HC Deb 26 June 1967 vol 749 cc188-93

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 35, line 3, to leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in line 6, leave out "said" and insert "next following".

Mr. Chapman

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be convenient to discuss the two Amendments together.

I shall certainly not withdraw my Amendment, which is a very important one, if there are no explanations. It deals with a very suspicious proviso in the Bill. It is a very complicated Bill, and this is a very complicated aspect, and so I shall try to explain exactly the purpose of the Amendment.

Part V of the Bill, which includes Clause 54, has the heading "Protective provisions". They are provisions added largely, if not entirely, in Committee. They are new to the House. Their purpose is to protect the public interest when the work gets under way and when it is completed. Some of these provisions are very important. Clause 54 governs the whole of the remainder.

Clause 54(1) states: For the protection of the corporation the next following four sections of this Act shall unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Company and the corporation apply and have effect. So this is a governing Clause for the next four Clauses following. What the subsection says is that the next four Clauses shall apply and have effect unless the Corporation waives them. So: unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Company and the corporation they shall apply. Clearly, the power in that subsection is for the corporation to get rid of any of these provisions carefully put in the Bill to protect the public interest.

Let us look at some of these protective provisions. The one in Clause 56 is perhaps the most important public protection in the Bill. The Clause is something that was talked about on Second Reading. It was because of the letter on this point from the town clerk that I read out that a number of my hon. Friends were reassured on Second Reading that the project could go ahead. Clause 56 says that the company shall not start any of the works unless the corporation is satisfied that it has enough money to complete them. Long though it is and detailed though its provisions are, that is the main purpose of the Clause. There are some subsidiary parts, but that is the main one. So no work shall begin until enough money is shown to be in the kitty to the satisfaction of Brighton Corporation.

This was a very proper provision to put in, as we all agreed on Second Reading. Having reluctantly given permission for this to be done on the foreshore at all, we did not want a situation to arise in which there would be a half-completed project littering the coastline and left for somebody else to finish off or demolish. So it was an appropriate provision to have in the Bill.

Clause 56(7) says: The Company shall secure, throughout the construction of the works, that as little disturbance as is reasonably practicable…is caused thereby to the amenities enjoyed by residents of and visitors to the borough. I could go on. These are all very important provisions to protect the public interest. They have all been put into the Bill to protect the public interest. Yet they are preceded by a subsection which says that the Corporation shall have power to waive any one of them. According to Clause 54(1) the Corporation can otherwise agree in writing that none of these protective provisions shall apply.

Frankly, this is wrong. There is no point in having the provisions in the Bill unless they are mandatory. If they are only to be permissive to Brighton Corporation, every one of them could have been written into the lease which the Corporation will give to the company, and there was no need to bother the House of Commons with half of them if the Corporation was to have power of yes or no over them. The only purpose of putting them in the Bill was to assure the public that they were there, that they were mandatory, that they could not be jiggered about with and that the pub- lie could rest happy that the project would go ahead, there being assurances about money, disturbance, planning and the rest. It would be wrong for the provision to be left in the Bill so that Brighton Corporation could at some future date decide that it did not want to bother with any of these protections of the public interest. That is precisely what Clause 54(1) means. I am at a loss to know how it has remained in the Bill in Committee and I hope, particularly as assurances were given on Second reading that provisions protecting the local residents, visitors and the general public interest would be firmly in the Bill, that we can agree that it should not be possible for Brighton Corporation to waive these protective provisions. This is a "must" for me, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment. Otherwise I shall feel bound to divide the House.

Sir L. Heald

In opposing this Amendment I should first indicate why I am doing so and, indeed, why I am speaking in this debate. I have no interest of any kind in this matter. Indeed, the boundary of my constituency is some 70 miles from Brighton. My constituency has no seashore, though we do have a marina on the Thames, and that is the only matter in common.

I am here today on a question of principle, from my point of view as a Member of Parliament, to protect against the use of this kind of procedure in a case of this sort. There is no question of anything being out of order. This is a question of practice, convention and principle.

This is a Private Bill, and I have made inquiries and can find no one who has ever seen before a piece of paper like this Amendment Paper in connection with a Private Bill on the Floor of the House. Occasionally Amendments are made on questions of principle, but these matters that we are discussing today are matters eminently for consideration by the Committees. They are dealt with in accordance with the very old and admirable procedure which enables the matter sometimes—I hope this is not disrespectful—to be dealt with more expertly and efficiently than on the Floor of the House, because expert witnesses are called; there is cross-examination by counsel, and the Committee itself is not constituted on a party basis, with two sides. It comprises Members from all parts of the House, particularly having the actual technical knowledge or, at any rate, experience in this field. It is entirely inappropriate that these sorts of matters should be discussed here.

I suppose I am innocent in these affairs, but one wonders why it has been thought necessary to occupy the time of the House with this kind of thing. The hon. Member has just said that he does not understand why this Clause remains in the Bill. I think we can enlighten him. Anyone who knows anything about Private Bill procedure would be able to enlighten him. It is a standard form of Clause, a common form of provision in protective Clauses which are arranged and agreed between the promoters and the other parties. The promoters and the other party in this case have decided that they wish to proceed in accordance with the ordinary practice, and the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest of respect to him, is stepping into this matter and introducing nothing but confusion. Parliament does not interfere with the terms of well-known forms of Clause. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the matter a little further he would have found that there are two other places in this Bill where the same thing occurs, and he has not objected there.

Mr. Chapman

With respect, one of the next Amendments deals with it.

Sir L. Heald

Yes, quite. The matters are dealt with exactly in the way in which they are always dealt with in Private Bills. This is really quite futile. I can use only that word. It is, I suppose, open to one to conclude that there are private objects in these Amendments, though I do not say that they are the only objects. But this is the most extraordinary procedure.

This Private Bill has been through the Commons Committee. We find that certain matters of great importance have been considered there, matters which are decisive—I believe no one is complaining about them—as to the protection that ought to be given. That having been done, the matter is dealt with according to the Private Bill practice, and common form Clauses are accepted. To suggest that it is remarkable to have this sort of provision is misleading the House, and I suggest that the time of the House ought not to be occupied in this way.

This is a matter eminently for the Committee. Of course, if this sort of argument were put before either the Lords Committee or the Commons Committee, it would be laughed at. It is the sort of thing that goes through without any discussion. It is dealt with by those who are concerned with these matters. The Floor of the House of Commons is not the place to discuss it, and I respectfully suggest that time should not be wasted in this way.

Mr. Chapman

Once again I say that we are entitled to have an explanation. I disregard what the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said, because he misunderstood my purpose. I did not move to delete the Clause. I simply moved to alter the wording in order to remove the right of waiver.

With great respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the whole point. On Second Reading we all understood that we were given a very clear understanding that the public interest would be inviolably protected in giving away some of the foreshore for this piece of private development. All I am trying to do is to make those protections inviolable. I have every right to do so. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the action of Members of Parliament in trying to protect the wider public interest is almost unconstitutional or outside our Parliamentary practice. I looked up the precedents long before I put down the Amendment. He need not worry about the legitimacy of my action in that respect.

I am very sorry that we have had no help from the Brighton Members. I thought that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might be able to help us on the question whether it is necessary to leave these words in the Bill or whether it would be proper to delete them. However, if we are to have no reply, although I will not force this Amendment to a Division, I express the hope that in another place Members will look twice, three times and perhaps four times at this Private Bill before they let it through. We are going through a farce where perfectly legitimate points about the public interest are not being answered. I hope that note will be taken of this fact when the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Do I understand that the hon. Member wishes to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Chapman

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.