House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Feb 1990

Mr. Rooker : The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on me because I am intervening on my hon. Friend.

Ms. Short : I shall reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and then I shall be happy to allow the hon. Member for Yardley to make his point.

I am not an expert on motor racing. I am happy to say that I have not wasted many hours of my life attending races. I went once in my youth and thought how silly it was to stand by the side of the road and see some cars go by very fast and then wait for a few minutes to see it all happen again. It seems a silly activity to me. However, I am happy that people such as the hon. Member for Northfield should engage in such a silly activity. If it gives him pleasure good luck to him, provided he pays for it

Column 105

himself and does not require my constituents, who will have great difficulty in paying the poll tax, to pay for his hobbies and provided it does not disrupt people who do not want to be there. That is what is so unbearable about running the race around the houses of people who do not choose to be there. It is all right if the hon. Member for Northfields pays for his ticket and spends his Sunday afternoon following this rather silly hobby. That is fair enough, but it is not fair to impose it on my constituents.

I can claim some expertise. Last year when I was there there was a motor sport television team making some kind of programme about the race. A man interviewed me, but he did not know much about road racing, although the people who run such programmes generally do. He said that he thought it was extremely exciting because of the noise and because it was on ordinary streets. That was the good part. However, he said that the circuit was rotten because there was so few points from which one could see much of the race. He said, "There is no chance of it going much further. The excitement comes from having a race on ordinary streets and the noise and the smell." Apparently those are the things that turn on the aficionados, but he said that this was a rotten, useless circuit because it had so few vantage points. I cannot claim to make that point with authority but this expert who makes television programmes about such matters told me that.

Mr. Bevan : I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I am glad that she has reached a breach in the sentence. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned Monaco. That is an extraordinarily restricted circuit. It is much more restricted than Birmingham, the race is on much narrower streets and there is much less capability of erecting stands. So let us get it right : if permission were granted, the present circuit could well meet any requirements that might be imposed.

The hon. Lady is quite wrong in attributing to herself superiority of philosophical definition in suggesting that everybody who follows motor racing is childish. Millions of people in this country follow motor racing, and in the city of Birmingham there are many, many thousands who want to follow it. Indeed, they are in the majority. It is just as wrong for the hon. Lady to suggest otherwise as it was for the hon. Member for Perry Barr to suggest that there was a look of horror on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) when she listened to the financial horrors that he said were unfolding. My hon. Friend's expression was just as seraphic as it had been during "Songs of Praise" yesterday.

Ms. Short : The hon. Gentleman suggests that, somehow, I am insulting people who enjoy road racing. Actually, I am very pleased that people are different. People engage in all sorts of extraordinary hobbies. Not one of us engages in all of them, and some of us do not understand why the activities in which some people engage on a Sunday afternoon could possibly be enjoyable. But some people enjoy watching road racing. I think that it is extraordinary that people should want to spend their time doing that. I tried it once. I saw cars going by very fast, then it was very boring for a moment, and then the cars went by very fast again. To me, road racing is not interesting or enjoyable, but the hon. Member for Northfield can enjoy it if he wishes. Of course he can, but he should pay for it himself, and he should not disrupt people who do not want to have road racing in their area.

Column 106

Mr. Corbett : Is my hon. Friend saying that, even if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)--the amendment on the financial side--were acceptable, even if the money aspect were put right and were acceptable to the city council, she still would not want any form of racing, any day of the year, anywhere near her constituency?

Ms. Short : No. I have made it clear previously that I think that there is a majority for a two-day event. This is the problem. Some of my constituents are passionately hostile to the whole thing and wish that racing had never been held in Birmingham. Some people have always been opposed to it, whereas others, having experienced it, have become deeply opposed to it. A poll of local residents has shown that there is a majority in favour of a two-day event, but overwhelming opposition to a four-day event.

I am most anxious that this Bill should be defeated. I say to the hon. Member for Yardley that it is completely honourable to use the procedures of the House, including the possibility of having the Bill amended. If that causes the Bill to fall, I shall be overjoyed. That is my intention. It would be in the interests of the people of Birmingham, including my constituents. If it does fall, there will still be legal power for the running of a two-day race in Birmingham. In my opinion, there should be financial constraints in respect of the two-day race. That would be the best framework for road racing in Birmingham--if it is to be held there at all.

Mr. Harry Barnes : The thing that is particularly obnoxious about the suggestion that there should be a grand prix, lasting four days, instead of a super prix is that it would be a moveable feast. It could be held at any time, including holiday periods. In the case of a two-day or three-day event during a holiday period, people, at least theoretically, have an opportunity to get away from the area. However, during a working period, and especially when the event includes a Friday and a Monday, they have no opportunity to get away, so their lives, as well as the commercial life of the area, with which many of them are associated, are disrupted completely.

Ms. Short : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a point on which I have not yet touched, but it is one of great importance. Why power has to be taken to organise racing on any occasion, not including a bank holiday, I really do not know. The disruption implications are dreadful.

I am most anxious to bring my remarks to an end. I tabled an amendment to the effect that the whole event should be moved to Northfield. I am sorry that the amendment was not selected. I should love to know whether the hon. Member for Northfield would have supported it and whether, if he had, it would have been popular with his constituents. If Birmingham people who live elsewhere are in favour of it but would not want it in their own backyards, there is something wrong with it.

Mr. Roger King : I am grateful to the hon. Lady for inviting me to give my views on that matter. I would be quite agreeable to the same procedure as was adopted by the city council--a survey of residents around the proposed circuit to ascertain whether they would welcome the race.

If, as happened when the hon. Lady undertook her original canvass, a substantial number of constituents

Column 107

supported the event, then I would have no objection--bar one. Try as I might, I could not evolve a road system that is as attractive and offers the hotel accommodation that the existing road race circuit offers, which brings dynamic vibration-- [Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."]--I mean, vibrancy, to the city centre. It is not essential to Birmingham Heartlands--I misquoted Sir Reginald Eyre--but it is beneficial to them and to the city generally.

As to the cost of moving the race, I am at one with the hon. Lady in not wanting another £1 million or £2 million spent on moving the circuit to Northfield. I agree with the hon. Lady that that would be a scandalous waste of everyone's money.

Ms. Short : The hon. Gentleman gives a very clear answer. I understood him to say that he would be in favour of moving the race if a majority were in favour--and that from an hon. Member with a marginal seat. Nevertheless, I am anxious to bring my remarks to a conclusion.

I told my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington of my view. The power to run the two-day event will remain, whatever happens to the Bill. That event has been run for four years, and it has been found that the city is unable to organise it in such a way that its costs were covered. The city has also been unable to organise the race so that it complies with the basic framework of the law. It is laughable to suggest that the House should entertain a Bill to extend the city's powers when it has failed so abysmally in its efforts to run a two-day event.

The Bill should not pass, and I hope that it will not. I hope that we shall return to it again and again, until time runs out. Birmingham can then continue with a two-day event--and when it has proved that it can run that properly, it is entitled to ask for something more. However, my view is that the disruption that a four-day event would cause would be too high a price to pay for the people of Ladywood. A four-day event should be run on a purpose-built track somewhere else in Birmingham, if the city wants to be associated with such an event.

9.46 pm

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : It may be helpful if at this point I intervene briefly to restate the Government's view. I say "briefly" because I know that a number of hon. Members still hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the House knows, the Government traditionally stand neutral in relation to private Bills where no major matter of principle is involved. The Bill before the House is no exception, as was made clear to the House by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), when he intervened on Second Reading last year. The Bill raises issues which are essentially of local concern and there is no case for the Government to intervene. It is for the promoter to persuade the House that the powers sought are justified. The Unopposed Bills Committee has allowed the measure to proceed with amendments in the usual way, so I hope that the House will allow the Bill to progress.

9.47 pm

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) : The Minister's statement was very disappointing. He quoted the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), when he

Column 108

intervened, as the Minister then responsible, in the Second Reading debate in April 1989. If the Minister's officials had given him the benefit of their research and knowledge, he would have known that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) made a very different statement during the passage of the Birmingham City Council Act 1985. The Minister smiles, so I assume that he is aware of her words but thought that discretion was the better part of valour and did not want to refer to them. The right hon. Member for Wallasey made it clear on that occasion, not that the Government were neutral, but that they expected the city council to run the road race on a self-financing basis. That has not happened, and that is at the heart of the objections to the Bill by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.

I join others of my hon. Friends in regretting the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is to undergo an operation tomorrow, having been admitted to hospital this evening. We all look forward to his quick recovery and to his presence at any future debates on this issue.

I do not presume to speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath. I was amused to learn that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) can apparently see into my right hon. Friend's mind and knows that he would, if he were here, agree with the hon. Member. I do not presume to speak for my right hon. Friend, although I have known him for many years, and can claim to know him rather better than the hon. Member for Yardley.

I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, in his inimitable way, supported the Bill on Second Reading, but I believe and suggest to the House that a good reason for not considering the Bill any further would be to allow my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath to be present amongst us. I believe that if he could listen to the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) he would have good reason to reconsider his support for the Bill on that occasion-- [Interruption.] Time is passing, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has been notable for his absence throughout most of our proceedings this evening, so I think that he owes it to himself to listen to our arguments, especially since-- [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman is always absent ; that is why we always make that point.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) was quoted in the Birmingham newspapers last weekend as saying that he did not understand the objections of the opponents of the Bill. Therefore, I shall give the hon. Member for Northfield a further opportunity to understand our objections.

The hon. Member for Yardley claims that the reason why he gave way and why his speech was suddenly deflated during the Second Reading debate in April 1989 was that he was anxious to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, and to understand our objections. I regret that within minutes the hon. Member for Yardley was voting on the closure to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr from expressing his objections and explaining why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading.

There are two basic grounds for objecting to the Bill and for arguing that it should not be given further consideration. The first concerns the effect on the residents

Column 109

who live in the area affected by the race, such as the constituents represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. The second is the financial argument.

Mr. Bevan : It is true that I wanted to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but as soon as I heard him I had had enough and that is why I sat down.

Mr. Davis : The hon. Member for Yardley always has a short attention span and has often heard enough very quickly. However, let me return to the objections to the Bill.

I must be fair to the city council, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood would at least join me in this tribute to it. It did not seek to prevent her constituents from petitioning, from objecting to the Bill, or from appearing before the Committee--on which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) served--to enable the Committee to hear the reasons for her constituents' passionate objections to the idea that the event should be extended to four days and to the idea of a grand prix. I regret that some other bodies such as the West Midlands passenger transport authority do not take the same attitude and are objecting to the locus standi of residents in similar situations on other Bills, which I shall not discuss this evening because time is pressing, but we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss that on other private Bills during the Session.

Ms. Short : Some of my constituents did petition, but there is cost and difficulty involved for people who wish to petition. The city council tried to prevent someone from petitioning because he was in its employment, and it led to an important matter of privilege coming before the House, so I am afraid--and I am sorry to detract from the compliment that my hon. Friend is paying--that the city council tried to limit the power of people to petition against the Bill.

Mr. Davis : I stand corrected by my hon. Friend. I had forgotten that regrettable incident. Of course, the Select Committee found that the city council was in breach of privilege. However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is interesting that as soon as a complaint was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood on behalf of that member of staff the hon. Member for Northfield, with his knowledge and insight into what goes on in the Labour rooms of the city council, was able to say categorically to the press that it was all nonsense and there was no breach of privilege. He knew ; my hon. Friends did not know. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr did not know, but the hon. Member for Northfield has a special line to the people who support the Bill in the city council. The hon. Member for Northfield was able to say categorically that there was no breach of parliamentary privilege, and I have yet to see him withdraw that statement, as I have yet to hear him explain the position on a number of the factors which affect the Bill.

The hon. Member for Yardley--I cannot leave him alone--said-- [Interruption.] I shall leave the hon. Member for Selly Oak alone because he has not been here long enough, but the hon. Member for Yardley has sat patiently throughout the debate, and he said that the amendments to the Bill accepted in Committee protected the residents of Ladywood in every possible way. Of course, they do not.

Column 110

My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood has made it clear that she is not satisfied, as have many of her constituents. They are not sufficiently protected : certainly they are not protected in every possible way. If they were, my hon. Friend would not have been able to table so many amendments. One reason why we should not proceed with the Bill is to allow the city council to devote adequate thought to the amendments, no doubt with the advice of the hon. Members for Yardley and for Northfield.

I support the protestations of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood on behalf of her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has already quoted from a letter that I received from a gentleman living in Wheeley's road, Edgbaston. I am not sure whether Wheeley's road is in my hon. Friend's constituency ; perhaps it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who said earlier that she would take up the complaints of one of our correspondents. I hope that she will take up this complaint as well : she may have received it already.

Dame Jill Knight : What I said was that this was the first that I had heard of the matter. No complaint had been made to me about the road race damaging the fabric of school buildings. Had I received such a complaint, I would have been more than ready to take it up.

Mr. Davis : I thought that the hon. Lady went further, and said that she had received no complaints about contractors having failed to clear away dangerous objects--or is she saying that she has received such complaints? I do not wish to misquote her.

Dame Jill Knight : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misquote me.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Yes, he does.

Dame Jill Knight : No, I do not believe that.

I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) exactly what I have just repeated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular incident. I listened carefully to what was said, and I have since checked, but I have received no letter about such matters in my capacity as Member of Parliament for that area.

Mr. Davis : I accept what the hon. Lady says, although I am not sure whether she means that she has had no letters of complaint at all, or no letters from the gentleman whom I mentioned.

Although I was not sure whose constituent the author of the letter was, I feel free to quote from it. It states :

"We live at the City end of Wheeley's Road and hence, are on the fringes of the race area, but like many others are subjected to the full environmental factors and inconvenience which this event brings and were never asked for our opinion, despite the City publicity on polls and soundings among local residents. Road delays spread over many weeks, green areas turned into dirty dumping grounds for concrete and fencing, noise and concern about domestic security at a time when there are many visitors to the area are some of the more obvious drawbacks. The noise and threatening nature of helicopters belonging to the police and television companies over a residential district, are a separate, but equally distressing saga."

I suspect that the same complaint will be made by many people who live in that part of Edgbaston--and, indeed, by many people who live in the relevant parts of Ladywood and Sparkbrook. Hon. Members should note

Column 111

that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is also opposed to the Bill in principle. Although I accept that the hon. Member for Northfield has given his undertakings in good faith, there was nothing to stop the city council from observing many of those undertakings last year. It did not do so, and I question whether it wants to. Our experience of the undertakings given by the council--undertakings given in the House, and enshrined in an amendment drafted by the council--does not encourage us to accept its undertakings in future.

Mr. Roger King rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

The House divided : Ayes 75, Noes 24.

Division No. 97] [9.58 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brazier, Julian

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Butterfill, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Clelland, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Corbett, Robin

Crowther, Stan

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Dorrell, Stephen

Durant, Tony

Fallon, Michael

Fookes, Dame Janet

Forman, Nigel

Forth, Eric

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Fraser, John

French, Douglas

Gale, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Gill, Christopher

Golding, Mrs Llin

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Gregory, Conal

Ground, Patrick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Irvine, Michael

Janman, Tim

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Knox, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Lightbown, David

Lilley, Peter

Lord, Michael

Maclean, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

McWilliam, John

Mans, Keith

Michael, Alun

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Moss, Malcolm

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Paice, James

Patnick, Irvine

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Rhodes James, Robert

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Thorne, Neil

Wallace, James

Wells, Bowen

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan and

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark.

NOES

Ashby, David

Ashton, Joe

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bermingham, Gerald

Blunkett, David

Dalyell, Tam

Next Section

Home Page