MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL (Hansard, 13 June 1973)

§ Mr. Crosland
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Government have just been defeated on a major new clause—[Hon Members: "Oh."] by a cross-party vote, a clause on which I believe both sides had a three-line Whip, and one made more important by the fact that you in your wisdom allowed us to have in effect a Third Reading debate, may I ask the Secretary of State what his intentions now are? May I suggest to him in the 1626 light of his defeat, which in effect is a defeat on the principle of the Bill, that he should not now proceed any further with the Bill tonight but should come back to the House with a statement tomorrow announcing his intention in the light of the vote.

§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has asked me what our intentions are. They would, of course, be to proceed with the Bill. The House will recall that my hon. Friend, in what I thought was a very fair speech, made a reasonable offer in regard to the new clauses. He sad that we were not in difficulty about the spirit of new Clause 1, and we have dealt with that clause. On new Clause 2 my hon. Friend said that he understood the feeling of the House and could go a long way with the spirit of this new clause which the House has just accepted.
There are certain difficulties about it, which my hon. Friend explained. It may be that on reflection, when we consider these matters, the House will be a little concerned about transferring the responsibilities of Ministers answerable to this House to bodies which are not answerable to this House, but this is a matter to which we can give consideration. Since we are answerable to the House and the House has expressed a view at this stage of the consideration of the Bill, it seems right that we should take the point and move on.

§ Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to authorise construction of an airport at Maplin. The clause we have just added to the Bill lays upon the Civil Aviation Authority the duty to … take such action as may be appropriate to delay, vary or desist from the construction of an airport on land to be reclaimed as a result of the passage of this Act This seems to me to remove the whole principle of the Act. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to continue with the remaining stages tonight when the principle of the that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is Bill has been deleted?
1628 But, whatever your reply may be to surely highly inappropriate for the Government to continue further with the Bill tonight, and I ask you to give a ruling on that point of order. If you wish me to do so, I will quote a precedent where the principle of a Bill was deleted and it was decided not to proceed with the Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have considered what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In fact, I see no reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with. There may, of course, be very germane arguments on Third Reading arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.