House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Jun 1991

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When reading the preamble to the Bill, I noticed that in page 1, line 16, the word "abstact" was used. Clearly the word "abstract" must have been intended, but there was a mistake. I went to the Table Office and said, "Surely we should be able to amend the Bill, because it is wrong."

I looked in "Erskine May", which said that there were certain circumstances in which, even on Third Reading, amendments could be made. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the famous occasion a few months ago when a private Member introduced a Bill that the Government had taken off the shelf and given to him, and its title was wrong. On Third Reading the title of the Bill had to be changed, because it conveyed the opposite of what was intended. One Friday we had to speak at some length to sort out the matter.

Even on Third Reading, in very unusual circumstances, it is possible to amend a Bill. So I went to the Table Office and said that a word in the Bill was wrong. An argument was put to me by certain people connected with the Table Office--I do not want to name names ; that would be unfair. Those people have a job to do. The last thing that we want to do here is to slag off people who work for a living.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Unlike Lloyd's.

Mr. Skinner : Lloyd's is a different ball game, but we are not talking about Lloyd's here. We are talking about a spelling mistake. The people in the Table Office said that in certain circumstances an amendment could be made, but that the amendment had to be insignificant. I said that we had an insignificant amendment here. The mistake that I mentioned is insignificant, so it must qualify. However, there is another argument in "Erskine May", and I suppose that you will have to balance one against the other, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other argument is that some mistakes are so insignificant that they can be corrected at another time. I do not know into which category the mistake falls. It is a mistake, for sure, and it is marginally insignificant, but does it fall into the category that cannot be debated here and now, or can it be settled somewhere else?

Column 205

The other mistake occurs at line 13, on the same page, which refers to

"a gas turbine generating station".

Yet part II of the Bill refers to 12 works--six for each station. Therefore, the reference to "a station" is clearly wrong ; the provision should refer to "stations".

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : I agree.

Mr. Skinner : Oh. We are beginning to get the support of the hon. Member for Johannesburg, are we? He is also on my side on Lloyd's ; we are trying to clear up that mess, too, but that is another story. The second mistake is more than significant ; it is fundamental. The Bill refers to "a station" when it means "six stations". When I discovered that, I thought to myself, "I've got a case here." I asked the people concerned, "What do you reckon to this one? This is big." They said, "Of course it is."

Here again, we are talking about different interpretations in "Erskine May". One section of "Erskine May" says that, if a mistake is too significant, it cannot be dealt with on Third Reading. Another section says that, if a mistake is not too big, it can be changed. I think that we need a ruling from Mr. Speaker. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could see Mr. Speaker, but, in any case, the matter needs clearing up. On the one hand, we have a tiny spelling mistake of little significance. On the other, we have a big mistake, which alters the whole framework of the Bill. I do not think that the correction of both mistakes can be ruled out. We would settle for one-- for the big one or for the little one--but the "Erskine May" rule cannot apply in both cases.

I should like to know, Sir, whether you will suspend the sitting, have a word with Mr. Speaker and get the matter sorted out. We could then deal with it another day so that people can get off. It is Royal Ascot week, after all, and I believe that the Gold Cup is to be run tomorrow. Other hon. Members are attending a fancy dinner party tonight because they have been in Parliament for 21 years. I am not going ; I am working my tripes out here--or, at least, some would say that. I think that the matter should be settled, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have had a word with the Clerk, and I should like to know the score.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if he is saying--as I think he is--that there is an obvious misprint or misspelling, it can be corrected without an amendment having been tabled. I am not wholly clear what the hon. Gentleman's second point was because he did not table an amendment in connection with it. It would be very much better, in any case, if we proceeded with the Third Reading debate. If we did so, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is to speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, might well be able to clarify the matter for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the House.

Mr. Skinner : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You say that you are not quite sure what my second point was, although you are quite clear in your mind about my first point concerning the spelling mistake. Line 13 of the Bill refers to "a gas turbine generating station".

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) : Take it slowly.

