| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath: Is not the most extraordinary thing about the debate the fact that no duty is placed on the Bill's promoter or, indeed, on the corporation of the City of London? The duty is placed on the Secretary of State. The Minister could have curtailed this entire discussion by simply accepting the implied duty that would have been placed on him by legislation promoted by the Government.
Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. When we vote on Third Reading, we must be sure that the Bill complies with the convention. If not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we could accidentally be in breach of the European convention, simply because we had accepted the word of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a very decent chap; I am sure that he is very well versed in these matters. He may well have seen the legal opinion, although I do not know whether he has.
Today, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the City of London Corporation had obtained an opinion that the measure does not breach the European convention. Will he tell us whether he has read that legal opinion and the instructions that gave rise to it? I should be happy to give way to him. Before I gave way to a series of interventions, the main thrust of my argument concerned whether those instructions directed the lawyers properly to the questions that they should consider in construing article 3 and other provisions in relation to the European convention.
Mr. McDonnell:
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned--I think in error--that there would be an opportunity to discuss the matter on Third Reading if such a statement were made. The new clause would not enable the Third Reading to take into account a statement by the Attorney-General; it would apply merely before the provisions of the Act come into force. As I tried to point out, despite being interrupted several times, we will not have an opportunity to debate any statement because it will not be made until after the House has dealt with the Bill. Based on that, we are jointly and severally liable for whatever happens in due course.
Mr. Dismore:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps that is why when the Bill reaches Third Reading--irrespective of whether the new clause is accepted--we should vote against it anyway. There is a strong argument that the Bill is an extremely bad one.
Mr. Cohen:
As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) has pointed out, our hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a distinguished lawyer, whose expertise is most valuable to the House.
Mr. Cohen:
Will my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon tell us whether, in these circumstances, it is usual
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck.
Mr. Dismore:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), because he has made an interesting intervention. It goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin as to the importance of the instructions. Those instructions might well reveal the motivation behind obtaining the opinion. They might reveal that the City was not only worried, but may also have had its own view on the matter, which the lawyers were asked to consider.
If we are to vote against the new clause, not only do we need the assurances of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the City has found that particular opinion, but the right hon. Gentleman should put his money where his mouth is, or rather the City--for whom he speaks--should do so: we should see the legal opinion and the instructions on which it is based. We should see that before we proceed much further with the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman has had ample opportunity to intervene on me and on other hon. Members to say, on behalf of the City, that the legal advice and instructions would be made public. He could have said, "We have nothing to hide. We are happy that we obtained the legal opinion in good faith". He could have told us that the City had instructed the lawyers at great length to address the points that I made in relation to article 3 and other provisions that could be contravened by the Bill. We would all be happy about that. Indeed, if we had that opinion, some of us might be prepared to show a copy to the Attorney-General in the Lobby--although of course we cannot do so because he is in another place.
Mr. McDonnell:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had an extensive debate on the legal opinion that the City of London Corporation has sought and obtained. We know that it exists because of the statement by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). What procedure may we now take so as to adjourn the House to enable the right hon. Gentleman to circulate that legal opinion before the debate continues?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. These are matters for debate, and we cannot adjourn the House on the basis of what has been debated. We must allow the debate to continue.
Mr. Dismore:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That raises the interesting
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not concern himself too much with what legal opinion the promoters took, because the main matter before us is the new clause that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). That is all that we should concern ourselves with.
Mr. Dismore:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason why we have been considering the issue of the opinion obtained by the City is that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, in moving that the new clause be read a Second time, argued very strongly that we had no legal advice before us.
Mr. Bermingham:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Please do not think me unkind. If the Chair has just ruled that we must think only about the new clause and not about the opinion, is that not a bit like a look-out on the Titanic being told that he is sailing the Atlantic and to ignore the icebergs?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Although I used to work in a shipyard, I do not know a great deal about the Titanic, but I would tell the hon. Gentleman that, while it is allowable to refer to the opinion that was sought by the City of London, hon. Members' harping on about it at great length concerns me. That is why I am telling the hon. Gentleman that we can move on now. The point has been made that the City of London has sought legal advice in this matter. I think that we all seek legal advice from time to time, but that point has been made, so perhaps we can move on.
Mr. Dismore:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We understand that, if the new clause were incorporated into the Bill, the Secretary of State, in making a statement, would seek the Attorney-General's opinion. The problem that we have in the House is that we cannot seek the Attorney-General's opinion because he is not a Member of this House. The Attorney-General does not attend Attorney-General's questions; the Solicitor-General attends in his place. I certainly would not say that the Solicitor-General is not a distinguished lawyer, but he is not the Attorney-General.
The answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was that that did not matter, because the City had obtained its legal opinion. I would simply say that if we had that opinion, we could judge for ourselves.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I would say that there is such a thing as tedious repetition, and I would say that the hon. Gentleman is straying on that because he has mentioned that point. Before I entered the Chamber, the point was also mentioned by one of his hon. Friends, so we cannot belabour it. We have the new clause before us. If the hon. Gentleman is running out of things to say, it may be time to conclude his remarks.
Mr. Mackinlay:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During those exchanges, I was able to take a
9.15 pm
"There is no rule to prevent Members not connected with the Government from citing documents in their possession, both public and private, which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgment from partial extracts."
However, footnote 9 says:
"A private Member's action in handing a document to a Minister in support of arguments was ruled to be 'very irregular'".
Although that footnote related to the handing of documents by a Back Bencher to a Minister, it would be reasonable to assume that, similarly, it was highly irregular for the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to hand over documents and not bring them to the attention of the whole House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |