INCORPORATION OF PROVISIONS OF ACTS OF 1956, 1963, 1968, 1979 AND 1981

§ Mr. Loyden

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 18, at end insert— '(cc) Section 21 of the Act of 1956 shall have effect as if, after the word "Minister", where it secondly occurs, there 345 were inserted the words "and subject to such conditions as he may require", and as if for the words "harbour to its former condition" there were substituted the word "navigation".'. The House should applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for bringing to it his great knowledge of ecology. His contribution has made many of us aware of the possible consequences of the Bill. I do not intend to follow him. I am sure that if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order.

I want to deal with the navigation of the river itself, a matter as important as the ecology. We have been dissatisfied with the lack of evidence so far produced by the promoters on the feasibility study, which is central to the Bill. Although, I recognise the importance of the clauses we have debated, one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the effect of changes in the harbour on the meandering of the river and, consequently, the dredging that may be necessary. We are not satisfied that there has been a serious feasibility study which would satisfy us that the intrusion of the development will not result in navigational difficulties.

§ Mr. McCartney

My hon. Friend has alluded to dredging. I should like to ask, in view of his experience in the industry, about the condition of the British dredging fleet, which I understand has been almost decimated by the Government's policy. Does British industry have the ability to provide the services required to maintain ease of navigation in the channel?

§ Mr. Loyden

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The British dredging fleet, like the maritime fleet, is so depleted that Britain is almost wholly dependent on European, rather than United Kingdom, dredging fleets. We must take that into account in considering the Bill's implications.

I have had some experience of the industry, having worked for 28 years on the River Mersey. I have been connected with a hydrographical surveying section. When a minor development was taking place in the Mersey, four years of research were required by the local department of scientific and industrial research to carry out the surveys needed to decide the development's viability. Tidal and current observations and an examination of the salination level and of suspended solids and deposits were required. No scientist can predict what will happen when a development intrudes into a meandering river and alters it, thus causing siltation in other parts of the river. I have seen no evidence that such feasibility studies have taken place in this case. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) can convince me, although I doubt it.

§ Mr. Skinner

What happens if a person decided to start a feasibility study not because he was motivated by making money — unlike this exercise — but because, in the interests of the environment, he did not want to spoil the coastline or cause an intrusion? How much money would be involved in such a study? How long would the study take? Would it use British tackle? Would a feasibility study delay the scheme that we are considering and, if so, to what extent? Would the matter have to be considered in another Parliament? It seems to be a fairly long job.

§ Mr. Loyden

It is. I gave an example of a minor intrusion into the River Mersey. The department of scientific and industrial research and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were involved in research. I was a part 346 of it for four years. It was a process of making tidal and current observations and watching where silt was deposited. No matter how well the development is carried out, there is no way of predicting the outcome of the intrusion into the river.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and emphasise the ecological arguments that my hon. Friend has put forward today. In that sense the adjacent port, as well as the immediate port, should be concerned about the consequences. A document in my possession states that the Harwich harbour authority, which lies across the river from Felixstowe, could be impeded and restricted by any development taking place at Felixstowe. Indeed, the Secretary of State would be responsible for invoking an order that would require Felixstowe to put the harbour back to its previous state. In other words, the dredging responsibility would be a matter for the Secretary of State. I have seen no evidence that that long-protracted, necessary work has been carried out in connection with the Bill.

§ Mr. Morley

When my hon. Friend refers to dredging, can he confirm that there are three types of dredgers in common use, the bucket dredger, the crane grab dredger and the suction dredger, whereby mud is sucked up from the bottom of the estuary? It is argued in the Bill that the company will be subject to noise limitations. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bucket dredger in particular makes one hell of a racket when it gets going, and that it is very hard to control the noise level of such a machine in the vicinity of residential areas?

§ Mr. Loyden

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. During my time at the dock board, one of the trade union officials who lived some three miles or more from the dock—he lived in a nice area, not a tatty area—complained that he was kept awake night after night by the workings of the engines of the bucket ladder dredgers. Bucket ladder dredgers are probably not part of the scene today, and the service is carried out by trailer suction dredging.

We must also take account of the cost of dredging. The ports of this country are affected by the fact that the whole cost of conservancy rests with the port itself, and in that respect our ports have to compete with European ports. A port with a dredging problem in addition to the normal port costs must impose on those sailing into the port the consequential cost of dredging.

§ Mr. Skinner

Suppose some hon. Members wanted to start a feasibility study dealing with dredging and we did not have much money or, not to put too fine a point on it, we did not want to spend money but we wanted a cheap job. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds had not been paid up fully by the police and they had only given him a six-month payment instead of a year's pay. What kind of dredging equipment would my hon. Friend suggest for a cheap job? Would he suggest the bucket job?