Mr. Skinner : Right. The important word in the phrase is "a". When you look at page 4, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you

Column 206

will see that part II of the Bill, entitled "Works", enumerates six separate works for each company. My argument is simple. The phrase "a gas turbine generating station"

implies that two stations will be built--one per company. In fact, we are talking about six apiece. The Bill should be amended so that line 13 refers to "stations" if the provision is to comply with the rest of the Bill.

From our point of view, however, it would be better if another amendment removing the words "gas turbine" were tabled, thus leaving a reference only to "stations". Then the Bill would-- [Hon. Members :-- "What is the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) doing over there?"] What is happening?

Have you grasped my second point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Should the Bill refer to "a station" or "stations" in order to comply with the provisions in part II dealing with works, in which six separate stations are enumerated for each company--12 in all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman had read the whole paragraph and not just part of it, he would realise that the clauses in question deal with detailed works and not whole stations. That is the answer to his point. As I said, it would be very much better if we got on with the Third Reading debate. If we do that, further clarification may well be given. I call Mr. Knapman.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) rose --

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to defend hon. Members' rights? During the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), an hon. Member went to the place beneath the Gallery where the promoters, who are not allowed to speak in this place, are sitting to seek advice from them. Can you, Sir, give us some guidance as to whether that will be allowed during the remainder of our proceedings tonight? Will you protect hon. Members by ensuring that those sitting under the Gallery take no part in our proceedings from that position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am not responsible for what goes on outside the Chamber. It is not unknown--indeed, it is perfectly proper--for hon. Members to consult people outside if they wish to do so.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my understanding of the private Bill procedure is correct, the first thing that must have happened to the Bill in the private Bill Committee following Second Reading in February this year was for the Committee to agree the preamble. That is what "Erskine May" says. The preamble must have been agreed before the Committee considered any of the Bill's clauses.

My hon. Friend has raised a fundamental point. I cannot see how anyone can infer from the grammar in the preamble that the Bill permits the building of more than two gas turbine power stations--one each for National Power and PowerGen. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will keep quiet, he will hear what I have to say. In effect, later clauses in the Bill give planning permission for the building of six power stations on the site. We can assume that four of them are

Column 207

not designated as gas power stations or any other type of power station. All we know is that there is an outflow of water from the estuary for the further four power stations.

It is on that basis that the point of order has been raised. Before the Bill proceeds, we ought to establish whether the preamble is right and whether it has been agreed in Committee, as it tends to mislead the reader with regard to later clauses.

Mr. Eadie : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I congratulate you on the recent decision taken in respect of the birthday honours list. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised his point of order, you said that you did not quite grasp the significance of his second point. I put it to you, Sir, that I do not grasp the significance of your ruling. The provisions of the Bill are clear. We know that grammar is singular and grammar is plural. The reference in the Bill is in the singular rather than in the plural. Will you advise the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how you reached your decision, given that it is clear from the rest of the Bill that we are dealing not with the singular but with the plural? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, that decision is crucial to the Bill. If the ruling was that the grammar and the definition in the Bill were wrong, Opposition Members would seek, as my hon. Friend said, to discuss the question whether we should be talking about gas-fired power stations or power stations. I hope that you, Sir, will be seized of the importance of the matter. I ask you again to clarify how you reached your decision that the Bill was in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments at the beginning of his remarks. The preamble to the Bill has been proved, so we cannot go back on that. It is clear to me that the points that have been made are relevant to the Third Reading. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is seeking to catch my eye, may be able to explain them.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : I hesitate to rise on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but earlier this afternoon Mr. Speaker refused even to hear a point of order from me, whereas you have listened patiently to a whole series of utterly fraudulent and bogus points of order. A clear reading of the preamble to the Bill makes it apparent that generating stations are referred to. The preamble states :

"whereas to meet requirements for the supply of electricity each of the two companies"--

National Power and PowerGen--

"proposes to construct on the lands vested in that company a gas turbine generating station".

It is manifest that the education of Opposition Members in the English language is so lacking that they have failed to grasp the basics.

