ON the first day that not a single member of the public turned up at the inquiry, a Southampton City Council spokesman chose to warn that the region's economy

could go into decline if the new port is not approved.

Although 250 chairs are set out at the hearing, the only people present yesterday were those employed by the inquiry itself or by interested organisations.

Civic chiefs support plans by Southampton Docks operator Associated British Ports for the container terminal between Marchwood and Hythe.

Economic strategy manager Trevor Knight reminded the public inquiry of the importance of building the economy and regenerating deprived areas.

In one survey, he said, five Southampton wards were in the ten per cent most deprived in the country and eight were in the ten per cent most deprived in the south-east.

Listed among the worst ten per cent in the country in terms of education skills and training were Redbridge, Woolston, Bitterne, Coxford and Millbrook. Joining them among the bottom 10 per cent in the south-east were Bargate, Sholing and Harefield.

The City Council, he said, was making determined efforts to bring improvements to the troubled areas.

"Southampton's needs have been recognised through its success in bidding for an delivering a wide range of government funded regeneration programmes likely to total at least £90m over the next ten years.

"These programmes are targeted to address social exclusion and urban deprivation within a number of disadvantaged communities in the city," he told the inquiry.

And in stressing the importance of a project such as Dibden Bay, which would create a wide range of new jobs, he said Southampton always had to be on its guard against the possibility of future losses of existing jobs.

"The future employment prospects of some of its (Southampton's) existing manufacturing base is uncertain.

"The recent announcement of Vosper Thornycroft's contract to contribute to the building of the new Type 45 destroyers is

welcome news for the south coast generally.

"But is does confirm the need for its ship-building activities to move from their Southampton location to Portsmouth.

"Prospects for another manufacturer in the city, BAT, are also uncertain in view of the European Union proposals on tobacco control, part of which seek to regulate manufacture of cigarettes outside the EU to EU levels of tar and labelling," Mr Knight

warned.

He stressed that it was important to ensure that the port activities continued to be successful.

"Rejection of Dibden Terminal would give a clear signal that Southampton is not going to be the port of the future in a market likely to double in size in the next ten years," he said.

Quoting a report prepared by consultants Maxwell Stamp for the city council, he said that if its expansion was capped, ships would begin to bypass Southampton.

They would divert to other ports, particularly elsewhere in Europe where large investments would have strengthened the city's competitors, he warned.

"Should the Dibden Terminal not go ahead, the competitiveness of the deep-sea container industry is such that trade is at risk in the existing port and the status of the city as a successful port would be threatened, damaging existing port employment, together with dependent employment and potential investment."

He said: "Research has indicated employment in a local 'ports cluster' of businesses amounting to a total of 6,400, with a further 4,900 in other marine activities giving a total of 11,300 in the total marine cluster as a whole," he said.

But he was challenged by barrister Richard Drabble, who is representing Hampshire County and New Forest District Councils.

Mr Drabble contended that if Dibden Bay was rejected, Southampton would still have a container port, would still have its cruise business, still have its car importing and exporting activities and still be a success.