House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Oct 1990

Mr. Cryer : Sharpe Pritchard may not be at fault, because, although the usual practice has been described, it is not the usual practice for parliamentary agents to put forward amendments as being made in the other place when there is no evidence that such amendments were ever made. All parliamentary agents are meant to do is to transmit information about decisions that have been made in this House or another place. If parliamentary agents transmit information about uncorroborated amendments made in another place, it means that they can insert their own decisions into the proceedings of this House, which must be unprecedented. Perhaps my hon. Friend will dwell on how the blame should be apportioned. Presumably Sharpe Pritchard had evidence of the amendment being made, so I wonder whether it provided any of that documentation to my hon. Friend to justify its action. 8.30 pm

Mr. Barnes : It would have been helpful if the documentation from Sharpe Pritchard had included such evidence. If it at least referred to the relevant parliamentary papers, right hon. and hon. Members could then check in the Library whether everything was in order. Sharpe Pritchard's payments should presumably be based on such arrangements. If Sharpe Pritchard are not to blame but someone in Parliament, then that too should be a subject for examination.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the value of photocopies in clarifying our procedure? The two sheets from Sharpe Pritchard are photocopies. Given that the Bill was withdrawn on a previous occasion, one wonders why Sharpe Pritchard did not go to the trouble of photocopying a document from the other place which would allow us to decide beyond peradventure, as the lawyers expensively say, whether the Lords made the decision in question. Perhaps, however, Sharpe Pritchard cannot locate such a document, in which case it appears that decisions are made not by the geriatric wing in the Lords or even by this House, but by paid agents. That undermines the constitution.

Mr. Barnes : I agree that here are serious constitutional implications.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your predecessor in the Chair ruled that these proceedings are in order because an amendment was sent

Column 411

from another place, notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence available to right hon. and hon. Members that such an amendment was made. So far as I have been able to ascertain today, no such amendment was made in Committee or on Third Reading. We are therefore not clear at what stage it was made. Let us suppose that a mistake has been made in another place. What would be the consequence if this House voted for an amendment from another place which had never been properly made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that the Chair is indivisible. I have been listening to the proceedings, and it seems a pity that right hon. and hon. Members are spending time on points of order which are perfectly legitimate points in making the argument that the Lords amendment should not be considered. I think that it would be better if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has been frequently interrupted, now had my protection and was allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that you listened to the earlier proceedings and have taken account of everything that happened, and from your point of view it is just as well that you did so as we might otherwise be on the second round, and we do not want to subject you to that.

This House is portrayed as the mother of Parliaments and the best of its kind in the world. I do not agree, but that is neither here nor there. The Prime Minister goes trotting off to eastern European countries saying, "Why don't you follow our model?" I am not kidding. Should anyone follow a model in which 1,100 people in the House of Lords, who never open their mouths but just take the money and run, send an amendment to this House, only for us to find that it has not been included in the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East had to draw attention to that fact, and the Bill's sponsor is not even present--he has gone on a fact-finding trip somewhere and got his mate to move it, but that hon. Gentleman refuses to talk and will not tell us what has happened to the clause. At 9.15 pm he comes to the Chamber and says, "Sorry, we can't find the clause--you've been debating fresh air, so we'll withdraw it."

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We have been round that course umpteen times. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East should be permitted to continue his speech.

Mr. Barnes : I was making the point that there is something odd about Sharpe Pritchard's activities, so it would be advantageous to Redbridge council to vote for consideration of this measure at a later stage because that would give the council time to find fresh parliamentary agents.

Mr. Illsley : My hon. Friend made the point that Sharpe Pritchard made a mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned the Lord Chancellor's counsel. The promoters must have access to more information than right hon. and hon. Members do or they could not have included the statement that clause 6 was considered otiose and had been struck from the Bill. How could the promoters so confidently make that statement when the information was not available to right hon. and hon. Members? No one has sought to explain to us why there are so many confusing issues surrounding clause 6.

Column 412

Mr. Barnes : It would not surprise me if Sharpe Pritchard as the agents and promoters know more about what is going on than we do. We are very short on information about the procedures that have been adopted, and Sharpe Pritchard has not seen fit to provide us with sufficient information to reach a reasonable judgment. The information that hon. Members have been able to dig out throws doubt on whether the amendment has been properly passed by due procedure in another place.

Mr. Illsley : It is clear that the promoters know more than we do because they confidently stated that clause 6 was struck out because it was considered otiose, so why has none of the Bill's supporters come to the House today to explain the promoters' confident statement about clause 6 and to explain who was responsible for striking it out?

Mr. Barnes : It is true that the parliamentary agents should attempt to explain the procedures that have been followed, but if Sharpe Pritchard has not done so there is a duty on the sponsor, who is represented today by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is in Uruguay. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Ilford, South should still be able to communicate with the hon. Member for Ilford, North, as should the parliamentary agents, so that the hon. Gentleman can explain to the House the procedures that have been observed. On 15 October, the hon. Member for Ilford, North introduced this measure. I will read out his entire speech, because it was short : "I beg to move, That the amendment be now considered. Hon. Members may wonder why I rise to speak to the Bill. It is because my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is with an IPU delegation in Uruguay. He sends his apologies for not being able to be here. I shall say nothing more about the Bill because it has been debated in both Houses and in Committee."--[ Official Report, 15 October 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 983.]

Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that it has been debated in the House of Lords. In any case, that was the whole explanation that we have had, together with a small statement from the parliamentary agents which came out the second time around. We are completely in the dark, and it is right that points of order about procedural improprieties should be raised and considered. We are not protecting Redbridge, although it is beginning to be involved--we are protecting parliamentary procedures and processes, and the constitution.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : The crux of the matter that we have now been debating for more than 45 minutes is a simple point that could be easily resolved. Was the amendment made in the House of Lords? If so, was it made in Committee notwithstanding its apparent absence from the record? Was it made in some other way to which we are not privy? Or was it made on Third Reading? The agents are sitting listening to this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North is present, so it would be an extremely easy matter to give this information to the House. As it has not been given, however, we are entitled to assume that the amendment was not properly made, in which case the debate should not continue because we are debating an amendment that was never made, so the debate has no standing.

Mr. Barnes : I certainly feel that the hon. Member for Ilford, North is obliged to explain the whole process to us

Column 413

and to fill in the blanks in our understanding. He might want to do that in a series of interventions or he might want to wait until after my brief speech. I will happily give way to him if he wants to explain matters more fully.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has refused on occasion to allow a measure through on the nod unless the promoters got up and explained in detail what it contained. That led on one occasion--the Adelphi Estate Bill--to a veritable Monty Python show. The Bill was presented without explanation, until my hon. Friend forced some explanation of it. I am sure that a video replay of that occasion could be provided for the House.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you have been following proceedings with your usual care and attention, you will recall my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asking about hon. Members who have already spoken in the last debate, which turned out to be a non-debate. Madam Deputy Speaker was asked whether they should not be able to speak again. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) may be intimidated by this procedural difficulty, but I think that your colleague in the Chair made it clear that if such hon. Members sought the leave of the House, they could speak again unless there was an objection. Can you confirm that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is an expert in parliamentary procedure, but he did not get it quite right. The last debate was in order ; it was adjourned, so we resumed it this evening. Certainly, if any hon. Member who has already spoken wants to speak again he will need the leave of the House to do so. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) would not need the leave of the House if he wished to speak again, but I have noticed that a number of hon. Members have been encouraging him to do so. It is difficult for him to do so, however, when an hon. Member is still on his feet.

Mr. Barnes : I am quite prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to clarify matters, or if he wants to move the adjournment so that he can pull together all the threads of this awkward situation and present us with the details that we require. He seems not to want to take up my offer--

Mr. Barron : Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the Lord Chancellor's counsel in another place became involved before the Bill had had its Third Reading, so that was when there was an opportunity to object to amendments made without debate. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) should know those procedures, as he is here to promote the Bill tonight.

Mr. Barnes : Taking over as the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Ilford, North must be aware of what the debates have covered so far. He could have drawn on that to explain the general position and then allowed questions about the procedural oddities--

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

In view of the unsatisfactory pace of this procedure, and given the many difficulties which you and your

Column 414

colleagues in the Chair have noticed, would it be in order to adjourn the debate until the Bill's sponsor returns from Uruguay? That seems the sensible thing to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That would not be in order. The debate is perfectly in order and we should get on with it. We really do not want delaying tactics.

Mr. Barnes : I know that hon. Members are keenly following the thread of my speech, the points of which all follow on logically from each other. So far I have said that we should vote against considering the amendment. The only way to avert a major constitutional crisis and save both the face of Sharpe Pritchard and the procedures of the House is to vote against this measure. That would give Redbridge council the chance to get new parliamentary agents, because Sharpe Pritchard must be to blame for what happened on 15 October, when we had to debate without the correct documentation and even without copies of the Bill itself. On 15 October the hon. Member for Romford also mentioned the role of public relations consultants :

"Redbridge is also being advised by a well-known firm of public relations consultants the consultants are being paid £50,000, plus £4,000 a month for expenses".--[ Official Report, 15 October 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 995.]

