§ Order for Third Reading read.
7.20 pm§ Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is promoted by Northampton borough council and has the unanimous support of the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Social and Liberal Democratic party. It covers a number of miscellaneous matters of local interest. One of the main parts of the Bill responds to public demand in Northampton to continue for a period rights of burial in a cemetery where loved ones have booked a place. Those rights are about to expire. Unless the Bill is passed, many bereaved families will be unable to bury their loved ones properly.
The Bill rationalises certain local charities and modernises the law relating to local freemen. It also repeals certain spent enactments. The Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and has completed all its stages here, except Third Reading. No objection was taken to it during previous stages, and the Bill went to an unopposed Bills Committee. The promoters respectfully submit that the Bill should be given its Third Reading.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)My name appears on a blocking motion to the Bill, so perhaps I should say a few words about it.
I and several of my hon. Friends have been blocking private business for the past few days to draw attention once again to the need to reform the private business procedure. A Joint Select Committee reported on the private business procedure and made some sensible proposals. It is important that the House should be given an early opportunity to discuss that report. We hope that the Government will provide an early opportunity to amend the Standing Orders for private business. My intention in tabling the blocking motion is to persuade the Government that we should have a debate on this subject at an early stage.
Having tabled the blocking motion, I received a letter about the Bill which illustrated the need to reform the private business procedure. I suspect that, with the exception of the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), the majority of hon. Members know little about the detailed circumstances of Northampton. Therefore, we are not best placed to pass legislation dealing with Northampton. Local provision should be made in Northampton, without recourse to a Bill in the House. The private Bill procedure does not allow the people of Northampton to influence this legislation. Matters are quickly taken out of their hands and put into those of hon. Members.
I had assumed that the Bill was not opposed, because it went into an unopposed Committee. I had assumed that it was a measure that everyone in Northampton wanted. However, I received a letter from the secretary of the Kingsthorpe Grove Allotment Association, D. F. Randall, who said that the Bill was advertised last year for presentation to Parliament in the 1987–88 Session and, as is required under the private Bill legislation, a notice appeared in the Chronicle and Echo in Northampton on 10 December. It stated that any local people who objected to the Bill should make representations about it. He said that 548 objections had to be made over Christmas, which was not convenient for many people. It was felt that local residents did not have a good opportunity to make representations about the Bill before it came to Parliament.
The writer says that the association had contacted the chief executive of Northampton council asking for explanations about clauses of the Bill, but did not receive a satisfactory reply, which is deplorable. I have no way of checking whether that is accurate, but the writer says that, despite requests for information, the chief executive was unwilling to meet the association to discuss the matter.
The association has experienced considerable difficulty in discovering what is contained in the statutes that are to he repealed. I am not in a position to judge whether the secretary of the association or the chief executive is right in these matters, but I should like an assurance from the hon. Member for Northampton, South that the repeal of 11 local Acts will not lead to a loss of local footpaths or rights in the area. That is the burden of the letter from the secretary of the association ane from two other people in Northampton.
Those local Acts go back to the fourth Bill of the reign of Henry VII and An Act for the Convent of Saint Andrew in Northampton. Most of them conferred a right of way and access to commons in Northampton. It has been suggested to me that by passing this legislation those rights and footpaths will be removed. If I am wrong, I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Northampton, South and accept his assurance and that of the promoters that not one footpath will be lost.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisI am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has received such a letter, because the interested parties made representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), myself and the chief executive, and meetings were held to consider the Bill. I have corresponded with the chief executive, following at least two requests from my constituents. I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants, first, because it is not in my constituency and, secondly, because although he has had time to raise this point with me he has not done so. If he had done so this afternoon, I could have made a telephone call. If he had given me notice, I should have been delighted to give him the assurance that he wants. All the people of Northampton, the elected representatives of the Labour party, the Conservative party and the minority parties take footpath rights extremely seriously, and I cannot believe that any action would be taken that would undermine those rights.
§ Mr. BennettI am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman cannot give me the assurance I want. While I continue my speech, perhaps he will have a word with the agents of the promoters to see whether they can give that assurance. As I understand it, they are normally in a position to brief hon. Members who are sponsoring a Bill. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman accepted responsibility for sponsoring the Bill without understanding what it would do. That illustrates my original point. If the hon. Gentleman introducing the Bill does not understand it sufficiently to be able to give assurances about footpaths, we are in a difficult position.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisThe hon. Gentleman seeks to bowl a fast ball at 7.29 pm with a letter that I have not seen, but which is presumably genuine. He had plenty of 549 time to tell me about it earlier. The main emphasis of the Bill is on a cemetery. The other elements are subsidiary matters flowing from a perfectly normal tidying-up process. I accept that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has a deep and genuine interest in the Ramblers Association, and it is perfectly justifiable for him to pursue that interest in the House. Nevertheless, it would have been courteous to warn me that he would seek reassurance on that matter. I shall, however, do my best to double-check the situation in the next few moments.
§ Mr. BennettI apologise if I did not give the hon. Gentleman sufficient notice. I assumed that he would be able to answer questions of that kind. That is precisely the problem with private business. I objected to the Bill, not because I had taken the trouble to consider its merits, but as a means of pressing for time to debate the private business procedure, which I regard as entirely unsatisfactory.
Having put down the blocking motion last week, I received a phone call on Monday from an individual asking me to raise certain objections to the Bill. I explained that I could not deal with the matter on the telephone, but that if I received a written submission I would consider it. The documents arrived in this morning's post. Had I not been on a Statutory Instruments Committee, I might have had time to pursue the matter this morning. The hon. Member for Northampton, South will appreciate that Members of Parliament have many responsibilities.
I have a feeling that people come to me about matters relating to private business because I understand the procedure, so I tend to get dragged into situations of this kind. All that I am doing today is suggesting to the House that it is high time we reformed the procedure so that we do not end up with debates of this kind in which I have to raise questions about footpaths in Northampton, when I have very little time in which to consider the Bill.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisSuch is the speed of modern communications that I can now give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
§ Mr. BennettI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the assurance that now there will be no blocking of footpaths or of access to commons.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)I simply wish to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), that the most important aspect of the Bill, and the reason why it is being presented, is to allow certain burials to take place in the graveyard in future. It is probable that such burials would need to go ahead at the rate of about one per month, so if the Bill is delayed many people who have lost their loved ones will be deprived of the right to bury them according to their wishes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), as a caring and compassionate Member of the House, will take that into account and do what he can to facilitate the progress of the Bill now that he has received the undertaking that he sought.
§ Mr. BennettI appreciate that point. It illustrates the faults in the private legislation procedure. Had Northampton council produced legislation simply to deal with cemeteries, I should not have received a letter 550 requiring me to seek assurances about footpaths. In fact, someone in the council offices pointed out that a local Bill of this kind cannot be promoted very often because of the pressures on parliamentary time and the pressures of promoting such a Bill, and a whole host of other little bits are then put into the Bill, making it far more complicated for local people to consider. That is where the procedure starts to go wrong. We end up with a Bill, the primary purpose of which is to ensure that a cemetery remains open and burials can continue to take place—I appreciate all the reasons for that—but which has all kinds of other pieces of legislation tacked on to it.
§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)An assurance has been given, but how do we know that it will come into effect if it is not in the Bill? Perhaps my hon. Friend can reassure me, as I am somewhat sceptical.
§ Mr. BennettIt is the custom of the House, and one that has been reinforced over the years by promoters of private legislation, that any assurance given in the House by the Member dealing with a Bill on behalf of its promoters is always honoured.
§ Mr. Michael Morrisindicated assent.
§ Mr. BennettThe assurance about footpaths and commons is thus as good as one written into the Bill and I do not query it. I merely stress that this is not the right way to proceed in legislating either for the cemeteries in Northampton or for the footpaths there. The best people to make those decisions are the people of Northampton, who have the necessary detailed knowledge.
As I shall make clear on one of the carry-over motions, it is extremely important that the new procedures recommended for private business should be introduced at the earliest possible moment. We should then not need to have what I regard as a series of thoroughly unsatisfactory debates. Looking around the Chamber, I see several hon. Members who were here on Tuesday night. I cannot believe that many of them found that debate satisfactory. Having obtained the necessary assurances about the Bill before us, I merely seek to impress upon the House the need to reform the procedures for private business as soon as possible.
§ Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)I was not here on Tuesday night when two other Bills and carry-over motions were debated, so I come new to the subject, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that it is unsatisfactory to have a debate on what is simply a carry-over motion.
§ Mr. Michael Morrisrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman right. This is not a carry-over motion. It is a Third Reading.
§ Dr. MarekI am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The others were carry-over motions, but this is a Third Reading, so it may be better if I keep my comments on carry-over motions for the next debate.
It is extremely difficult for hon. Members to know exactly what is going on with all the various private Bills. I find no difficulty in coming new to this Bill and listening to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who expressed genuine concern 551 about the possible blocking of footpaths and access to commons. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) give what I understood to be a categorical guarantee that nothing of the kind would happen, but that should have been made clear in the Bill much earlier. If there is any fault in the procedure for private Bills on Third Reading, it is perhaps that insufficient time has been left for my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish to allay the worries of ramblers and others about access to footpaths. Matters of that kind should have been made clear well before Third Reading. We could then stick to the real purpose of the Third Reading debate—whether to take the Bill and like it, with all the various powers that it includes, or not to like it and not to take it. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wish to intervene?
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)No. I will follow the hon. Gentleman.
§ Dr. MarekThe other problem with the private Bill procedure is that it tends not to be honest. I will explain what I mean by that. People tend to make speeches for reasons connected not so much with the Bill before the House as with others that may follow. I do not suggest that any such thing is happening today, but that it a perfectly honest procedure with a clear purpose and one that has doubtless been used in the House for many years. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish can give me an immediate answer, as he has already spoken once and would need the leave of the House to speak again, but can he encapsulate in two or three sentences why he thinks that the private Bill procedure is unsatisfactory?
If a Bill commands general support, by and large the Bill is passed. Sometimes people want to delay a Bill because they want to block debate on a later Bill. However, I do not believe that any Bill that should be passed has not been passed reasonably quickly. If such a Bill has been delayed, it has been only for a few days or weeks at most. However, some Bills do not receive the general support of the House. It might be that a particular group feels that there is something nasty about the Bill and they do not want it to be passed. If such an opinion is represented by only a small group, that group does not have its way. However, it has a little power because it can delay the Bill for more than a few days or a few weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has probably tabled more blocking motions than any other Member. He knows more about such tactics than the rest of us put together. However, at the end of the day hon. Members cannot stop a Bill unless a majority vote for that. They simply have the power to delay it. Because the promoters wish the Bills to be dealt with speedily, they tend to see sense. Opposition concentrates their minds. That is a positive aspect of the procedure on private Bills. If I had a well-founded objection to a Bill, and I shouted "Object" to block the Bill, the promoters and their colleagues would soon ask me why I objected and whether there was any way in which they could overcome my objection. Such a practice is not followed by the Government—certainly not a Government with such a large majority. They do not take any notice of anybody.
If the promoters of a Bill believe that an hon. Member has serious worries about it, they will try to discover the 552 reasons. If they feel that an hon. Member is merely deploying certain tactics to block another Bill, they will put up with that, provided that their Bill is passed at the end of the day. If an hon. Member seriously feels that there is something wrong with the Bill, the promoters will ask whether they can help to alleviate the concerns and attempt to discover whether there is any common meeting ground between the parties. It is good that we are having a short debate on this Bill. Already the promoter has given a categorical assurance that no footpaths will be blocked and ramblers can continue to use them.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettMy hon. Friend asked whether, in a few words, I could explain what was wrong with the private Bill procedure. I cannot. The Joint Committee on Private Business has published a report, and anyone who reads it will see the recommendations for reform of the procedure. When we reach the carry-over motion for the next Bill, I shall say more about that and illustrate why the report argues that we should not regularly give permission for Bills to be carried over. I do not wish to say anything more about the Bill now before us.
§ Dr. MarekI, too, will not say a great deal more. We occasionally have to deal with carry-over motions and I shall refer further to those in our later debates. There appears to be general assent for Third Reading of this Bill. I await with interest to hear whether the sponsor and other hon. Members think we should give it a Third Reading.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)I shall be brief. I have visited Northampton on several occasions, but I do not intend specifically to comment on the details of the Bill, although I welcome the concessions made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris).
The wider issue of how we deal with private Bills will come before us later, but I think it appropriate at this time to make one or two comments. We are in the last days of this Session of Parliament, and I feel it appropriate to say that this House sits longer, by the hour, than any other legislature in the world. We are miles ahead, and the other place is second only to us. One reason that we sit for so long is that we must deal with a great deal of business that, quite honestly, would be better dealt with elsewhere. Because we do not have a devolved system of legislation, as do many other countries, it cannot be dealt with elsewhere. Because there is no forum for debate in Scotland, Wales the regions and the counties, it must be dealt with here. I am sure that a more informed debate would take place if a Bill such as this, dealing exclusively with Northampton matters—or, indeed, any of the others listed for debate tonight—were debated in places other than the House.
Of course, if we were debating the Channel tunnel—the Bill was hybrid, being part private and part public—the House would be the proper forum because the matter would be of national importance. However, in general, private legislation is specific to the area in question, as are the Bills before us tonight.
I admit that I have not read the report in detail, although I understand its general tenor. I hope that we will soon consider the inter-relationship of our procedures, which certainly need reforming, with the constitutional structures within which we force ourselves to debate 553 matters that would more appropriately be debated elsewhere. We should consider what to do about our constitution so that we do not have to deal with matters that would he better dealt with in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
Whatever we do, and for as long as we have a procedure that ensures that legislation goes through this and another place, there should be a proper way in which representatives—either through interest or as constituency Members—of those affected by the Bill can make their views felt and, if necessary, delay specific legislation so that their concerns may be partially met. The opportunity for a Bill to be challenged by local representatives of the area affected is appropriate for debate, whatever the Bill. Whatever new procedures might be devised in the new Session of Parliament, I hope that that aspect will be retained.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisI am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions, especially the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who demonstrated his understanding of the predicament in which we found ourselves by the questions that he raised. I hope that the assurances that I gave fully met his wishes.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 36.
554| Division No. 487] | [7.48 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Alexander, Richard | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Amos, Alan | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Arbuthnot, James | Durant, Tony |
| Atkins, Robert | Fearn, Ronald |
| Atkinson, David | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Forman, Nigel |
| Benyon, W. | Forth, Eric |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Franks, Cecil |
| Bowis, John | French, Douglas |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Fry, Peter |
| Bright, Graham | Gale, Roger |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Gill, Christopher |
| Carrington, Matthew | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Cash, William | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Gregory, Conal |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Harris, David | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Redwood, John |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Renton, Tim |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Riddick, Graham |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Irvine, Michael | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Janman, Tim | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Kilfedder, James | Sims, Roger |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Knapman, Roger | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Knowles, Michael | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Stern, Michael |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Summerson, Hugo |
| Lilley, Peter | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Lord, Michael | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Maclean, David | Thornton, Malcolm |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Thurnham, Peter |
| Malins, Humfrey | Tredinnick, David |
| Mans, Keith | Trippier, David |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Trotter, Neville |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Mills, Iain | Waller, Gary |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Watts, John |
| Moss, Malcolm | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Neubert, Michael | Wilshire, David |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Wood, Timothy |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Patnick, Irvine | Mr. Michael Morris and |
| Pawsey, James | Mr. Tony Marlow. |
| NOES | |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Meale, Alan |
| Blunkett, David | Mullin, Chris |
| Boyes, Roland | Nellist, Dave |
| Buckley, George J. | Patchett, Terry |
| Callaghan, Jim | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Ruddock, Joan |
| Cohen, Harry | Sheerman, Barry |
| Cryer, Bob | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cummings, John | Spearing, Nigel |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Eastham, Ken | Wall, Pat |
| Flannery, Martin | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Gordon, Mildred | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | |
| Hinchliffe, David | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lamond, James | Mr. Martin Redmond and |
| Lewis, Terry | Dr. John Marek. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.