HC Deb 15 May 1989 vol 153 cc17-20
62. Mr. Skinner

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he now has any plans to recommend changes to the private Bill procedures; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham

We had a useful debate on this subject on 20 April, during which I said that the views expressed would require detailed and considered reflection. As a result I will be considering with the usual channels and others the scope for an agreed package of procedural changes which might be brought forward in time for the next Session.

Mr. Skinner

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that it is recognised on both sides of the House that there is now widespread abuse of private Bill procedure to get through legislation that would otherwise fall foul of planning laws and inquiries at local government level? In some instances, junkets are being arranged. Members of Parliament—on one occasion, many Tory Members—are called upon to vote and then go to a beanfeast. Almost the entire Cabinet went into the Lobby to support the Associated British Ports (No. 2) and North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bills, including the Prime Minister, who turned up in her carpet slippers at 10 o'clock.

Surely when there is that kind of widespread abuse it is high time that things were altered. Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman was preparing to give some consideration to the matter in our debate a few weeks ago, but the Prime Minister coincidentally answered a question about 10 minutes before he rose to speak and he changed his brief?

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in certain newspapers, but, having done so, he should have read the correction that appeared a few days later.

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the private Bill procedure. I know that he popped in For only a few minutes on the occasion that he mentioned, and therefore did not give the matter his usual careful attention. Any private Bill would fail if it sought to give additional powers to the Government, because it would no longer be a private Bill; a private Bill that seeks to give additional powers to a commercial undertaking is a matter for the House to decide. The Government see no case for opposing such a Bill unless it conflicts with Government policy, which does not apply to the Bills referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rowe

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the case of a private Bill to be introduced reasonably soon, there is considerable disquiet at the possibility of compulsory purchase procedures being used for the purchase of more land than the proposers strictly need? There is a danger of that land being sold on at a profit, when any profit rightly belongs to those whose land has been compulsorily expropriated. When he considers private Bill procedures, will my right hon. Friend take that carefully into account?

Mr. Wakeham

I take my hon. Friend's point, but the Bill that he has in mind will probably be debated at length and he will no doubt make his point then.

Mr. Spearing

Does the Leader of the House accept that the debate to which he referred revealed widespread agreement on both sides of the House about three matters: first, that a private Bill's preamble must be approved; secondly, that it must not raise issues relating to public policy and purpose; and, thirdly, that preliminary proceedings of an appropriate kind should be completed before the Bill is presented?

Is there no possibility of such criteria being incorporated in the Standing Orders for private business? Would that not have the advantage of avoiding future legislation on the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider looking at the Standing Orders with a view to implementing what I consider to be a widespread view on both sides of the House?

Mr. Wakeham

I agree with part, but not all, of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already said that. I will consider those matters. I agree that there have been instances of promoters trying it on, but that is not to say that I think that the private Bill procedure should never deal with planning matters. When statutory changes are to be made, it seems to me sensible that some planning matters associated with them should be dealt with at the same time.

Mr. John Marshall

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private Bill procedure is more democratic than any planning inquiry? Does he consider it significant that Opposition Members wish to give up powers and cede influence to planning inspectors?

Mr. Wakeham

I would not like to draw a comparison, but those who say that the private Bill procedure is necessarily less fair than a planning inquiry are selling the private Bill procedure short. I believe that by and large it does a very good job.

Mr. Foot

Since it seems to be part of the right hon. Gentleman's original complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) turned up a little late on one of these occasions, could he not arrange that we would never start private Members' business without my hon. Friend being given the chance to be here to assist in the proceedings?

Mr. Wakeham

That is one of the most constructive suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman has made in the House for a long time.

Mrs. Clwyd

Surely the Lord President agrees that in the case of the Felixstowe dock Bill the whole thing was a fix. The promoters of the Bill were very large contributors to the Tory party. The Member of Parliament for the area was then the chairman of the Tory party. The champagne reception at the end was quite clearly organised as a treat for those who supported the Bill. Surely the Lord President agrees that our Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure said that there was widespread abuse of the system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out. Apart from any other consideration, objectors to Bills are at a grave disadvantage compared with the promoters. Furthermore, the taxpayer is losing vast sums of money. The promoters are being charged only a very small amount of money for bringing their Bills before the House instead of the £10,000 that each promoter should be paying, as recommended by the Committee.

Mr. Wakeham

To take the hon. Lady's last point, which is the only point on which I agree with her, the charges need to be looked at. That is one of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. I reject entirely her other suggestion. One of the reasons for the Select Committee's report was that it was inconvenient for certain hon. Members to serve on Private Bill Committees. That presented us with a problem. I think that the hon. Lady knows about the point to which I refer.