Those public relations consultants are doing a fine job. So far, the publicity that they have generated has been about the Bill being killed off on 15 October and about its being resurrected today, when we have revealed the huge difficulties associated with it. This is a proper debate, which has involved almost every hon. Member in the Chamber, apart from the sponsor, all of whom have shown that there are many different procedural problems. Although I have made only two points so far, we have covered a great deal of ground within those two points because of the points of order and intervention.

Mr. Illsley : I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Did he suggest that the public relations company was prolonging proceedings on the Bill so as to extend its retainer and its fee?

Mr. Barnes : I do not know what the role of public relations consultants is, but presumably it is to sell the notion of the Redbridge Bill and make it popular. Therefore, they should have handled things in a different way. I do not know what their relationship is with Sharpe Pritchard, but as public relations consultants they should have handed lots of information and explanations to hon. Members, especially those who are liable to be in the Chamber to debate the Bill. Such information would make Members of Parliament more likely to accept what was there because it would seem that a fair job was being done. However, that has not happened and the public relations on the Bill have been disastrous.

Mr. Allen McKay : My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out to the Chair that, as the sponsor of the Bill is in Uruaguay and we have a stand-in, it would be sensible to adjourn the debate until the sponsor returns. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North- East (Mr. Barnes) is a generous person. Despite the fact that, judging by the sheaves of paper in his hand, he could go on for another hour and 10 minutes, I suggest that he cuts short his speech so as to allow the stand- in to explain the situation before we vote on the Bill.

Column 415

Mr. Barnes : If the hon. Member for Ilford, North told us that he would speak fully to put us in the picture and explain what has happened, which would be a considerable contribution, although we should still need to cross-examine him, I should be willing to end my speech. I would do what I imagined that I had come here to do, which is to make a few brief points. I am sure that other hon. Members would assist me by allowing me to finish my speech quickly so as to enable the hon. Member to enlighten us. If no great enlightenment came from his speech, I might be allowed a second bite of the cherry if the House gave me leave to speak again.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North gives us no sign that he wishes to join the debate, so I shall continue with my speech and my reasons why we should vote against the amendment. Should we do so, we would give Redbridge council the chance to come to its senses and reorganise itself. I understand that it is now two years since the council first made the decision to pursue this matter.

Mr. O'Brien : The Redbridge council decided to promote the Bill in 1980, and began the consultative exercise. No one has explained to this House, nor to the House of Lords, why clause 6 was included to start with, so my hon. Friend has every right to ask the sponsor to explain both that and why it is now to be taken out.

Mr. Barnes : That seems eminently sensible. I am more than willing to give way to the hon. Member for Ilford, North. I feel a bit like a yo- yo, jumping up and down as all sorts of interventions have been made by various Members--except the one hon. Member who could clarify the situation for us and help us to overcome the problems that we face. If he does not do so, we shall believe that the problem is insurmountable and we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Skinner : After all these hours during the passage of the Bill, we are having one hell of a job getting the sponsor to say anything. Could it be, as we have suggested before, that because the Tories have a majority of 150 these private Bill merchants think that they can just slip Bills through the House of Commons because not all the Tories need to be kept here? They will be got here at the time prescribed by the Whips. The Whips will tell them when to come along and vote on the closure. The sponsor does not speak because the last thing that he wants is for people to understand the Bill. He is interested in getting the closure by getting the troops into the Lobby, out of the dining rooms and the 16 bars. They walk in and the shop stewards--the Whips--are on the door. If they ask what they are voting for, the Whips say, "Never mind about that, get into the Aye Lobby", or the No Lobby, as the case may be. That shows up this Parliament for what it is.

The private Bill procedure is being used in a scandalous fashion by the Tory Government. There is no better example of that than the proceedings on this Bill. The sponsor refuses to tell us why clause 6 was there in the first place or why it is now being taken out. They do not care because they will be using the big block vote to hustle the Bill through--all those people will come rushing out of the woodwork to be told by the Whips how to vote.

Mr. Barnes : I am aware of the procedures adopted to ensure that private Bills that the Government support get through, especially as I have recently had experience on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which we

Column 416

were discussing on Monday. The power of the Whips descended not merely into the House but into the Committee so that the Government could control the situation. I will not go too far down that road because we are discussing the Redbridge Bill, although the other matters link in because similar procedures are followed.

We have now been told that the Redbridge Bill has been around for 10 years, although it was drafted only a couple of years ago. The decision to make this move was taken with a majority of one on the council, and since that time there have been changes in the make-up of the council, which is presumably facing an election now. What does the council think about the Lords amendment? We have no information on that, although we have an hon. Member who can correct me if what I say is incorrect, and give details about the position.

Redbridge borough council has been faced during the last two years with a whole host of changes which have affected its position. There is the uniform business rate. There is also the poll tax. There have been other changes in local government finance. The council's financial position has changed as well as its political make-up. Next year, however, the position will have changed again because after the next election there will be a Labour Government, so within a year there will be new financial arrangements for local government. The people of Redbridge, as well as many members of Redbridge borough council, do not want the Bill.

9 pm

Mr. Neubert : I shall seek to test the spirit of the proceedings by requesting permission to intervene for a second time in the debate. In case I am denied that opportunity, I will refer to the authority given for the promotion of the Bill within Redbridge borough council. Since a week ago last Monday, I have established the precise voting figures in Redbridge borough council when the Bill was first mooted for promotion. Of the 63 Redbridge borough councillors, nine were not present at the relevant meeting, 12 abstained in the vote on whether to promote the Bill, 10 voted against its promotion and 32 voted for it.

The Local Government Act 1972 requires, in section 239(2), that "A resolution of a local authority to promote or oppose a Bill under subsection (1) above shall be--

(a) passed by a majority of the whole number of the members of the authority at a meeting of the authority held after the requisite notice of the meeting and of its purpose has been given". The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will have quickly made his calculations and will now realise that the Bill was given the barest minimum level of support--a majority of just half a councillor, if that is possible, or perhaps a very short councillor. Lest the hon. Gentleman think that that happened on just one evening, I should point out to him that the voting figures were identical the following year when the matter was put to the vote a second time. Mr. Barnes : That information is invaluable. It reveals that Redbridge obtained the power to promote the Bill by only one vote. Had one other person abstained or voted against promotion of the Bill, Redbridge would not have obtained overall support for it in the council chamber and

Column 417

would not have been able to proceed with it. The council would have had to consider other methods of extending Redbridge's market facilities.

I understand that the Food Act 1984 contains licensing provisions that the council could have used. It would have been possible for the borough council to follow a different route from the expensive one that it chose to follow. I picked up that point from the speech made by the hon. Member for Romford on 15 October.

The Bill is likely to have knock-on effects. The markets would be oversaturated--a point made by the Market Traders Association, whose headquarters are in Barnsley. The position is the same in this context as it is with the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. There was much opposition to that Bill, which led to problems in Committee. The procedures involved in battling against that measure were long drawn out. A promise was made at the Conservative party conference that an enabling Act would be introduced under which all the ports could be privatised.

Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had been under the impression throughout the proceedings that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) did not intend to speak in the debate, because he could not, but he has certainly been gallivanting about this evening. He has spoken to the parliamentary agents and he is now engaged in little huddled conversations. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members are trying to obtain information from him about the Bill, especially about clause 6, but he refuses to speak in the debate and he prefers to talk to other people. Why is he not imparting the information?

While I am on my feet I have something else to say. Some of the Ministers have been coming in here. I have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary and a Minister from the Home Office. They have walked in, gone to see the Chief Whip or one of the Whips and asked what time the vote will be, saying, "I am at a dinner." The game stinks to high heaven. They are just trying to find out when the vote will be so that they can come in at a time agreed by the Whips. This is a private Bill and they are not supposed to be involved in it. Yet the Whips have told them what time to come. It is high time the Chair took a hand in these affairs. This is supposed to be a private Bill, but the Government's footprints are all over it. Any moment now we shall see the Prime Minister come trotting down from her ivory tower.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that the Chair has nothing to do with these matters. The hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order, but now that there is an interruption I remind the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North- East (Mr. Barnes) that he is beginning to stray from the motion before the House, which is that the Lords amendment be now considered.

Mr. Skinner : I spy strangers.

Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

The House divided : Ayes 141, Noes 41.

Column 418

Division No. 338] [9.6 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Amess, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Cash, William

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James

Curry, David

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dunn, Bob

Fallon, Michael

Fishburn, John Dudley

Fookes, Dame Janet

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Freeman, Roger

Gale, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodlad, Alastair

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Grist, Ian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Hague, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hanley, Jeremy

Harris, David

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Hordern, Sir Peter

Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Howells, Geraint

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Irvine, Michael

Jack, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Key, Robert

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knowles, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Lawrence, Ivan

Lee, John (Pendle)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Lightbown, David

Lilley, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Lord, Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Maclean, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Major, Rt Hon John

Maples, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Maude, Hon Francis

Mellor, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Moss, Malcolm

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Patnick, Irvine

Patten, Rt Hon John

Pawsey, James

Portillo, Michael

Redwood, John

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Rost, Peter

Ryder, Richard

Sackville, Hon Tom

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Summerson, Hugo

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thurnham, Peter

Trippier, David

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Jacques Arnold and

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Allen, Graham

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Beggs, Roy

Buckley, George J.

Budgen, Nicholas

Next Section

Home Page