| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 522
Reform of Parliament
2.15 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I beg to move,
That this House notes the declining importance of Parliament in the nation's affairs as power moves from national governments to the institutions of the European Union ; and calls for a reduction in the number of honourable Members of Parliament, the construction of a new Parliamentary building, the uninterrupted televising of proceedings, the election of a second chamber by regional proportional representation, the determination of the electoral system for the Commons following a referendum, the provision of adequate chamber facilities for honourable Members, and for pre-legislative scrutiny and reinforcement of the Select Committee system.
I express my gratitude to the business managers for allowing us to reach motion No. 2 so that I can say a few words.
On Monday this week, when the Liberal Democrats had a motion down about changing parliamentary procedures, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about the public contempt for Parliament. In my opinion, he was absolutely wrong : there is no public contempt for Parliament. If there is contempt--and one would accept that there is--it is contempt for politicians.
Many people would say that politicians rank only slightly above journalists and cockroaches in public esteem. I have always thought that that was a little unkind to cockroaches because they are perfectly evolved creatures, which is more than I can say for many Members of Parliament.They would survive a nuclear holocaust, which, fortunately, no Member of Parliament would.
That shows that our standing in the eyes of the electorate is fairly low. There is a worrying degree of mutual contempt ; that is what I sense-- mutual contempt. If a Government who were elected on a minority of votes push hard with deeply unpopular legislation without regard for public opinion, the electorate get the feeling that the politicians and--although I shall not particularise--the Government do not give a damn about their feelings. If we continue to ignore the wishes of the electorate, obviously we prove them right in that respect. Mutual contempt is therefore created.
We perhaps feel--when I say, "we", I mean all hon. Members--that we can get away with things that are unpopular. That is a way of treating the electorate with contempt, and the electorate simply think that politicians are self-seeking and do not pay very much attention to the wishes and needs of their constituents. In both cases, that is a slightly unfair analysis, but we all sense those feelings that people have about us.
Recently there has rightly been an upsurge in parliamentary navel-gazing. I mentioned the debate that we had at the beginning of the week. On Monday, we shall debate the Select Committee system. We are still waiting to debate the Jopling report in any meaningful and executive measure, although I suspect and trust that we shall do so shortly. I think that it is right that we should examine this institution very critically.
I am pleased to say that in recent years my party, the Labour party, has proposed, through conference resolutions, a range of constitutional changes that the next Labour Government will implement : a Bill of Rights ; a second Chamber elected by regional list and proportional representation ; the election of British Members of the European Parliament in a similar way ; the restoration of
Column 523
independent local government ; the scrutiny by Parliament of the prerogative powers of the Executive ; and fixed-term Parliaments, which I think are very significant indeed.The Prime Minister of the day has far too much power to decide when the election will be called. Clearly, a Prime Minister will not choose a time that is inconvenient or embarrassing to his party. It is difficult to see the present Prime Minister finding any window of opportunity between now and 1997--I am sure that he will go all the way to the wire. If we had fixed-term Parliaments as other countries do, it would give a degree of certainty. If Governments start manoeuvring and creating economic booms, we cannot stop them, but the electorate will know what it is all about. The Labour party will be considering Lord Plant's report on proportional representation systems. It is right that we should do so.
Changes are coming whether we like it or not, mainly because of the European dimension. Powers are moving away from this place and from all national Parliaments, as they move towards the institutions of the European Union. There are hon. Members in all parties who find that disagreeable. They believe that the disappearance of parliamentary sovereignty and powers into the institutions of Brussels marks a retrograde step. I do not believe that. I shall not go too deeply into the subject, but I believe in a federal Europe. I have no fears about national sovereignty disappearing into the greater good or the nation state moving away and disappearing as states evolve and we move towards a federal European state. That seems to be natural and I welcome it.
We cannot stand around in this place whingeing about the changes and the way that they affect us ; we must try to respond to them. The European Parliament will clearly obtain more powers--Maastricht guaranteed that. The intergovernmental conference in 1996 will undoubtedly move the process forward. It is important that we work within those movements and try to ensure that the European Parliament obtains more power so that it can hold the institutions of the European Union to greater account. We need to democratise those institutions. It is no good whingeing ; we must respond to the changes.
We have a thin legislative programme and we can already see how we are making work for ourselves in this place to fill up the available time, which is depressing. We are looking at the possibility of the summer recess starting in the middle of next month and continuing until October. If this place is meant to hold the Executive to account, it cannot do so with a 14 or 15-week summer recess. We should consider ways of phasing the recesses throughout the year so that if it is true that we hold the Executive to account in this place--which I doubt--we can make more of a fist of it by questioning Ministers regularly and not letting them off the hook for an enormously long period in the summer.
I think that we all accept that we work ridiculous hours in this place. The hours and the manner of our work destroy individuals' health and personal relationships. I shall not go too deeply into the issue of the hours we work as the Jopling report is considering that subject. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity before the recess to debate that issue, and, more important, to vote on the report's recommendations.
I mentioned the fact that the Labour party will be considering the Plant report. To his eternal credit, John Smith said that the Labour Government would have a referendum on a change of system if one is proposed,
Column 524
which I suspect it will be. I can see how things are working. It would be better for a proposal to change our electoral system to come from one of the major parties--the Labour party or the Conservative party--than for it to come from the Liberal Democrats, who could be seen to be self-seeking in wanting to change the system. I want our electoral system to reflect the needs and wishes of the electorate. I do not think that the way our system works at the moment has that effect.If we changed to a system of proportional representation, we could reduce the numbers of Members of Parliament. There are far too many of them, although that might be hard to believe looking around the Benches today. There are 651 and their work loads differ enormously. I know that there are Stakhanovites on both sides of the House ; the same people always seem to be around. But if the United States, with a population of 240 million, can get away with a Congress of 535, I should have thought that we, with a much smaller population, could get away with far fewer Members of Parliament.
As the Government are reducing their functions these days by privatising everything, perhaps it is time they started to reduce the number of Ministers too. I note that one group never mooted for privatisation are the Government themselves. They might get some support from us if they proposed to privatise themselves. If we reduced the numbers of Members of Parliament, we could improve the facilities for them. I am not looking for jacuzzis and sun beds, but we could at least have allocated places in this Chamber. The layout of the Chamber derives from the fact that, in 1547, Edward VI gifted his chapel to the Commons--and we are left with this ridiculous choir stall arrangement and no facilities.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) : I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the hemicycle shape of most European legislatures leads to rhetorical interventions by Ministers and none of the give and take that I have enjoyed in my four or five weeks here.
I have worked for the BBC and for a trade union, both extremely parsimonious institutions ; but now I come here to find that there are no facilities and no secretarial help. There are free paper clips and there is free stationery. The meanest pizza delivery boy has a fax and a mobile phone, but we have nothing. I want to do a job for Rotherham, and I should like to have the facilities with which to do it.
Mr. Banks : I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) I hope that he has discovered the Fees Office by now. The best bit of advice one can give a new Member is to tell him the way to the Fees Office. We do get secretarial allowances, so people outside tend not to sympathise with us much. But it is difficult to run a constituency office and a Westminster office, as I do, on the £41,000 that we receive--it is clearly not enough. Last year, and the year before that, I had to give the Fees Office a cheque at the end of the year--last year for £7,000 or £8,000--because I had gone over my budget. I had stopped claiming money, because there was none left by November in a financial year that goes through to March. We do not have enough resources to do our jobs properly. This is a strange place to work in, because no account is taken of our differing work loads. In my constituency, I get problems by the skip load, yet I have exactly the same facilities as does a Member of Parliament who may receive
Column 525
a few dozen letters a week and whose main problem is deciding which garden fete to open on Saturday. Would that I had those sorts of problems!The answer lies entirely in our own hands. We are in the strange position of being our own bosses--although we seem to have lots of other bosses who are always telling us what to do and what we have done wrong, and how they would do it differently. Every pub contains an alternative Government. It is one of the great tragedies of this life : if only all those taxi drivers and hairdressers would turn to politics, the country might be far better run.
As I say, we could deal with the matter ourselves, but we have consistently failed to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham will add his voice to those arguing, not for luxury for hon. Members, but for decent facilities so that they can do a better constituency job.
I think that the layout of this Chamber should be changed. No great history attaches to it, after all ; it only dates from 1951. We could turn it into a hemicycle. If we did not want to do that, we could certainly have allocated desks if, as I have suggested, we reduced the number of hon. Members, and that would enable us to have electronic voting. Why do we have to go through the absurdity of continually breaking off to go into the Division Lobby ? I do not want to see all the traditions of this place thrown away, but we must not allow ourselves to be imprisoned by our past.
The Chamber is confrontational. If we took 650 people from the telephone directory and stuck them in this place they would behave in exactly the same way as hon. Members behave at Prime Minister's Question Time. In many respects, the Chamber is like a football pitch with banks of supporters on each side looking down to the pitch, each group cheering on its own side even when it is playing rubbish. That is precisely what it is all about-- and unfortunately too many people view Prime Minister's Question Time as the be all and end all of parliamentary activity, which it is not.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Column 526
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Bills
ABOLITION OF SERVICE CHARGES IN RESTAURANTS BILL -- Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : No day named.
INSOLVENCY (No. 3) BILL --
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
WATER (DOMESTIC DISCONNECTIONS) BILL --
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [ 25 February ].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 1 July .
WITHDRAWAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT BILL --
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL --
Order for Second Reading read .
Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July .
FREEDOM TO ROAM (ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE) BILL -- Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
SALE AND SUPPLY OF GOODS BILL --
Not amended ( in the Standing Committee ), considered, read the Third time, and passed, without amendment .
TELEVISION LICENCES (REDUCTION FOR POOR RECEPTION) BILL -- Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
MARRIAGE BILL --
Read a Second time .
Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 ( Committal of Bills ).
Column 527
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE --
Ordered,
That
(1) at the sitting on Monday 27th June, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister shall lapse at Seven o'clock ; and
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall
(a) at the sitting on Tuesday 28th June, put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 and the draft Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994 not later than three hours after the first such Motion has been entered upon or half-past Eleven o'clock, whichever is the earlier ; and
(b) at the sitting on Thursday 30th June, put the Question on (i) the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon ;
(ii) the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon ; and
(iii) the Motion in the name of Mrs. Gillian Shephard relating to the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon ;
and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Column 528
Gatwick Airport (Second Runway)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
2.31 pm
Mr. Kenneth Baker (Mole Valley) : The last time that I moved an Adjournment debate was more than 20 years ago, so no one could claim that I am abusing this parliamentary procedure. Hon. Members should use Adjournment debates to bring to a wider audience a matter that particularly affects their constituents and about which their constituents are concerned. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is to reply to the debate. He was my Parliamentary Private Secretary for a number of years and we are good friends. [Interruption.] He was an excellent PPS, not just very good, and he has been an excellent Minister, one of the Government's most robust defenders on the Front Bench. I wish him well in the forthcoming shuffle. [Interruption.] The fact that a Whip is cheering means nothing.
The possibility of a second runway at Gatwick has occasioned more concern in my constituency than any matter that I can recall. I have had thousands of letters on the matter, and that is exceptional for any hon. Member. There have been huge public meetings at which hundreds of people have turned up not only in Surrey but in Sussex. The councils involved, including my own, Mole Valley district council, which is co-ordinating the campaign by district councils against the runway, and Surrey county council, have also strongly opposed it. The Gatwick area conservation campaign, which is being brilliantly led by Brendon Sewell, has co- ordinated much of the local opposition. The possibility of a second runway derives from the
RUCATSE--standing for runway capacity in the south-east--report, which examined airport capacity in the first 20 years of the next century in south-east England and London. For two reasons, I was appalled to find in that report that Gatwick was even considered as a possibility for expansion. First, in 1981, the inspector at the second terminal inquiry at Gatwick said :
"There is no prospect of a second runway at Gatwick and it would plainly be an environmental disaster to create one."
Following that view of the inspector, the Government issued an airports policies White Paper in 1985. I was then Secretary of State for the Environment, so I remember the discussions on it in the Cabinet. In that document, the Government set out their policy. It said :
"The Government believes that the provision of a second runway at Gatwick would have unacceptable environmental implications." That is Government policy. It has not been changed, it has not been modified, it has not been trimmed, it has not been qualified and it has not been altered in any way. It is still Government policy and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will reaffirm that this afternoon.
Secondly, I was appalled because there is a legal agreement between the British Airports Authority and Sussex county council, which was entered into when planning permission was given for the second terminal at Gatwick. That agreement precludes starting construction on a runway before 2019. I went to see Sir John Egan, the chairman of the British Airports Authority, and his authority sent me a letter, which said :
"So far as Gatwick is concerned, as you know, BAA has signed an agreement with the Local Authorities under which we have
Column 529
agreed not to construct an additional runway at the Airport for 40 years. That agreement runs until 2019, and we consider ourselves bound by it."That is a very clear, absolutely categorical statement. The British Airports Authority considers that that legal agreement is totally binding. Therefore, if a Government of any complexion decided to go ahead with a second runway, they would have to bring in primary legislation to set aside that legal agreement, which, I must say to the House, would be unthinkable and could not be carried.
I entirely accept that air transport is very important to the British economy, and that we should be very proud of the fact that Heathrow is the largest and busiest international airport in the world. It brings a great deal of wealth and prosperity to our country, although 30 per cent. of the passengers at Heathrow do not come to stay in London but are transiting to other places. It is a major centre of movement and transfer in air travel, and we do not want to lose that.
I also entirely accept that there will be more air travel over the years to come. More people are wanting to travel--there is some doubt about the figures, but that increase is inevitable. How will that be accommodated ? Heathrow will certainly have to expand to at least 80 million passengers a year and that is on the cards. Gatwick will have to expand from its present 20 or 21 million passengers to about 30 to 35 million and I have no objection to that. There will be expansion in the existing framework of the airport, a better use of runways and more night flights and I am reluctantly prepared to accept all of that.
At the same time, regional airports will expand. Manchester is an enormous success as an international airport. In the second city in France, Lyon, the airport is tiny and provincial. Manchester is a major international airport with flights going out to all over the world and it is something of which we can be proud. There is shortly to be a second terminal there, as I understand, which will enhance its position. There are other regional airports such as the East Midlands airport, Leeds-Bradford and Newcastle. In fact, since the publication of the RUCATSE report, East Midlands airport has come forward to say that it would like to handle more passengers. All those developments will ease the pressure on the London conurbation as a centre of air travel and that is very important. At the same time, there should be a better use of the existing runways and a greater use of night flights.
What is the proposal to which I am objecting ? It is simply that I feel that a second runway should not be built at Gatwick. It would expand the passenger throughput at Gatwick--currently 20 million passengers a year--to 80 million a year. That is a four times increase. Down in Surrey and north Sussex, there would be an airport broadly twice the size of Heathrow. One knows the enormous spread of Heathrow. A great airport such as that involves not only runways but hotels, warehousing, car parking facilities and all the network of commercial activities which take place around it. A quadrupling of size is an enormous change. It would mean a huge industrial and commercial complex, mainly in my constituency, but spreading into the whole of Surrey and Sussex.
RUCATSE said that an airport was needed in the south-east by the year 2010. Now that the figures have been refined, that date looks like extending to 2020 or 2025, which is important in itself. The case against Gatwick is
Column 530
that such an enormous industrial and commercial undertaking would affect an area of considerable environmental beauty.The whole area covered by the proposal in Surrey and north Sussex is in my backyard. People may say that that is why I am pursuing the matter but if one does not look after one's own back yard, no one else will. Also, the back yard that I am looking after comprises the whole of the southern part of Surrey and the northern part of Sussex--some back, some yard. It is a major and beautiful part of the country. Nearly all of it is green belt, and much of it is occupied by areas of outstanding natural beauty. Some areas contain acres and acres of ancient woodlands that date back to the middle ages, which would have to be destroyed--a proposal to which the Woodland Trust is objecting.
The proposed development would also destroy the villages of Charlwood and Hookwood. Charlwood is a particularly beautiful mediaeval village. It has a real sense of community with a village school, shops, two or three pubs and a cricket team. It is a recognisable living community with a great community feel. That would go. How can one live between two runways when one cannot get to the village ?
Hookwood would also go. Charlwood and Hookwood have 55 listed buildings, one of which is a Norman church having the oldest wall painting--it dates from the 13th century--in the country. It is older than any English picture in the national gallery. It would cease to be the active, vibrant church that it is today, and would become an empty, derelict stump. The other villages under the flight path that would go would be Newdigate, Oakwood Hill, Capel and Beare Green. Life would be unbearable in them all.
When one reads the list of villages that would be affected, it is rather like the herald describing the casualties to Henry V after Agincourt-- Charlwood, Hookwood, Newdigate, Ockley, Oakwood Hill, Capel and Beare Green. The list has a ring of destruction and despair, and the destruction of those villages must not happen.
The other environmental argument is that an airport capable of transporting 80 million passengers a year will generate an enormous volume of road traffic. RUCATSE acknowledges that new roads would have to be built. The main existing road is the M23, which feeds in to the M25 and continues to Brighton. It is currently a three-lane, four-lane motorway--but would have to become a 14-lane motorway. The M25 is currently a three-lane motorway going to a four-lane motorway--eight lanes in width. The level of traffic generated by a huge industrial and commercial complex would require much wider motorways.
If any Government were to approve a second runway at Gatwick, the M25 would have to be widened to 14 lanes around its entire perimeter. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that move would be strongly opposed by all the relevant councils and by Members of Parliament whose constituencies would be affected. An airport twice as large as Heathrow in the south of England would attract passengers from the midlands and the north. They would have to make long journeys there. Some would fly down, while others would take trains or travel by car. A great volume of traffic movement would result, which is a powerful argument against a second runway at Gatwick.
It does not end there. If the M23 were widened to 14 lanes to end at Coulsdon near its junction with the M25, it
Column 531
is impossible to think that that would be satisfactory for traffic from central London. It takes about an hour to travel from central London to the M25 at Coulsdon, and trying to avoid Croydon makes it a miserable journey through a series of suburban roads. Given the amount of traffic that a huge airport would generate, it is unthinkable that the development would be possible without a motorway such as the M4--which goes out to Heathrow--starting much closer to the centre of London.There is another environmental snag. The development would not take place in a beautiful flat area ; there is a hill in the way, called Stan Hill. For flying to be made safe, a cutting nine times the size of the cutting at Twyford Down would need to be driven through the hill--and it is doubtful whether flying would be safe even then. My hon. Friend the Minister knows all about Twyford Down : he bears some of the scars. This particular environmental scar would be unacceptable.
For all those environmental reasons, a second runway at Gatwick is a very bad idea. Help is at hand, however. Unusually, it comes from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has issued regional planning guidance for the south-east of England. In his guidance to inspectors on the sort of planning needed in the south-east, issued about two months ago, he states explicitly that any major economic development should take place in the north and east of London rather than the south and west, which constitute the most congested part of the country. According to the guidance, "In the western counties of the South East"
Sussex, Hampshire, Surrey, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and south Buckinghamshire
"while having regard to the needs of the market, and taking account of the changes to the structure of the local economy since the late 1980s"
this is the key phrase
"a reducing rate of economic and housing development is appropriate."
A sentence or two later, the Secretary of State says :
"At Crawley/Gatwick, despite infrastructure and services improvements to cope with recent rapid growth, constraints on development, and policy constraints in adjoining areas, make regionally significant expansion undesirable."
That is the clearest and most explicit statement of Government policy for the relevant part of the south-east of England. Unless the Government tear up that guidance and forget it, it is unthinkable that they could possibly consider a runway at Gatwick, given the phrase
"policy constraints in adjoining areas, make regionally significant expansion undesirable."
I would go further : on environmental and aviation grounds, Gatwick is the least attractive of the three main options.
What, then, should the Government do ? They can be helpful. I am sure that they want to be helpful for all sorts of reasons--not just to me, but to a wider body of opinion in the south-east. First, they should accept that building another runway in the south-east is politically and environmentally unacceptable until Stansted and Luton airports are full. Stansted carries just 2 million passengers, although it can take 20 million ; it should be full before any consideration takes place. Luton--a much smaller airport than Stansted, but much more reliably managed--carries about 3 million passengers ; it, too, could take more. A determined effort must be made to expand the airports before another runway is considered.
Secondly, the Government should accept that there is no need for a runway before the 2025. Thirdly, they should develop the regional airports more vigorously. Fourthly,
Column 532
they should reaffirm their Gatwick legal agreement. Fifthly--this is not really my hon. Friend's responsibility, but I hope that he will consider it--the Government should announce more generous compensation terms when a site is chosen. Many of my constituents now have difficulty in selling their houses, because they are suffering from blight. When my hon. Friends consider the various representations on the different sites, I hope that they will rapidly come to the conclusion that it is not sensible and would be highly damaging and disastrous to have a second runway at Gatwick.2.49 pm
Sir George Gardiner (Reigate) : It is with great pleasure that I intervene in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). I do so to make it clear that he speaks not merely for his constituents, whose communities will be torn apart by a second runway at Gatwick, but for hundreds of thousands of people living for miles around.
My constituents in Horley will be close to the eastern end of the runway. They share with the inhabitants of large swathes of Surrey and Sussex a feeling of utter horror that such devastation should even be contemplated. It is an area of beautiful countryside. It is part of the green belt--the very lungs by which those in the Greater London conurbation can breathe. That it should be punctured to produce an airport twice the size of the present one, requiring 27, 000 new homes to be built, ancillary service buildings and a vast programme of additional road building, is unthinkable.
The need for a second runway in the south-east within the proposed time scale is based on analyses and assumptions which are open to grave doubt. It is highly likely that such additional capacity will not be required until much later in the next century, which gives the Government plenty of time to investigate, for example, the Thames estuary option, which will cause far less damage to established communities, but which RUCATSE, to its shame, barely touched on. I give my hon. Friend the Minister some friendly political advice. Today's debate, useful though it is, is but an initial skirmish. I warn him that unless he or his successors make it clear soon that they are dropping the suggestion, they will not know what has hit them when many Conservative Members make their feelings known. Now that the consultation period has closed, I urge him and the Secretary of State to lift the cloud of fear hanging over many established communities and to make it clear that they have no intention of raping and destroying our environment.
2.51 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |