| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Am I right in thinking that this question was revealed in Committee and that Havering made the points that my hon. Friend is now making but that those representing Redbridge made no attempt to answer them? Therefore, the House has had no guidance from the promoters of the Bill on why they sought to put the clause in, just as we have had no further guidance on why they now wish to remove it.
Mr. Neubert : In general, that must be so. It is not that there has been insufficient time for them to do so. The Committee considered the Bill in the previous Session of Parliament well before the summer recess last year. Therefore, there has been ample time for an explanation to be given.
Redbridge's parliamentary agents are Sharpe Pritchard, who are well known to hon. Members. Their no doubt expensive services enjoy a high reputation in the House. Proceedings on the Bill have been under way for nearly two years if one dates them from the printing of the Bill on 16 November 1988. Redbridge residents must have been paying a packet all this time. The Bill has been controversial from the start, even if the extinguishing of a royal charter does not, to my regret, count as le se-majesty. It has undergone substantial amendment, of which the Lords amendment is yet another example.
Proceedings have been protracted and have detained the House for an avoidable length of time. I am now detaining the House for an avoidable length of time and I ask for forbearance and understanding. The proceedings have played a part in putting pressure on the Leader of the House to change the private Bill procedure which will restrict our freedom and the rights of hon. Members to play their traditional role in such proceedings. All that has happened despite the fact that on Third Reading the Bill had a majority of only five. That is a narrow squeak in anybody's estimation.
As I understand it, if we were to disagree with the Lords amendment, it would return to the upper House. The Bill has survived this far only because the Government introduced a carry-over motion from the last Session to this. We are now coming towards the end of the second Session. I do not know whether it is possible for a private
Column 995
Bill to be carried over a second time. It is my understanding that, if a private Bill does not secure enough support to pass through all its stages in one Session, it would go against the principle of private Bills for it to proceed at all. It would go against that understanding if it were to be carried over yet again. As I have said, there is no doubt that it has played its part in putting pressure on the Government and the Leader of the House to change private Bill procedure and I regret that.Before the House reaches a decision, I ask again whether it would be wiser for Redbridge to withdraw the Bill. The expense does not stop at Queen Anne's Chambers. Redbridge is also being advised by a well-known firm of public relations consultants. I have no hard words to say against the company concerned. It does an excellent job and has even been shrewd enough on occasion to offer me hospitality at its offices not 100 miles from here.
The only other person I know who lives in that street is my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Incidentally, he should take a close interest in the Bill, as he is one of the many hon. Members who has a charter market in his constituency which would be threatened by the precedent set by the Bill.
The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford lives in that street suggests the quality of the firm of consultants and I am sure it does not come cheap. It has been said--it has not been denied so far--that the consultants are being paid £50,000 plus £4,000 a month for expenses. Some of that money might, with advantage, have been spent on explaining to hon. Members the reasons for the to-ing and fro-ing on clause 6. We would all benefit from that, including the Chairman of Ways and Means who is responsible for private legislation in the House. He may regret as much as we do that we have no clear understanding of why we are at this unusual stage in private Bill procedure.
This legislation has very little support in the House--it was carried on Third Reading by 48 votes to 43--and I am distressed at the amount it must be costing the community charge payers of Redbridge with each week that passes.
It may be that clause 6 relates to the original clause 3. That clause as printed in the Bill of 16 November 1988, said that the council may
"(1) establish a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall, and
(2) authorise on such terms, (whether financial or otherwise) as they think fit, the establishment by others of a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall."
The second option might have entailed the transfer of rights as set out in clause 6. However, clause 3(2) has now been removed from the Bill, and, as a result, clause 6 may be redundant. I await an explanation. As I said earlier, I am a layman in these matters. I do not know precisely the reason why the promoters want to remove clause 6 and I cannot deduce from the wording of the clause why it is no longer appropriate. However, Havering made some play of arguing against the clause in their Lordships' House and it may be that this is a concession to those arguments.
It is clear that by the inclusion of clause 6 Redbridge had ambitions beyond what is necessary for a local authority to own and operate a market. That brings me back to my objection in principle to the clause and my
Column 996
main argument for wishing to see my motion carried. They should have an opportunity for second, third or even fourth thoughts. Throughout the country, there are many markets such as that in Romford. The figure of 284 has been cited, but I am not sure whether that represents the number of markets nationwide or whether it is the number of hon. Members whose constituents have access to such a market. A list has been circulated to some hon. Members by the National Market Traders Federation and it lists 284 hon. Members as having such a charter market. It is disappointing that so few of them seem to be aware of the issues in the Bill which, although it affects my constituency of Romford and is promoted by Redbridge, has implications for charter markets all over the country.The network of markets has developed over hundreds of years and has provided the basis for local prosperity in many towns, especially mine. Romford is famous for its market. It is not famous for much else. It is not famous for its Member of Parliament and it no longer has a football club. It has an excellent brewery which promotes John Bull bitter, but only within the London Weekend Television area. It may be that some towns in this country have developed and been sustained solely as a result of their having a market. If the market is to have its charter removed by a private Act of Parliament, it may be that not only Romford but many other markets will be threatened and picked off one by one.
My hon. Friend the Minister is very patient to sit through the proceedings. His predecessor said on Second Reading that the House should be given an opportunity to examine the Bill although the Government have not supported it. However, they should have taken more interest in the motion to defer consideration. In fact, I would welcome a contribution from my hon. Friend the Minister on whether we should proceed or whether we should do as the motion suggests and defer consideration for six months.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : On the Government's attitude, the House should take note of what Lord Davidson said in the other place : "We have reviewed the whole matter of charter market rights to consider whether they are a restraint on trade. We found this a highly complex matter, which could involve compensation for loss of rights and which might well be expensive As existing franchise rights present little impediment to trade--market trading being such a very small part of UK retail trade--we should leave matters as they stand at present."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 1990 ; Vol. 517, c. 1612.]
Although I am sure that the Government do not wish to intervene on the Bill, that sentiment implies that matters should be left as they stood in Romford as well as in the rest of the country.
8 pm
Mr. Neubert : I am ready to agree with my hon. Friend, because with his unerring instinct for what is apt, he has anticipated my next point. The Government came clean in another place about their reasons for not proceeding with such legislation. It is a matter of complexity and compensation, and if the system is thought to be outdated--there is no doubt that in historical terms it is outdated, although it has some relevance to present day conditions--it would be better reformed outright, not by picking off one franchise market at a time by private Act of Parliament. Although they are a radical Administration,
Column 997
the Government have not sought that reform, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Viscount Davidson had his finger on the point. That confirms the value of such charters and that they should not be taken over and transferred to others, as anticipated in clause 6, without adequate recompense and without it being dealt with evenhandedly.Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : Is not it true that many towns have grown around ancient charter markets and that in recent years authorities have put considerable investment into new market facilities? If such a Bill had been proposed at that time, they might not have made that investment.
Mr. Neubert : I am glad to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who has sustained his interest throughout the long proceedings on this Bill ; we have welcomed the value of his advice on more than one occasion. These arrangements are long established and will be upset by a Bill that picks off one market. The economy of Romford, which is prospering and supporting the livelihoods of many people in and around the town, is based on those long-standing arrangements, and simply changing them will have serious repercussions. The Committee that considered the Bill recognised that fact by requiring Redbridge to pay adequate compensation, but I do not know whether it is anything more a mitigating amendment. If we support the Bill, which attacks the long protected rights of a single market, we may condemn ourselves to endless such Bills, which is one of my greatest anxieties.
It cannot be right to proceed in this way and I hope that I have made it clear that the best for all concerned, even at this late stage and notwithstanding the expense incurred, the many hours of debate and discussion and the valued experience and knowledge that have been used to amend the Bill, would be to proceed by negotiation and to avoid putting this precedent on the statute book. It may be argued that there is already a precedent--the agreement reached by the borough of Bexley with Greenwich. It is not for me or other hon. Members to argue the case for Bexley or Greenwich, but, whatever their arguments or interests, they reached an agreement.
The Bill is not the subject of such an agreement--it would not need to be promoted in the House if there were such an agreement--but the result of Redbridge's single-minded determination to promote legislation as a way of achieving its objectives. For that reason, I support the motion to defer consideration because it gives Redbridge a chance to reconsider and to open negotiations with Havering and to explore whether there is another way out that does not require this precedent, which would be highly unfortunate for charter markets throughout the country and for Members of Parliament whose constituents enjoy the benefits of them. I very much hope that the motion will be carried.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) back to the land of the living. As one of his colleagues in Havering, I have very much missed his presence on the Back Benches. I hope that he will not take it amiss when I say that it was a sadness to me that the Government did not dispense with his services a few months earlier, because had they done so I
Column 998
have no doubt that the Bill would not have reached this stage. With my hon. Friend's assistance, which he was debarred from giving, we would have managed to knock this absurd Bill on the head long ago. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, have sat through many nights of discussion on the Bill. We thought that we had exhaustively dealt with all the subjects that could have been brought before us, but it appears that we had not because the amendment radically transforms the nature of the Bill in such a way that it would be wrong for the House to consider it tonight. No warning was given to Havering council as far as I am aware, and certainly to my hon. Friends or me, that the amendment would be moved. There was no discussion and it was unilaterally decided by Redbridge council to delete this clause lock stock and barrel fromn the Bill. I am not clear--I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) will intervene and enlighten me--what are the consequences of the clause's removal. I shall read clause 6 as it was--Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We are not yet dealing with the amendment to the Bill. The question before us is whether we move on to deal with the amendment.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : That is right, but we cannot decide whether we should debate the amendment without considering the consequences of removing clause 6. I shall refresh the memory of the House and read that clause. It says :
"Any person entitled or authorised by virtue of this Act to hold a market may transfer or dispose of all or part of his rights to another and that other shall have and may exercise, to the extent authorised by the Council, all or any of the powers that the Council have in relation to markets established by them under Section 50 of the Act of 1984, other than any powers to make byelaws, but shall be subject to all the restrictions, liabilities and obligations in respect thereof to which the Council are subject."
How can the House assess what the result will be of removing the clause from the Bill without considering the amendment? I disclose my ignorance by saying so, but I cannot understand what the position will be if the Bill is passed without clause 6. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will enlighten me, but if he cannot the House cannot conceivably consider whether the clause should be deleted.
Mr. Neubert : I had hoped, as no doubt my hon. Friend had, that we would have an explanation, not, as appears likely, at the end of the debate but at an early stage. It would have been helpful for an explanation to have been given so that I could have considered it. If we are not to have an explanation until the end of the debate, it will make a farce of it.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Or, indeed, if we are not to have an explanation at all. As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may have noted, I hesitated before rising, because I wished to give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North an opportunity to clarify the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford. It is most unsatisfactory if those of us who criticise the Bill and who wish the motion to be carried are not to be given the advantage of knowing precisely what we are discussing.
I have scrutinised the rest of the Bill in an attempt to discover what the consequence of omitting clause 6 would be. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North is talking to some of my hon. Friends. I hope that he will
Column 999
pay attention, because if he does not, he will not be able to answer the questions that I am putting to him. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us whether the council will authorise the transfer of stalls if there is no clause 6 and on what terms the transfer of rights in each stall will be made. Will the council have a blanket right to allow transfer by whatever means it wishes, or will it have no rights to authorise a transfer at all?As far as I can see, nothing elsewhere in the Bill either grants or limits the power of transfer. Clause 3 deals with the establishment of the market. Clause 4 deals with the compensation payable in the event of the Bill being enacted and clause 5 merely specifies that section 50 of the 1984 Act shall apply to the Bill.
Mr. O'Brien : I consider this to be a very important matter. I have examined the proceedings in the other place and in Committee. Nowhere was any evidence given to support the case for the removal of the clause. Until the facts are made available to the House, we cannot proceed, and we should therefore support the motion. Does the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) have any information about the circumstances that gave rise to the tabling of the amendment?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I have no such information and I think it very unfortunate that I have none. As far as I am aware, no hon. Member--with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, has any such information. Indeed, I remain to be convinced that even my hon. Friend has such information. I deeply regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) cannot be here, although I understand the reasons. His absence handicaps those of us who seek a proper debate on an important part of the Bill. He is one of the two primary sponsors who have argued in favour of the Bill throughout our long proceedings on it, and it is regrettable that he cannot be here during its final stages.
I invite my my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North to enlighten the House, if he can, on the consequences of removing clause 6. Unfortunately, it seems that my hon. Friend cannot enlighten us, so let me speculate.
It is possible that if the clause is removed, the council will have no power to authorise the transfer of the trading stalls--in which case, I cannot see how it can proceed to set up and maintain a market in Ilford. Another possibility is that the council will have the power to authorise the transfer of the stalls without imposing any conditions on them. If that is so, I should be grateful for information about how that arrangement compares with arrangements for other markets where councils set up stalls.
Do the councils usually have the power to authorise transfer of stalls from one person to another without having any say in the type of business taking place at those stalls, or are restrictions perhaps imposed under section 50 of the 1984 Act? I do not think that it is incumbent on me to give the House the solutions. Those who are promoting the Bill and those who have brought it before us have a duty to tell us the consequences of accepting the amendment. At the moment, every hon. Member in the Chamber--and everyone who has considered the matter--is as much in the dark as I am.
Mr. Neubert : I find it quite intolerable that, even at the third or fourth time of asking, we are to be offered no explanation of the fact that we have been called here to
Column 1000
deal with this business tonight--even though it was known before the summer recess that this business would be taken. I have had to spend some time preparing for tonight's debate, in ignorance of the reasons for it but in the confident belief that the sponsor of the Bill would make it plain at the outset why we were being asked to consider the Lords amendment and what the background to it was. It makes a mockery of our proceedings if we are to be given no explanation at all of a matter that is clearly so directly relevant to the Bill.8.15 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. It is an abuse of the procedures of the House if business is brought before it for which no explanation is offered. There has been no proper resistance to the motion and no proper explanation has been given of why those who tabled it may be mistaken.
While remaining neutral on the fundamental question whether Redbridge should be given the power in the Bill, the Government should certainly not be neutral when it comes to matters affecting the procedures of the House. They should not be neutral about the fact that the sponsors of the Bill have not informed the House of precisely what they are asking it to agree. As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, no explanation was given when the amendment was moved in the other place. Having resisted such an amendment throughout the Committee stage--without giving any reasons for resisting it--the promoter has suddenly decided to adopt such an amendment and to try to force it through both Houses of Parliament without even opening their mouths to defend what they are doing. That is something that the House simply cannot tolerate.
I regret the fact that so few hon. Members are present, although it is not surprising on the first day back after a long summer recess, and especially as the Bill is not perhaps the most important business with which we are likely to be faced in the next fortnight--except to my hon. Friends the Members for Romford and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and myself. Our colleagues who are not present would not for one moment tolerate such a procedure and I predict that there will be a roar of fury when hon. Members read Hansard and see what is being done in their name and in their absence and without any explanation from the sponsors.
That is the first reason why I vigorously support the motion, tabled to try to defer discussion of the amendment so that proper consideration can be given to it, so that proper consultation can take place between Romford and Redbridge and so that my hon. Friends and I can be given a full explanation of the consequences of accepting the amendment and of the reasons why it has been tabled. I touched upon my second reason for supporting the motion in my point of order. I am not clear whether the locus standi of the promoter is still intact. I do not know the procedures and rules of the House in relation to a Bill being proposed without having complied--at the time when it was proposed--with the qualifications laid down in "Erskine May" for the introduction of such a Bill. Perhaps it is enough--as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford suggested--that the conditions were intact when the Bill was first proposed and perhaps it does not matter what happens thereafter. But perhaps by now--some two and a half years after the introduction of the Bill
Column 1001
--the qualifications allowing Redbridge to assert its right to introduce the Bill are no longer intact. If that is so, I do not know whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed.If it should not be allowed to proceed, we should certainly not debate the amendment tonight. The debate should be adjourned and the matter should be considered further, perhaps by the occupant of the Chair, to determine whether the Bill still has proper standing to be considered in this place. That is a question of fundamental importance. There must be similar instances ; indeed, I can think of one parallel straight away.
Suppose that a Government Bill is hybrid. As I understand it, a hybrid Bill cannot proceed through the House in the face of objection because it is not properly founded ; it can be stopped. If my submission is right, the same rules should apply to this Bill. Unless the promoter can establish that the foundation on which the Bill has come to the Chamber is sound and intact, the Bill must fail. I must admit that I am not clear about what procedure should apply. If my supposition is correct, how can we stop the Bill at any time other than now? I am in your hands, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am making a speech and not raising a point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on a point of order earlier and I assured him then, as I do now, that the Bill is in perfect order, otherwise we would not be debating it tonight.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I accept that and I move my guard, as any good defensive boxer must when he has just been effectively punched. The fact that the Bill is in order does not mean that the House should consider these matters without having been given prior notice that the change was to be made to the Bill. Even though it is in order for Redbridge to bring forward the Bill, the council may no longer have the requisite support for it, because it might have changed its complexion and many no longer support the Bill. It would be an insult for the new councillors of Redbridge who oppose the Bill and for those councillors who have steadfastly opposed it-- I believe that those councillors have always comprised one third of the council--if the House were to proceed with the Bill and allow it to reach the statute book. It would be insulting for the House to do that if the council that brought the Bill to the House no longer wished to proceed with it because it had not yet had an opportunity to change its mind on the issue.
I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North to discuss with the council representatives who are present this evening whether it would be better, and in the interests of the constituents of Redbridge, for the Bill to be deferred so that proper consideration can be given to whether it is still popular in the constituency and the borough, whether it is still wanted and whether, above all, the council would still put the Bill before the House should it take such a decision today instead of relying on a decision taken two and a half years ago.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will comment on those points. If he does not do so, we must conclude that the Bill is being brought before the House without adequate consideration even by the people living in the borough on whose behalf the Bill is allegedly being promoted.
Column 1002
The final point, which I strongly believe the House should consider when deciding whether we should continue the debate on clause 6, is the fact that we were not told by Redbridge council or by its representatives in the House why clause 6 was included in the first place. Not only are we ignorant of the consequences of removing clause 6 : we are equally ignorant of the reasons why it was included. It is important that the House should know whether what Redbridge was seeking in clause 6 were powers in excess of those granted by the Food Act 1984. Redbridge said nothing about that in Committee, despite the fact that counsel for Havering borough and others speaking on behalf of Havering raised that point several times. The point was never answered satisfactorily. Indeed, it was not answered at all.The House must be ignorant about the purpose behind clause 6 and whether Redbridge was seeking powers well beyond the removal of the rights granted by ancient charter in Romford. The House was going to be used, had clause 6 not been removed, to do something which would have been unique in this country and which would have given Redbridge borough powers that no other borough possesses.
That may be why clause 6 was included in the Bill and perhaps it is being removed because Redbridge borough council has thought better of asking the House for powers that no other council possesses. However, I cannot say often enough or with adequate feeling that the House is not being properly treated or adequately briefed by the Bill's sponsors.
The procedures for private business have worked well for many years. I have served on private Bill Committees and the procedure is comprehensive. However, it is comprehensive only if the good will and good faith of the promoter allows a proper and full examination of the proposals in the Bill. That, dismally, did not occur in this case--although every opportunity was given to the promoter to answer the allegations.
If we had allowed the Bill to pass with clause 6, that could have thrown much ill light on the private Bill procedures. I submit that it would be wrong for us to proceed with the consideration of whether we should continue with clause 6 or allow the Bill to proceed without it. Such consideration cannot happen when we have not received the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and I have been requesting this evening. That information was pressed for vigorously in Committee and the issue has been raised every time this business has come before the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will seize this last opportunity and tell the House the facts that we are longing to know and so justify the stance that his council is putting forward as the reason for our supporting the Bill.
Mr. Pike : Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), I am going to delay the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) for a few moments, but I also await the comments of the latter.
We welcome the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to the Government Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. As he comes here in a virgin state as a Minister tonight, untainted by any previous involvement in this Bill, I hope that he will steer the House to a sensible
Column 1003
conclusion in this debate and defer consideration for six months. I hope that that would be a sensible way forward at the moment.Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The motion before the House is whether we consider the Lords amendment. It is not the six months motion.
Mr. Pike : Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that we all understand the situation.
Mr. Neubert : Does the hon. Gentleman take some encouragement from the fact that the new Under-Secretary of State, to whom I extend congratulations, is the hon. Member for Salisbury and has a charter market in his constituency and that he may well therefore be concerned to learn the implications of the Bill for his market? What is more, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is flanked by my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who is the hon. Member for Wokingham. He is one of the long list of hon. Members who have markets which benefit their constituents. With such a representation on the Government Front Bench, perhaps greater consideration can be given to the arguments that we have deployed for nearly two years now.
Mr. Pike : The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) has rightly made a pertinent point. I have been involved in the debates at every stage of this Bill and I know that concerns have not only centred around the implications for Redbridge and the neighbouring authority, but on the implications for all towns with charter markets. It was somewhat unfortunate that, although he made his position perfectly clear in previous debates, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) was unable to make a contribution to the proceedings. Tonight he has put forward an extremely good case for why we should not debate the Lords amendment. I congratulate him on that speech. Although I am sorry that he has had to go back to the Government Back Benches, his contribution to the debate has been most welcome, and I shall now concentrate on his final remarks.
8.30 pm
The hon. Member's argument was that we should not debate the Lords amendment because there should be a period in which the local authorities involved should be able to negotiate and consult, to see whether some mutually convenient and acceptable arrangement can be achieved. That is an eminently sensible proposal, which should commend itself to the House. I hope that the House will support that point of view.
We in Burnley have a charter market that dates back about 800 years. We fear that the next thing that we shall see is another Bill relating to another local authority, and then another Bill, and so on. That would be a dangerous precedent. The Burnley market was established by charter on the doorsteps of the church more than 800 years ago, and that pattern has been repeated on many occasions. We have often debated how the distance between markets was established, and so on.
As I said when the hon. Member for Romford kindly gave way to me, the local authority in Burnley has made a major investment in a new indoor and outdoor market. If charter rights had been in jeopardy, there would have
Column 1004
been great reservations about that investment. Many other local authorities have made investments to bring their markets up to modern-day standards. If they thought that their charter rights would not be protected, they would not have made that investment : that is our worry.I recognise that we are not debating the Lords amendment at this stage, but it is right to refer to the context of the debate. We do not know why, having resisted changes at all stages of the proceedings in this House, at this late stage we are presented with a proposal to delete clause 6. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your role as Chairman of Ways and Means, know very well that the normal procedure with private Member's Bills is that their promoters give reasons for major changes. It is strange that we are not in a position to know why that debate is to take place tonight, why that clause is to be deleted. It represents a major change to the Bill, and that matter is of concern to us.
It particularly worries me that the hon. Members for Romford and for Upminster, even though their local authority is directly affected, have not received the courtesy of being consulted or informed. Since July, we have known that the Redbridge Bill was the business for Monday 15 October at 7 o'clock. We have known that for a considerable time. That is a discourtesy not only to the House but to hon. Members with neighbouring constituencies that are directly involved, who have expressed reservations at every stage.
Mr. Neubert : Does the hon. Gentleman recall that this business was put down at short notice for consideration on 24 July and was not reached then only because of the weight of debate on the private business which preceded it? But for the fact that it was set down for second business on that day, we would have been in this position all those weeks and months ago. Even now we have no explanation. It is quite extraordinary.
Mr. Pike : The hon. Member for Romford is absolutely right. He would obviously be joined not only by the hon. Member for Upminster and others but by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who has taken a close interest in this Bill. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who has made his position clear throughout the proceedings, the principal advocate on most occasions has been the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who unfortunately cannot be present tonight. It would be wrong for us to proceed when he is not present to state exactly why the clause should be deleted.
The issues are clear. Hon. Members should refrain from discussing the deletion of clause 6 and allow adequate time for further consultation. That is the sensible course of action to pursue. It would also allow the two authorities involved to get their heads together and perhaps reach an acceptable compromise.
The hon. Member for Upminster questioned whether the people of Redbridge are still as enthusiastic about the Bill as they might have been when it started on its passage a considerable time ago. If we do not proceed tonight, we shall allow time for reflection. It is certainly not my wish to prolong the proceedings, but those two grounds alone constitute extremely good reasons not to debate the Lords amendment tonight. I hope that the House is also of that view and that the matter can be deferred.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone) : I, too, am concerned about the length of notice that hon. Members
Column 1005
have received. I add my congratulations to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Salisbury, (Mr. Key). I am delighted to see him in a very well deserved post. Hon. Members look forward to hearing his contributions on many occasions.My hon. Friend and I do not always agree on everything, but I have immense respect for him, which I know is universally shared, and I am delighted to see him on the Government Front Bench. I should like to talk at even greater length on his promotion, but at this point I should address the main question, which is whether we should debate the amendment or whether we should delay.
I was keen to hear the arguments for why we should debate the amendment. When I saw the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on the screen, I ran in at high speed, because I wished to hear his arguments. I was not coming from a great distance, but, by the time I arrived in the Chamber, he had concluded his remarks. Sadly, therefore, I have heard no argument whatever for our debating the amendment now.
As I understand it, notice of the amendment was given from the other place immediately before we adjourned for the summer recess. Now, on the first day back, this amendment is on the Order Paper. Hon. Members cannot possibly have had sufficient time to consider its implications. I am told that no explanatory memorandum has been submitted, despite endless requests, so that we should know exactly what was in the minds of those in the other place when they decided to make the amendment.
Mr. Pike : Did I understand the hon. Lady correctly when she said that the borough of Havering had specifically requested that an explanatory memorandum should be made available?
Miss Widdecombe : I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford that numerous requests have been made for an explanation. I would welcome my hon. Friend's clarification of that.
Mr. Neubert : I am happy to be able to confirm that numerous requests have been made in this Chamber to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall). All I have been able to do is present evidence to show that the borough secretary and solicitor for the London borough of Havering are as unaware of the background to this most surprising development as we are. Havering borough has been the chief protagonist and petitioner against the Bill in both Houses and one would have thought that that borough at least would have been given the courtesy of some explanation. Certainly the hon. Members representing that borough have had no such explanation, and it follows that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is equally underprivileged.
Miss Widdecombe : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
We are here tonight to discuss something for which we have been given no explanation, either verbal or written. We have not had time to consider it properly, because a number of sitting days have not passed. We have not had time for informal discussion of this important amendment. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from my earlier
Column 1006
contributions that I am in sympathy with deleting that clause, but I would not stretch your patience by dwelling on the reasons for that. Nevertheless, I believe that proper forms must be observed. However technically in order it might be, it seems quite improper that such a major amendment of a clause that occupied hours of debate during earlier consideration of the Bill should be sprung on the House, especially as no proper explanation of it has been given. The proposed change would affect all those constituencies with markets. I was most interested to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) discuss the market at Burnley. He may recall that I had an acquaintance with Burnley-- not as successful as his acquaintance with it--in 1979. I recall that market extremely well and the great contribution that it makes to Burnley life.I can understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that we should not be precipitated into a situation in which a major Bill, which will create precedents, has an important consideration removed from it--the powers of local councils over the disposal of those markets. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman considers that that is unacceptable. I too have a market in my constituency and I am surprised that we have not been given further opportunity to consider the effect of deleting the clause.
When the Bill left the House in the summer, the clause was intact. Those local authorities and markets examining the likely effects of the Bill will obviously be studying it in the form in which it last left the House.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor : My hon. Friend's argument is even more forceful because of the way in which an earlier attempt to get an explanation from the promoter of why the clause was there was so firmly blocked. Every attempt by those opposed to the Bill to challenge that clause was met with a dead-wall defence. No explanation was given at any stage of why the clause was in the Bill and there has been less than zero information as to why it should be taken out of the Bill. That is a complete volte-face from the position adopted in Committee.
Miss Widdecombe : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our earlier proceedings on the Bill, I remember that we had a most unsatisfactory time trying to establish why on earth the restrictions under the Shops Act 1950 would not do, and why such an eccentric blanket provision should be built in to give local councils total control over disposals. Such powers would make it impossible for anyone to take sensible commercial decisions. Nobody would know what rules would govern the disposal of markets or parts of markets at the time that they chose to dispose of them.
I remember that questions were raised about nepotism on councils and about frequent switches of political control of councils. Those questions were never answered. We asked for clarification, but we did not get it. Tonight, the clause has disappeared and it has been amended out of existence. We have asked for an explanation, but we have not received one.
8.45 pm
Mr. Neubert : My hon. Friend mentioned clause 6. It is important to remember that we have not yet amended it out of existence. We are discussing whether we should consider such a thing tonight. Things are even more mysterious than my hon. Friend has portrayed, because
Column 1007
clause 6 not only existed in the original Bill, but two lines were added to it in the course of proceedings in the House. Lines 16 and 17 provided :"No such transfer or disposal of rights"
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I think that the debate now is perhaps anticipating the debate that we may have on the amendment. We should confine the debate to the question whether the Lords amendment should be considered or otherwise.
| Next Section
| Home Page |