| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 pm
Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge): I shall explain briefly my interest in the Bill and the history of its provisions.
My interest goes back to the days between 1964 and 1971, when I was a city councillor, and to 1967-68, when I was deputy Lord Mayor of the city. During that period, the activity of sex shops in the Soho area of the city was becoming a real problem. It is still a problem today and it needs to be addressed in the Bill.
The Bill is promoted by Westminster city council, which complied with all the statutory requirements and the Standing Order requirements for the Bill. It was deposited in November 1993 and was allocated to originate in the other place. There were no petitions in the other place, and the Bill then came into the House on14 June 1994. There was no objection to its Second Reading and there were no petitions against it. The Bill was carried over to the 1994-95 Session by resolution of the House, and following an adjournment of the Unopposed Bills Committee for further written submissions to be made in support of part III. The Committee approved the Bill on 20 October 1994.
The Bill was then blocked by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and several other hon. Members at the consideration stage in the House, and amendments to the Bill were tabled.
A debate on amendments took place on 26 June 1995. A point of order was raised just before 10 pm, and it did not prove possible to move the closure motion. There was no parliamentary time available to resume the debate before the end of the parliamentary Session. Nor was it possible to obtain a carry-over motion before the end of the Session, as that was also blocked. The Bill is therefore technically dead pending this debate on the revival motion.
The Bill is divided into three parts and deals with two totally separate topics that bear no relationship to each other. Part I simply deals with the short title and interpretation. Part II proposes additional provisions to supplement those contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as amended by the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1986, to control unlicensed sex establishments.
Westminster council has a particular problem, as Soho is within its area. The Bill would give the council additional powers to close unlicensed premises. Although existing powers allow the prosecution of operators of such premises and the seizure of goods and equipment found on them, experience has shown that such premises are routinely restocked and reopened within a matter of hours. Moreover, such premises are invariably run by what I can only call front men, whose identities change from week to week. Prosecution of such persons is not therefore effective in preventing the operation of the premises.
Part II would enable the council to obtain a closure order from a magistrates court, which would stop the premises continuing to be used as unlicensed sex premises.
Part III seeks to release the city council from its statutory duty to build a county primary school on a site at Moxon street in the city of Westminster.
I understand that it is to that particular provision that the hon. Member for Leyton objects. His concerns relate to the future use of the site. Were the Bill to obtain its revival motion, the city council would consider deleting part III to allow further time to seek a resolution to the current impasse.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton):
I have been an objector to the Bill and to this carry-over motion, appearing every Thursday at 2.30 pm to shout "Object". Indeed, when the Bill was last debated on the Floor of the House, last June, I spoke for two and a half hours, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak at length tonight. I simply want to give a summary of some of the issues and where we are from my point of view in relation to the Bill, and, indeed, to give a warning shot that if we do not made progress the House might have to have lengthy sessions on it again in future. I hope that we can make some progress and achieve a settlement that benefits the university of Westminster and addresses the concerns in relation to sex shops legislation.
Westminster city council has been slow to do either of those things. It seems to think that it can steamroller Parliament into passing the Bill without having to account for the reasons behind it or without considering the implications that would come from such a change in the law. Apart from the three-hour session in June about the university of Westminster, the Bill has not been considered by Parliament. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) said, it passed virtually all its stages without discussion.
I shall say a few words about the carry-over motion. Normally, Bills that are not completed at the end of a parliamentary Session will fall, but there is an exception with private Bills, for which there is a carry-over procedure. Because of the exception for private Bills, the onus is on the promoters to resolve the differences if they want the Bill to be carried forward and get on the statute book. I know that there is a cost to the Bill's promoter, and that is why the motion says at the end:
There are also costs to the public purse, and my time and that of other hon. Members on top of that. I think that the Government have to keep about 100 of their Members here just in case the closure was moved. That adds up to a lot of time, let alone the cost of running the House. I know that we cannot amend the motion to say that in these circumstances the promoter should pay the proper costs, but if it could be amended those costs would be considerable.
I tabled a parliamentary question to the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee last December about the estimated cost of the House on a sitting day. The reply said:
If we divide the £102,256,000 by the 158 sitting days, we come up with a figure of £647,189.87 per day.A debate such as this, taking up three hours of parliamentary time, will cost the public purse £242,696.19--and that does not include the cost of the time of the hon. Members involved. Westminster city council will not be reimbursing that cost. As I said earlier, it is incumbent on the promoter to resolve any differences, so that parliamentary time and public money are not wasted.
I demonstrated my willingness to reach agreement on the Bill, and I think that Westminster city council was rather taken aback by that. I think that it had assumed that it would get its way automatically by using Conservative Members as Lobby fodder to bludgeon the Bill through. Perhaps it would even have preferred outright opposition from me, and from other hon. Members. I have tried to be reasonable, however. I have told the council that it can have its Bill, but that it must provide educational benefit for the university of Westminster. After all, the Moxon street land referred to in clause 9 was given to the council for educational use. I have taken a flexible attitude to the way in which educational benefit can be secured; for some time, the ball has been in the council's court.
On 18 December, I met Councillor Robert Moreland and a senior council official. I suggested that the council should come up with a package of benefits for the university, and that it should be prepared to deal with the sex shop issue. I said that I would not oppose the Bill on the basis of the sex shop legislation as long as the implications were discussed.
Since that meeting I have heard nothing from the council. On 14 March, however, Jonathan Bracken of Dyson Bell Martin, parliamentary agents for the university, wrote to me saying:
Notwithstanding our three-hour debate in June and the meeting that I attended in December, no progress towards a settlement is being made, although we are approaching the end of March. As I think the House will agree, such a settlement is achievable.
Sir Michael Shersby:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me assure the House that, if the revival motion is carried, Westminster city council would like to meet him again to try to resolve the outstanding issues before further consideration of the Bill. The council has made that clear.
Mr. Cohen:
I welcome that assurance. I had hoped that we would make progress at the December meeting rather than simply laying out our positions again--although that may be an unfortunate phrase, given that the Bill deals with sex shops.
Eight of the Bill's nine clauses deal with sex shops; the ninth deals with the land at Moxon street, near Marylebone. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge pointed out, it has nothing to do with sex shops and everything to do with property speculation. The land was given to Westminster city council--free of charge--by the London residuary body following the demise of the Inner London education authority, for educational purposes. There is an argument about that. The council says--this suits its purposes--that it must build a school on the land, and I submit that it would be within its rights if it used the land for educational purposes. In any event, however, the land was handed over to the council for educational use.
The problem is that, once clause 9 becomes law and that obligation is lifted, the land will inevitably go to a property speculator. In a free market, the university could not possibly bid as much as a property speculator for prime-site land in central London. Indeed, in my three-hour speech last year, I pointed out that such a deal had already been lined up between Westminster city council and property dealers. It would mean that public education would be left out in the cold.
I have made it clear that the university of Westminster would make the best use of the land. According to its mission statement,
The same document tells us:
The university does an excellent job for the varied population of London, but it suffers from severe problems. It is run from 22 different addresses, and 30 per cent. of its floor space is leased. Many of the leases are now coming to an end. It suffers more than the average amount of building and estate costs, for which it is not reimbursed and for which it is often criticised by the Department for Education and Employment. Its strategy is to secure and operate from five large sites by the year 2000. It has already identified three sites in Westminster, and has had to build a further site in Harrow. Moxon street would be the ideal location for the fifth site, but Westminster's failure to come up with a suitable package is blocking progress.
Referring to the carry-over motion, the promoter says in its statement to the House:
"That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session."
"It is not practical to allocate the majority of House costs as between sitting and non-sitting days. The outturn for the financial year ended 31 March 1995 for the Works and the Administration votes, that is, excluding Members' pay and allowances, was £102,256,000. There were 158 sitting days in that year. Further information is given in the Commission's annual report."---[Official Report, 18 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 848.]
"So far as I am aware, no further progress has been made between the City Council and the University of Westminster concerning the Moxon Street site but should you need any further information please do not hesitate to let me know."
"The mission of the University of Westminster is to be the leading provider in the capital city of high quality accessible portfolio of higher education and associated strategic research".
"The University has a unique profile with 9,000 full-time students, 12,000 part-time students and 20,000 students who attend mid-career short courses. Seventy-five per cent. of the full time student population comes from London, mainly inner London, and all the part-time and mid-career population comprise those who live and work in London. Fifty-nine per cent. of the full time and part-time student population is mature (ie aged 21+ on entry) reflecting the diversity of background the University serves. Over 40 per cent. of the students come from ethnic minorities, the highest of any University in Britain. The University provides education in all subject areas, science, engineering, humanities, business, management, languages, law, art and design, with the exception of medicine and initial teacher training."
20 Mar 1996 : Column 433
"Westminster City Council is the Local Education Authority within the City. Clause 9 seeks to relieve the Council of its statutory duty to build a primary school pursuant to section 12(9) of the Education Act 1980 on a site at Moxon Street in the City.
The Promoters are concerned that the considerable amount of time, effort and public money which have been expended on this Bill should not be wasted."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |