| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 542
apply to construction and development. The scheme of planning permission and the scheme of planning legislation do not make any allowance for such a restriction because of the prohibition--Mr. Bob Clay (Sunderland, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that I have been in the Chamber all morning and that up to now I have not made any points or order or intervened. The last thing that I want to do is to hold up proceedings. However, as someone who is not a procedural expert, may I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) has now been speaking for 20 minutes, after many other long speeches, including one of 45 minutes from the Minister. I should like to put it to you and, through you, to some Conservative Members, that many people outside the House will not understand these parliamentary games and that the British ex-servicemen and their families who had enormous hopes of the Bill that is to follow this Bill will be appalled if the House fails to pass that Bill, and even more appalled if there is not even the opportunity to discuss it and to have something put on the record. I listened carefully to what you said in response to earlier points of order but I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make whatever moves you can to help those who have come here today to listen to our discussions about a Bill to help people who are dying and who fear dying, who cannot wait another year, two years or 10 years for the legislation, and who should have an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Wilkinson : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hereby forgo any rights which, by the leave of the House, I may have to reply to the debate and I beg to move, That the Question be now put--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am not prepared to accept that motion.
Mr. Cryer : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that a week last Monday we discussed a business motion on various recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure relating to the procedures in the House. When I was making a speech that was shorter than that made today by the Minister, the Government Chief Whip moved the closure in the middle of my speech when several hon. Members who are now present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who had been present throughout that debate, had indicated that they wanted to speak. On that occasion, the debate had run for only one hour although it had been undertaken for two hours on a previous occasion when I could not be present because I was in a Select Committee. I should have thought that that example provides a clear precedent because an hon. Member was on his feet, the closure motion was moved and it was accepted by the Chair. I hope that you will bear that in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the judgment of the Chair. Situations vary greatly in this matter, all that I can say is that the closure was requested and has been refused. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Mr. Arbuthnot rose --
Hon. Members : Stop filibustering.
Column 543
Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you taking into consideration the fact that it is the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who has moved the closure and has asked that the Question now be put? If the hon. Gentleman is honourable enough to give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) at least the opportunity to speak to his Bill--although we hope that it will receive its Second Reading today--should you not take the fact that the hon. Gentleman has made that gesture into account when considering whether to accept a closure motion?Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It would be very much better if we were to get on with the debate. Perhaps if we do so, we shall reach the second Bill on the Order Paper. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Mr. Arbuthnot rose --
Mr. Boyes : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From your long experience in the House, is it not absolutely clear that Conservative Members are trying to talk out the Bill? I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who was speaking, will stay on his feet for a considerable time, which makes things extremely difficult for my hon. Friends, especially in view of the importance of the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North is seeking to propose. Many people have been affected by the nuclear tests and we are simply trying to give them adequate compensation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Boyes : Stop the filibustering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow the closure as moved by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It would be wise if we were to get on with the debate. There is still over an hour to go. Points of order are only delaying matters and they are coming close to questioning the judgment of the Chair. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Mr. Arbuthnot : The scheme of planning legislation
Mr. Rogers : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am prepared to accept your ruling from the Chair. However, I wish that you would give the House a little clarification of the reason why you made that ruling. There are adequate--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member has been here long enough to know that the Chair never gives reasons in this respect. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Mr. Cryer : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, televison was brought into the Chamber by a majority vote for an experimental period. I wonder whether we should adjust our procedures in the light of that. Many millions of people are watching anxiously, waiting for the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill to come before the House. That means that pressure is put on this place from outside to come to the second Bill, which would help people who are
Column 544
seriously injured and dying. In those circumstances and in view of the majority vote for television, it might be a good idea to think again.Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is my job not to consider television or anything else but to consider the order of the House. We are debating the first Bill set down for discussion today. That is the reality of the matter. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly, it would be wholly improper to question your judgment and discretion in matters of this nature. One of the tasks of the Chair is to protect Back Benchers from any abuse. As I understand it, one of the principles is that if a Bill has had a good run it is within the discretion of the Chair to accept a closure motion. As a matter of general principle, when the hon. Member promoting a Bill has decided that it is proper that a motion be made, is there not a case for saying that weight should be attached to that decision?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member started by saying that he did not question the judgment of the Chair. He went on to do just that. It would be wise to continue the debate. Points of order only delay matters. If we continue the debate there may be some time for the second Bill. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Mr. Skinner : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 35 of the rules of the House, the Chair has the power in certain circumstances to accept the motion, that the Question be now put. You know that as well as I do, and the Clerks and the other authorities of the House know it. That applies in debates and it can apply after only one hour. The Chair has to make a decision. It is based on the rights of the majority and of the minority. If you have talked to Mr. Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair earlier you will know that hon. Members who spoke in the initial part of the debate were all in favour of the Bill. They wanted to get rid of the Bill. The promoter of the Bill has waived his right to reply to the debate. Everybody was in favour and then suddenly a couple of hon. Members--supposedly the minority--came from nowhere to filibuster.
You have a right to make sure that the procedures of the House under Standing Order No. 35 are carried out. Otherwise, people out there, especially the relatives of those who have died of cancer from serving in the Pacific and the ex-service men who are dying will wonder what is wrong with the procedures of the House of Commons. You have a duty to-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Skinner : I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Member and the whole House realise that attempts to bring pressure on the Chair are out of order.
Mr. Rogers : Who has put on the pressure?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Such attempts can only be counterproductive. The Chair has a difficult job in exercising judgment in cases of this nature. I have exercised my judgment. We must now continue with the debate. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Column 545
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we debated the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, a closure motion was not accepted until about 2.20 pm. On that occasion I believe that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did his best to frustrate any debate. It may be that some of my colleagues are learning from him.
Mr. Dykes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who arrived for this debate at about 1.15 pm, may I say with great respect for your functions and for the Chair, that the pressure exerted is against the will of the House, which wants to have a Division or to approve the Second Reading of the Bill? Virtually every speech in a long debate has been made in favour of the Bill. Even the Minister was understanding and accommodating about some aspects of it. Given that there is such an important Bill following, surely it is the will of the House that we should proceed to a decision.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I shall, of course, hear the points of order, but we cannot have a debate now on the way in which closure motions operate in the House. There is only an hour to go before 2.30 pm and we are cutting into valuable private Members' time by prolonging the points of order.
Mr. Hanley : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be quite wrong for the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about those who have spoken in this debate having only recently come into the Chamber to go on record. Everyone who has spoken for or against the Bill has been here since the beginning of the day.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In exercising your discretion, which must, of course, always be a matter for the Chair on a Friday, there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who may well have cancelled constituency engagements in the hope of being present for the second Bill on the Order Paper. I hope that you will take this into account when making your decision.
Mr. Boyes : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you to reconsider your decision. In a place that we cannot mention there are a number of service men and ex-service men who have a great interest in what is happening in the Chamber today. They must wonder what the hell is going on. We have an important Bill that is vital to soldiers, to their wives and to other people. Those soldiers served their country--among my papers I have a list of people who have died or suffered as a result of such service--and they must wonder why it is that
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We cannot anticipate a debate that will arise if we reach the second Bill on the Order Paper. We must now continue with the debate on the first Bill. I call Mr. Arbuthnot.
Mr. Arbuthnot : Reverting once again to planning legislation, the scheme of planning legislation does not make any allowance for a restriction on demolition as the prohibition on demolishing listed buildings is possible only
Column 546
because of the much more detailed control otherwise exercised over listed buildings than is exercised over other buildings.Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) : Be a man and wind up.
Mr. Arbuthnot : I have already said that I believe that the Bill is likely to be ineffective because a developer might well apply for permission to demolish a house to build a single unit, which would be granted almost automatically. He would demolish the existing house without building the new one and would then immediately apply to build what he wanted to build in the first place. If we come to that scenario, the Bill will have got us nowhere. It is wide open to abuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) suggested that a council should be given permission to take over land that has been derelict for a long time. As a rule, councils do not have a good record on dealing with their properties and such powers would not deal with my central point--the intelligent manipulation of the system by developers. We would be likely to see an increased number of applications to demolish buildings as well as bogus applications to develop buildings. That combination would ensure that the entire planning system ground to a halt with the obvious damage consequent upon that. What would be the consequences of an overloaded system such as would be created? Councils would not be able to keep up, developers would therefore have to go on appeal to the Department of the Environment--
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you assumed the Chair this afternoon I distinctly heard you admonish hon. Members to keep their speeches brief and to the point. It seems that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is deliberately disobeying you. I merely draw the matter to your attention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have no power at present to limit speeches, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) will bear it in mind that there are hon. Members who wish to speak.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Arbuthnot : The only effect of more appeals--
Mr. Boyes rose --
Mr. Arbuthnot : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot do so too often because of the number of points that are being made by Opposition Members.
Mr. Boyes : Will the hon. Gentleman consider what the next Bill means, and end his speech so that people can hear the case for the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) wishes to introduce? I appeal to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot)--I do not usually appeal to Conservative Members--because I am concerned about the people who are suffering and need compensation, and want to take this chance of getting them that money. The hon. Gentleman is the only Member to have spoken against the Bill in this morning's debate. Therefore, I ask him to sit down now so that the closure motion may be put.
Column 547
Mr. Arbuthnot : The hon. Gentleman may appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on the next Bill. My speech would have been considerably shorter if there had been fewer interruptions. The only effect of the Bill would be bureaucracy, delay, forms, regulations and more civil servants. The Bill contains no suggestion for extra finance to produce those extra civil servants, forms and bureaucracy. No money would be available to local authorities to pay for the extra work that they had to do. No money could be introduced because this is a private Member's Bill.Over the past few weeks probably all hon. Members have received representations from constituents who are local councillors to say that the Government keep shovelling duties on local government without providing extra money to perform those duties. That argument could certainly be applied to the Bill.
It is presumably intended that all the panoply of the appeals procedure to the Secretary of State, with public inquiries and everything else, should accompany this change. One point has not been sufficiently well made : the Bill does not change the planning grounds that would apply to developers. It would follow from existing planning guidelines that, if a person applied to demolish a house that was not listed, the planning authority would have to grant it or the Department of the Environment would have to allow an appeal. Therefore, I do not understand how the Bill would achieve its desired effect.
The Bill applies not only to any building that is a dwelling house, but to any building that has been used as a dwelling house. What does that mean? Does it mean, "has ever been used as a dwelling house"? How on earth is anybody supposed to know what has been used as a dwelling house?
Mr. Rogers rose --
Mr. Arbuthnot : I shall not give way because so many points have been made about my taking too long.
If the principle of the Bill is correct, it should not be restricted to dwelling houses, but widened to cover the scope of buildings such as the Hoover building and Kensington town hall. I do not believe that the wrong decision was made about Kensington town hall. I declare an interest because I was a councillor in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and was consulted about, and fully in support of, the decision to pre-empt a political decision made by the Greater London Council to list Kensington town hall, a building of no merit.
Would it become a matter for sanction if a house, rather than being demolished, was simply allowed to decay and fall down? That would have to follow from the principle behind the Bill. Perhaps a house could be encouraged, surreptitiously or otherwise, to fall down. That would certainly begin to happen. There would be explosions at dead of night and houses would suddenly collapse. The owner would say, "Well, honest, it wasn't me." But we could not believe him.
What will happen if part of a house is pulled down? What if it is pulled down room by room? I stand to be corrected if I am wrong--many hon. Members have more knowledge of this than I do--but I believe that a building, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, includes part of a building, with the absurd result that any tiny
Column 548
change in a house would constitute its demolition. Taking that to extremes, one could suggest that the removal of a tap would amount to the demolition of a building.I should find it very hard to support the Bill. I, too, represent a London surburban constituency, and my constituents have serious anxieties about planning--more directed towards what goes up than towards what comes down, however. They complain to me that people put up buildings without planning permission and then feel entitled to apply for retrospective permission. They complain about the permitted development in my constituency. They complain that people may build in the most insensitive way merely because they are increasing their property by less than 10 per cent. They complain not about permitted demolition, but about the number of appeals to the Department of the Environment--
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that you appealed for brief speeches at the beginning of the debate. Have you taken account of the fact that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to one of the Defence Ministers, who is very keen to stop the next debate? No Defence Minister has come in for the next debate. I suggest that it would be reasonable for you to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to make a brief speech, and if he persists in filibustering I hope that you will take that into account if the closure is moved soon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Chair has no power at this stage to limit speeches, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) will take into account the fact that other hon. Members want to speak.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfounded and grossly unfair allegations have been made against my hon. Friend. Will you confirm that the next debate would be answered by a social security Minister, who has been listening to the debate and who knows the situation rather better than some Opposition Members who have not been in the Chamber?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is a matter for debate, not a point of order.
Mr. Arbuthnot : I should have finished by now if the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had not intervened.
The number of appeals being granted by the Department of the Environment causes concern. Such matters are and should be addressed by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the planning Bill in the next Session of Parliament. The matters that I have discussed are what cause anxiety, not the matters dealt with in the Bill, which is why I cannot support it.
Mr. Wilkinson : I respectfully beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The House proceeded to a Division --
Mr. Boyes (seated and covered) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear any Noes.
Column 549
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have put the Question, and I heard Ayes and Noes. We are now proceeding to a Division.The House having divided : Ayes 81, Noes 3.
Division No. 100] [1.42 pm
AYES
Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Atkinson, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Battle, John
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Bidwell, Sydney
Boyes, Roland
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Carrington, Matthew
Clay, Bob
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Crowther, Stan
Cummings, John
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Dykes, Hugh
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel
French, Douglas
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Haynes, Frank
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Irvine, Michael
Jessel, Toby
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Lamond, James
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Loyden, Eddie
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
McWilliam, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Morrison, Sir Charles
Mullin, Chris
O'Brien, William
O'Neill, Martin
Pike, Peter L.
Prescott, John
Redmond, Martin
Richardson, Jo
Rogers, Allan
Ruddock, Joan
Sedgemore, Brian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Shersby, Michael
Short, Clare
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Spearing, Nigel
Stanbrook, Ivor
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Strang, Gavin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Waller, Gary
Wareing, Robert N.
Watts, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. John Wilkinson and
Mr. Jeremy Hanley.
NOES
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Janman, Tim
Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. John Marshall and
Mr. Edward Leigh.
Whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker-- declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure). Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time. 1.53 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |