Clause 8.—(CONFIRMATION OF WORKS SCHEMES.) (Hansard, 19 October 1949)

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, to leave out "subsections (3) and (4)," and to insert "subsection (3)."
This Amendment, together with certain following Amendments, provides again, 711 as we have already agreed in relation to Clause 5, for a general right of objection to works schemes. Here again the holding of a public inquiry would not be obligatory unless the ground of objection is one of those previously mentioned in the subsection. Again we meet the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
I beg to move, in page 11 line 2, to leave out from the first "scheme" to end of line 19.

§ Mr. C. Williams
This is rather a considerable Amendment, but we have not had any explanation of it. I was not a member of the Committee. How am I to explain this to my constituents, whom I see frequently and who are thoroughly disillusioned? How am I to explain when suddenly something like 17 lines of a Bill are deleted without any explanation from the Government? We really are entitled to an explanation of the words on the ground that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary. That may be all right. Here you are referring to what may be a considerable amount. You proceed to leave out the whole of subsection (4) regarding the matter of a notice, and I do not know for a certainty where that subsection is dealt with in any way in the Bill as amended. Obviously there must have been reasons for putting these words into the Bill, and we are entitled to be told where these words went wrong, and why they should be left out. I see the Under-Secretary for Scotland sitting there and he may be wishing to express to the House the Scottish point of view. That would be an excellent thing, for only a minute or so ago something regarding Scotland was passed without hon. Members for Scotland knowing anything about it.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, after "withdrawn," insert: and the ground of the objection is—

(a) that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary;

(b) that the carrying out thereof in the manner provided by the scheme would cause hardship to the objector;

(c) that the land indicated by the scheme as contributory land includes land which ought not to be so indicated or does not include land which ought to be so indicated;

(d) in the case of a scheme which specifies the persons by whom coast protection charges are to be paid as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, that any other provision of the scheme as to such charges is inequitable or unduly onerous; or

(e) that the work provided for by the scheme will be detrimental to the protection of any land specified in the notice of objection, or will interfere with the exercise by the objector of his functions under any enactment."

This is consequential.

§ Mr. C. Williams
We are rather used to this sort of thing, which is rapidly becoming an abuse. The hon. Gentleman gets up and says an Amendment is consequential, but generally he has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about. I say it is a gross abuse of the House of Commons. I think it is particularly an abuse when we have a very considerable Amendment of this kind submitted without any explanation from the Minister. If he has the courtesy to say this is consequential on a point which was raised a minute or so earlier, that would be the usual thing for a Minister to do. I have often heard hon. Gentlemen belonging to the party opposite violently abuse Tory Ministers for saying, in a casual way, that these things are consequential. I notice that the Home Secretary appears to realise that I am right in saying that this is something which ought to have been done in this case. I do really regret that any Parliamentary Secretary should not extend the usual courtesy to the House, and say to what this particular Amendment is consequential. I say again that the hon. Gentleman, has not the faintest idea what it is about.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
This is more than mere drafting and is something more than consequential. It gives a long list of grounds on which objection can be made. I would just put this question to 713 the Parliamentary Secretary. If objection on some ground which does not fall within the limits of this Amendment is raised, has the Minister discretion to order a local inquiry?

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
The whole of these Amendments are widening the opportunity for objections, and thereby ensuring that there is opportunity for a general objection to the Minister, and not only on the grounds that there should be a right to a public inquiry. That was the view put forward; namely, that while it was reasonable there should only be a public inquiry on the limited grounds set forth here, there should, in addition, be a general right of objection in the Amendment we have already carried.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
What I asked was whether, quite apart from the grounds mentioned in this Amendment, there would be the discretion of the Minister to grant a local inquiry where, in his opinion, there should be one, even although it was not within the terms of this Amendment.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are many occasions when the Minister may grant a public inquiry not on grounds of one enactment, but under all kinds of enactments without statutory obligation to do so, and that would be the case here.