| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Ashby : What weight would my hon. Friend give to the elected Members of Parliament from Southampton, both of whom are against the scheme? Should weight be given to the Conservatives on the council who, as I understand it, are equally opposed to the scheme? Should weight be given to some 86 per cent. of the population of Southampton who took part in a wide survey of 3,000 to 4,000 people?
Mr. Colvin : That is a weighty question. I hesitate to draw a comparison between hon. Members elected to this House and councillors elected to the city council when it comes to weighing up the relative power of their opinion and the value of their judgment. We are debating this matter in this House and, therefore, we must give priority to the opinions of the elected representatives from Southampton in the Chamber--my hon. Friends the Members for Test and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope). My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen is a Minister, so will be unable to speak, but I believe that he shares the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Test.
Sir David Price : On his interesting democratic point, does my hon. Friend accept that when a Bill is before the House, the views of local Members of Parliament are of overriding importance? If a motion is before the local city council, it is quite different.
Mr. Colvin : As one would expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has put far more eloquently the point that I was trying to make. Members of Parliament are sent to this place to use their judgment and that is precisely what we shall be doing after having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Test because it is his judgment to which we shall listen most carefully. The importance of listening to elected representatives from Southampton is that they will have to live with the people mover if it is constructed and they represent those who may have to pay for it if it is not viable. So, the principal question that we must consider is whether the people mover will be viable and, if not, in discussing this procedural motion, are we saying that the people of Southampton will have to pay for it instead?
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh hinted that he was in favour of the principle but not necessarily in favour of this scheme. I accept that and I shall now deal with some of the interventions by my hon. Friends. I have distinct reservations. The failure of the scheme to connect directly with the suburbs is of paramount importance
Column 1178
because it means that my constituents in Romsey could not get straight on to it to come into Southampton, but would have to clog up the roads to get there. There are problems in the Waterside part of my constituency where the A326 is a well-known death trap. It is congested at Totton going into Southampton over what is known as the red bridge. If the people mover connected directly with the Waterside part of my constituency either by a bridge or a tunnel under Southampton water, I should be the first to vote for the revival motion. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it is no use producing a mickey mouse system that just goes round the centre of the city. It has to connect with the infrastructure. Sir Anthony Grant : I have been listening to the debate with keen interest because we talk about such matters in Cambridgeshire, which has similar problems that may come before the House. I have listened to my hon. Friends' criticisms of the Bill and for the past hour we have been listening to criticisms from hon. Members who know a great deal more about this than I do. We are being asked to provide for the revival of the Bill so that it can have a Second Reading. In view of all the Bill's obvious defects and the opposition to it, would it not be more sensible to refuse to allow the Bill to be revived so that the promoters and everybody else can take on board all the points that have been made, together with the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and the criticisms about the mickey mouse nature of the scheme, and come back, if necessary, with a much more sensible scheme? Therefore, is it not logical for the House to refuse to allow the Bill to be revived?Mr. Colvin : My hon. Friend has really made his speech. His is a sensible proposal and I am sure that hon. Members will take it on board.
My other criticism of the system as proposed in the Bill is the failure to complete the so-called loop. Originally it was a loop and that seemed to make sense, but now it is a horseshoe because one section has been removed. I am told that the loop could be completed later.
Mr. Hill : The circle was cut because Liberal Democrats would not support socialist councillors in impinging on the park land that was necessary to complete the central loop.
Mr. Colvin : I understand that, but I do not want to debate the detail of the route too much as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have to call me to order.
Many points have been made about funding. Of all my reservations, the one about funding is the most important. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh asked where the money is coming from. Southampton city council issued a press statement on 2 February 1989, in which it said :
"The Council has resolved that all the money needed to build and operate the people mover must come from the private sector, whose benefit would exceed its contribution. The people mover is forecast to generate operating profit as a business in its own right." That sounded very good two years ago, but in a statement which hon. Members will have received in advance of the debate, the promoters say :
"Although the City Council have initiated the scheme for rapid transit, it is intended that the system should be financed almost entirely by contributions from developers and from other sources in the private sector."
The council is not quite so bullish as it was two years ago, which begins to sow seeds of doubt in my mind about financial viability. In its circular to hon. Members, it
Column 1179
anticipated the question whether developers in Southampton would provide some of the funds. It answered that simply by saying : "Developers have publicly expressed support for the scheme, and indicated a willingness to make a financial contribution ; consultants' calculations suggest that there are substantial, real commercial benefits to be gained from the People Mover ; firm commitments from developers can only be obtained at a later stage." There is the rub. By "later stage", they mean that, when developers have a prospectus before them from which they can judge the detailed merits of the people mover and its financial viability, they can make a judgment. I have a list showing 20 of the so- called financial supporters--big businesses in Southampton--which would be prepared, we are told, to put up money : Debenhams, Marks and Spencer, Ocean Village Ltd., Associated British Ports, a major land owner in the dock area of the city, Southern Electric, Imry Holdings Ltd, the Pentagon-- I am not sure what that is, but I am sure that it is not the one about which we hear so much in the news--Drawlane Transport Group, Southampton Citybus and British Rail, all of which are big transport operators, Tarmac Construction, Mowlem, Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd., Bovis, P. Trant Ltd., Southampton city council, Briway Transit Systems, Brown and Root Vickers Ltd., and Von Roll Transport System Ltd. They will not know whether to invest until they see a prospectus, which they will not see unless the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.We should consider whether a revival motion could be influenced by our opinion of Southampton city council's preferred mass transit system. It has selected the Briway Transit system following international competition against the major suppliers of transit systems. It selected Briway because, first, it employs modern and proven technology ; secondly, it fulfilled the tender specification in every respect ; thirdly, its performance was greatly superior to other transit systems in terms of quietness, speed, gradient climbing and ability to negotiate six-metre radius turns smoothly and comfortably ; fourthly, it was competitive in price, and viable to operate with low fares, which is very important ; fifthly, it was environmentally friendly and energy efficient ; sixthly, it would be built with the minimum of disturbance and noise ; and, finally, it was demonstrated to be a system capable of great flexibility in its applications and one which could be easily extended to serve suburban communities. As a Member of Parliament who represents one of the suburbs of Southampton, I particularly like that latter reason. The council might have added that it is British--another good reason for selecting Briway. That has all given Briway the stamp of approval, which is helping it to win valuable export orders in Australia, Malaysia, Korea and Taiwan. It is something for a British company to beat the Koreans and Taiwanese at their own game.
Briway is being evaluated by three major airports in the United Kingdom as well as in Leeds, Bristol, Cardiff, Stoke-on-Trent and Kent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), as Transport Ministers, have been greatly impressed by demonstrations of the Briway system at the designer's test track.
Column 1180
If that stamp of approval for Briway were not enough, I can report that Birmingham Centro, the corporate name of the West Midlands passenger transport executive, has just heard from the Department of Transport that it has singled out Briway as the benchmark against which other systems are being evaluated for the Midland metro. That is a tribute to Mr. Alan Bristow, the owner of Briway, and to his designers and engineers, who have a world-beater in an increasingly competitive market.Mr. Hill : I should like to make it perfectly clear that at no time has anyone said that the system is not capable of doing the job. We have said that the elevated track, close to the medieval walls of the city, is environmentally gruesome. I am going to see the chairman of Briway in about two weeks' time to reassure him that his train was not criticised and that if there is a sensible transport scheme for the city of Southampton his company could be one of the forerunners.
Mr. Colvin : I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that ; it may influence the way in which I vote. I am delighted to know that he is going to see the Briway system. I have seen it, as have many other city councillors who are interested in the project.
It is probably true that if a canvass survey were carried out to which people responded realistically, more people would be in favour of a mass transit system in the middle of Southampton than against it. That would also be true if one took in people from outside the city of Southampton, who would be able, like me, to enjoy the system without the risk of having to carry the can of paying for it in due course were it not a financial success.
I have concluded that Southampton city council has produced, in essence, a good scheme, although there is no doubt that it is capable of improvement. The council has selected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test said, the right system in choosing Briway as the mass transit system. Whether in today's economic climate the system should proceed is debatable. The revival motion provides for that. I shall listen carefully to what hon. Members have to say and especially to what my hon. Friend the Member for Test says. He is the hon. Member who is most closely affected, so I shall listen to him before I decide how to vote.
