Channel Tunnel Bill (Committal) (Hansard, 5 June 1986)

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is reported on the tape that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has sent a letter to a large number of his hon. Friends urging them to delay business tonight—to "filibuster", the word he has used — to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will not have an opportunity tomorrow to move the motion which stands in his name. This matter was raised earlier in the day.
I hope that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that such a filibuster would represent a disgraceful attempt by Conservative Members to deny one of my hon. Friends, who has been successful in the Ballot, the opportunity to debate the subject of his choice. Will the Leader of the House, who is in his place, say whether this filibuster is being actively encouraged by the Government?
It is clear that the letter of which I spoke has been sent out by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West and that it contains the word "filibuster". That hon. Gentleman says in it that, should tomorrow's debate go ahead, Opposition Members would have a platform from which to attack the Prime Minister. Have we reached the stage when an hon. Member cannot debate an issue, having won a place in the Ballot, because to do so would embarrass the Government?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not really a point of order.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
Is it not a point of order?

§ Mr. Speaker
That was not a matter for the Chair. I know nothing about letters that may or may not have been sent out.

§ Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness)
You will be as aware as hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that the second motion for debate tomorrow stands in my name and is about the privatisation of local government services. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are unaware of such matters as three-line Whips, but the Government have been kind enough to give me a three-line Whip tomorrow so that my hon. Friends can be here to support my motion. Having listened to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I am worried that, if what he said is correct, my opportunity to take part in the second debate tomorrow may be missed. I understand from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who shares my wish that the debate on the privatisation of local government services should take place, that he intends to keep his remarks to an absolute minimum. I look to you, Mr. Speaker, for protection.

§ Mr. Speaker
The sooner we get on with this debate, the more likely we shall be to get to the motion of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks).

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious matter. Questions were put to the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon about whether or not what I described as a disgraceful manoeuvre was to be organised during the course of this evening and tonight in order to eliminate the debate that is to take place tomorrow. We now know from the letter, 1196 which has apparently been published and which came from the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), that Government Whips take the view that this must be a Back-Bench filibuster. We have a right to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he was aware of this manoeuvre when he answered questions this afternoon, and whether he will take an opportunity to condemn what is undoubtedly a disgraceful and squalid manoeuvre.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has asked about something that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled is not a point of order. That prevents you, Mr. Speaker, from telling the House whether, unknown to the Labour Front Bench, you have had any representation from the Labour Whips asking you to do exactly what you will do.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
The point of order by the Hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was a hybrid one.
On a point of order which I hope is a proper point of order, Mr. Speaker, can you advise us whether it is within the power of the Leader of the House, if he so wishes, to table a motion which would allow business tabled for tomorrow to be taken at any hour if the filibuster that is being talked about takes place tonight? Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether that power is available to the Leader of the House if he wishes to exercise it?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not for me to organise Government business.

§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)
Further to the original point of order raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), it was suggested that discussion of the committal proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill is in some way a filibuster. Those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber all day will know that hon. Members, and especially those hon. Members from north-east Kent, feel strongly about the Channel tunnel. Forty-five hon. Members, many of them from the Opposition Benches, have just demonstrated that strength of feeling by voting against Second Reading. We deeply resent the suggestion that the debate that we wish to take place at considerable length is called a filibuster.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)
I should like to raise a quite separate point of order about the way in which our proceedings tonight are to be conducted. I understand that the Minister responding to the individual amendment and the group of amendments is my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport. All right hon. and hon. Members know that my hon. Friend is a very good Transport Minister, but I am not aware—though he will tell me if I am wrong—that he is a great expert in matters constitutional or in matters legal. What we are being asked to discuss tonight is wholly different from what lies within the compass of his Department. Looking at the committal motion and bearing in mind that we are talking about a hybrid measure that affects private interests to a very marked and substantial degree, I am extremely uneasy that a Minister of State who is not versed in constitutional and legal matters should be replying for the Government.
I appreciate that the choice of those who are to speak from the Front Benches is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, the House may well feel that it would profit from the advice of my right hon. Friend the 1197 Leader of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and, indeed, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, were he able to appear in this place. I do not in any way want to be thought to be partisan—you know, Mr. Speaker, that I am never partisan—but I am very anxious that we should also have the opportunity to hear the words of the shadow Leader of the House, not to mention the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). —[Interruption.] I have not quite finished.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said a moment ago that he knew that it was not a matter for me. He is absolutely right.

§ Mr. Hogg
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The points that the hon. Gentleman is now making would be much better made during his speech, if he is fortunate enough to catch the——

§ Mr. Hogg
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order—if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair during these proceedings. I take fully into account what has already been said about tomorrow's debate by both Government and Opposition Members. The sooner that we can get on with this debate, the better the chance that we shall reach the important Back-Bench motions.

§ Mr. Hogg
I apologise for rising again on a point of order, but I was conscious of the fact that until I had reached the point that I have now reached I was, as it were, only laying the foundations for my point of order.
My real point of order is that the choice of Front Bench spokesmen is clearly a matter for the Front Benches of each party. I suggest that there should be an opportunity for consultation between the Front Benches, which would take place through the usual channels. For that purpose, it would be necessary to adjourn this sitting. The point of order that I am putting to you, Mr. Speaker, is that you should adjourn this sitting so that the Front Benches can consult through the normal channels.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not prepared to accept that suggestion.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a member of a private Bill Committee which during its proceedings has received evidence from a Government Department. I am very concerned that a Minister who represents the Department of Transport should be responding on behalf of the Government when it is quite possible that when the rules for the private Bill Committee have been framed, on the recommendation of a Department of Transport Minister, witnesses will be called from the Department of Transport, probably by the promoters of the Bill.
It seems to me that it would be very unfair to the petitioners against the Bill if they found that the promoters of the Bill were calling as witnesses representatives from the Department of Transport, who would have an advantage over the petitioners, through the motion that my hon. Friend the Minister of State intends to move. The motion would remove the impartiality of the private Bill procedure if the rules were to be framed, on motions emanating from the Department of Transport, by their 1198 Minister here, because officials of the Department of Transport will be appearing as witnesses for the promoters and therefore the petitioners will not have a fair opportunity to present their case.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asked a hypothetical question, and in any case we are discussing a Government measure.
We now come to the committal motion for the Channel Tunnel Bill. I have published a list of selected amendments and the proposed groupings, and I wish to explain how the debate will proceed. Although motions such as this appear as one motion on the Order Paper, they are made up of separate propositions, each of which is a motion in its own right. I propose that each motion—that is to say, each paragraph beginning with the word "That" — should be moved separately and debated, together with the amendments that have been grouped with it. At the end of each debate, amendments to that paragraph may be moved formally, and when they have been disposed of the Question will be put on the paragraph as a whole. In this way, I believe that we can have a more orderly debate and the House will be aware at each stage which issue is being discussed.
We come to the first motion, which is in lines 1 to 3 on the Order Paper, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendments (a) and (b). I call Mr. David Mitchell.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)
rose——

§ Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, what you have just ruled means that we are dividing the motion into several isolated and separate sections and debating those accordingly. Will there be an opportunity for the House to debate the motion as a whole? I submit that the parts of the motion hold together and make a complete picture and that there should be some stage during the proceedings when we have the opportunity of debating the complete motion.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that I have made it clear to the House that to ensure good order in the debate I have divided the motion. These are five separate motions. The whole motion will be debated, but in good order, with the amendments which appear on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, you have an ultimate discretion as to how the debate should be conducted. I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). Although it is perfectly true that the formula that you have set out enables the House to criticise or scrutinise the committal motion paragraph by paragraph, the House is unable to take a broad view. At some stage during tonight's debate, the House should be enabled to take a broad view on such essential matters. It is within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to enable the House to vote on the motion in its totality. May I ask you to invoke that discretion?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to do that on the first motion, which is that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have just said, if the House votes in principle at the beginning, what account can it take of what may subsequently happen in 1199 the votes on the amendments? What my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) meant was that the House should have an opportunity, after it has considered and voted on each of the separate propositions and amendments thereto, to consider the proposition as a whole, as amended. My hon. Friend is correct in asking you to consider giving the House, after dealing with the amendments in the way that you have so kindly allowed us to do, an opportunity to debate and vote on the matter as a whole.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred to the motion, as amended. You are being asked to rule hypothetically on what would happen if the motion were amended. The points that have been put to you would be properly put if any of the amendments were carried, but they are prematurely put to you before the House has decided on any of those amendments. May I respectfully suggest that the questions put to you do not arise unless and until, after the sectional debate, an amendment has been carried?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is entirely correct. In order to save any further time being spent on this, I must say that this is well precedented and has been frequently done before. I believe that it is in the best interests of the debate to deal with it in this way.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the presentation of my argument, I did not make myself wholly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) put my argument even more clearly than I did. I owe you, Mr. Speaker, and the House an apology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is clearly right. What you are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we can debate the totality of the committal motion in the first debate. That would be splendid if there were no amendments. What I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that you do not come to a hard and fast decision on this matter, but that if any amendments be made in the course of tonight's debate I or some other hon. Member may renew the application, and you will consider it then.

§ Mr. Speaker
Most certainly.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I go back to the very serious point that was raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) when——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have disposed of that. We cannot back deal on it. I have dealt with it.

§ Mr. Marlow
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested that the debate may carry on too long and put at risk the motions due to be debated tomorrow. If that appeared to be the case—and I doubt whether it would be, because it is a very important matter that we are debating—would it not be possible for hon. Members to ask that we report progress if it was felt that there was any danger of tomorrow's important business being lost? Were that the case, the House surely would be able to take a view on that and would itself be able to safeguard the business.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is merely repeating what was said earlier this afternoon when I stated that that would be perfectly in order.

§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Through the usual channels, some of us who have sat here all day and who tried to speak in the debate on Second Reading but were not successful were informed that, if we did not press our claim so that the vote on Second Reading could take place at about 10 o'clock, the subsequent proceedings would be fairly flexible and the grounds of the debate on the four groups of amendments would not be too narrow.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you will give the necessary instructions that, when some of us who have sat here all day but were not called in the debate on Second Reading may be successful in catching the eye of the Chair, we are not called to order too strictly because for a second or two we depart from the narrow track of one of the amendments?

§ Mr. Speaker
It would be very dangerous, I think, for the House to invite me to say that Members do not have to confine themselves to the motion on the Order Paper, but I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the first motion that we are about to discuss, which is wide, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee". I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members have been sitting in the Chamber hoping to take part in the debate on Second Reading. They will get precedence later this evening — maybe early tomorrow morning.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)
I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
rose——

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
rose——

§ Mr. David Mitchell
It was my intention to move the motion briefly, as I have, and to reply to the debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Hughes
I simply want to inquire whether I shall be called to move amendments (a) and (b), which have been selected.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
No. They will be moved formally at the end. The hon. Gentleman may speak to the motion.

§ Mr. Hughes
In the interests of progress, I do not intend to move amendments (a) and (b).

§ Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just had a number of points of order relating to the relevance of sections of the motion as proposed to be amended. Would it be in order for my hon. Friend the Minister to reply to the whole debate at the end of our proceedings, whenever that may come, in relation to parts of the motion, as amended? Would it be in order for him at the end of the proceedings to answer on all parts of the motion, as amended or not?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I thought that Mr. Speaker made a clear statement to the House as to how we will proceed. The motions will be discussed in turn.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should very much appreciate your guidance before the House commences this debate. I understand from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has just said that he will not formally move amendments (a) and (b). I have put my name to amendments (a) and (b). I should like clarification from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is open to me to move them.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Yes; the hon. Gentleman will be allowed to move them at the end of the debate. We can have a full debate on the first paragraph, as said by Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Franks
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About half an hour ago I said to Mr. Speaker that I was concerned that the debate tomorrow on the second motion, standing in my name, was in jeopardy. The more I listen to these points of order——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that Mr. Speaker has already dealt with that matter. He should not waste the time of the House by raising it again.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have clarification? I am a supporter of amendments (a) and (b), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Having heard you say to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that it will be in order for him to move those amendments formally at the proper time, may I ask——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. As I have said, I thought that Mr. Speaker had made a clear statement. We will discuss the proposition and hon. Members may refer to the amendments, but the amendments will be moved formally at the end of the debate. There is no bother about that.

§ Mr. Brown
My question is simple, and I can summarise it in one sentence. Will it be in order, in debating the motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport, to refer to amendments (a) and (b)?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
There is a simple answer to that simple question: yes.

§ Mr. Andrew Bowden
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am getting rather confused. When Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, he said, as I understood it, that we would debate the first three lines of the motion and the amendments together. As the amendments have not yet been moved, how can we debate them at the same time? Therefore, can we not debate the motion as it stands as a whole rather than in sections?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are having a joint debate, as happens often in the House. It is not necessary to move the amendments formally now. I thought that Mr. Speaker had made it very clear. He proposed that each paragraph beginning with the word "That" should be moved separately and debated with the amendments grouped with it.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are, of course, the guardian of the 1202 interests of Back Benchers, and in your high capacity you also ensure that the procedures of the House are not abused in any way.
It appears that the Government are proposing that, following Second Reading, the Channel Tunnel Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine members, but they are not prepared to explain to people such as myself—innocent Back Benchers who have just come into the Chamber to hear the arguments—the basis for making that committal. I look forward to hearing a speech from the Minister explaining the basis for the committal so that I can form a judgment on it and decide within the powers that I have as a Back Benc her which way to vote. To my absolute astonishment, the Minister sat down without giving any reason. That must be an abuse of parliamentary procedure.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Fortunately, the Minister's speech is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). This is a most extraordinary procedure, and I say that with great respect to my hon. Friend the Minister. We are dealing with a hybrid Bill that affects private interests and individuals. What we are setting out now is the method, formula and timetable for disposing of people's private rights.
I understand that it does not usually fall within the competence of the Minister of State, Department of Transport, to speak on these matters. I appreciate that and do not blame him. However, in support of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, I say that this House needs positive guidance and precedent as to the constitutional implications, the parties' legal rights and what we are about. My hon. Friend the Minister, for whom I have very great respect, does not wish to do that tonight. Therefore, we should adjourn so that my right hon and learned Friend the Attorney-General can come to this place and tell us what is going on. Alternatively, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is present, could do that admirably. I hate to wake him from his slumbers; he looks so attractive when he is asleep.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the way in which the Minister handles the affair is not a matter for the Chair. I suggest that the House is ready to press on with the procedure motion.

§ Mr. Hogg
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I never argue with the Chair, as you know, but we are dealing with the rights of private individuals who are affected to a very real degree. My hon. Friend the Minister——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing the way in which the Minister has handled the affair, which is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Hogg
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would never do that, as you know well. always put points of order that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Chair.
The jurisdiction of the Chair is to protect the rights of individual Back Benchers and, perhaps more important, the dignity and standing of this place. I do not see how we can debate private rights of this moment and consequence unless we have guidance from those Ministers——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is again pursuing matters that are not for the Chair. It is not——

§ Mr. Hogg
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. It is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Forth
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you give us some further guidance on this matter and help me by confirming that once we follow the proposed procedure, whereby speeches on the motion will be made and then the Minister will speak, it will be in order for hon. Members to speak again in the light of what the Minister has said? That might go some of the way towards helping my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Will that be in order?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Further speeches from hon. Members will not be in order.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to what Mr. Speaker said, and I do not think that he envisaged the possibility that the amendment might not be moved. It might be for the great convenience of the House if the amendment were moved formally. If one signatory to the amendment does not want to move it, others can. It would be for the convenience of the House if the assumption that Mr. Speaker clearly made in announcing this procedural decision bore fruit by the technical movement of the amendment now. There are separate motions but only one motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport. It is therefore only possible to divide matters up in the way Mr. Speaker has divided matters, on the assumption that the amendments are moved. If any of the amendments are not moved, Mr. Speaker's assumption is nullified and the motion cannot be divided. I recommend, with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment be moved, at least formally, so that debate can take place on the basis that Mr. Speaker clearly assumed and anticipated in his statement to the House.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have a high regard for his concern about the procedures of the House. However, I must reiterate Mr. Speaker's words: I propose that each motion—that is to say, each paragraph beginning with the word 'That'—should be moved separately and debated, together with the amendments that have been grouped with it. For instance, there are no amendments to the third motion. At the end of each debate, amendments to that paragraph may be moved formally, and when they have been disposed of the Question will be put on the paragraph as a whole. That seems to be a sensible way of interpreting the orders and the discretion of the Chair. I think we should now proceed.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
rose——

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect, I do not think that Mr. Speaker, in making that announcement to the House, anticipated that amendments might not be moved. The House needs to know whether it will be debating each section beginning with the word "That" which encompasses the amendments which Mr. Speaker, by announcing his selection of amendments, clearly anticipated. It would be best if the House could know 1204 immediately whether the amendment will be moved. If not, we are doomed to have two debates on each section rather than one: one on the section beginning with the word "That," and another when it is moved formally. If it is moved formally, the Chair will be unable to deny a debate after the formal moving. There will therefore be two debates on each section rather than one. I do not think that Mr. Speaker envisaged that when he made his statement.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
As I understand it, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is a signatory to amendments (a) and (b), has already said that he is willing to move those amendments. Whether the others are moved is a hypothetical question which we shall deal when we come to them.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is correct. The provision is that if amendments (a) and (b) are moved only at the conclusion of the debate, until we reach that magic moment we will be debating the substantive motion only. Accordingly, when, and if, I move amendment (a) we will have a fresh debate. Would it not be far better to allow me to move amendments (a) and (b) now so that we can have an open debate that would encompasss the totality of what Mr. Speaker had in mind?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman knows that we discuss amendments again and again without them being moved formally or without them being moved. The hon. Gentleman will be able to refer to the amendments if we can proceed to discuss paragraph 1, and we should do that now.

§ Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)
Following the ruling which you have now reconfirmed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was given earlier by Mr. Speaker, as one of the hon. Members sat through the earlier debate, I crave the indulgence of the Chair and ask that we be allowed to get on with the debate on the first motion now.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Mr. Speaker said that he had taken into consideration those who have been here all day. The Minister is anxious to intervene.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
It might be for the convenience of the House if I went a little further than I did when I first got to my feet. My intention then was formally to open the debate and allow it to proceed on the amendments and on the substantive motion in the form selected by Mr. Speaker. From the points of order, it is apparent that a number of my hon. Friends are a little perplexed by the procedure which is being followed. It is perhaps true to say that this is not a procedure that we follow on frequent occasions. Perhaps I should say that we are now about to debate the committal motion, and its basic role is to set up the Select Committee.
After Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill it is proposed: That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection: That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee— (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 17th June——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going to the second motion. He should stick to the first.

§ Mr. Mitchell
The complexities of procedure are such that I have gone further than I should at this stage, and I apologise. I am as anxious as other hon. Members to make progress in this matter.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) raised with the Chair the possibility of a Law Officer or the Leader of the House being in their places in order to recognise the fact that we are talking about procedural matters. He said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, with all due deference to his ministerial abilities, is not the proper, competent Minister to deal with what is essentially a procedural matter.
You have just told my hon. Friend the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he should not be pursuing a debate at this stage on the second motion. On the basis of that injunction from you, I strongly submit that we would save ourselves a great deal of time if he could be guided and assisted by somebody from the Government Front Bench who is experienced in the constitutional and procedural matters of the House. For example, the Leader of the House should surely be in his place to assist and guide us, because if my hon. Friend the Minister finds himself in another difficulty we shall find ourselves——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating what has already been made clear to Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, to me. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not a matter for me which Minister is to open or reply to a debate.
I remind the House what is before it. I have already put the Question on the motion, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to he nominated by the Committee of Selection". Amendments (a) and (b) have been tabled and we shall discuss those with the motion that I have read out.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having clarified the matter. It is clear that we are now debating the motion, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members to he nominated by the Committee of Selection". I understand that amendments (a) and (b) have been tabled, and it was my intention to reply to those. Am I right in understanding that, quite apart from the question whether the amendments are moved or not, I shall have the opportunity to reply to the debate on the terms of the motion selected by Mr. Speaker?
Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a number of hon. Members raised with Mr. Speaker the fact that they had sat through the earlier debate and were not able to participate in it, but expressed the hope that they would be able to do so now. I am concerned because I know that there are some points of substance which hon. Members wish to have clarified, and I am anxious not to mislead them into assuming that I will be able to reply to those points later if I will not be able to do so. I understood from Mr. Speaker that he would allow a fairly wide ranging debate on the first of the amendments so that there would be an opportunity for hon. Members who were cut out of the debate earlier to participate and for the debate to be properly concluded.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I was in the Chamber when Mr. Speaker made his statement and replied to the points of order. He said that the first motion, which refers the Bill to a Select Committee, would give an opportunity for 1206 those hon. Members who are acquainted with the procedures of the House to participate, and, no doubt, they will use the procedures accordingly. However, that does not mean that they can get out of order. That would be for the Chair to decide. I cannot rule hypothetically by saying that anything that hon. Members raise will be permitted. However, it is a fairly wide motion, which is to decide whether to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. I have no doubt that those who were here during the debate this afternon will be able to relate their comments accordingly.

§ Mr. Mitchell
We are debating the motion, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine members, and there are amendments to increase the number to 11. That is where the debate will now take place.

§ Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), in a brief intervention in the interest of moving the debate forward, told the House that he did not wish to move the two amendments to increase the number on the Select Committee. As I understand it, it is permissible for the House to debate the substantive motion, but I must make it clear that we have not moved those two amendments in the interest of progress.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
The hon. Gentleman is wasting time.

§ Mr. Stott
If anybody is wasting time it is certainly not the Opposition. We have not moved those amendments. The Chair will decide what the debate will be about in the light of what we have not moved.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Perhaps I should clarify the position. I have said that the debate will be on the motion and that we can consider the amendments. It will be for any hon. Member at the end of the debate to move an amendment formally if he so desires.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
Is it not irresponsible and an abuse of procedure for Opposition Members to table amendments and then not seek to move them simply in order to make a political point?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
All kinds of things happen in the House from time to time.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have failed to move amendments they have put on the Order Paper, would it be in order for other hon. Members to move them so that we can get on?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I thought that I had made that perfectly clear. We are to have a general debate, including the amendments. If any hon. Member wants to move the amendments at the end of the debate, that will be in order. They will have to be moved formally, of course.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to see these proceedings speeded up, as I am sure you do. Am I correct in assuming, with reference to the answer you gave to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), that if a Conservative Member, while speaking to the substantive motion, makes specific reference to the amendments.. you will not rule him out of order because that is part of the argument——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I thought that I had made that clear a number of times.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)
It seems to me that the time has come for these amendments to be moved, and I should like——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Again the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House. I have made it quite clear that we can go ahead with the general debate, including the amendments, which can be referred to. At the end of the debate, I shall ask whether the amendments are to be moved.

§ Mr. Hogg
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not pursuing the point.

§ Mr. Hogg
No, I am not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to catch your eye. Will you forgive me for asking whether you called me?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me.

§ Mr. Hogg
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in some doubt about whether I had been called to speak on the motion.
I am deeply concerned about the position that the Opposition have adopted. Those of us who are concerned about private rights—and however one looks at the Bill it affects private rights to a considerable and grave extent — are deeply concerned that the Labour party, which presumably thought that it was making points of immediate consequence——

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is under the impression that he has been called by you to speak in the debate, but he is under a misapprehension. I understood that you had called my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom the House wanted to hear on the general question, to open the debate, but you are now under the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham is speaking on a point of order, and he thought that he was not.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had the Minister finished his speech?

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I had finished explaining to the House what we are about, and I shall now sit down to listen to the debate, and reply later.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have already proposed the Question, so the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is making his speech.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
I am extremely grateful——

§ Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State ask you whether at the end of the debate he would be able to reply on behalf of the Government, but I did not hear your response to that.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Minister will be able to reply, as he has that right.

§ Mr. Hogg
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in that I clearly did not make my commencing remarks sufficiently clear. I see that I might be thought to be raising a point of order, but I was seeking to make the preamble to my speech. 1208 I am concerned about the position that the Labour party has adopted in this matter. However one looks at the issue and the motion before the House, this is inevitably a matter of great concern to the people of Kent. The procedure that we are adopting touches private rights to a profound degree. More than that, it goes behind the normal procedures that are adopted in such development planning. Therefore, it was right that the Labour party tabled these amendments. It was because we shared its concern that I and others, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) put our names to these amendments.
I suspected that there was something funny about the Labour party's amendments and attitude when I put my name to the amendments. I am not one whit surprised that the Labour party Benches are so empty and that it has but one Front Bench spokesman. What does it suppose it is doing? The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the shadow Secretary of State for Employment, the shadow Leader of the House, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all put their names to amendments that affect people's lives, do not move them, and go away.
What kind of nonsense and claptrap is this? Why are they treating the people of Kent in this way? Ah, we have another Labour party Back Bencher. We now have four Members of the Labour party present, so the people of Kent——

§ Mr. Faulds
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not one of us.

§ Mr. Hogg
We have three and a half members of the Labour party and the alliance. That is the way in which they are treating a matter that is of profound concern to the people of Kent.
I have a fairly agnostic view of the Channel tunnel, but one thing that I am not agnostic about, and never have been, is that we should be very careful to ensure that private rights are protected. Whatever we do in this matter —I tend to think that the Channel tunnel is necessary and desirable—it will have profound consequences for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and all the other constituents represented in this place. To find that the debate is not being participated in by the Labour party is a shame and a humiliation to that party.

§ Mr. Gow
In the marvellous invective to which my hon. Friend has treated the House, is there not one omission? He has not referred to the absence from the House of Members of the Social Democratic party. Will my hon. Friend please direct his invective to that absence, as well as to the absence of others?

§ Mr. Hogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). The only reason why I did not direct my fire at the SDP for its absence is that its Members are never here. The House has become used to their absence. We do not particularly want to see them any more.
As for the Liberal party, it is always very nice to see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He is quite a very good attender. That singles him out from the rest of his brethen, who are not here tonight. I wonder whether they will be voting here tonight. I do not see anybody on the SDP Benches. They will not be voting tonight. What about——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member's preamble. He really ought to get to the meat of the motion.

§ Mr. Hogg
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you are as always wholly right. May I say to you, if I have by any chance transgressed, that I am extremely sorry.
The point that I am making is a serious one. We are dealing with the rights of individuals. I do not think that the Select Committee procedure is an appropriate way of dealing with private rights. We shall come in a moment to subsequent amendments about dates, but a whole range of private rights will be touched on, affected and sometimes diminished. The most obvious ones are rights of property, where there are compulsory purchase orders, and questions of diminished values or blight, but many other rights will be touched upon. There will be diminished employment, diminished employment prospects, diminished trade, and damage to the environment. A whole host of rights will be touched on.
I do not see how a Committee of nine, even nine highly effective and well-informed hon. Members, will be able to determine whether the Bill affects those rights to an extent that we should amend the Bill. If we are to do it in that way. surely we are contemplating sitting for months and months. Worse than that, the petitioners — — [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Hogg
I was addressing those present in the House —the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends. It must be said that, with five exceptions, the Labour Party— — [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Faulds
We all appreciate the hon. Gentleman's literacy, but he seems to be innumerate.

§ Mr. Hogg
I have never regarded the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) as a full Member of the Labour party. When I add up the numbers, I never give him a complete digit.

§ Mr. Faulds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is late at night, and he has probably had a cup or two, as I have. I welcome the goodly fellow making pleasant chat, but he must not call in question my 20 years of very loyal service to my party, about which there is no question.

§ Mr. Hogg
That is the only thing concerning the hon. Gentleman about which there is no question.

§ Mr. Faulds
The hon. Gentleman is obviously unworldly and out of touch with the realities of his colleagues' lives. I am extraordinarily close to the realities of a range of issues, and I am normal.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that we should return to debating the motion.

§ Mr. Hogg
I feel that we are straying from the straight and narrow ways on which the hon. Member wished to keep us. I am making a serious point. We are talking about rights. We are talking about money and property interests, employment prospects and the environment. I do not believe that such a development can be considered properly by a Select Committee. I do not think that we can go forward in that way.
If we are to go forward in such a way, we need to have as large a Select Committee as we can muster. We need 1210 to bring to bear on the questions a diversity of experience and background. We need sympathies that are not always tempered, as it were, by the establishments of both parties, and we need a Select Committee that is prepared to approach the matter independently.
I understand—this is why I wanted the Leader of the House and the Law Officers to be present in the Chamber —that the only way in which the Bill can be shaped so as to reflect the private interests is through the mechanism of a Select Committee. If the Select Committee is narrowly drawn, if it does not have within its number people of sufficient independence and of critical mind, the Committee's report to the House will not reflect the true interests of the people of Kent.
I know that I have spoken for a long time tonight— [HON. MEMBERS: "More".] Hon. Members have never said "More" to me before. I shall disappoint them.

§ Mr. Hickmet
My hon. Friend has not defined or explained why, in his view—we have not heard from the Minister, so we do not have a view from the Front Bench—the Bill is a hybrid Bill. As it is a public Bill which affects certain private interests in a number of counties in the south-east of England, does my hon. Friend agree that it is not suitable for committal to a Select Committee as a hybrid Bill?

§ Mr. Hogg
That is precisely why I urged upon Mr. Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the need for the Leader of the House to respond to the debate, or, if the Leader is unable to do so, either my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
There is no doubt that the Bill is a hybrid Bill. Later, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton will tell us about hybrid Bills. He is a great expert on them. The Bill touches individuals and their personal proprietorial interests. That makes it a hybrid Bill. There is no doubt that a hybrid Bill has to be treated in the way in which we propose to treat it. The point I am making is not that it is not a hybrid Bill, but rather that the procedure that we have evolved over centuries for tackling the problem of hybridity is inappropriate to a measure of this scale.

§ Mr. Cash
Does my hon. Friend accept that, contrary to what he said about the definition of a private Bill, there are many types of hybrid Bills? I refer him to the report of the Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) of 1948. As we go on through the evening we shall be able to——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions should be brief and relevant to the motion.

§ Mr. Hogg
I have never found it so difficult to persuade hon. Members to allow me to resume my place.

§ Mr. Gow
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is departing slightly from the motion. Would he think it wise to give to the Committee of Selection some advice about those who might comprise the nine, the 11 or the 15 Members who should serve on the Select Committee? that is surely germane to my hon. Friend's arguments.

§ Mr. Hogg
What my hon. Friend has said is profoundly important. We return to the premise from which we start, which is an important one. The Bill touches on people's proprietorial interests and on their employment. The only way in which the Bill can be shaped to reflect these conflicts of interest is through the mechanism of the Select 1211 Committee. It would be a tragedy if the Select Committee were to follow too tightly the views of the establishments on either side of the House. The Select Committee is the only way of adjudicating on genuine complaints. When the members of the Selection Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), come to examine the question of those who are to serve on the Select Committee, they should not take the advice of any Front Bencher. They should ask themselves these questions: first, whether the hon. Member whom they are proposing to select is independent and whether he or she has a financial——

§ Mr. Michael Brown
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hogg
I shall finish this point and then I shall give way.
The Selection Committee should ask itself whether the Member in question is financially independent. Secondly, it should ask itself whether he or she has a critical mind. Thirdly, it should ask itself whether he or she can be bullied. If the Member can be bullied, he or she should not serve on the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Brown
This is a vital issue. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention that just about every Member of this place has received during the past few weeks briefing or lobbying material from various parties that are for the Bill or against it. As for the need for independence on the part of those who serve on the Select Committee, does he agree that it will be difficult for there to be true independence, bearing in mind that those who are selected to serve on the Committee may well have been influenced already by the briefing material that has been deluged on us by various public relations companies during the past few weeks?

§ Mr. Hogg
This is a serious question because independence matters. By "independence", I mean Members who do not have a direct geographical interest in the constituencies that will be affected. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South will no doubt be presenting evidence and speaking on behalf of their constituents. Members who have a geographical connection with the area should not serve on the Committee.
We know that there are financial, trade union, business and City interests which seek representation.

§ Mr. Rob Hayward (Kingswood)
My hon. Friend has referred to geographical connections. Will he identify what he would define as a geographical area and "interest"?

§ Mr. Hogg
That is a fair point. Many Members think that they will be affected directly or indirectly by the Bill. For example, many Members who represent Scottish constituencies say that they will be adversely affected, and Members from the west midlands take a similar view. Virtually no hon. Member has no geographical interest. I am saying that Members who have an immediate geographical interest should be excluded. That is because the Committee of Selection should try to balance the interests of those who serve on the Select Committee. The business of the Members who represent the geographical 1212 areas that will be affected is to make representations to the Select Committee, and it will be for the Select Committee to adjudicate on those representations.

§ Mr. Gow
Before my hon. Friend comes to the end of his most interesting speech, will he address himself to the key question in the motion, which is that the Committee should be composed of nine Members? Has my hon. Friend directed his formidable intellect to that number? Were there not 12 disciples and are there not 22 members of the Cabinet? Will my hon. Friend disclose to the House why we should hit upon nine Members, bearing in mind the two excellent precedents I have given?

§ Mr. Hogg
There were indeed 12 disciples, but one proved wanting. There are 22 members of the Cabinet, but I hesitate to say how many are wanting. I recall that when I came into this place seven years ago——

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I am seeking a hint from the hon. Gentleman as to the number that might be regarded as wanting out of the 22. The hon. Gentleman obviously cannot give a conclusive answer, but he may be able to help.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Member answers that, he will be out of order.

§ Mr. Hogg
I am extremely grateful, as I did not wish to blight my prospects for ever by going through a great part of the Cabinet.
There is no great magic in nine, 11 or 15 Members, but there is a magic in having as many independent Members, incapable of being bullied, as possible serving on the Committee. As 11 is the only number on the Order Paper which is in excess of nine, I am moving in favour of 11 rather than nine.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
Does my hon. Friend consider that his argument is strengthened by the fact that the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am a member, found it necessary, because of the tie in the Committee, with the Chairman finding it inappropriate to use his casting vote, that the matter relating to people's proprietary rights should be referred to the House? The House debated this matter at length yesterday. My hon. Friend's amendment is correct because to have nine people on a Select Committee is totally inadequate to deal with a matter of this gravity.

§ Mr. Hogg
I agree. I do not see how any Committee of this House can examine proprietorial interests that are affected by a Bill of this complexity. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that 11 is better than nine. Of the unworthy choices presented to us, I prefer 11.

§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)
As a lawyer. does my hon. Friend agree that 12 is an appropriate number? The petitioners should have the right of challenge of at least three members of the Committee. In that way there would be a great degree of fairness in the composition of the Committee.

§ Mr. Hogg
That is a most ingenious suggestion. If each petitioner had the right to challenge three members of the Committee, no Select Committee would ever be formed in this place because, at one stage or another, there would be objections to all hon. Members.

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)
Will my hon. Friend ignore the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member 1213 for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has for a long time now borne the imprint of the last lobbyist to have sat on him? The important point is not the number but the geographical content of the Committee.
My hon. Friend will be aware that much of the detail of the Bill and much of the land acquisition hangs upon the highly tenuous forecasts of the Department of Transport. The recently constructed motorway, which runs near to my constituency, is virtually at a standstill for five hours a day because of the Department's incompetence in assessing the volume of the traffic that would use it. Hon. Members who have had experience of the Department's incompetence should be included on the Committee.

§ Mr. Hogg
Regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, I have always thought that the imprint was the other way round. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is right about the geographical connection. As we are dealing with traffic projections which will affect people's proprietorial interests, we need both people of an independent mind and people capable of assessing independent expert evidence.

