Channel Tunnel Bill

HC Deb 21 July 1987 vol 120 cc217-55 4.13 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon)

I beg to move, That, in respect of the Channel Tunnel Bill, notwithstanding the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of 16th July, the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far as not complied with, he dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed. This is the first time for many years that I have had an opportunity to take part in a Channel tunnel debate. When the Channel tunnel was last counselled by Mr. Anthony Crosland I took part in the debate and spoke for the Opposition, who were aghast at his decision. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) may have shared my view, although I cannot remember whether he was here at that time.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I shall put the Secretary of State out of his misery. It is nothing to do with the debate, but on that occasion in 1974 I was a Teller for those who wished to continue with the scheme.

Mr. Channon

I was proud to be counted by the hon. Gentleman on that occasion.

The purpose of the motion is to give effect to the will of this House, which has been expressed on other occasions, and to enable the House to consider later today the Lords amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill in respect of the road access arrangements to the Folkestone terminal area.

I shall set out the essential procedural background. As the House knows, the Channel Tunnel Bill is a hybrid Bill and, like any other hybrid Bill, it is expected to meet, insofar as it affects private rights, certain requirements of the House relating to private business, that are set out in the Standing Orders for Private Business. These cover important matters, such as giving notice to parties affected and placing advertisements in newspapers.

Deadlines are set which are based on an annual cycle for presentation and deposit of Private Bills. In particular, those who are seeking to promote a Private Bill must deposit the Bill in the Private Bill Office on or before 27 November in the Session concerned.

With regard to the Channel Tunnel Bill it will be within the memory of the House that it was quite impossible to introduce the Bill by November 1985, which was before the Eurotunnel project had been selected by the Government. Accordingly, after the Examiners had reported that being out of time was the only respect in which Standing Orders had not been complied with, the House, by a large majority, gave dispensation from Standing Orders in respect of the Bill on 3 June 1986.

Amendments affecting private rights, which are sometimes referred to as "rehybridising" amendments— that is not the most elegant word in the English language — are also, like a hybrid Bill, subject to certain of the Private Business Standing Orders. There is, therefore, a technical breach of such Standing Orders if the amendments are tabled out of time. Clearly, however, if the Bill is introduced out of time, the amendments must fall foul of Standing Orders in the same way. It is the Government's submission that the House should dispense with Standing Orders in respect of these amendments in exactly the same way as it did for the Bill. However, before inviting the House to approve the procedural motion, I shall refer to the substance of these amendments.

The purpose of the amendments is to alter the arrangements for the access roads to the Folkestone terminal site. This matter first came before the House on 17 July 1986, when my hon. Friend the Minister explained that a number of bodies and individuals had petitioned the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Alex Fletcher, in favour of revised arrangements which would take much less land and would not drive a new road between the villages of Newington and Peene.

The petitioners who were seeking the change included the Shepway district council and the Kent county council. All those who were speaking on that occasion were in favour of the change. Accordingly, the Select Committee was instructed to consider alternative arrangements.

For their part the Government, as promoters of the Bill, issued the necessary notices and made the necessary deposits to conform with Standing Orders, except for being out of time. A new deadline was set for petitioners who were adversely affected by the change, and the Select Committee considered the proposed amendments on 21 October.

The House will recall that in that event the Committee, on the basis of evidence not only from a small number of petitioners who would be adversely affected by the change but also from Eurotunnel about operational implications, decided against making the change. At a later late a new package was put together which was known as the "joint southern access", which made use of some, but not all, of the previously proposed amendments, and therefore raised. no new requirements in relation to Standing Orders. Those revised arrangements received strong support in the Standing Committee and, subsequently, after the petitioners affected had had an opportunity to petition the other place, they found favour with the Select Committee and the Bill was amended accordingly.

The House will recall that last week the House decided to refer these amendments to the Examiners. Subsequently, the Examiners reported that the applicable Standing Orders had been complied with in all respects, except for being out of time. On Friday, however, the Standing Orders Committee decided not to give dispensation.

The Standing Orders Committee is not required to give reasons for its decision, and it is not for me to speculate on them. The Government and I believe that the issue is straightforward. The amendments have very widespread support, although the decision of substance as to whether or not they should be made is one for later today. The effect of the motion, if the House carries it, is simply to enable the House to make these changes. It was impossible for the amendments to be introduced without being given out of time, and I therefore submit that dispensation should accordingly be given.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unusual, is it not, when a Committee of the House makes a recommendation to the House, for its Chairman not to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and report to the House the reasons why it came to the decision that it did? We are in a difficult position, because it is traditional for the Chairman of Ways and Means to be Chairman of the Committee. I understand, to use the old legal phrase, that he is neither mute of malice nor mute of God, but one might say mute of office. That being the case, will you advise us who will speak on behalf of the Committee, which is chaired by your illustrious deputy, so that the House may know at first hand why the Committee gave the House the advice that it gave, which we are now being invited to reject?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Chairman of Ways and Means was the Chairman of the Committee, but this is by no means an unprecedented motion before the House. Although the Chairman may not be able to give his reasons, there are hon. Members who may wish to speak who were members of that Committee. Therefore, I do not think that that point will go by default.

4.20 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

Two matters arise directly from the motion before the House. The first concerns the rights of the House and the second concerns the rights of individuals who are affected by the project. The Secretary of State, as is his right, did not spend much time on the former and did not mention the latter at all. I propose to spend a few minutes on the former and rather longer on the latter because, regardless of the fact that the debate is being held in what is regarded as prime time, the rights of an individual petitioner to this House or another place ought to be fully debated and discussed. Where those rights have not been upheld by this House or another place, they should be fully debated at this, the last opportunity to so debate them before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

To listen to the Secretary of State one would think that the decision recommended by the Standing Orders Select Committee on 16 July that the Standing Order relating to private business should be not dispensed with was the same as the decision taken by the Standing Orders Select Committee on 3 June 1986. I submit that it is important—

Sir John Farr (Harborough)

That is totally incorrect. In 1986 the Standing Orders Select Committee was locked, with equal numbers on both sides and the Chairman of Ways and Means, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) declined to give a casting vote and asked the House to decide. It was quite different last Thursday. There was no question of equality of view. The Standing Orders Select Committee voted by five votes to three against the proposal.

Mr. Snape

That goes to show the danger of giving way before one has completed a sentence. If the hon. Gentleman had listened properly he would have heard that I said that the implication of what the Secretary of State said appeared to be that the decisions were similar. My next sentence, which the hon. Gentleman pre-empted and, which like the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) robbed me of half my speech, was to say that no such conclusion should be drawn from the decision of the Standing Orders Select Committee on 16 July. As the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) correctly points out, on 3 June 1986 the Standing Orders Select Committee declined to come to a decision, whereas on 16 July the Standing Orders Select Committee voted by five votes to three against the dispensation that the Secretary of State seeks in this debate.

I do not know whether this motion sets any great precedent for the House. I leave such matters to the hon. Member for Tiverton who is invariably correct in his interpretation of the rules. I have no doubt that if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will enlighten both sides of the House on the custom, practice and precedent, particularly on recommendations from the Standing Orders Select Committee. That is all I wish to say about the rights of the House. We should not be misled into thinking that the two decisions that have been taken by the Standing Orders Select Committee are identical. The decision taken on 16 July this year is far more important and fundamental than that taken on 3 June 1986.

The second part of my remarks deals with the right of an individual petitioner, Mr. Barry Pattinson of Mill house, Ashford road, Newington. He owns one of a number of properties that will be affected more seriously by what the Secretary of State has correctly called the "joint southern access" rather than by the original scheme. Hon. Members on both sides who have taken an interest in the matter will be aware that the two proposed accesses to the Cheriton terminal were known respectively as WG1 and WG2. The Select Committee on the Channel tunnel, of which I was a Member, decided that the original proposal—WG1—was the proposal that the Committee would wish to see upheld. It was only subsequently that the alternative proposals were put forward for WG2 and were eventually accepted by the Select Committee in another place.

It is the Opposition's view that the rights of the petitioner to whom I have referred have not been fairly upheld or dealt with by reason of the fact that a decision taken by a Select Committee of this House has been overturned during a debate in the other place. I understand— I rely on Conservative Members who are more expert at procedural matters—that only the hybrid Bill procedure permits such an event to take place. On a private or public Bill, a decision arrived at in this House cannot be overturned in another place. I propose to spend a few moments detailing how and why the Opposition feel that Mr. Pattinson has been shabbily treated as a result of the decision in another place.

On 17 July 1986 the Government moved a motion in this House which had the effect of enabling the Select Committee to make the necessary amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill in order to give effect to what were known then as the Shepway proposals. During the debate on the motion the Minister of State, Department of Transport said: Although the revised option would reduce the amount of land taken in the terminal, it would involve the acquisition of certain land not currently included in the Bill. For that reason, it is necessary to serve notice on land owners and tenants and to publish advertisements in the normal way so that those affected can petition against the amendments to the Bill." —[Official Report, 17 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 1315.] On 31 July 1986 the substituted plans in connection with the alternative access proposal were deposited in both Houses and at other offices as required by the Standing Orders. On 1 August 1986, notice to the landowners affected was served on the form required by the Standing Orders. I understand that notices were published in The Times, Dover Express, East Kent News, Deal Express, Folkestone Herald and London Gazette, as required by the Standing Orders of the House.

The petitioner to whom I have referred lives at the Old Water Mill, Frogholt. He was formerly a tenant of the Department of the Environment but some years ago acquired the property from it and has expended considerable time and effort on restoring the mill, which dates from the 15th century.

As I said earlier, the original access proposals contained in the Bill — WG1 — did not involve the compulsory acquisition of Mr. Pattinson's property. However, the amendments that the Select Committee in this House were authorised to make would have necessitated the demolition of his home. Mr. Pattenson petitioned against the proposed alterations and was heard by the Select Committee on 21 October 1986. The Chairman of the Committee. Sir Alex Fletcher, told Mr. Pattinson that the Committee would be considering what view it might take of the alternative scheme within the next few weeks and told Mr. Pattinson that it was a 50/50 shot at the moment as far as your home is concerned. On 18 November 1986 the Select Committee issued its special report. In discussing road access to the Folkestone terminal, the Committee considered that the suggested advantages proposed by Shepway did not justify choosing the alternative scheme, WG2. Accordingly, as was said in paragraph 123, the Committee favoured the "operation-ally preferred" original scheme.

One would assume that, having heard all the evidence and decided to reject the proposed amendment, the Select Committee conveyed not only that message but perhaps a sense of relief to Mr. Pattinson who was told that his home was to be spared and that he could continue restoring and repairing the property. However, following subsequent discussion held between Eurotunnel, Kent county council and the Shepway district council, an alternative to the proposal that the Select Committee had rejected was formulated and it was decided by the Government, in the way outlined by the Secretary of State, to empower the Select Committee in another place to make the necessary amendments to the Bill.