8.10 pm
The Minister for Shipping and Public Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : It may be helpful if I intervene briefly to explain thGovernment's position. Clearly, there has been great interest in the Bill among Conservative Members. The system is undoubtedly controversial within the Southampton area, but it is not for me to comment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) feels strongly. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is following the issue very closely but, obviously, he cannot take part in the debate.
I reiterate that the Government's position is strictly neutral. We are grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for tabling the motion so that the House can reach a decision. However, it is for the House to decide ; it is not for the Government to have a view or to take a line, and the Government will follow their usual practice in these matters.
Column 1181
8.11 pmMr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : The debate has been interesting so far, if only because of the presence of some Conservative Members who have been attracted to it. I understand that there are opposing views about the proposal in Southampton and elsewhere in that part of the world. The procedural motion will enable those views to be heard and it will also enable the petitioners against the Bill to put their case before the House. A few minutes ago, there was discussion about the proper role of Members of Parliament in private Bill procedure. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) agrees, at least for the moment. A number of hon. Members with no pecuniary or constituency interest in the scheme will hear the views of the petitioners and recommend accordingly. Although there are many unsatisfactory aspects to the private Bill procedure, private Bill Committees have worked well over the years. Most petitioners have pronounced themselves reasonably happy with the conduct of the Committees and with the way in which their objections have been heard and, on some occasions, resolved. It would seem from what we have heard so far--especially from some Conservative Members--that there is no pleasing some hon. Members. I will not comment yet on the position of the hon. Member for Test whose speech we eagerly await. When I saw some of the characters who had been attracted to the debate, I knew that we were in for an eventful, if not an informative, evening. I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I know that he participates eagerly in these debates. He expressed the view strongly that it was not for my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who introduced the Bill with his customary ability, to take instructions from third parties. My hon. Friend consulted a third party whom we do not recognise in this Chamber, after he had made his speech. I only wish that some Conservative Members had done the same in the course of similar legislation.
Mr. Michael Brown : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape : I will give way in a moment. I have not finished with the hon. Gentleman yet ; in fact I have barely started. I will give way at the appropriate time.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South was taking instructions from someone else. The Bill has, after all, been supported by democratically elected members of Southampton city council. I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes gave slavish devotion to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which was opposed by democratically elected councillors and which was supported only by the paid directors of a trust port. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect that Opposition Members at least are more impressed by the views of democratically elected councillors of whichever party than by the views of paid directors of a particular trust port. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that aspect of his previous argument. In my view and in that of the Labour party, it is perfectly reasonable and honourable for the sponsors of private Bills such as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South to conduct themselves in that way.
Column 1182
Mr. Michael Brown : When the democratically elected councillors of Glanford, of Cleethorpes and of Humberside voted in favour of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, why did the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not accept the democratic view?
I raised the point about the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) consulting persons outside the Chamber because, when I was in the hon. Gentleman's position, many Opposition Members made great play of the fact that I was doing what the hon. Gentleman has done. I am merely trying to suggest that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should bear in mind all the actions that he and his hon. Friends took when I was in the position of the hon. Member for Norwich, South.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I hope that, in responding, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will remember that we are dealing with the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill and with its revival motion.
Mr. Snape : Those matters will be uppermost in my mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was talking about the promoters of the Bill. In this case, the promoter is the democratically elected local authority. In the case of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, the promoters were the paid directors of the trust port to whom the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes gave slavish support in the course of the legislation.
Mr. John Garrett : In response to the hyperthyroid intervention from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), let me say that my hon. Friend may be interested to know that I spoke to people--who do not exist in the eyes of the House--after my speech simply to point out that the opposition to the Bill was lengthy and eccentric, so they might be here for some hours yet.
Mr. Snape : I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I am being rude. I should have thought that that conclusion might have been drawn by the people who do not exist when they saw some of the hon. Members who had been attracted to the debate.
The basic objections to the Bill appear to be politically based. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has pointed out, Southampton, like many similar towns--
Mr. Janman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape : Let me continue and then I will think about it. The hon. Gentleman has intervened six times, but he has not shed much light on our proceedings despite the thousands of words that he has expended during those interventions. I might give way to the hon. Gentleman in the next few minutes if he is nice to me, but at the moment I am dealing with the eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, who pointed out that, like other similar towns and cities throughout the country, Southampton has a severe traffic problem-- [Interruption.] I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes-- non-stop sedentary chatterbox that he is--would appreciate that the citizens of Southampton are concerned about traffic congestion, and
Column 1183
that that is why their elected representatives have proposed a scheme which they hope will help to alleviate some of that congestion.Sir David Price : It will not.
Mr. Snape : Again from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman points out that it will not. It would be difficult, under our archaic procedures, for local authorities to propose a scheme overnight involving the digging up or laying of tracks in every single suburb in every city centre in the country. One has to start somewhere. I shall not linger for too long on the details of the Bill, but I understand that it would facilitate the start of a scheme which the city council hopes will eventually contribute substantially to the alleviation of traffic congestion in the city. It appears to me that that is a worthy objective, and it ought to be given due consideration under the procedures of the House.
Mr. Janman rose --
Mr. Colvin rose --
Mr. Snape : I shall come to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) shortly. I have been referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside and I now give way to him.
Mr. Colvin : It is clear that if a people mover were constructed in Southampton, it would have a considerable environmental impact on the city. In such cases, it is open to city councils to apply to the Department of Transport for a section 56 grant. On this occasion, the Minister was up and down like a Jack-in-the-box ; there was no time to intervene in his speech. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would like to ask the Minister--in the hope that we shall get an answer-- whether Southampton has applied for a grant or intends to do so and whether it would qualify for such help from taxpayers' money as well as community charge payers' money.
Mr. Snape : Two matters directly arise from the hon. Gentleman's intervention. First, I could not put such a question as eloquently as him. Secondly, knowing the Minister as I do, I very much doubt whether we would get a straight answer to that question. I fear that if we got a straight answer, and if it were anything other than no, the Minister might be an ex- Minister first thing tomorrow morning. No hon. Member on either side of the House would want that even if Labour wants them all out come the next general election.
Mr. McLoughlin : Let me clarify the matter. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) did not have time to intervene in my speech. I usually try to keep my remarks short on these occasions, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I understand that Southampton city council had originally hoped to finance the project entirely through contributions from developers and others but that it has now concluded that there will be a need for a public sector contribution, including a section 56 grant. However, no application for a section 56 grant has yet been made, or received.
Column 1184
Mr. Colvin : Taxpayers' money.
Mr. Snape : The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside refers to taxpayers' money in the sort of tone that Mary Whitehouse might use when referring to certain television programmes. It seems that our fleeting moment of agreement is at an end. Whether in Southampton or in any other city, it would be fairly difficult to finance a people mover or any sort of public transport scheme without any public money. It would be fairly difficult to find a city anywhere in the world where some public money had not been spent on transport. It is entirely to the credit of Southampton city council that, in embarking on the project, it has tried to attract private finance. Should the motion be approved, we shall be able to hear in detail what the council has done, what it expects to do and how much interest has been generated. If, on the other hand, the motion is defeated because of the ideological objections of the far right of the Conservative party, we shall never have the opportunity to hear about that, even though a considerable amount of public money will have been spent on taking the Bill through the other place and preparing it for its passage through this House.
Mr. Janman : I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not thinking of me when he referred to the far right. Let me come to the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). It was a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to chastise my hon. Friend and to say that he was inconsistent. The recent exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) concerning the possibility of taxpayers' money being put into the system supports my argument. One cannot compare support for a trust port scheme with support for a local authority scheme. The trust port scheme that my hon. Friend supported was not going to make any demands on the public purse.
In this case, however, we have a city council--albeit
democratically-elected--which wants to do something which will make demands on the public purse in such a way as to involve central Government finance. Perhaps, therefore, it would be right to take note not just of what the democratically-elected council says but of what the two local democratically-elected parliamentarians say, which is that we are talking about public finance, including taxpayers' money. That is an important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is absolutely right and is being entirely consistent.