§ Mr. Hickmet
When addressing his mind to the number of Members to serve on the Select Committee, what will my hon. Friend think about how those Members should be selected? The motion proposes that they should be nominated by the Committee of Selection. What does he say about his amendment that five hon. Members should be nominated by this honourable House?

§ Mr. Hogg
We always have this problem with the selection of Members. The Committee of Selection is the most independent body we have yet achieved, but some of us suspect that sometimes the Whips' Offices of the Labour party and the Government have had some influence on it.

§ Mr. Gow
It is most uncharacteristic of my hon. Friend to ignore serious points put to him. The Leader of the House is present. Is it not open to my hon. Friend to offer advice to the Committee of Selection about those who should serve on the Committee? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on two suggestions? First, that——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Gentleman is almost guilty of making a speech.

§ Mr. Gow
My intervention will be brief. My suggestion is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) may with advantage serve on the Committee, and, since geography has been mentioned, perhaps the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

§ Mr. Hogg
I certainly take the first part of that suggestion seriously.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels
Why?

§ Mr. Hogg
Although there has been a certain levity in this debate, we are talking about a serious matter. [Interruption.] I apologise for being repetitive and I am willing to sit down, which is what I have been trying to do for the past few minutes. We are talking about major rights which can be protected only by this House. This House can form a view about the extent to which those rights are affected by the Bill only through the mechanism of the Select Committee. Therefore, it is important that the 1214 Select Committee which is considering the petitioners' claims should be as distinguished and independent as possible. It should be chaired at the highest possible level. I can think of few people more distinguished or more independent than my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

§ Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)
My hon. Friend said that hon. Members may be disqualified from sitting on the Committee for geographical reasons. Does he agree that it is possible to conceive that any hon. Member representing a port may be considered to have a vested interest, no matter where that port is? The implications are great when one thinks of all the hon. Members who may be disqualified on the ground that they have major construction companies, steel manufacturers of manufacturers of boring equipment located in their constituency. One can give a long list of hon. Members who may be disqualified on that ground. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

§ Mr. Hogg
I agree, and an enormous number of vested interests—financial, geographical and trade union—are involved in this issue. The Committee of Selection will have a difficult, perhaps impossible, task to form a Select Committee which will be seen to be independent.

§ Mr. Cash
Is my hon. Friend aware that it is normal with a hybrid Bill for the Select Committee to be chosen partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection and that the proposal in the motion departs significantly from precedent in that respect?

§ Mr. Hogg
Yes. There is always a necessary tension, as it were, between the view of the House as a whole, which tends to be more independent on the question of nomination, and that of the Committee of Selection. Although no Front-Bench Member would admit it, discussions can sometimes affect the composition of a Select Committee as determined by the Committee of Selection. That is why the House should have an element on the Select Committee which is nominated otherwise than through the Committee of Selection.

§ Mr. Lawrence
My hon. Friend is providing lion. Members with the only:guidance to be given on the motion. According to Mr. Speaker's direction, if we voted for the committal motion, we should have to vote for the series of amendments, and that would allow us to vote to have nine or 11 Select Committee Members. According to my hon. Friend's guidance, it would be extremely difficult to find nine, let alone 11, Members to sit on the Committee. That gives rise to the problem—remembering that no Members of the Liberal party have turned up tonight to move any of the amendments that stand in their names, and no Members of the SDP are here either— that if any Members of the alliance were appointed to sit on the Select Committee there would be no guarantee that they would ever turn up.

§ Mr. Hogg
Indeed, and I recall that a small fine may be imposed in those circumstances, but the SDP is so rich that that would not matter to the Members of that party.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
Is it not a fact that Members serving on Select Committees considering private Bills are required to attend and that those who fail to attend must be reported to the authorities of the House?

§ Mr. Hogg
Indeed, and that fact has given rise to problems in the Labour party in recent weeks.
1215 I imagine that thousands of people will be affected by the tunnel development, and we look to my hon. Friends who represent Thanet to spell that out in detail. Many will have a direct pecuniary or personal interest in this matter. It is difficult to see how justice can be done to them through the Select Committee mechanism.

§ Mr. Ashby
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) spoke about the geographical composition of the Committee. I have the honour to represent a constituency which includes the town of Ashby de la Zouch. Contrary to the words of the song which puts it by the sea, it is in the centre of this fair island.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels
No, it is not; Leicester is.

§ Mr. Ashby
It is equidistant from the sea on all sides. Perhaps it is people living in places like that that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) had in mind when he talked about there being no geographical connection to the sea.

§ Mr. Hogg
I agree; but the point I am seeking to make is that the geographical content consists of the hon. Members and the local interests who make representations to the Select Committee. It is for the Select Committee to be as powerful, as independent, as impartial and as prestigious as possible so that its reports to the House carry real weight.

§ Mr. Gow
My hon. Friend said that it was of supreme importance in connection with the Bill that the membership of the Select Committee should be as prestigious as possible. Despite the criteria set by my hon. Friend, he has failed to address his mind to the key question that I put to him earlier: would it not be in accordance with my hon. Friend's criteria of great importance and of great prestige if my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were to be a member of the Select Committee? My hon. Friend may think that our right hon. Friend should be the only member.

§ Mr. Hogg
I have a great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I certainly accept that the only prospect of getting a wholly unanimous report would be if he were indeed the sole member of the Select Committee. Although he would bring a highly critical eye to bear on the Government's proposals, I do not think it would be wholly fair to the people of Kent to leave it to him.

§ Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)
I am delighted to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). During the interesting, amusing and also serious speech that he made in the short time avaiable to him he made many references to the worries of the people of Kent. It may be convenient for the House, and I hope helpful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in making up his mind about how he will vote on the motion, if I spell out some of the specific worries felt by the people of Kent.
It is now clear to the House that the concept of a fixed link between Britain and the continent is highly unpopular with a great many people in Kent. There are several reasons for that unpopularity, and among them is the 1216 importance of our island status. That was referred to in the earlier debate. That importance has been proven many times in war and is valued for what it has given our nation over the centuries in peace. Distrust of the French by the British is historic, and that distrust is still alive and kicking in villages and towns on this side of the Straits of Dover. People feel that in some way or another the French rather than the British will gain the bulk of the benefits from the building of the Channel tunnel.
Increased traffic by road and rail, more commercial activity, more building, more population pressures in an already crowded corner——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate what he is saying to whether the Bill should go to a Select Committee. He must not make the speech that he originally intended to make on Second Reading.

§ Mr. Wolfson
I fully appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in my opening remarks I made the point that I thought that these factors would be of benefit to the House in deciding whether the Bill should go forward to a Select Committee. These are the concerns, in specific terms, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham has already referred in very general terms, and I believe that I am putting flesh on those bare bones to which he referred.

§ Mr. Faulds
A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman referred to the adverse reaction to France of the people in the area near to his constituency and in his constituency, but is it not the case that those of us who are opposed to the tunnel — and there are many more of us than the Government suspect—are not primarily worried because of the French challenge? Some of us are Francophiles, but we can still adopt an anti-tunnel attitude without being considered anti-French.
What we are worried about is that the French, who are much more subtle in their governmental backing of the interests of France than are the present Conservative Government in backing the interests of Britain, will steal a march on us. It is not that we are anti-French. We just think that they are rather cleverer than this Government will be in their conduct of this matter.

§ Mr. Wolfson
The hon. Gentleman obviously speaks for himself and puts forward his own views. On this occasion, and in this context, I am speaking only of the concerns of constituents, as I know them.
My constituents' further concerns are about increased traffic by road and rail, more commercial activity, more building and the pressure of population in this crowded corner. It is a horrific nightmare to those who expect to be directly affected by the terminal, by new roads through or close to their properties and by more, and noisy, rail traffic both on already crowded lines and on those that are little used at present and are therefore reasonable to live by.
In bringing these matters to the attention of the House, I believe that I am not only helping it to decide whether it is right that committal to a Select Committee should take place, but giving it an opportunity to consider the membership of that Committee, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of important aspects, but will he direct his attention to the question of employment, which certainly concerns every right hon. and hon. Member of 1217 the House and which must influence those who are to be members of the Select Committee? Will he direct his attention to the probable ultimate increase in employment in Kent by the creation of 5,500 long-term jobs after the beginning of the next century as a direct result of the building of the Channel tunnel and to the substantial increase in the number of jobs in other regions of the country that will be provided by the increased opportunities for industry and commerce as a result of the Channel tunnel? How does he believe that this might be reflected by those who are members of the Select Committee?

§ Mr. Wolfson
My hon. Friend leads me very comfortably and happily into my next point, which is that although there are present concerns about the anticipated loss of jobs in the ferry industry and about our capacity to maintain a ferry fleet, which has relevance in time of war, I am quite clear that once the Channel tunnel is built and running the benefit to other parts of Britain from the increase in the number of jobs will be very real, and certainly the members of the Select Committee should reflect that concern, opportunity and interest.

§ Mr. Faulds
I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to be saying that benefits will come to the regions after the tunnel has been opened. That is not my understanding. Is it not the case that the benefits, however small they are, will come during the construction of the tunnel? There will be no benefit to the regions after the tunnel is completed, because all the jobs related to the construction of the tunnel will have finished.

§ Mr. Wolfson
The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely in the second part of his intervention. I agree with him, and I am grateful to him for reminding the House, that great benefits will accrue to all regions during construction, provided that British industry is competitive enough in its tenders to win a large slice of the available contracts. Once the building is finished and the tunnel is in operation, industry in the regions will have the benefit of being able to export on an equal basis with other European countries instead of bearing the expense of the Channel sea crossing. That will be a major and continuing benefit that will be clearly reflected in increased job opportunities.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the composition of that Committee must also reflect the genuine anxiety felt in the country outside Kent that we are simply changing one system of communication for another? In some areas, people do not believe that it will give us an advantage over the French, the Germans or anyone else, because communications may be better——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. First, the hon. Gentleman should address the Chair, not turn his back on it. Secondly, if the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) were to pursue that matter he would be getting away from the question whether the Bill should go to a Select committee.

§ Mr. Walker
I apologise for not addressing you directly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to point out that the Select committee, if it is to consider the Bill carefully and objectively, must reflect the genuine views and concerns throughout the country. If it is to be independent, its members must realise that, under the present system, 1218 the Europeans import less from us than we import from them and that nothing will change. All that we shall do will be to improve communications, but competitiveness will remain the same.

§ Mr. Wolfson
I accept my hon. Friend's point that those serious matters must be reflected in the membership of the Committee.
The fears of constituents in Kent, which I have mentioned to help the House to decide how the Bill should go forward, have been increased by the apparent attempt by the Government to push through the necessary legislation with undue haste. I take the opportunity to quote from a thoughtful and erudite correspondent, who said: The Anglo-Saxon detests being pushed around in a hurry. It's up hackles, in toes. Often the poet sees it clearest, and Kipling lived in the Weald. 'But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears. They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and if you are wise you will yield. His point about not pushing them around is good advice. In deciding about the move forward to a Select Committee, the House must take into account the fact that people do not wish to be pushed round, but wish to be certain that they will get a fair and balanced hearing, with as much time as they need on the matter——

§ Mr. Faulds
rose——

§ Mr. Wolfson
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
People should have enough time to be fully heard on the matters of their concern, and that will go some way towards dealing with the problem and difficulties that I am representing to the House this evening.
I am a supporter of the concept of the tunnel, and I believe that there is great benefit to the country in it. However, the project can be carried out fairly only if the Select Committee is of the right composition.

§ Mr. Faulds
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman put his arguments in such a succinct form in terms of the short verse that he quoted. I had not heard those words before. I would be most grateful to him if he would repeat them, so that I can remember them. Having once read them and rehearsed them, he might do better next time round, and it might be that much more memorable and effective. I entirely endorse what he had to say.

§ Mr. Wolfson
I do not have the benefit of the training of the hon. Gentleman in learning lines and then repeating them word for word. I was merely quoting what a constituent had written to me.
I should like to turn now to other concerns that again bear on the procedural future of the Bill. A great deal of work has been carried out by Eurotunnel, the group, carrying out the project, in endeavouring to develop effective consultation in Kent. I think that it is an important point for the House to bear in mind that the promoters of the project, who have come in for a good deal of criticism in previous debates on the matter, are taking great trouble to involve, and to be available to, those who have concerns about the development that will be caused in Kent. I think that that is an important point to take into account.

§ Mr. Butterfill
As we are dealing with the composition of the Committee and as my hon. Friend has graphically illustrated the emotions that the Bill has built up in Kent 1219 and the strong views and interests that exist in Kent regarding the Bill, may I ask whether he is suggesting that this would automatically disqualify from membership of the Committee any Kentish man or man of Kent who was an hon. Member of the House? If so, would that not disqualify automatically and rather sadly our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), as was so eloquently suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)?

§ Mr. Wolfson
No. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not I who was suggesting specific qualifications for members of the Committee, and certainly not I who suggested that geographical qualifications should work against their selection. In my view, to achieve a balanced Committee, there has to be representation from the areas most concerned. I do not think that any of us in the House would be here if we were not prepared on occasion to speak for local interests. That is part of the job, just as it is part of the job to take a national view on things. That is why from my own viewpoint I support the Channel tunnel as a project, because I believe that it will be of value to the nation in the future. However, I also see it as part of my job to air the concern of my constituents about the way in which it may affect them exactly.
I deal now with another area where any constituents will be directly affected and where they may well wish to petition the Committee about the problems that they are likely to face. They are very concerned about the effect that increased rail traffic will have on the commuter services that they currently enjoy.

§ Mr. Gale
Enjoy?

§ Mr. Wolfson
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) makes a good point. The benefits that they have now, such as they are, may be curtailed by increased rail traffic and their current rights therefore adversely affected. So the matter is relevant to this debate.
Additional trains will run on the line through Sevenoaks to Charing Cross. That will be the main passenger link between the coast and London. There will also be increased freight traffic on the line running through Maidstone, Otford and Swanley. There is relatively lower use of that line now. The line running from Tonbridge to Redhill will also have increased freight usage.
All that will have an effect on my constituents and their concern at how their livelihoods, the peace and quiet that they enjoy, the opportunity that they have to travel up and down to town in British Rail——

§ Mr. Butterfill
Cattle trucks.

§ Mr. Wolfson
I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, in British Rail cattle trucks. I call them bone shakers. They are often dirty and are not in good condition. Nevertheless, even the low level of service that exists in some cases now could be further curtailed. Again they may wish to petition Parliament on those issues. Therefore, the membership of the Select Committee must include individuals who are in a position to take an enlightened and interested view, based on their own knowledge and background.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to bring some of these points to the attention of the House before it makes its decision about the committal of the Bill.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) criticised the alliance earlier for not being here to move amendments which it had tabled. If he looked at the selection list, he would realise that there are four groupings of amendments and that none of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and myself is in this grouping. Unlike other parties, we shall move the amendments that we have tabled and we hope that they will be voted on.
None the less, it is important that our view should be put on the other amendments that are not in our names. In relation to the amendments which we are discussing at the moment, which I understand are to be moved, although not by a member of the Labour party which originally tabled them, I endorse the view that on a matter of such importance the Select Committee procedure should allow the maximum number of participants. Therefore, I commend the amendment which suggests that there should be 11 Members on the Select Committee.
Amendment (b), which proposes that five of the 11 should be nominated by the House and six by the relevant Committee, is the most democratic way of ensuring that the membership of the Select Committee is not carved up by the usual channels. It is important that hon. Members who have an interest, and who respect and understand the national importance of the matter, should have a chance to participate in the Select Committee.
It will be difficult to find any number of hon. Members, be it nine or 11, who do not have an interest and who are not in some way affected by the Bill. That is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. But, because of the controversial nature of the Bill, and particularly because of the importance of the Bill to the people of Kent, who will be most substantially affected, they will be better served by the larger rather than the smaller number of Members, who will represent a wider variety of views and will hopefully, therefore, be better able to represent their interests and respond to the concerns put forward by the petitioners.
I hope that when the time comes the House will agree to both the amendments that have been selected and debated with the first motion. That will allow the procedures of this place to be seen in a good light and, perhaps, give somewhat more encouragement to the people of Kent than the performance that they would have witnessed had they been here for the two hours until now, when they would have heard very little on the important substantive issues and a considerable amount that would not have given them any great enthusiasm or encouragement to believe that their views would be represented.
I hope that, if we are to be here for a long time through the night, more than four or five of the 16 Members elected to serve Kent constituencies will attend and participate in the debate. If the matter is of importance to the people of Kent, their representatives should be here to put forward their views.

§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)
I wish to raise a couple of points about the desirability or otherwise of keeping members of the Select Committee informed as and when they deliberate on the Bill. 1221 One matter that many of us have had drawn to our attention is that it is thought widely in this country that if we are to have a tunnel — and many of us are not convinced that it is necessary—it should be of the right sort. When the Select Committee considers the representations made to it, one of the overriding factors that it should bear in mind is whether the right sort of tunnel has been chosen by the Government.
There is a view that if a tunnel is considered necessary, it would be wrong to choose one that would be hostage to the railway system. The original idea, when we first considered a tunnel, was for a combined road and rail link, and I believe that was right. I have listened to all the arguments today, but no one has deployed an argument in any convincing detail why we abandoned the original road-rail link idea and are now stuck with only a rail link.
I am a great believer in the railway system, and while we have an onward looking rail authority the project may be successful. However, it places us very much in the hands of the railway unions, and we cannot but continually bear in mind the militant attitude of some of them. For example, millions of pounds worth of new rolling stock cannot be brought into use on the London-midlands line because of lack of co-operation from the unions. Therefore, the first matter that the Select Committee should consider is whether we have chosen the right sort of tunnel. I think it is the wrong sort.
Another view that will no doubt be put to the Committee by many of the objectors—and it is as well that it should be mentioned today—is whether we need a tunnel at all. Earlier in our debates there were speeches both in favour and against——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the principle. He must relate his remarks to whether the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee.

§ Sir John Farr
I understand your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was attempting to stress the sort of matters that should be drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. I was guided by Mr. Speaker who earlier said that the debate could be fairly wide-ranging. I was——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not put words into Mr. Speaker's mouth. I was present when Mr. Speaker referred to those hon. Members who had been here all day and expressed his anxiety that they should have an opportunity to speak. However, he did not say that the debate would be wide-ranging. We are discussing petitioning and whether to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the motion before the House.

§ Sir John Farr
I will certainly do that.
We have heard lengthy speeches about the number of members for the Select Committee. If I so wish, I can deploy my arguments at considerable length and stay within the bounds of order. The numbers of members proposed for the Select Committee is in no way adequate, to deal with the many problems that are likely to arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the composition of the Select Committee and suggested that it should consist of one person only. I believe that there should be a wide-ranging Committee with many members.

§ Mr. Faulds
Should the hon. Gentleman not examine with more care that very rational and sensible suggestion 1222 that the Committee should consist of one person and that that one person should be the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? With his long experience of Parliament, the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) must realise that integrity is not a constant element in every hon. Member. What is required is an hon. Member who, come hell or high water, friend or foe., after proper examination of the matter, will stick to his view with great resolution. There is much to be said for a man with such integrity examining an impossibly complex problem which has not, unfortunately, been subject to the proper examination of a public inquiry.

§ Sir John Farr
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but that would not be very successful. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would be at all acquiescent to some of the representations that would be made to him. For instance, he would not be prepared to accept the fact that many thousands of jobs are at risk on our ferries and at Dover, Folkestone and the other ports. He would not be prepared to consider the fact that the jobs which are to be provided will be terminal jobs. There is no long-term future in these jobs. A few thousand people will be employed for a short period—only a few years—to build the tunnel. Those would be terminal jobs, like the terminal jobs of those who built the pyramids on the Nile. There is no future in those jobs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would not be a trustworthy person to have on the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir John Farr) will accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is a man of great integrity. With regard to my right hon. Friend being the sole member of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend is correct to cast doubt on whether that is a wise course of action.
Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1972, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup as Prime Minister was petitioned by the people who now have the misfortune to live in the county of Humberside that they should remain in the old counties of the East Riding of Yorkshire and of Lindsay, he refused to listen to them? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important credentials for serving on a Committee of this kind is that one should not have a fixed or single-minded view? On such a Select Committee one should have a completely open mind. One should listen to the evidence from the promoters, on the one hand, and from the petitioners, on the other. One should not have a fixed view and not be open to persuasion on the basis of the evidence that is laid before the Committee.

§ Sir John Farr
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Of course, they bear more than an element of truth. However, I think that my hon. Friend was trying, as I was, to say that we are not really satisfied with the number proposed for the composition of the Select Committee, to which we are considering referral of the Bill.
The remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup should be the only member of the Committee was probably made in a jocular frame of mind. But, to be more serious, no one person, 1223 no six, seven or 17 persons, however knowledgeable, could absorb all the different facets which they will confront.
For instance, I know that teams of people from the National Farmers Union are waiting to find out the composition of the Select Committee to prepare submissions to them on the risk of rabies, which is a real possibility. Rabies is now at the Channel ports and there is a real possibility that it could somehow be transmitted on the rail link between the two shores. The NFU wants reassurances. I would take the word of my right hon. Friend on many things, but I would not accept any reassurance from him on rabies from Europe. He would give them a white sheet when, in fact, there are considerable risks.
It is important to have on the Select Committee experts on defence and shipping. We have on both sides of the House, thank goodness, some knowledgeable people who can speak for shipping, particularly naval shipping. They should be on the Select Committee and they should decide. Representatives from Sealink and the Dover Harbour Board came to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments the other day. Experts must be on the Select Committee to analyse what such people will say about threats to the livelihoods of many tens of thousands of people in the Dover district and to our seafaring capacity and capability at the Channel ports and elsewhere. The evidence must be heard and analysed by the many experts on both sides of the House. The sort of evidence that we heard was that the fixed link would be damaging to employment, would lead to a rapid rundown of our ferry fleets, and would mean that we would never again have the naval capability to mount another Falklands expedition.

§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)
My hon. Friend touches on an important point in the skills available to the Select Committee. Will the Select Committee have access to independent advice in the same way as other Select Committees? He might consider what areas of advice should be available to such a Select Committee? In looking at the numbers that might be appropriate for the Select Committee, should not he and perhaps others speaking on this important constitutional matter therefore consider each of the 650 Members of the House to ascertain the ideal combination for deliberating on these important matters?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Order. Those will be matters for the Committee of Selection. We are discussing numbers, not qualities.

§ Mr. Batiste
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does it not say in the amendment we are now discussing that there is a possibility that some hon. Members should be nominated by the House? Is it not in order on this amendment, therefore, to consider who should be appointed by the House?

§ Sir John Farr
I was saying——

§ Mr. Faulds
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention?

§ Mr. Faulds
Yes.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) giving way?

§ Sir John Farr
Yes.

§ Mr. Faulds
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for ensuring my ability to intervene. The hon. Gentleman's reference to rabies disturbs me. He has set me thinking that there is a real danger here, because if the smooth running rail line is introduced——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are considering the numbers of those who will possibly comprise the Committee, not rabies. Sir John Farr.

§ Mr. Faulds
rose——

§ Mr. Michael Brown
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you rule on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), because it is fairly crucial? We are debating paragraph 1 with amendments (a) and (b). As you will see, I am a signatory to those amendments. I should like guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely we must be able to refer to the question of which hon. Members might be selected from the House. The amendments to which I am a signatory ask us to debate whether some members of the Committee should be nominated by the House and not selected by the Committee of Selection.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It will be in order for the House to discuss what should be borne in mind in the event of the amendment being carried and the House called upon to make the nominations.

§ Sir John Farr
I was dealing with the composition of the Select Committee. I said that it would be helpful, when members are chosen in the usual way, to have experts on agriculture, animal health, defence and shipping. We should also have an expert on the Select Committee to deal with the possibility of sabotage.

§ Mr. Faulds
The hon. Gentleman has again referred to specialists being put on the Committee who have knowledge of agriculture and animal health. I am disturbed by the reference to animal health. Unless there is an hon. Member on the Committee Who is knowledgeable about the dangers of the ravaging disease, rabies, we may find that within a few months of the opening of the tunnel the appalling disease is rampant in Britain. I am profoundly disturbed about the introduction of the disease through the tunnel. When a smuggled pet is on a smooth running railway line, the little thing is likely to sleep all the way. However—this is a guarantee to prevent rabies entering Britain — if that little pet is smuggled on board an aircraft the variation in pressure——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not only going wide of the debate but making a long speech in what I assumed was an intervention.

§ Mr. Faulds
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough for the moment.

§ Sir John Farr
As I said, when the Select Committee is appointed it should take on board the possibility of sabotage. It is absolutely essential that we should have on 1225 the Committee Members, preferably from both sides of the House who are familiar with anti-sabotage techniques. Hon. Members with such expertise do exist.
I hope that the Select Committee will cast its mind to matters such as that when it is set up. For those reasons, I do not think that the Select Committee should be as small as is envisaged, and we shall come to the ridiculously low quorum of three later in the debate. However, I certainly think that the Committee should be considerably larger than is proposed.

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)
The whole tenor of the debate has been to insist that there must be special qualifications and disqualifications as to area and interest. My hon. Friend is now saying that the Committee should be larger. Throughout the debate I have been coming to the conclusion that hardly any hon. Member, except my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), would be qualified. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider what he is saying. To ask for an increase is not in order because of the qualifications and disqualifications that have been mentioned.

§ Sir John Farr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has all the abilities to which he referred. However, I cannot consider him as having the ability to absorb all the different arguments and to come up with a single fair conclusion alone. If he were in the job alone, the masses of conflicting evidence that he would have to sift would take until next year or the year after. The main objective in the life of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench is to get the tunnel through as quickly as possible.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Earlier, it was suggested that as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), an hon. Member who would be suitable for the Committee would be the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). That would bring in another view that might be helpful.

§ Sir John Farr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.

§ Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)
If my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were appointed to be in sole charge of the Committee, might there not be a real risk that the tunnel would start from Dover, take a U-turn in mid-Channel, and return to Folkestone?

§ Sir John Farr
I am sure that as my hon. Friend has suggested that will be a real risk if we have a one-man Committee. We shall have to bear that in mind.
It is also important to have on the Committee specialists from both sides of the House who can analyse our trading position and the benefits and advantages of the tunnel to our trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, in his good speech this afternoon, said that we shall have tremendous opportunities as a result of building this tunnel. For example, our exporters would be able to move their goods from Manchester to Berne, almost overnight. I well recall that such arguments were adduced when we first joined the Common Market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and many others said that fantastic opportunities were waiting to be seized by our exporters.
1226 What has happened since we joined? We were then net exporters to the EEC. Now we are big importers of its manufactured goods. Recently, we have become major net importers from the rest of the world. All that has happened since we joined the Community. Therefore, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has great knowledge and the facilities of the Department to call upon, I would not necessarily accept his analysis that the creation of the tunnel will benefit our exporters. I do not think it will.

§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
My hon. Friend is adducing unfavourable figures that cannot conceivably be blamed on the Channel tunnel, which does not yet exist.

§ Sir John Farr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am not saying that a tunnel will necessarily make the situation worse, although the leather, shoe and boot manufacturers in Northamptonshire have grave difficulties because of imports from the Community. Therefore, it will be important to have on the Select Committee several persons who are well informed on commercial, trading and business matters so that they can make an analysis of whether, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the tunnel will be of advantage to our manufacturers.

§ Mr. Batiste
Would my hon. Friend concede that among the candidates for the Committee should be the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) who has two remarkable qualifications? First, he is the only Labour Back Bencher who has sat through the debate sc far. Secondly, he is experienced in playing many different roles and therefore has many of the ranges of expertise that will be required.

§ Mr. Faulds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is an experienced parliamentarian and follows the correct procedure, that when an hon. Member is referred to he should have the right to reply.
I am not eager to lose my summer holidays this year, but I am so profoundly opposed to this lunatic enterprise that I might even consider an invitation to serve on the Select Committee. In examining the arguments that would be put to such a Committee, I would be of enormous value. Few Members of the House with the limited interests that most of them represent, have such a wide-ranging knowledge of all the riches and vicissitudes of life as the hon. Member for Warley, East.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Faulds
I was extolling my many virtues. My virtues are so many that I could speak for another 20 or 25 minutes, but I must have some regard for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Were my expertise on a range of issues to be required — and we would need as members of the Committee those with reasoned arguments to oppose the introduction of this little tunnelling enterprise—I would be somewhat tempted to accept the invitation. I would do that, of course, only with the agreement of most hon. Members; but, knowing how very popular I am with hon. Members on both sides of the House——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions must be brief.

§ Sir John Farr
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was——

§ Mr. Faulds
I was just going to conclude my intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Knowing as I do my popularity with all parties and with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I might well make it to the Select Committee. Dear God, I dread the thought, but I might well make it.

§ Sir John Farr
I was saying that it would be important to have on the Select Committee specialists in trade. I gave an instance of the way in which the footwear trade and certainly the knitting and hosiery trades in Leicester have been hit by exports from the continent. Many hosiery and knitwear goods come in from Portugal and Italy, and Portuguese goods pose a real problem in that respect. The domestic industries of Leicester and Northampton have been ravaged by cheap imports from Portugal, and from Italy to a certain extent. All I am saying, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who made the point this afternoon, is that it is not fair to say that there will be a one-way advantage to our manufacturers. The opposite will apply. Continental manufacturers will be able to get their goods to our shops much more quickly, or that much more quickly than they can now.
It will also be important to have on the Select Committee at least two financial specialists—preferably the chairmen of the relevant financial committees from both sides of the House. I say that because the Conservative party and the Prime Minister recently pledged that no public money wll be used in the project.
I would want those financial specialists to cast their cool and analytical minds over the balance of payments and how the bill will be picked up. I gather that it will be on a fifty-fifty basis—50 per cent. of the project backed by French banks and 50 per cent. by British banks. As I understand it, the French banks are natonalised anyhow, which means that 50 per cent. of the cost of the project is certainly from public money.
I would want the financial experts, together with a specialist on transport, to consider the massive extra costs to British Rail's infrastructure— millions of pounds— which have been referred to in earlier debates. That is public money. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was questioned about that this afternoon, he said, rather jocularly, that possibly a public loan or Government subsidy could be extended by hundreds of millions of pounds. Many hon. Members would not find that acceptable. We think that we have lent the railways too much already, and we would like a better show of good faith by the railways before casting more good money after bad.

§ Mr. Gerrard Neale (Cornwall, North)
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the great advantages of such investment is that the trains which will be able to run on the improved tracks down to and through the Channel tunnel would give British Rail, as an operator, access to virtually all the cities of Europe, especially with its freight, and give our exporters a tremendous advantage by being able to get through the tunnel in one journey? Therefore, that investment would be highly worth while.

§ Sir John Farr
I accept the optimistic analysis that my hon. Friend has made, but I completely disagree with him. The reason I disagree is that a few years ago members of the Council of Europe Transport Committee went to Paris and considered matters from the point of view of the 1228 French. I am convinced that if the British Government had had more financial acumen, they could have got the French Government to pay for the whole damned tunnel. They showed us a wonderful map of the Europe that was to be in the future. The missing link was a railway under the Channel tunnel. The French said that they were anxious to have the rail link built. They are sitting in the middle of a spider's web, as it were, with France and Paris at the centre of Europe.

§ Mr. William Powell (Corby)
I know that my hon. Friend will draw some comfort from the fact that the French Parliament is considering a measure which will involve the denationalisation of French banks. That may assist him in——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not see any relationship between public ownership of French banks and the matter before the House.

§ Sir John Farr
Years ago, we used to consider that Britain was at the centre of things. We are not even at the centre of the Commonwealth now, although I suppose we are still at the centre of the English-speaking world. When the Channel link is built, with a rail system only, we shall be on the fringes of a European transport pattern designed for traffic between the centre of Europe and the periphery, of which we will be part. That will be a detrimental step. We have avoided it for many generations, and we should avoid it in future.

§ Mr. Neale
Perhaps the Select Committee will consider evidence that the French could have paid for the tunnel. Does my hon. Friend accept, and perhaps reject, that if the French paid for the tunnel, they would have used French labour and machinery? The development would have benefited the French economy, and Britain would not have received any of the gains that are offered under the present suggestion.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not see that that has much relevance to the specific issue before us. I hope that we can return to the issue before the House.

§ Sir John Farr
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. He made the point that it is important to have on the Select Committee people who understand the advantages to the French of building the tunnel. It is proper that experts on finance, transport and trade matters should tell hon. Members why a few years ago the French said that they would be prepared to fund the full cost of the tunnel if they were given the chance to do so.
It is important that we should have——

§ Mr. Batiste
Does my hon. Friend accept that there should be an expert on the Select Committee who understands geographical implications? Many of the important reservations which colleagues have about the Bill are based on a belief that the tunnel is being built in the wrong place. If someone understood the importance of linking the midlands and the east coast of Britain with the industrial heartland of Europe rather than the south-east with the north of France, some important expertise and knowledge might be brought to bear on the consideration of the Bill.

§ Sir John Farr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, I think that he has reinforced my argument that the Select Committee should not be as is suggested in the motion. The proposed number of members is far too few. The 1229 Committee should be full of experts. I respectfully suggest that the Bill should go before a Select Committee of the whole House.

§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)
I regret that I have to disagree completely with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan). I disagree entirely with his proposition that the proposed size of the Select Committee is too small. I believe that the House is suffering from too many Committees, both Standing and Select. I speak as a Member who is currently serving on a Standing Committee and a Select Committee.
I shall recount my experience of this very day. I was the member of a Select Committee that was summoned to meet at 10.30 am, which I was unable to attend because I had to be present for a Standing Committee. The Whips kindly let me leave that Committee for a whole quarter of an hour during the morning so that I could attend the Select Committee. I then had to return to the Standing Committee. That Standing Committee met again this evening. I am casting no aspersions on the great and the good in the House, but I cannot help noticing that many of us who have the honour to be members of various Committees fall into the category, like myself, of rather humble and junior Back Benches, who perhaps form, if you will excuse the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the poor bloody infantry of this place.
Much mention has been made of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)——

§ Mr. Bill Walker
My right hon. Friend does not serve on any Committees.

§ Mr. Harris
Indeed. That is the point that I wish to make. There are many others who do not serve on any Committees. One of my senior right hon. Friends returned fairly recently to the Back Benches. To his amazement, he received a small white card, with which many of us are extremely familiar, which meant that the Selection Committee had summoned him to serve on a Committee. My right hon. Friend apparently asked his secretary to explain what the card was all about. Needless to say, he did not turn up to serve on the Committee as summoned.
There is difficulty in manning our Select Committees and Standing Committees and it is therefore quite wrong for several of my right hon. and hon. Friends to propose that the Select Committee that will consider the serious matter that is before us should have its membership increased from nine members to 11. Dare I suggest it, but I have the nasty feeling at the back of my mind that those of my hon. Friends who have advanced the proposition have been hijacked in some way by the official Opposition, whose amendment it is.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that those of us who have signed the amendments that are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition have done so for any reason other than the fact that we are wholly in agreement with them. I sign nothing in the House, be it an early-day motion or an amendment, whomsoever has tabled it, unless I agree with the proposal. I hardly look at the names of those who support it. I look solely at the amendment, and if it commends itself to me I sign it purely on that basis, and on nothing more or less than that. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his slur upon those of us who added our signatures to the amendments solely because we agreed with them.

§ Mr. Harris
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is right to rebuke me and I withdraw my remark. I did not seek to cast a slur on his intentions or those of my hon. Friends who signed the amendment.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
rose——

§ Mr. Harris
I have been challenged on this point and I wish to withdraw in the most gracious way possible.
I do not wish to cast a slur on the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). No one who heard his speech would accuse him of being hijacked. I was ill advised when I used that word. I should have used the words "taken over". As I look at the crowded Opposition Benches, I cannot help noticing that none of the original signatories of the amendment has had the courtesy to be here to debate it. By their absence they are snubbing the House and not treating their amendment with the seriousness it deserves. I see a slight stirring from the temporary watchkeeper behind the Opposition Dispatch Box. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) if he wishes to challenge me on that point.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
My hon. Friend has already made my point, which is that it is exceedingly fortunate that my hon. Friends had the foresight to realise that the Labour party might well renege on its duties and fail to be present. Therefore, my hon. Friends were able to take over the burden from them.

§ Mr. Harris
I intended to make that point. Perhaps that reflects the fact that my hon. Friend and myself spent five years together, sitting next to each other in the European Parliament. Perhaps that has resulted in a certain symmetry of thought.
I resist this amendment.

§ Mr. Batiste
My hon. Friend's objection to this amendment is that there are not enough Back Benchers to staff the Committee. He drew attention to the fact that a number of Privy Councillors do not sit on any Committees. If we follow the logic of his argument, one could suggest that, for this uniquely important Bill, there should be a Select Committee composed entirely of Privy Councillors who are not currently engaged on Government business.

§ Mr. Harris
That is rather a nice thought. I wonder whether we would have difficulty in meeting the quorum requirement. We might have to apply penalties.
Without casting aspersions I shall draw on my experience today. I was on a Standing Committee during the evening and a vote was called at precisely 5.15 pm. Two of my colleagues—one is a right hon. Member—happen to be members of the executive of the 1922 Committee and they disappeared from the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee on which I have the privilege and pleasure to serve — for tedious meeting after tedious meeting—is on the Salmon Bill. Three members of the Committee are also executive members of the 1922 Committee, including none other than the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
No one in living memory can recall the last occasion on which the chairman of the 1922 Committee sat on a Standing Committee. I am not sure about Select Committees.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Do not my hon. Friend's observations show that if the issue is considered to be sufficiently serious, as obviously the Salmon Bill is, the same attitude will prevail for the Channel Tunnel Bill?

§ Mr. Harris
Yes, that is the case, provided the members are volunteers, not pressed men. Amendment (b) suggests that five of the members of the proposed Select Committee should be nominated by the House. That is the awful dilemma of the Select Committee.
Let us suppose that some hon. Members are selected by the House to serve on the Select Committee against their wishes, just as I in my humble position have been put on the Salmon Bill Committee. I do not wish to serve on it; I was put on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was also put on it.

§ Mr. Walker
I wanted to serve on the Committee.

§ Mr. Harris
My hon. Friend wanted to serve on the Committee. I would willingly swap places with him. The great and the good of the House—the people whose names have been bandied about frivolously — may be nominated to serve on the Select Committee, but they may not attend to their duties as lesser mortals, like me, must do because we live in fear and trembling of the Whips. I have not noticed that the great and the good pay much regard to the Whips. I see a Whip stirring. I am sure that he will not intervene, which would be against all our conventions, so I shall continue.
This evening two of my hon. Friends left the Committee to attend the executive meeting of the 1922 Committee and the Whip had to scurry down the Corridor to retrieve them. They returned willingly. That underlines the dangers that we face if the Select Committee is of such a size that it is not composed of volunteers who passionately want to serve on it and who will see it through from beginning to end.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said, it is important to have hon. Members on the Select Committee who are independent and, above all, who want to serve on it.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Is it not a fact that hon. Members who are most passionate to sit on the Select Committee are most likely to have an interest which will bias their view, so they should be the least qualified to sit on it? If that is so, and bearing in mind all the other disqualifications mentioned, is not the substance of the debate whether we should have a Select Committee considering the matter because we cannot find anyone to sit on it?

§ Mr. Harris
That is another dilemma. I must tread carefully because the last thing I want to do is to appear to volunteer to serve on the Select Committee. I am completely disinterested, but I do not want to tempt fate.

§ Mr. Forth
In developing his possible role in this matter, does my hon. Friend agree that his almost unique experience of the European Parliament before he came to the House would qualify him to serve on the Select Committee because he could give it views from both sides of the Channel which few hon. Members could do?

§ Mr. Harris
My hon. Friend is better qualified than I to serve, for he, too, was a Member of the European Parliament, though he displayed a fervour for all things European, his aim being to build bridges with Europe, let alone tunnels, so I bow to any claim he may make to be a member of the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)
I rule out my ability to serve on the Select Committee because I have a wife and family. Is my hon. Friend aware that those who attend Committees diligently are likely to be well rewarded? For example, we read in The Guardian recently of how Mr. Matthew Parris attended 90 Committee meetings in the Session 1984–85, and he seems to have been well rewarded.

§ Mr. Harris
I understand that our former colleague has not yet been rewarded by the job that he intends to take up having left this place.
Considering the activities of the Select Committee which considered the Okehampton bypass, one wonders whether this is the best type of body to consider issues of this type. That was not a happy Select Committee for those of us who represent south-west constituencies, particularly Cornish and Devonshire hon. Members who desperately wanted that bypass to be built.
While I do not question the integrity of the Members who served on that Select Committee, I fear that—in the House or in the Selection Committee—we shall fail to find nine, let alone 11, impartial Members with the necessary dedication and time to examine the issue of the tunnel.
I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the amendment which has been tabled by some hon. Members, though I will not say tabled in an unholy alliance between some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members because I have already been rebuked for making that comment.

§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)
I have now sat through nearly nine and a half hours of debate on the Bill and I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in it and support the motion that the Bill go to a Select Committee. Most of us feel that the tunnel would be a great advantage to this nation, and we would be glad to see it. I am pleased that the Bill is to go to a Select Committee, because that will mean that an opportunity will be given for evidence to be taken and for papers to be called for. One hopes that that will enable a thorough discussion to take place on the merits and demerits of the tunnel.
The Channel tunnel is probably one of the most exciting developments ever to take place in the United Kingdom. It will end the isolation of this offshore nation and make us firmly part of Europe, where we belong. It will take us into the 21st century and profoundly affect the whole of Britain, not just the south-east, but the part of the country that I represent as well.
I should like to join hon. Members in all parts of the House who have made representations about who should serve on the Select Committee on the Bill. I hope that I can exclude myself by saying that it is my wish to serve on Committees considering other aspects of legislation that will come before the House in the near future. Therefore, I hope that I shall already be occupied.
I hope that the nine members of the Committee, or whatever number of members the House decides upon, will be truly representative of opinion in the House. That means that they should represent those in favour in all parts of the House, as well as those who are against. It should include hon. Members, not just from the south-east, and not just from London, who have tended to speak so forcefully on behalf of their constituents during this 1233 debate, but those from the midlands and the north, because it is in many of those constituencies that we will see a number of the benefits, both in the short term and in the long term.
My constituents in Derby—not just those who work for British Rail Engineering Limited but many of those who work for companies involved in construction and for many of the companies which are involved in subcontracting to engineering firms all over the country —are jubilant and will he more than pleased when they win their share of the substantial sum of money that will be available to be spent on new rolling stock, signalling, track equipment and all the other things required. Orders for those things will soon be placed as a result of the Bill and the Select Committee report on it.
Membership of the Select Committee will no doubt include hon. Members of the Opposition, such as the hon. Meinber for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) who spoke so for6efully in the debate. It is a great pity that those hon. Members who will find that substantial sums of money will be spent directly in their own constituencies—for example, £60 million will be spent on Waterloo station —have done nothing but whinge about it. If the Select Committee were to represent that as a result of this legislation £60 million should be spent in the heart of Derby, I would be thrilled to bits about it and the last thing that I would do would be to carp about it.
It seems that some Opposition Members prefer to have rundown, derelict sites in their areas, and poverty and misery and a lack of hope, instead of the growth, which the hon. Member for Vauxhall so aptly described, that will come about with new hotels and restaurants and all the other services that will deal with travellers. Perhaps if the rates base of an area like Lambeth were to be widened by the development of such facilities to take the place of the dereliction that exists there, the council would not have to charge such high rates. That includes the rates of those hon. Members who have flats in that part of the city. I suspect that some hon. Members whose constituencies are affected in this way and who might therefore be requested to serve on the Select Committee and be among the nine hon. Members whose names are put forward by the Committee of Selection, actually prefer to see that kind of misery. If their areas become gentrified in the way that I have suggested, some Opposition Members will lose their seats.
Under hon. Members who will be asked to serve will, no doubt, be hon. Members who have spoken so ably on the Second Reading, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Perhaps the Select Committee, while listening carefully to the arguments put forward by people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, would have more sympathy if he were simply to put the parochial case and say that this will cause distress and disturbance to his constituents, rather than claim to be speaking for the whole nation and by so doing casting slurs on those who wish to promote the Bill and who see themselves as doing that in the interests of the whole nation.
This will be the biggest civil engineering project ever seen in Europe. In the debate on procedure on 3 June my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South called it a monster to the inhabitants of the small coastal towns and villages where they will hurt most.—[Official Report, 3 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 847.] 1234 Of course, he is right in that, and I hope that the Select Committee, in taking evidence and in listening to the represenations made to it, will take that into account, because some of my hon. Friend's constituents and some of the constituents of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate will be living for about five years on the biggest building site in Europe. Those of us who recognise the benefits will, I hope, nevertheless recognise that those private interests are being affected. There will be an obligation on all those concerned — the developers, the Government and the promoters of the Bill —to ensure that they operate at all times with respect for those who are living nearby. There is a considerable obligation on all concerned to listen to the objections and to try to accommodate them.
I hope that when the Select Committee is taking evidence, some of the evidence that it receives will be more sensitive, tactful and aware of the difficulties faced by the constituents in those Kent constituencies than was evident in some of the stuff that came out during the arguments that preceded the presentation of legislation to this House. I read with some interest and some alarm the paper called "We Need the Channel Tunnel Now", which no doubt the Select Committee will have to take into account. There is a splendid collection of cartoons of what will happen if and when the Channel tunnel, in its current form, actually happens. It is one of the most tactless pieces that has been produced.
There are eight pictures. They talk about the fast approach to the terminal, about passports being checked without passengers having to leave their cars and about the shuttle being ready and waiting. The family described in this set of cartoons may well be my constituents. They may not at any stage have spent any money in Britain before they get into the shuttle and are whisked across to France. When they reach France they stop because they need a pause for light refreshment. And where do they stop? They stop in Sangatte in France. Not a penny is spent in England.
If the promoters of the Bill wish to allay the fears of those who live in the south-east, I hope that when they present their evidence to the Select Committee and are questioned carefully by hon. Members, who no doubt will represent constituencies in Kent, they will take into account the fact that if at any time they had suggested that money will be spent in Kent and that Kent will suddenly become alive with fast food shops, hotels, boutiques and the very best sort of trading, which I am sure would be of great value to the shopkeepers, ratepayers and councils of Kent, there might not have been quite the opposition and determination to emphasise the negative side. Some of that material has been tactless in the extreme. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will take into account the fact that those colleagues who find that their areas are growing and developing as a result of the changes will therefore be encouraged to accept them.
The Select Committee will also no doubt be presented with a great deal of evidence about public opinion. One of its tasks will be to judge whether public opinion is right in this case, and whether public opinion is taking into account the long-term as well as the short-term benefits. According to a MORI poll, only 37 per cent. of the public in Kent are in favour, and the British public as a whole are in favour only by a very slight majority—51 per cent. The Select Committee should recognise that in Calais only 1235 9 per cent. of the public are against, while 89 per cent. are in favour. That is a ratio of 10 to 1 in favour, yet France has exactly the same problems.
The public in France will also be living on a building site for the next five years. They will also have all the difficulties surrounding the removal of spoil and the mess created by building works. They, too, will have all the worries about terrorism and God knows what, yet in Calais the public are 10 to 1 in favour. It cannot just be because the area around Calais is more deprived than the area around Dover. If we look at the whole of France, we find that the figures are much the same. Only 10 per cent. of the French people are against, and they are outnumbered seven to one by those who are in favour. And France is a more prosperous country than this nation.

§ Mr. Forth
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is possible that the disparity between the economic wellbeing of France, the Pas de Calais, on the one hand, and the south-east of England, including Kent, on the other, goes a long way towards explaining the disparity in attitude? Does she agree that it is precisely because the tunnel will affect a relatively prosperous area in the United Kingdom where people——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have allowed considerable latitude, but I cannot allow the debate to go so wide as the hon. Gentleman seeks to push it.

§ Mrs. Currie
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Select Committee will consider carefully whether there is any logic in the argument that a poor part of France is in favour and a wealthy part of England is against, when the whole of France is in favour and much of England is against. Yet France is the wealthier nation. The argument simply does not wash.
What worries me is that the people of France seem much more aware of the matter. I hope that the Select Committee will take evidence in France and that it will take every opportunity to balance the views presented to it with the views expressed in France. The people of France seem to be more optimistic about and interested in the scheme, and it would be a pity if some of the negative attitudes that we have heard tonight prevented us from making the most of the opportunities available.

§ Mr. Cash
Will my hon. Friend remember that the precedents in such matters lead us to the conclusion that there should be nominations, not only by the Committee of Selection but by the House, in accordance with the general principle applicable to hybrid Bills, so that such evidence is properly considered? Would she go further, in the light of her arguments, and suggest that we should invite French witnesses to appear before the Committee and give evidence?

§ Mrs. Currie
My hon. Friend will be aware that later in tonight's agenda—I suspect that we shall reach it at about 5 am—there will be the opportunity to consider whether the Select Committee should be able to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom. If my hon. Friend is still following the debate with the great interest that he has shown so far, he will have the opportunity to suggest that the Select Committee might go 1236 further than the United Kingdom, which might make it a highly attractive proposition for the nine Members who are likely to be nominated to serve on it.

§ Mr. Cash
Does my hon. Friend also agree that, on occasion, petitions have been heard from the citizens of Boulogne, let alone the citizens of Calais?

§ Mrs. Currie
I am sure that that is the case, and I hope that the Committee will take every opportunity to hear both sides of the argument, and that includes the arguments from France. I would deplore any argument that simply suggested that we should consider only the benefit to the United Kingdom, for we are partners in Europe, and the welfare of our partners in Europe is of interest to us. I hope that that will be taken into account.
I hope that Select Committee will take evidence that examines the long-term prospects for the United Kingdom and Europe, which will benefit from closer links. Those closer links can only be beneficial. Throughout economic history, communications have been the prerequisite for economic development. Outside my home there is a Roman road. The first thing the Romans did was to build roads all over Europe. They were then able to take peace, prosperity and development across Europe. The Spanish crossed the Atlantic. No doubt there was a debate about how that was not needed either, but it led to the development of the new world and to increased prosperity in Europe.
The British built the first canal system, then the railway system, and then they exported the railway to the subcontinent of India, South America and North America, thereby opening untold opportunities. In those respects, air travel—the latest form of mass travel— is still in its infancy, but it is hoped that the effects on air travel of the proposed changes will also be taken into account by the Select Committee. One effect of taking the Bill to a Select Committee and of fully exploring the opportunities for competition that are offered by the tunnel will be to reduce the price of air travel to Europe, for which we shall all be profoundly grateful.
The Channel tunnel is a link of the same sort and it will stand history with all the developments that I have mentioned. It will make mass transit easier and cheaper. There is not much argument about that, because one piece of evidence that the Select Committee will hear forcefully is that fares will fall. The only argument is by how much. The suggestion is at least 10 per cent. and, according to Phillips and Drew, as much as 40 per cent. That must be a good thing.
The tunnel will reduce the cost of transporting freight. I hope that evidence will be taken on what beneficial environmental effect that will have on the areas of Kent that are so clogged up with lorries at present. There are 1.5 million lorries a year carried on cross-Channel ferries. Whatever else the Channel tunnel will do, whatever else the rail link will do, it will relieve some of that pressure on the villages of Kent, and I have to say that I hope that colleagues who serve on the Committee will take every opportunity to put that fact not only to the Select Committee but to constituents, who are bound to benefit from it. It is the most exciting development in my view in the last 50 years, and I hope that it will come about.
I hope that one of the members of the Select Committee will be a representative of this side of the House from somewhere in the midlands or the north, which will benefit 1237 considerably from the construction. Earlier this evening we heard an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who pointed out how much his constituents and the people of Birmingham will benefit from the development. He will know that Metro Cammell is joining British Rail Engineering Limited, which has works in the vicinity of my constituency—and many of my constituents actually work there — in a consortium with a number of other companies, and that for the first time a number of companies that produce rolling stock for the railways are getting together, instead of competing, and are to produce a proper bid. I therefore recommend to the Committee of Selection that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, who currently is pulling faces at me, should be considered for this Select Committee. It seems to me that he will be able to make an excellent case on behalf not only of his constituents but of mine also.
I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the sort of figures that the Channel Tunnel Group was putting about at the time that it was making the bid. It was suggesting at that time that the north and west midlands and the south-east would be likely to benefit to the tune of about £24 million from providing reinforcing steel, that the east midlands would be involved to the tune of £52 million in castiron tunnel linings, and that the midlands in general, which we both represent, would be involved to the tune of another £100 million for precast tunnel linings. He will also find, if he looks, that ventilation and cooling equipment, which is very important in the midlands, will benefit by some £24 million, and that railway services will benefit by £180 million for special rolling stock for shuttle vehicles, £36 million vor electric locomotives and some £60 million for special passenger rolling stock and dual voltage locomotives. On top of that, British Rail has also announced that a substantial amount of money will have to be spent on upgrading rail and station facilities, and of course much of that work will be signalling and electronic equipment, which will also be made in our constituency, so I commend that to my hon. Friend.
Colleagues and inhabitants of the south-east are very lucky, for in the long run the tunnel can only bring more prosperity to that part of the world. They say that they do not want the tunnel. I think that that is partly because they would be the first to admit that they do not need it—that part of Britain is prosperous enough. I am not being sarcastic when I say that I feel sorry for them, and I am sure that my hon. Friends and colleagues from the midlands and the north will agree. I wish that the southeast could be relieved of the unwelcome burden of this unnecessary additional prosperity. I wish that it were all happening in the midlands and the north, where unemployment is so much higher. It was the good Lord who decided where the nearest crossing point was to be, and I think that we should all take advantage of that and make the very best of it.
I commend the Select Committee idea to the House, and I wish well to all those hon. Members who are to serve on it.

§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
I wish to address myself briefly to the subject of the best method of appointing the Committee, to which I have given some thought. 1238 There were by precedent three possibilities. One 'was a Joint Committee of both Houses, and I think the Government were right to reject that. The second was a mixed Committee appointed partly by the usual huddle between the Whips' Offices, politely known as the usual channels, and partly by the Committee of Selection. The third option, the one that the Government rightly are recommending to the House, is that the entire membership of the Select Committee should be chosen by the Committee of Selection. I should like to explain briefly why, in my view, that is the right decision for the House to take.
The function of the Select Committee will have a judicial rather than a purely political content. It will be to hear the petitions of those of good locus standi, as it is called technically; that is, those who will be disturbed in their ownership of property by the measures to construct the tunnel, including the roads and railway lines leading to it, because that will involve a massive amount of compulsory purchase. It will be a tedious function for those on the Committee. They will need to appreciate the function that they are carrying out and not regard it as another opportunity to repeat Second Reading debates and pre-conceived positions for or against the tunnel.
My fear is that had the Committee been composed partly by nomination through the usual channels, even if those nominated had been wholly suitable for the task—I have no reason to suppose that they would not be—they would not have been seen to be so by those whose interests are affected. Although the Committee of Selection is not wholly impervious to influence from the Whips' Offices — it would be unreal for any of us to pretend that it is — it stands at one remove from those influences.
Moreover, it is not just a matter, as is sometimes the case, of a Committee of the House reflecting the balance of parties on the Floor of the House. The Committee of Selection is used to considering cross-party, non-political views as expressed in debate. It does that sometimes in the composition of Standing Committees. On the other hand, what its duty not to do is, if I may put it impolitely, to pack the Select Committee with hacks, of whatever persuasion they might be. That is very important.
The point that I wish to stress is the importance not only of the Committee discharging its duty fully and honourably, but of those representing the interests of the petitioners perceiving it in advance as being well qualified to do so. That is why I believe that the Government have taken the right decision in recommending to the House that the composition of the Committee should be chosen by the Committee of Selection. I hope that the House as a whole will believe that the appropriate body to trust with this invidious task should be the Committee of Selection, without any element of Whips's Office compromise shoved into it.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) because he has struck one important and serious note about the Select Committee and its method of selection. It is essential for the people of Kent to feel that they can have considerable public confidence in whatever structure is created to hear their grievances and to propose amendments to the Bill. 1239 If it was thought that a substantial number of placemen had been appointed to the Committee, that would be a great mistake. As my hon. Friend said, in a way it will be a judicial committee. I think it was Bacon who once criticised 15th century judges, saying that they were lions but lions under the throne. It would be a great pity to see a Committee of lions but lions under the Whips' Office. This must be an independent-minded Committee.

§ Mr. Cash
During a previous intervention I pointed out that it is in accordance with normal precedent for membership of a hybrid Bill Committee to be nominated not only by the Committee of Selection but by the House. That is precisely what the amendment proposes.
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who said that it should be done by the Committee of Selection alone, it would perhaps be better to have a mixture of selection because that would be in accordance with precedent on hybrid Bills as described by the "Manual of Procedure in the Public Business 1984", which states: The object of sending a Bill to a select committee is usually to provide for the taking of evidence. In accordance with this principle the practice is to send a hybrid to a select committee nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection. The very point about the need to ensure a degree of impartiality and that membership of the Committee should not be dominated by the Whips is not only met by ensuring that a proportion of the Committee should be selected by the Committee of Selection, but enhanced by nomination by the House as a whole.

§ Mr.Aitken
I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. I cannot enter the mists of past precedent, because, quite frankly, I do not have a clue as to how a Committee can be selected by the whole House. I have some confidence in the impartiality of the Committee of Selection. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton is, on balance, right to say that that is the best solution available.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
It is generous of my hon. Friend to give way again. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) had made his intervention during my short speech, not that of my hon. Friend.
There is no precedent for a Bill of this sort. It is unprecedented in its magnitude. I think that we would deceive and mislead ourselves if we appealed to precedent rather than addressed ourselves to the reality of this unique position.

§ Mr. Aitken
My hon. Friend makes another valid point. We are in uncharted waters with the Bill and the procedure on which we are embarking.
There are two issues that the motion leads us to discuss — whether the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee, and, if so, what should be the numbers on that Committee. I have always argued that it would have been wiser to have this subject analysed first by a public inquiry. I would have preferred a shortened form as I am sensitive to the argument that some public inquiries can continue almost ad infinitum.
The Government may have miscalculated if they thought that by going through the hybrid Bill procedure they would end up with a shorter procedure than under a shortened public inquiry. There is no doubt that in the 1240 uncharted waters in which we have been swimming for some months, a great deal of anger and resentment have been created as a result of what one might call the rush job or breakneck-speed approach of the Government.
Because of that, people in Kent and elsewhere are angry. There is no doubt that they will petition in unexpected and unprecedented numbers for amendments to the Bill. From the Thanet towns represented by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), it appears that there will be something in excess of 500 petitions—none of them orchestrated, all of them sincere and all with a great deal of genuine grievances that they want redressed. If that is to be the scale of the petitioning from one community alone, it will be a marathon of a Select Committee, and special qualities will be required of those who serve on it.
The time has passed when one could continue the argument whether the Bill should be referred to a Selcet Committee. Wiser voices would have chosen a public inquiry, but, as that has not happened, we must move on from the argument whether it should be referred to a Select Committee. It will be, and we should accept that. However, when we consider the number of members who should be on the Select Committee, we enter difficult and unprecedented territory.
We should consider the task that the Committee will have to perform. The matter is being taken desperately seriously by the petitioners. They have rights which they feel have been trampled on so far and they wish to have a fair, just and open hearing. Attempts to shorten the proceedings of their petitioning have already been resented. I hope that the hearing of the petitions will be scrupulously fair. I am sure they will be.
Let us consider the task that the Committee faces. First, there is the possibility of enormous numbers of petitioners. There could easily be 1,000 or 2,000 petitioners all perfectly serious, covering many subjects. These will be distinct from the 30 or 40 petitions which will come from major groups like the district councils and the ferry companies. The Committee's work load will be tremendous and the time spent on the Committee will be enormous.
The geographical spread of the work of the Committee will also be considerable. There seems to be a notion that the Committee will only have to sit here in Westminster. Not a bit of it. The Government have already said that the Committee should sit in other parts of the country. There is also a slight misconception that those parts of the country will be confined to Kent. Those who have considered the issue carefully know that there is great unease up and down the country about the effects of the Bill, especially in the ports. There is a report from the well known stockbrokers Phillips and Drew which states—and I make no comment on the assertion—that 40,000 jobs could be lost, not just in the immediate Channel ports but in ports as far afield as Hull, Immingham, Felixstowe and around the coast to ports like Plymouth and Portsmouth. Some of the small ports, such as Shoreham, might be wiped out completely. It is probable that a Select Committee, doing its job properly and hearing petitions, would have to go to those places and work in many locations around the country.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The county council that covers the port that I represent, Immingham, and most of the public authorities 1241 in that area are, I suspect, intending to be petitioners. My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that petitioners will come not only from the area that he represents but from many east coast ports as well.

§ Mr. Aitken
I am grateful for that corroboration from my hon. Friend.
There is an enormous volume of work for the Committee and quite a geographic spread around the country. It is possible that the Select Committee will have to hear evidence from France, and perhaps go to France. Much of the Second Reading debate tonight was taken up with an argument about what the French were doing in the Nord-Pas de Calais region and the cornucopia of grants, incentives and special new motorways which are designed to ensure that France rather than Britain will be the magnet for industrial development not just from France but from England as well.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I listened to my hon. Friend earlier, but I am still perplexed and would appreciate it if he can clarify the matter. Does he advocate infrastructure expenditure paid for by the Government, because he has extolled the virtues of that in northern France? Does he want to see the same thing here? Or is he extolling the virtues of this Government's approach, where these matters are left to the private sector? Does he believe that we should encourage the new French Government along those lines? It is difficult for him to sustain the argument that he is attracted by the actions of the French and wants us to do the same here.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not want to inhibit the debate overmuch, but the Minister is really seeking to extend it a long way beyond the limits of the motion before the House.

§ Mr. Aitken
I shall heed your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and simply say that I decided not to respond when my hon. Friend replied to the previous debate, because I thought that, rather than seeking genuine elucidation of my views, he was seeking to make no more than a keen debating point. As he has now made that keen debating point for the second time this evening, perhaps I may briefly respond to it.
I am not extolling the virtues of what the French are doing. What they are doing is contrary to the assurances originally given at Avignon, that this would be a private sector project and would be financed by private money. That was the understanding. Both Governments have since decided to cheat on those assurances, the British Government to the tune of about £1 billion of public expenditure shoved in to benefit the private consortium, and the French, at a conservative estimate, to the tune of something like 50 billion French francs worth of public expenditure to support this private development.
I do not admire what the French are doing, but, as they are doing it, it is as well that the Select Committee should recognise that a serious challenge to British interests arises out of it. The dilemma for the British Government is whether to match that kind of expenditure or whether to say that that simply is not on and that we shall not proceed with the Channel tunnel at all if the French try to pull such a fast one. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point.
What the French are doing could be germane to the kind of petitions that will come in for amendments to the Bill. I am sure that there will be amendments saying that the Bill 1242 should not proceed unless a network of grants and incentives is provided for east Kent comparable to what is going on 20 miles away on the other side of the Channel.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
My hon. Friend perhaps knows more about the issues than any other hon. Member. How many petitions or petitioners does he envisage will come forward? Does he suppose that the Select Committee will be capable of dealing with what I anticipate will be a flood of petitions? What happens if it is not?

§ Mr. Aitken
The phrase "a flood of petitions" is particularly apposite because, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we are in uncharted waters, and we may well be in uncharted flood waters. There is no doubt that we shall see petitioning on an unprecedented scale. I think I am right in saying — my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton will correct me if I am wrong — that never before has a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill seen more than 40 or 50 petitions. The signs so far from Kent are that from the Thanet towns alone there will be more than 500 petitions, and there could easily be three or four times that number from the rest of Kent. We do not know what kind of petitioning numbers will come in from other parts of the country. It is no exaggeration to say that there could be literally thousands of petitions.
The fault, if it is a fault, for that situation lies with the Government who have changed the ground rules for a project of this kind by saying that they will not have a public inquiry, such as we had on Sizewell, Stansted, and so on, but instead will try to get away with the hybrid Bill procedure. The response to that has been that if they are going to try to do that, the public will exercise their rights to the full and petition. That is why we have an unprecedented situation.

§ Mr. Lawrence
I have a great deal of sympathy for the people of Kent, as befits the Member of Parliament for Burton to whose area from Kent comes a lot of the produce that we turn into beer. But my hon. Friend began by saying that he was in favour of committing this matter to a Select Committee. It sounds very much as though the sheer volume of the petitions, the geographical spread of the visits and the total demand upon hon. Members will make it impossible for it to be committed to a Select Committee.

§ Mr. Aitken
It is like the story of the Irishman—I would not have started from here. If we were beginning all over again, even if I were a Minister—which is extremely unlikely—I would strongly advise, within the Department of Transport, that the right way to go is not to try to test the hybrid Bill procedure to destruction but to have what the late Anthony Crosland thought of—some form of shortened public inquiry. That would defuse much of the local feeling. We could then go on to what I think would be a fairly shortened and conventional hybrid Bill procedure.

§ Mr. Cash
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is slightly misleading to give the impression that there was an option between the hybrid Bill procedure and a public inquiry? In fact, it is essential, according to the procedures of the House, that a Bill of this kind be referred to a hybrid Bill Committee.

§ Mr. Aitken
There is no doubt that at some stage the Bill had to be referred to the hybrid Bill procedure. I am arguing, going back to square one, that we would have avoided the present situation of mass petitioning, with 1243 passion and anger, if only we had had a demonstrably fair form of public inquiry, such as a shortened inquiry, or some form of local letting off steam process.
I think that I have said enough about the volume of work that the Select Committee will have to do and the geographical areas it will have to cover. In Kent it will not just be a question of sitting down in the towns. There is a network of footpaths used by ramblers and running clubs, one of which I am a member of. Those ramblers and running clubs care deeply about the routes of the footpaths and bridleways which will be removed. I think that the members of the Select Committee may need a bit of stamina to get round some of the routes if they are to do their job properly. They will also have to master a number of subjects — employment and health and safety considerations, road and rail links, environmental links, and so on. It will be a marathon task for the parliamentarians involved. They will need remarkable qualities. There was much jocular suggestion earlier about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I doubt whether even he has the patience of Job which will be needed to be a member of the Committee.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
It is not only the Committee which may see snow fall in its summer, but the Court of Referees, which nobody has yet mentioned, which determines locus standi. It may find its summer contains January.

§ Mr. Aitken
On the matter of the Court of Referees, it is my earnest hope that the Government, being a Government of honour, will stand by the promises they have given to follow the precedent set by the 1973–74 Channel Tunnel Bill. In that Bill the Government gave an assurance that they would not challenge the locus standi of any petitioner. The spokesman for the Liberal party read out the relevant sections tonight. As he was doing so there was an interesting exchange. He read out the passage which said that the Government would not challenge the locus standi of any petitioner whose petition conformed to the basic requirement of relevancy. I said, rather quietly perhaps, that the Government had already conceded that, and the Secretary of State nodded and said they had. I hope Hansard picked that up. It is certainly a matter of record between the Secretary of State and myself that confirmation was given. Therefore, I think that there is no doubt that the Court of Referees should not have to do a very arduous job if the Government stick by the precedents and their pledges and do not challenge the locus standi of anybody who is a bona fide resident of Kent with a relevant petition.
I shall turn now to the issue of whether it should be nine or 11 good men and true. I hope that I have said enough to show that the work load will be tremendous and the stamina requirements will be great. I think it is a task that would be best shared by a larger rather than smaller number of hon. Members. I pity those who have to be on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said that I should be on the Committee. I think that I am probably almost the only person who is automatically disqualified. If by any chance I were asked to serve, I would not hesitate to do so, but I fear that my interests would be considered too close.
1244 I am a little worried about the membership of 11. Only a few weeks ago, I was appearing in front of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, on some of the ground that the petitioners will be on, and the Committee, in the face of the complex arguments, divided equally, straight down the middle. The Committee was deadlocked. Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite rightly—I praise rather than criticise him for it—decided not to use his casting vote. However, I would not like to see the Select Committee faced with the same problem. I mention that instance simply to show that 11 members might be too few.
Of the amendments, the one suggesting that 11 is the right number is the correct way to go. I pity those 11 right hon. and hon. Members who are called to serve on the Committee, but that is the right number so that the Bill can proceed to a Select Committee.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
I shall follow the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).
I am serving on a private Bill. It would be wrong for me to reveal the discussions in which we are engaged. However, I want to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton about the proposed Select Committee for the Bill. A Select Committee of this kind is there very much in the way that Members are there in a private Bill Committee, in a judicial capacity. This requires them to consider the evidence of the promoters of the Bill, to listen to the cross-examination by those representing the petitioners, and then to listen to the case made by the petitioners, and then to listen to the case made by the petitioners, the evidence that they submit, and how that stands up to cross-examination by the counsel representing the promoters.
It is wholly wrong for many of my hon. Friends to suggest that this hon. Member should serve on the Committee because he is very much in favour of the Bill, or that that hon. Member should do so because he is in favour of the Bill and also come from the midlands, the south-west or wherever. Those who serve on the Select Committee should be hon. Members who have no particular interest in favour of, or against, the Bill. It is because they are to take a judicial decision that I am concerned that as a result of the intense lobbying that is going on, there cannot be an hon. Member who has not already been subjected to a deluge of documents from public relations companies, such as those that I received from the Eurotunnel.
Because this matter has been so much debated, already entrenched positions in favour of or against the Bill may have been taken by many hon. Members—perhaps all 650 of them—and there will be difficulty in finding the necessary independence that is the hallmark of a private Bill.

§ Mr. Cash
I agree with my hon. Friend 100 per cent. on this point. However, I draw his attention to the declaration that he was required to sign when he took his place on the Committee considering the private Bill, which he would not have been allowed to join had he not been able to sign the declaration, because it precludes him from sitting on a Committee considering a Bill in which he has a direct interest. The same principle has to apply to a 1245 hybrid Bill, because the Committee is looking at the private interests of the matter that is the subject of deliberation.

§ Mr. Brown
My hon. Friend is correct. I have served on a number of private Bill Committees and I am beginning to become fairly familiar with the procedure. The private Bill procedure is a good avenue for ensuring that people's rights are protected and examined. One of the crucial reasons why petitioners have so much respect for the private Bill procedure is that they know and have confidence in the fact that hon. Members serving on such Committees have signed a declaration. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is right to say that that declaration includes a form of words that clearly shows to all concerned, especially to petitioners, that those hon. Members who are adjudicating in such a Committee have no particular interest or concern one way or the other.
It does credit to the Committee of Selection that it has usually been very successful in selecting hon. Members to serve on Committees considering a range of private Bills. Certainly in my case, when I am appointed to consider private Bills, I think I can honestly say that I am totally indifferent to whether a Bill becomes an Act. That is the frame of mind in which those appointed to this Select Committee should consider the Bill.

§ Mr. Michael Portillo (Enfield, Southgate)
I am worried that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is in some danger of exaggerating when he says that it may be impossible to find any hon. Members who have not taken up a position in relation to the Bill. It is true that hon. Members will be deluged with representations. That is true of many different subjects. I believe, however, that my hon. Friend comes close to insulting the intelligence of hon. Members if he believes that, having sorted through the material that is sent to them, there are not many hon. Members who could preserve their independence of judgment.
There are many hon. Members with constituency interests. We have discussed this aspect during the debate tonight. Leaving that aside, does my hon. Friend not believe, on reflection, that he is in some danger of exaggerating when he suggests that all 650 hon. Members will become so entrenched that they will not exercise independent judgment, as befits the judicial nature of this Select Committee?

§ Mr. Brown
I am not sure that I can agree with that. Those Conservative Members who have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have invariably mentioned the way in which the Channel tunnel will touch their constituencies. At first, perhaps, one might imagine that the Bill would affect only those in Kent and the south-east corner of England, but it is clear that the implications of the Bill will touch the constituencies of many hon. Members, who are bound to veer in favour of the Bill or against it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) might serve on the Committee because he represented the west midlands manufacturing, engineering and motor car industries and Metro Cammell. I submit that that is precisely the sort of thing——

Mr. Kenneth Hi (Lancashire, West)
rose——

§ Mr. Brown
May I finish making this important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South said 1246 that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield should be considered by the Committee of Selection to serve on the Select Committee on the basis that he would be able to reflect on the benefits of the infrastructure and investment that would accrue to the west midlands. Therefore, she suggested, he would be a candidate, on the ground that he would assist the west midlands during consideration of the Bill.
I should think that Labour and Conservative Members who represent Humberside and the ports of Grimsby, Immingham or Hull will have been lobbied by their county council and district councils against supporting the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), representing a steel constituency, will have been lobbied by Euroroute and the promoters of the Bill on the ground that there will be a tremendous British steel content. All hon. Members whose constituencies adjoin mine in the county of Humberside are bound to have been influenced for or against the Bill.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the only hon. Members who may be capable of serving on the Committee are those from Ulster, the Western Isles and the Orkneys and Shetlands?

§ Mr. Brown
I note my hon. Friend's point. Basically, he indicates that the Selection Committee will have to look closely at the matter before it makes its nominations and bear in mind the points I have made. I submit that a minority of hon. Members may genuinely fall into the category referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). I imagine that all hon. Members from the county that I have the privilege of representing would ask, "How would my decision as a member of the Select Committee benefit my constituency?" I regret that however much an hon. Member may try to divorce himself from that thought, it is bound to be there when a marginal decision has to be taken.

§ Mr. Hind
Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider the fact that all hon. Members are incapable of closing their eyes to their constituency interests. As hon. Members, we would have to behave, for example, as Government Ministers are expected to do and consider the national interest first and foremost, in the same way as a member of a national committee would do. Otherwise, nobody would be capable of sitting on the Committee and making a judgment that was not influenced by a lobbying group or constituency.

§ Mr. Brown
In an ideal world, it is correct that the principle of the House is that all hon. Members represent the nation. I have to concede—I am sure that most of my hon. Friends will agree—that it is very difficult for hon. Members to resist the arguments that come from their constituencies when touching such matters. Of course, in theory, we should submerge our constituency interests to the wider interests of the country. On the other hand, hon. Members represent constituencies. It is perfectly right and proper that, when we represent our constituencies in the Chamber, sometimes we are tolerated when we allow our constituency interests to subsume the national interests. In an ideal world, what my hon. Friend suggests should happen, should happen, but I cannot believe that it is likely to happen.
I must confess that if I were to serve on the Select Committee, while I would do my utmost to divorce my self 1247 from the representations that might have come to me in the past and try to block out from my mind any constituency interest, occasionally, when a marginal decision was being taken, I would be bound to do that. The way in which I might question a witness or counsel might lead me in one direction because I have at the back of my mind, subconsciously, the feeling that if I can persuade the petitioners that the promoters are right to suggest something there will be a benefit to the steel industry in Scunthorpe.

§ Mr. Cash
I support the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing and remind him that the matter is regulated by the Standing Orders of the House and is not merely one of opinion. Standing Order 120 deals with the declaration to which I referred earlier and is paraphrased on page 992 of "Erskine May" as follows:
If a member who has signed this declaration should subsequently discover that he has a direct interest in a bill, or in a company who are petitioners against a bill, he will withdraw from the committee, after stating the fact, and may, if necessary, be discharged by the House (or by the Committee of Selection) from further attendance. The extremely cogent argument that my hon. Friend is advancing is endorsed in principle and by the Standing Orders.

§ Mr. Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. "Erskine May" makes the point even better than I can. The quotation that my hon. Friend has read out shows that there will be many hon. Members whose constituencies will be touched either directly or indirectly by the impact of the Bill, and the Standing Orders require hon. Members to give an undertaking, which they have to sign, that they will not be influenced by such an interest.
To revert to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate, I must concede that there are probably some hon. Members who fall into his category. I think, however, that they will be few and in the minority. The Selection Committee will have to work very hard and very carefully to ensure that it finds the few Members who I concede to my hon. Friend may be in that category, but I would say that every hon. Member who has participated in the debate so far will have fallen foul of the Standing Order that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has quoted.

§ Mr. Portillo
My hon. Friend and I are getting closer together. He is beginning to concede that there are Members without constituency interests. I think he may have been slightly distorted in his vision by the interest that his constituents have and that of the constituents in surrounding constituencies. I put it to him that there are quite a large number of constituencies where there will be no direct interest.
It seems that my hon. Friend is moving quite a long way towards denying any possibility of adjudication. If I followed his principle very far down the road, it would become impossible for any judge to reach independent judgment, because he would have opinions of his own. Hon. Members may have certain opinions, but they will be asked to set them aside when they come to exercise a quasi-judicial function. There will be a smaller number of Members who have a direct constituency interest, and that must, of course, preclude them from sitting on the Select Committee in the first place.

§ Mr. Brown
That must preclude them because the statement from "Erkine May" that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford read out states that they will not be able to serve. I shall be unable truthfully to sign the declaration. There is no question of my being on the Select Committee, for the simple reason that I would have a constituency interest, end of story. I am but one of, I would submit, several hundred Members who will be unable to sign the declaration.

§ Mr. Cash
I shall repeat the passage in "Erskine May" on this issue, which states: If a Member who has signed this declaration should subsequently discover that he has a direct interest in a bill, or in a company who are petitioners against a bill, he will withdraw from the committee, after stating the fact, and may, if necessary, be discharged by the House (or by the Committee of Selection) from further attendance.

§ Mr. Brown
That is correct. Reverting to the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and myself, the fact is that there will be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will be unable to sign the declaration, however much they might be able to say, "There is a mild constituency interest, but I think that I am honourable enough a Member to block it out when I am serving on the Committee." The hon. Member concerned must sign the declaration, and he must state that there is no constituency interest.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
The problem is compounded by the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, represent various interest groups. Many Opposition Members are sponsored by trade unions, and many Members speak on behalf of trade interests. Some hon. Members are retained by companies. They may be unaware of the investment decisions of the group which they represent, yet these decisions may involve a financial interest in an aspect of this project.

§ Mr. Brown
I hope, that my suggestion will meet the problem raised by my hon. Friend. Many Members have interests outside the House, and that is to be commended. It is right and proper that hon. Members should bring to bear different experiences.
The Committee of Selection, in addition to eliminating hon. Members who may have a constituency interest, must consider the possibility of an hon. Member having a direct or indirect interest in the Bill because of his association with a company, advertising agency or public relations company. When the Committee of Selection has found nine or 11 hon. Members who pass the original test, it must then study the Register of Members Interests and consider the companies in which the Members may have an interest.

§ Mr. Neale
I suggest that my hon. Friend is seeking to simplify the matter too much. There is a fundamental difference between the opposed private Bill procedure and the hybrid Bill procedure.
It may be argued that every hon. Member already has displayed a latent interest in the Bill, simply because it has been debated and voted upon, not only this week, but on previous occasions. If we pursue my hon. Friend's argument to its ultimate conclusion, unless we find hon. Members who have manifestly abstained from the previous proceedings they will not be eligible for the Committee.
Under the opposed private Bill procedure someone makes a decision on the Bill, but in this case a decision 1249 is made, not on the Bill, but on the substance and form of the Bill. It is a different matter from the private Bill procedure and will enable many hon. Members to be eligible to attend the Committee.

§ Mr. Brown
I accept that there is a fundamental difference between a Committee considering a hybrid Bill and a Committee considering an opposed private Bill.
The basic function of both Committees is to adjudicate on the evidence presented by the petitioners and to subject that evidence to cross-examination by the promoters. In that sense the example that I have quoted is similar to the opposed private Bill procedure. I should have thought that it was essential that the Selection Committee applies as far as possible whatever disciplines it applies to opposed private Bills when selecting hon. Members for Committees.
I acknowledge that on my criteria it may be difficult to find nine, let alone 11, hon. Members who fit the bill, but it is imperative that the Selective Committee attempts to do the job. Petitioners who petition in good faith, and as they might do for opposed private Bills, need the same reassurance as petitioners who appear before me on the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill. It is unsatisfactory to say to them, "This is a particularly peculiar Bill and we cannot give the same assurance of the independence and integrity of hon. Members who serve on it as of those on opposed private Bill Committees because it is difficult to find nine hon. Members who meet the criteria." It is crucial that the Selection Committee makes the same attempt as it does with the selection of those who serve on opposed private Bills.

§ Mr. Cash
This point has been exercising me, because only today I attended the 60th anniversary of British Reinforced Concrete Engineering, which is one of our finest companies and provides a tremendous amount of infrastructure, welded mesh, fencing, and so on, which is likely to be used in the construction of the tunnel. Therefore, I take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who is Chairman of the Selection Committee, is present, it is appropriate to mention that I find myself entirely precluded from any possibility of sitting on this extremely interesting Committee, on the basis of the declaration under Standing Order No. 120, and because of my strong local interest in the matter pertaining to the construction of the tunnel.

§ Mr. Brown
If I were a petitioner against the Bill, I would certainly feel aggrieved if my hon. Friend were selected before me. It would be improper for my hon. Friend to sit on that Committee, and if I were a petitioner I would not expect to see him on it. Similarly, if I were a petitioner against the Bill, while I would be delighted to see the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes serving on the Committee, I suspect that the promoters would be worried. We are beginning to see the difficulties that the selection Committee will face. We know of the skill and ability with which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) and his colleagues carry out their difficult task, but this task will prove to be beyond even their skills.
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham that, without knowing it, hon. Members may have a financial pecuniary interest in the Bill and may find themselves serving on the Committee. I am not associated with any company which will contract 1250 for the tunnel. Many hon. Members are public relations' or advertising agents' consultants. An hon. Member who is connected with, say, the ABC advertising agency may believe that the firm has no connection with the Bill. Having been nominated by the Selection Committee to serve on the Select Committee, he may feel able to sign the declaration to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred.
That hon. Member, doing work on an irregular basis for that advertising agency, may not be aware of the various clients for whom the agency acts. It is common for hon. Members to be paid a retainer, of perhaps £2,000 or £5,000, by companies with many clients, and hon. Members are required on occasion to give advice. As I say, the hon. Member who does work on an occasional basis for the ABC agency may not know that the firm acts for, say, the Euro Tunnel Group. He may in good faith have signed the declaration and taken his seat on the Select Committee.
It will be essential, therefore, for the Selection Committee to be armed with the constituency details of the Members under consideration and the Register of Members' Interests to ensure that a conflict of interest does not arise. All concerned, petitioners and promotors, have every right to feel that the quasi-judicial role which the hybrid Bill and opposed Bill system involves will be maintained in the Select Committee's deliberations on what will be a unique measure.
I note that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is not in his place. Hon. Members will recall that at the outset he said that he would reply to the debate after listening to all the contributions.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)
The Minister of State was in his place at the beginning of my hon. Friend's speech. The Minister has been in attendance for virtually the whole of this and the previous debate, and we should pay tribute to him for the care with which he has listened to the comments of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Brown
I do not complain about my hon. Friend's absence. He said, however, that he would listen to all the speeches and then reply and give advice. Perhaps we should adjourn momentarily to enable him to return.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) must either get on with his speech or resume his seat and let someone else speak.

§ Mr. Lawrence
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is being most unkind to the Minister, who has been here steadily throughout the evening, as some of us know. The Minister was a little unkind in not giving us a speech at the beginning of this measure explaining why it is necessary to submit it to a special Select Committee.

§ Mr. Brown
Let me assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is absolutely right and necessary, given the length of time that they have to be here, that Ministers should attend to their other duties and perhaps have a cup of coffee. There is nothing wrong in that at all. I hope that I have the assurance of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that he will take note of what I say, especially about constituency and financial interests. Will he give me his assurance that 1251 he will pass on my comments to the Minister before he winds up the debate? The Minister may want to make some comments.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Not only can I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks, but I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would have been able to give him the same assurance, because I suspect that my hon. Friend gave a summary of what he proposed to say in his speech, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be here in his place and listening. I suspect that the Minister of State will be here before my hon. Friend has finished his speech.

§ Mr. Brown
That satisfies me completely.
I shall now turn to the matter of the size of the Select Committee. The Secretary of State recommends in the motion that there should be nine members on the Committee. I do not know the significance of that number, but no doubt we shall hear about that when the Minister offers his advice. It is always right for Back Benchers to recognise that in any motion laid before the House in which any Government recommend a number of hon. Members for a Committee, it is probably fewer than is necessary and it is always right to add two and bid up the recommendation,

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
My hon. Friend has been here throughout the debate and is conscious of the large number of petitioners that may present themselves to a Select Committee. In that context, my hon. Friend will bear in mind what our hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said? My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has considerable experience of the private Bill procedure. Can he tell us whether a private Bill Committee is able to form Sub-Committees and delegate to those Sub-Committees the right to listen to petitions? It may have occurred to hon. Members that the Select Committee will not be able to hear the petitions of all petitioners.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I ought to draw to the attention of the House the fact that we are discussing not a reference to a private Bill Committee, but a proposal to refer a hybrid Bill to a Select Committee.

§ Mr. Hogg
I understand that Mr. Deputy Speaker, but by analogy it seems that what a private Bill Committee can do is probably open to the Select Committee to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is making a speech and I am seeking guidance from him. Unfortunately, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, was not able to elucidate this point and I am not sure that he will be able to elucidate it when he returns to the House. That is why I am raising the matter with my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is required to address the House on matters that are relevant. The point raised by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in his intervention is irrelevant. Mr. Michael Brown.

§ Mr. Hogg
Further to that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, with respect, no.

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not challenge my ruling.

§ Mr. Hogg
I am terribly sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is arguing that the Committee should consist of 11 members rather than nine. One of the arguments that may be relevant to this issue is the ability of a Select Committee to form Sub-Committees in order to multiply the opportunities for the presentation of petitions. In that context, the more members the better, because one can form more Sub-Committees. Therefore, we need to know whether Sub-Committees can be formed. That was the reason for my seeking information, and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having put my argument so clumsily.

§ Mr. Brown
I think, that I can help both my hon. Friend and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have got the drift of my hon. Friend's point.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not need the hon. Gentleman's help. I can manage very well on my own.

§ Mr. Brown
The assistance that I was offering to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was to say that I could respond to my hon. Friend without being out of order by addressing myself to the main point of this debate, which is on the first paragraph of the motion that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. What I now have to say will help you in this sense, that it will be completely in order, because I shall now relate my remarks on this matter to amendment (a), to which I am a signatory.
I began my remarks on this part of my speech by saying that I feel that whenever a Government of any political persuasion choose a number, they will inevitably try to get away with the lowest possible number. It is also inevitable that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he may be, will take the view that whatever number the Government have thought of should be bidded up by one or two. And, sure enough, an amendment — a very good amendment, to which I am a signatory—has been tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is signed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow spokesman for Employment and in particular by the shadow spokesmen for Transport.
I said earlier this evening when I intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), because it was suggested that I had signed this amendment for reasons other than support for the amendment, that I do not sign amendments or motions unless I agree with them. That is the only basis upon which I sign. Sometimes that means that I sign motions or amendments that have been tabled by hon. Members who do not belong to my political party. I look first at the amendment and then, and only then, at those who tabled it.
I thought that this was a very sensible amendment. I am anxious to guard against any Government trying to get away with too much governmental authority over petitioners and Back Benchers. It is the duty of the Opposition to represent Back Benchers. They are the legitimate avenue through which Back-Benchers' opinions, the opinions of potentially aggrieved parties, can be reflected. So quite rightly the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party tabled a series of excellent amendments.
1253 You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have signed only a certain number of amendments, not all of them. That clearly indicates that there are some amendments which I support and that there are others which I do not support. I strongly support amendment (a). Having regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) about the number of petitioners that inevitably there will be—he referred to hundreds of petitioners — tremendous stamina will obviously be needed by the nine hon. Members.
I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition could fairly be asked why he hit on the figure of 11.

§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)
Before he tabled the amendment my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition consulted us to discover what we thought would be the hon. Gentleman's view of the amendment and whether he could be enticed into signing it.

§ Mr. Brown
The hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition must have remembered the occasion two weeks ago when they laid a prayer to annul an order in which I had an interest. The seventh name on that prayer was mine, so they must have been encouraged by the fact that they can sometimes find support from me. I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's news. I only wish that we had heard that information at the beginning of the debate from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the time, but the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North intimated that he would not move amendment (a), which distressed me tremendously. The Amendment has been taken seriously by the Opposition. All the amendments tabled by the Opposition are perfectly proper, genuine amendments designed to improve the position and authority of the petitioners. The Opposition, in tabling amendment (a), were doing a signal service to the House and to the petitioners.

§ Mr. Derek Spencer (Leicester, South)
As the House of Lords sits in its judicial capacity with only five judges, does my hon. Friend believe that we should beware of having an overlarge Committee?

§ Mr. Brown
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Only four hon. Members consider private Bills, and my hon. and learned Friend has said that only five judges sit in the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton spoke, but he said that we were in completely uncharted waters, and at least to that extent we must congratulate the Government on recognising that we are in an unusual position. More hon. Members will be necessary, bearing in mind the work load that they will have to undertake. There are many petitioners to the small opposed Bill that I am considering in committee, and it requires all the effort of four hon. Members to consider such a procedure. That is why the Government have chosen a minimum of nine.

§ Mr. Portillo
This section of my hon. Friend's speech worries me. Although he said that he signed the amendment for perfectly genuine reasons — I do not doubt that — earlier he waxed lyrical about the grave difficulty, or almost impossibility as he saw it, of finding a group of hon. Members who would be impartial and qualified to sit on the Select Committee. The logic of his 1254 position, if he believes that it is so difficult to find hon. Members who can sign the declaration and who have no interest in the matter, should be to go for a smaller number than is proposed by the Government, instead of which he urges us to accept a larger one. That leads to the suspicion that he may be backing this amendment as a wrecking amendment. He may wish to have nothing to do with the whole show. If that is the case, it is a legitimate position for him to adopt, but it would be helpful if he would explain whether that is what he has in mind.

§ Mr. Brown
This is not a wrecking amendment, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would be the first to agree. understand my hon. Friend's point. It is much easier for five hon. Members to reach a consensus than it is for nine or even 11 Members. I support the amendment, although I understand why the Government hit on nine as opposed to the five members mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). This is no wrecking amendment. I would like to think that my hon. Friends, who might need some persuasion when they see the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to the amendment, on seeing my name might read it, realise the value of it and be persuaded by the argument that we are adducing in its favour.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
In his consideration of the increase in numbers, did my hon. Friend bear in mind the huge number of petitioners, the length of time that the Committee would take and the fact that there is a quorum for the Committee? Given that there is a quorum, it is more likely to be met on a regular basis with a larger number of people upon whom to call.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
That was obviously one of the problems in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in tabling the motion. The volume of work will be such that there will not always be nine or 11 Members present all the time. That is why it will be necessary to have a larger number, bearing in mind that the Members will have to go to France and all round the country and hold sessions long into the future because of the volume of petitions. These incredible beings at the end of the day are only human, and they will not always be able to attend. Therefore, it was decided to have a higher figure to take account of the fact that some will be absent.
I observe that the Government imagine that anything up to six may be away at any one time. That may well meet my hon. Friend's point.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary correctly indicated, the Minister of State is in his place, refreshed, and will have got the gist of the brief argument that I have been adducing. On that note, therefore, I will say no more, and look forward to his reply.

§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)
I believe that the number of members on the Select Committee will need to be kept as small as is reasonable because the length of time for which the Committee will have to sit will be inordinately long. It would be quite improper to remove too many Members from the other business of the House. Therefore, I would be opposed to having too large a number on the Committee.
1255 As I understand it, there is no obligation on the Select Committee to put a term on its deliberations. It is entitled to continue as long as it feels it is necessary to do so to satisfy the petitioners who appear before it.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
My hon. Friend may not have heard quite clearly my intervention just now. The larger the number available, if a quorum of about three is accepted, the greater the opportunities for people to be absent.

§ Mr. Rowe
I think that there is considerable merit in allowing the members of the Committee to build up a coherence of understanding with the petitioners. That becomes difficult if large numbers of them are regularly absent. The more one persuades the Committee to meet as a smallish, coherent group, the better the deal the petitioner will receive.
The variety of petitions will be considerable. A large number of people of Kent rightly feel that it is too easily assumed that the creation of the tunnel will bring prosperity automatically to Kent. Earlier the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said that there was a real possibility that Kent would be an overall loser rather than an overall gainer from the tunnel. We in Kent are as likely to suffer increased unemployment as increased employment. A body of petitioners will wish to make known its views about the various amendments to the Bill that might ameliorate that danger.
For far too long Kent has been the entry door to the United Kingdom for people and firms that have not waited even for a minute to see what the county itself could offer them. Instead, they have hurried on to inferior parts of the country that appear at first sight to offer a commercial advantage when they would have done much better by themselves and the people of Kent if they had stayed in our county.
The number of petitions may be reduced in the Joint Consultative Committee, of which the Minister of State is chairman, promises to continue its work right up to the opening of the tunnel so that the total impact of the new development on the county can be evaluated.
The Select Committee will have an important task to perform in sorting out the difference between petitions that are genuinely based on the tunnel and others. We have heard more than once in the debate the wholly misleading claim, for example, that the building of the missing link of the M20 is somehow tunnel-related. The missing link was the subject of my first parliamentary question as a Member of Parliament. I asked that it be reinstated in the road-building programme. That had nothing to do with the tunnel but with the fact that my consitutents had been clamouring for it for many years. They welcomed enormously the solemn pledge that it will be finished by, I think, 1989. That is reassuring. The fact that its cost is being bandied about by people who disapprove of the tunnel is irrelevant. The Select Committee will have to take careful note of the distinctions between such erroneous claims and others.
Another example is the tremendous need for a third crossing of the River Medway. It would be stretching credibility too far to say that we need it because of the tunnel proposal. We need it for other reasons, and I hope very much that we get it. That is the sort of thing that the Select Committee will have to evaluate.
1256 The county as a whole also needs a great deal of extra road infrastructure so that it can stand a chance of competing with other parts of the United Kingdom that will benefit from the rapid transit of freight through the tunnel to London and further north. If we are to cope with the increased number of vehicles that will come into Kent, we shall require a better road system. Again, I do not think that all of that will be strictly tunnel-related. The Select Committee will need to consider that as well.
The Select Committee will need to be very flexible in its handling of petitions and petitioners. I made that point in the debate two days ago. While a Joint Consultative Committee quite rightly responds to public concern by altering certain aspects of a Bill, it is extremely difficult for petitioners to draft their petitions in detail in a form that meets their anxieties. It should be possible for them to put in a petition and to have it heard in slightly different form if that is the appropriate form at the time when the petition is heard.
I am serving on a private Bill Committee at the moment. I know that it is not a strict parallel—we have been told that by the Chair tonight—but there is no doubt that our petitioners have been ill-advised in some respects to pitch their objections in too precise and narrow a form. It has meant that some of the anxieties that they reasonably want to express cannot be expressed because they are not strictly covered in their petition. It would be quite inappropriate for a Select Committee, dealing with a matter of such tremendous concern, to narrow its interpretation of what is properly dealt with in a petitioner's petition to something that it too strictly defined.
Another group of petitioners that will come before the Select Committee comes from the agriculture industry. There is a clear sign that the compulsory purchase procedures associated with the Bill are likely to be oppressive to a number of farmers in Kent. Compulsory purchase procedures have been designed for the benefit of a private consortium. The rules suggest that the price offered has to be the open market value that would apply if the Channel tunnel were not being built and if the land were being sold in the normal way. The land will not be sold in the normal way. It is to be sold because of the tunnel. A number of petitioners will put in their petitions in the hope of obtaining a rather more equitable solution to the problem. Perhaps I should remind the House that the author of "Alice in Wonderland" was for 20 years a second permanent secretary at the Treasury. We can understand a great deal about Treasury procedure if we bear that piece of information in mind.
My point about the need for the Select Committee to be as flexible as possible in its handling of petitioners is exemplified by the danger that good agricultural land will be lost not simply because of the compulsory purchase of land needed for particular parts of the construction, but because the amount of trespass and interference with farming that appears these days to be the inevitable concomitant of residential or warehousing development will affect farms that will not be affected directly through compulsory purchase. Again, the Select Committee will need to take a sympathetic view of petitioners who wish to bring those matters to its attention.
Similarly—this is a further example of the elasticity of mind required of those who serve on the Committee — there will be a considerable body of petitioners concerned with such matters as plant health. The creation 1257 of the tunnel will, I suspect, almost certainly mean a considerable increase in the volume of agricultural produce entering this country. If the inspection procedures at the tunnel entrance are not satisfactory to ensure that that produce is not diseased, we may find that our record of good plant hygiene is threatened.
Another factor which concerns many of my constituents, and, I am sure, the constituents of many hon. Members is the danger of rabies. A group of petitions to be presented to the Select Committee will deal with the real anxiety that people feel about the possibility that the tunnel will make it easier for rabies to spread to this country.
I believe that it would be a mistake to enlarge the Committee too much, partly because it would then be difficult to secure a coherent view of the various petitions as they came in and partly because the Committee would have to sit for some time to give a fair hearing to petitioners, especially, dare I say, petitioners from Kent, who feel strongly that on this matter it is absolutely essential that their petitions receive a full and proper hearing.

§ Sir John Farr
I have been listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. He mentioned rabies, which is a very important issue. As he said, that danger has existed at the Channel ports for a number of years. How will the Select Committee comprise of people who can correctly interpret the skilled information which will be provided by witnesses during the Committee proceedings? It will require a certain amount of study on the part of several hon. Members on both sides of the House to be able to absorb the facts properly and to put two and two together to reach the right answer about the rabies threat. Does my hon. Friend agree that the task of selecting the Committee members should be performed by the wizard of Oz? It will be very difficult to find the right people.

§ Mr. Rowe
I can think of no hon. Member more like the wizard of Oz than the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. To that extent, I have some hope that that job will be performed satisfactorily. I am bound to say that lack of expertise has seldom been a reason for hon. Members failing to perform a duty. I hope that the Select Committee will call witnesses who will be able to inform the Committee precisely about the dangers and, perhaps more importantly, the nature of the precautions to obviate those dangers about which the House will need to know before it gives the Bill its Third Reading.
These matters are of fundamental importance. The possibility of rabies entering this country has existed ever since ships began to carry rats. However, that danger is more real with the creation of a fixed link. Therefore, it is essential that the Select Committee should call the right witnesses and report to the House on the best way to ensure that scourge stays away from our shores. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for raising that matter.
I conclude by re-emphasising the fact that the Select Committee should be free to spend as long as necessary to hear all the petitioners. It is important to the people of Kent that their petitions be heard in extenso, so that they are not only given the opportunity to air their anxieties and to suggest improvements to the Bill—and I believe that there is great scope for improving the Bill— but that they are seen to have been heard. There has been 1258 considerable anxiety about the amount of time given to lodge petitions being too short. Let us at least ensure that when petitions are lodged they are treated flexibly and heard in extenso.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has put clearly the situation as he sees it affecting his constituency. I find myself in a rather dangerous and delicate position. As hon. Members are aware, I represent a Scottish constituency. I have been struggling all evening to try to find reasons why I should support or oppose the Bill. I can honestly say that I have had a fairly detached view of it. The Channel tunnel seemed a long way from my constituency and from my constituents' interests.
From what I have heard this evening, I am in a dangerous position because I am beginning to think that there are so few like me in the House that we may well find ourselves on the Committee. That I look forward to with horror. So I must find some way between now and then of advising the Chairman of the Committee of Selection that some of my business interests will, I hope, mean that I can debar myself from selection.
Anyone who has listened to the many speeches that have been made this evening will realise that this Select Committee will be unique. As was said earlier, it will be moving into uncharted waters. There is no doubt that the people who will be affected by the Channel tunnel, the petitioners, will expect the House and the Committee, however it is composed, to give serious deliberation to their comments, remarks and views so that, whatever the outcome, they may feel that they have been dealt with honourably, fairly and justly. That is important.
It is all very well for hon. Members to jump on a particular bandwagon and make speeches about the advantages, imagined or real, that will affect them. The members of the Committee will have to be of a calibre and a type who are not debarred and there will be great difficulty in finding them. They will be called upon to act in this semi-judicial capacity in order to pass judgment on matters that are vital to the beautiful county of Kent.
I may at last have found an interest; thank goodness. My wife's family came from Kent. I hope that that debars me. I say that because when my wife's parents were alive I can remember spending many happy holidays in the beautiful county of Kent. My wife's first reaction to the Channel tunnel was to say, "Oh dear, what will they do to Kent?" It would be sad if, whatever happens as a result of the Committee being set up, the Committee did not take into consideration people's real and genuine fears.
If we are to believe, as I do, the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), there will be not 100 or 200 petitioners, but thousands. That being so, the Committee will be sitting for a long time. The task that it will perform in this hybrid Bill will be one in which from day to day they will be unsure of exactly what they are doing. It is not difficult when going over ground already covered by other Committees, but if one is entering into an area of this magnitude, which will be new to everyone involved, there is no question but that we shall require a Committee which produces the right balance from within the House as well as people who are not disqualified. How can we achieve a balance that will 1259 produce a good Committee? Would we get it from a Committee of nine or from a Committee of 11, as amendment (a) suggests?
I have intervened once or twice during the debate. They were not frivolous interventions, although at times they might appear to anybody who was not interested in the proceedings to be something other than intentional attempts to get information and probe deeper. I have always believed that the more people who look at a problem, the more likely it is to get a balanced view. That is why we have juries of 12 in courts of law. Of course, when we have been required to set up courts, such as in Ulster, where problems have arisen and we have not had a jury of 12 there has been criticism that one cannot really expect to get a fair hearing. The petitioners must feel that they have had a fair hearing and must leave the Committee believing that they have been given a judgment that is honest and true.
I believe that, once the number of Members exceeds a certain point, we can have problems. Equally, when there is too small a number we have problems. The Government will argue that, in their judgment, nine is the right balance, especially when one considers their view that the quorum of the Committee should be three. I think that nine is not a good number. I believe that it would be better to have 12 and the nearest we have to that is 11.
You may well ask me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I did not table an amendment if I am interested in this matter. I hope that I have already answered that. I have been so far away and so detached from the problem that until tonight I had hardly given it a thought.
Therefore, I believe that 11 is a better number than nine. I believe that it would be better for the petitioners because they would have a greater opportunity of getting a fair hearing. It could be argued that with 11 rather than nine it would be more difficult to reach agreement. However, are we concerned with agreement or justice? I should have thought than in a semi-judicial situation we were primarily concerned with justice because of the wide range of matters about which the Committee will be required to hear from the petitioners.
One of those matters, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, is the value of land. There is no doubt that the value of land will go bananas, and it will be adversely affected in some cases. It will depend whether one wants to put up a construction which will benefit from the Channel tunnel or whether the land suffers from planning blight. Either of those cases is at the extreme end of the situation. No doubt, one will be delighted to sell land to those who will pay well over the odds for it, but equally there will be those who suffer from planning blight who will see the value of their property being adversely affected.
We are talking about the rights of individuals and groups. It is the duty of the House to protect their rights. That is absolutely essential. We can do that only if we produce a Committee that will be seen by the petitioners to be fair, just and honest.
Of course, many other matters will be looked at by the Committee such as trade, agriculture and health because the petitioners, in their different ways, will want to see whether they will be affected adversely or otherwise.

§ Sir John Farr
My hon. Friend is touching on an interesting point. In amendment (b) the Opposition, supported by others, have tabled an interesting suggestion which would take the membership of the Committee out of the hands of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. A number of amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition have been selected by the Chair. Is it not a matter of great concern to the House that the Opposition are not moving the amendments? In my time in the House of Commons, whenever I have supported even one amendment, perhaps to the Finance Bill, I have been there with my Friends to move it. Here, vital amendments have been selected by the Chair, but, showing great discourtesy to the House, the Opposition are not present to move them. That is most culpable.

§ Mr. Walker
I am concerned that the amendments that have been selected have not been moved by those who tabled them. It does nothing for the standing of the House in the eyes of the public. There is no question but that politicians suffer substantially from the adverse publicity that frequently descends upon us because some politicians behave in a manner that the media judge not to be in accordance with the high standards that we preach.

§ Mr. Cash
Would my hon. Friend care to note the names of the right hon. Members who have put their names to the amendments? They include the Leader of the Opposition, the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Leader of the House, and a number of other persons who hold senior positions. Is this not an abuse of the procedure of the House?

§ Mr. Walker
I cannot say that I am happy about the situation, but, in the phrase frequently used in the House, one can say that they do not care. Quite why they would go to the trouble of tabling amendments and then judging that it would not be wise to be here to move them, let alone speak to them, is a question for them to answer outside the Chamber. The cynicism with which the public views politicians will not be helped by the fact that such situations arise.
The Opposition say that they care about jobs and the effect that unemployment has on their position in the polls, to which they appear to give credence. The public will look at the Committee and see the way in which it is constructed, and will realise that one amendment suggested an increase in the number of Committee members from nine to 11, and one dealt with how the members of the Committee would be nominated. When they find that the amendments have not been moved, they will realise that the Opposition did not table them for any reason to do with the way that business is conducted, or the way that the Committee will deal with the matter.

§ Mr. Stott
This motion has been debated for four hours.

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman is twittering on about four hours, but he will know that I have not been on my feet for more than 10 minutes, which is a small contribution. I do not apologise for treading on corns if I am. I am a Scot, who is far away from Kent, and I am not all that concerned about whether we build a Channel tunnel. I am here because of my concern that the people of Kent and elsewhere who will be affected substantially by the proposals are satisfied that at least the House took seriously how the members of the Committee were to be 1261 chosen and appointed and how it was to function. The latter would also depend on the numbers. I am deeply concerned that Opposition Members are not here to speak to amendment (b), which is concerned with how the Committee members are to be chosen.

§ Sir John Farr
With respect to my hon. Friend, he is missing the point that I was making. It is not the fact of having tabled an amendment and not being here to move it. That is a discourtesy. but it happens every day. Two days ago at Question Time three hon. Members were not present when their questions were called.
It is a grave discourtesy, not simply to table the amendments and not be here, but to have them selected and not be here. The selection of an amendment by the Chair is a rare red letter day for a Back Bencher, but to have a handful selected by the Chair and not care sufficiently to be here to move them is a grave discourtesy to the House.

§ Mr. Stott
I have been here for four and a half hours. I have been here all the time.

§ Mr. Walker
My hon. Friend has spelt out clearly what he and the rest of us feel about what we judge to be discourtesy to the Chair. Opposition Members have not been here, although their amendments were selected. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will gather from the sedentary interventions from Opposition Members that we have trodden on a corn. Indeed, we have brought them back to life. Correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker: we have brought one back to life. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not as alive as one would wish, but that is not surprising because he is with the Liberal party. They are never quite sure where they stand in any given situation. For most of the time they sleep when it matters. They agree with one thing and they agree with the other. Sleeping seems to be a satisfactory way of arriving at this middle-of-the-road situation. Of course, there is a danger, because those who sleep in the middle of the road may get run over.

§ Mr. Eric Forth
Perhaps my hon. Friend would agree that a sleeping position is perfectly safe and probably would not upset anyone.

§ Mr. Walker
I am sure that that is so. I expect that the attempt is made regularly by those who wish to leave everyone happy by not giving offence to anyone. It is a difficult position to achieve, and sometimes it leaves them in what might he described as a sad situation.

§ Mr. Greg Knight (Derby, North)
For the past 10 minutes my hon Friend has given the House some reasons to consider in wondering whether we want to support the motion. Hon. Members have informed the House of the difficulties that the Select Committee will have.
I am seriously concerned about whether we should go ahead with this procedure, but I should like to know the consequences of my vote because I would not like to see the Bill lost. Could my hon. Friend tell the House what would happen if the House declined to support the motion and did not agree to set up a Select Committee? I should not like the Bill to be lost, but I am concerned about the disadvantages emphasised by many hon. Members who have spoken.

§ Mr. Walker
I would not attempt to answer that question because you would probably rule me out of, order Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Should by chance the vote go 1262 against the Government on the motion it would leave them in a less comfortable position than our Liberal friend across the Chamber.

§ Mr. Cash
Will my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) reflect on the fact that he is imitating Charles James Fox? A similar event occurred in 1780 or thereabouts. Charles James Fox said to Lord North, who was apparently asleep on the Bench, that he was making an important speech and the old Prime Minister was not listening. The old Prime Minister, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), woke up and said, "I wish to God I weren't."

§ Mr. Walker
My hon. Friend writes books of funny stories, and Members who have read them will know that one of the titles is something like "Hit me there again." I have the feeling that If I keep on talking someone will say "Hit me there again."
Amendment (b) is important. I would prefer—this may surprise some of my colleagues — to leave the nomination of members to the Committee of Selection. I think that, on the whole, the Committee conducts itself in a manner with which we can be satisfied. Choosing Committee members is difficult. On balance, the Committee has chosen right more than it has chosen wrong. On two occasions which I can think of the Government have been embarrassed when Committee members have been chosen. On those occasions the Government probably felt that the Selection Committee had not served them well. We must ask whether the Committee serves the House well. That is what matters. Administrations come and go, but the House remains. The procedures and conventions of the House are more important than the transient nature of any Administration, of whatever party.
I believe that the House would be well advised not to accept amendment (b). I should like to see amendment (a) accepted and amendment (b) rejected. I believe that the Selection Committee will be able to find nine members, or preferably 11, and I am confident that it will find members who cannot be debarred. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would be an excellent choice as Chairman of the Committee. I am not being frivolous in saying that.
Many right hon. Members who have recent experience in government would also benefit from the trials and tribulations of the Committee. I would like to think that, if we were to enter uncharted waters, those at the helm were experienced in matters off the House, and that they would be pathfinders in a way that would make Back Benchers happy and comfortable. I do not put that forward in a frivolous way, although I find some humour in the thought of what it may do to those individuals who suddenly find themselves undertaking such a task. It is an important job. We must put forward people of substance and standing who are recognised and accepted both inside and outside Parliament as individuals who have shown., by their actions in political life, that they have independent minds and are prepared to take action that sometimes makes them unpopular with their colleagues.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who opened the debate, has posed 1263 me a problem. One of the themes of his speech was that the views of the Front Bench on matters appertaining to the Committee and its membership should be ignored. Therefore, it was slightly difficult for me to consider my response to the debate. My hon. Friend suggested that many individuals' rights would be touched on, and he questioned whether all those whose rights would be affected would be able to petition. That important fact must be considered.
The House is not familiar with the procedures involved with a hybrid Bill, as hybrid Bills do not come forward often. Certainly, a hybrid Bill involving a project on such a scale as this has not previously come forward. In many ways, we are dealing with a unique occurrence. Therefore, there has been controversy about whether it would have been better to have a local planning inquiry instead of a hybrid Bill. I do not propose to take up that issue at this stage. What is important is that people in Kent whose rights as private individuals are to be affected should have the procedures of the House in respect of a hybrid Bill properly explained to them.
My Department, at my instigation, has produced a pamphlet entitled "The Channel Tunnel: How to make your voice heard". About 20,000 copies have been printed, circulated and made available throughout Kent, especially in council offices, public libraries and other public buildings of that sort. It has provided an opportunity for ordinary folk to acquire an understanding of the way in which the hybrid Bill procedure works and how, if they wish to petition, they should go about it.
The pamphlet has an introduction which provides an explanation of Parliament and the Bill. It then describes who will sit on the Select Committee, who can petition, what the individual can petition about, what is a petition, when the petition has to be in by, how a petition is delivered, how the Select Committee meets, what happens in the Select Committee and how much it costs to petition. There is then a step-by-step guide for those who want to petition and a further guide to the processes of the House and of the other place through which a hybrid Bill has to go. Finally, it has on the back a specimen draft of John Smith coming forward with the terms that he might set out in his petition.
It is not for me to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs, but it may be that there are some hon. Members who are not especially familiar with these procedures and who may even find the pamphlet, which has been produced as a layman's guide for the people of Kent, quite helpful. In assembling the information for it, I found that there was an enormous amount that I did not know. I commend the pamphlet to hon. Members——

§ Mr. Cash
rose——

§ Mr. Mitchell
I give way to my hon. Friend, with whom in the past I have been involved in the preparation of a private Member's Bill, which means that we have battled together.

§ Mr. Cash
Everything that my hon. Friend has said, and everything that I have heard about the Government's conduct in this matter—I speak as someone who was a parliamentary agent for a long time — is quite remarkable and a great tribute to the fairness with which the Government have sought to deal with petitioners. Were 1264 it not for the late hour at which we are sitting, that is something that could be explained in more detail. It is a remarkable tribute to the Government that they have taken the steps that my hon. Friend has outlined, and he deserves personal congratulation for it.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous words. It is not that we are seeking to stoke up the opposition, despite the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that that might be so. We are trying to ensure that people in Kent are not disadvantaged by not knowing what their rights and opportunities are. It is a genuine attempt to seek to help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) expressed concern about British Rail's line capacity in his area and the position of commuters. This led him to make a plea that someone who understands commuters' problems should serve on the Select Committee. Those who will make the selection will no doubt read and note his suggestion. British Rail's capacity is not constrained in the way in which he seemed to fear, however. The position is that the boat trains which now operate, especially from Victoria, will cease to run as soon as the Channel tunnel is open. This will mean extra capacity on the lines through the south-eastern network, without the problems which would prevent the operation of commuter services for my hon. Friend's constituents or for others going further down into Kent.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is busy conversing on the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether he wishes me to give way so that we can all hear his comments. I know that he is a profound supporter of British Rail, and I do not wish to prevent him from intervening. The hon. Gentleman was not talking loudly enough for me to hear, and I am not sure whether he intended that I should.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks raised the question of the effect on jobs in Kent. He questioned whether an hon. Member representing Kent could serve on the Committee. It is not for me to form a judgment on that. It would not be right, in any way, for any Member whose constituency is in that part of Kent that will be effected by the Bill to be involved in the Committee. That would be inappropriate.
In the next seven years we will face not job losses but job shortages. There will be a shortage of people for the available jobs in this part of Kent. The House has not addressed itself to that matter and it is profoundly different from those discussed by most hon. Members. They have discussed the effect, seven years from now, on jobs in Dover.
I am the chairman of the joint consultative committee in Kent, and we have started to consider the problem—the availability of labour. We have asked the promoters to let us have some idea of the various skills that will be required and the numbers of people with those required skills. Thus, we will obtain a pattern of the labour required. We have asked the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission to give us some idea of the number of people available in Kent who have the necessary skills to match the requirements of the developers.

§ Mr. Gale
A few moments ago my hon. Friend appeared to announce something that will be news to some of us. He said that the moment the tunnel opens, the boat 1265 train from Victoria will be cancelled. If that is correct, it is another demonstration of the job losses that will occur at the Channel ports. It confirms the grave fears of some of us from east Kent about the effect on the Channel ports.

§ Mr. Mitchell
It is one of the factors that have always been recognised and taken into account in British Rail's expectations. There is no point in running a train to meet a boat if it takes two hours longer to do that than it would to travel through the tunnel. My hon. Friend cannot be serious if he assumes that one can run empty trains down to the boats and full trains through the tunnel. No one will wish to go by train and take 2½ hours longer to complete the journey.

§ Mr. Gale
My hon. Friend is implying, not that nobody will want to travel by train and then by boat, but that nobody other than those in cars will want to go by boat. That is what most of us from east Kent have argued.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am not in any way suggesting that British Rail will cut Dover or Folkestone from the railway network. There will not be sufficient traffic to warrant, as at present, sending trains direct to particular scheduled boat services. That is understandable, and has been understood throughout our discussions. If it comes as a surprise to my hon. Friend, I am prepared to consider that shock to his system.

§ Mr. Gale
It is no surprise, but it is confirmation of what we have been saying, which is that the Minister now recognises the devastating effect that the tunnel will have on the Channel ferries. That is on record as of now.

§ Mr. Mitchell
If my hon. Friend considers the matter carefully when he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that what I said is not particularly surprising.

§ Mr. Forth
Will my hon. Friend clarify a reference that he made to the time difference between a boat and the proposed tunnel crossing? Will he confirm that the record for a ferry crossing is about 57 minutes and that the new generation of ferries being developed will provide a faster, more efficient service? What is the real time difference in transit between a ferry and the proposed rail link? My hon. Friend may inadvertently have given the House the wrong impression.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am not an expert on the precise timing of the ferry services. I understand that hovercraft take about three quarters of an hour, and that going by ship is considerably longer. Only the speed of hovercraft is remotely similar to that of travel through the proposed tunnel.

§ Mr. Rowe
My hon. Friend pointed out that the joint consultative committee has begun to consider the employment needs for the next seven years. He will be aware that Kent county council feels strongly that the joint consultative committee should remain in being until the tunnel opens because of the need to take account of planning. Does my hon. Friend intend to keep the committee in being in its present form, or in some modified form, until the tunnel opens?

§ Mr. Mitchell
It is for the members of the committee who are elected representatives of that part of Kent to conclude whether the committee's work needs to continue. I do not envisage continuing for as long as "The Mousetrap" has remained a regular show in the West End, but during the formative period I expect that we shall 1266 continue to have regular meetings, and then less frequent meetings to review progress and to ensure that the project is proceeding along the lines anticipated.
It may help the House if I indicate the range of subjects which the joint consultative committee is discussing at its meetings. The agenda of the last meeting covered matters arising from the previous meeting, the impact study that is being undertaken, the construction——

§ Mr. Aitken
I am thrilled to hear the Minister disclose details from the Dispatch Box about the committee's work. The committee, which the Minister cracks up to be a great event in terms of public information and consultation, is seen by the people of Kent as a secret committee from which the public and press are banned and to which Members of Parliament are not allowed to go. I accept that there is a circulation list for the minutes, but that is not equivalent to the free and open consultation and public communication that would reassure the people of Kent. I hope that the Minister will change the committee's ground rules.

§ Mr. Mitchell
It is for the members of the committee to decide whether to conduct their proceedings in the full glare of publicity or to act as a businesslike group, taking decisions and then fully explaining in the minutes that are circulated those decisions and why they have been reached. My hon. Friend implies that there is great secrecy about this committee. Once the minutes are sent to his council, it is not long before they reach him and other parties in the area, including the newspapers.

§ Sir John Farr
The Minister said that it was for the committee to decide how to proceed and whether to make its activities public. Would that include deciding, say, to allow the meetings to be open to the public, with the media, including radio and TV present, so that the public are kept fully informed of what is happening in what will prove to be an important PR exercise?

§ Mr. Mitchell
The purpose of this committee is not a PR exercise. It is to identify and seek solutions to problems in Kent. The Committee's next meeting, on 16 June, will be in public and will receive presentations from a series of groups in Kent whose members feel affected by the project, and we shall take account of the effect of having the press present at that meeting. I have no doubt that if the committee feels that it wants to change its way of working, it will do so.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
rose——

Hon. Members
The hon. Gentleman has woken up.

§ Mr. Hughes
I have not been asleep. I have been keeping a watching brief. Will the committee complete its work in time to be of use to the petitioners? When dealing with the previous Channel Tunnel Bill, the Kent impact study was completed several months before the matter went to the Select Committee. Will the committee produce the results of its economic and social studies—by, say, the production of an interim report—this month or by the beginning of July so that the benefits of its work, so far in secret, are made available to petitioners, rather than being produced several months after the closing date for petitioners to make their concerns known to the Select Committee?

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was asleep when I explained that the proceedings of the 1267 committee were not secret and that its minutes were sent to local authorities and the press. Indeed, I sought to spare the hon. Gentleman any embarrassment when he was snoring. I did not want to give way to him on the assumption that he wished to intervene. The hon. Gentleman asked when the committee would complete its work — [Interruption.] It is difficult to address the House when two Opposition Members are carrying on a conversation. If they want me to give way, I shall happily do so. If they do not, perhaps they will allow me to complete what I have to say.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked whether the committee would complete its work by the summer. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked whether the committee would continue to 1993. I told my hon. Friend that it was not the intention that the committee should complete its work hurriedly, that the work would go on, with the intensity of meetings determined by what the members of the committee felt was suitable as matters proceeded. Obviously, at the present formative stage, a great deal of work is being done and a great many studies are under way. Later on there will be more monitoring of the effect of the arrangements that have been agreed by the committee.
The impact study is being conducted in two parts. In the first part, we anticipate that a report will be before the committee at its next meeting. I hope that it will be approved then, but that is up to the members of the committee. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members cannot restrain themselves, is there any way in which I can either give way to them or get them to shut up, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has raised a serious point and I am trying to give him a serious answer. There will be two stages in the impact study. The first one in the summer will be considered at the next meeting of the committee, and the next one will require consultants to be brought in and will take a considerably longer time to achieve its results. The fuller report will look at the long-term implications of the tunnel on Kent. The short-term one will be more concerned with the effects of construction and things of that sort, for which a great deal of information is already available.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I should like to ask a supplementary question about the interim report. If that report is agreed by the committee this month, will the Minister assure us that he and his offcials will raise no objection to its being released so that the material can be made available to petitioners in time for them to make use of it during the period of petition?

§ Mr. Mitchell
That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I shall put it to the committee. I chair the committee. I do not dictate to it.

§ Mr. Franks
A few minutes ago my hon. Friend said that the committee had two options. If I remember his words, the options were that the committee could either conduct its business in the full glare of publicity, or, it could conduct its business in a businesslike way. Am Ito understand from that that the two are mutually exclusive?

§ Mr. Mitchell
I think that my hon. Friend has had experience in his own business life of meetings that are 1268 more effective if they are conducted in private than if they are conducted in public. Most companies have boards, and my hon. Friend may sit on some company boards. It might generally, be felt that a board would not as effectively conduct its business in public as it would in private. Minutes of board meetings may well be circulated afterwards. The same thing is true of trade unions. Trade union meetings are not held in public, although what is agreed at meetings may well be circulated afterwards.

§ Sir John Farr
The motion says that the Committee will have the power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom. Is my hon. Friend able to confirm reports that those places will include some of the ports? If the Committee's aim is to have more than one meeting in Dover, would it be possible for its proceedings to be heard on local radio?

§ Mr. Mitchell
I was referring to the joint consultative committee in Kent. My hon. Friend has asked me a question about where the Select Committee will hold its meetings. That is entirely a matter for the Select Committee. If members will decide where such meetings are to be held. If the Committee considered that it was appropriate to hold meetings in Kent—and I should not be at all surprised if it did—that would be a matter for it, not for the Government. We shall do nothing to prevent such meetings or to discourage the Committee from holding meetings.

§ Sir John Farr
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It is an important point, which I know has been raised before. He is saying, therefore, that there would be nothing to prevent the Select Committee, if its members thought fit, from going to Dover to hold a meeting, or a series of meetings, and that they could ask the local television and radio stations to transmit the proceedings live?

§ Mr. Mitchell
I do not think that I dare to trespass into the area of whether the Select Committee would have the power to invite local television into its proceedings, any more than television could be invited to transmit the activities of this House without the House having formed its judgment on the matter.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that, because one part of the committal motion with which we shall deal later deals specifically with the powers of the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Aitken
To return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply to him, the Minister used the analogy of the boardroom and said that more business like meetings could take place in private. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he is making an error of judgment when he equates the proceedings of what is popularly known as the Mitchell committee with the proceedings of the board room, because once again he is identifying the interests of the Eurotunnel consortium with the interests of the Government. The interests of the Eurotunnel consortium and the interests of the public are two different things.
The best course that the Mitchell committee can adopt to redeem its reputation as an excessively secretive set-up — which is how it is perceived in Kent, whether my hon. Friend likes to admit it or not—is at least to say that part of the committee's proceedings should be held in 1269 private and part in public, instead of continuing with the present closed shop attitude that the press, the public, Members of Parliament and others should be completely excluded, apart from having access to what are now turning out to be, effectively, doctored minutes. In terms of public presentation, that is unacceptable.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I have to take issue with my hon. Friend's reference to "doctored minutes". That is not the way in which the committee will proceed. Certainly it is not the way in which the elected representatives in my hon. Friends local authority or in the other local authorities in Kent would allow matters to proceed. I hope that after consideration my hon. Friend will withdraw that remark.

§ Mr. Cash
I am a little mystified by the recent exchange. I hope that I did not hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that these proceedings will be held in private, because it is axiomatic with regad to private Bill matters that the proceedings should be held in public. I should be very surprised to hear anything to the contrary.

§ Mr. Mitchell
My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Two separate matters are being discussed. The first is the question of a joint consultative committee, which has been meeting in Kent. It consists of representatives of local authorities in Kent, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport, the promoters and British Rail. We have been discussing whether that committee should meet in public or in private. It is entirely for the Select Committee to make its own arrangements about its proceedings.

§ Mr. Franks
May I take my hon. Friend back to his answer to my earlier question, when he drew a parallel between the possibility of the committee sitting in private and boards of private or public companies or trade union branches meeting in private? There is fundamental difference between the two. A board meeting, or a meeting of a trade union or similar organisation, is essentially a meeting of a private organisation, which is perfectly entitled to meet in private. The committee is considering public business and, therefore, should meet in public.

§ Mr. Mitchell
Of course that is true of the Select Committee. I am not discussing that. We are talking about what the representatives of local authorities in Kent decide is the most effective way in which to conduct their proceedings.

§ Mr. Franks
Local authorities are public authorities. They represent the public. Therefore, those meetings should be held in public.

§ Mr. Mitchell
That is a matter for the elected representatives in that area to decide. I have not sought to dictate to them.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
As a result of the local elections in May, the Liberal party became the minority administration in Maidstone, which was the first change from a completely Conservative-controlled set of local authorities. In presentation terms the problem was greater when all the councils were controlled by the same party. Is there now more than one-party representation on the committee? That at least might make it more likely for information to come into the public domain.

§ Mr. Mitchell
There are no party representatives as such on the committee. It consists of the leaders or chairmen of councils, together with the chief executives. 1270 I have no detailed knowledge of their politics, and it is not my area of responsibility. It is for the district councils to decide whom they choose to represent them. There are two representatives from each council — one an elected representative, normally the leader or chairman, and the other his chief executive. At official level, the chief executives act as a working group between the meetings of the committee. That is a reasonable and effective way in which to conduct business.

§ Mr. Franks
I am sorry to pursue this point, but I remind the Minister that, last Session, Parliament passed the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. Meetings that directly affect local authorities should be held in public.

§ Mr. Mitchell
My hon. Friend has a special interest in the matter, and I note what he says. I have no doubt that members of the committee will note it, too. It is not for me to dictate to them how we should conduct our proceedings. Nevertheless, I shall keep in mind the points that my hon. Friend made.

§ Mr. Aitken
My hon. Friend will recall that I asked whether a Member of Parliament could attend the committee's meetings, and he said that that would be unacceptable. Was that a decision of the committee and, if so, was it recorded? If not, is it a clear policy that local Members of Parliament are excluded from the committee? What is the history of the decision to exclude Members of Parliament from the committee?

§ Mr. Mitchell
If my recollection serves me right, my hon. Friend asked me whether I believed that he would be an appropriate person to attend the committee as an additional observer. I do not remember the exact circumstances. I did not put it to the committee. He asked me for an opinion, and I gave him one.
The committee is made up of representatives from the local authorities and from the Kent county council. My hon. Friend is not the elected representative of his local authority. If he is so elected, of course he will be entitled to attend, and, it would be right and proper that he should do so.

§ Mr. Aitken
Can Members of Parliament go to the committee or not?

§ Mr. Mitchell
The Committee has been made up from the county council, district council, Department of the Environment, British Rail and the promoters, and my hon. Friend does not fall into any of those categories. What we have sought to do is to get elected local representatives and, in this context, they are the district councils there represented. That has beer well accepted in Kent as a reasonable way of proceeding.

§ Mr. Aitken
By whom? Who has accepted it?

§ Mr. Mitchell
By the councils concerned.

§ Mr. Aitken
My hon. Friend is running into very heavy weather here. This simply is not right. I should like to know this not on behalf of myself but on behalf of any Kent Member of Parliament who wishes to attend the consultative committee. The understanding at present is that they are not welcome at the committee. What is the precise position? If it is unclear, as it appears to be, may we please have it put to the committee in a simple request? If a Member of Parliament wishes to attend any meeting 1271 of the committee, is he to be excluded, which appears to be the present position, or is he to be welcomed as an observer and contributor to the discussions?

§ Mr. Mitchell
No such request has been made to the committee. It is, therefore, impossible for me to give an answer to my hon. Friend now in the form in which he asks for it. My hon. Friend will know that every Member representing a Kent constituency has had access to me at any time that he has wished to discuss matters. I have gone out of my way to issue invitations and enable Members who represent Kent to ensure that any items that they want to be put on the agenda are put on. My hon. Friend is, if I may say so, being a little unfair.
I was trying to explain to the House the sort of things that the committee has been considering. I was asked about the impact study, the construction employment, who will be employed, what skills are required and whether those skills are available. At the next meeting the Department of Employment will have a report from the Manpower Services Commission on what skills are available to fill the requirements of the developers in terms of construction employment. My hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who are deeply concerned about unemployment, will be interested to know that we are seeking to discover whether in their constituencies there are people with the required skills who would wish to take up the employment opportunities.
As to environmentally sensitive issues a range of these was discussed at the last meeting—electricity supplies, whether the cable should be overhead or underground, the Dollands Moor site and things of that kind.
With regard to spoil disposal, we had 65 different propositions on where the spoil might be dumped. There is a problem with the spoil because some has salt on it, and we do not know the extent of that. This puts a limit on where one can dump the spoil. If it has salt in it, it will turn the water table briny, which will not be acceptable to the local water authorities or residents.
There is a paper from British Rail about the train tunnels on the route between Folkestone and Dover. We discussed the arrangements for the public presentation of the different local groups, about which I spoke earlier, road infrastructure and compensation arrangements. I give that list to the House so that hon. Members may have an idea of the range of work that the local committee is doing. I hope it will be felt that that is a useful way of proceeding.
I was dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. He wondered whether it would be right for people to serve on the committee who represented other areas in which employment might be provided. We estimate that £700 million worth of orders for industry will be placed by the Channel Tunnel Group away from the construction. In addition, £200 million worth of orders will be provided by British Rail. That will mean a substantial amount of work and jobs.
The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is not here; at the moment his place is occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). The hon. Member for Warley, East is well known for appearing on the stage in different guises; I am not sure whether he is putting on a new act for us now. He suggested that few jobs would be created away from Kent. 1272 He is entirely wrong. A substantial number of jobs will be created elsewhere in the manufacture of the shuttle trains to go through the tunnel and the British Rail rolling stock.

§ Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)
On behalf of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), may I thank the Minister for that most interesting information?

§ Mr. Mitchell
The hon. Member for Warley, East claimed that there would be a jobs benefit only during construction. As I said to the deputy Member for Warley, East, that is entirely wrong. There will be additional jobs during construction, but once the tunnel is open it will have a profound impact on industry in the north, in the midlands, in Scotland, in the north-east and on Merseyside. Manufacturers in those parts of the country will be able to get their goods into the markets of Europe more cheaply, more efficiently, more quickly and more reliably. Therefore, they will be able to compete more successfully. Successful competition is the key to employment in those areas.
The hon. Member for Warley, East also expressed concern about rabies and referred to pets being asleep on trains. The danger with rabies arises not from people bring pets over on ferries or trains but from people bringing pets over on small boats to our marinas and letting them off on shore. That is a more widespread problem.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Minister is dealing in detail with points that were raised during the Second Reading debate. I hope that he will not make more than a passing reference to a debate that we have already disposed of.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am dealing not with matters raised on Second Reading but with matters that were raised during this debate. I have a separate set of notes on the points that hon. Members have raised.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey sought to make a case for a larger Committee to ensure that those serving on it adequately represented all groups in the House. My understanding is that the normal number serving on such a Committee would be eight, but the proposition on the Order Paper is for nine, which is to take account of the point that he has raised. I hope that he thinks that satisfactory. The House likes to move by precedent, and the advantage of that is that people have some indication of where they stand.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I think that the Minister will accept the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that both in procedure and in the nature of the Bill there is no precedent because of the importance commercially and from other aspects of the prosposition in the Bill. There is, therefore, a demand from both sides of the House that it is not only the precedent that is considered but the importance of the task before us.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I do not dispute that, but I think that in terms of the task it is better to have a smaller rather than a larger Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) has sat throughout today's debates with great patience, and he caught the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker earlier this morning. He wanted to know why we did not choose a road-rail mixed tunnel as was originally proposed 1273 by the Sea Containers Group. He suggested that members of the Committee should have the expertise to call for papers and to consider that question.
The original format proposed by the Sea Containers Group—Jim Sherwood's company — had a touch of genius about it: one tunnel each way to carry both drive through vehicles and the railway line. There were many advantages to that—there would be only two tunnels to bore with a small narrow service tunnel between instead of four tunnels. The investment would have been more financially rewarding. In addition, the soil dispersal problem would have been considerably less. However, when we examined the proposal in the railway safety inspectorate we could not accept it as a safe way to proceed. I could detain the House by going into the precise details of why the inspectorate did not judge it to be safe, but I think that at this hour the House would not wish me to do so.

§ Sir John Farr
Do my hon. Friend's advisers feel that it will ever be possible, if we go ahead with the planned tunnel, for a road link to be attached to or run in tandem with it?

§ Mr. Mitchell
We did not consider it safe to have a railway running through the same tunnel as road vehicles, with a wide space beside the train and nothing to stop it spreading sideways if there was a derailment. I cannot speak for what might be done in future, but it was the fact that the rail track would have run level with the road that created the dangers that the inspectorate found unacceptable.
My hon. Friend also asked about defence expertise, shipping, ferries and the reinforcement of NATO. It would obviously he much cheaper to mothball some vessels than not to proceed with the tunnel if we are concerned simply with the question of military reinforcements for NATO. He also asked about sabotage. I am not at all sure that there are in the House potential members of the Select Committee who would have knowledge and expertise about sabotage.

§ Mr. Lawrence
I am not volunteering to be available, but on this question of availability, can my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House whether the Special Standing Committee is expected to sit right through the summer recess?

§ Mr. Mitchell
That is a matter for the Select Committee to decide. There is, I understand, nothing to prevent the Committee from sitting during the recess if it wishes. However, the Committee members might not choose to sit in the recess. That would be a matter for the Committee members.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
What will happen if the Select Committee reports to the House that it is unable to complete in a reasonable time its business of listening to the petitions? What effect would that have on the progress of the substantive Bill?

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's point, as we do not know how many petitions there will be or how the Committee will wish to proceed with its handling of the petitions. We do not know whether the petitions will be grouped together. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that this matter will unfold in due course.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Can the Minister revise the estimate of time that he believes that the Select Committee 1274 will need to consider the petitions? He will be aware that in the report of the Standing Orders Committee an appendix was produced which laid out the possible timetable. This set out a six-week period for the Select Committee proceedings. It was estimated to finish on 24 July. Can the Minister now confirm that it is more likely that the Select Committee, whatever timetable it agrees, will take much longer than six weeks? Is he aware that his Department's advice means that it is inevitable that the Committee will need to continue its work at the end of the summer recess and will not be able to complete it before then?

§ Mr. Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman may be correct in suggesting that the Committee may not conclude its deliberations before the summer recess. I would not be in the least bit surprised by that. However, that is a matter for the Committee, and until the number and groups of petitions are known it is not possible to give a realistic answer to the hon. Gentleman. I would not like to mislead the hon. Gentleman.
The House has had a substantial debate on this matter. Hon. Members have raised many points, but the hour is late and I think that we should make progress. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who is stalwartly fighting for her constituents who work at British Rail Engineering Ltd. which has two major works in Derby, that the scale of potential orders is substantial. I shall not detain the House by spelling out the extent of the orders.
I was glad to find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South on at least one occasion. He suggested that there was a possibility that he would be precluded from sitting on the Select Committee because he might be considered to be an interested party. I think that he and I find ourselves in full agreement on that.

§ Mr. Aitken
I do not wish to make a Sherman-style declaration "If nominated, I will not serve", or whatever that declaration was. However, should by any chance the call come, I am more than willing—I may be the only hon. Member who is willing—loyally to do my duty on behalf of the House.

§ Mr. Mitchell
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent made a number of very important points. I hope that he will forgive me if I write to him about them as I am anxious to speed up the proceedings.
The Government see no reason or justification for increasing the number of members of the Select Committee from nine to 11. The usual number for a hybrid Bill Committee is eight or nine. For the 1974 Channel Tunnel Bill the Select Committee was eight. The Government oppose any needless increase in the numbers involved in the proceedings of the Select Committee. Therefore, I suggest that the House would be wise to accept the motion as it stands on the Order Paper and to reject the amendments. Accordingly, I invite the House to do so.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I remind the House of the procedure. We are dealing first with amendment (a). Does any hon. Member wish formally to move amendment (a)?

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I beg to move, That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 17th June, and

(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in any Petition against the Bill or in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to debate amendments (c), (d), (e) and (f).

§ Mr. Mitchell
The House has already decided that the Select Committee should comprise nine members rather than 11, and it has also decided that all Committee members should be nominated by the Committee of Selection. The purpose of lines four to 12 of the motion is to refer to the Select Committee thus established two kinds of petition.
The first kind of petition is dealt with in paragraph (a). They are petitions against the Bill. Any petition against the Bill is referred to the Committee, provided that it is presented by the 17 June in the Private Bill Office in the usual way. This date is eight weeks and four days after 18 April, the date on which notices were issued in national and local papers.
For the Channel Tunnel Bill 1973 the interval was exactly eight weeks, including Christmas. The average interval for hybrid Bills in the past 30 years has been six weeks. For private Bills, Standing Orders lay down a standard interval of eight weeks, from 4 December to 30 January, which also includes Christmas. Therefore, I am sure the House will realise that the Government have given slightly more time than is necessary under the normal procedure.
1277 The second kind of petition, which is dealt with in paragraph (b), is a petition complaining against alteration of the Bill or indeed of any of the matters that have arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee. This sort of petition is subject to no closing date.
The final line refers to petitions in which petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel or their agents, and it refers also to the provisions in lines 17 to 18 in the next paragraph, which has not yet been discussed.
That is all that I have to say at this stage. I shall be happy to listen to the debate and to advise the House on some of the amendments at a later stage.

§ Mr. Franks
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise a point of order of which I have given you prior notice, namely, the possible breach of privilege and contempt of the House by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Before the commencement of the debate on the committal motion, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made the point in a point of order that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was allegedly seeking to organise a filibuster, and as a consequence the hon. Member for Linlithgow would miss the opportunity to speak to the motion in his name at 9.30 am. I believe that if the hon. Member for Walsall, North had stayed to listen to the debate it would have been crystal clear to him that it has been a genuine debate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. What is the hon. Member's point of order?

§ Mr. Franks
The point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, relates to my understanding that the hon. Member for Linlithgow—I declare that I have the second motion for debate tomorrow—has booked a room in the House for 9.30 am. If what I am told is correct, he intends to make to the media the speech that he could and would have made to the House of Commons. If that is the case, it must surely be a contempt of the House that a speech that should be made to the House, and could possibly still be made, will be made to the media rather than to hon. Members.
I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether inquiries could be made of the hon. Member to ascertain whether what I have been reliably informed of is correct, and, if it is correct, whether the question of contempt could be considered.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It seems clear from what the hon. Member has said that he is referring to a private meeting in the House, which has nothing to do with the Chair.

§ Mr. Franks
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should these proceedings terminate in time for the hon. Member for Linlithgow to make a speech at 9.30 am——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member has raised this matter before and he has already had an answer from the Chair. We cannot deal now with hypothetical questions. We really must get on with the business before us. Did the Minister give way to the hon. Member? I am not quite sure.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I had finished what I was saying when the point of order was raised.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I seek leave to move amendment (c).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I remind the hon. Member and the House—I know that the procedure is not familiar to the House—that he does not move the amendment at this stage. It is perfectly in order for him to speak to the amendment or to any other amendments which have been selected.

§ Mr. Hughes
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the instruction was given six or so hours ago, I had forgotten the specific procedure.
I wish to speak to the four amendments, especially the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others and myself. The four amendments relating to the time for petitioning are in descending order. The House will be aware that, the Second Reading having been granted by the House today in parliamentary terms but yesterday in chronological terms—5 June—the date that stands on the Order Paper for the end of the period for petitioners to present their petitions is 17 June—a period of 12 days. That is the Government's proposal. It is commonly understood that that is an insufficient period given the number of interested people who wish to present petitions and who can formally do so only in the 12 days that are set down.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself tabled an amendment proposing that the period for petitioning should be eight weeks from 5 June and should therefore end on 31 July. There are other options by way of amendment on the Order Paper. There is an amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and others that the date for petitioning should be extended to 17 July. There is an amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and others that the time for petitioning should be extended until 27 June. There is a subsidiary amendment, also in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks and others, which would permit, in certain circumstances, petitions to be presented after 27 June. That amendment, which has to be taken with the previous amendment, relates to different sorts of petitions.
The House has been presented with a range of options which put eight weeks as the maximum period for petitioning, and that is the position which my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken. If all the amendments failed, petitioners would have only 12 days in which to make their case. The Minister said in his reply that he would look favourably on the option presented by way of amendment by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks and others which appeared, if I recollect correctly, to find general favour, among those Kentish Members who spoke, as a better option than the present deadline of 17 June. I make it clear that any extension is better than none. However, I make a serious case to the Minister in favour of the option of the last available date — 31 July. He undertook to listen carefully to the reasons for that, and no doubt he will do so now.
As has generally been accepted—often the House looks for guidance on procedural matters to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who made points on the subject earlier—there is no precedent for the Bill and its procedures which is ideal and which can be sited precisely and exactly. There are precedents that 1279 are relevant, but because this is a hybrid Bill as opposed to a private Bill, although more private than public, as was said on Wednesday night, we cannot look specifically to the procedure for private Bills. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, had it been a private Bill, presentation wuld have had to take place by 27 November. It was the Government's option that they decided to introduce the Bill to the House only some seven months after that, on 17 April. They had to seek permission of the House, by way of the Standing Orders Committee, to have dispensation from the normal timetable.
The House will remember that that Committee announced in its report in May that it could make no recommendation to the House. That led to the matter coming back to the House this week, when the House agreed after an important and strongly argued debate that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with and that there should be the possibility of a shorter period being provided given the late introduction of the Bill by the Government.
That means that there has already been a breach of the normal procedures. I am not saying that that is without precedent because it is clear that such a precedent exists, but the procedures that are laid down have not been followed and there has already been a shortening of the procedures that would have been expected.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that anyone will have less time than he would have under the normal procedure?

§ Mr. Hughes
I shall deal with that by taking matters chronologically.

§ Mr. Gale
As the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from the fact that I signed an amendment not dissimilar from the one which stands in his name and that of his colleagues, I have a great deal of sympathy with what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the motion that was carried on Tuesday night and has said that at present petitioners will have 12 days in which to lodge their petitions. I think that he will recall that I raised that issue on Tuesday evening, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State offered to clarify the position in writing. On Tuesday we carried the following: That in the event of the Bill being read a second time, the earliest date which, in any motion for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee, may be specified as the date by which a Petition against the Bill must be presented in order to stand referred to the Committee shall be 17th June. That is the earliest date. The motion before us reads: (a) any petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 17th June". As I said on Tuesday, that is not 12 days; it is only one day.

§ Mr. Hughes
I remember the intervention that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made on Tuesday. He has a valid argument because the two motions do not say the same thing. The motion that was carried said that 17 June shall be the last date and the motion before us, if unamended, provides that the first date would be the last date. That is clearly ludicrous. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, Second Reading having been given to the Bill on 5 June, petitioners are alerted to the fact that they have 12 days to 17 June, but, if the motion is agreed to and not amended, petitioners will be alerted 1280 to the fact that 12 days is the maximum period available to them. This means that technically there is only one day for the lodging of petitions. That would present difficulties procedurally, let alone substantive difficulties, for those who had to get their tackle in order.
It was probably for that reason more than others that the Minister accepted implicity and not explicity — as I recollect, he did not refer explicity to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thanet, North—that he would look favourably on a amendment which would open the period, but such an amendment would open it by only another 10 days. That is unsatisfactory given precedent and unsatisfactory given the important and substantial number of people who wish to present petitions, but who are not yet clear about the procedural rules for so doing.

§ Mr. Cash
The hon. Gentleman may have been asleep when the Minister was giving an accurate description of what has been going on over the past few months in communicating with potential petitioners. It ought to be on record, now that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is awake and with us again, that the Government have taken considerable steps to make sure that people are fully aware of their rights. They ought to be congratulated rather than subject to the carping criticism which is beginning to emerge.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the application of precedent, but he has got it slightly wrong. As I understand it, this is a hybrid Bill to which the private Bill Standing Orders apply, but in other respects it is a public Bill. When one is dealing with the principle and precedent, one has to study the Bill to see whether private Bill Standing Orders apply and if they do—it is not a matter of choice or applying precedents—one must have a dispensation on from the Standing Orders Committee.

§ Mr. Hughes
The first part of that long intervention does not merit comment. The hon. Gentleman's second point repeats what I have said before, that the procedural matters, although grounded in the procedure for private Bills, are subject to the Orders of the House. That is the subject of this debate.
The relevant considerations of this matter go back to the report of the Transport Committee on 2 December 1985 — the first relevant document. In paragraph 27 the Committee said: Unless the House has given any indication or instruction to the contrary, the second reading of a hybrid bill is considered to remove from the promoters the onus of proving the expediency of the bill. … At the beginning of the proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill 1974, Counsel for the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that the Secretary of State was`most anxious that the Petitioners should have all reasonable opportunity to put forward the points which concern them, providing that such points can properly be taken in proceedings of this nature. That being so, the Secretary of State has decided … to take no formal objections to the locus of any of the Petitioners."' The Committee recommended that this precedent be followed, that the fullest possible latitude again be allowed to petitioners and that all those whose petitions conform to the basic requirement of relevancy be allowed to be heard. That recommendation was taken up by the Secretary of State for Transport in the Adjournment debate on 9 December 1985, when the matter first came substantively before the House. It would be useful to quote, selectively, the Secretary of State's views on what should happen: There will be a hybrid Bill, which will give the promoters all the necessary powers. … 1281 Although the decision has to be taken by Parliament, we want maximum local consultation. The location of the portal of any link is dictated by geography. So the matters to be considered and consulted upon locally are principally, but not exclusively, first, the precise effects of the link on those immediately affected, on their properties and amenities, secondly, the effect on the local economy in terms of jobs gained and lost, in construction and upon opening, and, more importantly, the employment likely to be gained by this mammoth transport development—perhaps the biggest communications artery in Europe. … Thirdly, there is the effect on the natural environment…Fourthly, there are the communications needs of the area as a result of the link … and, fifthly, the effect any structure that would be built in the channel would have on the safety of shipping and the freedom of navigation. Those were the matters perceived by the Secretary of State as being relevant. On the procedural points the Secretary of State said: There will be further consultations and opportunities for comment on a firm proposal. … The hybrid Bill procedure contains every opportunity for those affected to be heard, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) with his psychological problem. That is not specifically relevant. The Secretary of State continued: The procedure is well known to the House. It is comparable to the private Bill procedure, which has always been used for building railways and similarly requires no public inquiry. It was used when similar proposals were produced in 1974. The Select Committee recommended that we should follow the precedent of the 1974 Channel Tunnel Bill. … Subject to the rulings of the Select Committee, I would expect that those eligible would include individuals whose private interests are affected—those representing local trades, businesses and other local interests which may be adversely affected, those representing amenity, ecology, educational and recreational interests who believe that their interests are adversely affected to a material degree, and local authorities in any affected areas."—[Official Report, 9 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 643–45.] The Secretary of State undertook to allow the time that precedent provided under the previous Channel Tunnel Bill, and made his view known that there were groups whose interests were affected which should have a chance of making their views clear.
The third relevant document——

§ Mr. Neale
This is a filibuster.

§ Mr. Hughes
No, it is not a filibuster. It is a matter of great importance and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) will be aware that, just as tin mining is vital to his constituents and county, so the most important matter to the people of Kent is that they should have their views heard. It is important that the Secretary of State's undertakings are honoured.
The Secretary of State made a speech to the Franco British Society on 14 May an extract from which reads: I must ask our French friends to understand that we face a different situation to that in France, and to be a little patient while the legislation goes through Parliament. Against the background I have outlined. I am sure they can see that the process of debate must be allowed to consider and examine these things. There are of course the environmental, ecological and employment difficulties about the Tunnel—we all know and respect them. But underneath them there are these most intangible, if less logical, emotional difficulties present. The process of persuading people that their fears are groundless is nowhere more suitably exercised than in Parliament, with all its complex legislative processes. I have no doubt the Bill will emerge onto the Statute Book in the end. We must not be impatient at its slow progress. I firmly believe that it is necessary to allow the doubters and the objectors the full panoply of Parliamentary opportunities, and to respond to their objections, whether they be personal, political or emotional with reasoned answers. Nor must we be seen to be stampeding the Bill through Parliament. 1282 Given that the Government decided not to have a public inquiry and that they had to seek dispensation from the House regarding the Standing Orders, the impression is given that matters will proceed in a stampeding manner unless people are given a proper opportunity to put their case. The Secretary of State has made it clear that it is important for people to have a chance to put their view within the procedures that Parliament provides. Those procedures involve petitioning a Select Committee.
Clearly the Government think that that procedure should be used. As the Minister said on Tuesday, the Department of Transport has produced and circulated in Kent a leaflet which gives people guidance about their rights as petitioners, and which they can fill in. I understand that several of those leaflets have been returned to the Table Office but that the Table Office has not clarified whether the leaflet on which people make clear their request to petition has yet been accepted as a valid method of registering a desire to petition. Will the Minister clarify whether those who returned the forms are accepted to be valid petitioners, because they as yet do not know and the Table Office has riot as yet given any ruling?

§ Mr. Aitken
If by chance the Private Bill Office said, "No, we do not accept petitions that have followed precisely the words used in the leaflet issued by the Department of Transport". that would provoke in Kent a row of earthquake proportions. It would be thought that the Government were rejecting what they had themselves put forward as the perfect format for petitioning. There must be an element of common sense and flexibility in this matter, and I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that any petitioner who has followed the guidlines in the leaflet will have his petition accepted.

§ Mr. Hughes
The hon. Member will be aware that the leaflet came from the Government, whereas its acceptance is a matter for Parliament. We need a clear indication now that the relevant parliamentary officers will accept all the forms—those now in and those yet to be received—as being valid registration requests for petitions. It is important for the people concerned to know that the leaflet guidance provides an appropriate means for them to lodge requests to have their views heard.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
It may save unnecessary debate if I say that we cleared the leaflets with the Clerks of the House before the text went to the printer. I should be most surprised if there were any circumstance in which they were not satisfid with petitions returned in the form that went to the printer.

§ Mr. Hughes
I am grateful for that comment. I was told yesterday that there had been no official confirmation from the Officers of the House that they would be acceptable.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I cannot speak for the officials of the House, but I have given the background and one can have reasonable confidence about the position from that.

§ Mr. Hughes
I am grateful for that assurance.
The argument is whether the petitioners should have eight weeks or less time. We have for consideration two dates. They have not been plucked out of the air. They are based on precedent or on arguments that have been put forward. Those two dates appear in the amendments tabled 1283 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and by the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Cash
The hon. Gentleman will know from his research that in comparable circumstances with a private Bill the measure would be deposited on 27 November and the closing date for petitions to be deposited would be 30 January in the ensuring year, which is eight weeks.
This measure was ordered to be printed on 17 April, was available in the Vote Office on 18 April and the date in the motion by which petitions must be deposited is 17 June. That is nearly nine weeks, which is longer than would have been available were it a private Bill.

§ Mr. Hughes
I will seek to deal with that point and with the other points because they are important.
It has been accepted that this is a most exceptional, if not unique, Bill. Given what the Secretary of State said about granting the maximum latitude to petitioners, that militates in favour of the maximum period. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has said, it is quite correct that the period from the date of the printing of the Bill and its First Reading to the date proposed by the Government is eight weeks. None the less, an argument was advanced, as the hon. Member for Stafford will recall, in the Select Committee on Standing Orders by the only two petitioners at that time, the Dover Harbour Board and Sealink UK Ltd., that the period for depositing petitions should be eight weeks from the Second Reading of the Bill.
It could be argued and the Government's original position was that eight weeks from the First Reading and publication of the Bill was sufficient. My argument was advanced not as a matter of procedure but because I am aware of the enormous number of people and organisations who wish to present their cases and to ensure that, procedurally, they do it properly. They also wish to make sure that once Second Reading is granted they present their cases in due time and that there are no hiccups. Those people want the maximum opportunity in accordance with the latitude that the Secretary of State said he would give.
If one is procedurally and precisely following the only precedent that is nearly appropriate, which is the one of 1973–74, then the House will be aware that the Channel Tunnel Bill was introduced and given its Second Reading on 5 December 1973 and petitions against the Bill were ordered to be deposited by 15 January 1974—almost six weeks. That period is almost exactly in accord with the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. We argue that a longer period is important and necessary for a combination of the two reasons: first, that this is a more important and more complicated Bill: and, secondly, because in 1973 documents like the Kent impact study had been produced some eight months beforehand and had been available for petitioners to digest.
As the hon. Member for Stafford and other hon. Members will be aware, one of the complaints this time is that the environmental impact statement has not yet been produced and is unlikely to be produced except in an interim form. I raised that matter with the Secretary of State. That statement will be the result of what is called the Mitchell committee's deliberations if the committee agrees to produce it some time later this month. Therefore, the normal access to information that would be expected, 1284 particularly for a Bill of this importance and complexity, and that was granted in 1973–74 has not been granted on this occasion.
As the hon. Member for Stafford and other hon. Members will know, complaints have been made that, for example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others wanted to have access to copies of maps in order to make points in petitions. Those maps were only made available on 15 or 16 May, and there are several reasons why information has either not been available at all, which makes life more difficult for petitioners, or has been made available belatedly. On the substantial matters of environmental and economic and local importance, given now that it is clear that there is likely to be a large number of petitioners, it is important that the spirit of the Secretary of State's remarks is carried through by the decision of the House that the maximum period be granted.
My final point is one which might be made against an argument that 29 July is the right date. It could be argued that the setting of that date is an attempt to kill the Bill. That is not the case, for the following reasons. By its very nature, this Bill will carry over into the next Session of Parliament. It was always expected that it would take two Sessions. That being the case, it is not imperative — indeed, it has never been envisaged—that the procedure in this House, let alone in the other place, should be completed before the end of this Session of Parliament.
The normal precedent is that when the Select Committee procedure has been decided upon there is a period for negotiations between the promoters of the Bill and the other interested parties before the petitioners put their case to the Select Committee. Therefore, it would be possible and appropriate for the summer recess to be used for the negotiations. That would considerably shorten the time taken in the Select Committee and the time taken by the Select Committee.
As the Minister of State said in response to a question about an hour and a half ago, it is now highly likely that the original Government plan for the timetable, of six weeks in Select Committee, is far from realistic and that unless there is a period for both sides to reconcile the matters that can be reconciled, the Select Committee proceedings, even if the Select Committee meets for a considerable period, will take much longer than six weeks.
In certain circumstances, the Select Committee could meet during the summer recess. I am aware that in order to do so the end date for petitions would have had to pass, that the motion of the Select Committee on Selection as to the composition of the Select Committee would have had to take place, and that the Select Committee would have had to meet before the recess to decide on its procedure. I am not arguing that that is likely to be achieved between 29 July and the summer recess, because in all probability the House will rise at about that date. However, it is certainly a procedurally sound precedent to allow time between the end of the period for petitions and the start of the hearings before the Select Committee. That would shorten the proceedings while giving time for the people of Kent and the interested bodies in Kent and beyond not only to make their case but to deal with the promoters on the issues raised by their petitions and by the Bill. It would still permit time for the matter to be dealt with by the Select Committee in the autumn, for the matter then to proceed in the normal way to Standing Committee 1285 and to the other place, and for the Bill to complete all its stages during the next Session of Parliament, as was always envisaged.
The proceedings may be completed a month or two later than the Government hope, but I believe that that would be not a loss but a gain. It would allow the people of Kent, who in their thousands clearly feel that they are not being listened to and that the Government are moving too quickly, to have an opportunity properly to put their case.
I hope that the House will act on the request that was made to the Select Committee on Standing Orders in May: that eight weeks should be granted from Second Reading to the petitioners whose petition was then established. In accepting that request, I hope that the House will reject the other, lesser amendments and will recognise the importance of the Bill. I hope too, that the Government will back away from appearing to wish to steamroller the Bill through Parliament in the face of the objectors and the valid concerns of thousands of people and that they will accept that, having obtained their Second Reading a few hours ago, they can afford to allow the people of Kent and beyond to put their anxieties properly before the Committee set up by the House. As the Secretary of State said, the period that would provide maximum latitude is eight weeks, as advocated in the amendment of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.

§ Mr. Leon Brittan (Richmond, Yorks)
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not take up the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The reason for not doing so is not out of discourtesy to him but because the approach that I invite the House to bring to bear, as set out in amendments (e) and (f), is based upon a different set of considerations from those which seem to motivate the hon. Gentleman.
I am concerned not so much with the question of precedent—who said what, arid when, or who did what on the last occasion — but with the fundamental and simple question of fairness to which I referred on raising these issues when we debated them last Tuesday. My only concern is for a fair opportunity to be given to the people who wish to object to the whole or part of the Government's proposals and for a fair opportunity to be given to Parliament to consider those objections.
If that is the principle that one brings to bear, to which conclusion should one come? Some of the more extravagant criticisms of the Government have exploded in the faces of those who made them. The reality is that the Bill has been available publicly for some time, and for those interested groups and organised, corporate bodies which have a legitimate, vested interest in the outcome of the matter, there is no problem with the Government's timetable. None the less, as I said on Tuesday, it seems clear that for the private individual, who may not be aware of the precise distinctions between what one can do when the Bill is published, when the general scheme is formulated and after Second Reading, some further latitude is desirable ever and above that provided in the motion which stands in the Government's name.
With those considerations in mind, I embarked on discussions, primarily with my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who has been assiduous in ensuring that the interests of his constituents are put before 1286 the House and within Government. As a result of discussions as to what was necessary and proper for the people of Kent, my view is reflected in the amendment that stands in my name and inititally in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and several other hon. Members.
It is a balance. Of course, no one suggests that if a week or a slightly longer period were added to that reflected in my amendment, the scheme would come to an end. Of course not. None the less, it is reasonable that the matter should be proceeded with at reasonable speed, and the extra time provided for the presentation of petitions should be no more than is necessary. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the state of public opinion in Kent or on the readiness of individuals in Kent to present their petitions, but I cannot help reflecting on the current timetables that are offered.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South joined me in putting forward the dates that appear in amendments (e) and (f), which emerged from discussions with my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we discovered quickly that the amendments attracted considerable support in the House. It is notable that a large proportion of the names appended to the amendments are the Members of Parliament who represent Kentish constituencies, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees), my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) as well as others. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that that shows some consensus as to what is necessary and acceptable.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
My hon. Friend has picked up another interesting point. When one examines the names of those who subscribed to the amendment, one sees an unusual number of lawyers. Perhaps that also shows the concern of many hon. Members who must deal with legal problems. Inevitably, when one deals with matters of this complexity, it takes a long time for some constituents to ascertain what their legal rights are, how to proceed and, especially, bring them before the House.

§ Mr. Brittan
I am sure that is the case.
I remain of the view that the timetable envisaged in amendments (e) and (f) is right and would be generally acceptable. I welcome the fact that, although on Tuesday we were not debating it directly, it was the centre of discussion. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in answering the debate, spoke extremely sympathetically abou it—so sympathetically, I think, that the House and country understood what he said to mean, that the Government regarded the amended timetable as acceptable. I hope that in reaching that conclusion I was not assuming too much and that that will be ratified and confirmed when he replies to the debate.
Again, I commend the amendments to the House.

§ Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)
I do not claim to be an expert on procedure, and I come to this aspect of the debate—the question of timing—with a relatively fresh outlook.
Discussed in terms of purely Kentish interests, it may well be that there has been a great deal of publicity on the effects of the Bill and, therefore, that for most people, 1287 although not all, the opportunity to develop the idea of petitioning against the Bill or for the Bill and submitting that petition in time has probably been given. However, the Bill has a much wider context, and I think it is extremely unlikely with regard to small groups of individuals particularly outside the area immediately affected by the construction of the tunnel, that the opportunity has yet been given to the extent promised by the Government in the course of the discussions on the Bill.
For many people like myself who are unfamiliar with the procedure on a private Bill or a hybrid Bill, there may well have been a temptation to defer thinking about whether to petition until the relevant procedure was laid down by Parliament, as is being done now. There are the difficulties that will then be faced by, say, a group of workers in the port of Avonmouth in my constituency who have a genuine interest in the implications of the Bill but who nevertheless have never before had to face a private Bill procedure. They may, therefore, later today — by which I mean in normal rather than parliamentary terms—well get together and say, "we shall go along to see our MP tonight and discuss with him how best we can put forward a petition".
Let us look at the problem that they face under the procedure outlined. They have 11 days in which to decide whether to petition, what the basis of their petition is to be and, if it is to be heard, whether they wish to be heard themselves or to appoint an agent to appear on their behalf. If they decide that they wish to appoint an agent, they have to decide whom they wish to appoint, and who appoints him. They have to prepare the petition and agree among themselves what should appear in it.
Let us remember that they do not have the exhaustive office facilities that are available to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
My hon. Friend has been reciting the difficulties that stand in the way of his constituents. He must not forget that the petition has to be in the proper form. I anticipate that many people who wish to make a petition will have difficulty in obtaining the proper form in which to make it. As I understand the motion and the amendments, if the petition is not in the proper form the petitioners will not be able to present their arguments.

§ Mr. Stern
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Someone unfamiliar with the procedure may not have known before this debate that such a proper form existed.
To complete my description of the difficulties to be handled in the 11-day period, may I point out that if the petitioners do not have office facilities they will have to find some place in which the documents can be typed and copied? The petition will have to be submitted by the stated date. Of the 11-day period specified, two days are Sundays. If I may be forgiven a slight element of sour grapes, we have made sure in the House recently that none of the procedures that I have mentioned may be carried out on two of the days in the 11-day period.
The Bill will affect the whole country and not just Kent. We should be concerned about making available to all the people their rights as citizens to make representations on this important measure, although I accept that the procedures as normally laid down have been carried out and that there has been a slight extension of the time 1288 normally given. The normal procedures are designed for Bills about which there is adequate publicity to enable people to make their representations.
There is a widening realisation of the implications of the Bill. I can assure the Minister that six months ago the Channel tunnel was not being discussed in the pubs and clubs of Avonmouth; now it is. That discussion is broadening all the time. My hon. Friends from outside the area know how their postbag has been developing on the issue. They are now getting letters from people who did not realise until recently the extent to which they would be affected.
Because of the growing number of people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they may be affected by the Bill, to give 11 days, of which two are dead days, for them to read reports about the procedure to be followed and then to go through that procedure may seem reasonable according to precedent, but in my view it cannot be considered reasonable.

§ Mr. Aitken
I take as my text for these brief remarks the last words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I agree that the test of the matter and of this group of amendments is what is reasonable. We can go up hill and down dale on the subject of precedents. I speak with experience when I say that, because I went up hill and down dale in front of the Standing Orders Committee last month, and I went up hill and down dale two nights ago in the House. At the end of it all, I suspect that neither I, the House nor the Standing Orders Committee could make head or tail of the precedents.
The common sense judgment was put very well by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he spoke in the debate on 3 June. He said: Valuable though precedent is as a guide in this unfamiliar area, the House, I am sure, would not wish to proceed except on the basis of fair arrangements for those who might wish to oppose the Bill's effects on them. The Government believe that those whose interests may be affected by the Bill should have an opportunity to marshall their arguments effectively, as they would have if affected by a private Bill."—[Official Report, 3 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 837.] I think that we can all say "Hear, hear" to that.
Two precise amendments have been tabled. Amendment (c) in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other Liberal Members would provide an, eight-week period for petitions from the date of Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman has one eminent and learned supporter of his view, Mr. Joe Durkin, the parliamentary agent for the petitioners, who argued exactly that point in front of the Standing Orders Committee.
The second precedent is that set by the previous Channel Tunnel Bill, the detail of which I discussed at some length in our debate on Tuesday, and which provides for six weeks from the date of Second Reading.
The third proposal is that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) for a period of three weeks and two days from the date of Second Reading. Impressed as I was by the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend, I feel that I must pay a tribute elsewhere. One might say that the voice might be the voice of Richmond, but the hands were the hands of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He has 1289 had a very difficult task to fulfil. These days he is often referred to in the House by the adjective "assiduous". It sounds almost like something from a book on trees—an assiduous or deciduous tree. He certainly is assiduous, but as his parliamentary neighbour I know that the people of Folkestone are fortunate to have such a first-class Member of Parliament. He has fought for them behind the scenes just as effectively, if not more so, than those of us who have the privilege of the freedom of the Back Benches to fight our battles up front.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and I are on the same side. We are trying to obtain a fair and sensible deal for our constituents. I should have preferred the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for an eight-week period, or that we should follow the Anthony Crosland Bill precedent for a six-week period. However, we have a three-week period, which makes some sense in terms of straight fair play.
If we had stuck to the Government's proposal for a 12-day period, we would have been in great danger of being unfair to our constituents. I know that there are all sorts of arguments showing that a 12-day period is in line with what has been done before. However, nothing in the Bill has ever been done before because we have never had a Bill quite like it. We are into new territory. Indeed, constant new developments make a sensible petitioning period absolutely essential.
My hon. Friend the Minister may not have realised quite what a hostage to fortune he delivered at about 4 am. this morning, when he announced that the boat trains from Victoria to the Channel ports would cease from the date that the tunnel opens. That ministerial statement will cause consternation, if not uproar, in the Channel ports. I am sure that remark will be the subject of many clauses in many petitions. That is the last thing that the people of Kent want to see British Rail ordered to do by a Minister.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I must protest. My hon. Friend has completely misunderstood the position if he believes in any way that I have powers to instruct British Rail what services to run or that I would dream of doing that, especially in such a sensitive matter. I understand that British Rail does not consider that it would be commercially worth its while running boat trains in addition to the other trains to Dover, especially when it can run trains directly through the tunnel. That is a commercial matter for British Rail to decide.

§ Mr. Aitken
The so-called commercial matters lack all sensitivity and political common sense. That announcement will cause the people of Kent to express their feelings on the matter through the petitioning process. It only goes to show that there is a need for a fair and adequate petitioning process on a subject as new and as newsworthy as the cancellation of boat trains. At least there is now a reasonable period in which to petition.
I do not want to labour the point unduly. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, aided by his capable amanuensis, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, did a good job, and I am pleased to support them on that point.
These amendments make sense. They will make for fair play. Although they do not go as far as some hon. Members would have wanted to go—and I certainly 1290 wanted more—on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread and that three weeks is still not as good as six weeks, at least it is half of what we wanted. I am happy that the Government seem inclined to accept the amendment, and I will support it.

§ Mr. Cash
All hon. Members have great sympathy for the people of Kent having regard to the proposals in the Bill. I believe that that has been clearly revealed in the debates. Perhaps the voting figures have suggested otherwise. However, there is considerable sympathy for the people whose lives could be disrupted by the Bill's proposals, however important those proposals may be.
I support the Bill not simply because I believe that great benefits will be derived from it. Indeed, in my constituency British Reinforced Concrete has every possibility of gaining a considerable slice of the contracts, which will be good for the job prospects of my constituents. However, I appreciate that there are difficulties and I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
I would like to commence my remarks on these amendments by considering what would happen if a petition was presented after time. This is the crunch point because, if someone found that he was to be adversely affected and did not have an adequate opportunity to get his act together and presented a petition after the due date had passed, certain consequences would follow.
It would be useful to put on the record what those consequences would be. As I think that some people might care to read the report of the proceedings who otherwise might find that they would have to seek help elsewhere, it may be helpful if I give the page references from "Erskine May" which deal with these matters. Page 948 of the 20th edition of "Erskine May" states If a petition be presented after the time limit, the only mode by which the petitioners can obtain a hearing is by presenting a petition, praying that the standing orders be dispensed with in their case, and that they may be heard by the committee. The petition will stand referred to the Standing Orders Committee; and if the petitioners are able to show"— and this is the important point— any special circumstances which entitle them to indulgence and, particularly, that they have not been guilty of laches," — that means undue delay— the standing orders may be dispensed with. Various precedents are given to support that proposition which are set out in a footnote which I shall not worry the House with. A number of occasions are specified. one of which was in 1905, where these matters have been dealt with.
The important point is that, even if somebody were to go over the time limit, there is the power in the hands of the Standing Orders Committee to dispense with the Standing Orders in question. By "Standing Orders" we are talking about the Standing Orders relating to private Bills, in relation to which petitions have to be deposited, and, of course, that is the crucial question on this point.
I thought that it would be useful also to refer to what is really at stake in a matter of this kind——

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
My hon. Friend has helpfully told the House that there is a power to dispense with the time limits, but I take it that that is a discretionary power which is not subject to very clear definitional tests. If that is right, 1291 he will agree that the individual petitioner who is out of time might be very reluctant to make an application to the relevant Standing Committee for dispensation, and, in any event, he might find it necessary to instruct counsel.

§ Mr. Cash
I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying and I have great sympathy with the proposals set out in the amendment to jog the time forward by a number of weeks.
I said earlier when I intervened in the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the Bill was published on, I think, 17 April and that therefore it would have been available in the Vote Office on 18 April and that the date specified in the Government's motion of 18 June would give something over eight weeks.
Notwithstanding that point, the fact is that a crucial question arises from the Standing Orders on private Bills. I was advising shiprepairers on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. A relevant point arose in the House of Lords on the Standing Orders and we were able to show that the Government agent had not put the requirement under Standing Orders that people should be shown to be able to object to the proposals in the hybrid Bill. The fact that that was not there was highly relevant. The Government agents argued it out and the shiprepairers got out of nationalisation.
The point that I want to make here is that, under the private Bill Standing Orders, they are all linked to dates which go back to 27 November and then 4 December, and, I think, 10 December after that. Stipulations are given as to when the advertisements must appear in the London Gazette and the local newspapers.
We must be realistic, because those people simply do not have access to the sort of facilities that we have in the House. Some people do not even have the foggiest idea about any Bill, let alone a hybrid Bill, which is a mystery to all of us because those things are extremely arcane and mysterious. But Standing Orders specify that the notices have to be published precisely in order to ensure that persons who live in a locality shall have adequate notice not only of the contents of the Bill but of their right to object to it. In that advertisement — this can all be checked—it gives the address of the parliamentary agent concerned, in this case the Government agent, and the address of the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons. They are then recommended to take appropriate action.

§ Mr. Wolfson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising the fact that, in many cases, we are dealing with private individuals who, as my hon. Friend said, do not have access to the facilities we have here. I think that it is important to give the maximum time to those petitioners, or would-be petitioners. Following each stage of debate in the House, there is an opportunity for publicity in the local newspapers and further discussion on television or radio which alerts people to action that they might not otherwise have become aware of, despite the advertisements; hence the need for more time.

§ Mr. Cash
I understand what my hon. Friend has said. People simply do not know. Our procedures should be all about providing fairness for people in those circumstances. I think that it was Maine who said that justice is to be found 1292 in the interstices of procedure, and we should bear that in mind. After all, the whole procedure on private Bills and the right to petition, which I hope I shall explain shortly, will give some indication as to what is involved for the private individual. The right to petition is an important inherent constitutional right which is given to people in our democracy.

§ Mr. Aitken
Before we get into the interstices of procedure, I wonder whether, because he is such an expert in this area, I can ask my hon. Friend's advice about one aspect of the interstices of the newspaper advertisements placed by the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend has been rightly stressing the importance of placing the correct advertisements in local newspapers. In an exchange between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in the early hours of Wednesday morning I said that I was interested in an advertisement which had been placed in the "Canterbury Times" on April 28. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury shouted back that there was no such newspaper.
I was slightly thrown by that simply because I had taken the name of the "Canterbury Times" from the written parliamentary answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The answer said, in listing all the advertisements that had been placed in local newspapers, that an advertisement about how to petition had been placed in the "Canterbury Times" on 28 April. Faced with the information that no such paper existed, I checked the matter and have found that no such paper exists.
Therefore we are faced with the case of the disappearing newspaper or the phantom advertisement. That may be the subject of a searching inquiry, bringing in the Ombudsman and others, into the interstices of the Department of Transport. I think that we should be told more about this matter. I simply want my hon. Friend's guidance on the significance of the phantom advertisement or the missing newspaper because, clearly, a dereliction of duty occurred and we would like to know what advertisement appeared in what newspaper and what is the significance of the omission.

§ Mr. Cash
Now that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) has been transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science, perhaps we will not have the chance to ask him that question because the Department of the Environment primarily has responsibility for matters relating to the conduct of local government Bills where so many of these things crop up.
The mystery to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South refers is the kind of matter that G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown should address. That is the sort of person who would be able to track down such a paper. There is a substantive and crucial point here. If notices are not put in local newspapers, people do not know what is going on. Under Standing Orders, they are required to place petitions not as a matter of choice but as a matter of requirement of the House, a practice hallowed for over a century. If the advertisements are not placed, local people do not know what is going on.

§ Sir John Farr
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South over his inquiries about the 1293 "Canterbury Times". It could be that the Department in question could have sent the advertisement to the "Canterbury Times" in Auckland, New Zealand.

§ Mr. Cash
I am grateful for that Antipodean note. We shall have a certain amount of difficulty in paying the air fares of those who feel that they should be petitioning against the Channel tunnel because of fear that it might suddenly emerge in New Zealand. However, this is an important point that should be taken on board.
The examiners have examined the Bill to see whether there has been compliance with Standing Orders, and, as I understand it, it has been agreed that they have been. That means that it is a fait accompli, and the end of the subject. There is substantial case law, with which I shall not weary the House, in the case of Pickin v British Ralways Board in the House of Lords. It stipulates that once the examiners have completed their procedures, that is it for present purposes.
The question whether the petitioners know has to be weighed against the extremely detailed information that the Department of Transport has made available. It would be unfair, in relying on the Standing Orders in "Erskine May", to overlook the fact that the Department has made available to people, and deserves congratulation for so doing, an immense amount of information. I have some doubt as to whether we could use the argument that people did not know what was going on.
When we are considering whether there is a case, in fairness, we have to look at it at two levels. One is the general public awareness, and the other is the right of the person to present a petition and to be heard on it before the Committee. However we look at the broad picture of public awareness — and we should be grateful to the Government for making the information available—the reality is that this is a procedural question. When the matter comes, if it does, before the Select Committee on Standing Orders, or before the Committee considering the Bill, it will not be reasonable for the Government to argue that, as so much material had been made available, nobody need worry any more. The consequence of a person not having complied with the Standing Order or not having got his petition in on time is likely to be fatal to his right to be heard. We should take that important point seriously.
If I were to suggest which of the various options presented to us by the amendments we should go for, I would go for the one in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, (Mr. Brittan). That provides that bit more in the way of time and fairness for the petitioners, and balances the postion fairly well.

§ Mr. Hughes
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman intended to mislead the House, However, my understanding of the Standing Orders Committee report is that the examiners of petitions for private Bills reported, in the case of this Bill, that: Standing Orders … are applicable … and have not been complied with in respect of the time prescribed. I stress that it says have not been complied with in respect of the time prescribed. It was obviously for that reason that the matters went to the Standing Orders Committee and then came to the House.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if the campaign groups and those who are interested, and the representative bodies in Kent and beyond, say that the time 1294 prescribed is not sufficient, that is a good test of whether the time should be extended. They are arguing, as I understand it, for eight weeks from Second Reading, and not for the lesser period that was proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).

§ Mr. Cash
I have sympathy with the general arguments that have been expressed in the House on these matters. With regard to non-compliance with Standing Orders, the hon. Gentleman will find that there could not be anything otherwise. I have not been involved with this issue to any great extent until this evening, but my surmise is that it simply means non-compliance with those Standing Orders that could not be complied with because the private Bill Standing Order refers to 27 November. One cannot comply with Standing Orders where the Bill has been put on deposit on 27 November and was published only on 18 April. That is strict non-compliance in any event, and it applies to all hybrid Bills.
The point that I was making concerned other questions that might arise in relation to non-compliance. I went on to deal with two levels of concern. One of those is public awareness. The Government have gone further than one might reasonably have expected. They deserve congratulation.
The other question is the strict justice of the matter in relation to the prescription of Standing Orders. If someone did not have the full rights afforded him under the private Bill Standing Orders, he would be severely prejudiced. He would not be heard unless in turn the Committee was prepared to dispense with the Standing Orders by way of special indulgence, subject to the criteria that I mentioned, including the fact that the person concerned had not been involved in undue delay.
Several other points ought to be made. Appearances before the Select Committee are mentioned in amendment (f) in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). The question of appearances may also arise. All that I am about to say is directly relevant to whether people appear on time. If they do not appear on time, they will suffer the consequences of failing to do so and they are liable to be shut out. "Erskine May" says on page 1014: If parties have neglected to enter their appearance at the proper time, they will not be entitled to be heard. It goes on to say: In some special cases … indulgence has been granted to them. It quotes a number of instances in the 19th century.
It is not, however, simply a question of whether a petition has been handed in, but whether the person has appeared in accordance with Standing Orders. Complex matters must be complied with. It is important that people should know that they are on the line—that they are liable not to be heard if they fail to comply with the requirements.
That brings me back to the question of complexity, and information and the sorts of procedures with which people must comply in the time that is allotted. I said earlier, when I referred to notices, that by the time the period which is required under, I think, Standing Orders 4 and 11, dealing with Private Bills, is added on, we will be well into December — taking it forward from 27 November — within which period the various local advertisements in the London Gazette and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Belfast Gazette—although that would not apply in this case —must be complied with.
1295 When one subtracts that period—in other words, the period in which strictly required information is made available to the public—from 30 January and compares it with the period between 18 April and 17 June, one begins to observe a distortion which is against the interests of individual petitioners. That causes me some concern. That is why I agree with the amendment put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.
Against that background, it is important to bear in mind what it is that people who could be affected would be expected to know about, assuming that they got the notice in the newspapers in the proper manner. I have referred to the importance of the right to petition. Perhaps it would be helpful if I quoted from page 858 of "Erskine May". It states: The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution"— we cannot get anything clearer than that It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure. The requirement which is imposed under the Standing Orders on petitioners in terms of their right to be heard is set out on page 949 of "Erskine May". It describes the locus standi of petitioners against private Bills. That is an arcane and difficult subject. I do not believe that those who want to petition would be able to get their act together in the relatively short time that is provided at the moment—that, is, up to 17 June.
There are complex questions involving individuals, remoteness, injurious affection, and a stack of extraordinary expressions which go way back to the 19th century but which none the less have a direct bearing on the individual rights of people. We must have regard to the relatively late hour — it is not as late as some hon. Members may wish—when we consider that individuals should have every opportunity not only to be heard but to have the maximum time that the Government are prepared to give.
I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will allow a little more time for those petitioners. It is not a long time. I think that it is only 10 days. When one considers the fact that the Government — according to the informal papers which the Government have supplied—is taking the Bill through to December 1986 and the following Session, I would not have thought that 10 days was a lot to ask. Surely 10 days is not such a great deal to ask of the Government at this stage.
I happen to be much in favour of the principle behind the Bill and the proposals in it, but I think that we as a Parliament have a duty to ensure that people are seen to be treated fairly. For the sake of 10 days—that is all that it boils down to—it would be reasonable for the Government to make a concession. As a member of the party which is in government, I believe that the Government would gain a great deal of credit by so doing. They would be seen not to be intransigent and inflexible. Instead, they would be recognised as being reasonable and fair. This is something that we must seek to do.
I have referred to the Standing Orders which prescribe the right of persons to be heard and perhaps it would be useful, if not a little lengthy, to go into them, they having a direct bearing upon the time that is made available to 1296 petitioners for the important reasons that I have already given. If the petitioners do not have sufficient time, they will be shut out, or they may fail to get their petition in in time. If they fail to get in their appearance, they will be shut out with the most dire consequences for themselves. How invidious it would be for some persons to have put in individual locus standi objections and petitioners and for others to find that they could not get in. What an unfairness that would be.
Petitioning against a Bill can cut the other way. There is another procedure, to which I have not referred, on which those who are present might care to reflect. The 20th edition of "Erskine May" is a mighty volume and it informs us that there is a procedure that is known as petitions against alterations, which provides an opportunity for those who do not want a Bill to be altered to deposit a petition.
There are some theological arguments on whether a petition against alterations can be deposited in respect of hybrid Bills. The balance of opinion, however, is that petitions against alterations may be deposited againt them. Such petitioners may, too, have need of the time that is available. We do not know how they would react if they were to be provided with such an opportunity.
I am confining myself as best I can to the Standing Orders that relate to private business, which is germane as we are considering procedural issues. There is a range of criteria laid down in Standing Orders with which persons are required to comply, otherwise they may be shut out of the right to be heard. Standing Order No. 92 states: It shall be competent to the Court of Referees, if they think fit, to admit petitioners to be heard upon their petitions against a private bill, on the ground of competition. This matter arose during the passage of the railway Bills—my great grandfather was chairman of the London-Brighton railway back in 1832. I believe that the Standing Orders that relate to competition were much used in those days when everyone was competing with one another. I have not yet heard of a potential rival or competitor to the Channel tunnel, but one never knows. Indeed alternative routes may be offered which could compete with the Channel Tunnel Bill.
Individuals may be affected by the provisions under Standing Order No. 93 and members of companies are also affected by them. The Standing Order reads: Where a bill is promoted by an incorporated company, society, association or partnership, members thereof shall not be entitled to be heard before the committee against the bill, unless their interests as affected thereby are distinct from the general interests of the company, society, association or partnership. It allows a locus standi to associations. An association can petition against a Bill alleging that its trade — most important to those genuinely aggrieved by the proposals in a bill—business or interests will be injuriously affected by the provisions contained therein, It allows discretion to the Court of Referees to admit the petitioners to be heard on these allegations.
Standing Order No. 95—this should be read carefully because one does not want to be caught out—states: Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, where any society, association or other body sufficiently representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests, petition against a bill, alleging that the interests they represent will be adversely affected to a material extent by the provisions contained in the bill, the Court of Referees has the discretion to admit those petitioners to be heard.
1297 Within the time scale prescribed it would be possible for persons who fell within the provisions of Standing Order No. 95 to discover that they were shut out if they had not made their case in the proper prescribed form in which petitions must be deposited.
There is the locus standi for local authorites and inhabitants. Local authorities have locus standi in relation to other Standing Orders.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
My hon. Friend made an important point about the rights of petitioners to petition against an additional petition. I followed what my hon. Friend said on that matter and indeed that proposition is before a private Bill Committee of which I am a member. To demonstrate to the House how such petitions can occur, I have before me—for obvious reasons I shall not refer to any detail except the title—the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill additional provision, which is a set of amendments brought forward by the promoters; and I also have before me the petition against the additional provision. Therefore, I confirm what my hon. Friend has said, and that procedure is in use in a private Bill Committee at this time.

§ Mr. Cash
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has provided me with another provision, the one relating to additional provision, I was referring to petitions against alterations. If that has not confused everyone, I do not know what will.
These matters are complex and arcane, but they are important. What I say is of great importance to the individual petitioners. Contrary to the assertions of the Opposition and some newspapers that this is a filibuster, I hope that our proceedings will give some useful advice to petitioners about their rights. Through these proceedings we are providing them with information which will be of considerable benefit to them. I challenge any hon. Member whose house was about to be bulldozed, sterilised or afflected by nuclear waste—

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
Does my hon. Friend understand that hon. Members who represent constituencies which may be affected by nuclear waste see a parallel here? We are here to ensure that the people of Kent get a fair deal partly to make the point that the people of Lincolnshire should get a fair deal, should the Government be so ill advised as to suggest that Fulbeck should see low-level waste. We shall not put up with that.

§ Mr. Cash
I am sure that you would not like me to be diverted down the nuclear path, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Regarding my earlier remark about the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who was asleep at the time, I now realise that I am in the position of the Fox-North coalition of the late 18th century in this unholy alliance of the nuclear and Channel tunnel defeaters, while I support the Bill's proposals.
Although I am in favour of the proposals in the Bill, I am absolutely in favour of people having every right given to them in our Standing Orders, within our parliamentary democracy and within this Parliament to enable them to petition within a reasonable time so as not to feel unfairly shut out. The real question is one of fairness. We must ensure that those people are given the information that they deserve.
I have slightly lost track of the time, so I am not certain how long I have to go.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
As the hon. Gentleman has far exceeded the time that I took to open the debate, he will perhaps allow me to remind him that he has spoken for more than 40 minutes. If—and I deny this entirety—I seemed to drop off earlier., on reflection I would rather have done so more recently as, although these procedural matters may be of some importance, they are not the most gripping contribution for the other hon. Members present.

§ Mr. Cash
I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but when he sees the remark that I made when he was asleep he will see the poignancy and irony in the remark that he has just made.
During the debate serious matters have been canvassed. Although it is now 6.33 am, we are having a serious discussion about matters directly relevant to potential petitioners in Kent, and I hope that all opportunities will be open to them to enable them to be fairly heard so that they will not feel harshly treated, although they may not like the proposals in the Bill. If their petitions are in the proper form, as prescribed by the Standing Orders, they will be heard. They will discover that they get a fair hearing from this House, and they will have the opportunity to seek amendments—I have a suspicion that amendments will be made—to improve the Bill.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
I support the claim that we should enlarge the time within which petitions may be deposited. I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about precedent. Precedent is totally irrelevant in this case, partly because we should be dealing with justice—while what was done in the past may be a guide to justice, it is not necessarily a sure guide—and partly because what we are discussing is so extensive in its scope that nothing that has happened in the past is of the slightest help to what we should do today.
The measure now before us will be of enormous consequence to the people of Kent and throughout the United Kingdom. To talk about having a few days in which to lodge a petition is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) talked about the date on which the Bill was first published. Though an interesting date to consider, it is not a helpful date from which to start.
We should start from the date of Second Reading. It is possible, even in this Parliament, that a measure will not achieve a Second Reading, and no sensible man should invest in a petition, backed by counsel, solicitors and the rest, until the Bill has achieved its Second Reading, which in this case was only a few hours ago.

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend will agree that, the Bill having received its Second Reading only a few hours ago, it would be cutting it fine even to agree to the date in the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). In fairness, we must consider the date on which the advertisements first appeared, because that was notice to the public locally through the London Gazette. That combined with the date of 18 April, enables us to argue with justification that 27 June would be a considerable improvement on the 17 June, as specified in the motion.

§ Mr. Hogg
My hon. Friend is differentiating between the solicitor and the barrister. In these matters the barrister takes a broad brush approach. We start from the fact that only a few hours ago the Bill got its Second Reading. If 1299 I were a petitioner somewhere in Kent I should not instruct somebody like me to draft a petition unless and until the measure got its Second Reading. It would be a waste of money to do otherwise.
The time from which the horses start to run is the time when the Bill receives its Second Reading. In the committal motion we are considering a few days. That short a period is unwise because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford pointed out, this matter affects people's rights. Moreover, if those people get it wrong, they will not have a chance to make their case. We are talking about matters which can be affected by small errors.
It is strange that we should be talking about a few days. People have to see the advertisement to know that they have a right to petition. They have then to see their lawyers, raise money, draft the petition in the prescribed form, lodge it. if any of those things goes wrong, the petitioner is shut out. All that argues for plenty of time. In one place it is suggested that the date should be 17 June, while in another that it should be the 27 June or 31 July. Those dates are nonsense. People should have months in which to lodge petitions. A few days seems absurd. I rather agree with the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South about half a loaf.
If the best that we can persuade the Goernment to accept is 27 June, I will go along with that date because I am in favour of an extension of time. The basic proposition that we should make in the debate is that people's rights should be protected. When we come to that proposition, precedent matters not at all. We need to be realistic and we need to try to meet the justice of individual cases. I hope that we will be as generous as possible about the time by which petitions must be lodged.

§ Mr. Gale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) for his robust advocacy on behalf of the people of north-east Kent. My potato growers do not want the tunnel any more than his Lincolnshire potato growers want nuclear waste. I hope that it will be possible for Kent Members to return some of the compliment that he has paid to us tonight.
The people of north-east Kent will regard this long debate not as a filibuster, but as a genuine defence of their legitimate rights. Apart from a natural break which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is taking at the moment, he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkstone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) have been in the Chamber non-stop for 15 hours on behalf of the people of Kent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) confused the House sufficiently with quotations from "Erskine May" to demonstrate the great complexity of the issue. It is unreasonable to suppose that the ordinary person, who certainly wishes to make known his or her protest against the Bill, should have even the remotest grasp of these complex proceedings.

§ Mr. Cash
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the points I made were intended not to confuse but to illustrate the fact that confusion once confounded can become confoundedly difficult to unravel.

§ Mr. Gale
I take that point entirely. When I was a radio journalist we used to use a device called vox pop. We took a microphone into the street and asked people for instant impressions on a variety of subjects. Heaven knows that enough people in this place would come running to a microphone if one were offered. If one were to do that outside the Chamber and ask, say, 10 hon. Members who voted for the procedural motion on Tuesday or, indeed, for Second Reading yesterday, to stand in front of a microphone and describe in some detail the hybrid Bill procedure, if those hon. Members had not been in the Chamber for most of the night—as many hon. Members have not—one would probably get 10 different views on the hybrid Bill procedure. If hon. Members have a less than adequate grasp of the procedures that we are debating, how can the ordinary people of north-east Kent be expected to have a finer grasp?
On Tuesday night we heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that sufficient extra time would be given to those of our constituents who wished to present petitions. I raised earlier the point that as the motion carried on Tuesday and the one before the House now stand, there is technically one day on which petitions may be lodged. That in itself is quite unreasonable.
I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his place again. It is not only the petitioners who may wish to have further time. My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to say that he will reconsider, after the representations that have been made, the future of the Thanet Way. Given a little extra time, my right hon. Friend maybe able to make some suggestions to the House, in particular to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, which will enable us to advise our petitioners during the 10 days for which we are asking. Although I have not consulted him, I think that I can fairly add the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkstone and Hythe, who wishes to advise his constituents about the requisite procedures that they will need to follow in order to lodge their petitions and complaints against the Bill.
On behalf of the three Members of Parliament with north Kent constituencies and on behalf, I believe, of many other hon. Members, too, I express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will look kindly upon the amendment that has been tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and concede the 10 days for which we are asking.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
The House will see that I am a signatory to amendment (d) which provides for a slightly longer period than has been so reasonably requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). We are anxious to further the request of those of my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies.
During the debate the attendants were kind enough to unlock Committee Room 6 so that I could obtain the petitions that are being considered by the opposed private Bill Committee, of which I am a member. I have no intention of referring to the contents of the petitions. It is for the Committee to deliberate only when it has heard all the evidence on behalf of the promoters and the petitioners.
The Committee is considering a relatively small Bill, the London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill, but 1301 each petition that has been received is a very complicated document. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, (Mr. Hogg) said, each petition has had to be prepared either by individuals or by solicitors and counsel representing individuals. A petition is a very complicated document. A private individual who is not versed in this procedure will need to take advice from a solicitor and to instruct counsel in order to prepare the petition.
I intend to read from a petition, leaving out any reference to its substance, in order to give the House some idea of the complicated wording with which a petitioner has to become familiar. It is the petition of the trustees of an organisation that could easily be a heritage organisation in Kent. The petition could read: A Bill is now pending in your honourable House entitled a Bill to empower the construction of the Channel Tunnel, to acquire lands, to confer powers upon— whatever authority it might be— and for other purposes. Your petitioners are injurously affected by the Bill in the manner and object to it for the reasons hereinafter stated. Then the average petition that any petitioner for any such Bill might introduce goes through each clause. You can see from the pages that I am turning over, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a detailed document.
Although to hon. Members this is still 5 June, to the outside world it is Friday, 6 June. Tomorrow, in the outside world's eyes, is Saturday—not a working day, and the same is true on Sunday. That takes us to 9 June, so there are about six working days between the time of the rising of the House later today and the time when petitions must be deposited in time for consideration by the Select Committee. The petitioners are likely to be individuals or groups of individuals, including residents' associations. Such people are not experienced or well versed in the complicated procedures of hybrid Bills and the especially peculiar procedures that are being considered for this Bill.

§ Mr. Forth
I am fascinated by the direction of my hon. Friend's arguments. Does he believe that a standard time should be allowed for all such petitions, or that the time allowable should be proportional to the complexity of the case or to the number of people involved? The House would like to know whether he will head in one direction or the other so that we may bring our thoughts to bear on the matter.

§ Mr. Brown
My point, which is reflected in the amendment, is simply that every petitioner, be he ever so high or ever so low, should have the longest possible time that the House is prepared to give him to instruct solicitors or counsel to prepare the documents. The argument has been adduced by other hon. Members. We wish to ensure that any petitioner who may be injuriously affected if the Bill reaches the statute book in its present form should have the right to object and prepare his case with as long an interval as possible between Second Reading of the Bill and the cut-off date by which petitions must be deposited with parliamentary agents or with the Public Bill Office.
The House is being asked to consider a vital set of amendments. I strongly support the speeches that have been made this morning because I and my constituents have a great understanding of what it means to have something imposed on them which will adversely affect the value of their properties. My constituents are aggrieved by the way in which the machinery of government has 1302 interfered with their rights, and they are upset by the speed and undue haste with which a matter relating to my constituency has been pursued during the past few months.
From the letters and petitions that I have received on that issue, I can imagine only too well the many representations that will have been made to hon. Members representing Kent constituencies. It is reasonable to assume that every constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North who has written to him is a potential petitioner against the Bill. As my hon. Friend is saddled with the burden of having to write back saying that the main course of redress available is via the petition process, it will be necessary to come to terms with this complicated procedure. I do not think that eight days will provide adequate time in which to be able to formulate the petitions that will be required to be presented.
There is also a problem of bureaucracy in the Public Bill Office. If in the next eight days it were possible for every petitioner and group of petitioners to construct their petitions satisfactorily by 17 June and deposit them, correctly checked, in the Public Bill Office, heaven knows what kind of bureaucratic problems there would be in that office. The pile of papers that I am holding is a sample of all the petitions for a relatively small private Bill, which I am in the process of considering.
We heard figures mentioned earlier of several hundred petitioners—possibly thousands—that are likely to be deposited. I wonder whether the Public Bill Office has the resources to cope with the onslaught that is going to occur within the next few days. There will be a problem of bureaucracy that we shall have to face. I cannot believe that there has ever been an occassion in the past when the appropriate Public Bill Office organisation and staff have catered for the large number of petitions that are expected and are likely to be received.

§ Mr. Cash
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when the matter gets to the Select Committee, the question of having transcripts available will become a very important issue? Transcripts will be available for the Government and, indeed, for those parties that can afford them, because the costs of transcripts are borne by the parties concerned. If people do not gear themselves up to having those transcripts available, they will be in serious trouble as the proceedings go forward. Will my hon. Friend consider passing on a message that transcripts should be made available at reasonable, if not nil, cost to the parties concerned for the reason that I have already given, namely, that this is essential?

§ Mr. Brown
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have heard what my hon. Friend has said. There is no doubt that every one of these petitions will be the subject of examination and cross-examination, and obviously transcript facilities may well be inadequate.
The fundamental point of this series of amendments is to make sure that the maximum possible time is available to those who wish to petition against something that is going to injure them. As a Member of Parliament whose constituents know what it is to have a decision taken that adversely affects them and the value of their properties, I can appreciate fully the way in which those constituents of my hon. Friend will want to use every avenue open to them. The only avenue that is effectively open to them is the right to petition, which must carry with it the right to have adequate time to prepare the petition.
1303 I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some helpful words that might persuade us to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) raised a question about the disappearing "Canterbury Times". While I can understand that at this hour he is not taking a great interest in its disappearance, I can tell him that the information was given in good faith. I shall look into the question that arises.
If it is of interest to hon. Members, our notes indicate that the Canterbury newspaper concerned was a member of the Kent Messenger group. However, I should like to make it clear that there is no question of our statutory duty not having been discharged. The parliamentary question referred to was one of a batch, all from the same hon. Member, about my department's leaflet. The newspapers listed in that reply were those in which the leaflet was advertised. I apologise if there was a misunderstanding as to the name of the newspaper. I shall send to my hon. Friend a list of the newspapers in which we advertised.
My hon. Friend raised several matters all relating to the period from Second Reading, as did the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I believe that what is important is not the date of the Second Reading but when the advertisement is placed inviting people to petition. In this case that was done on 18 April.

§ Mr. Forth
Does my hon. Friend agree that if any considerable expenditure of resources were required by the individual in order to submit a properly presented petition, the individual might regard it as prudent to wait to see whether the House gave the Bill a Second Reading before proceeding to commit those resources? Does he agree that to expect a petitioner to embark on that exercise, which could be very costly, at the earlier date in advance of the Second Reading might be regarded as imprudent? Therefore, that would invalidate a large part of the argument that my hon. Friend is making.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I disagree with my hon. Friend because in the leaflet that we distributed we gave a simple illustration of how an ordinary individual could prepare a petition at no cost. That applies to the people who, in the view of my hon. Friend, might incur unnecessary expenditure. Groups of people have come together to brief legal advisers and the like; they are not private individuals but people with considerable resources at their disposal. In several cases substantial sums have been collected in the campaign against the Channel tunnel. Those groups have already done much of the work and are simply waiting for the right time at which to put in the documents. While I am not insensitive to the point that my hon. Friend has made, I do not think that it need cause us great concern.

§ Mr. Aitken
Before my hon. Friend dismisses the date of the Second Reading as being unimportant, may I suggest to him that an ordinary member of the public might have got confused—indeed, many hon. Members were confused — by the complicated nature of the dispute about whether the Bill had violated Standing Orders, what the Committee would say and so on? Therefore, it is reasonable to say in this instance at least, whatever 1304 precedents there may have been, in the light of all the mystery and suspense created by the ruling, or non-ruling as it turned out to be, of the Standing Orders Committee, that the starting gun really fired on or about the date of Second Reading.

§ Mr. Mitchell
If my hon. Friend takes that view, I can only point out to him that a private Bill has only 10 days from Second Reading to closing. We published the advertisement on 18 April.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that people may not have understood the procedure. I hope that I have been able to reassure him by the explanation that I have given about the leaflet that we produced. That too went out on 18 April at the same time as the advertisements were placed in national and local newspapers.

§ Mr. Stern
I take my hon. Friend's point that that procedure has been adopted in those areas most affected by the Bill. My point was that this is a national Bill and there are groups around the country that now realise that they are affected. I have not seen many copies of the leaflet in my constituency, although no doubt in Kent they are on virtually every doorstep. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the leafleting procedure is sufficient, given that my hon. Friend is effectively being asked to target on those groups without knowing who or where they are.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we have advertised in the national newspapers as well as in the local ones. By its very nature, those who are likely to petition against the Bill are those with a personal interest — in the non-normal sense of the word — and such people will be pretty rare in Bristol.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
In which Scottish newspapers were there advertisements? Since I last participated in the debate I have spoken to my wife, who has relatives in Kent who know nothing about the position.

§ Mr. Mitchell
There are Scottish regional newspapers, of course, but the national ones in which we advertised reach Scotland.
The House is grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks for the points that he made. The House will also recognise that, although it was the face of Richmond, the hand was that of Folkestone. Whatever face or hand it was, the Government have been persuaded by the argument. Therefore, I am happy to recommend that the House accepts my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment.

§ Mr. Speed
On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and myself, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister most warmly. The extra time that will be allowed will be welcomed by many of the small petitioners.

§ Mr. Mitchell
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) supported the case. I agree that petitions against alterations in the Bill are in order after the date, which would otherwise be a limiting factor. I bow to his legal knowledge in a number of the arguments he advanced, but I am sure that he would not take it amiss if I said that he was applying a degree of injurious affection to my head at this hour of the morning with some of the legality that he brought to the discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), referred to a six-week period from Second 1305 Reading to closing date in the 1974 Crosland Bill. In fact, that Bill, reintroduced under the Wilson Government. had its Second Reading on 30 April, and the closing date was 7 May, just one week later.
The second paragraph of the motion incorporates a closing date for petitioners. That date was debated at length on Tuesday night. The closing date of 17 June proposed by the Government allows eight weeks and four days from the publication of newspaper notices on 18 April. The intervale for the Channel Tunnel Bill in 1973 was exactly eight weeks. The Government have done rather better with the current Bill.
As I have already said, I am happy to accept the amendment proposed by my right hon. and leaned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. That will allow the extra 10 days for individual petitioners. The Government expect that there will be many individual petitioners, but we are confident that the House authorities can cope. Of course, the Committee of Selection will decide when the Select Committee will hold its first meeting. However, I am confident that there will be a number of group petitions from part authorities, competing ferry companies, local authorities and environmental groups which the Committee can focus upon as soon as it is formed before it needs to consider points from individual petitioners which are liable to be received a little later.
The Government recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment would not, technically, allow husband and wife teams to petition jointly before 17 June. I do not think that that is a material drawback to his amendment. It is difficult to see where else the line could have been drawn to give the man in the street a little longer to present his petition without giving the same time to major organisations which we have not been convinced need that time.
I am happy to accept the amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. It will allow individual petitioners three weeks from today before they need to submit their petitions. I submit that there is no case for delaying the closing date for petitions beyond that time, and I recommend that the House accept amendments (e) and (f).

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I beg to move, That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition. This paragraph is entirely standard form. It lays down that the standard rules for petitioners apply and it makes clear that they can be heard either by themselves or by their counsel or agents. I believe that this is very important. I made it clear on Second Reading that the Government would not oppose the locus standi of any reasonable petitioner.
I have nothing more to add to that. I suggest that the House is likely to wish to accept it at this point.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I beg to move, 'That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before it:'

§ Mr. Speaker
We shall consider at the same time amendment (g), after 'Kingdom', insert 'to send for persons, papers and records.'

§ Mr. Mitchell
This paragraph is not standard form. It contains two very important provisions that the Government consider—and I am sure the House will agree—especially apposite to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has said, with some justification, that the Bill is unique, at least in recent years.
The first provision would allow the Committee to sit when the House was in recess, if it so desired, at the beginning of the recess, before its end, or even in the middle. In 1974, the Select Committee sat for just under six weeks. I hope that this year it will be possible for the Committee to complete its work within a reasonable time. Should the proceedings threaten to run beyond the end of the summer, it will be open to the Committee to make use of the provision and to sit for as long as it desires.
The second provision in the paragraph has been sought over the past year by many hon. Members and groups. It will give the Committee the authority, which otherwise it would not have, to visit, sit and take evidence in Kent or anywhere in the United Kingdom, should it wish to do so. In the 1974 proceedings of the Select Committee, the Committee decided to visit the sites concerned. This provision goes a little further because it allows evidence to be taken in the areas most directly affected, if the Committee so wishes.
1309 I am sure that the House will recognise the need for both provisions. In moving them, I am responding to a considerable number of hon. Members who requested the provisions and sought assurances on that line.

§ Mr. Marlow
I notice that amendment (g)—I hope that my hon. Friend will cover it in a moment—which is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, would enable the Committee to send for persons, papers and records". The great bulk of the amendments on the Order Paper, which have kept the House sitting all night, are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, but I have not seen the right hon. Gentleman all night. As the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for keeping us up all night, I wonder whether, if the amendment allows for the Committee to send for persons, papers and records, the Committee would be entitled to send for the Leader of the Opposition. If so, and if the Committee sent for him, I wonder whether he would attend.

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps it is an appropriate moment for me to say that with amendment (g) we are considering amendments (j) and (aa).

§ Mr. Mitchell
I have nothing more to add at this point. I should be happy to respond when hon. Members have made any points they wish to raise.

§ Mr. Michael Brown
The debate is important because, if the motion were passed in its unamended form, we fear that the Select Committee would sit, notwithstanding the fact that the House may have adjourned some time in July. Earlier we considered the tremendous burden that will fall on nine unfortunate hon. Members who are to be selected—now that we have disposed of previous amendments—to serve on the Select Committee.

§ Mr. Harris
Drafted or press-ganged.

§ Mr. Brown
My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, says "Drafted or press-ganged." I think that is an unfair slur on the honourable record of the Committee of Selection chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who I think on the whole does a magnificent job in trying to ensure that hon. Members are chosen for their skills, abilities, independence, impartiality and interests to deal with any Bill, whether private or public.
Great concern was expressed about the burden—the sheer volume of work — that will fall on nine unfortunate hon. Members. It has been said that many hon. Members will be ruled out — for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)—because they have some kind of constituency interest. That will apply to all hon. Members from Kent and any hon. Member who represents a port, as I do. I represent the port of Immingham. My county council is likely to petition against the Bill. Many hon. Members will be ruled out and this unfortunate duty will fall on nine out of a few hon. Members.

§ Mr. Forth
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Brown
I shall finish this point so that I can prove to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am absolutely within order. I have not been pulled up so far, during my short speeches, for being out of order. I intend to maintain that position until we conclude our debates.
1310 The nine unfortunate Members will be heavily burdened with work from the day that they start. They, more than any other group of Members, will be looking forward to their summer recess, with some justification. The suggestion that they might have power to continue their sittings of the Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the House might have risen for the summer recess, is most unfortunate.

§ Mr. Forth
Will my hon. Friend add to the list of those who he feels are disqualified for membership of the Select Committee those who represent constituencies that are far inland and remote from the sea, a port or anywhere else that is involved? Will their distance from the project disqualify them on the ground that it reflects a lack of knowledge of the relevant issues as opposed to intimate connection?

§ Mr. Brown
If I were to respond to my hon. Friend's question, Mr. Speaker, I fear that you would rule me out of order. My hon. Friend has raised a subject that came within our consideration of amendments (a) and (b) and he should have addressed his request to me when I was contributing to the debate on those amendments. We are now concerned with whether it is right for the Select Committee to have power to be able to continue its sittings beyond the adjournment of the House.
I cannot believe that the nine members of the Committee will be volunteers. They will be selected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Press-ganged."] Perhaps that is unfair. They will be selected, probably against their will. However, they will undertake their duties—in the way that we all discharge the duties that are imposed upon us —with a spirit of good will, and they will have a right to adjourn for the summer recess in the same way as every other hon. Member.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that any Members who are put on the Select Committee and who represent large rural constituencies normally use the summer recess to get round their constituencies. If they are unfortunate enough to be selected, they will require their summer recess more than anyone else.

§ Mr. Brown
That is true. Most hon. Members will probably have family responsibilities, and we shall all be in need of a holiday. If a Member has been considering petitions in the early days of the Committee's sittings, I shall be aware of the burden that he will incur because during the past three weeks I have been a member of the Committee that is considering a private Bill. I know how time-consuming it is for an hon. Member to serve on a Commmittee that is considering a private Bill, and those who are Members of the Select Committee will find that it is akin to a private Bill Committee.

§ Mr. Rowe
rose——

§ Mr. Brown
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I want to make my remarks fairly brief. We are pressed for time and many of my hon. Friends wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The unfortunate Members who will have to discharge their duties on the Select Committee will find that there is a backlog of constituency work to catch up with They will be tied up in a Select Committee from 10.30 am until 1 pm, and in the afternoon from 2.15 to 3.30, probably on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. They will find it difficult to discharge their other parliamentary duties in 1311 between. By the time the Committee members have been sitting for three or four weeks, at the end of June and into July, they will be among the first to be entitled to look forward to an early summer recess.

§ Mr. Humfrey Malins (Croydon, North-West)
I am glad to have the opportunity to make a short contribution. Throughout the night I have listened, on and off —mostly off — to the contributions made by my hon. Friends. I have been struck by the passion, strength and merits of the arguments forcefully expressed by my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies. I cannot remember an occasion when a local issue has been so well argued by hon. Friends who represent areas close to their hearts. I congratulate them most sincerely.
When I have sat in a Committee upstairs, I have sometimes thought how nice it would be if the Committees of the House had the power to adjourn from time to time to various places within the United Kingdom. The Committee on the Channel tunnel would gain much by visiting the south-east of the country. It would be able to listen to people's views on the spot, and get the local flavour. It would be much easier to form impressions by travelling to the areas involved. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who has been present for every debate on the Channel tunnel, agrees wholeheartedly with that idea.

§ Mr. Ashby
Although I appreciate the importance of the Select Committee visiting the site of the proposed Channel tunnel on the south coast, should it not travel across the Channel to the Pas de Calais? It would be able to gauge the feeling there. Perhaps the Pas de Calais is still considered to be part of the United Kingdom and that is the explanation.

§ Mr. Malins
It would benefit the Committee in many ways to travel over the water to France.

§ Mr. Forth
Duty free.

§ Mr. Malins
Yes, indeed.
If the Select Committee Members were to travel around Kent, they would have a better chance to gauge local opinions, but the Committee's travels should not be limited to Kent. When the Channel tunnel comes into operation, it will have an impact further afield. You, Mr. Speaker, have the honour to represent a Croydon seat, as I do, and with the motorway links it is possible to travel from Croydon to the Kent coast in about an hour. Business and other interests in the south London area may have some comments to make on the Channel tunnel.
It is important for the Committee to be able travel to around Britain, especially in Kent, to gauge public feeling. The people of Kent have fine advocates in the House.

§ Mr. Marlow
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) raised an important point. We all regret the passing of Queen Mary——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot gauge what Queen Mary has to do with me.

§ Mr. Marlow
A great deal, Mr. Speaker, because Calais is part of the United Kingdom's possessions, and I believe that nothing has been done to remove it from the 1312 suzerainty and control of this House. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether, if the Committee wishes to go to Calais, it will have the same powers there as in the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Speaker
If the Committee wants to go to Calais, that will be a matter for the Chairman, not for me.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
If I may say so, that is more a matter for the Chairman than for Queen Mary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has always believed that the Select Committee can do its job effectively only if it is given powers to sit in the areas directly affected. For that reason, I support this motion.
There may be argument for the Committee to cross the Channel and look at the comparative effects on the other side, but it should not be an excuse for a jolly day out in the sun. When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he would assure us that that will not be precluded by the wording of the motion, which relates only to the United Kingdom. Despite the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I doubt whether our possession of the Pas de Calais is sufficiently well recognised for it to be included in the motion. If France is to be visited, it should be included in the motion.
The specific reasons and concerns that prompt the request and desire that the Committee should visit Kent have been tabled through instructions or referred to elsewhere. First, there will be effects on the property and amenities of people immediately affected and on the economy in terms of jobs gained and lost. Those matters can be assessed, petitioned against and inquired into most appropriately in the areas immediately affected.
Secondly, there are environmental aspects of considerable importance in areas of outstanding beauty in Kent, about which there is great concern. Thirdly, there are specific matters that have been brought to the Government's attention in letters to the Departments of the Environment and Transport. They include the impact of the terminal at Cheriton, the ever-increasing loss of amenity because of traffic on local roads, spoil disposal, the impact of the new stretch of the M20 and the impact of consequential developments on the countryside in Kent, particularly warehousing, tourism and retail developments.
I know that the Minister is sensitive to those matters. I understand that the Government intend to make an opening statement, presumably when the Select Committee meets at Westminster. It would be helpful if the Minister would consider a more flexible procedure which would allow the Government to be cross-examined towards the beginning of the inquiry about matters relating to the opening statement which are also specific to the places which the Select Committee may decide to visit, rather than not allow petitioners to inquire into those matters. I hope that all those considerations will be included in the spirit and wording of the motion to allow the Committee to move around.
It is clear from the past 12 hours of debate that the Committee's timetable and responsibilities will be wide-reaching. It may be onerous for the hon. Members serving on it, but I am sure that the petitioners will feel that the Committee will be more responsive to its needs if it is seen to go to the people at least as often as the people are asked to go to it.

§ Mr. Rowe
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has been misled on two points. First, there is no reason to suppose that if the Select Committee goes abroad—for example, to Calais—it will do so on a sunny day. Secondly, the major part of the M20 that is under construction has nothing to do with the tunnel. It is part of the roads programme as originally planned.
While we are rightly concerned for those who will comprise the Select Committee, at the end of the day those who matter most are the petitioners. It is essential that they have every opportunity to present their case, to have it heard and to have the counter arguments presented in a form and within a time which will allow them to comment on and argue against them, if that is appropriate. Other considerations are secondary to that.
In view of the amount of work that the Select Committee will have to do, the House must ensure that its Members have the proper staff back-up to ensure that the grouping and sifting of petitions is done quickly. We are well served by the Clerk's Department, but this is a different scale of operation from any other Select Committee activity that we can envisage.
There will be a recurring need for the Government to put their case in response to petitioners. It will be helpful for the Government, as the proposers of the Bill, to make the opening case so that petitioners may know the arguments. After that, Ministers should be available to the Select Committee to respond on particular issues.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
It would be helpful also if, once the Government have made the initial statement, an opportunity were provided for questions to be asked of members of the Government so that at an early stage unclear matters are clarified, thus avoiding the need for petitioners and others to wait until a later stage for issues to be cleared up.

§ Mr. Rowe
It will be for the Committee and its Chairman to decide such matters, but what the hon. Gentleman suggests seems sensible. The Government have said time and again that the Select Committee procedure gives at least as good an opportunity to explore matters as does a planning inquiry. I am happy to go along with that, provided we ensure that the Select Committee is given power to travel and is given the resources to enable petitioners to explore all the ramifications of this major proposal.

§ Mr. Cash
Standing Order No. 136, which is referred to on page 1011 of "Erskine May," has a considerable bearing on amendment (g). Considering that the Opposition tabled that amendment, it is astonishing that Labour Members have simply copped out by not turning up for this debate. I understood that they tabled the amendment in protest, as it were, against what my hon. Friends and I have been doing.
There must be many members of, and others sympathetic to, the Labour party living in Kent. They will be appalled to learn that Opposition Members have copped out by not being present to move the amendment.
Standing Order 136 provides: By this order, first made in 1945, it is declared that a committee is not empowered, without express authority from the House, to hear evidence other than that which may be tendered by the parties entitled to be heard. 1314 That would have been substituted by this amendment by enabling the Committee to send for persons, papers and records which would have significantly amplified the powers available to the Select Committee. I am in favour of the Bill.

§ Mr. Greg Knight
I am listening with interest to what my hon. Friend is saying. My instinct is to support amendment (g). Can my hon. Friend tell me what the position would be if the House were to pass amendment (g) and in due course, when the Committee sent for persons to appear, someone refused to appear? What sanctions will the Committee have? Amendment (g) is useless unless it has some teeth.

§ Mr. Cash
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The proceedings on a hybrid Bill are, in the main, the same as those for a private Bill and do not automatically attract the powers of a Select Committee. As I understand it, whereas a Select Committee would be able to require the attendance of a person, it may not be quite such a simple matter in relation to a private Bill. I defer to the judgment of those wiser than I am in these matters, because I might be wrong on that. By not including this provision, we are left, as would be the case with other private Bills, with the evidence that is presented exclusively by the parties in evidence. That is a point which ought to be made, though I notice that the Opposition are looking somewhat languid at this time of the morning.
I am not entirely clear about what was intended by amendment (j), which says: 'That in the proceedings before the Select Committee the obligations upon the Promoters of the Bill of presentation and proof shall conform to the procedures followed in Private Bills.'. I have already said that that is what I would have expected and, as I understand it, that is the state of play. Amendment (aa) reads: 'That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee that it shall hear the evidence of Her Majesty's Government at the start of its proceedings in order to enable the Petitioners to respond thereto.' I have some experience of private Bills and I have seen leading counsel engaging in some tactical manoeuvres which, without going into all the boring detail, preclude the other side from calling evidence. Such tactics are available to strategists at the parliamentary Bar and people would be disturbed if such things happened on this occasion. I sincerely hope that they do not.
As I said in the Select Committee, proceedings are conducted, in the main, in the same manner as those in a Committee on a private Bill. In 1948–49 the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills made some suggestions for improving the situation. Page 592 of "Erskine May" reads: unless the House has given any instruction or indication to the contrary, the second reading is considered to remove from the promoters the onus of proving the expediency of the bill. The petitioner, therefore, opens to the committee, calling such evidence as he wishes. The promoters then answer the petitioner's case, and if they call evidence this entitles the petitioner to a right of reply. The procedure is, however, subject to the will of the commmittee and the requirements imposed by each bill. It is worth pointing out that the instruction that is proposed in paragraph (aa) That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee that it shall hear the evidence of Her Majesty's Government at the start of its proceedings in order to enable the Petitioners to respond thereto 1315 is somewhat different from the proposals that I have just described and that are provided for under the existing Standing Orders.
The behaviour of the Opposition in putting down an amendment to the motion and abusing the procedure by not turning up seems to me to be negligence in the extreme. I hope that Labour party supporters in Kent are aware of the fact that some extremely valuable stategic advantages could have been obtained but that the Opposition have just let the whole thing slip. It is not merely negligence; it is downright incompetence.

§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)
It is a matter of great importance to the people of this country that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
Looking in pardment (bb), my recent experience as a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill leads me to the view that it is very useful if a Select Committee is able to travel round the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) pointed out that there are 500 petitioners against the Bill in Kent alone. Therefore, it would be very useful if the Select Committee had the power to call for evidence and to hear witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred to the dangers of amendment (g), in that it would confer an open-ended power.
If this Select Committee were to be given the same powers as are enjoyed by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which is appointed every five years, they would be found to be extremely useful. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill went to the sites of military activity and found that very useful. In this case, the Select Committee would be able to visit compulsory purchase sites, or sites where transport infrastructure is to be provided for the Channel tunnel, talk to the people who will be affected and, if necessary, take evidence on site.
Wearing briefly my Member of Parliament for Lancashire, West hat, we should like the Committee to look in particular at the rail link between all the regions of the country—I refer particularly to Manchester and Liverpool—and the tunnel. We want to be able to send manufactured goods to Britain's most important market, the European Community, through the tunnel. Petitioners from the north-west region will no doubt ask the Select Committee to ensure that the infrastructure necessary to send containers by rail directly from the north-west through the tunnel is part of the structure plan.
We wish to make submissions to the Committee. We do not wish to be left out in the cold. Many of my constituents are worried about the fact that the major advantages of the tunnel will accrue mostly in the south-east. As it is nearer to the main markets, it will attract industry that will not go to the north-west. All that could be obviated if we had proper links and transport infrastructure connected to the tunnel, which would remove the advantages that the south-east would gain.
If the threat of fewer jobs in the port and ferry services of east Kent is realised, those changes in employment might result in the area seeking to become an assisted area and seeking Government grants. If it did, it would be competing with the north-west, where there is high unemployment and where assisted area status is important.

§ Mr. Greg Knight
I have listened to my hon. Friend's comments on amendment (g). I am still not entirely satisfied by his remarks or by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Will he give the House an assurance about the sanctions that the Committee may have in respect of sending for persons? If amendment (g) is passed and the Committee seeks to call a person to appear before it and that person refuses to come, what sanctions will the Committee have? That is a crucial point. It is no good telling the Committee that it has the power to send for persons if those persons can refuse to attend the Committee has no sanction against them.

§ Mr. Hind
I do not go as far as amendment (g). My hon. Friend is advocating that the Committee should have powers similar to those exercised by Select Committees, which can, within parameters, require anyone to give evidence to them and require papers and records. It is unnecessary in this case to have that much power, because the Committee will not be inquiring into the activities of Departments. This Committee is weighing up the objections by petition and amendment from outside bodies and, therefore, needs the power to require people to give evidence to it, and indeed to require the Department of Transport to give evidence to it. To some extent I agree with the spirit of amendment (g), but it is almost impossible in the circumstances to support it.
The Eurotunnel amendments are important, but I support wholeheartedly the principles of the paragraph and I urge my hon. Friends to do the same.

§ Mr. Aitken
Even at this late hour, we are doing a useful job by discussing the amendments, and I especially wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State three important questions that arise from them.
We all recognise that it is in the best interests of the House and the country for the Select Committee to do a thorough job of scrutinising the Bill. So far, that job has not been done. The Government have failed lamentably, in the rushed job, to study the Bill line by line, and I shall prove that to my hon. Friend by asking him three questions which he may find difficult to answer because he may not have thought of the three problems. They might be better answered if the Committee had the power to send for persons or papers.
This is not just a hybrid Bill; it is a hybrid project. It is a joint effort between taxpayers' money and private money. I am a little suspicious of the degree to which about £1 billion of public money will be needed to support the infrastructure, as demanded increasingly in speech after speech on Second Reading, to further the commercial interests of Eurotunnel. In this respect, therefore, I think that the taxpayers' interest must be pursued and, if necessary, pursued by the Committee sending for persons and papers when appropriate.
Let me highlight one area on which I touched in the debate on Second Reading. I have reason to believe that there is already a small whiff of scandal emanating from deals that have been done by Eurotunnel in particular with the railways, with Eurotunnel possibly using its monopoly power to get a better price out of the railways than otherwise might have been possible. I say that on the following grounds. Before Eurotunnel was announced as the winner of the competition, all the bidders had 1317 discussions with the railways. They all needed the railways to supply a service to them. Channel Expressway, for example, concluded a deal with the railways, SNCF and BR, to supply the rail service and British Rail and SNCF were to pay an annual subscription of between £56 million and £112 million a year. That was the Channel Expressway figure. A similar deal at very similar prices was done with Eurotunnel.
It would, therefore, be reasonable on a commercial judgment to expect that Eurotunnel's deal would be in the same price range. It is not in the same price range at all, we discover. I have evidence that suggests that the total price that the state railways, both financed by taxpayers' money, are now having to pay £140 million a year in annual subscription for the first year of operation, rising to £200 million. In other words, the railways are having to pay about £100 million more a year under Eurotunnel than they would have had to pay had Channel Expressway or Euroroute won the competition.
I suggest that the principal reason why the railways are having to pay much more is that Eurotunnel now finds itself in the monopoly bargaining position, and was able to extract from the railways a very high price through that monopoly power. The taxpayer is, in effect, giving an extra subsidy to the private business men of Eurotunnel. I think that the only way to reassure ourselves that this price is not excessive is by the Committee having the power to send for persons and papers and to ask them specific questions. When parliamentary questions are tabled on this subject, they are met with the customary wall—that this is a matter of commercial confidentiality. That answer really does not stand up as a serious and justifiable riposte.
Obviously the taxpayer has an interest if his railways are having to pay an annual subscription of £100 million or so a year more than the competitors would have expected from the railways. It is a large subsidy, and it is the taxpayer's money. We want to know on behalf of the taxpayer the precise details of all those contractual arrangements and the justification for them to make sure that an excessive charge is not being levied that will hit the taxpayer. This is a theme to which we will return again and again. If the Committee has the power to send for persons and papers, I suggest that that will facilitate it in its inquiry.
I give another example of how, if there is the power to send for persons and papers, in this case the ratepayer's money could be saved. In clause 12 of the Bill there is an indication, indeed a commitment, that the costs of policing the tunnel will be paid by the promoters. Kent police have done a great deal of work on what they think will be needed. Their estimate in broad terms is that a complete new subdivision of police should be located at the tunnel, to be given manpower at the normal rate for subdivisions of the Kent police—between 150 and 20P officers. That will be expensive because at 1985 prices a police officer costs £20,000 to £25,000 a year. According to the Bill, the cost of those police officers should be paid by the promoters. Whatever the Bill may say, it would be a sanguine man who would say that that price will be paid in full by the promoters.
I say that because there is a contradictory clause in the concession agreement to clause 12. I do not have the exact reference here, but in effect the clause in the concession agreement is a non-discrimination clause. The gist of it is that the promoters should not have to pay more than they 1318 would have to pay to cover policing at another Channel port, such as Dover. I hear that there is already argument as to the justified policing level in the view of the Kent police, on the one hand, and of the promoters. on the other, the promoters using the non-discrimination clause in the concession agreement.
This is a most important dispute. It could result in a heavy bill having to be paid by the ratepayers of Kent for the police officers for whom the promoters say they will not pay. The Committee may have to act as a referee. If so, it would be enormously helped by being able to send for persons and papers.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give an indication of the Government's thinking. I shall be most relieved if he can give a clear and decisive assurance that the cost of the police appointed by the Kent constabulary to look after the tunnel and its surroundings will not fall on the ratepayers of Kent, in which case there would be no need to send for persons and papers.
There is another small point on the policing of the tunnel. There is the possibility of almost emotive controversy about policing because of the juxtaposition of powers in the Bill. The Bill indicates that at frontier controls and customs and immigration the British authorities have the right to be on the French side, and the French police have the right to be on the British side.
An interesting and emotive point arises. Will there be armed French gendarmes standing on British soil? Neither the Kent police nor the Kent people would like to see that. The French authorities, who are entitled to say this, insist on their gendarmes being armed. The very word "gendarme" means an armed policeman. If there is to be a French right to keep a gendarme on British soil, the Committee may need to send for the head of the gendarmerie in Paris and may need to see the instructions and authority given to police officers in France about the circumstances in which they may use arms. That dispute may seem to be far-fetched, but it is potentially an emotional issue in Kent. It would be more easily resolved if the Committee had the power to send for persons and papers.
I have given my hon. Friend three examples of rows and arguments which could occur. The Committee might be assisted in solving those problems if it had the power to send for persons and papers and did not have to make a judgement without them.
The amendment also covers certain arrangements about how and when the Committee should sit. I put down an amendment which was not called; its gist was to try to ensure that Members of Parliament, members of the Committee, petitioners, their witnesses and their learned counsel all got a decent break and that the Committee should not sit until 1 September.
That was not a silly point; it was a point of substance, for two reasons. First, the petitioners genuinely need time to prepare their petitions. Secondly, parliamentary counsel feel that the Bill—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to speak to an amendment that has not been called.

§ Mr. Aitken.
I shall take note of your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and conclude by saying that the Committee would be assisted by a decent break. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the Committee should take that point seriously.

§ Mr. John Watson (Skipton and Ripon)
I shall be brief, because I wish to make a genuine contribution rether than one the main purpose of which is to pass the time.
A great deal of the debate has been concerned with the protection of minorities. I admire and defend the fortitude of my colleagues from Kent in their representation of the interests of the people of Kent, who they see as a minority. Understandably, my hon. Friends also feel that they are a minority in this House. However, there is another minority interest—those in Kent who are actually in favour of the tunnel.
Far be it from me to put myself forward as a champion of that view, but apart from being a Member of the House I am the chairman of a company in Kent that employs 168 people. I cannot speak for the employees, but I can speak for the management. We think that the tunnel is a good idea. It has been an unusual accident of history and geography that the economic centre of Britain over the past 20 years has not only come to the south-east of Britain, but to the western part of it. If there is a tunnel, there is a fair chance that much of the prosperity that has gone to my hon. Friend the Minister's constituency around Basingstoke might come to the part of Kent where my factory is located. I make my interests clear on that.
What worries me is that most of the elected representatives of Kent, whether Members of this Chamber, members of councils or members of chambers of commerce, share the opinion that the tunnel is a bad idea. Therefore, I fear that the minority opinion in Kent that is in favour of it might go unrepresented.
I find some relief in the setting up of the Committee if it has the power to send for persons, papers and records. If the evidence presented to it does not represent anything from the minority interest in Kent, I hope that it will not only have the power, but the inclination to use it, and will send for such "persons, papers and records" as may be necessary to defend the interests of those in favour of the Bill.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)
I shall be brief. I especially welcome paragraph 4 which outlines the delegated powers of the Committee. It can meet all over the United Kingdom. I am concerned that, by being given strong powers to interview, take evidence and look at the various ports, a substantial sum of money will be involved. I hope that my hon. Friend can give the House an estimate of the budget for the Committee to undertake that work.
There is no doubt that the Committee will sit outside the hours of sitting of this House, that witnesses will be called from many miles away and that much information will have to be collected. The sort of representation that some local industries may wish to put forward may result in substantial costs for witness fees, for counsel and for meetings in particular places, whether beside Canterbury cathedral, in the midlands or at one of the ports in Liverpool. If my hon. Friend the Minister can satisfy me on that point, I am sure that will reassure all hon. Members that it is worth while to establish such a Select Committee and that its role will result in a proper Channel Tunnel Bill being brought before the House for approval.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
It may be helpful if I suggest to the House how we might deal with the amendments before I respond to some of the points that have been made. The Government oppose amendment (g). The power to send for persons, papers and records is given to all House of Commons Departmental Select Committees — for example the Select Committee on Transport — to enable them to conduct inquiries on topics within their subject area. That power has never been given to Select Committees on hybrid Bills, because those Committees are charged only with hearing and deciding upon the cases made by petitioners. The function of this Committee is not to conduct a general investigation but to protect the rights of people affected by the project, which has now been approved in principle by the House on Second Reading.
I would now like to consider some quite extraordinary misconceptions on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has his tongue in his cheek or whether he has really persuaded himslf of his own case. He alleged that the project is a joint effort of public and private money, and that £1 billion of taxpayers' money was involved. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that that is arrant nonsense. His make up of that colossal figure is partly the expenditure on roads, which would be undertaken anyway to meet the increasing proportion of people using the Kent roads to get to the ports and across to the continent. It is estimated that by the end of the century twice the present number of people will be travelling though the ports of Dover, Folkestone, Margate and Ramsgate. Would my hon. Friend expect there to be no expenditure on the infrastructure to enable those people to travel that way? Of course not. These projects are already programmed in the longer term projections of expenditure intended by the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South is completely wrong to take such huge sums into account.
My hon. Friend then turned his attention to British Rail and said that the expenditure projected with British Rail is taxpayers' money. That, too, is arrant nonsense. The £400 million for British Rail expenditure is money that is fully commercial in its operation. British Rail submitted a project for investment in the necessary equipment to operate the Channel tunnel. I am happy to say that we have a 7 per cent. discount rate which is our requirement, and it is above that figure. Therefore, the return is satisfactory and does not involve taxpayers' contributions.

§ Mr. Aitken
In a competition for talking arrant nonsense at this hour of the morning, on this topic at least, my hon. Friend the Minister of State would win if that was an example of his work, without my being in the race at all. Who does my hon. Friend think he is fooling by these curious remarks? The truth is that money spent on roads and railways is ultimately funded by the taxpayer. It is public money. It is sheer verbal sophistry to pretend that that money is going to be spent anyway and that it is a complete coincidence that money is being spent on roads in Kent on this scale. It is a bagatelle to suggest that these roads are suddenly to be modernised but that that would have happened anyway. I wonder who in Kent will believe that?
Of course, all public expenditure at some time may be spent on roads in some direction or other. The truth is that 1321 these funds have at the very least been pin-pointed and accelerated. That would not have happened had it not been for the Channel tunnel. No one in the country, with the possible exception of a few in-house officials or Ministers, would believe the story that somehow public money is not involved on a big scale in the project. It clearly is. To suggest otherwise is, to use the Minister's own phrase, "arrant nonsense".

§ Mr. Mitchell
I do not want to involve myself in too much verbal fisticuffs with my hon. Friend at this hour, but British Rail money is not, as he alleges, coming from the taxpayer. I can tell him exactly where it is coining from. It is coming from the users. It is coming from the people who will pay very high fares to travel on those trains. That money will fully service the capital outlay with a margin over and above.

§ Mr. Aitken
Does my hon. Friend recall that only about a year ago the House voted £1 billion in extra grants to British Rail? The Minister is performing a conjuring trick in saying that he is not counting that as money which Parliament voted, which ultimately came from the taxpayer, but as money from tickets. British Rail's money is public money.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I am sorry to disabuse my hon. Friend, but the money to which he is referring was the public services obligation. That money is paid to British Rail for conducting loss-making services which it would not conduct if it were a commercial organisation. This is not a loss-making service. It is a fully commercial and profitable service and it is only on that basis that I have approved the outline capital expenditure that British Rail wishes to undertake.

§ Mr. Gow
I am trying to follow my hon. Friend. I should be grateful if he would assist some of my hon. Friends who heard him say a moment ago that the cost of the new railway lines and rolling stock will be paid for out of the very high fares that will be paid by passengers. Will not the new lines and new rolling stock have to be provided before those higher fares are paid? Could my hon. Friend, who is one of the disciples of Dr. Johannes Witteveen, explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who represents a constituency further north than the county of Kent, how we can obtain the fares before we have the railway lines and the rolling stock?

§ Mr. Mitchell
Yes, I can explain to my hon. Friend. I do not want to enter into a dialogue with him now on the subject of discounted cash flow, but as a former Treasury Minister he will be fully aware of that concept. The Treasury requirements in respect of having no element of subsidy and being fully commercial have been met. I am not sure whether they were met at the time that he was at the Treasury when he benignly nodded approval, just as he is benignly smiling at the moment, but he will be well familiar with the concept. I assure him that not only did it comply with that concept at the minimum level but it was above it. Therefore, he can be fully reassured on that score.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South can blow as hard as he likes, but everybody in Kent knows that Kent has been clamouring for years for the gap in the M20 to be filled, and that is one of the major expenditures. My 1322 hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) has been campaigning for that. He knows perfectly well that that is in the Department's long-term programme. It will be completed within the time scale in which it would otherwise have been completed and it will fit into the traffic pattern that is required.

§ Mr. Gow
rose——

§ Mr. Gale
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
To which hon. Member is the Minister giving way?

§ Mr. Mitchell
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.

§ Mr. Gow
When my hon. Friend said that everyone in Kent had been clamouring for the new road, did he include in that company my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

§ Mr. Mitchell
My hon. Friend is, as always. very shrewd in assessing any weakness in the argument of those whom in his legal career he has cross-examined in court on many occasions. I have to admit that I was referring to those people in the part of Kent which is affected by the existing road system and who are anxious to see the improvements.

§ Mr. Gale
There is absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) have been clamouring for the Thanet way for years and years. The one road in east Kent which really does matter is the road that is not getting any attention at all.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I will not debate that point with my hon. Friend now. I shall simple say that the traffic flows or. the M20 are somewhat greater than those on the Thanet way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South also alleged that Eurotunnel has pressurised British Rail into giving a concessionary charge. He almost suggested that something improper had happened. British Rail has done a commercial deal. It is signed and sealed, at a profit for British Rail, and forms the basis for the investment submission. My hon. Friend can be reassured that there is no skulduggery such as he sought to suggest.
Amendments (j) and (aa) have a somewhat similar purpose to amendment (g), but there is no justification, as some hon. Members have proposed, why the rule applicable to private Bills, which the private promotors of the Bill make the case for before the Select committee, should apply to this public Bill. The scope of the Bill is much wider than the project to be undertaken by Eurotunnel because it includes British Rail works and the extension of the A20. Apart from that, the Channel tunnel project is a public project for the benefit of the country as a whole and it is Government policy, now endorsed by the House, that it should proceed.
Government counsel will, with the leave of the Committee, be opening proceedings in the Committee with a general scene-setting statement. It will then be for the Committee to decide how to proceed. The purpose of the opening statement will be to explain the project and the works, not to justify the Bill, which has, in principle, already been given a Second Reading and accepted by the House in an historic vote last night.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I deduce from the Minister's answer to my amendment that he does not preclude the 1323 possibility that, after the statement, to which all petitioners will look forward, there may be an opportunity, although it lies with the Committee to decide, for questions appropriate to that statement to be asked before the petitioners put their case to the Committee.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I would not want the hon. Gentleman in any way to belittle the importance either of the decision made on Second Reading to accept the principle that the tunnel should proceed or of petitions which will be concerned with the interests of people who will be directly affected. I think those sort of criteria will decide what is or is not appropiate for the Select Committee to consider.

§ Mr. Cash
rose——

§ Mr. Mitchell
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised the question of staffing for the Committee. He is right to draw attention to the fact that there will be a work load involved. It is a matter for the House authorities, not for me.
Several hon. Members stressed the importance of the Committee getting out into Kent and other parts of the country. My experience with the Joint Consultative Committee, which has met in Kent, is that that is the most effective way to get to know what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Rippon (Mr. Watson) referred to those who wish to petition in favour of the Bill and those who wish to make their support for the Bill known in Kent because of the jobs that will be created as a result of it. I think that it is worth recording that the Kent Export Association says: the Channel tunnel is a major way of stimulating Britain's export potential. It will bring about a major improvement of business potential in the County and give a much needed fillip to the industrial infrastructure of Kent. There are quite a lot of people in Kent whose voices have not perhaps been heard at this stage, but there are still many people in Kent who are interested in the jobs that the tunnel can bring. Even those who are unemployed in areas of high unemployment, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, may look with slight jaundice at his opposition to the tunnel when they see the jobs that will be created in the ports over the next two years as the construction proceeds. I hope that he will feel suitably embarrassed when the time comes.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I beg to move, That three be the Quorum of the Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to debate Amendments (h) and (i).

§ Mr. Mitchell
This sentence merely lays down the quorum of the Committee as being three of its members. This closely follows the conventions. "Erskine May" says that a quorum is usually fixed at three where the Committee consists of 11 members or fewer. Hon. Members will recall from the early hours of this morning that it was decided that the membership of the Committee considering the Bill should be set at nine, which we consider to be the right size. We hope that more than three hon. Members will choose to attend the Committee's proceedings. However, we do not consider that there is a case for departing from the established proportions. I hope that the House will accept that.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who, throughout the long proceedings, has responded to the contributions of hon. Members with unfailing patience, humour and courtesy. I am delighted to be able to put that on record. We all appreciate the way in which he has handled this sometimes difficult and certainly lengthy debate.
We come now to the last paragraph of the motion concerning a not unimportant matter, the quorum of the Committee. At the outset I took refuge in the Oxford dictionary to establish what the word "quorum" meant, so as to establish a frame of reference. The definition is straightforward. It is: A fixed number of members of any body … whose presence is necessary for the proper or valid transaction of business. When we come to the precedents available to us in the House, the matter becomes slightly more complex. We have before us several precedents covering a number of different types of Committee, which do slightly different work. For example, "Erskine May" says on page 674: The quorum of all standing committees except the Scottish Grand Committee is seventeen or one third of the number of its members, excluding the chairman, whichever is the less". The quorum of a Select Committee is set out on page 692. It is fixed by the House in reference to each particular case, and if no quorum has been fixed, the committee cannot transact business unless all the members are present. The guidance goes on in some detail, most of which I was going to give to the House, but I shall not do so in view of the late hour. Suffice it to say that considerable flexibility is allowed for the quorum for Select Committees. We should pay attention to this, because my hon. Friend the Minister was right to look to precedents for the Committee. I wanted to use this example to illustrate that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the quorum of a Committee should necessarily be set at three. The matter becomes yet more important if we move on to consider the provisions for the Committee on Unopposed Bills, for example, where the quorum of the Committee is set at three.
On the other hand, if we consider the hybrid Bill procedure, we get into much more interesting territory. There is provision in some Committees, and some cases before the House have given rise to difficulty, where proceedings cannot be allowed to go on when more than one member is absent. That points us in a completely different direction and leads us to question whether a quorum of three, as provided for in the motion, will be sufficient for a Bill of the complexity that we have come to realise in the past few hours.
We are dealing with matters that are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. They are controversial matters. We are certainly dealing with a Bill where much evidence and material will be put before the Commiteee. I wish to put the first part of my argument about the adequacy of a quorum of three upon that basis.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Perhaps my hon. Friend could help us with one of the problems which are likely to arise and which we have canvassed during the night. It will be difficult for the nine members of the Committee, as we have now agreed, to acquaint themselves with details of the various petitions and to travel around the country, and possibly to France. There will be real difficulty in getting 1325 a quorum of three who will be those best briefed on the particular matters. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would apply his mind to that problem. as it is bothering all of us.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. With his typical incisiveness, he has pre-empted a matter with which I wanted to deal. Suffice it to say that this is part of the problem of the quorum of three. I hope that the Minister has an open mind on the matter. Perhaps he would give thought to the extent to which a quorum of three would be able to cover the complexity and breadth and depth of the matters, especially where the Committee may intinerant, with changes in the members available from which to form a quorum. At that time the matter becomes even more crucial and important.

§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)
My hon. Friend will know that I had hoped to speak but have not done so because of the lateness of the hour. I am grateful to him for giving way.
My great interest is in the civil liberties aspect of the measure. Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that the quorum is so low that it will create an injustice, as so many petitioners wish to give evidence? The same people will not be hearing the evidence. They will only read it and will not be able to see the people concerned. They 'will not visit the places that will be affected. The quorum is too low. That affects civil liberties and it will cause injustice.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The point that we have reached in these proceedings illustrates the fact that the matter requires all the time that can be given to it.
I am indebted to my hon. Friends and to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not prolong my remarks, although I regret that, because the matter that we are debating is of equal importance with the others.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view, as will my hon. Friends who have intervened, on whether a quorum as low as three will be sufficient to carry and sustain the breadth and depth of material that the Select Committee will be required to consider. Will he consider the point that the Committee will meet in different places and that there will therefore be great pressure on the Committee members? Many hon. Members have emphasised that Committee members will have considerable other commitments. They will already be under stress and strain and may have to sacrifice some of the recess.
In view of those factors, as well as the fact that they will have to deal with technical matters and legal complexities, and also matters environmental, all of which will be controversial, it is vital that the quorum of the Committee is set at a level sufficiently high to reflect and deal with their complexity. My plea to my hon. Friend is that he considers the amendment in my name and in the names of other hon. Members to raise the number of the quorum, because five members would be in a better position to handle the matter and to discharge the work of the Committee effectively, rather than place an inordinate strain on what may be only three members forming a quorum of the Committee at any one time. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some words of encouragement to us and to move some little way in helping us in that respect.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I endorse the request made to the Minister of State by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). It is clear that there is a great keenness that people with special competence in technical and other areas are represented on the Committee. It is also clear that the Committee will have a large amount of work to do. I think that in the interests of justice and fairness, which is the theme of tonight's efforts to get the procedure as acceptable as possible, it is desirable that the quorum for such a unique, exceptional, wide-ranging and far-reaching Bill, in terms of its local and national impact, should be higher rather than lower. The figure of five would seem to be an acceptable compromise.
The Minister will be aware that people who do not turn up before Select Committees are summoned to do so, and are reported to the House. Select Committees are not committees at which people do not normally attend. We could protect the interests of the Committee, the reputation of the House and the concerns of the petitioners by upping the quorum level to five, if not to six. I ask the Minister to be responsive and positive to the amendment tabled in the names of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and others.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), but I must say to him that the quorum of three members proposed by the Government follows the convention established by "Erskine May". I quote from page 692: The quorum of a select committee is fixed by the House in reference to each particular case, and if no quorum has been fixed, the committee cannot transact business unless all the members are present. The quorum is usually fixed at three when the committee consists of eleven members or less". In this case, the number of members is as low as nine. It is well inside the figure of 11. Three is the normal quorum for a hybrid Bill. Naturally, the Government hope that more than three Members will be present on what undoubtedly will be an important. interesting and historic Committee.
However, in view of the problems experienced earlier in the Session regarding the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the Government consider that it would be undesirable to establish a quorum larger than the norm. The risk is that having an over-large quorum could stultify the work of the Committee, because it might enable those on the Committee who were not in favour of the tunnel to bring its work to a halt by not attending the Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the pattern we are suggesting is the right one.
The Government are firmly opposed to amendments (h) and (i).

Division No. 208]	[4.35 am
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan	Walker, Bill (T'slde N)
Alton, David	Wallace, James
Ashdown, Paddy
Farr, Sir John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Gale, Roger	Mr. Michael Brown and
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Skinner, Dennis

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Hayward, Robert
Amess, David	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Arnold, Tom	Hickmet, Richard
Ashby, David	Holt, Richard
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Howard, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Baldry, Tony	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Batiste, Spencer	Hunter, Andrew
Bendall, Vivian	Jackson, Robert
Best, Keith	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Blackburn, John	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Bottomley, Peter	Knowles, Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Lamont, Norman
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Lang, Ian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Lawler, Geoffrey
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Lawrence, Ivan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Lee, John (Pendle)
Bright, Graham	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Brooke, Hon Peter	Lilley, Peter
Bruinvels, Peter	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Lord, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Burt, Alistair	Lyell, Nicholas
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Butterfill, John	Macfarlane, Neil
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Cash, William	McLoughlin, Patrick
Chope, Christopher	Major, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Malins, Humfrey
Colvin, Michael	Malone, Gerald
Conway, Derek	Maples, John
Coombs, Simon	Marlow, Antony
Cope, John	Mates, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount	Mather, Carol
Crouch, David	Maude, Hon Francis
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Dorrell, Stephen	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Dunn, Robert	Mellor, David
Durant, Tony	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Eggar, Tim	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Favell, Anthony	Moore, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Moynihan, Hon C.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Neale, Gerrard
Forth, Eric	Nicholls, Patrick
Fox, Marcus	Norris, Steven
Franks, Cecil	Onslow, Cranley
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)	Osborn, Sir John
Freeman, Roger	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Galley, Roy	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Pattie, Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Raymond	Pawsey, James
Gregory, Conal	Pollock, Alexander
Ground, Patrick	Portillo, Michael
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Powley, John
Hanley, Jeremy	Rathbone, Tim
Hargreaves, Kenneth	Renton, Tim
Harris, David	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Hawksley, Warren	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Hayes, J.	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Rowe, Andrew	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Thurnham, Peter
Ryder, Richard	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Sackville, Hon Thomas	Tracey, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Twinn, Dr Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan	Waddington, David
Scott, Nicholas	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Waller, Gary
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Sims, Roger	Warren, Kenneth
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Watson, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Whitney, Raymond
Spencer, Derek	Wolfson, Mark
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)	Wood, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Yeo, Tim
Stern, Michael	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)	Tellers for the Noes:
Sumberg, David	Mr. Malcolm Thornton and
Taylor, John (Solihull)	Mr. Kenneth Hind.

Division No. 209]	[7.12 am
AYES
Alton, David	Tellers for the Ayes:
Skinner, Dennis	Mr. Simon Hughes and
	Mr. Paddy Ashdown.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Bottomley, Peter
Amess, David	Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ashby, David	Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Brooke, Hon Peter
Baldry, Tony	Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)
Batiste, Spencer	Bruinvels, Peter
Best, Keith	Bryan, Sir Paul
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Burt, Alistair
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Blackburn, John	Butterfill, John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Cash, William
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Chope, Christopher

Division No.210]	[7.22 am
AYES
Alton, David	Skinner, Dennis
Ashdown, Paddy	Stott, Roger
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)
Foster, Derek	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)	Mr. Frank Cook and
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Mr. John McWilliam.