HC Deb 10 November 1988 vol 140 cc555-9

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the Port of Tyne Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7.59 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I should like to speak briefly and suggest that we should consider carefully whether to consent to the carry-over motion. We should consider this issue carefully because the Select Committee on Procedure stated that it did not feel that carry-over motions were a satisfactory device and that if we are to continue to have private legislation, in normal circumstances attempts should be made to ensure that the private legislation completes its passage through the House in one Session or in two at the most. As the House knows, we have just had a longer than normal Session, so there should have been more opportunity for the promoters to get their legislation through than would be the case in a normal Session.

It is a good parliamentary rule that public business has to be completed in one Session and that if it is not completed in one Session it must start all over again. That means that we can proceed with business in an orderly way. If certain business is not completed by the end of the Session, it is cleared away and people will have second thoughts.

However, that procedure does not apply with private business. The argument is that the promoters will have gone to considerable expense. In some cases, the petitioners also will have gone to considerable expense in, for example, briefing counsel and possibly in appearing before the Committee. It would be unfair if at that stage the Bill were then thrown out because of lack of time and a new Bill had to be introduced.

I am sure that anyone who has read the report on private business will agree that there is clear evidence that a lot of legislation has gone through the House under the guise of private business, although it could have been dealt with in other ways. It is high time that the House adopted the recommendations in the report and made it clear that it does not see private business as a cheap way of getting round our planning legislation or as a cheap way of promoting something that the promoters consider desirable or as a way in which local arguments can be sidelined with people who do not know the local details making the decisions. At the moment the procedure is a farce in that any hon. Member who serves on a private Bill Committee must have no knowledge of what is going on, yet that person has to sit in an almost quasi-judicial capacity.

Therefore, the House should consider carry-over motions carefully. I hope that my hon. Friends will make it clear that, if this carry-over motion is carried, they will not expect any more carry-over motions for the Port of Tyne Bill [Lords]; they will expect the legislation to be completed within the next few months. Indeed, by this time next year we expect private business to be so reformed that carry-over motions will be brought before the House only rarely, if at all.

I want undertakings from the Government that they will facilitate the opportunity for a debate on the report and that they will bring forward amendments to the Standing Orders so that we can introduce a new procedure at an early stage. I am disappointed that the Leader of the House is not in his place because I had hoped that he would give that undertaking. I raised this matter with him at business questions today and he said that he thought that he would be able to find time for an early debate before the Government had produced their response to the Select Committee. However, he did not give any further undertakings about how soon the debate would take place. I understand that there are rumours that it might be in January or in early February.

I am not sure whether the Chairman of Ways and Means is in a position to intervene in the debate and to give us some sign of how he, as Chairman of Ways and Means, feels about whether the new procedure will be debated and introduced. I am well aware that he has taken a great deal of interest in the setting up of the special Committee to investigate procedures. Indeed, he gave evidence to the Committee. I am also well aware that you, Mr. Speaker, have in the past taken a great deal of interest in private business and that you are aware of many of its problems.

I hope that there will be an early opportunity for a debate. I should have preferred the Government to give us that assurance, because I put it to the Whips that if such a Government assurance had been forthcoming, I should not have had to press very much more tonight in regard to the other carry-over motions and the Government might be able to get back to their business at an early stage. However, it does not look as though anyone will offer me those assurances.

Although the Government have had time to consider the private Bill procedure, one is left with the slight suspicion that they still have an enthusiasm for private business because they sometimes seem almost to resort to it. The county council "jumbo" Bills are an example of the Government seeming to implement their legislation through private business. I am sure that anyone who listened to the debates on Tuesday night would have been left with the suspicion, especially if they looked at the voting figures, that those two Bills relating to the import of coal were being promoted with clear Government support. Those Bills should not have been considered as private legislation. They should have been dealt with through planning applications in the locality and if it was necessary, for the country, to take a policy decision to import coal, that should be done through public rather than private legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman knows far more about procedure generally than I do. My question relates exactly to the matter that he has raised.

Has it traditionally been the policy and the procedure of the House that the Government should take a Government line on private Bill matters when there is an alternative way of dealing with the issue by normal resolution at county or other level? I remind the hon. Gentleman of the example of the Hampshire (Lyndhurst) Bypass Bill which interfered with the legislation on the New Forest. That issue could have been dealt with by amendment of statute, but a private Bill was enacted. Although it has since died, the Government intervened to ensure that the Bill was given a Second Reading with Government votes. That Bill was very much a breach of the policy of protecting the New Forest. We have seen other examples. As a matter of history, is there a pattern to suggest that the Government should not intervene in that way and seek to impose their policies?

Mr. Speaker

Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted to go too far down that line, we must concentrate on the reason why this particular Bill should or should not be subject to a carry-over motion and not other Bills.

Mr. Bennett

I appreciate that point, Mr. Speaker. The Port of Tyne Bill illustrates the problem of private legislation because in so far as the port is being extended as a result of legislation that should be covered by local planning procedures. However, as far as certain harbour works and alterations to the coastline are concerned, such as the placing of buoys, such matters have traditionally been dealt with by private legislation. I am not convinced that it is necessary to use private legislation for such matters. The planning aspects should be done through planning procedures and it would be perfectly reasonable to have special orders to deal with the harbour works. That is investigated in the report on the reform of private business procedure.

For most of last century and before, the House spent a great deal of time on private legislation, but since the introduction of local government planning legislation in 1947 the need for private business seems greatly diminished. Now it is almost a historic carry over. Last century there was a great deal of wheeling and dealing on private legislation. A Bill was introduced for a railway from London to Birmingham and a bribe had to be offered to the people of Northampton that the railway would not go through Northampton so that the then Member for Northampton would not cause a fuss in Parliament and stop the legislation. The people of Northampton wanted to keep the railway as far from the town as possible and certain noble interests wanted to keep the railway off their land. On the other hand, certain private landowners managed to get their own private railway station through private business. But throughout that wheeling and dealing the Government were supposed, at least officially, to remain neutral. In private business the Government did not whip or organise.

I have been in the House since 1974 and the firm tradition has been that private business was the business of Members, and not a matter on which the Government or Opposition issued Whips, although there were occasions when individual Members issued Whips. In answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is only recently that the Government have adopted an attitude on private Bills. The best example of whipping on private business is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, and we saw the same process on some coal measures. The Government have an opportunity to express their view in Committee and it is then that they should do so.

It is high time that we got round to introducing this legislation. I am disappointed that tonight the Government cannot assure us that they will get on with the reform of private business and that carry-over motions will be a thing of the past. We have before us a whole series of carry-over motions, and I appeal to the Government Front Bench to have a word with the Leader of the House and suggest that the sooner he gives assurances that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the report on private procedure, the less need there will be for my hon. Friends and me to chivvy the Government and complain about this procedure.

I hope that tonight we can at last give an indication to the promoters and the Government that we are not satisfied with carry-over motions, and issue a warning to anyone thinking about presenting private business next Session that we shall expect them to complete it in one Session, and not to plan for a carry-over motion. If the matter is non-controversial, why has it taken nine months to get the Bill so far? If, on the other hand, it is controversial, should we be dealing with it? We should not.

I hope that at an early stage the Government will give us better assurances that these procedures will be reformed.

8.14 pm
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)

The Bill has passed unopposed through the House of Lords. It redefines in up-to-date terms the duties and powers of the authority. It provides for the authority to issue general directions for ensuring the safety of vessels and persons using the dock, and it enables the harbour master to give special directions to particular vessels where necessary. The Bill contains provisions which enable the authority to regulate the placing and other related matters of lights which might interfere with the safe navigation of the channels by vessels. It seeks to increase the safety of those who use dock roads by enabling certain provisions of the general road traffic legislation to apply to those roads. It also effects an uprating of certain penalties and modernises the procedure for confirming port bye-laws. It empowers the authority to bring about the development of land within the port which is no longer needed for port purposes.

The House will know that I have no direct connection with the River Tyne. My constituency is on the Tees. I have been asked to make it clear that the two blocking motions tabled by my hon. Friends the Member for Yarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark) were intended to enable my hon. Friends to speak with the promoters and have certain questions answered. I do not need to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, how one can get caught up with business in this House. I am having to make this statement on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarrow because he is the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip and his presence is required elsewhere. That is why he has to put up with a second-rate right-handed lieutenant.

I make this statement so that the House understands that my two hon. Friends who wish to block the Bill are happy to agree with the carry-over motion so that in some weeks' time they can clear up matters with the promoters. To seek to block a carry-over motion now would be grotesquely unfair on those who did not expect the Standing Orders of the House to be changed so suddenly.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Promoters of the Port of Tyne Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered, That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered, That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered, That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered, That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered, That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

Ordered, That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered, That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.