House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Nov 1993

Column 367

with my right hon. Friend should I meet any opposition in these matters. I am also grateful to know that some Opposition time may be made available to help us.

We shall certainly continue to do all we can to ensure that the Maxwell pension fund trustees and others pursue as effectively and rapidly as possible a settlement, particularly within the possible global settlement which Sir Peter Webster is now seeking. The object of that is not only to ensure that the issue is resolved more rapidly than if it went to court, but we are saved funds being drained off in lawyers' fees so that the money instead goes back to the pensioners in greater measure. I know that that has the widespread support of the House.

As far as limited price indexation is concerned, we made it clear that we intended to resolve a complexity of issues which bear on the obligations of pension funds before we decide whether and, if so, when that obligation should be imposed on pension funds. It is right that those other issues should be satisfactorily resolved first.

Column 368

Points of Order

5 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is uncannily ironic that my point of order should follow the exchanges that have just taken place, as it relates to what is intended to be the biggest pension robbery in British history, the robbery of the British Rail pension fund.

In the other place this afternoon, the Government have now suffered two defeats on the pension fund issue in the Railways Bill. The other place has confirmed the view taken by many Members in the House last night and by the chairman of the British Rail pension fund about the conduct of the Government in reneging on assurances that had been given, and in seeking to gain the powers of Ministers to make changes to the pension fund--

Madam Speaker : Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Wilson : The conduct of the Government in seeking to make those changes has been rejected by the Lords this afternoon in the same way as it was rejected by Opposition Members last night.

Can you use your good offices, Madam Speaker, to bring the Leader of the House to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the proposed conduct of business hereafter and, preferably, could there be talks to abandon the whole unwanted Railways Bill as the threat to railway pensioners arises only as a by-product of that dreadful Bill which has no support in the country?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Is it related to this matter?

Mr. Skinner : Yes. As the two pension proposals have been defeated by the votes of Members in another place, taking into account the composition of the House of Lords--the ratio of Members taking the Whip is about four Tories to one Labour--would it not seem credible to argue that, as the Government have a massive majority there and a majority here in the House of Commons, now that the Lords have defeated them twice, surely it makes sense that the Government should accept the decision that has been made, so that we can get on with business?

Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Does it relate to the same point of order?

Ms Coffey : No.

Madam Speaker : Then I shall return to the hon. Lady when I have replied to the hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson). I have had no official news as yet, but, as the House knows, we have a long parliamentary day and no doubt we will hear how to proceed in due course.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why has the Department of Trade and Industry document, "Clean Coal Technology : Options for the Future" not been placed before the House? It states :

"Coal can continue to play a significant role well into the twenty-first century".

Column 369

Surely that is a supreme hypocrisy on the day when Calverton colliery is closing and the coal industry has been decimated. Do the Government intend to make a statement on the matter? Is it right that the document should be issued to the press, but not placed in the Library of the House?

Madam Speaker : I have not had sight of the document and I cannot be certain whether it is the sort of document that is normally laid before the House until I have seen it. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not yet had any notice of any more statements which Ministers are about to make today.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Item 13 on the Order Paper is a proposal under statutory instrument to impose VAT on orange juice. I know that it is informal, unofficial and does not exist, but earlier this week we had our party Whips and there was no indication at that stage that the matter would be debated. There was a debate in a Statutory Instruments Committee earlier this week on the subject, but today is the first time that many hon. Members have been aware that the matter is coming before the House this evening.

I dare say that, if it is on the Order Paper, it must be an order, but it seems that there should be some other procedure whereby such important matters cannot suddenly be flung on the Table at the last minute. Hon. Members should have adequate warning that issues of such significance are about to be put before the House.

Can you, Madam Speaker, look into the background of this matter? If the procedures are not proper for matters of this significance, perhaps it would be possible for the Procedure Committee to look into them so that in future such matters do not come before the House with minimal notice at the last minute. Because you know so much more about these things than I do, Madam Speaker, may I ask whether we can debate the motion later this evening, or do we purely vote on it?

Madam Speaker : It is not a matter which can be debated later this evening. It has already been before the Statutory Instruments Committee in the normal way, but it is not on the Order Paper for debate this evening.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The matter is the subject of a dispute which is subject to appeal to the House of Lords. It would appear that this order is being rushed through while the matter is sub judice. Is it not a matter about which we should be concerned?

Madam Speaker : The sub judice rule does not apply to delegated legislation.

Ms Coffey : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 15 October a letter from the Secretary of State for Social Security was circulated to all right hon. and hon. Members which stated that it was not true that the Child Support Agency was concentrating primarily on those who were already paying some maintenance. However, I understand from reports in the press that the chief executive of the agency said exactly the opposite to the Select Committee on Social Security.

Column 370

In view of the irreconcilable nature of these two statements, could you, Madam Speaker, use your good offices to ask the Minister to come to the House to reconcile them? I feel strongly that it is important for Members of the House to have accurate information, and we do rely on Ministers to give us that accurate information.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Lady is aware that I have no authority to require a Minister to come before the House and make a statement. I am given notice when a Minister wishes to do so. Of course, as the hon. Lady may be aware, and if she is not I will be happy to give her some guidance if she would like to come and see me, there are various other methods by which she herself can raise these matters in the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

Police (Amendment)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the Police Act 1964 so as to permit all members of any police force to belong to a trade union, and to allow the Police Federation to affiliate to the Trades Union Congress : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]

Value Added Tax (Democratic Control)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to restore to Parliament the sole legislative power to impose, amend, or repeal value added tax to be charged in the United Kingdom ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War (No. 2)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 November, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

Column 371

Football Matches (Violent and Disorderly Conduct) 5.9 pm

Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the prevention of violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches played outside England and Wales ; to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989 ; and for connected purposes.

I am a lifelong supporter of West Ham United, and since June 1983 I have been a supporter of Basildon United. Both, in their respective leagues, are the finest teams in the country. Unfortunately, occasionally they meet teams that play a little better than they do--but of course, those matches are always played in unfortunate circumstances. My household was delighted by West Ham's performance on Monday night, when we beat Manchester City. The passwords in our house are, "Up, you irons," and, "I'm for ever blowing bubbles." I am an east ender, and it is appropriate that I support West Ham United, because when England won the world cup three West Ham players-- Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters--scored all the goals. Those people were an inspiration to other young players in their behaviour both on and off the field. In more recent times, Trevor Brooking he saw on our television screens and in the newspapers at the time of the England versus Holland match. My Bill has nothing to do with football supporters or spectators. The idiots to whom I refer are so thick that they cannot even wait for us to lose a match before they riot. They have no interest whatever in the game of football ; they have simply latched on to our national game as an opportunity for what they see as "having a good laugh". Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the two are somehow related in the minds of the general public.

We are all deeply saddened that we are now out of the world cup, that our national sport is still at a low ebb, with some players being paid too much money in return for poor skills, and that we have no settled English team. Now is the ideal time for us to take action on disorderly conduct at football matches. Lord Justice Taylor's report on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster said that there was no single remedy for hooligan behaviour. Those disgraceful individuals should be dealt with seriously, because of the shame that they bring on our country, on themselves and on their families. I presume that those people all have parents who love them, but if I had a son who behaved in that way I would string him up, and if I employed one of them--I assume that they are in work--I should not be at all happy about his staying in my employment.

I pay a warm tribute to the way in which the British game has been cleaned up, thanks to firm, decisive action. We are an example to other countries, and many people and organisations should take the credit for that--the football unit of the national criminal intelligence service, the Football Association, with its England unit travel club rules, the all-party football group and its chairman, and so on. The two 1991 reports of the Home Affairs Committee on policing football hooliganism, and other Select

Column 372

Committee reports, have made significant contributions. Media headlines on one day are soon forgotten, but the matter needs constant attention.

Hooliganism is certainly not confined to these islands. For instance, as we have seen on television today, it happens in Turkey. It is widespread throughout the world, so the thrust of any amending legislation should be reciprocal, and should take effect on a European basis. For my suggestions I am indebted for his support and guidance to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who wanted to be in the Chamber, but is at present doing an interview on the same subject for a television programme.

The passport scandal is an example of the complex difficulties of control. Some hooligans, instead of using their own passports, apply for British visitors passports under false names to avoid proper identification. The rules for issuing British visitors passports should be tightened to require a more rigorous examination of supporting documents. If fans using the FA travel club scheme had to present full British passports, their tickets and their club cards, that would help greatly.

I hope to ensure that some action is taken, building on our successes in this country so that Britain can lead the way. First, we should extend by statutory instrument or otherwise the powers under section 22 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Only three times have statutory instruments extended the powers under section 22(1). Surely it is time for an extension to other countries. Regrettably, only 25 restriction orders have been issued by the courts since 1990, and most have now expired. That matter needs attention.

Secondly, we should lead by positive example, through the 1985 European convention on spectator violence and misbehaviour at sports events, especially football matches. Twenty-four countries are involved and, in the light of experience, a standing committee of the convention should review the provisions under article 9 more frequently. Our treatment of alcohol, the use of closed-circuit television inside grounds and mobile cameras outside, effective football units co-operating with one another, and local legislation giving the police emergency powers, will all greatly improve the situation, and will help to distinguish between innocent people and obvious offenders. That must all be done on a common reciprocal basis. We cannot be happy when the police authorities in other countries appear so restrained in their use of prosecution, finding it easier to ship suspected offenders as quickly as possible back to their home countries.

We have a great tradition of fair play in this country. We have always been seen as good losers--perhaps not wanting quite enough to win. There may be something in that. However, in the long term, no game could survive in a civilised society with the sort of nonsense that we have seen perpetrated by the mindless hooligans who have travelled abroad in recent years.

I hope that the all-party football group will wish to review the present position and to report its conclusions to the Home Office and to the Minister responsible for sport, so that appropriate action can be taken by a standing committee of the European convention. We cannot and should not stand by and allow our national game to be brought into disrepute by mindless thugs. The Bill will make a significant contribution to that end.

Question put and agreed to .

Column 373

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. David Evans, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Jim Lester, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

Football Matches (Violent and Disorderly Conduct)

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the prevention of violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches played outside England and Wales ; to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989 ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]

Column 374

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill(Allocation of Time)

5.19 pm

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood) : I beg to move,

That the Order of the House [27th October 1992] be supplemented as follows :

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings of this Order.

2.--(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above--

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended ;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall--

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended ;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment ;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments ; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments ;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments 3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion-- (

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair ;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall--

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item ;

Column 375

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal ; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental 6.--(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has a long history all of its own. The original private Bill was introduced into another place five years ago this month. It was considered by a Select Committee of the other place for 13 days and received the usual Second and Third Readings. In this House it was debated for a total of twenty-five and a half hours. It was twice carried over into new parliamentary Sessions, and was finally considered for sixteen and a half hours in an all-night sitting in April 1991. It was considered for 27 sitting days by a Select Committee, including three days of evidence taken in Cardiff. The present Bill was introduced two years ago tomorrow. Seldom can a Bill coming before the House for a Second Reading have been already so thoroughly debated and examined. This Bill has been debated even more thoroughly since. It was considered for 14 days by a Select Committee of this House, including three days in Cardiff. There were five sittings for the Standing Committee, lasting twelve and a half hours. Report and Third Reading lasted over 10 hours.

The two Bills together have had Second Reading after Second Reading and Committee day after Committee day of discussion. There are those who think it is challenging for a place in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the length of time its passage has taken.

The Bill has also been through another place, including 11 days before a Select Committee. It was not greatly amended there. The time has come to bring consideration of this Bill to an end. The timetable motion provides for two more hours of discussion. In paragraph 2, the motion contains the usual provision for questions to be put at the end of the two-hour period.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : The Secretary of State is correct to talk about the long time

Column 376

involved with this Bill. If he studies the history, he might agree that, if the Welsh Office had advised in the first place that it should be a hybrid Bill, as it is now, rather than a private Bill, a great deal of time and agony might have been saved for many of us. The Secretary of State is talking about cutting the time allowed for these last amendments. Given that these are generally helpful and non- controversial amendments, it seems rather odd that he should be introducing a guillotine at this stage.

Mr. Redwood : If the amendments are non-controversial and helpful, it will not take more than two hours to deal with them in a sensible way.

It is decision time for the House, and decision time for Cardiff. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the unflagging energy that he has put into this project. He will be handling the remaining stages with his usual skill and great knowledge of the subject.

Everything about the barrage and the bay proposals has been extensively debated. This House has heard how the rising water table will be handled, how transport will be organised and how development should follow the project. The Bill is eagerly awaited by the construction industry and by many in Cardiff. Its final passage tonight represents the go-ahead for a large civil engineering project, a green light for the bay development, a landmark in the history of Cardiff. The development corporation will ensure that the city is once again linked to the bay properly, and that the old docks areas will again become commercial centres, bustling with a new kind of trade.

I want to see Cardiff reunited, with its waterfront thrusting ahead with new investments in its business district, and proud of its bay-led development. The bay development will help Cardiff to retain its critical role in the business of Wales. In five years' time, people will look across the bay from Penarth and wonder how Members in this House could have stood in the way of regeneration for so long.

A new maritime city for the next millennium, a symbol of all that is best in Welsh enterprise, architecture and environment, will be constructed. It will be a celebration of the best of Wales, a symbol that the best of Wales is world class. I urge the House not to stay the bulldozers longer. I urge hon. Members to support the motion. 5.24 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : The Secretary of State has just given his Third Reading speech. He has issued a clarion call for getting on with the job and not standing in the way of the bulldozers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has correctly pointed out, the problem is that the Secretary of State has not explained what the timetable motion has to do with the content of his mini- speech.

After all, it has taken six years to get this far with the Bill and it is difficult to see why an hour or so either way will make very much difference. If a Bill has taken longer than world war 2 to get to this stage, a guillotine hardly seems appropriate. We are discussing Lords amendments, not the Third Reading.

The Secretary of State is right to point to the fact that the Bill has a long and tangled history--in fact, he omitted one part of it. It first entered their Lordships' House in November 1987, not November 1988, and was withdrawn.

Column 377

Perhaps the lesson that we can learn from this Bill is that, if one does one's homework, any Bill, whatever the objections to it, will have a much cleaner and smoother passage through the House. The homework was not done on this Bill, and its tangled history saw the two Under-Secretaries of State before the present incumbent--Ian Grist and Nicholas Bennett--lose their seats in the last general election. We may have the triple crown of Under-Secretaries of State, in that the present Minister may also lose his seat after his association with the Bill.

We are dealing with what might be called legislative coitus interruptus on a monumental scale. The Secretary of State has said that he does not believe that the Bill's sell-by date has been exceeded. However, the Bill was conceived in the boom conditions of November 1987 and, six years later, it is just reaching its final proceedings in the Hosue. If it ever was the answer to Cardiff's problems, is that still the case ?

We object to the timetable motion, not only because we cannot see the point of a guillotine on Lords amendments, but because of the precedent of a guillotine on a hybrid Bill with this unique history. It is unprecedented to have a hybrid Bill that is six years old--if we include the three previous versions--and to have a guillotine on Lords amendments to a Bill that has been carried over not only from one House to another and one year to another but from one general election to another. That is the problem that we are facing in trying to find a way in which the Secretary of State can justify the timetable motion.

There is not a vast number of Lords amendments, but they do require unrestricted debate. The Government will be well aware from events in another place already tonight that, when they mess about with Lords amendments and guillotine them in this place, nasty accidents sometimes happen. It is much better to allow Parliament to have unfettered debate, because if it does not, Bills can become accident-prone.

The Bill was given a Second Reading two years ago, and when a Bill is given a Second Reading, the principle contained in it is established. A problem arises, as in this case, when a Bill is altered in the other place and this House has no opportunity to consider it in its proper form.

The House did not have that opportunity, because it was rushed into Second Reading before the groundwater studies had been completed. It is a generally accepted constitutional convention that, following Second Reading, the principle of the Bill cannot be opposed. That establishes the principle, and binds the hands of the National Rivers Authority and of the Countryside Council for Wales.

When the Bill is altered in another place, that constitutional principle is undermined, because it means that one is now looking at a package different from that considered at Second Reading. It is fair to say--I am sure that many of my hon. Friends and the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary would agree--that the changes which have been made in another place undoubtedly provide improved protection against potential damage.

However, we did not have a chance to consider the complete package properly on Second Reading. I am arguing for an unrestricted debate tonight, because a fundamental constitutional principle could be undermined. Following Second Reading--after which the principle of the Bill cannot be discussed-- the House should have a

Column 378

proper chance to discuss the consequences for farm and livestock and for individuals, as well what appears in the Bill.

The same applies to the rights of petitioners, which have been considerably abridged by the omission of a matter under new clause 22, which I may come to later in the debate. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. Obviously, the reason for that is his own tangled involvement with clause 22. He denied that the clause would re-hybridise the Bill when I directly put it to him in the Standing Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to challenge me on that? [Interruption.]

Next Section

Home Page