sticking to the terms of the Bill.

Clause 16(2) states :

"The rivers authority may at their own expense at any time carry out a survey".

I should have thought that, if the companies were genuinely concerned about pollution, they would be only too pleased to pay the rivers authority any necessary costs to ensure that everything is above board and complies with pollution laws.

I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I felt that it was important to express my anxiety about the omissions from the Bill. I am also concerned about private Bills that give carte blanche authority to private companies compulsorily to purchase land. I do not believe that any private company should have that right, or the right to extinguish rights of way. People have enjoyed rights of way for many years, yet companies, in their pursuit of profit, want to take them away.

The Bill will go to Committee, where we hope that it will be considered in even greater depth, line by line. I hope that the Committee will check and double-check. Our experience of private Bills is that there is some kidology, some gerrymandering and some deliberate misleading of the House through the omission of the true intentions behind a Bill.

Mr. Hood : My hon. Friend's speech is informative. As he has reached only clause 16, I plead with him not to sit down and miss out the remaining 21 clauses. I would much appreciate it if he would continue with his speech and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

Mr. Redmond : I would do so, but I am gasping for a pint. I also have a dry throat.

Mr. Illsley : Perhaps I could give my hon. Friend the opportunity to catch his breath. Before he ends his excellent speech, will he elaborate on his point about the Bill being misleading? We owe a debt to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) because he pointed out the companies' intentions about biocides, the injection of chlorine and so on. My efforts with the "Oxford English Dictionary" failed to reveal any such word as "biocide". Although we obviously understand the meaning behind the hon. Gentleman's speech, we cannot find any definition of "biocide" or, indeed, any examples of "biocides" by their chemical names. Should not the promoters of the Bill come to the House with more detail of the chemicals that the companies intend to put through the pipes, the permission for which we are discussing tonight?

Mr. Redmond : I regret that I am not as conversant as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth with all the technical details, so I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's questions. Perhaps the proceedings should be stopped to enable the sponsors of the Bill to clarify those points. My hon. Friend desperately wants to know the

Column 1052

answers. If we can be given that information, it is possible that the Bill could then sweep through unopposed. I suspect that, because of the half-truths in the Bill, we will not know the whole truth for a number of years. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to stop the debate to allow clarification of those points, I should be only too happy to comply with your ruling.

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is an invitation that I must refuse to accept.

Mr. Redmond : I am sure that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) did not put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I could make many, many more points that would call into question the true intent of the Bill. The Committee must go through it line by line. It must cross-examine the companies' representatives who, I am sure, are listening to the debate. The Committee must ensure that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is presented to the House.

8.56 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory) : When this matter was last debated on 14 January, gave my view about the Bill, and nothing has happened since then to change it. However, for the sake of completeness, I shall summarise my position. In January and April last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his consent and investment approvals for two power stations of the combined cycle gas turbine design. Having given those consents, after due consideration, it would be perverse if my right hon. Friend or I did not support a Bill seeking to provide the necessary ancillary works, which in this case are the cooling water works in the River Humber.

The projects have been exhaustively considered by my right hon. Friend and also by the planning authority, as we have heard. The thinking behind the Bill had been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), and we have had a most accomplished technical exposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). In the light of all those considerations, I am happy to support the Bill in its present form. 8.57 pm

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : When we last debated the Bill, the Minister spoke from the Dispatch Box for only 10 minutes and failed to answer a number of questions that I and my hon. Friends asked. In view of his even briefer time at the Dispatch Box today, I invite him to intervene during my speech to answer my questions. The Bill seeks planning permission to complete a multi-million pound project, much of which has already been built. If I had been spending such large amounts of money, I would have done my homework beforehand to ensure that the money was being spent wisely. When the Bill was debated on Monday 14 January, I said that the Opposition were reluctant to give their approval to the Bill without the House having given due consideration to the implications of increasing the gas generation of electricity.

Contrary to the way in which some Tory Members misrepresented Opposition policy that night, our reluctance is based on Britain's need for a strategy for

Column 1053

electricity generation rather than a hotch- potch of new power stations built to suit private generators or the two generating companies that we are told are now in fierce competition with each other.

Once again tonight, the private Bill procedure is being used to make major strategic energy decisions which should properly be made by Ministers of the Department of Energy--a criticism which the Government have again declined to answer tonight.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was the sponsor of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. We have never been told why he is not sponsoring this Bill. The Committee which considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill expressed its concern about being asked to make what were intrinsically policy decisions which should have been made by the Government. Its comments in its special report could equally be applied to this Bill. The Committee said that it was unanimous that the arguments raised complex matters of energy and trade policy for which the Government must take ultimate responsibility. The Government have still to explain their policy on electricity generation.

However, we have heard about some of the casualties. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) spoke briefly but forcefully about the likely casualties of the change in electricity generation that has taken place during the past two years under the Government. The Bill may not be directly related to that issue, but no one who is listening to the debate or who reads it subsequently should be surprised at the attitudes of my hon. Friends to private Bills promoted by these two companies.

Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the Committee which considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill--and the House when the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House--were deceived. This Bill may not be directly related to the earlier one, but no one should be surprised at people's attitudes in relation to this Bill.

Mr. Michael Brown : Do the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) represent the views of the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who are directly affected by the Bill? It is interesting that they are not here.

Mr. Barron : Hon. Members can take part in debates in the House if they so wish. My hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have not contacted me on the issues involved in the Bill but, like most hon. Members, they are against deception, and that is what I believe took place in the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.

I accept that there is a case to be made for burning gas in certain circumstances, based on efficiency and cleanliness. The environment is important and it should not be ignored. Contrary to what some Tory Members suggest during debates on the coal industry, for example, the Opposition are concerned about the environment, but cleanliness and efficiency are not the only criteria, nor do they override other considerations that we as legislators should take into account.

Column 1054

Applications for the construction of gas generating stations should be based on a range of criteria, such as the efficiency of energy conservation, the use of power generated and the source of the gas. There can be no question but that we would support the use of gas if it was for combined heat and power development, which would achieve the highest practical efficiency. The short-term advantages of using gas purely for electricity generation are outweighed by the long-term considerations.

Mr. Hood : Some take the view that gas provides a cheap form of electricity generation, and that if we go for gas turbines, everything will be hunky-dory. I remind my hon. Friend of the current situation in rural communities, which rely greatly on bottled gas--the price of which has increased by more than 35 per cent. since the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August. Suppliers of bottled gas have been able to rip off rural communities because of their market monopoly. What guarantee is there that gas turbine generators will not do the same?

Mr. Barron : The worldwide tie-in of gas prices to oil prices ought to bother all right hon. and hon. Members, and the consequences of events in the middle east should concern everyone in the country. The Secretary of State seems to hand out permission for new gas power stations without giving any thought to their location. If they must be built, it would make more sense for them to be built in parts of the country where there is little or no power generation, rather than in areas that have a large share of power stations--some of which could be displaced.

Over the years, we have frequently argued about the building of power stations in south-east England, which has a major need for electricity. The Government have an involvement because of the need to extend planning permission through the private Bill procedure. Other areas are denied such permission, to right the imbalance in electricity generating capacity.

Mr. Knapman : Has the hon. Gentleman contacted the

Labour-controlled Humberside county council to discover why it is in favour of the Bill?

Mr. Barron : I have not, nor has the council contacted me about my Second Reading speech or my actions in that connection. I should be more than happy, however, to receive representatives of that authority--as I did in respect of the legislation involving a new coal terminal that involved the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Gas is a premium fuel, and to burn it to produce electricity is wasteful. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association's evidence to the Cullen inquiry estimated in mid- 1988 that there were 25 gasfields in production or under development and that another 35 had been discovered but were not yet developed. The report stated : "gas production which was currently about 4,500 million cubic feet per day, was projected to halve by the end of this century." A recent report from the stockbrokers Kleinwort Benson entitled "Natural Gas to set Europe alight" reported :

"substantial new gas will need to be contracted by British Gas from 1995 onwards--but even if gas from new fields in the North Sea is contracted by 1998-2000, there will still be a deficiency between supply and demand."

Column 1055

That has major implications for electricity generation and for all the consumers who are supplied from British Gas mains. The unchecked development of gas generating stations will increase our dependence on imported fuel. Last year, we imported gas to the value of more than 40 million tonnes of coal equivalent. That is a massive fuel trade deficit for a country that is so energy-rich.

The Kleinwort Benson report predicted that increases in European demand will be met in the first instance by the European group of 10, which it describes as a secretive and anonymous group of gas producers who are

"top class, admittedly monopolistic bodies who efficiently control production, transmission, and distribution of natural gas." That is an obvious extension of the free market that the Conservatives have been forcing down our throats for the past 11 years. According to the report, after 1997, the percentage of imported gas from non-European countries will increase markedly. Surely it is the height of irresponsibility to encourage the dash for gas for electricity generation that we have seen in the past two years.

During our previous debate on the Bill, I mentioned press reports that the two new generating companies had gas contracts with the Caister field, which is scheduled to last for only another seven or eight years. I asked where the gas would come from to supply the turbines after that, but I received no answer--as we have received no answer from the Minister tonight. I ask the question again : will the gas come from the Gulf or the Soviet Union? They are hardly stable, secure sources of supply in current circumstances or, perhaps, for a long time to come.

Mr. Dickens : Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee on Energy conducted an extensive, in-depth study of gas depletion. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is doing himself justice by arguing that gas supplies will not be sufficient. Let me set his mind at rest. If he gets a copy of our report from the Library, he will find that his argument is bogus.

Mr. Barron : I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman himself gets a copy of the report from the Library, he will seee that my name is attached to the gas depletion policy contained in it, because I was a member of the Select Committee that drew it up. If he was present and listening to what was said then, he could be in no doubt that, by the turn of the century, Britain, and western Europe as we now know it, will be dependent on gas from eastern Europe as we now know it. That was one of our more simple findings. I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman. He had better have another look at exactly what the report says.

Our competitors must think that the Government are crazy to squander our resources in this fashion. If honesty ever overcomes the Department of Energy and its Minister, I believe that they will accept that. Britain should not depend on imported fuel--it should not depend on the undependable. The proper use of our own resources would prevent that.

I want to say something to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), not about his lengthy discourse about the finer aspects of planning applications, but about his comments on security of supply. I agree with him. I think that security of supply is vital. Every electricity user will have put it at the top of his list. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a country that is experiencing an energy crisis. The electricity went off every four hours. The crisis has devastated the country's

Column 1056

economy. It imports fuel, and until it can again establish its own source of supply, its economy will go from bad to worse.

Security of supply, however, does not necessarily mean diversity of supply. No-one has ever asked me whether the light bulb at home is lit by nuclear fuel, oil, coal or gas--perhaps methane from a land waste disposal site. People are much more concerned about security than about diversity, as they have every right to be. We, as legislators, should ensure that times of change do not interfere with our ability to keep the electricity burning.

I warn the House that, before we merrily give permission for new generating stations, we must have the opportunity to debate the Government's strategy for--or should I say their lack of interest in?--the careful management of the country's resources. We will not have to face the difficulties--nor will the Tories, because there will not be a Conservative Government in two years' time--but generations to come may have to pay for the decision to import energy. 9.14 pm

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : This debate is very simple, and the issue is straightforward for my constituency. There is no reason why the House should not give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

The power stations are being constructed not as a result of powers required from the House, but as a result of powers that were granted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said, some time ago by the Labour-controlled Humberside county council and Glanford borough council.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, it is significant that the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who are assiduous in representing constituency interests, are absent from the debate. If they were concerned about the Bill, they would have been present today. Their absence shows clearly that they will be hoping and praying for the Bill to make progress. They will be aware that the construction companies will create much employment in the area and many members of the work force will come from Grimsby, Scunthorpe and from my constituency. The fact that those two hon. Members are not present today shows that they do not share the view of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) or his hon. Friends. They will be concerned to learn that there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Rother Valley and the Labour-controlled county council which they loyally support.

Mr. Hood : Why did the sponsors not have a local Member of Parliament to promote the Bill? Why did they go all the way to Gloucestershire?

Mr. Brown : The Bill's sponsors, National Power and PowerGen, are national companies. They may have decided that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is an excellent advocate--something that he has shown today. I cannot compete with him when it comes to advocacy and persuasion in this House. The sponsors choose wisely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be the toast of the people of south Humberside for what he has done for my constituency today. I give him full marks for the superb way in which he introduced the Bill. He will be championed by my constituents as well as by the

Column 1057

constituents of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I confidently predict that my hon. Friend will receive hundreds of letters from grateful constituents. On behalf of my constituents, I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for the powerful case that he made today in favour of the Bill.

As I have said before, the Labour party has something against the people of Brigg and Cleethorpes. I do not know why that should be. The Labour party consistently opposes any form of industrial expansion, whether it be docks one year, power stations the next, or construction of pipes the following year. There is something about south Humberside that the Labour party does not like. The Labour party does not want the people of south Humberside to enjoy the benefits of industrial expansion.

Just before the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill reached the statute book, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) warned me in the House-- this is in the official record--that if a Labour Government are re-elected- -

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : When.

Mr. Brown : All right--when a Labour Government are re-elected, said the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, if there is any construction with regard to the Associated British Ports development, the Labour Government will scrap it. Are the Opposition of that view? I want to know whether the Labour candidate who is to stand in my constituency in the next general election-- councillor Ian Cawsey, a delightful young man--will have to say that a vote for the Labour party to sit on the Government side of the House will mean a Government who will knock down, destroy and vandalise the power stations in Luddite way, just as they are committed to knock down the dock development. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw did the Labour party no service. The poor chap who is the Labour candidate, Councillor Ian Cawsey, has a millstone around his neck because the Labour party are saying that, if it is ever in government, it will knock down the dock development which it opposed when in opposition. If the Bill is passed into law before the next general election, will the hon. Member for Rother Valley as Energy Minister introduce legislation to knock down gas-fired power stations?

Mr. Barron : The hon. Gentleman mentioned Councillor Ian Cawsey when we debated the matter on 14 January. He says that Councillor Cawsey will have another millstone around his neck. He went on to say that the Labour party wants to kill jobs at Killingholme after the power stations are built. I invite him to withdraw that, because I did not say it then and I have not said it today--and nor have any of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Brown : Before I withdraw anything that I have said, perhaps we can get the matter straight. I will withdraw what I said if the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he is saying that, in the event of the Bill passing into law and the power stations coming on stream, a Labour Government would not knock down the power stations and abandon the principles in the Bill. If that is what he is saying and I have misinterpreted him, of course I will gladly withdraw.

But if the hon. Gentleman did not say that, why are we wasting our time today? The hon. Gentleman is implying

Column 1058

that, if the Labour party was in power, it will accept the legislation that we have passed, acknowledge that the power stations were a reality, that the gas would be taken out of the North sea and the water out of the River Humber ; but his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is recorded as saying in relation to the Associated British Ports Act 1990 that a Labour Government would stop construction and end the project.

Mr. Barron : When we debated the revival motion, and again today, I said that the Labour party was reluctant to approve the Bill without the House having considered the implications of increasing gas generation. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I do not know what he does understand. I invite him to withdraw. In the previous debate, he said that we were out to kill the project.

Mr. Brown : So there we have it--fair enough. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, if the Labour party wins the next general election, it will consider the legislation and all the arguments that we have deployed-- [Interruption.] He added the qualification about being satisfied. However, as I said, if that is the case, I shall gladly withdraw. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and his hon. Friends do not want any gas-fired power stations on South Humberside in any circumstances.

Next Section

Home Page