| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Baker : I would be treading a little widely in the direction of sub judice if I were to answer that, because any decision is for the jurisdiction of the court. All that I can say is that the judges who have considered the matter so far are divided.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Although I accept that the Home Secretary will not resign at this stage, does he accept that, when that case is combined with prisoner escapes and Sunday trading, his credentials as a law and order Minister begin to look a little threadbare?
Mr. Baker : That raises very different questions. The Attorney- General and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), made statements on Sunday trading, whereas I have made a statement on the interpretation of last Friday's judgment.
Column 34
Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : Is not the hypocrisy and confusion in the Opposition ranks shown by the fact that, when that judgment was announced, the legal affairs spokesman for the Opposition was immediately in the media demanding my right hon. Friend's resignation, while the shadow Home Secretary was demanding that he remain. After a weekend's contemplation, the shadow Home Secretary now says that my right hon. Friend should resign. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case breaks new ground, that he acted at all times on legal advice and that wise counsel should permit the case to go before the House of Lords rather than rush to judgment now?
Mr. Baker : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is entitled to change his view, as he does from time to time. The view that he changes is not usually very considered and, from his short statement, he has clearly not studied in depth either of the judgments that we are discussing today. I hope that he now applies himself to them, because he has not applied himself to the rest of his portfolio.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : Is not the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this judgment typical of the decline in standards of political integrity over the 11 years of the regime of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Is not it particularly typical of the tacky conduct of the Home Secretary in every office that he has held?
Mr. Baker : I had not appreciated the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley had been involved in the matter ; as far as I know, she has not. I know perfectly well what
responsibilities I have for the Home Office and for the actions of Home Office officials and the Minister who handled the case, and I know my own responsibility in this matter. If the hon. Gentleman would do me the service of going to the Library and reading the judgments, he would find that in the earlier proceedings, neither the Home Office nor my hon. Friend were held in contempt for the actions that were taken on 1 and 2 May.
Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston) : Is it correct that the majority decision of the Court of Appeal said that the present order was irregular and should not have been made, and accepted that my right hon. Friend acted on legal advice to that effect? In such circumstances, is it not absurd for Opposition Members to talk about resignation?
Mr. Baker : I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, because that is exactly what the judgment says. I must in no way criticise the judgment or make any comment upon it, because this is material to the House of Lords. I note what my hon. and learned Friend has said on the basis that the order was irregular. None the less, a constitutional issue was raised on separating the function of the Minister acting personally from the Minister acting as a Minister of the Crown. That has considerable constitutional implications.
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) : Of course the Home Secretary has criticised the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and I deplore the attempts to rubbish the decision taken by three senior judges. As Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman has awesome power in immigration cases.
Column 35
As resignation is an issue, if he is not prepared to resign at this stage, will he resign if the House of Lords dismisses his appeal ?Mr. Baker : One should see what the House of Lords makes of this case. It will be an important matter. I know perfectly well my responsibilities for the Home Office and for the decisions that have been taken on my behalf. [Hon. Members :-- "Blaming others."] I am not blaming anybody. The decision taken on 2 May was mine, and I make it absolutely clear that I will answer for that decision. It was taken with the fullest advice from Home Office lawyers and from first Treasury counsel, which is exactly how Ministers operate on these occasions.
Mr. John Watts (Slough) : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to reflect upon the bogus indignation of Opposition Front Bench Members in respect of the allegation that he failed to observe an irregular order of the court, and to contrast it with the deafening silence from that same Front Bench in the face of an assertion by an Opposition Member that, if he had information about the identity of the murderer of a police officer, he would withhold it from the police ?
Mr. Baker : I will say only that I thought that that was a disgraceful statement by an hon. Member. I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will dissociate himself from that statement and condemn the Member who made it.
Mr. Skinner rose --
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. On this matter, I call Mr. Hattersley.
Mr. Skinner : Have you had your eyes tested recently?
