House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jun 1990

Column 76

Orders of the Day

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

7.28 pm

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that since the last time this subject was brought before the House, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was debated on Third Reading, there have been some important developments on private Bill procedure. The first was the publication of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, 1987-1988, House of Lords paper 97, and House of Commons paper 625. That report contained several important recommendations covering the matters before the House tonight. In particular, recommendation 9 dealt with ports and harbours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I find it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman says to the Lords amendments to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I cannot see that a consultation paper is relevant.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : See? My hon. Friend is a lawyer.

Mr. Bell : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help. My point of order to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is specific ; I have not lost track of it. I referred to recommendation 9 dealing with harbours and ports. Procedural amendments were also made that touch upon proceedings : the deposit and advertising of private Bills that are now before the House. I draw to your attention a further development : the publication by the Lord President of the Council of the document that I hold in my hand. Last Thursday, I asked the Lord President of the Council whether he would make clear the Government's position on the private Bill procedure. At 3.30 pm, he said that a written answer and a document would be placed in the Library. This document is a consultation paper. It may be a Green Paper, or it may be a White Paper--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to procedural changes that may or may not take place some time in the future. Under the existing procedure, we are about to deal with Lords amendments to a particular Bill. Any point of order must be directly related to the existing procedure.

Mr. Bell : I now approach the point of order that I have for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the latest edition of "Erskine May", page 861 states :

"If any stage of a Bill is proceeded with when the notice has not been duly given, or the proper interval allowed, or if notice is taken of any other formality, the proceeding will be null and void, and the stage must be repeated."

My point of order for you is that important and serious changes have been made to the private Bill procedure since the House last met on the issue. The Government have said that they intend to change the law of the land in relation to the private Bill procedure. That is clearly stated in the document issued by the Lord President of the Council.

Column 77

Have the Government, either through their business managers or through the usual channels, intimated to you that as a consequence of the proposed changes to the law they wish to defer the private Bill that is before the House? I draw your attention to the quotation from "Erskine May". I ask you to be kind enough to suspend the sitting until you have taken the advice of the Clerks and ascertained whether the situation has changed. If it has, I ask you to rule that we cannot proceed with consideration of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : What we are about to do is perfectly in order. I emphasise yet again to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that we are now working under our existing procedures and that what has been set down for debate today is perfectly in order. The sooner we get on with it the better. Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I shall hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) ought to keep quiet and pay attention. It is an important matter. You will recollect that when the Bill began its passage through the House we said that it was a hybrid, not a private Bill. At that time the Chair ruled, and has ruled on several occasions since, that it is not a hybrid Bill, so the procedure is correct. Would you consider suspending the sitting until you have had time to reflect on the fact that the Government have been involved in the various stages of the Bill? In view of the Government's involvement and connivance, I ask you to suspend the sitting and then to rule that this is a hybrid Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is nothing further for the Chair to reflect on. The Chair has reflected over a good many months on the Bill and on the procedures that we are following. They are wholly correct.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall take points of order, but it would be very much tidier if the hon. Member who is sponsoring the Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), were able to move the motion. Then I should be prepared to take points of order.

Mr. Michael Brown : I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I shall hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to clarify the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). When the Bill received its Third Reading in the House, there was a good attendance by Opposition Members. The amendments that were made in the other

Column 78

place could have been made in Committee in the House of Commons. Was the Bill in its correct form when it received its Third Reading in this House? It could have been amended in this place but it was not. The Bill was introduced in 1988 and received its Third Reading in 1989. We believe that amendments were made in the other place to prevent the Opposition from tabling further amendments to the Bill here and scrutinising it properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman can make points of that kind when we debate whether the amendments should be considered. It is not a point of order for me. It is a genuine point that could be made in the debate. That is why I suggest that it would be much more sensible if the Question were proposed so that these points could be raised legitimately on the Question whether the Lords amendments should be considered.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall be able to persuade you that consideration of the Bill should not continue and that the sitting should be suspended. Paragraph 26 of the special Committee report recommended that

"In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal -mining industry."

The Select Committee of the House of Lords supported that view in paragraph 23. I ask you to bear it in mind that the Government have responded to neither of those reports, which recommend that special protection should be granted to the coal industry. I ask you to suspend the debate until we receive such an assurance from the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am not prepared to do that. I have dealt with that point. These are not matters for me. There may be changes to the procedure in due course, but until it is changed I am bound to observe the rules of the House and the existing procedure. What has been set down for debate today is perfectly in order. I suggest that it would be wise to get on with it.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order for you. I shall deal first with the slighter one. On Thursday afternoon, during questions to the Leader of the House, I made the point that I had tried to obtain copies of the amendments the day before and also at 3 o'clock on Thursday afternoon before I came into the Chamber. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). I was assured that the Lords amendments were not available. One hour later, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) vigorously waved in the House a document that I think he hoped that we would

Column 79

accept. It was a copy of the amendments. He implied that what I had said to the House was untrue. That is unacceptable.

I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that in no way does he deny that inquiries at the Vote Office in pursuit of copies of the amendments resulted in information being given to me that they were not available. I accept that they became available some time before 4 o'clock, but they were not available at 3 o'clock. It is unreasonable that the amendments were not available until such a short time before the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to make it absolutely clear that he was not suggesting that my hon. Friends and I had misled the House.

My second point of order is much more serious. I have never been an expert in the bureaucratic aspects of parliamentary life, nor do I have a detailed knowledge of parliamentary procedures, but it appears to me that the way in which the Bill has been managed, throughout the long period in which it has been under consideration, means that we are now treated as if the House of Commons is an inferior part of the legislature to the other place. We have an obligation to maintain the importance of our democratically elected Government and to make it clear that the House of Lords cannot override or disregard the rights and powers of the House of Commons. Those rights and powers are being challenged by the way in which the Bill is being presented tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : First, I understand that the amendments are available and have been available for some time, and I made specific inquiries about that. As I have told other hon. Members, the other points that the hon. Member has made are legitimate points to raise in the debate that we are about to have. As a specific point was directed at the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, if that hon. Member has anything to say on that point, of course I shall call him.

Mr. Michael Brown : Are you calling me to make my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am very happy to respond-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. At the moment, I am calling the hon. Gentleman further to the point of order, if he wishes to comment on the points that were specifically made about him.

Mr. Brown : If it will assist the House, I am willing to respond to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). In no way would I ever accuse him of midleading the House, and if he took what I said as an implication that I was making such an accusation, I withdraw any such suggestion.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 186, dealing with private business. It states that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who governs the procedures of private business in the House, may give directions for the printing of any amendments,

"including a requirement that the clause as amended shall be printed in extenso with every addition or substitution in distinctive type, and the omissions included in brackets and underlined."

Column 80

That has not been done. We have a single sheet of typescript with no clear relationship to the clause. The first two amendments alter clause 3 and the remaining four amendments alter clause 18, which is a short clause that alters the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 by substituting a further provision. I should have thought that the four alterations to a clause that is about 10 lines long, the extent of the alterations and the fairly radical changes involved are sufficient to suggest that the Chairman of Ways and Means should have carried out Standing Order No. 186. This is a controversial measure, which has been going through the House for some time. I should have thought that, out of consideration for all hon. Members who are interested in the Bill, at least Standing Order No. 186 should have been carried out. It may be Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you wish to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means, and some of us would be very happy for you to suspend the proceedings while that consultation takes place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has very largely answered his own point. He said that the reference that he read out is permissive. I am satisfied that the amendments as printed and the Bill as available make it quite clear to what the amendments refer and that nothing further is needed.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that, when your office looked at the amendments from another place a week or a fortnight ago, they were in order, but as a result of an incident that occurred only a week ago--the Spanish trawler case, which called into question certain legislation passed by the House as it is affected by EC directives--it has been brought to my attention that complaints have been made to the European Commission concerning the failure to carry out an environmental assessment of the Immingham project. If that is so--I have no reason to believe that it is not--whether or not we debate it tonight, we are discussing the Bill in the certain knowledge that it will be challenged in the courts immediately. That challenge will come from either the European Commission or an individual. As the matter has arisen only in the past week, I should have thought that it cannot have been taken into account by Mr. Speaker in considering the Lords amendments. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for saying that we should not debate the Bill tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman's suggestion sounds to me pretty remote from what we are likely to have before the House, but when we debate whether the Lords amendments should be considered, if he catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair, he can have a go at finding out whether he is in order.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on an issue that has generated some confusion because of the history of the Bill as it has progressed through the House. Everyone knows that there have been many hours of discussion on the Bill. Amendments have been tabled in the House of Lords so that they can come to this House unopposed. The Lord President of the Council, in a written reply on 21 June, stated : "The procedure for those matters which would remain to be dealt with by private Bills will be reformed along the lines

Column 81

suggested by the Joint Committee and as broadly accepted by the Government in the debate on the report. The Government believe that those proposals, taken as a whole, will provide a more appropriate way to deal with infrastructure projects in the modern age by protecting the interests of all those involved.--[ Official Report, 21 June 1990 ; Vol. 174, c. 628.]

Many people in my constituency could be affected by the legislation, so if the Lord President of the Council's reply on 21 June is as I interpret it, I assume that there is no further cause to discuss the Bill tonight. As it is confusing, I ask you to suspend the proceedings and get the Lord President of the Council to come here and give an interpretation of his reply on 21 June.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That may be ingenious, but it has nothing to do with the debate that we are about to have. I suggest to the House that it would be sensible to move the motion now so that we can debate in a proper manner whether the Lords amendments should be considered.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Michael Welsh (Doncaster, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like your guidance on an important issue. My constituents may suffer tremendously as a result of the legislation. I draw to your attention the fact that, according to European legislation, an environmental assessment should have been made. As no such assessment was made, the number of lorries that will come through my constituency--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That cannot possibly be a point of order, but if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in catching the Chair's eye when we reach the debate, he can have a go then.

Mr. Terry Patchett (Barnsley, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On local television which covers the constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said quite clearly that he was dissatisfied with the procedures of the House for dealing with the Bill. He said that he intended to challenge or to question the procedures of the House. Is not it unfair to proceed with the Bill until the sponsor has explained his position? He has challenged the procedures of the House, and I hope that we shall give him a fair hearing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is a most helpful point of order. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I made : it would be much more sensible if we allowed the sponsor of the Bill to speak to the amendments. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the House will soon feel that it would be sensible to follow him.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his point of order, I heard a disgraceful smear on the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). He shouted across the Benches that his hon. Friend was grovelling only to save his small majority in Nottingham. I have been criticised in the past for making that comment, but it is a bit much that his hon. Friend is smearing him so disgracefully. Will you come to the rescue of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South and ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to withdraw his disgraceful attack?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am trying to come to the rescue of the House so that we can get on with the business.

Column 82

Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have sat in the Chair many a time on private Bills and watched them being steered through. No doubt you are aware that on such occasions there are no Whips. I must draw to your attention the fact that a breach of that convention has taken place. I have the Labour Whip here, which says, "Opposed Private Business" ; there are no lines, nothing. That means that no direction whatever is being given to my hon. Friends. I received a Whip from the other side, which I picked up.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : Where did that come from?

Mr. Skinner : Some research assistant let it slip through. It says, "Dear Norman"--presumably that is Tebbit--

"Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, Lords amendments, Monday 25 June 1990 7 pm to 10 pm. I am delighted to report that this Bill has now received its Third Reading in the House of Lords"--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. This may be a very interesting, but whipping has nothing to do with me. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Skinner : It is quite simple : private business is not whipped. The Chairman of Ways and Means finds a suitable time for the Bill. There is no collusion between the Whips to decide what the agenda will be for the parliamentary week. The Chairman of Ways and Means decides because it is a private Bill, which means that there are no Whips on it. The Tory Whip says :

"Unfortunately the Lords have made several minor technical amendments which will be heavily contested in the Commons on Monday 25 June."

I have only--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. As I have told the hon. Gentleman more than once, this may be very interesting and revealing but whipping has nothing to do with the Chair. We have had a good run on points of order. We really should get on with the debate before the House.

Mr. Skinner : I should like to believe that that is true, but the Whip goes on to advise Conservative Members

"to be in their places between 7 and 10".

and talks about the Bill

"having gone for two and a half years. We must assist to reach the finishing post. The Brown legislative programme invites your continued support once again,

Yours ever"--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is clearly not a point of order--

Mr. Skinner : "Michael Brown, the Member for"--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is an experienced parliamentarian. I have told him three times that what he is raising is not a point of order and I am sure that he knows that that is correct.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : I hope that this is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I take you back to the written answer given by the Lord President of the Council? It seems to many hon. Members that it is germane to consideration of this business. Have you read that written answer? If not, will you suspend the House for five minutes so that you can do so and properly apprise yourself of its import?

Column 83

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I cannot possibly see that that written answer has anything to do with the business before the House.

Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood) : Further to that point of order of the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), a former constituent of mine whose vote I was sorry to lose. I should like to take up his point about the scurrilous remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) trying to save his seat. We are trying to save the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes because his rural constituents will turn him out at the next election if this goes through.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I thank you for at last seeing me behind my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)? I was panicking that points of order were exclusively for hon. Members taller than 5 ft 1 in. I wish to draw your attention to the Official Journal of the European Community, published in 1985, on articles of the convention relating to environmental assessment studies. Paragraph 8, which has been adopted by the Government refers to

"Trading ports and also inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1,350 tonnes."

Parts of the Bill are covered by that European Community document, so it should have been taken into consideration before the Bill was brought before the House, but it is clear that it was not. Therefore, the Bill should return to the other place so that that procedure can be carried out. Without it, the European Court can challenge the procedures of the House. It is important that the procedures on the article are not put aside. The article was introduced to protect petitioners against the misuse of the private Bill procedure in places such as the United Kingdom, particularly on Bills that relate to huge industrial developments such as this port. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as someone who has looked after the interests of hon. Members, to take into account the article, stop this procedure and return the Bill to the other place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I assure the House once more that the motion and the amendments are in order. We should now get on with the business before the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Lords amendments are not numbered and do not give us full details, but there appear to be six of them. Will the House take them in order? Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) speak initially to the first Lords amendment? I have a second point of order to raise as well, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is a fair point. It would be better to proceed first with the debate, if we are to have one, on whether the Lords amendments should be considered. When that is out of the way, it will be perfectly legitimate for the hon. Members to raise that point again. We shall deal with it at the more appropriate time. Mr. Harry Barnes rose--

Mr. Cryer rose--

Column 84

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have called the hon. Member for Bradford, South once already and I have dealt with his point.

Mr. Cryer : It is a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member has had one go. I have called every hon. Member who wished to put a point of order and have dealt with those points of order. I hope that the hon. Member will feel, either now or once he has raised his point of order, that it is appropriate to proceed with the debate.

Mr. Cryer : I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we deal with the Adelphi Estate Bill, reference was made to several 19th century Acts of Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out that it was difficult to get elderly Acts of Parliament from the Library, because they were unique and precious. The first group of Lords amendments refers to changes from section 85 to section 85E of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. I imagine that this Bill falls into the same category as the Adelphi Estate Bill.

Have the Bill's promoters troubled to produce extracts from the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, just as the promoters of the Adelphi Estate Bill took the trouble to do after this point was brought to their attention? That leglisation was circulated to Members, rather than have Members in the Chamber handle heavy and fragile bits of legislation, dug out of the Library shelves. As we are talking about the application of a different section of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you have any information about the provision of copies of the legislation to hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : My impression is that all the relevant information is available. It would be better if the hon. Member were to raise those points when we consider the Lords amendments. 8.2 pm

Mr. Michael Brown : I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Mr. Harry Barnes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Brown : I should like first to make it clear that I certainly did not wish to impugn the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). If I did so, I withdraw any such suggestion unreservedly.

Clauses, 3 and 18 were amended in Committee in the other place. The amendments to clause 3 are necessary to clarify and specify the application of the clause. The amendments to clause 18 are necessary because of a change in the general law since the Bill was deposited before Parliament.

Mr. Barron : The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) chose his words carefully and said that the Lords amendments had been tabled because of changes made since the Bill was laid before the House. We all know that the Bill was introduced in the House years ago. As I said on a point of order, these amendments could not have been tabled during the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. Consequently, they

Next Section

Home Page