Airports Bill (Hansard, 8 April 1986)

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be grateful for your guidance in relation to the Airports Bill. On the basis of advice from parliamentary counsel I submit that, in view of events during the Easter recess, there is a strong argument for holding that the Bill is hybrid and that, in accordance with the Standirg Orders, it should be referred to the Examiners.

Manchester Airport plc is a company which commenced trading on 1 April. It has been set up to control the operation, development and management of Manchester airport. In law, the company is now an entirely independent trading company. It functions independently of the district councils and of local authority financial controls. As a result, Manchester Airport plc, unlike other airports affected by the Bill, can now raise money on the market in the normal way.

Clause 20 of the Airports Bill would apply to public airport companies the expenditure controls in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. That clause applies to advances and share issues made in respect of public airport companies which, as defined in clause 15(1) of the Airports Bill, includes airport companies whether or not formed under the powers proposed in the Bill. It appears, therefore, that, for the purposes of the Bill, Manchester Airport plc will be a public airport company. As a result it will become subject to local authority expenditure controls.

It is on that basis that I suggest that the Bill is now hybrid. As I understand the position, the effect of earlier decisions as to hybridity has always been that persons or bodies who were on equal terms before the passing of the Bill maintain an equality thereafter.

I have drawn your attention in a letter, Mr. Speaker, to precedents which have some relevance to this case—in particular, the Local Dues on Shipping Bill in 1856 and the Union of Benefices Bill in 1873— and will not detain the House about them this afternoon.

The true effect of the Airports Bill is that, if it is passed, other local authorities will be required to form public airport companies which will be under the same financial control as today while, by contrast, the Manchester company which now trades subject only to the constraints of company law will for the first time be subject to controls. The Bill will accordingly alter the status quo as between the Greater Manchester districts and other local authorities.

Finally, I must refer to the definition of hybridity by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster in connection with the London Government Bill in 1963. He defined a hybrid Bill as: a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class. It is widely felt that, on that definition alone, the Airports Bill is now hybrid. I do, of course, appreciate that the present case appears to be unprecedented and by definition, therefore, no previous ruling on hybridity may directly apply. That being so, I know that it may thus be difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on my point of order today.