HC Deb 30 June 1953 vol 517 cc205-6
Mr. Speaker

I have a short statement with which to trouble the House. On Thursday last, the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) raised the question about how copies of the Minutes of Evidence in the Committee on Private Bills might be obtained by Members specially interested in a particular Bill. I am glad to inform the House that the Society of Parliamentary Agents have already promised to arrange for a supply of copies of these Minutes of Evidence. They suggest that any Member whose constituents may be concerned with the provisions of a Bill should give notice in the Private Bill Office of the number of copies required before the first day on which the Committee sits. No charge will be made for these copies unless a large number of copies is required. I am sure that hon. Members will refrain from making any unreasonable demand in view of the ready agreement of the Society of Parliamentary Agents to the suggestion which I made tentatively last Thursday.

Mr. Nally

I am most obliged, Sir, that you, at very short notice, should have taken certain steps, resulting in the statement which you made to us. There are one or two subsidiary points arising from your Ruling upon which I would like your guidance. Hitherto, apart from the case which I raised with you, there have been no complaints, for the very simple reason that Members of Parliament were able to obtain copies of these Minutes of Evidence and, automatically, the local authorities with which they were primarily concerned were debited with a fee, which I understand is £2 in the normal case. The only reason I had cause to raise the matter was that in the matter of the Bill with which I was concerned not enough copies had been printed, and my objection was to being told that I could borrow copies, without any guarantee of being able to retain them for my own use.

My second point is this: Yesterday we had two most important Private Bills before the House. One affected the Cheshire County Council and the other the Berkshire County Council. Normally, if too many copies are asked for, a charge may have to be made. Who will make this charge? Who will decide whether the charge is proper, and how is it allocated? In the case of the Cheshire County Council Bill, which is heard upstairs, I would assume that every Member, irrespective of party, inside the County of Cheshire is entitled, as of right—always subject to giving notice—to a copy of that Bill without the local authority—the Cheshire County Council, the parish council or the rural council—subsequently being charged for the copies supplied.

Does your statement mean that, in future, on Private Bills proceedings upstairs, through the Parliamentary agents, who are a private body, any Member of Parliament giving notice will be entitled to receive copies of the proceedings directly or indirectly affecting his constituents, and that no charge will be levied against his local authority?

Mr. Wigg

As this question originally arose out of the Dudley Extension Bill, perhaps I might say that from the beginning of the proceedings in this House and the other place I had no difficulty at all in getting copies of the proceedings. I asked the town clerk for them and they were delivered to me next day. So far as I know, it is untrue to say that not enough copies were printed. I understand that at least seven copies were available from the Agents if they were applied for.

Mr. Speaker

The House will appreciate that the cost of these copies falls upon the parties and is not defrayed out of public funds. That is the reason for the reasonable stipulation in the statement I made that the number of copies required should be stated before the first day on which the Committee sits. The Agents are anxious not to print more copies than are actually necessary. The same applies to the charges. These minutes are provided by the parties, and I have no doubt at all that for one or two copies there will be no charge at all. I am sure that any charge will merely cover the cost of printing.