Mr. Michael Brown rose--

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I shall take further points of order, but it is becoming clear that we are already dealing with Third Reading. It would be much better if the words "point of order" were omitted and if speeches were made on Third Reading.

Column 208

Mr. Ewing : A moment ago you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, made a very important comment. You said that the preamble to the Bill had been dealt with earlier ; but, with respect, it was not this Bill. This Bill has been to another place and has been returned. Therefore, this Bill is not the Bill that was dealt with earlier. This is the Bill that has been reprinted. I accept that there are spelling errors in it--that can happen with any Bill--but there is also an error of substance. This is not the Bill that we discussed at an earlier stage. Having listened to the earlier debates, without participating, I can say that this is not the Bill that we debated earlier. With respect, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reconsider the statement that you have just made. This is a different Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I assure the House that we have gone through all the correct procedures on the Bill. We have now reached Third Reading, and it would be much better if we proceeded with that debate.

Mr. Michael Brown : It might help you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that, if the Bill becomes an Act, it will not give PowerGen or National Power permission to build one, two, three, four, six, 66 or 166 power stations. The only authority which is competent to give planning permission for one, two or more--or less--power stations is not the House of Commons but Glanford borough council. The Bill deals only with pipes out of the power stations, so that the number of power stations is irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His comments enable me to remind the House that we are now on Third Reading, and it is appropriate to discuss only what is in the Bill. 7.43 pm

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I second the good wishes of my colleagues and congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on featuring so prominently in the birthday honours list.

My hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) have said much of what I need to say because they covered a substantial part of the Bill. However, I was surprised at the amateurish way in which a further delay was sought tonight. After all, where on earth was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) during the revival motion and the debate on Second Reading? If the Labour party has such strong views on the subject, and if it is so deeply in the pockets of the National Union of Mineworkers, why did not one member of the Labour party attend the Committee stage?

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : While the hon. Gentleman is talking about pockets, will he declare to the House that the building firm with which he is involved will not be applying for any of the works mentioned in the Bill? As he is a member of Lloyd's, will he also make it clear that he is not involved in any representations to the Government about tax concessions for himself?

Mr. Knapman : I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking such a close interest in what I do. I am happy to reassure him on all those issues. I should have thought that anyone who was a builder or a member of Lloyd's deserved a little sympathy at the moment.

Column 209

Tonight I thought that we had seen the nadir --that means the lowest point--of delays. However, I examined the record a little more closely and read the contribution of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the revival motion on 14 January. Why was it said that the Bill should not proceed at that time? I remind the House, because the hon. Gentleman's comments merit further publicity. He said : "I recall telling the House in a previous debate that, when I met the Norwegian commanders in NATO, I asked them what would happen if a conflict broke out in the North sea and what consequences it would have for the oil and gas installations. They told me that the installations could not be defended. As a strategic aspect is now involved, because we may soon be involved in a war in the Gulf, the situation has changed since the House last addressed the subject." That appears to have been the reason for delaying the Bill at that stage. It is a good job that we did not take any notice of the hon. Gentleman's strictures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said so eloquently. He said : "I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that with the Gulf crisis, or a Gulf war, we shall not have enough gas in the short to medium term and that we shall have to import it from the Soviet Union through a non- existent pipeline".--[ Official Report, 14 January 1991 ; Vol. 183, c. 675-76.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is still on his preamble, but I hope that he will come quickly to the contents of the Bill. Only discussion of its contents is in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Knapman : I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Where should we be without your guidance? I shall not detain the House for very long because there is a star-studded cast of Conservatives Members who wish to speak tonight, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, North- East--a member of the Committee--who is an absolute certainty for Secretary of State one of these days.

Mr. Michael Brown : Only after my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).

Mr. Knapman : My colleagues will agree that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) showed such a grasp of biocides and all matters environmental that the House was rapt in attention for quite a while.

Mr. Eadie rose--

Mr. Knapman : I shall give way in a moment. Other hon. Friends will contribute, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes who has represented his constitutency in a way that is in marked contrast with those representing the two adjoining constituencies, both of whom are Labour Members and neither of whom has attended the debates on the revival motion or on Second Reading. They are also not here tonight, and why is that? It is because they know that the coal lobby is here and that their views count for nothing.

Mr. Hood : May I give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to correct an error that he seemed to make in answer to a question that I put to him on Second Reading?

Column 210

I asked him to name the petitioner against the Bill and the reason for the objection being withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman said : "I understand that the Coalfield Communities Campaign objected on the general principle of how the proposals would affect coalfield communities, but it withdrew the objection. It realised, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, that the Bill has nothing to do with coal."-- [ Official Report, 27 February 1991 ; Vol. 186, c. 1034.] Will the hon. Gentleman admit that that has nothing to do with why the petition was withdrawn and that he made an error, to say the least?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in dealing with that point and remaining in order.

Mr. Knapman : I agree entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very tempted because I have such a detailed knowledge of all the subjects that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise. However, I appreciate that if I sought to answer his points, I should be out of order, so I must return precisely to the nature of the Bill.

Mr. Eadie : In the preamble to his speech, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the star-studded cast that he has in front of him and behind him. I have never described people with a vested interest in that manner. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that his hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) had revealed knowledge of the detail of the Bill. I wish that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) had read the Second Reading debate because it emerged that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth had a good speech writer. If the hon. Member for Stroud reads Hansard, he will realise that comments were made about the speech writer. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth had the grace to reply to those comments with good humour. Will the hon. Member for Stroud take that on board when he tries to outline his case to the House?

Mr. Knapman : I was merely saying that if I had the choice between my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth with a script writer and the hon. Member for Midlothian without one, I would side with my hon. Friend every time.

The Bill can be covered in six salient points. I propose to deal with them briefly because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. National Power and PowerGen are already in the process of constructing gas turbine generating stations at Killingholme. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will, I am sure, detail for us later how many jobs are now affected by the delay in the private Bill procedure. Almost 1,000 people are on the site now. That is why it makes me a trifle angry to think that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is unable, yet again, to attend the debate.

The Bill is related only to drawing water from the River Humber for cooling purposes. Whatever the type of fuel that will be burnt at Killingholme, there would still be a requirement for cooling water works in the River Humber. The Bill, as I have made clear on more than one occasion, is required for the construction of the necessary cooling water works and to overcome the prohibition in the Humber Conservancy Act 1905. We have gone into that matter in great detail before.

Column 211

Contrary to the protestations of certain Labour Members, the Bill does not seek to circumvent planning permission procedures. The power station developments already have consent. They are now being built and planning permission has been given after full local consultations. Those consultations have included all those involved locally. Many Opposition Members do not have local interests--and they have taken great trouble to say that I do not.

Among the authorities that have been consulted is Glanford borough council, which one would hope knew best what was right for its area. In its letter to the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is now deceased, it wrote :

"Further to my letter dated 16 November 1989 I am now able to inform you that on 7 December the Borough Council's Planning Committee resolved that Glanford wishes to raise no objections to the proposals contained in the Bill."

There we are. Glanford borough council wants the development very much. There are many others.

Mr. Hood : I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman off his speech, but may I ask whether he will cover the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on Second Reading about the fact that the Bill does not mention lagoons? Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether lagoons will be used in the operation?

Mr. Knapman : Lagoons are not mentioned in the Bill, so I do not wish to trespass, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the question has been asked again. I did not answer the point before because I did not understand what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was saying on Second Reading.

If the Bill is defeated tonight, lagoons could be built, subject to planning permission, but that would be worse from the environmental and financial points of view. Does the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) want even private companies--and I know how much the Labour party detests them--to have additional expense so that they have to charge their customers more? I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has a high opinion of his party leader, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). He said carefully that Labour had to learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives could. On that basis, I say to the hon. Member for Clydesdale that I have described the position on lagoons.

Mr. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire, North-East) : That is what you said last time.

Mr. Knapman : Yes, we had the same exchange on the previous occasion. However, it was not only Glanford borough council.

Mr. Michael Brown : I underline strongly what my hon. Friend has said about Glanford borough council. I confirm to the House that the picture is exactly as he has described. I have the good fortune to have as my next-door neighbour Councillor Malcolm Parks. As my hon. Friend knows, he has just become this year's mayor of Glanford and the mayoral car is parked outside my driveway as the mayor and mayoress get in and out of it. Councillor Parks and I have discussed the matter at great length. I told him that my hon. Friend would draw to the attention of the

Column 212

House the fact that Glanford was very supportive in so far as it gave planning permission. I give the mayor's blessing as well as my own to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Knapman : I am sure that Councillor Parks and all the councillors on Glanford borough council will watch tonight's proceedings in the mother of Parliaments with unusual interest. They will wonder why Conservative Members have to bring benefits closer to the people of the north-east in the teeth of the fiercest opposition from the Labour party, despite the absence of Labour Members who should be concerned for their constituents' welfare.

It is not only Glanford council that supports the development. Humberside county council also supports the proposal. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has a lot to say and he is currently discussing matters with his colleagues. On Second Reading, we reminded the hon. Gentleman that Humberside county council was Labour controlled and we wondered why the Labour party was at variance with the Labour controlled county council. The hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to consult the council to see whether things could be ironed out. Has that happened? The hon. Members who cried "Object" to the Bill are not here tonight. Not only local Members, but hon. Members who objected are not here tonight. Will the hon. Member for Rother Valley tell us whether his view has been cleared with Humberside county council which, despite being Labour controlled, has no objection to these matters? [ Hon. Members :-- "This is boring."] Yes, it is boring. I apologised before for the fact that the Bill is mundane. It concerns a water pipe in and out of the River Humber. It is nothing like so dramatic as some Opposition Members would like to make out.

Others that approve the proposals are the North Killingholme parish council, Anglian Water plc, the Electricity Council, Lindsey oil refinery, Shell UK, British Telecom, the Department of the Environment, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Member of the European Parliament, the National Rivers Authority, and many others. Some 40 bodies have been consulted and none has any objection. There was no objection in the other place and there was no substantial discussion of the Bill in Committee. One reason why there was no substantial discussion was that no Labour Member turned up.

Mr. Hood : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and allowing me to clear up a point arising from the Second Reading debate. Is it not a fact that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said then, the Coalfield Communities Campaign was ordered to withdraw its petition against the Bill and did not do so voluntarily? As the Lords Committee judged that it should withdraw its petition, the CCC did not act voluntarily. I hope that he will clarify this point and clear the CCC of that terrible smear.

Mr. Knapman : The reason why the Coalfield Communities Campaign withdrew its petition must have been that it eventually realised, which the hon. Gentleman has not, that the Bill has nothing to do with coal. My hon. Friends and I have made that point at great length on Second Reading, during the debate on the revival motion and we are obliged to do so again now. The hon. Gentleman can ask that question as many times as he wishes, but he will always get the same answer--that the Bill has nothing to do with coal. The fact that this private Bill has passed through the other place and this Chamber

Column 213

with only one objection to it, which was overruled, is remarkable in view of its complexity and the number of organisations that have had to be consulted.

Mr. Hood : Surely the answer to my question is that the hon. Gentleman does not know. However, that is not the answer that he gave on Second Reading when he said that he knew that the petition had been withdrawn because the petitioners no longer thought that the Bill had anything to do with coal. That was an error or untrue. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to cover that point later if I catch your eye.

Mr. Knapman : If an objection is withdrawn, I would not place quite so much emphasis as the hon. Gentleman on the reason why it was withdrawn. The fact is that the only objection that was made by the 40 or more organisations that were consulted was later withdrawn. That seemed to satisfy their Lordships and it should satisfy reasonable hon. Members here.

