HC Deb 10 November 1988 vol 140 cc560-3

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Promoters of the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) 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 time 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.]

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

I do not intend to speak at any length on this motion. I tried to persuade the Government to assure us of an early debate on the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I extended my sympathy to you, Mr. Speaker, as you have many years' experience of the problems of private legislation, and hoped that perhaps the Chairman of Ways and Means would catch your eye and intervene to show that he felt strongly that we must have an early debate on the reform of private business procedure. I should be grateful for an opportunity to hear him place those views on the record.

8.20 pm
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker)

It is only for convenience that I choose this location from which to address you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, and not because of any kind of partiality. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said in the earlier debate. I understand, and largely share, his concern that we should now ensure that the labours of the Joint Committee bear fruit, but we must ensure that we do that properly.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)

I wonder whether the Chairman of Ways and Means agrees that planning matters are far better dealt with by the relevant local authorities or, if they are of major importance, that a public inquiry should take place. That would be a far better system than messing about, taking an unholy number of hours and putting Mr. Speaker in an invidious position. It would be far better for the House to ensure that all planning requirements are dealt with by local authorities.

The Chairman of Ways and Means

You would reproach me, Mr. Speaker, if, in replying, I were to turn the debate on the motion into a debate on procedure. I suggest to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that he reads the report and my submission to the Committee. In my submission, I touched on the point that he has raised. I assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and other hon. Members that there is a widespread concern that we should ensure that we respond to the recommendations in the report. We must respond to them having taken account of the local authority associations, Government Departments, agents and others who are directly affected. We must proceed in a thorough way. It makes sense to get those views.

I have said already to the Leader of the House, who has a sympathetic ear, that there should be a motion to take note of the Committee's report when hon. Members could put forward their views. Subsequently, recommendations could be put to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I know that the Chairman of Ways and Means has followed these matters carefully and has been involved in helping to draw up the report, which will change the procedure and prevent backlogs such as this.

I wonder whether the Chairman will consider the following case, which may occur this year or next. Let us suppose that a carry-over motion is put forward this time next year on behalf of the promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. Let us suppose also that we manage to hold up those Bills for another 12 months, so that they fall within the new system. Would they have to start from afresh, rather than be carried over? There will always be Bills in the pipeline, whenever the new procedure is introduced. What will happen to those Bills when the new procedure is evolved? Will they wait continually? Each year there will be Bills waiting for carry-over motions. Unless the House accepts the argument for stopping a Bill in its tracks, the new procedure will never be implemented.

The Chairman of Ways and Means

I doubted the wisdom of being lured into taking part in the debate. I begin to feel that my reservations were right.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will not expect me to comment on Bills that are not before the House tonight. I do not want to mislead him about the speed with which the recommendations made by the Joint Committee can be implemented. Some will require legislation and that, plainly, will take time. When he said that any changes that are made will impinge on some Bills that may be before the House, he was in the realm of hypothesis and it would be unwise to speculate on a particular situation.

We have been given the chance to listen to the views of hon. Members on this important matter, and I am pleased that there is so much interest in it. I am determined that the Joint Committee, having worked so hard and for so long, will see its labours bear fruit. We must not allow the report to gather dust, and I know that the Leader of the House shares that view. I hope that at some time we will debate the views of the House more fully.

If you will forgive me for having intervened, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have helped us to make progress.

Mr. Speaker

I agreed to that intervention by the Chairman of Ways and Means because I thought that it might help the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is seeking a debate on the Joint Committee's report. I entirely share his view and I listened to what the Leader of the House had to say. He said this afternoon that there would be a debate early in the new Session. Let us now return to the subject of the motion.

8.27 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

I am not sure whether the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) were an objection to the Bill, or to the procedure. I ask that the Bill be carried over. The terms of the debate are strictly limited, so I cannot say—as I should—that the Bill will be an aid to jobs in Grimsby, which would otherwise be threatened, or that proper means for the disposal of effluent is essential and will improve the environment. Since negotiations between Tioxide and Associated British Ports have now been concluded but not ratified, the Bill should be carried over in case there is a breakdown in negotiations.

Mr. Redmond

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the Bill will lead to an improvement in the environment, or will it simply mean that toxic waste will be moved from one place to another? Will there be an improvement in the environment?

Mr. Mitchell

I am satisfied that there will be. The Bill seeks to be an improvement on the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Act 1986, which gave Tioxide powers to construct an outfall into the Humber to enable waste to be discharged into deeper water, where it could be more readily dispersed. That is a considerable environmental improvement and Tioxide must have an efficient means of waste disposal to safeguard jobs in the factory, which is in Grimsby.

Under the 1986 Act there had to be an agreement to protect the interests of Associated British Ports, as the conservancy authority. That agreement was not reached in time, so the Bill is an attempt to improve the position in those negotiations. It will probably be unnecessary, because agreement has been reached, although it has not been finalised. I hope that we can safeguard the Bill by allowing it to be carried over to the next Session, just in case any breakdown occurs. We should not throw away the work that has gone into the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Promoters of the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) 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 time 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.