| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 734
circumvent planning law and planning applications. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has made recommendations on that, but they have not been carried through.Mr. Prescott : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again ; it is inevitable that I shall ask him to do so to secure information. I know that he will reply to the debate at the end, but it may be better for him to answer my inquiry now.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point and I should like to hear his views because I have seen documents asking whether the Bill is necessary for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. I have been led to believe, and I have read statements from either representatives of the development company or the organisations involved, that the company has received legal advice that it is not necessary to proceed with the Bill for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. If so, why are we considering the Bill?
Sir Peter Emery : As with many legal matters, there is no simple answer to that question. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall try to deal with the matter in detail.
Sensibly, the company considers all the options because it is not gaining any income from the docks at present
Mr. Prescott : Because it has shut them.
Sir Peter Emery : Of course. It has been advised that it would be unsafe to continue. I shall deal later with the cost to the company of proceeding.
Mr. Cryer : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery : I am trying to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer one question at a time? The company took advice, and it was suggested that it might be possible--not that it was possible--to proceed without the Bill as long as the development was not challenged in the courts. If it was challenged in the courts, the development would be uncertain. The planning committee of East Devon district council wants an assurance before granting planning permission that the structure that it suggested in the plans will remain. Later, I shall read a letter from it urging that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. One option is sure but the other is open to some doubt.
Mr. Cryer : The somewhat spartan statement from the promoters says that some consulting engineers have reported. It says that "certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside."
Has a copy of that report been deposited for hon. Members?
Sir Peter Emery : I cannot answer that question. I would judge that it has not been deposited because it has not been asked for, but I shall try to deal with it in my speech because it is an important matter. A Committee can deal with such matters better than hon. Members on Second Reading.
The company decided to bring a Bill before the House. I said earlier that hon. Members object to private Bills being used to circumvent planning procedures. This Bill has been through all the required planning procedures and has the approval of Exmouth town committee, which was
Column 735
set up by East Devon district council and comprises councillors from the Exmouth area. East Devon district council wrote to me saying :"I understand that the Second Reading of the Bill is likely to take place next week and it may be useful for you to know this council's position on the matter. I can confirm that the Council's Planning Committee has given planning permission for the redevelopment of the Exmouth docks for a marina together with the associated residential development, subject to formal closure of the docks by the necessary legal process, ie the Bill currently before Parliament."
That reinforces the point that I made to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The letter continues :
"The council has accepted the reality of the situation and that the days of Exmouth as a commercial port are over and that the docks should close. I understand that there are fears in some quarters that private Bills such as this may be used to circumvent normal planning procedures, but I can confirm that this is definitely not the case with this Bill. I would reiterate that the proper planning process has been followed and permission given."
That is of considerable importance and I hope that it assures hon. Members who have been concerned about the private Bill procedure. I now turn to the report of Hydraulics Research Ltd, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked. I am sure that details of the report can be provided to hon. Members if it has not already been deposited in the House. It makes it quite clear that expenditure of over £1 million will be necessary to make the docks safe, and that equipment to modernise and to meet restrictions under the health Acts is likely to cost about the same. It is impossible for the company to meet such expenditure, even if the company does not wish the development of the docks as a marina. The company has considered seeking financial assistance, but section 12 of the Harbours Act 1964, which allowed for grants to docks, was repealed in 1981. That grant facility is no longer available.
Originally, there were five objectors--two major objectors and three individuals. Initially, the major objectors were fishermen, who were concerned about their right to enter the harbour. They wanted to be assured that there would be a harbourmaster. They wished to have areas to unload fish, which traditionally they had done, and one or two other facilities. The company has given legally binding assurances that the number and size of vessels that the fishermen stipulated will be able to enter the port and that it will be open in emergencies or in bad weather. To meet the wishes of fishermen, the company has provided land for a refrigeration process which hitherto they did not have. The fishermen therefore withdrew their objection. The next objection came from a strange source--one might say that it was somewhat impertinent. It came from Exeter city council.
Sir Peter Emery : Yes, I said impertinent, but perhaps I should put that in inverted commas. The council objected because it would lose income. Its real objection was that the dues of £168,000 a year which it obtained from the operation would be lost if the docks did not operate. However, as the docks are closed, the council is receiving no income, so it seems strange to me--I do not represent
Column 736
Exeter--that Exeter city council is trying to interfere in what Exmouth and East Devon district council saw as the best development.Mr. Prescott : The hon. Gentleman has come to a more controversial point. He refers to the impertinence of the authority. Exeter city council is, as I understand it, the navigation and conservation authority for the river. It is entitled to impose charges on all vessels on the river to pay for the lights and navigational aids required under merchant shipping legislation. The money does not go into the coffers of Exeter city council for playing fields, for example, but goes to maintain navigational aids on the river and to make it safe. The problem now for the council and the citizens of Exeter is that if the charges are not secured from other vessels or in other forms, the navigational aids will be a charge on the authority itself. Exeter will find not only that it is losing income, but that it still has costs for which it can no longer levy charges. The council is not simply picking up money ; its position is a dead loss. It will have to finance navigational aids, which is no loss to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but is a loss to Exeter.
Sir Peter Emery : I had better withdraw the word "impertinent". However, some of the costs will not be incurred because the harbour will not be operating as a commercial harbour. I cannot estimate the variation, but there will be a considerable saving. I do not believe that one local authority should impose charges on another authority which is unable to continue with an operation because it is no longer viable. That is, perhaps, the best argument.
I can now give certain assurances to the House. The House will be pleased to know that a recommendation will go to the relevant Exeter city council committee on Monday 2 April that the objection of the Exeter city council be withdrawn because arrangements have been made between the present company and the authority which allow it to withdraw its objection. I am delighted that that is the case. I was informed that the Committee would have liked to have had the recommendation before this debate, but 2 April is the first date on which it can go to the Committee.
Mr. Prescott : What about compensation?
Sir Peter Emery : I cannot say exactly. All that I can say is that that is the recommendation.
There were three private objections. One was a private objection from a previous employer, which has now been settled, and two are outstanding. Mrs. Susan Winters, a chandler, used to sell goods round the docks. She has claimed that her income has been affected by the closure of the docks. I accept that that is the present position, but Exmouth docks are not her only source of income and her business is likely to be far greater with a marina. She will be able to supply more to the boats in the marina than she could to the slightly larger commercial vessels which previously used the docks. If the Bill goes to Committee, she has the right to make her case and I do not have to make it for her.
The second outstanding objection is from Mr. Stephen Lytton, who is a former assistant pilot. He is not employed by the company, but he is working with only 18 months' service. Even if he had been employed by the company, he could not have claimed a statutory redundancy payment ;
Column 737
but the company, realising his position, has made an offer to Mr. Lytton. However, he wants a settlement that would put all the former employees of the company, who have agreed to redundancy payments and other benefits, into a wholly unfair position. The company is still willing to make a fair settlement to the two objectors and it will continue to take that stance.Mr. Prescott : The hon. Gentleman referred to two previous employees who, I believe, were shipping agents in the port. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that they were shipping agents who had to move to another port because the company arbitrarily finished commercial operations at the port in December? Were they shipping agents and, if so, what--if any-- compensation did the company pay them?
Sir Peter Emery : A shipping agent was supposed to be putting in an objection. I believe that he never put in a formal objection, but I should have to consult on that. He was a shipping agent in the port. Negotiations took place between the company and the gentleman, and he was happy to accept the terms. I cannot say what he is doing now. I believe that necessary compensation, which was acceptable to him, was negotiated. I am right in saying that no objection to the Bill was lodged by that individual.
The company strongly believes that it is not financially possible for it to reconstitute the dock as a commercial operation. If it were to be a commercial operation, the company would have to consider--this would not appeal to the Opposition--building up a trade in the importation of coal. Some of my hon. Friends might want that, but some hon. Members would definitely object strongly.
Mr. Prescott : Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that it would be commercially possible to import coal and to meet the expenditure necessary to allay the anxiety about safety at the docks? He is now telling us that it would be possible to make the port profitable by importing coal. I thought that he was telling the House that the money needed to make the dock safe made it impossible for the dock to operate commercially. Which argument does the hon. Gentleman want to deploy?
Sir Peter Emery : The hon. Gentleman is being--
Sir Peter Emery : The hon. Gentleman would never be mischievous. However, he is putting words into my mouth. I have made it clear that the dock company considers that it could take no action to make the dock commercially viable again. I asked the company where, if it could choose, it would go for cargo and I have told the House its answer. The answer does not imply that there is any likelihood of that cargo alone reconstituting commercial activity in the dock. The company has made it clear that even its previous trade in agricultural feedstuffs has now gone elsewhere and the company's chance of winning that trade back are negligible. Clearly, there is no way in which the company or East Devon district council believes that the dock can be made a commercial proposition once more. I want now to consider the benefits that would accrue for Exmouth. For a long time many people have believed that the area along the south coast to which I have been referring needs a marina. There is only anchorage in the
Column 738
estuary, and no marina along the east Devon coast in my constituency from Uplyme to Exmouth. One has to go round the Exe to Torquay before one finds such a facility.Exmouth is a major tourist area and its income is dependent on tourism. The council and the overwhelming majority of people in Exmouth believe that a marina and the kind of development that we are discussing today would be excellent commercially for the town, and that is what they have recommended.
Mr. Prescott : There is some contention over a piece of land to which I believe the hon. Gentleman referred and which is mentioned in the promoter's note. That piece of land is known as Shelley Sands. Does the Bill cover Shelley Sands? If it does, it is a legitimate matter of concern for us this evening. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an apparent dispute about the ownership of Shelley Sands? I have seen the deeds, titles and the correspondence between the local authorities and the people who contest that the port authority involved in the Bill has a right to that land. Is there a dispute? Will the courts have to decide it? Is there any uncertainty about that piece of land?
Sir Peter Emery : I am delighted to answer that. Under the section 52 agreement, the company handed over the Shelley Sands area of the basin to the East Devon district council. There can be no dispute about it. The company was quite willing to do so and that was part of the agreement in the planning application. I am glad that we have got rid of that problem.
Mr. Prescott : So that land is not covered by the Bill?
Sir Peter Emery : It is part of the planning application, but it is not dealt with in the Bill.
I apologise fo having detained the House for so long. I have tried to answer all the questions that were asked. If there are other questions, and I have no doubt that there will be, the right place for them to be asked is in Committee. As there are petitioners, the Bill will go to an Opposed Private Bill Committee and the Committee will examine it rigorously. I urge that the Bill be allowed to receive its Second Reading and proceed in the way that private Bills have proceeded for centuries since the first of these Acts, the Exmouth Docks Act, was introduced in July 1864. It should be brought to a determination sensibly and reasonably for the benefit of Exmouth and of everyone concerned.
7.53 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) set out quite properly to make it clear to the House that he has no interest in these matters. I am sure that he meant also that his company, Shenley Trust Services has no involvement in the matter either.
Mr. Cryer : When the hon. Gentleman was referring to himself, I realised that he was referring to the company that he owns and controls, and of which he is chairman.
Sir Peter Emery : I want to make it clear that neither I nor any company with which I am associated in any way--minority or majority--have any interest in the matter.
Mr. Cryer : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I wish that other hon. Members were as frank and open as
Column 739
he has been tonight. Sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, hon. Members who may be shareholders in a company maintain that that company's involvement in a certain matter does not involve them because their personal property is not affected. The hon. Member for Honiton has made it clear that neither he nor his company has any involvement in the matter under consideration today.Although it may not be the hon. Gentleman's fault, I thought that the statement on behalf of the promoters was poverty stricken. The hon. Gentleman said that the company consulted the Minister to discover whether an order would be possible, and under that order a public inquiry would have been necessary.
I do not anticipate that a public inquiry would be confronted with a statement consisting of three pages of double-spaced typescript to substantiate the case. The promoters may argue that a procedure is available in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. I am not concerned about that procedure. I am concerned with the private Bill that is being dealt with on the Floor of the House, and that hon. Members should have access to the maximum amount of information to help them judge the merits of the proposal. Frankly, three pages of typescript, which is all that is available to us, is less than adequate. I was interested to learn that consultations had been carried out before the Bill was promoted and that the company had approached the Minister and sought an order. However, during those consultations, were local trade unions involved? Trade unions are a very important part of our community, although the Government try to crush them. I believe that they should be consulted about major developments such as the proposal in the Bill because jobs are involved. If there was the potential for jobs, the trade unions would have wanted to know about it and perhaps would have encouraged the venture.
No doubt, if the sponsor could say that the Transport and General Workers Union and the General Municipal Workers Union had given unstinting support to the proposal, that would have been prayed in aid. It is not often that Conservative Members like to stand shoulder to shoulder with trade unionists, but there are occasions when that happens.
Sir Peter Emery : I am not the fount of all knowledge and I have had to consult about that. I am told that consultations with the TGWU did take place.
Mr. Cryer : I am pleased about that. I should be happier if I knew the outcome of those consultations.
Paragraph 5 of the statement on behalf of the promoters states : "Following the acquisition of the Company by its present owners efforts were made to revitalise the commercial life of the docks, in particular by the importation of animal feedstuffs
and the hon. Gentleman elaborated on that.
I wonder who the new owners of the company are. All that we have been given is the name of the company. I have not had the time to ask the Library to dig out the names of the directors and their interests. If I knew that, it would help me to be convinced that the directors are interested primarily in transport and not in making a killing from an increase in land values. There is a suspicion that the company could have been taken over, not because the
Column 740
directors were interested in developing the area as a dock, but because they were taking over an old company, with a relatively low capital value but which owned a large area of land, and because its potential value therefore far outweighed its actual capital value. If the planning consent was obtained and the dock transformed into a marina, hugely enhanced capital values could have been achieved for little investment--Sir Peter Emery rose --
Mr. Cryer : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
I can well recall that early in the 1970s my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I dealt with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, which was of much the same character as this Bill. One of our arguments was : why is so much money available for the development of marinas when so little is available for the development of proper long-term jobs in manufacturing industry?
Sir Peter Emery : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I simply want to provide him with information. He asked about the company that took over the ownership of Exmouth docks. It was a grain- importing company. It took over the docks so that it could import grain through that area for the rest of its business. That is the background to the company of which the hon. Gentleman has requested knowledge.
Mr. Cryer : I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like further information. I should like to know whether the company feels the need to diversify into land. After all, that is the growth area of the present enterprise culture.
Page 2 of the promoters' statement reports :
"The Company applied to East Devon District Council in February 1986 for planning permission to construct the necessary berths, but the Council informed the Company that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks facilities and the application was withdrawn."
By a happy chance, a matter of a couple of years later--the date is not clear because we have not had sight of the report--some consulting engineers reported that the docks were in such a seedy condition that
"certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside."
I do not wish to cast a shadow over the consulting engineers, but that was a most convenient report because the argument about the massive investment that is required to restore a port that has been so arbitrarily closed to dock work rests on that very report. One of my complaints about this procedure is that we have been given only a sparse amount of information. I am slightly surprised by that because the sponsor of the Bill is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure which, at this very moment, is considering private Bill procedure--
Sir Peter Emery : The hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable about the workings of the House, ought to know that the Select Committee on Procedure does not have any powers whatever in relation to private Bills. Our terms of reference limit us to dealing only with the public Bill procedure. We have nothing to do with private Bills. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Cryer : I am pleased to hear that the Select Committee on Procedure is not considering the private Bill procedure, which is certainly the impression that is abroad
Column 741
in the House. Knowing how well versed the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is in the promotion of private Bills, I must advise him that the House expects the maximum possible information. We have certainly not been provided with that tonight.As I said, that engineering report is crucial--because the promoters have suggested that the cost of restoring the dock facility would be about £1 million and that a further £1 million would be required for new machinery.
Other courses of action may well be necessary. The alleged danger of the docks at the moment--the fact that certain dock walls could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles were used at the dockside--might be a bald statement and might not reflect the position in 70 per cent. of the port. We do not know--it might apply to 80 per cent. of the port.
I digress to give an illustration. In the early 1960s two or three of us went walking along the then closed British Rail branch line from Keighley to Oxenholme. We examined the track and the bridges. We thought that the line could be made into a viable proposition. However, some people said, "Oh no, you cannot run a railway without ripping up all the track, cleaning and renewing the ballasts, replacing it or adding new ballasts, levelling the track, tamping it and all the rest." They said that some of the bridges needed renewing. Over the years since we opened the line on 29 June 1968, we have taken some track out of use and have done that work. I use that as an illustration of the dangers of following such reports too closely. A couple of civil engineers gave us reports of great gloom and doom. One of them said that we would need £1 million to reopen the line. That demonstrates that if one considers an issue in different terms, one can produce a programme that does not require the investment to be made all at once. It is possible to plan a programme of renewals that can be implemented over 20 or 25 years. The service--in this case a dock--could still be operated to 50 or 60 per cent. of capacity, perhaps rising to 70 or 80 per cent. We must ask : what proportion of the dock walls is unsafe? As the port is not working at full capacity, the dock walls that are unsafe may not be needed in the operation of the port. We simply do not know.
I am simply a Member of Parliament carrying out my job of scrutinising private legislation. It might be an unfortunate procedure--it was the procedure under which all the railways of this country were built--and it has unsatisfactory aspects, but as we are using that parliamentary procedure, we have the right to know precisely what is involved in the application. However, we are not being given the necessary information.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) recalls that I asked the hon. Member for Honiton some questions at the beginning of the debate. If the information had been deposited in the Private Bill Office while the hon. Member for Honiton was elaborating on the promotion of the Bill, I should have been able to have a quick look at it. It is a matter of great regret that that information is not available.
Mr. Prescott : On the contentious matter of the consulting engineers' report, which stated that the walls were not safe and that the docks should be closed, I understand that some of the objectors asked for the report, but were denied it. I do not know who was given the report
Column 742
--perhaps the Exmouth authority or the Devon authority was given it--but those whose livelihoods were at stake were entitled to ask for the full report on which they could make a judgment. As I understand it, they did not receive it.Mr. Cryer : That is interesting information. I wonder whether copies of the report were available for the consultations with the Transport and General Workers Union. As my hon. Friend knows, that union and others have always assisted in planning for the future development of their areas. That is a characteristic of the trade union movement, although it is often not recognised.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : My hon. Friend is putting questions to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)--or Botswana or whatever it is called these days. I saw the hon. Gentleman nod and wink to the people who are responsible for the Bill. If my hon. Friend were to hang around a bit longer--and I am sure that he has a lot more to say--he might see a message being passed from the promoters' representatives to the hon. Gentleman to enable him to answer questions. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he play the game. He should ask questions fairly slowly and deliberately, and intersperse them with the necessary arguments. The hon. Member for Honiton, in his state of health, cannot afford to keep running over to the promoters' representatives for answers. My hon. Friend must have a lot of questions to put to the hon. Member for Honiton, as, apparently, have other people. Wearing another hat, he has been asking questions at another level. This private Bill procedure is very murky. We know that these matters should not be dealt with on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend should give the hon. Gentleman some time to get answers. I want to know the answers, as does everybody else in the Chamber, including those in the Gallery.
Mr. Cryer : I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I raised the question of this report right at the beginning in order to give people time to provide the information. It is outrageous that people should come to Parliament for powers to close a dock, and expect to get those powers on the basis of two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript, with no report on the case on which the whole argument hinges--that the dock has to be closed as parts of it are unsafe. We are not told to what extent traffic is affected. We are not told whether the whole dock, or half of the dock, is affected. We are not told whether the dock could carry on at 50 per cent. capacity. I say to the promoters that this is not the way to go about things.
Mr. Prescott : My hon. Friend should bear in mind a point that has been made to me by people down in that area. The authority in east Devon has changed its position as to whether legislation should have to pass through the House before the granting of planning permission in respect of dock land. I think that the words that are now used are something like, "use their best endeavours". The reason given for the change was that several Members of the House of Commons are rather awkward about private Bills. Because of that awkwardness, promoters cannot be assured that they will have Bills passed by the House. I do not want to burden the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) with unnecessary journeys across the Floor of the Chamber, but we must have answers to the questions that we put quite legitimately. The hon. Gentleman has a
Column 743
problem because a few truculent Members of Parliament do not co-operate. The point that my hon. Friend has been making is substantial. Where is the consultants' report? Hon. Members need to see that report before they can judge whether the process of closing the dock should be started.Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend is quite right. Parliament would be a poorer place if it did not have a few truculent, investigative Members. Actually, it would be best to deal with this matter by public inquiry. Such an inquiry would be presented with rather more than two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript. At inquiries, people produce great quantities of documents to substantiate their cases. Inspectors call for information, and witnesses are cross-examined. Anybody who treats Parliament as being less important than a public inquiry is just asking for trouble. Happily, there have always been dissident Members of Parliament who do not say simply, "Private business. It is time to be off. We do not have to be bothered with it." There are Members who take an interest in private business. It is all a matter of priorities in the expenditure of public money. It seems that making money is regarded as more important than making machines. That is why this country has a balance of trade deficit of £20,000 million. The Eastbourne harbour syndrome has been going on too long.
Mr. Skinner : I do not like my hon. Friend's reference to truculent and dissident Members of Parliament. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know only too well, I am against the private Bill procedure. The whole thing stinks. It is about a few people coming here and making money on the side. These moonlighting Tory Members of Parliament have pocketfuls of money. Nearly every Tory Back Bencher has about five moonlighting jobs. We heard the other day about all the money that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had received from Blue Arrow. He said that he had given it back, that it had been returned.
My hon. Friend and I are exposing this business of making money. Tory Members do not mind what they do. They put people out of work ; they close docks ; they bring South African coal in through the Humber ports. They do not give tuppence for Parliament. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, yet he is in the middle of it. So I will not have this reference to dissident Members of Parliament. I come here to protect the public purse. I do not believe that public money should be spent in this way. The hon. Member for Honiton has problems--his Tory colleagues have deserted him. I do not know why. This must be a very murky business. Normally, one or two little Tory bootleggers trot between the promoters and the hon. Member who is presenting their case. The hon. Gentleman does not have anybody to do that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Briefly.
Mr. Skinner : The Bill is brief, and it is very costly. Every line in it will make a packet of money--probably for the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Emery : Wait a minute.
Column 744
Mr. Skinner : I am just checking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not casting aspersions on another hon. Member. That would be quite out of order. Secondly, his intervention has been quite long enough. I hope that he will clarify his remark.
Mr. Skinner : If the hon. Gentleman is disclaiming today, then he is disclaiming today. If he is disclaiming today, one has to buy it. But that does not mean that I will buy it tomorrow.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will satisfy me that he was not casting aspersions on the honour of another hon. Member.
Mr. Skinner : Let me make it absolutely plain. If the hon. Gentleman says that he has nowt to do with this Bill, that he is just sitting there for the good of his health
Sir Peter Emery : The good of my constituents.
| Next Section
| Home Page |