As I said, the alternative scheme—the joint southern access — involves the demolition of Mr. Pattinson's property. On the instructions of the Department of Transport, a letter was sent to him on 18 February 1987 notifying him of the amendments set out in Shepway district council's petition to the House of Lords. He was informed that he had until 27 February to deposit a petition against the proposed amendments — amend-ments which, it must be remembered, had previously been rejected by a Select Committee of this House.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard)

No.

Mr. Snape

The Minister says, "No." But most fair-minded people would agree that, once the WG2 decision had been rejected, Mr. Pattinson and his property had been reprieved and that was that. I concede that there are a few differences between the amended scheme and the WG2 scheme, not favoured by the Committee. I make no complaints about the Minister's work behind the scenes to change the original decision of the Select Committee, and I well understand the reasons for it. However, the fact that the decision was changed by the Select Committee in another place understandably leaves the petitioner with a sense of grievance.

I hope that we shall not have a detailed and convoluted argument about whether the scheme was identical to WG2; I accept that it was not. However, it had the same purpose, the reasons for which escaped the majority of us on the Select Committee. We took it that shuttle train passengers leaving Cheriton would have as their destination London or elsewhere. I shall choose my words carefully so as not to offend the Minister. because I understand the constraints of his office. We took it that those passengers would wish to head not for Folkestone but perhaps for more attractive parts of the country.

The alternative egress accepted by the Select Committee in the other place would head all the traffic leaving the terminal towards Folkestone initially. Passengers would have to change direction somewhere along the egress road if they wanted to head for London or other parts of the United Kingdom. That struck the Select Committee as somewhat illogical, which is why we made our original decision.

I hope that I have not strained your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I return to the question of the petitioner on whose behalf I am making my plea. A letter was sent to Mr. Pattinson on 18 February notifying him of the amendments as set out in the petition to another place — the petition of Shepway district council. I understand that Mr. Pattinson was not served a formal notice to landowners as prescribed under the Standing Orders. I understand, too, that no notices of the amendments were published in the national or local press or in the London Gazette. As the House will understand, the rehashing of proposals that Mr. Pattinson thought had been swept away by the decision of a Select Committee of this House inevitably caused him a degree of personal mental stress, and I understand that he was compelled to seek medical treatment.

The amendments relating to the joint southern access scheme were accepted by the Select Committee in the other place according to its special report of 6 May 1987, in paragraphs 16 to 27. We believe that, in deciding whether the admitted non-compliance with the Standing Order relating to the amendments should be the subject of a dispensation, all the relevant circumstances should be considered to determine whether it is just and equitable to dispense with the observance of safeguards that are, in large measure, designed to protect individual rights.

Opposition Members believe—it is to be hoped that this is also the view of one or two Conservative Members —that the rights of individual petitioners are worthy of being upheld. They should be upheld despite the wishes of multi-billion pound corporations, district councils or hon. Members of this House, whatever their party views and wishes and regardless of whether they support or oppose the scheme.

If the Opposition's view prevails and the motion is defeated, what can be done? We could of course reconvene what is left of the Select Committee of this House. I am conscious of the fact that we shall be short of a Chairman because Sir Alex Fletcher was not re-elected at the last general election.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

He was a victim of the poll tax.

Mr. Snape

My hon. Friend reminds me that he was a victim of the poll tax. However, perhaps we should not chuckle too loudly, because we are also short of Nick Raynsford, although I do not know whether he was a victim of the poll tax.

Mr. Howard

He was a victim of rates.

Mr. Snape

I do not think that we should argue any more about who was a victim of what. Let us all be grateful that we are back, anyway.

The Select Committee will be short of a couple of its distinguished members, but I do not think that that should stop us. We might have some difficulty in recruiting the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) because I understand that he has been elevated to higher things. However, the rest of us could get together as we did last September, although not necessarily in the opulent surroundings of the hotel in Hythe where we spent a few balmy summer evenings. I suppose that I will have to speak for myself: I am quite prepared to meet in the not so balmy surroundings of this House, in spite of the fact that we will not be right royally entertained during the Recess as everywhere will be locked, bolted and barred.

On my serious point, it is surely for a Select Committee of this House to make decisions and recommendations. Its decisions, in particular, should not be overturned by the decision of a Select Committee in another place. We wish to uphold both the rights of the House and the rights of an individual petitioner. Therefore, I invite those Conservative Members who say a great deal about individuals' rights and freedoms to join the Opposition in voting against the motion.

4.38 pm

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, your appearance in the Chair reminds me of the number of times on which it has been averred that Mr. Speaker, and therefore his Deputies, are not prevented from exercising their rights as Members of the House to address the House on any issue in debate if they so choose. We are in a serious position because, whereas normally the Chairman of a Select Committee which has made recommendations which are the subject of debate in the House would explain the reasons why the Committee came to the conclusion that it did, it is just possible that, despite your presence in the Chair, the House will be without that guidance. Individual Members of the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am one, are not authorised on behalf of their colleagues to speak for the Committee as opposed to themselves.

It so happened that I was in the minority that voted in favour of dispensation, but I did so in the knowledge that Mr. Pattinson would not necessarily be without the redress of being heard by the House before it came to a conclusion on the amendment which would deprive him of his home, rather than merely having been heard in a somewhat peremptory and discourteous manner by a Committee in another place.

The vehicle by which Mr. Pattinson's case could have been put to the House first-hand would have been a Government resolution giving the parliamentary agent acting for him permission to appear at the Bar of the House and there to make a statement in Mr. Pattinson's cause. That is the course which I pressed upon the Government. In practical terms, I know from experience that when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House, he refused to allow such a motion to appear above the line on the Order Paper on the grounds that it was not his motion. In that case, it was my motion, but I take the same view on this occasion as I did then: a man should not be condemned unheard, as was the case then, or should not be deprived of his home, as in this case, without due process in this House.

Although I voted with the minority in the Standing Orders Committee for dispensation, in the knowledge that the Government could give that redress if such a motion was recommended to the House, I now discover that no such motion has been put down on the Order Paper. Therefore, my intention is to vote with the majority on that Committee, since the House is invited to dispense with the recommendation of that Committee, which never votes on party lines and which is a quasi-judicial Committee. That is why it is chaired by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than by a Back-Bench and non-office-holding Member of the House.

This is a serious issue. The only way in which Mr. Pattinson's case arrives before the Members of the House who will decide later in today's proceedings on the amendments recommended to us by another place is through a Member such as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) — who put the case accurately, fairly and not at inordinate length — or through other Members of the House. On this issue, I do not admit to there being two sides of the House. This issue is one for the House of Commons, not for a number of political parties. If the House of Commons is not precious of the rights of individuals subjected to this heavy-handed process, the House is selling itself short.

Parliamentary agents and the right to petition exist in the case of hybrid Bills precisely because they are dealing with the rights of an individual in the same way as a private Bill would. But by what can only be described as an extraordinary aberration of procedure—certainly one of which I was unaware—the Standing Orders for private Bill legislation which would have prevented Mr. Pattinson from finding himself in this position, if the peril to which he was exposed was one of a private Bill, do not apply to what is termed a hybrid Bill, which was defined by Mr. Speaker Hylton Foster—I think it was on 10 December 1962, was it not—as a public Bill which has certain characteristics of a private Bill. That is why part of this procedure is the private Bill procedure.

I have sat on the Select Committees which have reviewed public business Standing Orders. A Joint Committee of both Houses is presently reviewing private Bill procedure. No Select Committee which has reviewed the operation of Standing Orders in the House has addressed itself to the anomaly whereby, when it is acknowledged that the protection of the private Bill procedure should apply to someone deprived of his home in this way, by that anomaly, which I had not previously observed, he is deprived of the protection of petitioning and being represented before a Select Committee of both Houses on the measure which this House is being invited to pass today.

I will not accept arguments that Mr. Pattinson has already petitioned once in this House about the value of his homestead, the fact that it was in the Domesday Book and matters of that sort. He is entitled to put before the House, either in person or by parliamentary agent, his case on the issue which the House will decide later today and which has never been before a Select Committee of this House. It has only been before the Select Committee in another place, and I do not believe that anyone who reads the Hansard of that Committee's proceedings will come to the judgment that he was treated other than in a shoddy and discourteous way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that he cannot say what he has just said, and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

I think I said that if anyone read the record, he would come to that view, not that anyone who has read the record has come to that view.

Mr. Snape

Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He has the most amazing memory of anyone in the House since Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was standing at the Dispatch Box. I draw his attention to column 230 of the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee in another place—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not compound what I regarded as the offence of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who was reflecting adversely—as he must not do—on proceedings in another place. The hon. Member for Tiverton is as sharply aware as any Member in the House that he must not do that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

I certainly would not claim that a Member who has read the transcript should express that view, but I am entitled to speculate that, in the hypothetical case, if a Member who has not yet read it wants to read it, he might come to that conclusion. I maintain that, by the thickness of something very thin indeed, I have just — only just — kept within the conventions of the House.

Mr. Snape

Perhaps I can emulate the hon. Gentleman in, I was about to say, the amount of thickness. However, I would be leading with my chin if I were to do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker, without in any way condoning the description that you thought the hon. Gentleman had made of the Chairman of the Select Committee in another place, perhaps I could ask the hon. Gentleman what he would think about somebody—I will not use their exact words —trying the patience of the Committee too far or saying: "We cannot deal with every detail of negotiation. A very handsome offer has been made by Eurotunnel. Accept that with good grace and get on with it." If somebody said that, I would not describe that as the height of politeness.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

A precedent that comes to mind that is an unhappy one is of the attempted compulsory purchase order served on Naboth on behalf of Ahab, his King. He was offered ample compensation. The point of principle was that he was not willing to accept it and do the deal. He came to rather a bad end. However, I do not want to be guilty of irrelevance, so I will return to the thrust of what I wish to say.

It is clear that Mr. Pattinson has not been heard in this House on the question that will be put from the Chair later in our proceedings, if the motion that we are now debating is carried. Members of the House are entitled to take a view about whether the proceedings in another place are an adequate substitute for the rights that Mr. Pattinson would have been at liberty to exercise to a Committee of this House in the normal exercise of private Bill Standing Orders. That is the issue. The issue is not the purely technical one about advertisements at certain dates. Mr. Pattinson knew his home was threatened notwithstanding the absence of those advertisements and the fact that it was impossible, as the amendment only appeared at the point in time that it did, for it to have been deposited by the due date last November. If those were the only issues, I would have no compunction in recommending that Standing Orders be dispensed with. However, the issue is one of substance and will not go away. If we allow it to, we will have done the House a disservice for the future.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Is it not correct that Mr. Pattinson did present petitions, was represented before and gave evidence to Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament, and that, in giving evidence, the access to which he takes exception was discussed in great detail?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

The point I made was not that he has not been able to petition against a different amendment that is not to be put before the House today. That is not in dispute. What I assert — it cannot be denied, because it is true—is that the amendment that will be put to the House later today was inserted into the Bill in another place by a Select Committee there and has never been before any Committee of the House Therefore, it is undeniable that Mr. Pattinson has not been heard by any Committee of the House. He cannot have been heard by a Committee that has considered the amendment because, before later on today, that amendment will not have left another place and been transmitted for consideration to a Committee of the House. This is the issue. It is by fudging points of principle that dangerous precedents are created. It is immensely expensive and personally onerous to object even to a private. Bill going through Parliament. To object to a hybrid Bill that has the whole majesty and financial status of the Government behind it is even more oppressive. If we abandon this point of principle, we will have done something that those who come after us will be ashamed of.

4.54 pm

Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has spoken with great fairness, persuasive power and knowledge on those matters, as all of us can testify, none so eagerly as myself because I can recall the advice that he has given to the House on a number of those occasions. It does; not mean to say that I think that he is always right. However, I believe that any Government would be foolish rot to listen to what he has to say on such matters, particularly when he has reconsidered his previous attitude. He is not altering the view that he took on the Standing Orders Committee, but he is prepared to come to the House and say that we should look afresh at the matter because we have fresh considerations before us. We owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he has put his case, and the Government and the rest of the House would be most unwise not to take account of what he has said. particularly because something special is happening here this afternoon.

The House of Commons never has to apologise for taking time, even at this stage in the Session, to discuss a conflict between individual rights and what the Government or other majorities may think are the rights of others. The most famous debates that have taken place in the House have been about individual rights, from ship money onwards. It is right that we should take up time, even when the Government have their own particular reasons for arranging the business for today in the way that they have.

I am also glad to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in these matters. The Channel tunnel is about the only subject on which I do not happen to agree with him. The only good reason for the Channel tunnel is that it is supported by the National Union of Railwaymen. I differ from the whole project. The whole thing will come to a disastrous end anyhow. However, I am glad to be associated with my hon. Friend on the matter of principle that he, too, like the hon. Member for Tiverton, has insisted must take precedence over the other claims.

Mr. Snape

Does my right hon. Friend accept from me that it is not a question of the project being supported by the National Union of Railwaymen. I quite often disagree with the views of that union. I take the somewhat old-fashioned view, which I hope that he will accept, that if a project is good for the railways, it is good for Britain.

Mr. Foot

I know the high altitude on which my hon. friend always approaches these questions of principle. He never strays from it. Therefore, I can understand that he sees the two things as absolutely indistinguishable. It is a good way to operate. I am merely emphasising that I am especially glad to be supporting the claim that he is making. I believe that it is a very important one for the House to take note of. We are insisting that individual rights be protected and not be swept aside, and particularly not swept aside just for the convenience of the Government at a particular moment in the Session.

Would the motion have been brought forward in this form if the House had not been rising at the end of the week? We might have had a little longer to proceed. The triviality of the reason that the Government have had to bring it forward is emphasised all the more. The Session is not coming to an end. There is no great immediate crisis that demands that this change in procedure should be forced upon us at this time. It is just to suit the convenience of the Government in the management of their business.

There are few things less reputable than a Government managing their business towards the end of a Session. We can see what they are doing. We only have to look at what they are up to. A discussion about members' salaries is coming up. We are not quite sure which way the Prime Minister's mind has turned on that, but that may become more evident when Members vote later on. The Government have said to themselves. "Let us not have it too early on. Let us arrange the business on that Tuesday so that we can have this kind of discussion beforehand. It would suit us to get rid of this awkward case." This motion has been brought forward in this form today to suit the Government's convenience, even though it inflicts such injury on individual rights—as we have heard. That is a disreputable thing for the Government to do.

The Secretary of State has just taken over a new post. I feel sorry for him in this case as it is not his name on the motion—it is nothing to do with him. He has never heard of it before in his life. He would not have dreamt of coming before the House with such a proposition a few weeks ago. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House, who has not been here at all from the beginning of the proceedings. We have the new Patronage Secretary, but he is a very poor substitute for the Leader of the House. Indeed, when I look at the whole business arranged for today and this motion, I see that it is a Chief Whip job forced on the House of Commons to suit the Government. The real Chief Whip who organised it— the Leader of the House — should have been here to move his own motion. Any previous Leader of the House would have done so. I once took the view that, once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip. I took that view about the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) but maybe I was wrong about him. The right hon. Gentleman does not act like a Chief Whip. When we see the casual camaraderie in which he greets everyone in the House he is no longer acting like a Chief Whip. The Leader of the House should try to escape from his old habits. He should not try to force through a motion of this major character at this time of the day. The Government probably thought that nobody would notice or perhaps that there would be only three or four hon. Members in the House.

The House should give full credit to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) who has fought on behalf of his constituents throughout the campaign so thoroughly and deliberately and who drew the attention of the House to this matter when the business was announced last Thursday. Not many others thought to do so, but even at that stage the Leader of the House thought that he might be able to get away without too much trouble.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a member of the Select Committee on Standing Orders — I do not seek to disparage my colleagues on that Committee—that the decision was taken, not because of the civil rights of Mr. Pattinson, but because the majority of those on that Committee were pathologically anti-Common Market and anti-Channel tunnel. Mr. Pattinson's interests are, in my view, only peripheral to what occurred in that Committee.

Mr. Foot

We all know the state of cool, deliberate, uncalculated equanimity with which the hon. Gentleman approaches every issue. In the light of that, I would not accept immediately his judgment upon his fellow Committee members. I dare say that they were in fuller possession of their faculties than he was when the recommendations were going through.

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the normal procedures of the House should be accepted. If they are to be broken, they can be broken only on absolutely first-class grounds and when the case has been fully made by those responsible. The case has not been fully made by the Secretary of State. He is not responsible for it. We all know that he would not have dreamed of presenting a motion such as this only a few weeks ago. This motion has been devised by the new Leader of the House of Commons, who should have been here in order to present his case to the House. If individual rights are treated in such a scornful manner and are set aside, and the chief Minister responsible does not think that it is necessary for him to attend the House of Commons on the day that that happens, indeed it is not a good safeguard for the future and not a good augury for the way in which individual rights will be protected in years to come.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said, I hope that the House of Commons will vote on the issue of whether individual rights are protected. That does not mean to say that we shall pass judgment on the Committee. Indeed, the Committee has not had the chance to present its case. In so far as it has had such a chance, we are overturning the decision that was presented to the House on 16 July—only a few days ago. We are asked to believe that, in the last few days of the Parliament—between 16 July and 18 July— a great crisis arose and that, somehow, if the matter does not go forward, the Government and the machinery of government will be put into great difficulty, so we must be prepared to accept it. The Government will get into further and further difficulties with the Channel tunnel project. That may be the reason they want to rush it through.

The people with money are the ones who are pushing. They are the people to whom the Government listen. Certainly they are most of the people who have the most money. Of course huge amounts of state money are now involved in the Channel tunnel project. Unfortunately, that money will not be spent in my constituency, elsewhere in Wales, in Scotland, or in most parts of the country that are crying out for it.

Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)

The right hon. Gentleman must know that the first two major contracts were placed in Glasgow and Leeds for the Channel Tunnel Group—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps I should check this matter before it goes any further. We are here to discuss not the merits or otherwise of the Channel tunnel, but the strict terms of the motion.

Mr. Foot

I was discussing the demerits of the Government's method of bringing it forward. In the proposition that they put before the House, they were persuaded by the pressures of getting the Channel Tunnel Bill through. Whatever we may think of its merits or demerits, I shall certainly be prepared at some other time, if I were in order, to argue how similar amounts of money could be much better invested in other projects that could bring many more jobs. That is not the matter that is to be discussed here. Why have the Government come forward and tried to rush through such a disreputable measure as this, at the fag end of a Session just before we depart for the summer recess? It is because money is at work. Money is saying to the Government, "If you do not get on with the Bill, we shall lose some of our money." That is not a proper reason for overriding individual rights or those of the House of Commons.

5.7 pm

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has a great sense of the traditions and practices of the House. I am not at all surprised that he has described this miserable little motion as a disreputable proceeding. He is quite right in sensing that the power of money lies behind the motion. Perhaps the power of money is connected even with the timing of the motion. Indeed, it may not be unconnected with one aspect of money that various suggestions seemed to float around the House earlier today to the effect that it might he helpful—I must admit that it is the first time it has been said — if, in the course of the Bill's proceedings, I were to make a long speech. That might not be unconnected with the need to postpone the exquisite embarrassment of discussing our own pay in prime parliamentary time. I am sorry, not for the first time in the Channel Tunnel Bill proceedings, to have to disappoint the Treasury Bench. I shall make a short speech and, I hope, keep entirely in order and to the point.

Of course there are many good reasons for vigorously reiterating the arguments against the French benefit match, which the Channel tunnel project will be, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not permit that. Therefore, I shall concentrate entirely on the notion. It is a purely procedural motion; it is all about an issue of principle, and a thoroughly bad principle at that. Let us remember that the House has many Standing Orders. They are the rules that govern us and ensure fair play inside the House. Certain Standing Orders — the ones that are relevant to the motion—guarantee fair play for people outside the House. Those rules guarantee, for example, that an ordinary citizen, whose livelihood might be lost or whose home might be destroyed or purchased compul-sorarily as a result of legislation such as this Bill, would have due and proper notice served on him within an acceptable and clearly defined timetable.

In plain language, Standing Orders are the rules that protect the rights of the small man against the abuses of the legislative power. We even have a Committee to interpret the Standing Orders because they are so important and because of the way in which they have developed over the years. I understand that it is normal for all three Deputy Speakers to sit on the Select Committee on Standing Orders, as do several senior hon. Members who have procedural expertise, despite tie bizarre imputations that were cast by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

That Committee has a reputation for being impartial and non-partisan. It goes without saying that its findings are respected and that, until today, they are invariably honoured by the House.

The Select Committee on Standing Orders ruled that the Government had broken the Standing Orders and that no dispensation should be given to them. What did the Government do? In a sudden flurry of expediency, they jettisoned all pretence of making the traditions and principles of the House stand up and instead tabled this disreputable little motion. Let us face it, this motion aims to shoot the ref, to sack the umpires and to move the goalposts. We are being asked to reject Parliament's own rules of fair play which, in the case of these. Standing Orders, were designed to protect the rights of snail home-owners who would be disadvantaged by Eurotunnel's mega-scheme.

We are seeing the first flexing of the muscle of the elected dictatorship that a Government with a big majority can so easily turn into. We are seeing that muscle used to do a favour for the big foreign business men of Eurotunnel and, in the process, to do down a few ordinary Kentish people by overthrowing our own parliamentary rules. That is not an attractive proposition and it is in sharp contrast to all the fine words that were spoken at the outset of the Bill about giving the people of Kent fair treatment and a fair hearing.

I could quote many words, but I remind the House that the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said when speaking to the Franco-British Council on 14 May last year: I firmly believe that it is necessary to allow the doubters and 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. Surely those are words for eating.

Far from leaning over backwards to ensure fair play, this is the third major parliamentary occasion on which the Government have had to apologise, climb down or table a special motion to allow themselves to break their own rules and deny objectors their legitimate parliamentary rights.

The first occasion was on 3 June last year, after a tied vote in the Select Committee on Standing Orders. The issue then was whether Standing Orders had been broken, whether large numbers of petitioners had been denied their rights and whether many people had been stampeded by the Bill. The gut issue was that a number of notices had not been published by the due dates. One memorable example is that in a parliamentary answer a Minister from the Department of Transport said that the Department had placed a certain advertisement, on a certain date, in a newspaper called the Canterbury Times. The advertisement did not exist. It had not appeared on the stated date and the Canterbury Times had ceased publication in 1768. There were red faces all round. As a midnight compromise, the petitioning period was extended and as a result nearly 5,000 ordinary people put in petitions.

One would have thought that, after all that fuss and bother, the Department of Transport would have been careful not to deny petitioners their rights when the issue went to the other place. However, lo and behold, what did we find on the opening day of the hearings of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill? On 2 March 1987, virtually the opening words of Lord Ampthill, the Chairman of the Committee, were: The Committee have been most concerned to learn that despite public assurances to the contrary the Department of Transport did not intend to publicise the date 18 February, the day by which the Petitions had to be lodged, and that the Department was not induced to honour its undertaking until halfway through the Petitioning period … one is compelled to return to the leaflet which the Department put out before the proceedings in another place … there is a very clear undertaking made in that leaflet and the Department has reneged. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Government's counsel, then said: My Lord, I take your Lordship's point completely and apologise … So far as Petitioners or potential Petitioners have been disadvantaged, obviously I unreservedly apologise to them. The Chairman then said: Very well, Mr. Fitzgerald, we will not spend any more time on this one; we of course accept your apology but I think it is a matter which the Committee very greatly regrets. One could not be much clearer than that. For the second time the Department of Transport was caught cheating in a particularly sneaky way, trying to deny petitioners their rights. It had to apologise and to grovel. After twice being caught out red-handed, one might have thought that the Department of Transport could not face another apology, another parliamentary debate or another "putting matters right" special motion.

However, they are procedural recidivists down there in Marsham street when it comes to denying people their rights and to breaking the rules. Here we are again, about to go into recess, about to discuss hon. Members' pay, and the Secretary of State comes along with a motion — I sympathise with the Secretary of State for having to move the motion because it is nothing to do with him—the message of which is, "Whoops, sorry chaps, we've been caught cheating again."

The Department has only three excuses. One is that the big guns want the road that lies behind these amendments. It is true that Eurotunnel, the French, the Government, all hon. Members representing Kent constituencies and even the noisy little pom-pom from Thanet, South want the road. However, the big guns are no excuse when the small man is denied his rights. For almost the first time in such proceedings I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in his eloquent appeal in defence of the small man's rights.

The gentleman who was denied his rights—how good it is that we are spending so much time discussing them — was Mr. Barry Pattinson, whose house will be demolished as a result of the Bill. The history of Mr. Pattinson's experience is rather like that of a prisoner who is led to and from the scaffold so many times that in the end he does not know whether he will be reprieved or hanged. Under the original Bill, Mr. Pattinson's house was not to be demolished. Under the Government's proposals of July 1986, it was to be demolished. The Select Committee rejected those proposals by one vote. Mr. Pattinson was reprieved and told that his house was safe. The Standing Committee then heard a motion from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who proposed a clause that would have caused Mr. Pattinson's house to be demolished. However, in circumstances of great nocturnal confusion, the Government persuaded my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment. We then waited until the Lords' proposals were published in May 1987. Under them, Mr. Pattinson's house will be demolished.

Mr. Pattinson has been very badly treated. This time round, no notices were served on him about the new scheme telling him that he was again up for execution and that his house was again due for demolition. The spirit and letter of the Standing Orders were breached. No notices were served on him. Mr. Pattinson, poor man, has had a nervous breakdown or collapse of some kind. However, he was able to rush, virtually unprepared, to the House of Lords Select Committee, where he was given a hearing. I know that I am not allowed to comment on that hearing but perhaps I could develop a comment by simply quoting the words that were spoken. Mr. Pattinson was allowed to give evidence for about eight minutes. Then the Chairman came on rather strongly with these words: It is no comfort to you but it is to the Committee that only five houses have to be knocked down as a result of this vast project of the terminal at Cheriton. But that does not do much for you personally but do recognise as I said earlier that the effects of the previous scheme for access to the terminal site would have had really very upsetting effects, a much more enormous upsetting effect on other people". At that point, Mr. Pattinson's agent intervened to ask whether Mr. Pattinson could be given the help of a house agent in approaching Eurotunnel. The Chairman replied: You must not try the patience of this Committee too far. We cannot deal with every detail of these negotiations. A very handsome offer has been made by Eurotunnel, accept that with good grace and get on with it. Mr. Pattinson said: If this Channel Tunnel does not get built, which is quite possible, it will not get built, may I ask that I am allowed to stay in my property or re-gain— Mr. Pattinson was then interrupted again by the Chairman, who said: We really cannot enter that one, I think we really must not enter any more on this subject. I would not work on the assumption the Channel Tunnel is not going to be built, Mr. Pattinson, it is. Poor Mr. Pattinson tried to get in edgeways, but the Chairman said: Go on, Mr. Pattinson, we really must move on to Mr. and Mrs. Fry now. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) speculated that the Chairman's attitude might have been peremptory and discourteous, and the House can judge that for itself. However, I do not like to see the small man bullied in such a way. I think that the bullying is continuing now. The House of Commons is being made to vote down its own Standing Order so that Mr. Pattinson can be bullied into oblivion and his house can be demolished. It is pretty shameful for an institution founded, as we were, to preserve individual liberties, to go along with this.

Of course I accept that my hon. Friends mean well, but they spelt out their intention clearly last Thursday. They have got to get the Bill through by the Summer recess. Why? The answer is so that Eurotunnel can send in its various money men around the world to the souks of Arabia, the geisha houses of Tokyo, the banking parlours of Libya and Africa and the Bourse of Paris to pass the hat round.

We should not let money rule this thing. Parliament should not go along with the steamroller money men. Parliament should stick to its traditions. Parliament should vote the motion down, which is rightly gravely embarrassing to the Government, and a good thing too.

5.20 pm

Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)

I share the concern expressed on both sides of the House, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), about the motion which proposes that Standing Orders relating to private business be dispensed with. I echo what he said about there being two main issues involved—first, the rights of this House and, secondly, the rights of individuals. It has been evident throughout the passage of the Bill that the powers of the House to scrutinise what is done in transport in relation to this project have been severely curtailed. I would like to give you, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some examples of that, as I am sure you would not wish me to come to the House with merely unsubstantiated allegations.

Ministers have claimed on key issues, to which the House and the Committee have the right to answers, that these are matters for British Rail. It is no surprise that I am especially concerned about the proposal for the overwhelming bulk of the traffic generated by the Channel fixed link to exit at the Waterloo station terminus.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, I must tell him that what he is saying is not relevant to the motion and that he must not pursue that line of argument.

Mr. Holland

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that there are amendments concerning that matter which we shall consider later. I am glad that Mr. Speaker has been able to select amendments which I have tabled. I should like, however, to raise a procedural matter concerning the handling of questions put to Ministers by hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman ought to address himself to the motion before the House, which is concerned with the decision of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, and whether the Standing Orders ought to be waived in respect of the Lords' amendments. He must address himself to that.

Mr. Holland

I am anxious that we should not suspend the Standing Orders, and that we should be able to give further consideration to the issues raised by the Lords amendments, because we do not have adequate answers to a range of questions concerning them. For example, time and again on the issues raised by the amendments, concerning the dispersal of traffic and other matters which we shall be considering later today, I have pt t questions to Ministers and have been palmed off because they said they were not prepared to answer them, as they are matters for British Rail.

An illustration that is relevant to the dispersal clause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I would rather that the hon. Gentleman did not seek to give illustrations on matters that are not relevant to the motion before the House. We may consider the Lords amendments later today and the matters to which he is referring may be relevant then. However, they are certainly not relevant now.

Mr. Holland

The proposal before us is that, in effect, we should suspend Standing Orders and therefore the House would be unable to consider further the issues raised in Committee.

If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule me out of order for raising some of those individual issues, it will be extremely difficult for me to make a case against the suspension of Standing Orders. If I may submit — of course I am subject to your guidance—there is a good deal of room for the expression of argument concerning individual cases. Such arguments have already been made by both sides of the House.

We should consider the issues that were raised in the Lords during the debate on the Lords amendments, on Report and on Third Reading. Columns 876 and 1160 of the Lords proceedings show that there is strong support for Customs inspection being undertaken on the trains.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his line of argument is not relevant to the motion before the House. Perhaps he might hold his arguments to see whether he will have the chance to deploy them when we reach the Lords amendments later in our proceedings.

Mr. Holland

I shall certainly do that, and I might not be as brief as some Conservative Members have been. However, that depends on whether or not I am able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The rights of individuals to submit evidence to the Committee of this House and the Committee of the other place have been severely curtailed. That is true not just for the individual case concerning the person whose house may or may not be demolished, depending on what is agreed at a particular stage of this Bill, and therefore whose personal future is in jeopardy, but also in other respects. A range of questions have been put in Committee, but either they have been ruled out of order by the Chairs of those Committees or, when it came to those relating to British Rail, they have received no adequate answer.

Let us consider the simple, basic question of how much traffic will be generated by the tunnel fixed link. It is intolerable that the answers given display utterly varying orders of magnitude. The Minister gave an answer to a question that I put down on Monday and estimated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is disregarding the advice I have already given to him. If he persists I must ask him to resume his seat. Either the hon. Gentleman addresses the motion before the House, which he is not doing at the moment, or he resumes his seat.

Mr. Holland

There are a whole range of issues concerning this Bill and I make no apology to the House for raising those concerning my constituency. It has not been possible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman, with or without apology, is out of order if he seeks to persist in raising the matters that concern his constituency, but do not concern the motion before the House. Unless the hon. Gentleman can confine his remarks to the motion before the House I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Holland

With such active co-operation from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to raise one point if I may gain your tolerance. The Lords Committee has been unable to deal adequately with the range of issues in the Bill that affect both individuals and community groups. Certainly we shall be able to address some of those issues later today on some of the other amendments. However, we shall he unable to raise those matters in an adequate manner because some of the most basic figuring concerning the traffic to be generated by the Channel fixed link is still unclear. Widely varying estimates have been given.

I support what has been said by some Conservative Members with regard to the Eurotunnel figures. Those figures are high because it wants support for its flotation and therefore wants to get finance for the project. British Rail's estimated figure is much lower. The feasibility of the higher figure of traffic being sustained by a single terminus—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. If I allowed the debate to continue along these lines, we would have a wide debate about the Channel tunnel in general.

5.30 pm

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

Hon. Members may be relieved to hear that I shall be brief. This is the first wedding anniversary that I have been able to spend in this country and I shall be in trouble with a higher authority if I speak for long.