§ Mr. Loyden

Honestly, I think that my hon. Friend may have made a frivolous point. Certainly my hon. Friend's point gives me no opportunity to respond in the way that I would have wanted.

§ Mr. Clay

Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Loyden

I want to finish this point first.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very serious. The most costly form of 347 dredging is obviously bucket ladder dredging. I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is amused. There are probably machines down mines that I do not understand and he can probably tell me all about them. Bucket ladder dredging is the most costly and ineffective way of dredging. Usually it is used only around dock entrances and not in rivers. Trailer suction dredging involves moving a machine like a Hoover— using simple terms — over the bed. The machine sucks in the aggregates in suspension and lays out a river bed that can give access to navigational vessels and so forth.

§ Mr. Skinner

So that would be the dearest?

§ Mr. Loyden

That would be the most expensive, yes.

Such a study would take quite a long time. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who has worked as a river pilot on the Mersey, could tell the House that no pilot can take a ship down the river unless he knows about hydrographical surveying, where the banks are, and so forth. His information is dependent on two factors: surveying and dredging. There is no evidence that a serious, in-depth feasibility study has taken place so that dredging will not be a problem.

§ Mr. John Garrett

I do not think that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber earlier when we were discussing the ecological and wildlife effects of the development. Some of us referred to noise, and the disturbance that would be caused to nesting birds by construction and the subsequent operations. That consideration is of enormous importance in relation to over-wintering and nesting birds.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although the suction dredger to which he refers will not make the endless cranking sound of the bucket dredger which disturbed his friend some three miles from the Mersey, the awful sucking noise would almost certainly upset a wide variety of the bird life that we hope will stay in the area?

§ Mr. Loyden

Obviously, there is a correlation between the ecological argument and the question of navigation. The only bird that we have in Liverpool is the Liver bird, and I do not think that that will be affected. It has not moved for the last hundred-odd years, and there is little chance that it will hibernate or fly off somewhere. However, at Helbre island, in the mouth of the Mersey, there is an international conservation area. The birds there have been affected, even by the traditional way in which the dock company and the ecologists have tried to arrange for them not to be disturbed. The House is, I believe, concerned about preserving the ecology of an area, but I am trying to concentrate on what may, in a sense, be a more practical problem.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. He is a man with considerable experience of that part of the Mersey, where the mud flats are and wildlife abounds. I believe that the changing state of the mud flats is caused partly by the river system and partly by dredging. Once there is a stable bird population, it is not as large as it would be if the river were allowed to develop at its own pace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not discussing Merseyside or Liverpool harbours; we are discussing Felixstowe.

§ Mr. Loyden

I appreciate the point that you raise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But, in a Bill of this kind, it is necessary to draw on experiences of other ports to concentrate the mind of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and enable hon. Members to foresee the possibilities — indeed, the probabilities.

I do not know how many people know the Mersey. I am merely giving an analogy. People in the area will be very concerned, and will wish to draw on experiences of the Mersey. I do not know how familiar you are with the Mersey, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that some hon. Members will know that, at one time, there were three holiday resorts on the Mersey. New Brighton was one of them. When I was a child my mother took me to New Brighton, where I played on the beach. In the 1930s the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board decided to construct a revetment down the main channel of the river. If the natural meandering of a river is altered, nobody can foresee what will happen.

It took more than 20 years to build that revetment—a wall on the bed of the river—and it destroyed the beach at New Brighton. It also destroyed the fishing and every other amenity in the area. It is now derelict and unattractive. The working class people of Liverpool no longer go over to New Brighton by ferry to enjoy themselves. The environment and navigation are closely linked.

I spent 38 years on the River Mersey, and I know what happens when there is an intrusion into the meandering of a river. The development of another dock meant that eventually both the eastern channel and the Garston channel were closed.

Harwich and the other ports on the east coast will be affected by a similar development. No account has been taken of the feasibility study or of the consequences of that development. The board does not know whether the development will affect navigation. It will lead to additional cost, because it will be necessary to introduce dredging. The tides in East Anglia may make it necessary to dredge. The cost of trying to remedy silting will be enormous.

§ Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend says that amenities of New Brighton and other resorts have been destroyed and that there could be similar blight along the east coast. [Interruption.] The nature and character of that area could be changed by these proposals.

§ Mr. John Garrett

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am unable to hear what is being said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because of the continual gossiping and walking about of Conservative Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Background noise does not help. Too many sedentary conversations are being conducted on both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Frank Cook

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not so much the murmuring as the snoring that is making it difficult to hear.

§ Mr. Skinner

Because he worked as a dredger on Merseyside, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows what could happen at Felixstowe, Ipswich and elsewhere on the east coast. The natural environment could be altered because P and O wants to make a few bob.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Gentleman is going on at excessive length. I hope that he will bring his remarks to a close.

§ Mr. Skinner

I am drawing an analogy—it could be a parallel — that the Mersey experience could be transposed on to the east coast, with all the consequential development, the blight——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have just had to endure the longest intervention that I have heard in 23 years in the House.

§ Mr. Loyden

I was about to ask my hon. Friend to give way. I have tried to explain to the House—at the time I am speaking of there were 42 dredging components in the river — that a model was erected at Wallingford that simulated the tides and activities of the river. That model was observed for 18 months by scientists and people involved in hydrographical surveying. However, by the end of that 18 months they could draw no conclusions, in spite of the fact that they had a model that simulated the tides and winds.

§ Mr. Clay

will my hon. Friend move to the question of who will pick up the tab if things go seriously wrong? I am sure that he has persuaded all of us that they might. In my constituency the port of Sunderland is having continually to dredge the entrance to the River Wear because if it did not do so we would not only be finished as a port but as a shipbuilding town. In effect, the local authority is financing a port authority to dredge the river. Thus the ratepayer is subsidising British Shipbuilders. We do not object to that, because we need those jobs on the river and British Shipbuilders is a publicly owned company. If events at Felixstowe led to difficulties at Harwich what come-back would the Harwich harbour company have to ensure that it did not have to pick up the tab for the irresponsibility of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company?

§ Mr. Loyden

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I have already touched on that point. The Minister would require the Felixstowe authority to do the dredging.

§ Mr. Clay

Would he?

§ Mr. Loyden

Whether he would or not is a hypothetical question. He has the power to impose on Felixstowe the burden of dredging.

§ Mr. Skinner

By bucket?

§ Mr. Loyden

No, bucket dredgers are no longer used.

As to the model, will the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds tell the House whether a model has been made of the Felixstowe harbour development and whether the scientific observations of it have been analysed and what conclusions have been reached?

§ Mr. Ron Davies

My hon. Friend will recall the conversation that I had in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) who is now leaving the Chamber. He denied all responsibility for the Bill. He said that it was not his Bill, that he was not in charge of it, and that it was "Gummer's Bill". Will my hon. Friend reconsider his view? Is there any profit to be gained from addressing his question to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds?

§ Mr. Loyden

That is an interesting and important point. I am sure that, when he returns to the House, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will take it on board.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend accept that, to a certain extent, his experience on Merseyside is limited? On Merseyside, the docks and harbour authority was responsible for both sides of the river. Therefore, it made decisions about the welfare of the whole of the river. Unfortunately, the Felixstowe dock and harbour authority is on one side of the estuary and the Harwich port authority is on the other side. The House has just passed a Bill to give powers to the Harwich side to extend its docks.

Who is responsible if things go wrong and. for example, mud flats develop in the wrong places? Also, the port of Ipswich needs a free channel. We have the problem of three dock authorities. There is the difficulty of predicting which new works may or may not be necessary — [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Loyden

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. A solo authority on Merseyside—the harbour company, as it now is—is responsible for both sides of the river. I dread to think what would be the situation if there were two authorities. In such circumstances, the authority on the other side of the river would be concerned at any Merseyside dock and harbour authority development and what effect it might have on the other side of the river with regard to dock access. At the end of the day, it is nonsense to argue about the development of the port if the river is not navigable.

§ Mr. Skinner

Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Loyden

I shall finish my point and then I shall give way.

In a buoyed channel, which is the way in which ships are guided into a port, the port authority must assure vessels as to the depths in the various channels. In that sense, it requires one or two things. The whole matter is based upon a datum, which is a benchmark from which tidal movements are measured. I do not say for one moment that those who promote the Bill have not considered the draft of vessels that would be able to navigate the river in the likely event that a problem occurs, necessitating dredging of the river——

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spy strangers.

§ Mr. Harris (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise another point of order in a Division, but I am afraid that there is a repetition of previous trouble and there is obviously mischief in the Aye Lobby. Hon. Members are delaying; my suspicion is that a plot is afoot. Certain Opposition Members are anxious to wipe out the Opposition business later today, particularly Scottish questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It might be wise to avoid the extravagant language until I have found out the reason for the delay in the Lobby. Will the Serjeant at Arms please inquire into the reason for delay?

§ Mr. Frank Cook

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Every hon. Member is well aware that in each Division Lobby there a certain small house that may need to be used as a matter of emergency. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has been caught short on occasions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me ask the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries. I think that it would be sensible to await the outcome of his inquiries.

§ Mr. Loyden

I will try to pick up the threads of the argument on navigational dredging. I am glad to see that the Minister for Public Transport is here.

§ Mr. Skinner

Two Ministers.

§ Mr. Loyden

The Minister is responsible, and the Secretary of State for Transport is also responsible, because if a problem of siltation arose out of this development, it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Minister to pick up the tab for navigational dredging, to restore the navigational path to its original state.

§ Mr. Clay

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his speech, but he has got something wrong. It is not the Secretary of State who will pick up the tab if there is siltation or any other problem. But the Secretary of State may require the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to pick up the tab. I hope that my hon. Friend will develop this line, because we must clarify the matter. There are no clear guidelines on the considerations which the Secretary of State must bring to bear on whether he will require—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are having great difficulty hearing my hon. Friend. Will you ask Conservative Members to be a bit quieter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I said earlier that sedentary discussions on both sides of the House make it difficult for hon. Members including the Chair, to hear the debate. I hope that we can have a little more order.

§ Mr. Clay

My hon. Friend should explain what he believes will happen when the Secretary of State jumps the first hurdle of requiring the company to make amends for any disasters. What if the company no longer existed? The environmental disasters, including the changes in the meander of the river which he described, might last for many more years than the company. Some hon. Members may argue that if the Channel fixed link is built, many ports on the south and east coasts will be so adversely affected that they may cease to trade. In those circumstances, there would be no company which the Secretary of State could require to make amends. Who will pick up the tab then?

§ Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I apologise for partly misleading the House about the Minister's responsibilities, but in this case he would have to demand that the company restored the navigation channels to their previous state. My hon. Friend's question was rather wide of the amendment, but it is important to understand the effects of the Felixstowe development on 353 other United Kingdom ports. There is a serious imbalance in port distribution and capacity, which will give rise to serious consideration about what will happen if there is a fixed link. It could make those other ports redundant. If that happened, the ports would become fallow and would experience problems of siltation. The cost of solving the problems would be enormous, and, in all probability, the ports would be left to wither on the vine.

§ Mr. Skinner

Why does my hon. Friend follow the path that was laid down in this debate several hours ago? Some hon. Members have a fixation about the Common Market. Now they are talking about the fixed link. Why does not my hon. Friend accept what I said earlier? The fixed link is dead. The company has had to catch some Russian gold to get the money——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This does not have much to do with navigation at Felixstowe harbour.

§ Mr. Skinner

It has some connection——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand what I said, I will tell him. His remarks are irrelevant and he must resume his seat.

§ Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to that point, but he may have gone a little wide of the debate. I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes, which is now on record, and I am sure that the House will have to concern itself with that issue, if not now then in the future.

7.15 am

On the question of navigation, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will be able to convince the House at the end of the day, but I think it highly unlikely that he will be able to convince those of us with years of experience of the ports and of dealing with the whole question of the conservancy of ports on this issue, and the points we are making deserve consideration by the promoters of the Bill. After all, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has no desire to see other ports adversely affected because the promoters have not seen tit to conduct a detailed analysis of the issues involved and reach the right conclusions concerning navigation.

I challenge anyone to contradict me when I say that there is no way, from a civil engineering or hydrographical surveying point of view, to predict many of these issues with any degree of certainty. Allowing for a margin of error, we insist on evidence being produced by the Bill's promoters to show that proper tidal and current observations have been carried out, along with silt-tracing surveys.

Much can be done in modern terms. For instance, it is possible to charge silt with radioactive material and then trace the silt by geiger counters fitted to vessels, following it down to see where it has gone. There has been a great deal of technological development in these areas. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is aware of these facts. Has the authority taken the trouble to see that such examinations have taken place so it can give assurances, so far as they can be given, that the navigation in that river will remain, because that is an important factor in regard to this Bill?

§ Mr. Clay

My hon. Friend thinks that the time has come for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—or the real master of the Bill, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to 354 give some assurances. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also be expecting the Minister for Public Transport, who is in his place, to give some assurances? We have discussed the role that the Secretary of State for Transport may have to play in certain circumstances, but unfortunately throughout our discussion the Minister was busy talking to his hon. Friends. The time has come for Government spokesmen to clarify these issues.

§ Mr. Loyden

I am sure that, given the opportunity, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will do exactly that. I hope, too, that the Minister will give some assurances, as my hon. Friend suggests.

§ Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)

Is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) aware that it would be impossible for the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to give sensible assurances to the House in the light of what he has been saying? I have listened carefully to everything he has said for the last five minutes, and he has strung his sentences together in such a way that he has not made grammatical sense and it has been quite impossible to understand what he has been talking about.

§ Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few nights ago some tinpot Tories were talking about wanting Latin on the curriculum, and that was snobbishness in the extreme. Now we have this little whipper-snapper, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin)—just elected—attacking my hon. Friend, who spent years dredging with buckets and suction pumps and who is expected to know the English language inside out. I lay odds that my hon. Friend could match this Sloane ranger or whatever he is—a public school boy no doubt. I challenge the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) to make a speech comparable to that of my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Loyden

I am shocked by the intervention from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I did riot go to a public school, I left school at 14 and most of my learning occurred afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman cannot follow what has been said it is clear that he knows nothing about the Bill.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the Minister are fully aware of what has taken place and understand the facts — despite the constant interventions from the Labour Benches. In fact those interventions are not always of value to me and have caused some incontinuity in my speech. However, do riot blame me for that. My hon. Friends are constantly intervening and that has broken the continuity of my speech. One must appreciate that I am doing my best and I am certain that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and the Minister understand what is going on. They are knowledgeable people.

§ Mr. Frank Cook

I believe that my hon. Friend will be assured to realise that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who criticised his syntax, is a barrister. All students of the English language know that in the Oxford dictionary barrister is placed somewhere between bankruptcy and bastardy.

§ Mr. Loyden

I did not know the professional status of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, but I can never 355 understand barristers at any time. Lawyers speak a different language and it is not one that anyone generally understands.

§ Mr. Grocott

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who has had all the advantages of an expensive education and long training. I have been listening to my hon. Friend for a short time, but it is clear to me that he has tremendous expertise on this subject. However, it may help in the wider context to judge the merits of an expensive education that has been received——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the personal exchanges have gone far enough and we should get back to navigation.

§ Mr. Loyden

I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, South if he wishes to make a contribution. The House would be interested to listen to a barrister talk about navigation or anything to do with anything.

I am glad that the Minister is present. His interest in this matter is clearly established by the fact that he is here, at this hour, listening attentively. I hope that he will seek advice from the Secretary of State on the powers that the right hon. Gentleman will have in the event of a problem arising out the development of the Felixstowe dock, which in turn could create navigation problems. How would the Secretary of State empower the Felixstowe authority to put into the pre-conditions the navigational areas of river on which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company development will take place?

Labour Members are dissatisfied with the lack of evidence that the promoters of the Bill have put forward on all those things that I believe are necessary, based on my 28 years of experience working on the River Mersey, having spent nearly all my working life on the water—I do not drink it — and the consequences that I have mentioned. This is a serious matter, not waffle. What contingency plans do the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company or the Secretary of State have if those navigational problems occur?

§ Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend said that the company should have undertaken a feasibility study. It should be paid for not by the ratepayers, who are probably rate capped, but by the company. He also said that the feasibility study may detail the changes that may occur. However, he admitted that the study may not show what may occur. Does it make sense to spend money on a feasibility study if we cannot be sure that it will project what will occur? Should the local authorities incur expenditure without the company having a model first?

§ Mr. Loyden

The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company would be responsible for the cost. There is no way of determining the consequences of any intrusion into the river on siltation and the forming of banks. Labour Members are concerned whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can tell us the extent to which the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has experimented with simulated models or a feasibility study. I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the 356 Member for Bolsover that, at the end of the day, one has to consider that in any study there may be a margin of error that is acceptable.

The navigation of a river is a serious matter. If a river is not navigable, it dies. The draught of vessels is changing dramatically. Vessels now require a draught of 45 or 46 ft to berth in ports. Will the depth of the river be affected? I know that there are limits, but can the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company advise whether those depths will be affected?

Have the necessary steps been taken to ensure that the river remains navigable around Felixstowe and the adjacent ports? That serious question has not been answered. We have seen no evidence. The information should have been provided when the Bill was first promoted. It is a tragedy that at this late hour, long after the Bill came before Parliament, we should be discussing matters that could have been avoided if that information had been given to us earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth did the House much service by drawing our attention to these problems, and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has accepted some of my hon. Friend's arguments because of their strength. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will continue to show that sort of tolerance.

7.30 am

This is not a trivial matter; it is a serious one. It concerns the issue of whether the port and river will remain navigable, without being affected by the intrusion.

§ Mr. Skinner

The Bill started its parliamentary career in 1984. Is my hon. Friend saying that, in the intervening years, the company has had adequate and admirable chances to get the feasibility study under way?

Secondly, do we have any British dredgers, or will they have to be imported?

§ Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised that very point. The Minister will be aware of it because I raised it with him. Unfortunately my union did not lay on a champagne do for us tonight. It, of course, treats this matter seriously.

There has been a dramatic decline in the numbers of British-owned and manned dredgers. We now rely almost totally on European dredgers for these ports. The Minister must take that fact into account. In the long term, the Minister must realise that we need a dredging fleet. Twenty-four hours is a lifetime in politics. Anything could happen to take those vessels off to some other part of the world—some ply their trade in north Africa—and we could be left with no dredging fleet.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can give us assurances about the feasibility study and its effects. In that way we can ensure that the Bill will not entail navigational problems for Felixstowe and the environmental catchment area around it.

§ Mr. Frank Cook

Will my hon. Friend please be cautious? We have already received two undertakings from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on which he has reneged. I ask my hon. Friend not to invite the sort of undertaking that could not be substantiated later.

§ Mr. Loyden

I can understand the cynical view taken by my hon. Friend because of what has happened. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has taken seriously points 357 that we have made. We want to know from him whether certain things have been done. We should be satisfied if we had an undertaking that the consequences of the development have been taken fully into account.

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths

There are few hon. Members who have earned and deserve so much respect as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has been in the House for as long as I have and perhaps a little longer. In response to his speech I should like to tell him that when I first arrived here I was immediately put on a private Bill Committee, which went on for nine weeks, to consider the effects on the navigation of the Severn river of a large new steel quay that was to be built in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Sir P. Dean), now a Deputy Speaker. I learned a good deal from pilots, from masters, from hydrologists and from people like the hon. Gentleman who were expert in that subject.

Since then I have served for a time as a Transport Minister. During that period I was responsible for ports and harbours, and I had to learn—and enjoyed learning—much about the problems of navigation and dredging of the Humber and the Mersey. I might mention to the hon. Gentleman that I grew up on the banks of the Mersey. My parents had their honeymoon at Wallasey. I frequently crossed the river on the ferry to Birkenhead and to New Brighton before the tunnel was built. I share with the hon. Gentleman a great affection for that river.

No one takes more seriously the problems of navigation, of siltation and of dredging in the port of Felixstowe than the three surrounding port authorities. Harwich is very much involved, because the Harwich bar is at the opening of the river. Felixstowe is concerned because it provides for the large ships and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it has the deep water. Ipswich further up the river is concerned for its type of trade. The pilots in that river understand very well what the hon. Gentleman has been talking about, and so do I.

To answer his specific questions, there is a model which was produced some years ago; it has been updated. What it produced, among other things, was a strong recommendation that a bay on the northern side of the river ought to be filled in, because that would improve the navigation for all three ports. The Bill provides powers for that to be done so that the navigation can be improved. That is a product of the feasibility study or the model which was produced to examine that matter on behalf of all the ports. Of course, who is more concerned about the matter than those who are investing large sums of money and those who have to look after large ships and turn them round in the river? So what the hon. Gentleman has said is taken seriously.

§ Mr. Grocott

rose——

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths

No, I shall not give way. I am addressing myself to the hon. Member for Garston who made a serious speech and who is entitled to an answer.

Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am glad to tell him that the amendment which he has moved — I take it with the support of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) — is entirely acceptable to the dock company. If the House is willing, it will be inserted into the Bill.

§ Mr. Hardy

The House listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) 358 when he informed the House that the Bill's promoters are prepared to accept the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). I do not wish to carp, because the hon. Gentleman has heard me express gratitude in response to his earlier acceptances. Unfortunately, although I in no way blame the hon. Gentleman, the fact remains that other acceptances have not provided the necessary harvest—[Interruption.] Hon. Members can make their speeches after me, if they wish. I am addressing the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I am not criticising him. We accept his statement gracefully, but I hope that he accepts that he cannot speak, and has not spoken, for his right hon. and hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

So that the record is accurate, will my hon. Friend place on record the fact that, in each Division, Ministers have led Conservative Back-Benchers into the Division Lobby in opposition to amendments that had been accepted by the Bill's promoters?

§ Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is right to ensure that that fact is on the record. Some less experienced Conservative Members, especially the young barristers and chartered accountants, could be forgiven for going into a different Lobby from that occupied by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. More senior Conservative Members and Ministers of the Crown who have deliberately gone into another Division Lobby after the hon. Gentleman accepted amendments have acted reprehensibly — [Interruption.] Hon. Members can make as much row as they like. The fact remains that each time I have voted—one can speak only for oneself—in accordance with my voice, and I shall continue to do so.

I do not question the acceptance of the amendment, but I should like to make some points on behalf of the conservation interest. Over the past hour or two we have heard much less about the birds and the fauna than about dredging. It was right that the House should be informed of the hydrographical and dredging interests that are so relevant to the amendment. My concern relates to the amendment directly. I think that I put the position fairly if I say that, if the harbour silted up, there would be approval for dredging to take place to restore it to its former condition. If mudflats developed because of deposition and that area were not required for the purposes of navigation, there would be no point in carrying out a dredging exercise.

In view of the acceptance of the amendment by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, my speech will not be as long as it would have been. I intended relating this point to a species that has not been mentioned in the debate—the redshank. I am sure that hon. Members who have looked at Britain's flora and fauna will acknowledge that it is an attractive bird. It is one of the species that is declining in number and may well feed in or on the mudflats that are likely to appear. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds accepted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that we can never be certain, no matter what trials and tests are carried out.

§ Mr. Clay

Will my hon. Friend clarify whether he is talking about the redshank or the spotted redshank? I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's comments closely, and we shall need to know the answer if we are to follow the full power of his argument.

§ Mr. Hardy

It has been a relatively long night and I had promised some hon. Friends that, to be accurate about a particular species, I would use the Latin name. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had reservations about the use of Latin in this Chamber. The species to which I was referring is a species that is——

§ Mr. Skinner

Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hardy

I will give way in a moment.

The species to which I was referring is sometimes called the common redshank, but is actually the redshank tringa totanus. It is not absolutely in danger or really scarce, but numbers are declining quite perceptibly. That species is readily associated with this area of the east coast. If the appropriate vegetation grew on some appropriate mud flat and if the appropriate crustacea or invertebrates fed on those flats, and if those mud flats emerged as a result of tidal movements, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would agree that there would be no reason for those mud flats to be dredged or cleared, especially if they were not an impediment to navigation.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St.Edmunds will assure us that there will be no unnecessary dredging, not because some of us are repelled by the noise referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) earlier when he described the disgusting noise of the suction dredger, but because we do not believe that natural habitat should be removed unnecessarily.

Before we end the debate on amendment No. 42, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can obtain the relevant assurance from the sponsors and give the House satisfaction on that point. I am sure that there is general approval of my point. I hope that his assurance will be given in the full knowledge that a possible contribution to conservation can be obtained.

§ Mr. Skinner

I have been looking at these Latin names. Can my hon. Friend tell me what is the common name for tringula nebularia? That bird belongs to the shank family and that is my hon. Friend's first clue. When the dredging operations occur, and they may take place through bucket or suction pump operation, there will be much disturbance to nesting tringula nebularia. With all his knowledge about these birds, can my hon. Friend tell us which among the redshank and tringula nebularia will be affected most, either by bucket or suction pump operation, or by that other form of dredging referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) which I could not interpret? Will my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) shed some light on that?

§ Mr. Hardy

Tringula nebularia is the greenshank. I have no evidence that the greenshank is a frequent visitor to that area. There is no evidence in the information provided for me of the significance of the greenshank as a breeding species in the locality. However, the greenshank would be disturbed by the noise of this suction dredger, but even Conservative hon. Members who have been remarkably silent and probably have been sleeping during the night might be disturbed by the noise of that dredger. I assure my hon. Friend that the tringula nebularia is not particularly relevant to the amendment or to the site of scientific importance. However, the redshank is a significant local resident. It is migrant and also breeds in the area. Because of the possibility that additional habitat 360 and food supply can be found for the redshank and other significant, internationally and nationally important species in the area, I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will be able to amplify his assurance and that his right hon. and hon. Friends will join him in the Lobby on this amendment.

§ Mr. Grocott

In an effort to be fair to Conservative Members, and as my hon. Friend is an expert on this matter and can tell us about the effects on birds of changes in the estuary, will he concede that while dredging activity might threaten species in the area now, changes in the estuary might encourage birds which do not nest in the area at present to come into that area? I am trying to be fair to both sides of the House. The news would not necessarily always be bad for species. Changes in the estuary could help other species to come in.

§ Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is entitled to suggest that possibility. He has always been rather more optimistic than many other Opposition Members. I hope that his assessment materialises, but I do not share his view. I think that the possibility of harm is much greater than the possibility of good.

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths

I merely wish to ensure that the hon. Member for Wentworth and I, who are seeking to achieve the same result, understand each other. The hon. Gentleman said that we should see each other in the Lobby to carry the amendment, but there is no need for that. If his hon. Friends do not divide the House, the amendment that he and I want will be accepted.

§ Mr. Hardy

The hon. Gentleman's interpretation may be accurate; I would not dream of claiming omniscience. However, I think that, if he made some calculations, he would establish that the number of Conservative Members who have gone into the No Lobby greatly exceeds the number of Opposition Members who have gone into it with them.

§ Dr. Marek

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has said that he will vote against what he and his hon. Friends believe if Opposition Members divide the House. As far as I know, Opposition Members vote according to their beliefs. This is a free vote. I think it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that, if we do not divide, the amendment will be gained, but if we do, it will be lost. That is contorted logic, sadly typical of the Conservative party.

§ Mr. Hardy

This has been a very sad night. I am not critical of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, because his voice has matched his vote. When Conservative Members have had time to think — and. perhaps, a little sleep—they may regret having voted in a way that showed inconsistency. I accept that some of my hon. Friends have been through the No Lobby, but their number was greatly exceeded by the number of irresponsible Conservative Members in the same Lobby.

§ Mr. Skinner

I was one of the hon. Members in the opposite Lobby from my hon. Friend on the occassion when he believed that he was going to rescue those poor little birds. I did not join him for the very good reason that I could not put any trust in what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, and he could not guarantee that he would be able to deliver again.

Let us say—following the hon. Gentleman's logic—that he agrees with us on the amendment. Let us suppose 361 that no Opposition Members shout the appropriate words when the Question is put. As a result, we might be outflanked by some hon. Members not abiding by what the hon. Gentleman said. We would think that there was to be no Division. There would then be a Division, and we would have lost everything. We cannot put any trust in what the hon. Gentleman said, in view of experience.

§ Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to his interpretation. I merely say that I believe the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to have voted honourably and properly, and I deeply regret that so many of his hon. Friends have placed him in a position that may be seen as embarrassing.

I do not wish to continue much longer; I did not intend to make a long contribution. I wanted to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who has been waiting patiently for some time to speak in this debate, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).

§ Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)

Much has been said throughout the night about birds. However, many other species will he affected by the draconian measures that are contained in the Bill. Are my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) able to enlighten the House about the effect on fish of these operations?

§ Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, although a great deal has been said about birds, very little has been said about other aspects of the British flora and fauna. The international importance of this habitat for certain species of birds has led to its designation as a site of special scientific interest. We seek an assurance that there will be no destruction of a habitat if it does not impede navigation.

§ Mr. Frank Cook

If my hon. Friend should seek an accommodation with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), would it not be prudent to recall that when there were discrepancies in the Lobbies a few Conservative mavericks voted against the agreement? Apart from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, there was a well-orchestrated and well-disciplined effort by Conservative Members to vote down the agreement.

§ Mr. Hardy

My hon. Friend is entitled to reach that conclusion, though not because of malpractice by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover reminded us earlier that the Bill has been before the House for a very long time. In all the Divisions the old school tie has taken the place of the three-line Whip and it has proved to be just as influential as the harshest discipline that can be imposed by the Minister. Because hon. Members should have been able to exercise their judgment, Opposition Members were horrified to find that Conservative Members voted to a man in favour of the destruction of this site of special scientific interest. I hope that maturity, good sense and a wish to assist the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will apply to this amendment. That would alleviate slightly the inconsistency that, sadly, Conservative Members have demonstrated in the Division Lobbies.

§ Mr. David Mitchell

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has helped the House on more than one occasion with his detailed knowledge of navigation. On this occasion he has helped the House by dealing with 362 navigational safety and with the need for dredging. He expressed anxiety about the certitude of safe navigation in the Felixstowe area.

If carried, amendment No. 42 would empower the Secretary of State to request the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to remove any accumulation of silt resulting from new works that appear to him to impede free navigation in the Harwich harbour, or to cause this work to be carried out. That should reassure the hon. Member for Garston that his anxieties have been properly taken care of.

Restoration of navigation, as proposed in the amendment, seems to be a narrower objective than restoration of the harbour to its former condition. We are perfectly happy to accept amendment No. 42.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd

I have sat here for about 12 hours waiting to speak, but on every amendment procedural motions have been moved to destroy debate.

I should like to draw attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) who has tried to speak in every debate but has not been called. [Interruption.] Tory Members seem to be raising a hubbub; some of them have not been here all night. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) has been here for a considerable time, but even he did slip out on certain occasions. I do not think that he would be in a good position to instruct the House as to what happened in his absence.

We are grateful for the progress that has been made in these amendments. I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not in his extremely brief speech spell out the circumstances in which he would want to use these powers. The amendment gives the Minister additional powers. It would have been to the benefit of the House if he had spelt out the circumstances in which they would be used.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend