Orders of the Day — Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 8:30 pm on 25 June 1990.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Kevin Barron Kevin Barron Shadow Spokesperson (Energy and Climate Change) 8:30, 25 June 1990

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.