Unlike the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) I have no objection to any of the amendments themselves but, as you have just reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not debating them. We are discussing a procedural motion that deals with the suspension of the statutory protections that the House affords to the people of this country. The motion is designed to enable a powerful, potentially monopolistic organisation to ease its way past the individual liberties that the House is here to protect.

This is an unseemly motion, papering over an unsound project. It is a feature of quasi-monopolistic, powerful bodies, of the sort that Eurotunnel will no doubt become, that, again and again, they have to come to the House and to other bodies to ask for the rules to be changed so that they can carry on with their business. I suspect that this will not be the last time that a special dispensation is requested. Many of us fought proudly under the Conservative banner, and continue to do so, because we believe that the Conservative party supremely stands for the protection of individual liberties in areas as far removed from the motion as the sale of council houses and the break-up of the monopoly of the trades unions. So it is sad to find that, in a matter such as this, the Government appear at both levels to be moving against individual rights. That is demonstrated by the measure before us and by the underlying fact that we shall be setting up this quango, for want of a better word.

During discussion of the last procedural motion on the Channel tunnel, I reported the deep unhappiness of many of my constituents about the lack of procedures that has obtained in these matters. I have noted the number of people who have told me that they would have liked to make their representations heard but could not do so for reasons that have already been outlined at length by previous speakers. Such people feel justified fears that if their normal rights, as upheld by the House, are suspended, more may follow. Their fears extend to things in the real world outside the Chamber—to the wave of ribbon development that is currently spreading across the garden of England, as it once was.

I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be out of order for me to comment on specific issues relating to the underlying effects that the Channel tunnel will have on the area, but it sets a frightening precedent for my constituents once again to see the rules being suspended.

Unlike previous speakers, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) who, I believe, may be speaking in a little while, have not been privileged to take part in the various debates of the past 17 months on this issue.

Mr. Snape

Why not?

Mr. Brazier

We were not Members of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you in your wisdom will determine whether I am in order or not; however, I would not be able to forgive myself if I sheltered entirely behind my constituency interests in saying that I feel profoundly unhappy about this matter. As I said earlier, this is an unseemly motion, covering an unsound project. There is a feature of monopolistic bodies that come to the House from time to time to ask for the rules to be suspended; they tend to do so most often when they are in trouble and losing money. I firmly believe that Eurotunnel will come back to the House because it will get itself into problems which, if I were to describe them in too much detail, would take me beyond the rules of order.

I started my business career with what I believe is the world's largest mining consortium. Should the procedural motion be passed, and should the promoters find themselves this summer in the markets succeeding in raising money, they would rapidly discover that geologists only tell one the bad news after one has started to dig the hole. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover hopes to mention some other ways in which the project is fundamentally unsound, so I will not dwell on them in too much detail. If the procedural motion is passed—and, as a result, we rush through the legislation before it has been fully debated — and the money is raised in the markets this summer, we may find that we have done precisely the reverse of what the Conservative party tried to do and succeeded time and again in doing—namely, reducing the number of powerful and unnecessary bodies in the country. I refer to trade union barons and to some of the state monopolies that have been liberalised.

I am bringing my remarks to a close, as I see no great benefit in length. I fear that we shall find that we shall have built a fundamental frailty into our trading relationships with Europe, based around a sad, sick and unhappy monopoly the legal basis of which will have been pushed through against the rules of the House. It will survive making a miserable loss and competing in a price war against the ferries—ultimately achieving a position that will be bad for Britain's trading relationship with Europe.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed me to go a little beyond the bounds of the motion and I do not want to abuse your indulgence in this matter any further, except to say that I think the House may find that we shall wake up one day to discover that we have built an Achilles heel for Britannia.

Nevertheless, if the motion goes through this afternoon, and the money is raised in the markets, speaking as the hon. Member for Canterbury, for myself and, I believe, for some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent, I may say that there will be no carping or sour grapes from us. Whatever our reservations, and whatever the feelings in our constituencies, we shall work with the organisation to make the best that we can of the project, provided that the Government and Eurotunnel respect the environmental considerations in east Kent.

5.38 pm

Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), and to one or two other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate for making it clear that we are not discussing the motion but are engaged in Channel tunnel bashing yet again. I do not object to that, because I have heard similar speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South over the past 18 months. I do not think that they improve much with the keeping, and I expected the speech that he made today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made some important points. However, let us consider what we are discussing: changes that were designed to meet the overwhelming wish of the majority of people in the area concerned. They were supported by all parties—I stress, all parties—on the Shepway district council. Of course, Mr. Pattinson and, no doubt, one or two other individuals, are important people who are entitled to be heard, but the House must understand that hybrid Bills are hybrid Bills, not private or public Bills. They are special beasts.

Secondly, Parliament includes another place. We may not like to admit it, but there has been a certain element of schizophrenia here today. Hon. Members have said that Mr. Pattinson and others have been able to speak only to another place, and have not been able to get across their point of view about the changed access to this House—as if the Select Committee of another place were some inferior body. As a constitutionalist I do not accept that. The other point of view is that, if one accepts that a Select Committee in another place is part of the procedure, then Mr. Pattinson was given scant and bad treatment. I would be out of order if I commented upon that, but I do not accept that he was given such treatment.

It would be unwise for the House in a frenzy of anti-tunnel, and in one or two cases a frenzy of anti-European, activity to attack a procedural motion designed to try to help local people. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was certainly anti-European in his speech. The motion is designed to help Eurotunnel, the Government and the local authorities to act n a sensible way to meet what is clearly the overwhelming wish of local people, of the local elected authority and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He has been working on this with great sensitivity on behalf of individuals and his constituents and also working with all the parties in the Shepway district council. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for his work in trying to get the best answer to a very difficult problem.

It is, perhaps, sometimes forgotten that the original scheme would have taken an additional 40 acres of very beautiful countryside and was overwhelmingly unpopular with local people. Those points have to be made because they have not been made before. The House always faces this kind of dilemma when one embarks upon great public enterprises. That applies whether the enterprise is a road, an airport scheme or a tunnel. At the end of the day, some people inevitably lose their property. Sometimes it is not a case of people losing property but of unfortunate people who will be adversely affected by a scheme and will have to live with it. They cannot sell the property and have to live with the traffic or the aeroplanes rushing past. Wherever possible we should take every step to ensure that such people, who are important, are treated properly, sensitively and generously.

Parliament has to decide whether one, two or three individuals can be allowed to hold up major schemes. I do not have to remind the House of the delays to the completion of the M25. Two or three people, quite properly and within the law, delayed the completion of that great motorway. Some people, quite properly, delayed the completion of the M3 past Winchester. One wonders how many people were killed on the existing substandard roads as a result of those delays. People are entitled to object to schemes and a balance must always be struck. I do not know this area as well as does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but I know it very well and I know the views of all the parties on the district council. Given those 'actors and the way that my hon. and learned Friend has acted. I am convinced that the House would not be wise if it did not pass the motion. My hon. and learned Friend clearly outlined the proposition to the House.

There is no point at the end of this Session in involving ourselves in great furore against the tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitkin) conjured up visions of Libyan banks and geisha houses in Japan and all sorts of other things. They are good emotive terms, but he knows that the House has been discussing this matter for a long time, as has another place. In a way that is unique, not only in the West but in the world as a whole, Parliament has taken a great deal of time, care and expertise to try to solve all the legitimate problems of individuals.

I certainly hope that people such as Mr. Pattinson can be properly, sensitively and generously compensated for the undoubted loss or disadvantage that they will suffer. There is no question that in a scheme of this kind individuals will suffer. That is inevitable. When the first railway was built individuals suffered, and when the first road was built, whether by the Romans or even before their time, individuals suffered. The argument is for the greater good of all. Of course we must be careful that the greater-good-of-all argument is not used as an excuse to crush individuals.

Our procedures in another place have not operated against individuals. I support the motion. Let us get on with the motion and with the amendments moved in another place. In a period of buoyant optimism, as opposed to the pathetic, negative depression with which some of my hon. Friends seem to regard this project, we can turn into reality what we have been talking about for far too long.

5.45 pm

Sir John Farr (Harborough)

Some hon. Members who spoke were not at the meeting of the Select Committee on Standing Orders last Thursday. It would help the House, and clear up genuine misunderstanding, if I said something about how this quite ancient Select Committee works. It is not a pressure group for or against the Common Market. It consists of 11 hon. Members, and the Chairman is the Chairman of Ways and Means. We meet from time to time to decide whether Standing Orders should be dispensed with.

I am sure that the Minister has not grasped the reason why I feel so incensed about being asked to approve this Government motion. It is that on the Select Committee on Standing Orders we send for witnesses. We listen to experts and have given to us a point of view that, rightly or wrongly, enables the members of the Committee to make the right decision. The Government machinery is asking the House to steamroller aside a decision taken on a five to three free vote in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who is not in the Chamber, admits that the vote would be six to two if he had to vote again after what he has learned.

The Committee heard the witnesses giving evidence. It is not possible for all hon. Members to have the benefit of hearing the evidence that we heard. It is a tragedy that, within four or five days of the Committee meeting on Thursday morning, the Minister and the Government machine are asking the House to sweep aside the Committee's decision. We may have taken a wrong decision, but I and the other members of the Committee were in a far better position to judge the matter. That is because we heard the evidence from the witnesses and the experts and read the papers that other hon. Members in all parts of the House did not see because they did not have time.

If I may say so without punishment, we are seeing all that is bad in the party whipping system. An awkward little Select Committee has taken an awkward little decision because it thinks that the decision should be taken. That is inconvenient for the Government machine and for that reason the House is being asked to push aside the decision of the Select Committee. I urge my hon. Friends to bear in mind before overruling the decision of the Committee that we took the decision after hearing all the witnesses that we had time to hear.

I have been on the Select Committee long enough with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that you attend to your duties in a punctilious manner. In the course of a year we could have 10 to 20 meetings and a whole range of private or hybrid Bills to consider. After hearing the witnesses we are advised by learned counsel whether it is right that Standing Orders should be dispensed with, and we generally accept learned counsel's recommendation.

On Thursday, the Committee decision was taken quite clearly and openly. We feel that an injustice is established in this motion that the House is being asked to approve. By a vote of five to three—which, as I say, would have been six to two—we felt that Standing Orders should not be dispensed with and that Mr. Pattinson had not had a chance to have his case heard by the House. It had been heard before the other place. Over the years, we have established the fact that the ordinary people should have an opportunity to be heard before both Houses of Parliament. Tonight my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is asking us to sweep aside that traditional practice. This is a sad and sorry day for democracy in Britain.

I shall be voting against the motion tonight and I hope that a number of my hon. Friends will join me. I feel most strongly that we took the best decision in the Select Committee as we knew far more than hon. Members on both sides of the House can know because we had experts to advise us. We are now being asked to cast the decision aside. That is intolerable.

5.50 pm

Mr. Michael Fallon (Darlington)

When Sir Alex Fletcher was temporarily absent from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill last year, I had the privilege to chair that Committee. As Sir Alex Fletcher is temporarily—we hope—absent from the House tonight, I want to say a word about the motion from the vantage point of the Select Committee.

The motion is unusual. Every previous speaker has recognised that. However, I believe that those who have spoken against the motion have ignored the three reasons upon which it is based. We are dealing with a very unusual Bill. It is complex and controversial and, above all, it embraces a number of very important interests which cannot always be easily reconciled one with another. Secondly, the motion arises because the House has been determined from the start of the proceedings on the Bill more than a year ago—I stress that to my hon. Friends who have suggested that we are being stampeded — to ensure that the interests were fully protected and fairly handled throughout the Bill's passage. Thirdly, the motion is worthy of support because the amendments before the Select Committee on Standing Orders arose during the Bill's passage and because of the exceptional trouble that the House took to safeguard the private interests and to reconcile them wherever possible.

I bear some witness to that exceptional trouble because I was a member of the Select Committee of this House which last year sat for 36 days from 10 am to 8 pm during four weeks of the recess. It sat for 220 hours and heard nearly 5,000 petitions against the Bill.

The steps that were taken to safeguard the interests with regard to the access to the Cheriton terminal were the most exceptional. That was due in no small part to the determination of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to protect and advance the interests of his constituents. My hon. and learned Friend and his friends, his local authority and other interested parties came back to persuade the House on 17 July to empower the Select Committee to consider alternative access proposals because the original scheme, inelegantly entitled WG1, did not protect or advance the interests of his constituents. The original version of the alternative access proposals was called WG2.

In the event, the Select Committee was not persuaded in favour of the proposals. However, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe is very determined — just how determined we shall probably find out as this legislative Session unfolds—and he went on to work with his constituents, the district council and other bodies involved to formulate a different version of alternative access arrangements which were then submitted to a Select Committee of another place and were agreed by that Committee to be the joint southern access arrangements.

It should be no surprise therefore to the House to learn that the Select Committee on Standing Orders a week or so ago ruled that the Standing Orders have not been complied with. We predicted that in the debate a few days ago. It was obvious from the start that the various Standing Orders relevant to the deposition and sending out of notices and publication of notices could not possibly have been complied with because the arrangements to which they related were devised long after the Bill had been published and formulated. Having ruled that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, the Select Committee had to decide whether they should be dispensed with.

We cannot satisfactorily answer that question because we have not had the benefit of reading the proceedings of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. We have not had the advice of the Chairman, although we have heard the advice of some of the Select Committee members this afternoon. We are bound to observe that, in moving from the question whether the Standing Orders have been complied with to the further question whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with, the Select Committee on Standing Orders has moved from an area in which its advice might be useful to the House to an area of decision making where it is beginning to impose itself on the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) constantly referred to a decision that had been taken by the Select Committee. The Select Committee on Standing Orders cannot take a decision on whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. Only the House can take that decision. Having agreed that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, the Select Committee on Standing Orders can offer us advice on whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. However, the Select Committee on Standing Orders cannot decide that matter for the House. It is for the House this afternoon to decide whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with.

Sir John Farr

Of course the proceedings of every Select Committee are governed by this House. There were two items of business on the agenda when the Committee met on Thursday. The first was to approve the normal Sessional resolutions and the other was to consider whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. We came to a decision about the second. I would say that every Committee decision is a recommendation to the House. Only in most unusual and exceptional circumstances do the Government choose to overturn a decision in this way.

Mr. Fallon

I do not think that we are too far apart. In the second topic of business on the agenda — the consideration—the Committee came to a resolution. It is up to the House to decide very shortly whether to uphold that resolution or to reject it. We would be justified in upholding that resolution of the Select Committee on Standing Orders only if there were private interests affected by the new joint southern access arrangements which were unaware of the arrangements, were taken unawares by them or did not have sufficient or ample opportunity to put their views to Parliament.

The first test cannot be met. No one on either side of the argument is suggesting that Mr. Pattinson or indeed one or two others who are now adversely affected by the joint southern access arrangements could possibly have been unaware of the promoters' proposals. The second test whether Mr. Pattinson and others had ample and sufficient opportunity to be heard by this House—is crucial for the House. I understand that Mr. Pattinson appeared before the Standing Orders Select Committee. He wanted the various Lords amendments, which we shall consider later, to be considered by a fresh Select Committee.

There are three points to be made about that. First, Mr. Pattinson appeared before the Commons Select Committee on 22 October last year. Secondly, he appeared before the House of Lords Select Committee on 12 March this year. Thirdly, if a third Select Committee were established to consider the matter all over Again —Mr. Pattinson has recognised that there would be petitioners for and against the new joint southern access arrangements — it is highly likely that there would be more petitions in favour of those arrangements than against. No useful purpose would be served by setting up a further Select Committee to hear these arguments again.

In the absence of any further reasoning from the Standing Orders Committee — I think that one Committee member has still to speak to us—I submit that the House should not uphold the Standing Orders Committee's resolution, not decision, but should support the motion.

6.1 pm

Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

At the start of the debate, I was somewhat pleased that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) had spoken up. It seems that he will lead the first official Labour party vote against the Government on the Channel tunnel issue.

Mr. Snape

I know that the hon. Gentleman is new here, but it is important that he gets matters right. The Labour party voted against the Bill on Second Reading on the grounds that the issue demanded a public inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman is implying that, because of my support for the Channel tunnel, I have acted in any way against my party's policy, he is wrong on that, too.

Mr. Shaw

I would not in any way suggest that the hon. Gentleman was behaving improperly and I withdraw any such allegation. But it was of note during the election campaign that Labour party members made many national speeches in favour of the building of the Channel tunnel, although they endeavoured, wherever possible locally in Dover, to deny that the Labour party was in favour of that project. I totally accept that the hon. Gentleman's principles for or against the rights of the individual and for or against political convenience may be called into question occasionally, but, of course, in all instances I would apply the most noble considerations to his motives.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

I served on the Channel tunnel Select Committee, as did the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) behaved in a most proper way during the Select Committee's hearings.

Mr. Fallon

Yes.

Mr. Rogers

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Although I disagreed with the Labour party's policy on the Channel tunnel, I was happy to sit in an investigative capacity and to do my duty properly on the Select Committee. It ill becomes an hon. Member, new or old, to impugn motives that are less than honourable. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark.

Mr. Shaw

If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I said that at all times I would apply the most noble of motives to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. I would in no way imply that he was being hypocritical in the House, although some hypocrisy was noted in Dover when comparing the various manifestos and literature.

I should like to concentrate on the motion before the House. It is important that we are not sidetracked into considering overall political matters. The House of Commons is a House of political judgment where behaviour should be of the highest standards, as I implied.

Mr. Rogers

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not conform to that idea and apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order.

Mr. Shaw

Not only should hon. Members behave according to the highest standards but the House and its Members should comply with the procedures that are published and available to the public. It is the public who have to bear the brunt of our deliberations and decisions.

The procedures on the Channel Tunnel Bill, and this procedure in particular, have been rushed. The constituents of Dover and I are concerned that, if the Channel tunnel is built — there are still many grave doubts about that—it will exist for some 50 or more years. The House should get matters right when considering such a long period.

My hon. Friend the Minister of Public Transport made a slight error last time we discussed this measure. He seemed to be under the impression that I had referred to the Commons Select Committee hearings not being properly advertised in terms of inviting people to petition. In fact, I was referring to the House of Lords Select Committee. It was apparent from Lord Ampthill's comments that the Department of Transport had not given enough notice. He felt obliged to criticise that Department. That has been a source of continual regret to me and many of my constituents who were not able to submit petitions within the deadline, some seven days after advertising.

During the limited time in which I have been a Member I have endeavoured to come to grips with that large volume called "Erskine May". It appears from a number of examples that the procedures followed have been wrong and that advertising did not occur as it should have. Many of those examples referred to that modern means of transport some 100 years after the Channel tunnel was first thought of—the tramway—and to improper advertising. It seems from the various deliberations that, wherever possible, the House required the correction of the procedures that had gone wrong. The problem with this error is that it cannot be corrected. It is not possible to re-advertise and go through all the procedures. There is no time to do so and Mr. Pattinson has already spent an immense amount of money and a whole year on improving his property. The House must search its conscience hard and consider whether it should pass this motion, which rides roughshod over previous decisions. I believe that it should not be passed. This would reveal, not only to Mr. Pattinson but to all the people of Dover, that the House feels strongly that the Channel Tunnel Bill should have gone through the proper procedures and that they should have been enabled to take part in the petitioning process as much as they wished.

6.7 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I shall endeavour to be brief. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have sat for a number of years on the Select Committee on Standing Orders. I believe that I am right in saying — I always bow to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whose knowledge of these matters is profound and much respected—that the Standing Orders Committee met more frequently and sat longer on the Channel tunnel issue than on any other issue in living memory.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

indicated assent.

Mr. Winterton

My hon. Friend nods, so clearly I am right.

To pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), members of that Select Committee, which you chaired with great distinction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had the opportunity to read statements and evidence which perhaps has not been read or appreciated by many hon. Members. I include, for instance, the statement on behalf of Barry Pattinson opposing the application for dispensation with the Standing Orders, Mr. Pattinson's memorial complaining of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, the statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in support of the application for dispensation with the Standing Orders and extracts — some long, some short—of proceedings in another place dealing with Mr. Barry Pattinson's evidence.

We have heard some very colourful and emotional speeches this afternoon. I respect the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and I always come into the Chamber when he speaks because of the entertainment that he provides. He is flamboyant and he is forthright. He feels deeply what he says. However, detail and specifics are not the strength of his speeches. I say that with respect, because I know that he is held in immense respect both inside and outside the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) gave us a well-mustered series of arguments in support of his case, which he has put extremely well time and again, both in the House and to the Select Committee on Standing Orders. However, some of the examples that he quoted were very specific and very limited, and I only wish that he had advanced some of the other matters involved in dealing with this extremely complicated and important issue.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I am going to support the Government when we vote. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and for Rugby and Kenilworth, I was one of the three who voted in the Select Committee to dispense with Standing Orders. In a moment, I shall endeavour to explain why I did that, and why I believe that the House should vote for the motion.

Let me pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who in my estimation made the best contribution to today's debate. He spoke factually and from knowledge, which I think will help the House to take its difficult decision. He accurately pointed out that the joint southern access had been agreed by all the local authorities in the area. It has been agreed by amenity societies, and by hundreds of people who are concerned about the Channel tunnel. I therefore believe that the proposal that is the root cause of the debate should be fully understood by the House. It is not simply a matter of Eurotunnel seeking to stampede the House and the Government into a hasty decision. The joint southern access has been agreed between Eurotunnel, Kent county council, Shepway district council, the amenity interests and the other people whom I mentioned a moment ago.

Let me deal specifically with Barry Pattinson. The debate in the Select Committee on Standing Orders and the debate this afternoon have occurred because of that individual, and we respect what he stands for. However, we should take other matters into consideration. Mr. Pattinson petitioned against the amendments in both Houses, and gave evidence in support of his petitions to both Select Committees—in the House of Commons on 22 October 1986 and in the House of Lords on 12 March 1987. He appeared as a memorialist before the Examiners and, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) — who also made a valuable contribution to the debate—he appeared with his agent before the Select Committee on Standing Orders when it met last week.

If we are to deal with the matter properly, we must understand on what grounds the Committee and the House can dispense with compliance with Standing Orders and allow a Bill to proceed. Again, I am referring to papers with which the Committee was provided last week. I understand that a number of factors must be taken into account: delay on the part of sponsors, and the reason for that delay; the public interest; the urgency of the matter; and the extent to which other parties are affected. We have been advised by you and by your Counsel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all those matters have been discussed at some length in the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

I think that I am right in saying—in regard to delay — that within two weeks of the House's instruction empowering its Select Committee to consider alternative proposals for access, and to make amendments if it thought fit, the documents relating to the amendments in question had been prepared and deposited. The necessary notices were immediately served, and publication of the public notices began.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has been consistent and honourable throughout the debates on the Bill, and I support him in many of the reason; for which he supports the Bill. It will be good for British Rail, and therefore good for the country, because it will help communication. I say that to show that there is quite a lot of common ground between us. But, on grounds of public interest and urgency, there is clearly a case for Standing Orders to be waived.

Mr. Pattinson is the linchpin in this matter. I say this with every respect for the forceful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, but I have reached a different conclusion from him. I believe that Mr. Pattinson has had every opportunity to present his case.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

So that my hon. Friend does not unwittingly place untrue statements on the record, may I ask whether he agrees that the actual proposal on which we are to vote, and which will take away Mr. Pattinson's house, has never been before a Committee of the House? He referred to different proposals and different amendments from those on which we shall vote.

Mr. Winterton

I understand that, while the specific matter relating to an amendment that could demolish Mr. Pattinson's house has, indeed, not been before the House, the access route which will demolish his house has been considered at length in both Houses by Select Committees, and—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has said—has been rejected.

Let me return to a point made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Ashford. In any major civil engineering project—and this is perhaps one of the largest such project in the history of the world — it is inevitable that some people's interests cannot be fully safeguarded. However, I can say from knowledge of what occurred in the Select Committee of Standing Orders that Eurotunnel, local authorities and others are doing their utmost to assist Mr. Pattinson. He has been introduced to some 20 properties, but he has found it necessary to reject them. He would have liked to buy one of them, but the lady who owned it ultimately decided not to sell. Everyone is going out of their way to assist him, to ensue that he receives the maximum possible compensation and to give him all the advice and support that they can.

The crux of the matter is that I do not believe that those wishing to oppose the amendments have been prevented or handicapped by the lack of earlier notice. That is what this debate is about. Let me repeat for the benefit of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that Mr. Pattinson presented his petitions in time, and was represented before, and gave evidence to, Select Committees in both Houses.

Mr. Fallon

Has my hon. Friend considered the logical extension of the points made to him by our hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop): that if every petitioner who was affected by an amendment made to a hybrid Bill in another place were to be afforded a second opportunity to petition against the detail, not the substance, of that amendment, an entirely separate Committee stage would be required in this place to consider the Lords amendments?

Mr. Winterton

I do not need to respond to my hon. Friend, because he has developed his own argument. It would be nonsense; we should indeed need to develop a new Committee stage system. The promotion of any major civil engineering or other project would take so long that it could never be financed, so we should make absolutely no progress.

I have great reservations about the European Community. However, having made an active study recently of British Rail and of the Channel tunnel project, I believe that it will be of immense benefit to this country. The overwhelming majority of the people of Kent will benefit from the tunnel. It would be very unfortunate, therefore, if their future were to remain uncertain. The House would be doing them no service. For that reason, I shall support the Government tonight. It is the only reasonable and rational course to take.

6.21 pm

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

I have listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to those of my hon. Friends. I wonder where else in the world and in which other national legislature Mr. Pattinson would have had such a fair and square deal and such a fair and thorough consideration of his circumstances.

Mr. Aitken

My hon. Friend is quite right, and we should take pride in that. But the opposite is also true. What other legislature in the world would allow its Government to put through, on a three-line Whip, a motion to do down Mr. Pattinson?

Mr. Adley

My hon. Friend tempts me. Does he seriously suggest that in the Kremlin there would be an airing for Mr. Pattinson? My hon. Friend has not made a very good point. However, he enables me to move quickly to my second point, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is that not only members of the Select Committee but all hon. Members have an interest in this motion. Many of my hon. Friends will accept my proposition that I am not the most slavish follower of the advice that is given by the Whips. However, I am perfectly happy to accept the Government motion. I make the point to my new hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that many of us listened to Sir Peter Rees and to Sir David Crouch making a quite different case on behalf of the constituents my hon. Friends now represent. I am bound to say that I listened briefly to their comments but that I listened at length to those of their predecessors.

Mr. Brazier

In his last speech to the House, Sir David Crouch distinguished clearly and correctly his own views from those of his constituents and made it clear that, though he supported these proposals, the vast majority of the people in his constituency did not do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into going into the merits of the Bill. We are dealing with the procedural motion that is before the House.

Mr. David Shaw

Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to speak briefly on that point. In my maiden speech I paid tribute to the way in which Sir Peter Rees looked after his constituency interests. After he had left the Cabinet he felt that it was appropriate to disavow the collective responsibility that he had accepted in Cabinet. Consequently, after that date he opposed very strongly at all stages the Channel Tunnel Bill.

Mr. Adley

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover rose on a point of order, and it is not for me to answer it. All I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is that he has confirmed that Sir David Crouch put what he believed to be the national interest ahead of what he knew was popular in his constituency. Many hon. Members applaud him for doing so.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been a Member of this House for longer than I have, and tonight he will have heard familiar voices attached to familiar faces making familiar points. The Government are absolutely right to bring forward this motion. The House has had plenty of time to make its collective view known. I shall refer to a speech that was made in my constituency by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), because it sums up the opposition to the Bill. One of his constituents said to him recently, "I don't want this tunnel because I don't want all this rabies brought into Britain." My hon. Friend made the point that France is by no means full of rabid dogs, to which my hon. Friend's constituent replied, "Oh, it's not the dogs I'm concerned about; it's the Frenchmen." This is a last-ditch attempt to stop the Bill. I need no encouragement whatsoever to follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby and vote in favour of the motion.

6.26 pm

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

I apologise to the House for the fact that I missed the earlier part of the debate. I was detained by some rather sombre business in my constituency.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that this is a last-ditch attempt to frustrate the will of the House. I hope and believe that I have fought as hard as any on behalf of my constituents in my corner of Kent, but the will of the House has been clearly expressed. Therefore it is not for the Standing Orders Committee to seek to undermine the will of the House.

Throughout these deliberations my hon. Friend the Minister of State has listened courteously to our arguments and he has responded to them. We are grateful to him for doing so. We have most certainly benefited from that. The will of the investors has still to be tested. If the Channel tunnel project goes ahead, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that we shall fight tooth and nail to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel come to north-east Kent and that they do not go to the Pas de Calais. As it is not the business of the Standing Orders Committee to seek to frustrate the will of the House and as the will of the House has already been expressed, I shall support the Government.

6.27 pm

The Minister of Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to the principle involved and to the specific case of Mr. Pattinson. I agree that it is right that this House should be concerned about the rights of an individual. Therefore I shall seek to refer fully to the points that he has raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) regrets that the Government have proceeded in the way that they have instead of by invoking an ancient procedure of this House, which I understand was last invoked in 1829 in the case of Sir Jonah Barrington. I shall deal in detail with that point, but in his preliminary skirmish I must say to my hon. Friend—and he is a friend as well as an hon. Friend—that had I followed his advice Mr. Durkin, parliamentary counsel for Mr. Pattinson, would have been heard at the Bar of the House. However, the amendment would destroy four houses on one side of the road. If Mr. Pattinson had won the argument after his counsel had been heard at the Bar of the House, those whose property would have been severely damaged by the alternative proposals should surely have had an equal right to be heard at the Bar of the House. How long, then, would these proceedings have continued and how far and how wide should they have been?

My hon. Friend claims that Mr. Pattinson was never heard in this House, but he was. I hope that I can show the House that he was heard. If my hon. Friends look at page 1605 of Vol. 4 of the meetings of the Select Committee on Channel tunnel, Session 1985–86, Minutes of Evidence, they will find reference to the petition being made. On page 1605 there is the introduction of the Shepway proposal and on page 1606 we have Mr. Pattinson making his points. He was heard in respect of a proposal that the Select Committee did not recommend to the House. That was not on the grounds of the demolition of Mr. Pattinson's house, but that on operational grounds the proposal would not be effective. Therefore, I shall refer to the report of the Select Committee where it deals with this matter. It says: Euro Tunnel found WG2 workable but regarded it as 'a second best and very much a second best'. There was no substantial difference in cost. … It goes on to say that there was not sufficient length of road for people to be able to weave from one side of the road to the other or to adjust their mirrors. On safety grounds it was unattractive.

It ends: We believe that there will be less confusion and a better arrangement for frontier checks if the original scheme is retained in the Bill. We decided that the suggested advantages proposed by Shepway did not justify choosing their scheme. We favoured the operationally preferred scheme. It was on operational grounds and not on the grounds of the four houses concerned, including that of Mr. Pattinson, that the Committee of the House, having heard Mr. Pattinson—I draw that specifically to the attention of the House—decided otherwise.

A compromise solution was found which was agreeable to all parties. It was agreeable to Shepway district council and Kent county council. Initially, it was not met with great enthusiasm by Eurotunnel, but eventually it agreed. It was agreeable to the joint consultation committee that I chaired, which met in Kent and examined the matter in considerable detail.

When the matter was raised in the Standing Committee of the House I was pressed by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) to make this amendment to the Bill. With some considerable difficulty I persuaded the Committee not to accept that amendment to ensure that Mr. Pattinson had a better opportunity to present his case in the House of Lords, where he would have the opportunity of appearing as a petitioner in front of the Lords Committee. That duly happened; the Lords Committee was made aware of the effect that the amendment would have on this house, but it found in favour of the joint southern access. If hon. Members turn to the Lords evidence they will see that there was considerable discussion and understanding of these points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) helpfully served on the Standing Orders Committee and explained the broader issues that were involved. The amendment must be considered in the context of the widespread support in Kent of those who were involved with it. I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss it later this evening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) helpfully explained why, as a member of the Standing Committee, he voted for the dispensation. That leads me on to the points that were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and Darlington (Mr. Fallon) with regard to the area of Folkestone. The godfather of this proposal was my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government. He has attended all of our proceedings but, for reasons of which we are all aware, he is unable to part cipate now. This amendment affects his constituency, but his constituents have demonstrated considerable support for it.

As a hybrid Bill the Channel Tunnel Bill should have been introduced on or before 27 November. Since it was not, and could not be so introduced, Standing Orders have not been complied with, but the House, by a large majority, gave dispensation from the Standing Orders. Since the Bill was introduced out of time, the amendments must inevitably fall foul of Standing Orders in the same way. The amendment with which we are now concerned has received the widespread support in Kent that I referred to, as it has in the Standing Committee of the House and in the upper House, which inserted the amendments.

The effect of this motion will not be to insert the amendment into the Bill, but it will enable the House to consider the amendment later today. It is on that basis that I commend the motion to the House.

6.16 pm

Mr. Snape

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The motion has found few friends from either side of the House. I concede that four Conservative Members have spoken in favour of it, but the majority of Conservative and Opposition Members hare spoken against its terms because of a cross-party desire to uphold the rights of an individual above those of the House.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and I served on the Standing Committee. I think that since I was elected in 1974, I have served on every committee appertaining to the Channel tunnel. I find the view that Mr. Pattinson's case has been adequately considered by a Committee of the House less than attractive. It is possible to argue, as the Minister understandably and justifiably did, that an amendment could have been tabled in the Standing Committee which would have set aside the original decision of the Select Committee and opted for the access and egress scheme. For the sake of brevity I shall refer to it as WG2, as amended. Such an amendment could have been tabled in the Standing Committee, but it would have caused an enormous row, although it would have been accepted because the Government have a majority in the Standing Committee. Their whip would go round—I speak as a former and failed whip — and drum up support for this amendment, had it been tabled in the Standing Committee. However, that excuse will not wash.

We have been continually told that all the local authorities in the area are in favour of WG2 as amended. They may have been knocked into line recently, but we all know—

Mr. David Mitchell

rose—

Mr. Snape

—that the Minister for Local Government staked his reputation on getting the original proposals, as accepted by the Select Committee, changed. He was successful in the long term, but that success has been at the expense of the individual petitioner.

Mr. Mitchell

There was no question of local authorities in Kent being knocked into line; it was a case of the Government being persuaded by pressure from people in the locality, Shepway district council, Kent county council, representatives who served on the joint consultative committee and all the local authorities in the immediate vicinity. They wanted this proposal carried through. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will remember that when he was serving on the Standing Committee we had to suspend it while we looked at whether it was possible to deal with an acceptance of this amendment. I persuaded the committee not to do so to enable people in Kent to have their views accepted. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposed this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Front Benches must observe the rules. We must not deal with the merits of the Bill or any amendments.

Mr. Snape

I am trying to deal with the rights of the individual. I shall not attempt to rehash the debates that we have had.

We maintain that the petitioner, about whom this debate has largely been concerned, has not had a fair deal. He came to give evidence to the Select Committee; we listened to his evidence and the Select Committee made a decision, across party lines — the hon. Member for Darlington and I voted the same way with regard to that decision — to uphold the original scheme, as placed before us—the access-egress known as WG1.

An alternative was brought forward — whether to save the face of the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or for any other reason, is immaterial—and it was never considered by the Select Committee in the House. It could have been considered by the Standing Committee, as we have said, but it has been considered only by the Select Committee in another place.

The crucial question is, are we to uphold the rights of an individual petitioner as well as the rights of the House? There is no greater supporter of the Channel tunnel project than myself. I have been an officer on the all-party Channel tunnel group for 12 of the 13 years during which I have been a Member of the House. However, I cannot bring myself to vote for the Government motion. The debate has been about what we think about upholding the rights of individuals who are not Members of the House.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) by saying that detail and specifics are not his strong points. We all know the strong point of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. Good heavens, not for nothing was he known as rent-a-quote in his early years in the House. However, he is a reformed character now and, alas, it has not yet brought him the preferment to which I believe he is entitled. Regardless of his view of my right hon. Friend, regardless of the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, this is probably the only issue on which we have disagreed in my comparatively few years in the House and his many years and regardless of personal feelings about the project, it is the duty and responsibility of hon. Members to uphold the right not only of the House against the views of another place but the views of individuals, who may not happen to be our constituents, but who have no other recourse but to ask hon. Members to support them. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support that individual petitioner tonight by voting against this motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 196.

Division No. 23]	[6.42 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Carrington, Matthew
Alexander, Richard	Cash, William
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Allason, Rupert	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Chapman, Sydney
Amess, David	Chope, Christopher
Amos, Alan	Churchill, Mr
Arbuthnot, James	Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Ashby, David	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Aspinwall, Jack	Colvin, Michael
Atkins, Robert	Conway, Derek
Atkinson, David	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Cope, John
Baldry, Tony	Couchman, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Cran, James
Batiste, Spencer	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bellingham, Henry	Curry, David
Bendall, Vivian	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Benyon, W.	Day, Stephen
Bevan, David Gilroy	Devlin, Tim
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Dickens, Geoffrey
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Dicks, Terry
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Dorrell, Stephen
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Boswell, Tim	Dover, Den
Bottomley, Peter	Dunn, Bob
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Durant, Tony
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Dykes, Hugh
Bowis, John	Eggar, Tim
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Emery, Sir Peter
Bright, Graham	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Evennett, David
Brooke, Hon Peter	Fallon, Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Favell, Tony
Browne, John (Winchester)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Buck, Sir Antony	Fookes, Miss Janet
Budgen, Nicholas	Forman, Nigel
Burns, Simon	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Burt, Alistair	Forth, Eric
Butcher, John	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Butler, Chris	Fox, Sir Marcus
Butterfill, John	Franks, Cecil

Freeman, Roger	Monro, Sir Hector
French, Douglas	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Fry, Peter	Moore, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Gardiner, George	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Moss, Malcolm
Gill, Christopher	Moynihan, Hon C.
Glyn, Dr Alan	Neale, Gerrard
Goodlad, Alastair	Neubert, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Newton, Tony
Gow, Ian	Nicholls, Patrick
Gower, Sir Raymond	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Greenway, John (Rydale)	Onslow, Cranley
Grist, Ian	Oppenheim, Phillip
Grylls. Michael	Page, Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Paice, James
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Patnick, Irvine
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Patten, Chris (Bath)
Harris, David	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Haselhurst, Alan	Pawsey, James
Hayes, Jerry	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hayward, Robert	Porter, David (Waveney)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Portillo, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Powell, William (Corby)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Price, Sir David
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Raffan, Keith
Holt, Richard	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Howard, Michael	Redwood, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Renton, Tim
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Rhodes James, Robert
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Riddick, Graham
Jack, Michael	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Jackson, Robert	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Kirkhope, Timothy	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Knapman, Roger	Rowe, Andrew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Knight. Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Ryder, Richard
Knox, David	Sackville, Hon Tom
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lang, Ian	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lawrence, Ivan	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shersby, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Sims, Roger
Lilley, Peter	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Soames, Hon Nicholas
McCrindle, Robert	Speed, Keith
MacGregor, John	Speller, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Maclean, David	Squire, Robin
McLoughlin, Patrick	Stanbrook, Ivor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Stanley, Rt Hon John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Stern, Michael
Madel, David	Stevens, Lewis
Major, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Malins, Humfrey	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mans, Keith	Sumberg, David
Marland, Paul	Summerson, Hugo
Marlow, Tony	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mates, Michael	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Maude, Hon Francis	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Thorne, Neil
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Thurnham, Peter
Mellor, David	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Tredinnick, David
Miller, Hal	Trippier, David
Mills, Iain	Trotter, Neville
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Moate, Roger	Waldegrave, Hon William

Walker, Bill (T'side North)	Wilshire, David
Waller, Gary	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Ward, John	Winterton, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)	Wolfson, Mark
Warren, Kenneth	Wood, Timothy
Watts, John	Woodcock, Mike
Wells, Bowen	Yeo, Tim
Wheeler, John	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Whitney, Ray
Widdecombe, Miss Ann	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wiggin, Jerry	Mr. David Lightbown and
Wilkinson, John	Mr. Kenneth Carlisle

NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Faulds, Andrew
Aitken, Jonathan	Fearn, Ronald
Allen, Graham	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Alton, David	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Anderson, Donald	Fisher, Mark
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Flannery, Martin
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Flynn, Paul
Ashdown, Paddy	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ashton, Joe	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Foster, Derek
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Foulkes, George
Barron, Kevin	Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Battle, John	Galloway, George
Beckett, Margaret	George, Bruce
Beith, A. J.	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Gordon, Ms Mildred
Bermingham, Gerald	Graham, Thomas
Bidwell, Sydney	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Blair, Tony	Grocott, Bruce
Blunkett, David	Hardy, Peter
Boyes, Roland	Harman, Ms Harr et
Bradley, Keith	Haynes, Frank
Brazier, Julian	Henderson, Douglas
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Hinchliffe, David
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Holland, Stuart
Buckley, George	Home Robertson, John
Caborn, Richard	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Callaghan, Jim	Howells, Geraint
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hoyle, Doug
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Canavan, Dennis	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Illsley, Eric
Clay, Bob	Ingram, Adam
Clelland, David	John, Brynmor
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Johnston, Sir Russell
Coleman, Donald	Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Kilfedder, James
Corbett, Robin	Kirkwood, Archy
Corbyn, Jeremy	Lamond, James
Cousins, Jim	Leighton, Ron
Cox, Tom	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Crowther, Stan	Lewis, Terry
Cryer, Bob	Litherland, Robert
Cummings, J.	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Dalyell, Tam	Loyden, Eddie
Darling, Alastair	McAllion, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	McAvoy, Tom
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)	McCartney, Ian
Dewar, Donald	Macdonald, Calum
Dixon, Don	McFall, John
Dobson, Frank	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Doran, Frank	McKelvey, William
Douglas, Dick	McNamara, Kevin
Duffy, A. E. P.	McWilliam, John
Dunnachie, James	Madden, Max
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Eadie, Alexander	Marek, Dr John
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Fan, Sir John	Maxton, John
Fatchett, Derek	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Meale, Alan	Shaw, David (Dover)
Michael, Alun	Sheerman, Barry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Short, Clare
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)	Skinner, Dennis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)	Snape, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Soley, Clive
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Spearing, Nigel
Morgan, Rhodri	Steel, Rt Hon David
Morley, Elliott	Steinberg, Gerald
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)	Stott, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)	Strang, Gavin
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie	Straw, Jack
Mullin, Chris	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Murphy, Paul	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Nellist. Dave	Thomas, Dafydd Elis
O'Brien, William	Turner, Dennis
O'Neill, Martin	Vaz, Keith
Patchett, Terry	Wall, Pat
Pendry, Tom	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Pike, Peter	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Wigley, Dafydd
Prescott, John	Williams, Rt Hon A. J.
Primarolo, Ms Dawn	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Quin, Ms Joyce	Wilson, Brian
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Winnick, David
Reid, John	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Richardson, Ms Jo	Worthington, Anthony
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Wray, James
Robertson, George	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Rogers, Allan
Rooker, Jeff	Tellers for the Noes:
Ruddock, Ms Joan	Mrs. Llin Golding and
Salmond, Alex	Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, in respect of the Channel Tunnel Bill, notwithstanding the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of 16th July, the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far as not complied with, be dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed.