House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Feb 1991

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan (Birmingham, Yardley) : This Bill is promoted by Centro and the West Midlands passenger transport executive and authorises the extension of the network upon which they are embarked in the midlands.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) rose --

Mr. Bevan : I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have long enough to speak and so I shall not give way at this stage.

Mr. Davis : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this matter through you on a point of order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give way and would allow me to mention this matter to him so that he would have an opportunity to explain something to the House. Since he has refused to give way, I am sorry but I must put the matter to you as a point of order. He will hear what I am saying and he may wish to comment--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I doubt that this is a matter for me. If the hon. Member wishes to dispute some point that is made in an hon. Member's speech, it is not for the Chair to arbitrate or adjudicate. Doubtless the hon. Member will get his opportunity to catch my eye to make his own arguments, including the argument of rebuttal.

Mr. Davis : It is not an argument and it has nothing to do with the content of the Bill. It is a matter of order which I wish to put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I am having to do it in this way, but it will be a point of order for the Chair.

During the debate on the carry-over motion for the Bill, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) intervened in a speech that I was making and I gave way to him, of course. He admitted to the House that he had visited Grenoble at the expense of Centro, the promoters of the Bill. I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify whether he has declared an interest, because overseas visits are supposed to be included in the Register of Members' Interests, and I do not think that that overseas visit has been declared.

The hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill and has not declared a relevant overseas visit. Subsequently--not on the night that he introduced the Bill- -he told the House that he went abroad at the expense of the organisation promoting the Bill. I understand that all overseas visits, other than those paid for by Parliament, should be declared. Other hon. Members have declared similar overseas visits to Grenoble at the expense of the passenger transport authority. As you will see, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wishes to identify that he has declared that very interest. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman ; that seems to be a fair point of order. Hon. Members with a direct interest in matters that are debated

Column 494

in the House should of course declare it, and no doubt the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) will feel obliged to do so during his speech.

Mr. Bevan : As the hon. Member for Hodge Hill is aware, I made a clear declaration to the House that I had visited Grenoble in the middle of last year at Centro's expense. I repeat that now, and it will of course be declared in the register.

Mr. Davis rose--

Mr. Bevan : It matters not--if I might be allowed to continue--on what date the declaration is made ; it will appear in the register.

Mr. Davis : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to say this, but what the hon. Gentleman says is not entirely accurate. He is right in saying that he declared his interest, on 22 October, but that is not the issue in my point of order. I am saying that he introduced a Bill on5 March 1990, seven months earlier, and, indeed, spoke again, when moving the carry-over motion, without declaring his interest. He finally admitted it during an intervention in a speech of mine.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I will take it if it is on the same subject.

Mr. Skinner : I have two points to make. First, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) did not declare his interest here at the appropriate time on--according to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis)--two separate occasions, although he has done so now. My second point is more serious : the hon. Gentleman did not declare his interest in the register.

Less than two years ago we went through quite a hazardous procedure in the House when the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) did not declare what was almost certainly a more substantial interest. The matter went to the appropriate Committee, and the House's time was taken up by the introduction of the necessary measures.

The issue does not relate solely to whether the hon. Gentleman's interest was declared in the House. The register allows hon. Members eight paragraphs in which to declare their interests, which apparently were not filled in this instance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Any allegations of non-compliance with our rules relating to registration and declaration of interest should be referred to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Bevan : Of course I made the declaration to which the hon. Member for Hodge Hill refers. Let there be no innuendo suggesting that I am trying to avoid saying clearly, as I said last time we debated the matter in the House, that I have visited Grenoble--for, at the most, one or two nights ; I cannot remember precisely. If I have failed to obey the rules to the letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise humbly to you now. The position will be corrected at the first possible opportunity, and I will accept whatever suggestion you care to make to enable my interest to be registered in writing, if it was not registered at the time.

Column 495

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) expected me to comment on his remarks. I can only repeat that, if hon. Members feel that the rules regarding compliance with the register have not been satisfied, they should refer the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I hope that hon. Members will now feel that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has done the proper thing, and has explained the position adequately.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I feel that it might help if the Bill's sponsor withdrew it, to avoid any unfortunate implications, and allowed someone else to sponsor it. That would remove any possible taint from the proceedings. It is possible that an hon. Member will complain to the Select Committee, as hon. Members are entitled to do ; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) may do so himself. Before that, however, it would clarify the position beyond peradventure, as they say, if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) withdrew his sponsorship of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : There is no obligation on the hon. Gentleman to do that.

Mr. Bevan : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will continue to sponsor the Bill as I was asked to do ; and I take note of what you have said.

What we have just heard is typical of the attempts that have frequently been made, first by one hon. Member and subsequently by others, to prevent the Bill from completing its stages. In this morning's Birmingham Post, the hon. Member for Hodge Hill is reported as having said last night that he would speak at length, and that he hoped that other hon. Members would support him. The writing is not just on the wall, but in the newspaper : the hon. Member for Hodge Hill will persist in his tactics to try to prevent the majority of the citizens of Birmingham and the midlands from securing the Bill's correct passage through the House, under the only procedure that can be afforded to it--which, currently, is the private Bill procedure.

Although many hon. Members may feel that the private Bill procedure is not adequate in all respects, it is the only procedure that is open to the Bill's promoters, Centro, at this stage. Even now, when we have come so far, I hope that democracy will be upheld and that the Bill will be allowed to proceed.

The Bill is partly the consequence of legislation enacted in February 1989. This Bill had its First Reading in March 1990. It went into Committee during June and July of that year, and was referred to an Opposed Private Bill Committee in October. A carry-over motion followed in October and November. Objections were made to the Bill, but only three of the original 35 petitions were referred to the Committee. I pay tribute to the excellent Chairman and members of the Committee for their thorough scrutiny of the Bill over a period of 11 days.

As with the first Bill, this Bill will provide a beautiful form of rapid electric rail transport--fume-free and

environment-friendly--which cannot exceed a speed of about 50 mph, and usually travels much more slowly. Wherever possible, disused railway lines and segmented roads are being used. It will join the new railway station at Five Ways, which I was able to bring into existence when

Column 496

I chaired the West Midlands passenger transport authority, to Ashted road in Birmingham by means of an underground link. It will then continue, on the surface, to the national exhibition centre and Birmingham international airport in Solihull. It will measure 26.7 km. The Black Country route, measuring 25 km, will connect Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, passing through other areas. Hon. Members will wish to know the capital costs involved. The money will be tied to the provision of public sector transport to bring the area up to the modern standards that obtain in other European countries and elsewhere, and will, I hope, provide us with rolling stock that will be the envy of the world. The cost will be £224 million for the Birmingham-Solihull route, and £139 million for the Black Country route. There will be about £30 million for stock on the routes and nearly £6 million for one of the diversions which the Opposed Private Bill Committee proposed and which has been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. The cost, therefore, is a substantial one, and to it must be added the cost of the land.

The network that will result from the passage of the Bill will play a most important part in reversing the decline in the use of public transport. Although it will not solve all our traffic problems, it will help them a great deal and should postpone for many more years the advent of major new highway proposals which might otherwise be required. It will certainly remove from the road a substantial number of the vehicles that contribute to the present congestion.

Mr. Skinner : A couple of weeks ago we had the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill. It was introduced by a Labour Member rather than a Tory Member. From what I could gather, its purpose was to do some of the things that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has mentioned. Certainly public expenditure was involved. I should like to know why the hon. Gentleman was one of those people who came in on a whipped vote, a payroll vote, on private business, and took part in the exercise. A War Cabinet meeting was cancelled to get members of it to come here and vote. Was it because this Bill has been introduced by a Tory Member and the last was introduced by a Labour Member?

