House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Mar 1990

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on drawing the number that he did in the ballot, and on the way in which he introduced his measure. However, I have serious reservations about my hon. Friend's Bill. I shall begin by going back in time and examining the way in which a human settlement develops over the centuries. I take as an example Southwark, on the south bank of the Thames. One can find evidence of a settlement there

Column 550

going back 2,000 years. The Romans used the same area for further building, and throughout the dark ages, the Norman conquest and mediaeval times--

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify something for me? We have voted on the closure. Hon. Members who did not want the debate to continue voted for the closure. The other option was to vote for the debate to be continued. Is it in order for an hon. Member who did not vote for the debate to be continued to continue it after the vote has taken place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : What is happening is perfectly in order. Perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded the House that for a closure motion to be carried, 100 hon. Members must vote for it, but 100 hon. Members did not vote for it, so it was decided in the negative. It follows automatically that the House, not the Chair, has decided that the debate should continue. What is happening is in order.

Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that, in these troubled times of hon. Members not declaring their interests, hon. Members will debate next week the important issue of an hon. Member failing to declare interests of about £80, 000. Would you think it advisable, in a debate that would have dealt with those seeking compensation from the state--the widows of those who have died from cancer and those who are currently suffering from it--for a member of Lloyd's involved in the insurance market, who might well not be very keen on the state giving handouts, to declare his interest before making filibustering speeches against the Bill? Will you examine the record to see whether the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) or any other hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, has declared his interest? There is no doubt that, if the state pays compensation, there will be less of a market for those in Lloyd's. I think that that needs examining.

Mr. Rogers : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) began his speech I did not hear him declare his interests--and neither did you, because I do not think that he did so. As I understand it, under the rules of the House, hon. Members are asked to declare their interests in the Register of Members' Interests and in debates. One Conservative Member has been investigated as a result of his breaching that Standing Order. The hon. Member for Walthamstow is speaking in a debate on property, property values and planning permission. He is a diector of a property company and a chartered surveyor. I submit that he is in breach of the rules of the House and that you should bring him to order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The House knows well that hon. Members who have an interest should declare it in debate. That is well known in the House, and I am sure that every hon. Member will observe it. If any hon. Member believes that there has been a breach of that strong convention, the correct procedure is to write to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that if sufficient

Column 551

Labour Members had bothered to attend today we would not have had all these points of order because they would have been able to carry the closure motion.

Mr. Boyes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall speak very honestly. What is making me sick this afternoon is that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) was born in 1952 and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) was born in 1950. The people in a place that we cannot mention fought, and many died, so that people like those two hon. Gentlemen could come into this Chamber in a free democracy. Now they are taking advantage--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Front Bench and the Chair expects him to set a good example. His point is a perfectly legitimate point of debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I call Mr. Summerson.

Mr. Summerson : I must defend myself against what has been said about declaring my interests. I see that in the third paragraph of my notes, I have put in brackets, "state CS". I was coming on to the fact-- [Interruption.] Perhaps I should have declared my interest in my opening words but, as I understand the rules of the House--I am open to correction--

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not an expert on procedure. Some of the rules of the House baffle me and I find some irrelevant. However, we call each other hon. Members when addressing each other in debate. Is it honourable for an hon. Member who has been speaking for five minutes to say cynically, after it has been pointed out to him that he is in breach of the rules of the House, that a declaration of interest was in his notes?

I came here specially, on the very early train today, to represent a constituent, Clifford Hutchinson, who is an honourable man. He was on Christmas Island and now, every day of his life, is in pain--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady must not anticipate the next debate. The hon. Gentleman--

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am on my feet.

In this House, we are all hon. Members. Every hon. Member knows very well that the strong conventions are that if there is a direct interest in the subject under discussion, the hon. Member concerned must declare his interest. That is well known.

Mr. Livingstone : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) said that he was about to make a statement referring to the initials "CS". Does that stand for "crooked swindler"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order.

Mr. Summerson : As I understand the rules of the House, hon. Members have to declare an interest. However, the rules do not state where in the course of his remarks an hon. Member is supposed to state that interest

Column 552

-- [Interruption.] If the House will give me the opportunity, I shall eventually come on to the part of my speech in which I declare that interest.

I was talking about the history of sites of human settlement--

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was pointed out to you a short time ago that hon. Members are supposed to declare their interests in a speech. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) announced that he was about to declare his interest, but he has veered away from the subject again. May I ask him through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he will now state exactly and explicitly what interests he has in insurance, property, banking or anything else which might have a bearing on theBill--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is free to make his own speech in his own way.

Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not in accordance with your ruling a few minutes ago and with the conventions of the House generally that an hon. Member who has to declare an interest should do so at the beginning of his speech so that hon. Members can judge what he is saying? Surely, if an hon. Member decided that he was not going to declare his interest until the end of his speech, much of that provision would be made void. I hope that you will urge the hon. Gentleman to make the declaration of interest which he said he was going to make, but which so far he has not made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have the strong impression that the hon. Member for Walthamstow is about to clarify the position. I appeal to the House to exercise the sense of fairness that has always prevailed here, and allow him to do so.

Mr. Boyes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I will not take another point of order until the hon. Member for Walthamstow has clarified the position.

Mr. Summerson : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will certainly bow to your ruling and state that I am a chartered surveyor and also the director of a property company, from which I have drawn no remuneration since June 1987.

Mr. Livingstone : Which company?

Mr. Summerson : It is called Palatine Properties Ltd., and the hon. Gentleman can go to Companies house and look it up whenever he chooses.

Mr. Corbyn : Will the hon. Member for Palatine Properties give way?

Mr. Boyes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not usually a reader of "Erskine May", but I have studied its ruling on this subject. On page 385, under the heading "Declaration of interests in debate", it is explicitly stated :

"A Member will normally declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks."

Column 553

Mr. Deputy Speaker : It is for the hon. Member concerned to decide what is the appropriate moment for him to declare his interest. The passage that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted uses the word "normally" ; the hon. Member for Walthamstow is a fairly new Member, and we all have to absorb experience. In any event, the hon. Member for Walthamstow has now clarified the position, and I feel that the House should accept that and allow him to get on with his speech.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) may at some stage have obeyed the advice in "Erskine May". Am I right in thinking, however, that an earlier speaker in this important debate failed to declare an interest? If so, would it be in order for him to repair the apparent omission, if he is present or returns to the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I dealt with that earlier ; perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was not in the Chamber at the time. If any hon. Member considers that there has been a breach of the conventions, customs and guidance contained in "Erskine May", his proper course is to take the matter up with the hon. Member concerned and/or the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Arbuthnot : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that I own a flat in the basement of my house, but I do not intend to demolish my house.

Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I too am a relatively new Member ; I also happen to be an ex-service man. Is it in order for me to ask Conservative Members, through you, to refrain from their present disgraceful activity and stop filibustering? We should then have a chance, even at this late hour, of proceeding with a Bill that the people of this country want us to debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : My job is to ensure that the rules of order are observed. They are being observed, and the hon. Member for Walthamstow is in order.

Mr. Summerson : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the record will show that I have so far managed to get through about one twentieth of my speech, as I have to go back to the beginning every time I am interrupted.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek clarification of your most recent ruling on whether interests have been declared? Surely, as this is a Standing Order, it is a matter for you or Mr. Speaker and not for the adjudication of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Chair cannot possibly be a judge in this matter. That is one of the reasons why we have a Select Committee on Members' Interests. If any hon. Member--I have repeated this on several occasions already--feels that there has been a breach, he should put a case to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which will of course examine the matter carefully and, if appropriate, report in due course to the House.

Mr. Boyes : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I read out the relevant sentence from page 385 of "Erskine May", you stressed the word "normally".

Column 554

Your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seems to mean that a declaration can be made at any time during an hon. Member's speech. If "normally" can be interpreted as any time between zero and half an hour before an interest is declared, should that not be referred to Mr. Speaker, and from him to the appropriate Select Committee, for clarification and further definition of the word "normally"? I am only asking

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is primarily for the hon. Member concerned to judge whether he has an interest to declare and, if so, when to declare it. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the rules need changing in any way, it is not for the Chair to change them. The Chair is the servant of the House. As I have said more than once, the hon. Gentleman should write to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and ask him to consider the matter.

Mr. Summerson : In the light of what has been said, I must also declare that I am the chairman of an insurance broking company. Since I took over the chairmanship of that company, I have drawn no remuneration from it.

If I may now continue with my speech--

Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has declared an interest in Palatine Properties Ltd. and in an insurance company, and he has told the House that he has received no income from them since he was elected to the House in 1987. I do not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House, but he should explain the capital value of Palatine Properties Ltd. and what interest that company has in demolition--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Those are matters for debate, not points of order for the Chair.

Mr. Summerson : With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) all about Palatine Properties. As its sole assets, that company has the freehold of six blocks of flats in Fulham. All the flats have been sold on long leases, and they produce an income by way of ground rent of £1,250 a year. The leases expire some time well into the next century.

Mr. Dobson : The hon. Gentleman will be going around with a hat in a minute.

Mr. Summerson : I am not sure whether my bank manager will be very happy with me baring the company's soul in public this way. The company has an overdraft of about £15,000 or £16,000. When we bought the freehold of the properties in December 1986, we paid £9,600 for them. Perhaps Opposition Members will now understand why I draw no income from the company and also why my bank manager frequently has nightmares.

Mr. Corbyn : This is fascinating, and reveals the depth of the hon. Gentleman's interest in high finance. However, he has not told us about the increased capital value of the blocks of flats since they were bought out or what interest he has in the demolition of those properties and how much he would stand to gain as the owner of the freehold should they be demolished.

Mr. Summerson : I can answer the hon. Gentleman very easily. The freeholders do not have the right to knock

Column 555

down the blocks. All the flats have been sold on long leases and I imagine that the leases probably begin to expire around 2070, when I do not expect to be around.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : Does my hon. Friend agree- -

Mr. Cryer : Where has the hon. Gentleman been all morning?

Mr. Stern : I have been listening to the debate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the value of the reversion, about which Opposition Members are so jealous, is probably less than the original purchase price?

Mr. Summerson : In the present market, that is probably so. That is why, as I have already explained, I have taken no remuneration from the company.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not in the least interested in the hon. Gentleman's property interests--I am well aware that many Conservative Members are more representative of property interests than of their constituents--but is it not the case that, if the hon. Gentleman were to sit down and if other hon. Members were to remain seated, we could make progress on the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill? That Bill concerns the health of ex-service men--people who have served this country well in the past. Is it not morally correct for Conservative Members to pass the Planning Permission (Demolition of Houses) Bill so that we may debate the next Bill?

Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That must be a matter for the hon. Member who has the floor. I call Mr. Summerson.

Mr. Summerson : The Bill has strong implications for housing and for housing the homeless. That is an important matter. My hon. Friends who cheered the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) have already had their say. I arrived in the Chamber at half past 9 this morning. I put my name into Mr. Speaker's Office last night. I have prepared my speech, and I intend to deliver it.

Mr. Dykes : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Summerson : I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. I dislike this addition to planning law. Section 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 gives the famous definition of development :

"the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."

It is quite clear that those who drew up the legislation had in mind positive building activities. They did not envisage demolition coming within that definition of development.

I was going to declare my interest as a chartered surveyor and so on, but I have already done so at inordinate length. When I practised as a chartered surveyor, I gained some experience of planning matters. It was quite clear that many local authorities--the political complexion did not matter--had a fundamental opposition to people who wanted to carry out developments. I would often find that, although planning officers were

Column 556

perfectly constructive and helpful, when a matter got to the planning committee, at the least whiff of opposition from local people, the planning committee would turn tail and run. That was an abrogation of responsibility.

Now, of course, I understand that the committee members were worried about local opposition, and possibly opposition to their seats on the council, but they were given a duty to deal with planning applications. Many planning applications were ultimately for the benefit of their area.

Mr. O'Brien : The hon. Gentleman's last comment is unfair to members of local authorities who serve on planning committees. Many councillors are fully aware of the circumstances in their wards. If they wish to use their experience, is it not right that they should oppose planning officers to defend the interests of the people they serve? Why does the hon. Gentleman deride members of local authorities in such a way?

Mr. Summerson : The hon. Gentleman is not being altogether fair. I never derided those councillors--I said that they should have a sharper sense of their own responsibilities. Simply because some people in their area might not like the idea of a development, councillors often say, "Oh well, we won't bother to pass it ; we'll oppose it. We know perfectly well that the developers will get it on appeal. We also know perfectly well that the development is probably in the best interests of the area." Because of the local opposition, councillors are often not prepared to deal with these issues. That was my complaint.

Planning law is directly responsible for driving up property prices all over the country because it restricts the supply of land. That is the reason we have seen the rise of the pressure group SANE Planning, in this very place. It exists to protect the green belt and the countryside. I am sure that most people would agree with that. However, that process can be taken too far. If the supply of land is restricted, the price of that land will obviously increase. Therefore, the price of the buildings on that land will also increase. In turn, prices are driven up all over the country and young people, often setting out on their first job, cannot find anywhere to live. That problem is not confined to country areas ; the position is exactly the same in the towns and cities. For that very reason, property prices in my own constituency of Walthamstow have been driven up and up over the past 10 or 15 years and young people are finding that they cannot afford too buy. Those who were fortunate enough or clever enough not to buy at the height of the boom now have good opportunities and many are taking advantage of them. If we regard what is happening now as part of the cyclical downturn, to be followed at some time by the cyclical upturn, once again many young people will not be able to afford to buy a home.

Mr. Dykes : My hon. Friend's earlier comments about his property company sounded interesting, although perhaps it is not a particularly attractive investment. I have been having discussions with some of my hon. Friends. The worrying aspect of all this is whether, under the latest company laws, my hon. Friend is presiding over a property company that is insolvent or approaching insolvency. If so, as hon. Friends of our hon. Friend, we are all concerned about our hon. Friend's political welfare and, of course, we want to avoid a by-election. Perhaps my hon. Friend could give us some clarification.

Column 557

Mr. Summerson : I wondered whether any of my colleagues would pick up that point. On the face of it, it sounds as though what my hon. Friend has said is the case. However, I can assure him that the present valuation of the properties and the present state of the overdraft are just about in step. As long as the income from the property continues to be paid to the bank and does not come into my pocket, all will be well.

Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the trouble in suburban areas, and I can fully understand their worries. However, we must bear in mind the fact that many of those suburban areas were developed in the 1920s and the 1930s on a spacious scale, when the demand for housing was very different and much less than it is today. We should also think about how those who were already living on the urban fringe must have been furious when a developer arrived on the scene and said, "I am going to build further out and spoil your view." To a large extent, what lies at the root of the problem is that people do not like having their areas "despoiled" as they would see it, which I can fully understand. However, they should understand that those houses were built all those years ago for a completely different life style and many must now make way for others, for the different life style of today.

That point goes back to what I said at the beginning about the history of human settlements in various places. Settlements and people's requirements change over the years. Many large Victorian houses, for example, have now been turned into flats. Local people are happy to see, at least from the outside, the house look exactly as it has always looked. Often the quality of the accommodation inside is not particularly high, because the houses were never designed to be turned into flats. As a result, problems arise-- for example, of sound transmission through the walls or floors. That gives rise to considerable problems.

Some larger and older houses have outrun their span. They were put up for a particular purpose and have fulfilled that purpose well. But the demand today, particularly with the younger population, is not so much for large houses as for smaller flats, so much denigrated by both Conservative and Opposition Members. Young people have to start somewhere, and they wantsmaller flats. They want to know that their flats aresolidly built. They do not want to be in intimate contact with their neighbours through listening willy-nilly towhat their neighbours are up to on the other side of the wall.

If the Bill becomes law, there would be more deliberate neglect of properties. An unscrupulous developer may not wish to go through all the hassle of applying for planning permission. After doing his homework, he may find that the local council and residents are hostile to the plans. He may simply buy a house and deliberately neglect it. He may leave it open and empty.

The next thing that will probably happen is that squatters will come in. After that, there will probably be a fire or something of that nature. The owner will then be able to knock that house down without having to put any effort into the house. He may simply decide to take the roof off and let natural deterioration take its toll, to such an extent that the house must be demolished.

Do we really want to freeze all our houses in a time warp? That is the problem with the Bill. I understand what

Column 558

my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip- Northwood is getting at--the anxieties of his constituents who support the Bill.

Mr. Clay : Does the hon. Gentleman feel easy with the fact that the Government will not have to say even a word in opposition to the Bill which will follow this one? Frankly, they do not have a word or an argument to put forward. That is why they have put up people such as the hon. Member for Walthhamstow (Mr. Summerson) to talk to this Bill. Does he really feel comfortable with that? I ask him on the record whether he understands the feelings of the service men and their families who would be affected by the Bill that is to follow?

Mr. Summerson : I came to the House today to contribute to the debate. That is what I am doing. The hon. Gentleman may complain bitterly about me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who spoke before me. Why did he not start to complain from 9.30 am onwards about other hon. Gentlemen who spoke?

Mr. Wilkinson : Because we made short speeches.

Mr. Summerson : My hon. Friend talks about short speeches. I began my speech at 2 pm, but I have had precious little time to deliver my remarks, with all the interruptions and interventions and points of order.

Mr. John Marshall : Does my hon. Friend agree that at least half his speech was full of interruptions and filibustering from Labour Members? Labour Members have prevented the second Bill from being debated this morning.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be wise to put on the record that the reason why there were so many interruptions in the hon. Gentleman's speech was his failure to declare his interest in his opening sentence?

Mr. Summerson : The hon. Gentleman's remark is open to question. I declared my interest, as the House demands. As far as I was aware, I had to declare it in the course of my speech, and I have done so.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that we have not had time to hear from hon. Members who represent areas outside London who could have spoken about the severe difficulties faced by our constituents when trying to buy property in London. If they were successful, that would do a great deal to increase mobility of labour and reduce unemployment in the north. It is a great pity that we have not heard from hon. Members representing areas other than London.

Mr. Summerson : My hon. Friend is right and, in common with me, he has been here since 9.30 am. He has sat through the entire debate and I am afraid that he has not had the chance to make his own speech.

Mr. Boyes : I have just been outside to Central Lobby to talk to the nuclear veterans. They are disgusted at the performance of Conservative Members and find it an absolute disgrace. All those who have filibustered today should be ashamed of themselves.

Column 559

Mr. Summerson : The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I have done no such thing. I have been on my feet for perhaps half an hour and-- It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. To be resumed on Friday 9 March.

Column 560

Private Members' Bills

RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES (BENEFITS) BILL Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?

Mr. Bob Clay (Sunderland, North) : Friday 9 March, because the Government Whip objected.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 March.

Next Section

Home Page