There is only one point on which I wish to detain the House any further. I refer to the cooling water works, which is a temporary scheme that has nothing to do with lagoons. The scheme that is proposed for the temporary cooling water works would extract water from the River Humber by means of two submersible pumps, mounted on an Associated British Ports (Immingham) gas jetty located 1.5 km downstream of the power station. That is not ideal, but it is a temporary scheme for which permission will be given for 18 months. It is necessary only because of the delays that have been caused to the passage of the Bill by Opposition Members. The House should note that the cost of that delay is £3 million. What is more, the delay is costing more and more every day. Most of the Opposition Members who have done most of the objecting are not in their places tonight, but they should understand that they have had their run--

Mr. Michael Brown : They have gone to Ascot.

Mr. Knapman : As my hon. Friend says, they have gone to Ascot. If that is so, I hope that they will understand just what being a member of Lloyd's is like.

Mr. Barron : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay in the Bill's passage is more likely to be due to the fact that the promoters were late in bringing it to the House and did not do so until all the other planning permissions had been sought and construction was going ahead? The promoters need look no further than themselves.

Mr. Knapman : The Bill was promoted two years ago. The only reason why the Bill is needed is that the provisions of the Humber Conservancy Act -- [Interruption.] No, the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it was mooted nearly two years ago. The delay is totally unacceptable, bearing in mind that Opposition Members have had nothing concrete to say on the issue. That delay is too long and brings the House into disrepute.

Mr. Terry Patchett (Barnsley, East) : The hon. Gentleman constantly seeks to avoid the question of lagoons, and has even treated it with hilarity. Perhaps he does not understand the definition of a lagoon. If he does understand it, will he explain it to the House so that we are clear that he is clear what the devil we are talking about?

Column 214

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the House once more that we are on Third Reading. I do not think that the Bill refers to lagoons, in which case it is not in order to deal with that subject at this stage.

Mr. Knapman : I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, and in direct answer to the hon. Member for Clydesdale, the Bill is not an attempt to circumvent any planning permission procedures because planning permission has already been obtained. Not one of the 40 local authorities, regulatory bodies or organisations with a legitimate interest in the Bill is now objecting to it. Therefore, I hope that the House will see its way to granting the Bill a Third Reading.

8.4 pm

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : As happened in earlier stages, tonight's debate on the Bill has exposed the inadequacies of the private Bill procedure. I have tried to choose my words carefully when referring to "inadequacies". In the four years that I have been a Member of the House, I have served on various committees and have spent long nights discussing various Bills. I have seen what happens here--the champagne parties and the chattering under the Galleries. Those things and the private Bill procedure demean this place and the sooner that that procedure is changed, the better.

My recent experience has been on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, about which I wrote a minority report. Last week the Prime Minister went to Wales and announced that the Government would introduce their own Bill on that matter because, unlike many of the Bills that are pushed through via the private Bill procedure, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill did not get through.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend agree that this place is demeaned when an hon. Member who is promoting a Bill tries to blame expenses that relate to the works covered by the Bill on the procedures of this place, despite the fact that the outside promoters failed to present the Bill at an early date? Does he further agree that Opposition Members have pressed for changes in the private Bill procedure month after month, and that the Government and their cronies, who are now complaining about the length of time the Bill has taken, are the ones who have delayed and obstructed those changes?

Mr. Hood : My experience has covered debates both in the Chamber and in Committee. The last Committee on which I served dealt with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I can remember counting the wigs who were being paid £3,000 or £5,000 per day--one could add as many noughts as one likes. I believe that it cost a minimum of £3,000 per wig, so it cost £30,000 per day--

Mr. Skinner : How many wigs were there?

Mr. Hood : At one stage there were 10 wigs, which amounted to quite a lot of money. It is therefore a bit much for the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) to talk about costs. I did not know until tonight that the hon. Gentleman is a member of Lloyd's. Although I knew that 62 Conservative Members are having sleepless nights at present, I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was one of them. He has my sympathy and I am sure that he will have the sympathy also of my general management committee when I tell its members on Friday night about

Column 215

the poor souls at Lloyd's who are asking for tax concessions to bail them out when they have previously made so much money in profits in the so-called wonderful free-market economy. Those poor souls are now having to come to the Government with their hats, asking to be bailed out.

Next Section

Home Page