Mr. Snape : I was reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and no doubt you can see why, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interminably long and predictably inaccurate. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill will involve public money because the busier the port becomes-- [Interruption]. The Minister ought to listen to this because he is looking bewildered. The busier the port becomes, the more the public sector will be called upon to improve road links to the port because it will be said that heavy traffic is passing too close to people's homes. With the Department as it is, that is presumably exactly what will happen. The Minister can usually find money for road developments but not for public transport.
Mr. McLoughlin : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that a substantial amount of public money has been going into various light rail schemes which have met the
Column 1185
criteria for section 56 grants. Those schemes include a large development under way in Manchester. My hon. Friends gave permission for the Sheffield scheme to go forward and we are currently evaluating the Centro scheme.Mr. Snape : Strictly speaking, the Centro scheme has nothing to do with the motion before us, but I have a deep personal interest in it because it passes through my constituency. I noted from the Minister's comments a week or so ago that he has managed to find money for a roads package around Birmingham, even though he is still evaluating the public transport advantages that will be provided by the Midland metro.
Let me return to the motion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Test is no longer in his place. I said earlier that I intended to refer to him. I understand his basic objection to the proposal, which is a political objection. In his view, the fact that
Labour-controlled Southampton city council has made the proposal is good enough reason to oppose it. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said so far will lead me to any other conclusion, although there are other reasons that we might consider. It is apparent, for example, that the hon. Gentleman is not the sort of man who would ride round the city centre on the people mover. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman prefers a good brisk walk on his way to the gymnasium or the squash court. All credit to him for that ; it shows in his remarkable physical appearance. But the other citizens of Southampton may not be quite as fit and athletic as the hon. Gentleman, and they may want a people mover. The fact is that we do not know, and tonight is not the occasion on which to find out. Given the amount of public money involved, it would seem eminently sensible--
Mr. Janman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape : I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Gentleman again as I do not have another 15 minutes to spare. His hon. Friend the Member for Test ought to be here if he has a point to make. Although the two hon. Gentleman are very similar physically and spend a lot of time playing squash or whatever they do together, we had better wait for the hon. Member for Test to make the point. Mr. Janman rose--
Mr. Snape : If the hon. Gentleman guarantees that his intervention will be a normal sentence long--
Mr. John Garrett : And sensible.
Mr. Snape : Well, I cannot accept that it will be very sensible--in fact, I know that it will not be--but if he promises that it will be short, I will give way.
Mr. Janman : It will be short and not sensible. The hon. Gentleman is implying that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) is not very fit and that therefore he will not be able to gain access to this system because it is elevated and he will not be able to climb the many flights of stairs that he would have to climb to get into the carriages.
Mr. Snape : For once there is a grain of truth in something the hon. Gentleman says. It seems to me that the scheme has even greater merit now because in no time at all the hon. Member for Test will be even fitter than his hon. Friend. That is another argument in favour of the
Column 1186
scheme. For all of us who have listened to the hon. Member for Test over the years, the idea of being guaranteed his presence and common sense for many more years is appealing.The hon. Member for Thurrock and some of his hon. Friends make great play with their concern about public money. I remind them that preparing such legislation is not cheap. Our learned friends do not work for a guinea a word any more. I understand that the price has gone up considerably. I understand, further, that the costs that the poll tax payers of Southampton have inevitably incurred, as would happen in the case of any other legislation to do with public transport, already amount to around three quarters of a million pounds.
This means that the debates about the merits of this scheme and the objections to it ought to be fully heard. That investment, which has been made to bring improved public transport to the crowded and congested city of Southampton, should receive a fair hearing in this place through the procedures that I outlined earlier. I hope, therefore, that the House will give this proposal the go-ahead this evening and that we can see in detail what is proposed and what are the objections. To defeat the Bill at this stage would not only indicate the right-wing bias and ideology of certain Tory Members present this evening ; it would also be extremely expensive for the poll tax payers of Southampton--a fact of which I and my hon. Friends will remind them in the time up to and including the next general election.
8.34 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North) : The Chair has already said that in discussions of this kind it allows a certain latitude with regard to what might otherwise be an extremely narrow point. I rise purely to be of assistance to the Chair in that I do not want to talk about the merits of the Bill at all ; I want to talk about the motion. I do so for a very serious reason. It is not only that I happen to represent a south coast constituency where we are interested in moving people conveniently and quickly and therefore interested in the ways other people may find to deal with this problem ; it is that some years ago I was a member of the Committee which considered the Ginns and Guttridge (Crematorium) Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members in this crowded House are fully aware of the details of that Bill and I will not rehearse them this evening. But I remind the House that that was the longest private Bill Committee this century. Not only did it have to have revival motions but it ran over from one Parliament to the next. A general election intervened and the Bill had to be brought back again.
The point is that in the end, when the Bill came back from the Committee, on which we had worked literally for years, it was defeated in the House. The Bill--for the sake of hon. Members who were not then in the House, although I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember it-- concerned a proposal for the building of a crematorium in the city of Leicester. The discussion was about whether it was a suitable site, whether the technology was correct, whether the traffic arrangements were right, and so on.
It was a tragedy that the system of working through a private Bill and the procedures of the House on that occasion provided absolutely no protection to a moderately sized company which needed to promote a Bill
Column 1187
of this nature. Although a carry-over motion contains within its terms a provision that there shall not be renewed fees because the Bill is being renewed, that does not mean that the costs to the promoters cease. The costs of legal advice and of counsel continue. It was said earlier this evening that the members of the legal profession were probably not unduly concerned that our debate might take three hours as opposed to one. I am quite sure that there was no great objection to the fact that the Bill to which I referred took three years.Mr. Janman : I just want to give my hon. Friend some information that supports his point. I quote from an article in the Sunday Evening Echo written by the local government correspondent, Kate Thompson, which says :
"A secret memo written by project manager Steve Keys"
who I think is somebody connected with the company that has been set up to further the cause of this project--
"reveals that a further £176,000 will have to be pumped into the project if more parliamentary time is won tonight."
So if one shares the concern of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about waste of community charge payers' money, it would be a very good thing not to allow the motion to go through tonight.
Mr. Griffiths : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because that is the danger. If the Bill is likely to succeed, there is every reason for us to give it a fair wind, particularly if we have no direct, immediate interest in its provisions. If there is a scheme for the improvement of transport in the great city of Southampton, the citizens of the even greater city of Portsmouth will wish it well, but all the evidence is that this is a highly controversial proposal and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who spoke to the motion, would agree that there is no evidence of broad unanimity in the city of Southampton. All that we have to do is convince the House that what the people of Southampton want is right.
Mr. John Garrett : It has the support of the majority of councillors. Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard that?
Mr. Griffiths : I will rephrase what I said. I am trying very hard not to be politically controversial. I want to talk about the practicalities. It is true that the majority of Southampton city council has given approval to this scheme, but it is perfectly reasonable to say that something of this nature should not be based on a single political party. Three major political parties are represented on Southampton city council and I should have thought that something based on one party would fall within the definition of being politically controversial.
Mr. Snape : It is a very interesting constitutional theory that it is unfair to put legislation through if it is supported by only one party. That is not really a doctrine, I should have thought, for which the previous Prime Minister would have had any time. However, I will turn to the more realistic parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech. None of us knows whether the Bill deserves the wide support which the hon. Gentleman is urging. If the motion is agreed, we shall find out. It will then be for the House to approve or reject it after it has been considered in Committee and we
Column 1188
have seen how detailed the support and opposition are and the grounds for both. Would not that be a more sensible way of proceeding?Mr. Griffiths : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not agree with the conclusion that, although the Bill may have majority support in Southampton city council, it is perfectly legitimate for the council to claim that that is what it wants. Hon. Members do not have to say that, because a majority on Southampton city council wants the Bill, we must rubber-stamp it. Our job is to protect the broad interests not of Southampton city council but of the people of Southampton and all those who would say that the House must give its approval. The House is not being asked to rubber-stamp something that has been decided in Southampton ; it is being asked to say that the measure should be agreed.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), I am not as opposed to the scheme as some of our colleagues are. However, based on my experience, I believe that we should not incur further expenditure at every stage of a Bill which probably will not receive the support of the House or be put into operation, thereby leaving the costs to be borne by the promoters.
In the case of the Ginns and Guttridge (Crematorium) Bill, one of the tragedies was that a relatively modest company put forward the proposal. The procedures of the House were allowed to continue. It was not the company's fault that it took years, but there were enormous costs. However, it was a commercial business. It went into the matter with its eyes open. It decided to put its own money forward, and it lost. This is a different situation. We are talking not about whether those who put money into the scheme for the so-called people mover will receive profits. That is definitely not a matter for discussion tonight ; it is a matter for Second Reading. However, it is clear that the longer the Bill is allowed to run the greater will be the burden to be borne by the community charge payers of the city of Southampton. Members of Parliament are entitled to consider whether a proposal from a political party in a certain city should merit the support of the House when it will involve costs on people who clearly do not unanimously support that proposal. The House would probably be willing to support a proposal for a tramway or a rapid transit system to alleviate the problems of people who wish to reach the city of Southampton and then go to their ultimate destinations. Such a scheme would have broad support across the political spectrum. I should be more impressed if some members of each party on the council were strongly in favour and some were opposed than if a scheme appeared to have only one-party support.
Mr. Griffiths : On the council. Therefore, it would be even more difficult to raise the money necessary for the scheme to proceed and to make the Southampton community charge payers' investment worth while.
I am told that £0.75 million has already been spent and I am sure that not all the final bills are in. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) pointed out that a document, the authenticity of which I am not aware, refers to a sizeable tranche of public funds that are already committed. We are talking about large expenditure. There comes a point at which we should say, "Unless we are sure
Column 1189
that the scheme will be practical, we should say no." That is our responsibility--it is not to decide whether we want a horseshoe-shaped, circular or elevated scheme.My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has strong feelings on those points. However, with respect, they are not what we are deciding. We are deciding whether to encourage the scheme, knowing that it is highly controversial, has unbalanced political support and may never come to fruition. The scheme has fulfilled a valuable purpose. It has provided an opportunity to discuss a rapid transit scheme in Southampton. Much of the preliminary work will be borne in mind elsewhere and people will consider what has happened.
Mr. Snape : I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. It is a little contradictory to talk about how much money has been spent on the Bill and then to say that there has been a valuable discussion. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It would be expensive if we abandoned the scheme now. We would have had better value for money, to use the phraseology of the Conservative party, if we had used the ten-minute Bill procedure. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill began in the House of Lords, which is one reason why it has come to us so late as to need a carry -over motion.
Mr. Griffiths : I thank the hon. Gentleman. I trust that I did not suggest that the expenditure that has been incurred has been wasteful. I am sure that I did not use that term, and I did not intend to imply it. I suggested that that is the amount that has been spent. We should always take advantage of what has been obtained from such expenditure. Work has been done surveying the route and on the examination of technical problems, and it could be adopted elsewhere. However, expenditure is not an argument for adopting the scheme. There comes a time when it is sensible to say, "Enough is enough. We went down the wrong route to start with." It is better to stop and use what can be learnt from mistakes and then to find a scheme that has broad support. An alternative scheme with broad support would cost less because of the work that has been done.
Hon. Members would be wise to reject the proposal and say that we are concerned not with the merits of the scheme but with the reputation of the House for encouraging a project that is likely to prove expensive and not come to fruition.
I sat through the Committee which considered perhaps the worst example that is possible. Since then I have consistently come to the House to support private Bills. I have supported carry-over motions and done my best to facilitate private Bills because I realise the risk and cost that promoters face. I have given my support because of my experience. But at the back of my mind I recognise that if only at an earlier stage someone had made it clear to Messrs. Ginns and Guttridge that their Bill would not go through the House after it returned from Committee because a solid block of people was determined that there would not be a crematorium on that site, a great deal of money and a great deal of the time of the House would have been saved. That would have improved the reputation of the House.
Tonight we have an opportunity to show that the House is a valuable safeguard for those who wish to make proposals which involve expenditure of public funds and
| Next Section
| Home Page |