Mr. Bevan : In his attempt to delay consideration of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong, as he usually is. I did not vote on that Bill, and had the hon. Member bothered to check the voting list before wasting the time of the House he would have found that out. If he were to listen for a change, he would realise that that was a totally different Bill, using a totally different infrastructure which constituted a grave environmental intrusion because it was both high and large by comparison with this slim-line and excellent surplus rail venture. They are totally different. Furthermore, the high-capacity rail vehicles which are envisaged for the Metro will result--he will be pleased to hear this because he is no doubt fascinated by it all--in very low noise along the route, certainly much lower than that of buses, trains and other types of transport.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : To compare the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill, now defunct, with this excellent Midland Metro is farcical. Not only was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not here for the

Column 497

debate that night--he came in for the vote of course--but he is wrong in trying to compare a railway transport system of three miles with this excellent long-distance Metro transit. Perhaps I shall be able to make my own speech later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not about Southampton.

Mr. Bevan : I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who knows what an abhorrence that scheme would have been if the Bill had come to pass, and who has come here tonight specifically to demonstrate to everyone in the Chamber his willingness to vote for this Bill. I am delighted to see among those present the hon. Member for Bolsover, even though he was not present for the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill.

This system will be much less obtrusive than the old tramway system and the wires are much less obvious. [Interruption.] It is plain that certain hon. Members are attempting to harass the

proceedings--not me because they could not do that--and are making as much use as they can of interruptions from a somnolent posture. Thirty-five petitions were originally deposited against the Bill, of which only three went to the Select Committee. The Committee met on 11 occasions in May and considered all the relevant

representations made by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill and his residents, from FORSE, and other objectors.

Mr. Terry Davis : Surely the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) is aware that my constituents were not allowed to present their petition to the Committee. So how could the Committee consider their objections?

Mr. Bevan : Their objections were known on a locus standi basis. The hon. Member's constituents did not attend. Those of Forsco did, and re- routing was obtained in the constituency of the hon. Member.

Mr. Davis : The hon. Gentleman is mistaken again. He is being as careless about the facts as he was about declaring his interest. The hon. Gentleman told the House a few moments ago--and fair-minded hon. Members will agree that he said it--that the Committee met on 11 occasions and considered the objections of everybody, including my constituents. That is not correct. I suspect that he has confused a company called Foseco, which is not in my constituency, with a group of residents in my constituency known as FORSE. There is a big difference between FORSE and Foseco. Foseco is a business, and it is correct to say that an amendment to route is coming forward which will benefit Foseco. But that is not in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman is being very careless. I would respect him more if he were more careful in what he said.

Mr. Bevan : The hon. Member for Hodge Hill is correct in saying that the company is Foseco and the site of the deviation, which I had mentioned and which will cost the promoters £6 million, was near the hon. Member's constituency, if not in it. It was understood to be one of the factors which his supporters wanted to be considered.

Mr. Davis : I am hopeful that the passenger transport authority, known as Centro, will at last see sense and will discuss this Bill and the route with me as it would affect my

Column 498

constituents. However, at the moment they have not made any offer which would benefit my constituents in the Bromford estate--and the hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to recognise that throughout our proceedings that is the area that I have talked about and they are the people I have sought to represent.

Mr. Bevan : I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hodge Hill has intervened yet again as it will now be unnecessary for him to develop his arguments at great length, as he has given the press to understand, because presumably he has already said everything that he needs to say.

May I compliment the Select Committee. It received r j 8-9from the promoters a number of undertakings given for the benefit of one of the petitioners. In the case of the other petitioner, the Committee asked the executive to devise a new alignment which did not pass through the petitioner's site. I hope that I have put that correctly.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me remind the House that we are debating whether the Bill should be considered. I hope that the debate will proceed along those lines.

Mr. Winnick : Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) aware that there is much enthusiasm in my part of the world for this new form of public transport, bearing in mind the extent to which public transport has been undermined during the lifetime of the Government? We have made clear our support for the Metro system, as have the local authorities. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that there continues to be some controversy about the proposed route as it affects my constituency?

Mr. Skinner : Ah, the route.

Mr. Winnick : The route, as my hon. Friend says.

Such difficulties often arise. I am particularly concerned about a small area--I accept that it is a small area--of the memorial park in Willenhall, which, as I reminded the House on 5 March, commemorates those who served in the first world war. It is a great attraction in Willenhall.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. This is supposed to be an intervention. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye later if he wishes to make a speech.

Mr. Winnick : Perhaps I may conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by asking the hon. Member for Yardley whether, even at this late stage, the promoters would be willing again to consider the objections to which I have referred.

Mr. Bevan : I am obliged to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for his reminder about the memorial park, which he mentioned during the debate on the carry-over motion. I cannot give an undertaking now, but I shall certainly see that the matter is referred.

If the Bill is allowed to proceed, many amendments will have to be considered. I hope that that will happen and that the numerous people who support the extension of the public transport system--to whom the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred--will be afforded that opportunity.

Column 499

7.51 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : The Labour party supports the extension and promotion of this new form of public transport. Those hon. Members who have objections to raise on behalf of their constituents will do so, but as a general principle we favour this modern and updated system, which will be of great benefit to the region.

I have a personal and constituency interest in the matter. Line 1 would run through my constituency and through the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends who are present. I wish to put it on record that, as the Member of Parliament for West Bromwich, East, my view is that, the sooner the line is up and running--to mix my metaphors--the better.

I hope that many of the difficulties that have arisen will be resolved. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has left us in no doubt as to the depth of feeling among his constituents about the proposals. I hope that, even at this late stage, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), on behalf of Centro, will attempt to bring the parties together so that further discussions may take place. I am sure that, with a little give and take on both sides, the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill has outlined are not insurmountable.

I have never made a secret of my views about the Bromford estate, although I do not profess to know it as intimately as my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill does. I suspect that the fears of some of those on the estate are groundless, but I understand those fears and I think that if they were aired and an attempt made to find a compromise--even at this late stage--it would be more beneficial than the protracted wrangling that has taken place at each and every stage of our proceedings on the Bill so far.

I hope that the hon. Member for Yardley will take that message back to the promoters. He shakes his head. I would not wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill or to put words into his mouth, but it does not strike me as very helpful for the hon. Gentleman merely to shake his head. Surely some attempt ought to be made to bring the parties together. It has been a frequent complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill that he has had to make all the running. He has been to see Centro on various occasions, but still no satisfactory outcome has been reached.

Mr. Bevan : I have made appointments for the hon. Member for Hodge Hill to see the director of Centro to discuss these matters in depth. I went in person to ensure, if I could, that the discussion terminated in concrete proposals which would satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Regretfully, I concluded after that meeting--and after all the other meetings that have taken place between the hon. Gentleman and varous representatives of Centro --that the hon. Gentleman does not intend any accommodation to be reached.

Mr. Snape : The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Perhaps a new negotiator or arbiter is needed.

Mr. Skinner : How about Tariq Aziz?

Column 500

Mr. Snape : I suspect that the Iraqi Foreign Minister has more powers in embarking on his missions than the hon. Member for Yardley has.

Mr. Skinner : Do you know him?

Mr. Snape : I know the hon. Member for Yardley, which makes me express that view. Perhaps I may tentatively offer my own services as an arbiter in this matter, because it would be a great pity--

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape : I am not sure that it is wise, but I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Morgan : I have absolutely no interest in the west midlands economy or its transport system--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh."]--in the financial or old English sense.

Mr. Skinner : He has not been to Grenoble either.

Mr. Morgan : No. I do not have that type of financial interest either.

The intransigence of the promoters of private Bills is becoming an increasing problem for all of us because they now feel that they do not have to accommodate the view of local Members whose consituents' houses, and so on, are affected. That makes the task of potential negotiators extremely difficult.

Mr. Snape : That may be so. Even though my hon. Friend does not have any great interest in transport matters in the west midlands, I must put it to him that compromises have been reached in respect of other petitioners. It is only the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill in respect of one estate--the Bromford estate--which have not yet been settled.

I give my hon. Friend the Member for Hoge Hill the undertaking that I shall try to bring the parties together again. If my hon. Friend wants me to come to the meeting and listen, I shall be delighted to do so. I plead with him not to prevent my constituents and people throughout the west midlands from enjoying the benefits of the system--if and when the Government decide to put up some money. I hope that the Minister will stop equivocating and will cough up some cash. He well knows that we are waiting to put line 1 and the associated works out to tender. Centro has been anxious to get the go-ahead from the Department and has kept officials informed at each stage. It has also done its best to answer any queries. It would not be fair at this stage to blame my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill for any delay. At least 50 per cent. of the cost will have to come from central Government, but so far we have had only elegant phrases. No doubt we shall get another dose of the same in a moment. My concluding advice is this--drop the phrases and cough up the money. 8 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) on his enthusiastic, eloquent, and very determined approach to the Bill. He is to be commended by the whole House for the way in which he presented it.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked me a specific question about line 1. We are

Column 501

here concerned with line 2 ; the line that runs from Birmingham Snow Hill to Wolverhampton was the subject of a previous Bill. This measure makes provision for other routes which are clearly related to and will be integrated with that one. We have said that the appraisal is under way. Centro and the Department of Transport have jointly set the middle of May as the target for completion of that work. That has been agreed with the chairman of the passenger transport authority. If the appraisal turns out to be satisfactory, and if the agreement of the Treasury is forthcoming, we shall pay development grant in the coming financial year, and then consider the line for capital funding in the year beginning 1 April 1992. I cannot be clearer or fairer than that.

Mr. Terry Davis : I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is always most fair.

Is the hon. Gentleman willing, within the next few months--before a decision is taken--to visit the site that has caused so much controversy? Only one section of the two routes is causing any trouble. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited Centro a few weeks ago, and was seen on television looking at parts of the system, but he did not come to the part that is controversial. I hope that this Minister will come with me to meet my constituents so that he may understand the strength of feeling. Those people feel neglected by the Government.

Mr. Freeman : The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I visited the Snow Hill--Wolverhampton line several months ago. I saw it from the air and from the ground. I shall be happy to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency next time I am in Birmingham. This is a private Bill. It is not promoted by the Government, but the Government provide section 56 grant aid and credit approvals for qualifying light rail schemes.

I should like briefly to restate the Government's position on the Bill. It is traditional in the case of private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that rule. That was made clear to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who was then Minister for Public Transport, in the Second Reading debate last March. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to this proposed extension of the Midland Metro network. This is one of a number of light rail schemes being brought forward in our major cities. We recognise that, in appropriate circumstances, light rail can have an important role in reducing traffic congestion and in helping to promote urban regeneration. We welcome the efforts that transport planners are making to assess what light rail has to offer. Naturally, as I think the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would agree, it cannot be the ideal solution in all cases.

The Manchester Metrolink scheme now under construction, with some £50 million of Government cash grant, will be our first modern street-running system of the kind envisaged by this Bill. It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. An Opposed Private Bill Committee of this House has

Column 502

carefully scrutinised the Bill and allowed it to proceed, with amendments. I hope, therefore, that in the conventional way the House will allow the Bill to proceed.

8.6 pm

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his kind remarks. He has always taken a very fair and balanced view, and I appreciate that. He has a responsibility to speak for the Opposition on transport in general. As he made clear to the House, he also has a constituency point of view. His constituency is not affected by the route that concerns me, but it is affected by one of the other routes. He has always tried to take an overall view and, as he has made clear in public statements in Birmingham, he believes that local people should be consulted. After all, public transport is the people's transport, and their views must be taken into account. My hon. Friend has always been most willing to listen. I am grateful for his offer to act as some sort of go-between with a view to achieving a compromise, even at this late stage. For reasons that I will explain later, that will be very difficult because of the way in which Centro and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) have handled the Bill. If my hon. Friend can help to achieve a reasonable settlement of the dispute, I, for one, shall be very grateful.

My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East, for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and, I think, for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) have made it very clear, in public and in private, that they have absolutely no complaint about my efforts to represent my constituents who would be adversely affected by this scheme. They have always made it clear that, even though they differ from me--for reasons that I understand--they respect my right to represent my constituents to the best of my ability. They have no complaint whatever about the tone, content or length of the speeches that I make. They have always made it clear that they would not wish to prevent me from doing my job as a Member of Parliament. I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to visit the constituency. That offer has affected my speech tonight, as I had not expected this Minister to take part in the debate. I thought that it would be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who recently visited the west midlands in connection with these proposals. As I said, he did not come to my constituency. That was a great pity. I assure this Minister that he will be most welcome. The residents will be grateful for the opportunity to explain why they feel so strongly. He will find that the residents of the estate have not adopted a party political point of view. In that area, this has not been a partisan matter. Indeed, the residents' association was kind enough to distribute a leaflet saying that, in its opinion, neither the local councillors nor I had sought to make political capital or to turn the issue into a partisan one. Of course, the matter will be mentioned during the election campaign. All candidates will then be able to declare their views. The residents' association made it clear that it admired the way in which the matter had been fought. Indeed, it scorned the attempt of a former Liberal, now a Conservative, to make party political capital out of the issue by misrepresenting the views of the local Labour councillors and myself. The

Column 503

Minister can be assured that his discussions with my constituents will be conducted in a friendly, pleasant, non- partisan atmosphere. The Bill has been in progress for 18 months. It is unfortunate that, over that time, the hon. Member for Yardley, even though he introduced the Bill, has not come to talk to the residents. I am sure that he has paid a quiet visit. I think that he has even been seen on the estate, but he has not actually talked to my constituents, despite the fact that they invited him more than once. I accept his criticism of last October--that he had been given very short notice. He was not being set up. These are ordinary working people who have to do their jobs during the day and their secretarial work in the evening. I accept that they did not post their letter as quickly as they might have done.

They were not trying to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. That honest invitation was made four months ago, but the hon. Gentleman has still not met my constituents. I can understand why he did not meet them in the few days between receiving a letter and the debate in the House, but we would have appreciated it if he had come to visit us.

Mr. Bevan : The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that my visit to his constituents would have been significant with regard to the promoter's plans and intentions. Will he confirm that he and his residents' organisation known as FORSE have met the various heads of Centro on several occasions to discuss in detail many matters concerning the route and the Bill? I have minutes of those meetings with me. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those heads of Centro are the appropriate people with whom his residents should discuss the points of impact? The promoter deals with the route submissions in conjunction with the local authority. Will he confirm that he attended a meeting on 5 February during which many details were discussed with the representatives of his organisation and the heads of Centro? There were many other meetings as well.

Mr. Davis : I hope that I shall be allowed to comment on all those matters. The hon. Gentleman referred to FORSE as my organisation. It is not my organisation. I did not organise or set it up. I do not control or dominate it. It is a genuine residents' group which was formed as a result of the proposals in the Bill. FORSE stands for For Other Routes Save Estates. I should have preferred it to be called the Bromford and Firs residents group, but they wanted a catchy title so they called it FORSE. The hon. Gentleman was being careless : it is not my organisation.

The hon. Member for Yardley was right that the residents' group has attended several meetings with Centro representatives. I was present at all those meetings because I made myself available to my constituents. However, I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would have those talks as genuine discussions and consultations.

Mr. Bevan rose--

Mr. Davis : If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I will explain why I doubt that. I am giving the hon. Gentlemen credit, but he is rebuffing me and that is typical of all the proceedings on the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been present at those discussions, he would not think that my constituents had been treated fairly and that their views had been listened to. However, he was not present ;

Column 504

he is relying on the minutes. As I have already pointed out, the hon. Gentleman has not met my constituents. If he had met them, he would understand why they feel as they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will come to my constituency all the way from West Bromwich. The Minister is going to come all the way from Kettering--

Next Section

Home Page