Mr. Speaker : Fortunately, I do not hear everything. The two hon. Members, who just rose, have made so many comments, not necessarily sedentary comments, that I do not intend to call them
Mr. Hattersley : The Home Secretary will recall that, in answer to my original question, before you, Mr. Speaker, reminded him of the sub judice rule, he began to explain his opinion that M, the man at the centre of this case, was not a genuine asylum seeker. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, on page 16 of the judgment, the Master of the Rolls says :
"Whether M was a genuine asylum seeker is irrelevant"?
The serious error of judgment made by the Home Secretary concerns his dealings with the court, not the evidence that he claimed to put before the House.
Mr. Baker : I do not disguise from the right hon. Gentleman or the House the fact that the matter on which I was found to be in contempt was the decision taken on 2 May. The position that I put to the House and the right hon. Gentleman, that the decision about whether this Zairean national was an asylum seeker was heard twice before a court of law and by the Court of Appeal, which was presided over by Lord Justice Donaldson on the very afternoon on which the decision was taken.
Column 36
Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Home Secretary given notice of an intention to make a statement about the ruling of Mr. Justice Popplewell this morning in a case that is germane to the matter under discussion on which he has just made a statement? In the High Court, Mr. Justice Popplewell has asked the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision to deport to India a leading Sikh independence campaigner, Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal. If there has been no such request from the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is present and may feel it appropriate to make a statement on whether he intends to observe the advice of Mr. Justice Popplewell.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker) : It might assist the hon. Gentleman if I say something on that case. The decision to deport Mr. Chahal for national security reasons and other reasons of a political nature, including the international fight against terrorism, was taken by my predecessor-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Baker : If the House will be patient, it will hear the facts. Since then, an application for asylum was refused by me. This was challenged by judicial review and the judgment given in the High Court today. The judge asked me to reconsider Mr. Chahal's status as a refugee, and I shall most certainly do so. I give the House an undertaking that if, after consideration, I come to the conclusion that Mr. Chahal should be deported, that will not occur until he has had an opportunity to go back to the courts again.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a different matter. I know that you do not get the opportunity to study the weekend papers in Scotland, but perhaps you will take my word for it that they have been full of reports that Government sources have said that there will be a statement tomorrow on hospital opt- outs, which will approve the opt-out of hospitals in Ayr and Aberdeen.
Have you had notification, Mr. Speaker, of a request to make such a statement, and if so, have you been told what the contents of it will be? Is this not just another example of parliamentary accountability being reduced to the same farce that we have seen in the Government's crooked consultation exercises on this issue and in the whole untenable position of the Government north of the border?
Mr. Speaker : Since my recent happy visit to Dundee, I do see the Scottish newspapers, but I have not had any notification of such a statement.
Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in saying that you are allowing further questions to the Home Secretary on his second statement?
Mr. Speaker : As the Home Secretary made that comment, I will allow questions to be put to him on it.
Mr. Gale : I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, both in the previous case
Column 37
and in the case of Mr. Chahal, all the correct legal processes have been, and will be, followed? In the light of the comments made earlier, can my right hon. Friend tell the House of the growth in the numbers of people seeking asylum in the past four years? Is not that growth a sign that the system is being abused, and if so, is it not to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers, and is that not what the Asylum Bill will redress?Mr. Baker : My hon. Friend goes rather wide, but as the House knows, there has been a substantial increase in the number of asylum seekers. My Department has before it 6,000 applications from Zaireans, all of which have to be processed and looked at individually. I agree that the Asylum Bill is necessary so as to distinguish between the genuine and the bogus asylum seeker. I hope that it will find its way on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : I will call one more hon. Member. Will the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) please sit down while I say this? I shall call him, but it does not help the Chair if comments of the kind that I have heard this afternoon from him are made from a sedentary position.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but it may be that the sound system is not as accurate as it should be.
Does not the Home Secretary's assurance on the second case--that the person will not lose his court rights--arise directly out of his contempt in the first case, which has demonstrated that he has ignored his responsibility to the court and--
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not about the first case.
Mr. Cryer : Yes, it is. I am linking the two and saying that the Secretary of State has given the House a welcome assurance, but that is surely an attempt to retrieve his position in the first case, which is digraceful.
Mr. Baker : I advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the two judgments. He will find that the Zairean applied for judicial review on three occasions, and had three hearings, two on the last day. In the case of Mr. Chahal, this is the first of his judicial review cases, and I have given the House a clear undertaking.
Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, in the early hours of last Friday morning, Sergeant Alan King of the Metropolitan police, who was based at Chingford police station, was callously and brutally murdered in the execution of his duties --
Mr. Speaker : Order. This comes directly within the sub judice rule. I cannot allow the hon. Member to make comments about the case.
Mr. Summerson : I do not wish to make a comment about the case, Mr. Speaker. My purpose in raising a point of order is to ask whether you have received a request from the Government to allow them to make a statement about the control of knives, which appear to be used more and more for violent purposes.
Column 38
Mr. Speaker : I have not received a request for a statement to be made on that matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with the previous point of order. It is another matter.
Mr. Speaker : Maybe, but sit down please. Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. I have proof, which was sent to me anonymously, that the Islington, North Labour party black section Christmas fund-raising social is being advertised by using House of Commons internal envelopes. Is this a matter that I should raise with you, Mr. Speaker, or with the House authorities? It is a disgrace that taxpayers' money is being used for that sort of organisation.
Mr. Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman will bring the envelope to my office, I shall have the matter looked into.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner : In view of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, have been checking the records lately about what is unparliamentary or otherwise, I ask you to check the word "crap". It has been drawn to my attention that the Tory party has recently received £25,000 from Gerald Ratner. We do not want £25,000-worth of crap being dished out in here, do we? Or is it that Gerald Ratner will be put in charge of propaganda for the Tory party?
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : No. Let me deal with one point of order at a time and think about this one.
I rule that that is definitely an unparliamentary word in this Chamber.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Home Secretary whether he plans to make a statement about the planned visit tomorrow to this country of the fascist leader from France, Jean-Marie Le Pen? Will he make a statement to the effect that Le Pen is not welcome here and that his nazi connections are found to be odious by everybody in this country who believes in racial harmony and justice rather than a perpetuation of racist ideas?
Mr. Speaker : I have had no notice of that, but the matter was certainly raised during business questions last Thursday.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Education Support Grants
That the Education Support Grants (Amendment) regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. John D. Taylor.]
Question agreed to.
Column 39
Orders of the Day
Transport and Works Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is one of those rare Bills which will change radically the business that Parliament transacts. It is being presented in response to the work of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which is chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). I pay tribute to him for the way in which he conducted the Committee and to its report and findings.
There has been a remarkable increase in weighty private legislation authorising public transport schemes and works at ports. This reflects the profound changes in those industries. It has become clear that Parliament is not prepared, as it once was, to see numerous Bills brought before it to authorise such schemes and works. For example, in 1838, Parliament was able to deal with the 62 Bills deposited in that Session with relative ease. Today, Parliament has great difficulty in handling less than half that number of new Bills each Session. A number of causes ce le bres have emphasised that. The Bill will give effect in the most part to the proposals published in "Private Bills and New Procedures", the consultation document published by the Government in June 1990. It proposed that a system of ministerial orders should be created to cover the works most frequently authorised by private Bill--railway and tramway works--and that the Harbours Act 1964 should be amended to encompass a greater range of measures than it does at present. The consultation documents was widely welcomed in the House and elsewhere. Those who currently promote Bills had reservations about the time that would be taken under the new procedures to authorise projects and I shall deal with these issues as I describe the Bill. First, I shall make some general comments.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare) : My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the wide acceptance that the consultation procedure produced. He may be aware also that the Select Committee which dealt with the matter earlier--which he rightly complimented--did not mention canals or inland waterways. There was no consultation with the inland waterway authorities. If my hon. Friend intends to press ahead with that part of the Bill, will he either immediately consult those bodies or, better still, build into the Bill a consultation procedure before the orders, which could be very damaging to small organisations, are made law?
Mr. McLoughlin : I will cover some of my hon. Friend's points later, but I assure him that we want to hear from all relevant bodies. We are still open to consultation on specific points about which individuals or organisations feel aggrieved.
We tried to achieve a fair balance between the interests of promoters and those who are affected by their proposals--the objectors. A system for authorising projects should
Column 40
not be used as a means of holding up development that is generally desirable. At the same time, promoters should be sensitive to the needs of those on whose lives their proposals will impinge. The well-established local inquiry system, which has been with us for more than 40 years, enables the promoters' proposals and the views of objectors to be examined thoroughly. It will be one of the available means for deciding new orders. The Government's concern is to provide a framework in which decisions can be made as quickly as possible, while affording those with an interest a proper opportunity to make their views known. That is what part I of the Bill does. Part II contains safety measures for railways and other forms of guided transport. Some are necessary because the principal legislation is so out of date that private Bills have been used to give the railway inspectorate the powers it needs to supervise railway and tramway works. The most important changes are made by chapter I of part II, which provides a modern code on drink and drugs abuse.This is a technical Bill and therefore I shall not describe every clause in detail, but I will pick out the main features. The first four clauses describe the kind of works that will be subject to the new system. They empower the Secretary of State to make orders authorising railway, tramway, trolley bus and inland waterway schemes. They refer to guided transport systems that are to be further described in regulations.
Right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with those matters will know that there are already several novel systems of that type in the country and more are planned. We want to avoid the need for private Bills for those systems, so we drafted a comprehensive definition in an attempt to provide for all foreseeable modes. However, it seems wise to provide for specific regulations to be made later, when it has been possible more closely to assess their principal features.
There is also a power to prescribe types of work that would interfere with rights of navigation. Those, too can be varied. At present, such works mostly require a private Bill.
It would be convenient to mention time scales at this point. We are not introducing this legislation primarily to speed up the process of approving works, but it is important to ensure that we do not slow them down. We looked at the recent history of the progress of private Bills--not just the notorious ones, but all the others. There can be no doubt that they are taking longer to enact.
Private Bills used commonly to be passed in a single Session. The average time for Bills that have now passed was 19 months. At the beginning of this Session, no fewer than 23 transport or other works Bills were still before the House from previous Sessions, including one that started in 1988. I understand that some 23 new Bills were deposited last Wednesday, 16 of which would involve works. That means that the average time taken is bound to increase.
The time taken by local inquiries and by the inspector to write his report has been criticised in the past. In recent years, the Department of the Environment has done a great deal to sharpen up inquiry procedures, with some success. We therefore hold to the view, advanced in the consultation document, that projects which are progressed by order will, on the whole, take no longer than private Bills and that the smaller ones will progress much more quickly.
Column 41
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest) : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, but to make sure that we avoid incorporating delay in the new procedures, will there be no holding out on a decision whether or not to grant an order? Is my hon. Friend prepared to stipulate a timetable in the Bill, so that the Secretary of State could not unreasonably delay his determination on whether an order should be granted? Also, will my hon. Friend make it clear that if inquiries are necessary in certain areas because there are objections, enough inspectors will be available to conduct those inquiries? If not, a large number of public inquiries could be in the pipeline--and in the case of railway works in particular, that could slow down the development of the system.
Mr. McLoughlin : The suggestion that the Secretary of State should have to adhere to a timetable is an interesting one that does not appear on the face of the Bill.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : It jolly well should.
Mr. McLoughlin : I shall look closely at my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Department of Transport does not wish to hold up schemes after an inquiry has been held. Important works are often necessary. My hon. Friend also asked whether sufficient inspectors are available. We shall keep that matter under constant review. If problems arise, we shall have to address them. I can be no more specific than that.
Orders may be applied for at any time, whereas at some moment private Bills can be deposited only once a year. In some respects, that would help the flow. It would do away with the great dash to deposit Bills by a certain date in November. The very fact that there would be no specific date by which orders had to be deposited and that they could start their natural progression at any time of the year would go some way towards relieving the existing bottleneck. The Joint Committee also identified limitations in the Harbours Act which meant that, even though harbour works could be authorised by order, the private Bill route would still be available. There were some purposes for which orders were not available--for example, the setting up and construction of purely recreational harbours. These matters are dealt with in clause 57 and schedule 3. I should mention here that we have not provided for the complete closure of a harbour by means of a harbour order. Dismantling the regulatory, navigational and conservancy functions of a harbour authority might raise wider issues which we thought should still come before Parliament on the rare occasions when the closure of a harbour is envisaged. Those clauses cover a good 95 per cent. of all the works Bills that come to Parliament. What remains are those works which are normally authorised by procedures outside Parliament, but, because of the need to amend private enactments, some aspect of the scheme must come here. It would have stretched unduly the scope of the Bill to deal with those circumstances and a general provision would have been indefensibly vague. The Joint Committee recommended that the private Bill system should be so policed that only the powers required to be sought in Parliament should be the subject of a Bill and that, if its primary purpose could be achieved elsewhere, it should be.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The Minister has outlined the order-making procedure and compared it
Column 42
with the private Bill procedure. The abolition of the private Bill procedure would have certain advantages, but does not the Minister think that the orders which are to take the place of the private Bill procedure should be subject to the affirmative procedure? The scrutiny of negative procedure instruments in this place is appalling. There is no guarantee that time will be made available to debate a prayer. The Bill therefore provides Ministers with a great deal of power that will be subject to no scrutiny. It is going from one extreme to the other.Mr. McLoughlin : I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, but I hope to be able to answer some of them later. If he is here when I do so, he will hear me explain why we feel that the affirmative procedure is not the best course to adopt in some cases.
It is, of course, for the House authorities to act on these matters and to decide when a private Bill should come before the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is content that they have adequate powers to do so.
Clause 5 deals with what may go in the orders described in clause 1 to 4. Our examination of the purposes for which private legislation has been sought has led us to seek this power ; schedule 1 lists some of the objects for which orders may be made. The powers in subsection (3) are apparently wide, but can be exercised only in relation to the objects for which an order could be made. They will be used to apply existing legislation--on compensation, for example--to apply or disapply the old Railways Clauses Acts and to modify legislation so that its purpose is retained but it is tailored more closely to the requirements of the relevant order. Paragraph 51 of the Joint Committee report foresaw that a provision of this sort would be necessary.
The procedure for making orders is dealt with in clauses 6 to 14. It follows the normal pattern which we have come to expect where orders are made by Ministers following a public inquiry. Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to make rules about applications for orders. The rules will require that an environmental statement should be submitted with most applications for orders. We may have a system like the one that applies to private Bills now, where the applicant might seek a dispensation from the Secretary of State that an environmental statement need not be submitted because the works proposed in question order were clearly not likely to have significant environmental effects.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport) : The hon. Gentleman mentioned public inquiries. Does the procedure mean that Ministers can state how long a public inquiry should last--one week, two weeks and so on ?
Mr. McLoughlin : The Bill does not provide that power. It would be wrong if it did. A public inquiry may want to look into matters that it initially felt were not relevant. There would therefore be no time limit.
The exact text of the rules will be informed by the discussions that are now going on with the Commission. We shall abide by the directive on environmental impact assessment, as we always have. That European directive is, I fear, vaguely drafted. The orders will in due course be based on model clauses, which can be prescribed in clause 8. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to propose orders for defence purposes or where works have been abandoned and are a danger to the public.
| Next Section
| Home Page |