Isle of Wight Bill

HC Deb 09 November 1989 vol 159 cc1257-89

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the events that have occurred in connection with the International Westminster Bank Bill will be referred to the Procedure Committee.

11.5 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

We are debating whether the Lords amendments should be now considered——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. We will do that once I have had a chance to propose the question.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Mr. Cryer

We should examine the question whether the Lords amendments should be considered. There is no record of the reasons for the amendments, because they were dealt with in an Unopposed Private Bill Committee in another place. There is no record of that, so hon. Members in this place considering legislation that will be binding in law have no reasons for considering the amendments. That is extraordinary in a legislature which I thought prided itself on the degree of scrutiny and on the availability of the records when hon. Members debate issues.

I should have thought that on the night when the Berlin wall is being removed and the gates are open we should not tolerate taking amendments from a section of the legislature that is operating behind closed doors. Surely we need more open examination. On that basis we should not consider the amendments.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Will my hon. Friend recapitulate for a moment? I understand that the record of the proceedings on this private Bill are not available and were dealt with behind closed doors. This is the so-called Mother of Parliaments which is supposed to spread its wings to the rest of the Commonwealth and the world. On the eve of televising Parliament, are we supposed to consider amendments that were dealt with in a hole-in-the-corner manner? The Prime Minister is supposed to be saving the world, but we are supposed to deal with the amendments in this cock-eyed fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Will he raise these issues with his Committee?

Mr. Cryer

I wish that I could——

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that is the view of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), can you confirm whether the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill will be treated in the same way when it comes before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. One Bill at a time.

Mr. Cryer

I can assure all hon. Members that my speech extends far and wide. I should have thought that it was very important that this legislature should exercise its scrutiny. We do not do that often enough. Certain Acts that give people powers go through far too easily. We authorise huge sums of money on the nod. We must look at ourselves, and the procedures relating to Bills such as this deserve to be scrutinised.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) said on a point of order that the proceedings on the International Westminster Bank Bill should be sent to the Procedure Committee. I do not object to that proposal. We have a new Leader of the House who is fresh from travels abroad. I know that he will take that suggestion into account when considering whether we can improve our procedures.

We are considering amendments from a non-elected body further down the Corridor and we should have a record of the arguments advanced. The other place is accountable to no one, but when it makes decisions on amendments we are not given its reasons for so doing.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

This Bill deals with important civil rights issues—the rights of people to assemble freely for whatever purpose, and the rights of others not to be caused a nuisance by those assembled. It is a difficult matter and it should be dealt with not in a private Bill, but in national legislation. We should consider how to guarantee the right of the individual to enjoy himself without at the same time upsetting other people. We must get the balance right. The way in which the Bill has been changed in the Lords alters the subtle balance between the rights of the individual and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting on to the substance of the amendment which we have not yet reached.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), as I want to discuss national legislation and whether we should deal with the assembly of people in a private Bill.

I do not dissent from the efforts of a local authority to try to obtain powers, but my hon. Friend is correct that what may be a problem for one authority may well be a problem for many other authorities. Surely that problem should be the subject of national legislation rather than private legislation, especially as we cannot obtain a copy of the reasons put forward by the Lords for the amendments. The Bill concerns civil liberties and that is why it is important that we should have those reasons.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

I thought that my hon. Friend would have said something about what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said. He threatened the Opposition about the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill. I resent such threats. The Government have been threatening us for the past fortnight. We are doing the job right, but they do not like that.

Mr. Cryer

I was appalled by the implication behind the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). I thought, however, that he meant that he intended to defy the Tory Whips in future and to ignore them when they tell him to keep his mouth shut hour after hour because that is convenient for the Government. I thought that the hon. Gentleman meant that he would make a judgment when the Whips tell him that he must stay here so that there are 100 hon. Members to shuffle through the Lobby to vote for a closure.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended to exercise this scrutiny and to use his mind as he is entitled to do as a Member of Parliament. I did not realise that he was attempting to blackmail other hon. Members. If that was his intention, it would imply a serious potential breach of privilege. I would be unable to raise that attempted breach of privilege on the Floor. I would have to write to Mr. Speaker and it would have to be taken up by the Committee of Privileges.

I would hesitate to take such action in the ordinary interchange of debate. If the attempt at intimidation was real, however, and if it was an attempt to prevent me from speaking, that would be an attack on one of the important rules of Parliament—that hon. Members cannot be intimidated by threats to prevent them from speaking in this Chamber. That is an important protection for our constituents so that local authorities——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I shall protect him should the need arise. We should return to the motion.

Mr. Cryer

I am most grateful Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have assured me that such an implied threat will not get anywhere in the Chamber so long as people like you are in the Chair.

Mr. Haynes

It took my hon. Friend's comments to draw the Chair. Does he not agree that the occupant of the Chair should have charged the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) when the intimidation occurred.

11.15 pm

Mr. Cryer

The intervention from the Chair was most appropriate and helpful. My remarks drew it out, and I am grateful for it. I take a charitable view of Conservative Members' comments. They sometimes contain hidden threats which Conservative Members sometimes try to apply, but I try to see them in as charitable a light as I can. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for making it clear that a threat was made and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making it clear that no threats will be made here tonight, the Standing Orders of the House will be followed and the right of free speech will be upheld.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's right to scrutinise the Bill, but should such scrutiny prevent the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill from being debated, will the hon. Gentleman come to Greater Manchester to explain to the 3 million residents who desperately need that railway why he opposed the carry-over motion for that Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let us stick to the Isle of Wight for the time being.

Mr. Cryer

I take your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to breach your ruling, but I could certainly put forward some good arguments, if I were allowed to do so, about the way in which the Government have overloaded the parliamentary timetable and, as a result, prejudiced some items of legislation.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

Would my hon. Friend remember that, if the Government are desperate for time to consider these carry-over motions, many Members with Birmingham constituencies would willingly surrender the time allocated for the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Cryer

That is a pertinent comment and an example of the self-sacrifice that Birmingham Members are prepared to make to get rid of the cumbersome load known as the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill.

I shall turn to the second point that I wish to make about the amendments.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

It is not just that in the House of Lords the debate and the arguments hacking up the amendments are missing, but nowhere in the Lords Hansard are the amendments published. We have only this badly produced copy of amendments from the parliamentary agent, but there is nothing about the Bill on Report, when it came back from the Unopposed Bill Committee. This material is not listed in Hansard, as we would expect it to be in this House.

Mr. Cryer

Is my hon. Friend confirming that these amendments have been produced by an outside organisation—the promoters—and that they have not been produced by the internal printing organisation within the House of Commons and the House of Lords? If so, they have not been subject to the scrutiny and checking which is normally carried out by the efficient Clerks of the House. That is another reason for deferring consideration of these amendments: we should wait until the point is clarified.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose——

Mr. Cryer

I shall finish this point and elaborate a little.

Verbatim records of Select Committees are taken by outside shorthand firms, but the transcripts are provided for members of the Committee so that they can be corrected and improved with the approval of the Committee. I am not sure whether these amendments have been subjected to the same sort of scrutiny——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of not having had a chance to see the record is that we cannot tell what the Government's views of the amendments were? Usually a Committee on an unopposed Bill takes views from the relevant Government Departments—in this case, those of the Home Office, because of the civil liberties involved, and of the Department of the Environment. We do not know whether these amendments contain Government suggestions that they want incorporated in all local Bills, or whether they contain the views of the promoters. It would be helpful if a Minister could tell us whether these are the views of the Government or of the Isle of Wight county council.

Mr. Cryer

That is an important point. If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him.

These amendments touch on civil liberties, the province of the Home Office, which is generally against them, and on the environment—the province of the DOE, which is responsible for local authorities.

Reform of private Bill procedure is certainly long overdue; this Bill is a good example of the reasons for that. One or two Conservative Members have asked whether we do not want to reach certain Bills further down the Order Paper, which goes to show that the Government put down all these Bills for consideration expecting and hoping them to go through on the nod.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for setting down these Bills is mine, as Chairman of Ways and Means, not the Government's.

Mr. Cryer

You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the number of private Bills can be swollen by the Government suggesting that certain bodies seek powers by means of the private Bill procedure. Inevitably, you have to choose what to put down. People like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put down legislation with the best will in the world and in good faith; Parliament then has to exercise its scrutiny, thereby showing up discrepancies and inadequacies in the procedure.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman implies that in some way we are being denied the chance of proper scrutiny of this measure. He is an experienced parliamentarian, but could you confirm that hon. Members could have attended the proceedings in which the measure was scrutinised, that they could have listened, taken notes and effectively taken part, and that they could have brought back to the House the information thus gathered?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have heard nothing out of order so far.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to you, Sir. I thought that what I have been saying was unexceptionable—that debating shows up areas in which improvements can be made. I am only echoing the words of the Leader of the House who said today that private Bill procedure needs examination and improvement. If the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) wishes to challenge his right hon. and learned Friend's views, he is entitled to do so. I merely thought that, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has never made an unreasonable remark before, his point should be noted.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

One of the Procedure Committee's first recommendations was that we should not have county council Bills which affect people nationally rather than locally, but that such proposals should be implemented by Government legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that scrutiny of Government legislation is far more effective than scrutiny of private Bills such as this? All civil liberties issues could have been dealt with in Government legislation, not just for the Isle of Wight but for every county. The report recommended that there should be a miscellaneous local government Bill to deal with such matters, rather than this hole-in-the-corner private legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Cryer) will not be tempted to discuss that wide, general topic. We are considering Lords amendments to a particular Bill, and hon. Members should address their remarks to that subject.

Mr. Cryer

I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will confine my remarks to the amendments.

We should not consider the amendments, because the report of the Procedure Committee has not been considered seriously enough by the Government. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is suggesting that the Committee's comments should be taken seriously. Instead of having individual local authority Bills such as this, the amendments to which we are being asked to consider, we should have general Bills for national legislation.

That is why it would not be fruitful to consider these amendments now. It would be for better to defer consideration of the Bill. The House can certainly expess an opinion to the Government. We have often heard that reforms and improvements are needed, yet they never come about. Select Committees such as the Procedure Committee make useful suggestions for improvement, but sometimes they are not even debated.

Therefore, by not dealing with the Bill, hon. Members will have an opportunity to say to the Government, "In the next Session of Parliament we will want to tackle this problem so that local authorities do not have to promote Bills, sometimes at considerable expense." We should have a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We are dealing with this Bill because the Government have crowded the legislative programme. If the Government had such a local government Bill, the Isle of Wight would not have sought to promote this Bill, and the Chairman of Ways and Means would not have had his onerous task of placing it on the agenda tonight. We could have much more measured legislation, with a far superior method of scrutiny and examination.

Mr. Barry Field

From the Vote Office, the hon. Gentleman could have obtained a copy of the House of Lords Hansard of 29 June. At column 845, he would have seen that the Isle of Wight Bill was read a Second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. He could have obtained that information for himself. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can justify his comments when the Bill is supported by the Isle of Wight Labour party, which has expressed considerable concern that the Bill might be objected to.

Mr. Cryer

Outside bodies, including the Labour party and other political parties, are quite entitled to make comments about this Bill. My guess is that the Isle of Wight Labour party would welcome legislation on a much wider basis to cover a great many local authorities. The Isle of Wight Labour party would certainly welcome the introduction and development of procedural means recommended by the Procedure Committee, which would avoid local authorities having to seek this sort of legislation in such an expensive way. If Conservative Members will support the Opposition's view that we should not deal with the amendments, and thus not deal with the Bill tonight, the Isle of Wight Labour party and other organisations would welcome that, provided that it was recognised that it is a message to the Government that a legislative programme is needed but that it should apply much more widely. That is a reasonable condition.

Mr. Skinner

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) stated that the Isle of Wight Labour party supports the measure. I do not know whether that is true. However, one thing is certain, and that is that, whenever we have considered a private Member's Bill in the past, Labour parties in different parts of the country have written to us. I remember, for example, the Eastbourne Harbour Bill which dealt with the marina. The Eastbourne Labour party wrote to us about the measure. I am not sure that what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said is up to date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should not spend too much time whittling his head about that. Unless the Isle of Wight Labour party——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We should not spend our time whittling about what Labour parties outside this place think about the consideration of Lords amendments to private Bills. That is not the issue that we are considering this evening. Let us return to the Question that is before the House.

11.30 pm

Mr. Skinner

I was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as Members of this place we have to scrutinise private Bills. If there is something wrong with Bills of this sort, as the Leader of the House said today, it is important that we should draw the attention of all hon. Members to the defect. If there is to be reform of private Bill procedure, that can he effected only by close scrutiny of the sort we are bringing to bear on the Isle of Wight Bill. If we engage in that scrutiny, we are likely to draw attention to the need for change much quicker.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, he is right.

Mr. Terry Davis

I do not agree with some of my hon. Friend's remarks, for reasons that I shall seek to explain later if I am successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right, however, to bring to the attention of the House the fact that a record is not available to us of the arguments that were advanced in favour of the amendments. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm what I understood him to say, that there is no record of the reasons for the amendments that are sought to be made to the Bill by another place. There is television in another place; is he saying that the amendments were tabled and agreed to in camera?

Mr. Cryer

I must congratulate my hon. Friend on his neat turn of phrase. The question that he has raised illustrates the problem. The main debating Chamber of the other place has predated this Chamber by more than 12 months in having its proceedings televised, but they have antique procedures, which are not open to the public, for dealing with Unopposed Private Bill Committees. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that there was a Second Reading on 29 June, but Members of this place should not be required to go to listen to the proceedings of a Committee in another place. We have tasks to perform in this place. It should not be necessary for us to grovel to a non-elected Chamber to obtain information. That Chamber should provide information. Why not? If it provided information, we probably would not be having this debate. If the information were before us, we might be satisfied with the reasons for submitting the amendments. We could have prepared ourselves by reading that information to ascertain whether the validity of the amendments could be justified.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

The case has been made for examining the private Bill procedure and making some major alterations to it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) referred to the Isle of Wight Labour party. The Opposition have never regarded the private Bill procedure as one that should include party political involvement, or one that should be usurped by it. I suspect that some of the private Bills proceeding through the House are regarded by the Government as political Bills, and have been supported on that basis.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is right. Those on the Government Benches have a somewhat shabby record in this instance. I recall the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and the champagne party that was laid on. I am not suggesting for a moment that that approach has been adopted to the amendments that we are being asked to consider this evening. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has referred to the comments of a political party, and there is no doubt that the passage of some private Bills has seen the Government working vigorously to promote them. They have whipped them through this place.

It is a strange irony that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight should mention the Labour party, which has been trying its best to treat private Bills in the way in which the House should deal with them instead of using them as a form of Government legislation and, therefore, promoting them. There is no allocation of responsibility to you in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You carry out your job properly and thoroughly. Inevitably, the Government have a great deal of power in this place and, to a considerable extent, they determine the amount of legislation, and they can choose to include the private Bill procedure.

Our argument is that these amendments might be better deferred so that we can study the private Bill procedure. We are near the end of this Session. According to the business statement earlier today, we finish on Thursday morning and start a new Session the following Tuesday. A new Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench, and between votes he has been practising standing at the Dispatch Box. He could make a statement accepting deferment and offering to introduce a new Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the next Session. We do not ask for a guarantee, only that he agrees to consider doing that. That would be helpful to the House. As he has been here for so long, with his gleaming eye on the Dispatch Box, wanting desperately to stand there and utter a few words, it would be handy if he were given that opportunity. We want to encourage him to make a statement. He should have courage and be determined and start laying down policy early in his career. It might bring it to a tumbling end, but at least he could have a few memorable moments and a little press tomorrow.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The big advantage of the Minister introducing local government legislation to cover this matter is that we would then have it for the whole country, rather than having many local authorities wanting to promote private Bills. It would take a great deal of time in the House, but each local authority that is granted powers to regulate these events puts pressure on neighbouring local authorities that do not have those powers. That is unfair.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is right, and there is great merit in what he has said. That is why I ask that we think carefully about whether we should consider the Lords amendments.

The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. Frankly, some of us think that a Committee of this House could do all the work that it does much better and more effectively, and this debate is an example in point. What revising Committee in this House would not have a record of the debates and discussions before producing amendments to a Bill? The argument has always been that the place down the Corridor is somewhere that the Government can introduce routine technical amendments to public Bills and where private Bills can be dealt with in either opposed or unopposed private Bill Committees, with minor and relatively unimportant amendments being made. Yet now, what is in effect a revising committee is not providing us—the basic, important and superior legislature—with proper and adequate information.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend is right to say that the textbook idea of the House of Lords is of a revising committee. I wonder where the decisions were taken. As my hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, can he say whether there is any specific rule about where such hole-in-the-corner decisions are made? Is it in the House of Lords? If not, where do the discussions take place? We should know. Something to remember on private Bills is that if we talk about the issues we might learn a little about how the process is developed. I am not sure about where the discussions took place.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend is right. It has been suggested that those who are interested in discovering the background to the amendments should have asked the appropriate Clerk in the other place for the date on which the Committee sat and then searched out the Room.

However, the position of Members of the House of Commons attending a Committee in the other place is not clear. I can well remember attending a Joint Committee of the two Houses on defence matters at which Caspar Weinberger was present. Because I had criticised him mildly, warmonger that he was and is, their Lordships threatened to throw me out—those pinstriped hooligans in the other place. If we had gone to the other place to investigate the background which the other place will not provide——

Mr. Skinner

Bovver boys in ermine.

Mr. Cryer

That is right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is a standing convention of the House that we do not engage in criticism of the other place. It is not for the House to decide on or to discuss the procedures of their Lordships' House. They reach decisions by their own means. It is for us to bring our judgment to bear on the validity or acceptability of those decisions, and that is what we are about this evening.

Mr. Cryer

That is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are discussing the absence of any explanation from the other place. I was saying that my journey into a joint Committee in the other place finished up with quite an argument. It would be unfortunate if such a position developed while following a routine procedure to obtain information. That might inhibit hon. Members from obtaining information. The solution would be for the other place to provide their reasons for the amendments in the first place.

It is patently absurd that the Committee's proceedings were not reported verbatim. If Hansard has difficulty keeping abreast of all the legislation in the House—if Hansard is flooded with work because of the huge volume of legislation—the other place could have hired an outside body on a daily basis to provide a verbatim record. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments does that. That is a joint Committee with the other place and the record is provided for both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Harry Barnes

Has my hon. Friend considered the amendments? There appear to be 17 amendments, but it is difficult to be sure. The previous Bill had 10 amendments and the start of each was underlined so that we could follow them. However, these amendments are not numbered or underlined——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Barnes

If we handle the amendments as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) did, we shall be in a right pickle when it comes to following what it taking place.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has anticipated my next point.

The amendments are difficult to follow. They are not couched in the way that we would put them in the House of Commons. Commons amendments are difficult enough to follow: we have to work very hard to place them in the exact context of a Bill.

Moreover, the Lords amendments give the Isle of Wight council certain powers about which I should like to know more. The proposed new subsection (1B) states: The Council may, in any case in which they think fit to do so, accept a notice given less than four months before the holding of the assembly as valid for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section". I do not object to the council's being given extra powers; I am not one of those who seek to take powers from local authorities, as the Tories have. It would be interesting and useful, however, to know the reasons for such a wordy and complicated amendment.

Mr. Barnes

That illustrates the point that I was making. I find it difficult to discover in these pages the "section" just referred to. Is there any system whereby we can learn what hon. Members are talking about? Many hon. Members, after all, may wish to debate it.

11.45 pm

Mr. Cryer

I implied that in my comments: I quoted from a new subsection which it is difficult to place in the context of the Bill. But I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has an illuminating point to make.

Mr. Skinner

I have just been to see the Clerk of the House, who has been very helpful. I thought that the amendments were a jumbled-up mess, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) have rightly pointed out that we cannot be too sure exactly where they begin and end. Although it is difficult to distinguish one from another, however, the Clerk has said that there are not 17 but 19. We may have to go through them stage by stage and one by one, as they are all different in character and they all confer different powers. The Clerk, however, is going to help us, and, of course, he will help Mr. Deputy Speaker as well; so I think that we shall be able to sort out the amendments as we reach them—if we reach them.

Mr. Cryer

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That, I think, shows the nature of the difficulty. If we had had a verbatim record, the amendments would have appeared at the end of the discussion. It would have been helpful to know whether there had been a vote on some of them, although we do not have to know; a vote would have indicated controversy. Even if there had been unanimous agreement on all of them, however, at least what had been agreed would be spelt out in the record. Instead, we have two and a half pages of what appears to be an unclassified, uncategorised and unclear jumble.

Mr. Terry Davis

Running through my hon. Friend's speech has been an undercurrent—I put it no higher than that—of criticism of the other place for its failure to provide a record of the reasons, or arguments, for the amendments. Surely, however, a greater responsibility to provide a record lies with the Bill's promoters.

Mr. Cryer

That is an important point. I think that it would probably involve a change in procedure: the promoters would have to pay for the verbatim record. That brings us to the question of objectivity, to which I alluded earlier.

Mr. Davis

I am sorry, but my hon. Friend has missed the point. I was not suggesting that the Bill's promoters should pay for a verbatim record of the arguments in the other place; I was suggesting that they might provide us with the arguments, which need not involve a verbatim record. It need only be a summary of the reasons why they consider that the amendments are justified, and would improve the Bill.

Mr. Cryer

I have not missed the point. I was about to suggest that if we rely on the promoters' explanation of such an intricate part of the legislation—as opposed to a verbatim record—the problem is that the promoters have a vested interest. They are paid to promote the Bill. If they gain a reputation for getting a Bill through exceptionally smoothly, they will gain more business. It could thus be argued that any explanation might not present an objective, impartial picture. On the contrary, it might present a highly partial and unbalanced picture, so the House would still not have an adequate explanation.

Mr. Davis

I am impressed by the speed with which my hon. Friend has advanced that argument, but there is another alternative. Perhaps we could agree on a compromise with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). If he were to give his reasons, we might be able to accept his objectivity.

Mr. Cryer

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. All that we have had so far from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) are a few points in which he has tried to score off me and a few other hon. Members who are exercising their perfectly proper right, under the careful scrutiny of the Chairman of Ways and Means and Mr. Deputy Speaker. He did not say, "The hon. Member has raised some points. I have a great deal of information and I wish to answer them." I very much regret that that has not happened.

Mr. Harry Barnes

Is my hon. Friend making the point that promoters advise and legislators decide?

Mr. Cryer

That seems to me to be an excellent aphorism, on which I cannot improve. That is something that we must bear in mind whenever we consider legislation. If legislation leaves this place with defects and faults, they stand.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend should give way to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field).

Mr. Cryer

I shall certainly give way to him in a moment, because I referred to him.

One of the problems is that there is a literal interpretation of legislation. The courts are not allowed to take into account the mind of the legislator. However much we might elaborate on it in this place, it is the words on paper—in this case, the amendments—that we shall provide for the Isle of Wight, so we must be careful to ensure that those words are as tightly drafted as possible and can be amply justified in this Chamber before they receive Royal Assent.

Mr. Barry Field

I listened with particular care to what the hon. Member said about the Liberals' judgment. He may agree with me that, since we are considering a Bill that was promoted by the only county council in the country that is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, it is extraordinary that not a single member of that party is here to help the Bill on its way, despite the fact that the Bill enjoys all-party support on the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Cryer

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. My comments about elucidating the reasons for the amendments and whether we should consider them should be heard by somebody who supports the political complexion of the council. I am shocked that no Liberal, or Social Democrat—by whatever conundrum of complexity they call themselves—is here to make what might have been a very helpful contribution.

Consideration of the amendments should be deferred. The debate has been extremely useful so far, but I shall give way now to several of my hon. Friends who want to make a contribution to the debate and develop an argument which, for the first time that I can recall under the private Bill procedure, has revealed serious defects. That is not a criticism of the House of Lords. I would shut it down tomorrow, if I could, but that is a separate issue and I do not intend to pursue it.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend cannot do that. My hon. Friend can criticise the other place but not individual members of the House of Lords.

Mr. Cryer

Exposure of those serious defects suggests that' there is a need for drastic reform to ensure that such a slipshod attitude is not revealed again. Hon. Members are elected and accountable.

Mr. Skinner

That is the difference.

Mr. Cryer

This is the senior body. They are only the revisers. They are put there by patronage and birth—the worst possible basis for selection. As of right, therefore, we are able to demand a proper approach.

Mr. Skinner

When the hon. Member for Isle of Wight got up, I took it for granted that he would explain one or two things, as he represents the area. I know that he is not a Liberal or a member of the SDP, but I think that he is in favour of the Bill. It is most unhelpful not to have an explanation. In the earlier debate on NatWest, various hon. Members spoke and the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is helping the promoters of that Bill, sat there for about one hour and then suddenly popped up and tried to explain it. We managed to glean something from what he said. It would be helpful if someone from the Isle of Wight, or the Government, would explain the Bill. We managed to get some valuable information in the earlier debate, although it came a bit too late, which is why we had to vote at the end of it.

Mr. Cryer

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He confirms my view. This debate has been of great use as it has brought to the attention of hon. Members the difficulties with private Bills.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had a difficult task sorting out and sifting through so many private Bills. It is regrettable that they are the result of the Government encouraging outside organisations to take this route, which was developed for the construction of railways in the 19th century. It is unsatisfactory to use the private Bill procedure for what is basically public legislation. This has been a useful debate, and we should scrutinise the Lords amendments carefully before accepting them.

Mr. Terry Davis

I disagree with the main thrust of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), although I share his concern about the lack of reasons for the Lords amendments. I do not go all the way with his criticism of private Bills, especially those produced by democratically elected county councils as a means of experimenting, or providing opportunities to experiment.

My hon. Friend is suggesting that we should have a comprehensive, compendium, miscellaneous provisions Bill for local government once a year. I do not think that that is a good idea, as I shall try to explain when we discuss the carry-over motion for the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill. I think that there is a place for initiative and municipal enterprise and for private Bills to deal with particular local problems.

I disagree most strongly with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Government are in cahoots with the Isle of Wight county council and others to introduce private Bills to achieve ends which the Government do not have time to introduce public Bills to achieve. That is not the experience of Birmingham Members of Parliament.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill deals with large assemblies and how people can organise them? Does he agree that, if the rules about organising large gatherings differ in various parts of the country, it is extremely difficult for the promoters to know what hurdles they have to clear in each local authority area? Surely it is better to have the same rules throughout the country.

Mr. Davis

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Before we go any further, I should remind the House that we are discussing not the merits of the Bill, which was given an unopposed Second Reading, but whether we should consider some narrow drafting amendments made by the other place. The merits of the Bill have been decided, without opposition.

Mr. Davis

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have anticipated my second point. You allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South to well at some length on his opposition to private Bills as a way of experimenting and dealing with local problems. I do not completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend says that he is against further consideration of the Bill and against the alternatives suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). My hon. Friend is saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South is not right, and he threw out the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). My hon. Friend has a duty to explain his alternatives to the House. Even the Leader of the House has agreed that the private Bill procedure must be changed.

12 midnight

Mr. Davis

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr.Skinner)——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will resist the temptation to respond to that intervention. We are discussing not the procedure for private Bills but whether we should give further consideration to the Lords amendments.

Mr. Davis

I should dearly love to explain why I disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish and for Bradford, South. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that I have a duty to explain my disagreement, but I fear that I shall have to do so not in the Chamber but in the Lobby. I should much prefer to discuss our disagreements in public, but I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. It is a little unfair that he was allowed to put his point at such length, yet other Labour Members are not allowed to disagree with him.

Like the hon. member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I agree with the Bill, but that is not what we are debating. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was unfair and unreasonable in suggesting that we are discussing the principle of the Bill. That is long gone; we are discussing the detailed Lords amendments. I should like to have heard an explanation of the amendments. Some of my hon. Friends may vote against the amendments, but they will not be voting against the Bill, and that must be said very firmly.

Mr. Skinner

The Clerk told me that there are 19 Lords amendments. It is pretty clear that those amendments are substantial, and they cover almost every aspect of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was bound to talk in general terms about the amendments because they cover such wide territory—they almost rewrite the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has a duty to explain, even in general terms, why he opposes further consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Davis

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that we should allow time to consider the amendments. We must consider them carefully because we have not the advantage of a record in the other place or an explanation from the promoters of the Bill or from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

Like myself, my hon. Friends will have received letters from some Labour Members who support the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and from some who oppose it. Quite properly, they have set out in letters the reasons for their opposition. When we debate that Bill next week, we shall be able to consider their arguments. I wish that we had had the advantage of a simple explanation of each of these 19 Lords amendments. I am quite happy for such an explanation to be given by the Isle of Wight county council or by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight who, as he said, is not a member of the controlling party on the Isle of Wight. It would have saved much time if we had had an explanation in writing beforehand, as I think all my hon. Friends agree.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and argue that it would be better not to consider the Lords amendments at this stage. Conservative Members may well argue why I should support the amendments. Members of the Isle of Wight Labour party wrote to me and spoke to me on the telephone, strongly putting forward their reasons why the legislation should be enacted. They were worried about the problems of controlling large assemblies in open spaces. I pointed out that we have a duty not only to consider their problems and but to safeguard the civil rights of individuals. I pointed out that many of us are concerned about the private Bill procedure, which we hope will be reformed quickly. I pointed out that, by dealing with local authorities piecemeal, the problem was simply moved from one place to another, and that if something was appropriate for the Isle of Wight, no doubt it would be appropriate for other places.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

That is not entirely true. There are matters that are germane to London that are not germane to other parts of the country. Some local autonomy and democracy is not outrageous, especially if it is supported by the Labour party.

Mr. Bennett

I accept that there are differences between different parts of the country. However, the problem of controlling large assemblies in open spaces occurs not only on the Isle of Wight but in a substantial number of places in the south-east of England and elsewhere.

The other side of the argument is the right of individuals to assemble in large groups to demonstrate and protest. Getting the balance right is a difficult civil rights issue. On the whole, it is better to have national provision than major local variations.

Mr. Skinner

It is interesting that my hon. Friend is going down the track of saying that local authorities generally should have such powers in Bills of this kind. Only yesterday at Question Time, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would introduce legislation or assist local authorities to control these assemblies at acid house parties. If the Government dealt with that general aspect, the whole country would be covered through the work of environmental health officers.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has a point. He is a lawyer and studies these matters carefully. It looks as though the Government are going down that track.

Mr. Bennett

I understand that point. The flavour of the month is perhaps the acid house party. The legislation deals with the difficulties caused by pop festivals and similar events. I understand the difficulties faced by a person who finds that a pop festival is being organised close to his home, but we must achieve a balance between the right of the individual to take part in lawful activities and the right of people to live peacefully in their homes. it is difficult to achieve that balance.

I should like to consider our difficulties during the Bill's passage. It is impossible to make sense of the Bill without reading the earlier legislation. When it was to be considered by the other place, the sponsors helpfully included the schedule which referred to section 5 of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971, as amended by the Bill. Page 3 of the Bill said what the legislation was doing, which I am sure was very helpful. Unfortunately, the 19 amendments, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, virtually change the original legislation. The problem now is that when we read the schedule, it is extremely difficult to work out whether it is the chief constable or other people who have to give the authority. It would have been reasonable for the promoters to ensure that, when the amendments came to this House, section 5 of the original legislation as amended by this Bill was reprinted in the schedule so that we could now read the balance of the legislation.

In addition, either the promoters should have given us a statement, or the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who I presume is sponsoring the Bill, should have explained to us that the original Bill did not cover various points, so the changes were required to improve the balance. However, our difficulty is that we cannot read about the proceedings in the House of Lords, so we do not know what arguments were advanced there, and so far, no hon. Member has told us what the advantages of the changes are.

Mr. Skinner

I want to help my hon. Friend. I have been sitting on the Bench where the party that dare not speak its name usually sits. That party controls the Isle of Wight, so I should have thought that one of its representatives would have been able to explain the amendments.

What my hon. Friend has said is alarming. I told my hon. Friend earlier that the 19 amendments, which cover several pages, might rewrite the Bill. My hon. Friend, who has scrutinised the Bill carefully—as he does all such Bills, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is saying exactly that. As the Liberals, who have some control of the Isle of Wight, are not explaining the amendments, the Government are not helping and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is not doing anything, it is incumbent on my hon. Friend to explain fully why he opposes further consideration of the amendments, which seem to rewrite the Bill. No one else will explain the Bill; I believe that my hon. Friend could.

Mr. Bennett

I was hoping, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you might advise me not to go down that path——

Mr. Skinner

It is germane.

Mr. Bennett

My hon. Friend tempts me a great deal, but I must make it clear that I am not a lawyer, so I find it extremely difficult to put the amendments into the existing schedule to find out precisely what is being suggested. However, I had the impression that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He could carry out that task for us and I should listen to his explanation with great interest.

I am concerned about this matter. I know that you have already said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do not want us to go into the whole question of the way in which private Bills proceed. However, if we are looking to the reform of the private Bill procedure, I hope that it will be suggested to promoters, first, that it would be better if the Bill were in the right form when it began its progress through the House, and secondly, that, if charges were to be made as a result of advice from the Home Office and the Government, they were made in Committee in the House of Commons, and not at a late stage in the House of Lords and then slipped back here without clear guidance about their intention.

Mr. Barry Field

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), because I have sat here for almost five hours listening to the arguments on the International Westminster Bank Bill and this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has come close to making two points with which I agree. The first is that the private Bill procedure of this House is clearly in considerable need of overhaul and modernisation: I align myself with his comments. The second is that he informed the House that he had received a letter from the Isle of Wight Labour party. I am obliged to him for that remark, because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rather gave the impression that, when I make a statement in the House, its veracity might be called into question.

As the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out, no member of the Liberal party is present tonight, despite the fact that the Isle of Wight is the only county council that the Liberal party controls. It is remarkable that the Liberals are not here tonight to lend their weight and support to what is essentially a county council Bill.

The House passed the original Isle of Wight County Council Act in 1971. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the original Act is intended to control open-air events such as pop festivals. It could be said that the Isle of Wight had one of the first acid house parties in the early 1960s. We have sought our own private Act because of our difficulties in controlling such large-scale open-air events. We wanted to ensure that those events were properly regulated, with proper hygiene arrangements on site and proper controls. As a result of an amendment to the Act, a prosecution was brought last year, but it was found in the magistrates to be defective.

The Lords amendments to this Bill are entirely drafting amendments. They were intended to bring the Bill into line and hopefully ensure that, when it is enacted, it will be possible to prosecute those who do not comply with the Act's requirements.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

12.15 am

Mr. Field

I will give way when I have finished my point.

Since I was elected, I have witnessed many bizarre occasions. However, if someone had told me that I would stand here tonight and witness the Labour party supporting the actions of the National Front, I would have been staggered. The failed prosecution to which I have referred, came about as a result of events at the last scooter rally held by the National Front on the Isle of Wight. It is remarkable that the Labour party should support the National Front tonight.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem with defending civil liberties is that sometimes we have to defend them for people whom we find totally objectionable? It is very difficult to confer civil rights on people we detest. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the 1971 Act got into a mess in the first place? The original Act passed through the private Bill procedure, but because that scrutiny was unsatisfactory, the prosecution to which the hon. Gentleman referred collapsed in the magistrates court. Would it not be better to have Government legislation on the issue, as that would be much more likely to stand up in a magistrates court?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the House that the question before us is that the Lords amendments be now considered. We are discussing drafting amendments to a Bill that was given an unopposed Second Reading. It is not appropriate this evening to discuss the merits of the Bill. They have already been decided.

Mr. Field

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your very helpful comments.

We are discussing the Lords amendments, which are intended to guard the civil liberties of the people of the Isle of Wight against the actions of the National Front. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should be seeking to support the National Front tonight.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)

I have sat here for several hours. I also listened to the proceedings on the Isle of Wight Bill in Committee Upstairs. We listened to the arguments, and at no time did anyone mention that the Bill was intended to stop National Front gatherings on the Isle of Wight. If the Bill is intended to specifically stop the National Front, the Bill should say so. It does not. Tonight is the first time that I have heard it said that National Front members are the only people who organise large-scale gatherings on the Isle of Wight.

It is true that the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. Tonight, however, I had expected the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to tell us why we should consider the amendments. There is no doubt that the amendments leave a lot to be desired.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not want to inhibit the hon. Gentleman from discussing the amendments, but I wonder whether this is the appropriate time to do so. We are discussing whether the Lords amendments should be considered. When we have resolved that matter, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and other hon. Members can discuss the substance or the merit of the amendments.

Mr. Redmond

I accept your guidance at all times in such matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down, then."] I certainly shall not sit down, until I have made the points I want to make. Perhaps you should inform one or two hon. Members, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if they are unwell, they should go home.

In Committee, one listens to the barristers and to the petitioners as they make their points about the Bill. One also has the opportunity to ask questions, but, unfortunately, once one has spoken, one is not allowed a second chance to do so. Unfortunately, I was unable to ask the questions I wanted answered because the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not get off his backside to tell us why the amendments had been made. As soon as he had spoken, however, someone moved the closure. If we are to consider amendments properly, they should be referred back to the Committee that originally considered them.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give exactly the same attention to all the Lords amendments to the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill when we come to discuss it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

One Bill at a time. We can worry about that Bill when we come to it.

Mr. Redmond

I will not respond to threats. I consider that I am well paid to spend my time here, but many hon. Members might sooner be home in bed—I do not know whose.

Mr. Harry Barnes

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) claimed that it was strange that we were opposing the Bill, given that it had the support of the Isle of Wight Labour party and the political connotations attached to it. No Opposition Member has spoken against the Bill. We are discussing whether the amendments should be considered and procedural matters. We are also discussing whether it is right to go ahead with the Bill in its present form without being given an explanation for its present state.

Mr. Redmond

My hon. Friend makes that point admirably.

I went along to the Vote Office to collect the private Bill and the amendments to it. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain them, and you will recollect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I raised a point of order about Lords amendments being unavailable. I went back to the Vote Office and managed to obtain a copy of the amendments that someone had managed to find somewhere. Originally, I asked to be given all the Lords amendments, so that I could consider them properly to ensure that they were technical, substantive and worthy of discussion. Fifteen minutes ago, we went back and managed to get hold of the Lords amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend has little alternative but to look at the 19 different amendments and go through them. We can try to help one another by starting at the beginning and seeing which ones are important, which are less important and which should be opposed. Perhaps they should all he opposed—who knows? In the absence of any, or very little, consideration being given to the matter by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and the fact that the Liberals who control the council are not here to provide us with information, there is only one alternative left. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davies) touched on it: we must go through the amendments.

We do not have a verbatim report from the House of Lords so we shall have to start the process. There are about three pages, and we should quietly go through the amendments——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The rule of the House in these matters is that Members speak only once unless they have the unanimous consent of the House. Repeated interventions that are of the duration of speeches transgress that rule. The other convention of the House is that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Redmond

It is quite obvious that we cannot possibly give the amendments due consideration unless we have time to do so. It may be that they are all acceptable, but they may not be. Unless one is a lawyer—I am not, thank God—one needs more time to consider exactly what a particular amendment means. The Bill may have been there an hour or so later, but it certainly was not there this morning when I went to pick up all the Bills. Therefore, I could not spend a day or so giving due consideration to what, if anything, I should say.

It appears that Conservative Members are not interested in passing good legislation. I do not know what would happen if a bad private Bill left this House. Who would rectify it if it proved to be a bad piece of legislation? Would the Secretary of State for the Environment go charging into the courts to secure an amendment? I am not quite sure. Therefore, it is important to give due consideration to the Lords amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill to see whether we should debate them.

When we give them due consideration, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) might say what the amendments would do.

Mr. Cryer

rose——

Mr. Redmond

Let me make this point. It would certainly be helpful to me to be able to say that an amendment was correct.

It is untrue to say, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight did, that I support the National Front. Perhaps some Conservative Members have closer links with the National Front than I do, because I do not support it.

Mr. Hind

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, if we analyse the arguments of him and his hon. Friends this evening about the Isle of Wight Bill, the availability of the Lords' debates material, the unsatisfactory nature of those debates, the failure of schedules of details on the amendments, the fact that we should debate this in the context of a miscellaneous provisions Bill, they can be seen to be equally valid for every other Bill on the Order Paper? Those Bills include one in which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has an interest: the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? What he is arguing could equally be said of a Bill that he supports.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let us stick to whether we should or should not consider the Lords amendments.

12.30 am

Mr. Redmond

I accept your guidance, Sir. I hope that hon. Members will confine their remarks to these Lords amendments, and not hint at what might happen to future private Bills on the agenda.

I agree that we need a different system, but we need one that is accountable. Many Bills going through the House should be considered by local councillors. In this case, the Lords have submitted amendments, and we cannot challenge the reasons for them. We cannot ask the Clerks to explain what the promoters or the parliamentary agents may or may not want. Parliamentary agents may have ulterior reasons for their suggestions. If we had been able to discuss them in a proper Committee, we might not have had to spend the night deciding whether to consider the Lords amendments. I will not allow the matter to pass without comment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said that he was suspicious by nature. I am not—I like to trust people—but over the past two years my trust has been misplaced and taken advantage of. I come from Yorkshire, and I am a little naive about how the City sharks operate——

Mr. Barry Field

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 21.

Division No. 400]	[12.32 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Gale, Roger
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Amess, David	Gill, Christopher
Amos, Alan	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Arbuthnot, James	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Baldry, Tony	Gregory, Conal
Bendall, Vivian	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Benyon, W.	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Ground, Patrick
Boswell, Tim	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Bottomley, Peter	Hague, William
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hanley, Jeremy
Bowis, John	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Harris, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hayward, Robert
Brazier, Julian	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Bright, Graham	Hind, Kenneth
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Holt, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Buck, Sir Antony	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Burns, Simon	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Burt, Alistair	Irvine, Michael
Butterfill, John	Jack, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Jackson, Robert
Carrington, Matthew	Janman, Tim
Chapman, Sydney	Kilfedder, James
Chope, Christopher	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Knapman, Roger
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Lawrence, Ivan
Couchman, James	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Devlin, Tim	Lightbown, David
Dorrell, Stephen	Lilley, Peter
Durant, Tony	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Eggar, Tim	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Sir Peter	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Fallon, Michael	Maclean, David
Favell, Tony	McLoughlin, Patrick
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Mans, Keith
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Fishburn, John Dudley	Mellor, David
Freeman, Roger	Miller, Sir Hal
French, Douglas	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mitchell, Sir David	Stern, Michael
Moate, Roger	Stevens, Lewis
Moss, Malcolm	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Neubert, Michael	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Sumberg, David
Paice, James	Summerson, Hugo
Patnick, Irvine	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Thorne, Neil
Portillo, Michael	Viggers, Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Redwood, John	Wallace, James
Renton, Tim	Wheeler, John
Rowe, Andrew	Widdecombe, Ann
Ryder, Richard	Wolfson, Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom	Wood, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)
Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Sims, Roger	Mr. Michael Colvin and
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Mr, Jacques Arnold.
Stanbrook, Ivor

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Meale, Alan
Barron, Kevin	Morgan, Rhodri
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Nellist, Dave
Boyes, Roland	Prescott, John
Cryer, Bob	Redmond, Martin
Cummings, John	Ruddock, Joan
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Skinner, Dennis
Dixon, Don	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Foster, Derek
Haynes, Frank	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Mr. Michael Welsh and
McFall, John	Mr. Harry Barnes.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, accordingly, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—

The House proceeded to a Division;

12.45am

Mr. Barry Field

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the disparity of previous votes, would you allow us to rise in our places to take the vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

No.

The House having divided: Ayes 122, Noes 15.

Division No. 401]	[12.44 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Amess, David	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Amos, Alan	Couchman, James
Arbuthnot, James	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Devlin, Tim
Bendall, Vivian	Dorrell, Stephen
Bevan, David Gilroy	Durant, Tony
Boswell, Tim	Eggar, Tim
Bottomley, Peter	Emery, Sir Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Fallon, Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Favell, Tony
Bowis, John	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Fishburn, John Dudley
Brazier, Julian	Freeman, Roger
Bright, Graham	French, Douglas
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gale, Roger
Browne, John (Winchester)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Gill, Christopher
Buck, Sir Antony	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Burns, Simon	Goodlad, Alastair
Butterfill, John	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Carrington, Matthew	Gregory, Conal
Chapman, Sydney	Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Mitchell, Sir David
Ground, Patrick	Moate, Roger
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Moss, Malcolm
Hague, William	Neubert, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hanley, Jeremy	Paice, James
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Patnick, Irvine
Harris David	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hayward, Robert	Porter, David (Waveney)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Portillo, Michael
Hind, Kenneth	Redwood, John
Holt, Richard	Renton, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Rowe, Andrew
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Ryder, Richard
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Shaw, David (Dover)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)
Irvine, Michael	Sims, Roger
Jack, Michael	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Jackson, Robert	Stanbrook, Ivor
Janman, Tim	Stern, Michael
Kilfedder, James	Stevens, Lewis
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Knapman, Roger	Sumberg, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Summerson, Hugo
Lawrence, Ivan	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Thorne, Neil
Lightbown, David	Viggers, Peter
Lilley, Peter	Wallace, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Wheeler, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Widdecombe, Ann
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Wolfson, Mark
Maclean, David	Wood, Timothy
McLoughlin, Patrick
Mans, Keith	Tellers for the Ayes:
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Mr. Michael Colvin and
Miller, Sir Hal	Mr. Jacques Arnold.
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

NOES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Nellist, Dave
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Prescott, John
Boyes, Roland	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, Bob	Skinner, Dennis
Dixon, Don	Welsh Michael (Doncaster N)
Haynes, Frank
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Tellers for the Noes:
McFall, John	Mr. Martin Redmond and
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Mr. John Cummings.
Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you tell us how you intend to deal with this? Is there to be a debate on the first amendment, followed by our proceeding to a vote if we wish; or do you intend us to debate several amendments together, followed by votes on each?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

It would be more convenient for the House and in accordance with our normal custom if we had a general debate on all the Lords amendments. We could consider later how to reach a decision on the amendments.

Mr. Bennett

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I look at the amendments I have difficulty understanding whether all the amendments hang together and deal with one issue or whether they cover a wide range of issues. Can you give guidance on whether they all hang together? Unfortunately, I could not find a selection list in the Noes Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we proceeded in the way that I have suggested rather than tried to split them up artificially.

1 am

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the list of 19 amendments and it is more than a little difficult to find out where one ends and the other begins. I discussed the matter with the Clerk who was in the Chamber earlier. He had a list, and I suppose that he left it for the next Clerk. He marked the precise amendments. The amendments are different in terms of the part of the Bill to which they relate, so we should discuss them separately. The first amendment reads: In the Preamble, page 1, line 4, at end insert— (2) By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972: The other amendments are completely different.

We managed to deal with two or three amendments at the same time when we considered the International Westminster Bank Bill. That was a comparatively minor Bill compared with this one, which covers a whole range of powers for the local authority. For the life of me, I do not see how we can have a general debate on the granting of powers relating to acid house parties, rallies and so on without hearing from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. It is like considering together 15 schedules to a Government Bill. Each amendment should be considered separately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is customary to debate the amendments together, and a number of them hang together. I am sure that with its usual ingenuity, the House will find no difficulty covering all the points that need to be covered. It would be better to debate the amendments that are now before us.

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it is difficult to decipher all these pages of amendments. My point of order is very practical. You will note that the first amendment says: In the preamble, page 1, line 4, at end insert— and then it says: Section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972: I know that this is not a Committee stage, but were it the Committee stage of a normal Bill, it would be incumbent on the responsible Department to provide for hon. Members who intended to take part in the debate an explanatory memorandum so that we could understand what other legislation is being referred to.

Can you explain to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whose responsibility it is to provide us with sufficient copies—for the 150 or so hon. Members who obviously want to take part in the debate, or they would not be listening to me so patiently—of extracts from legislation such as section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 as would enable us to see precisely how the Lords amendments affect existing legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think it is quite clear that it is not for the Chair to explain what the hon. Gentleman asks, but, if we get on with the debate, he might get answers to the questions that he is asking. We shall now continue with the debate on the Lords amendments.

Mr. Nellist

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to be difficult. There are about 100 hon. Members in the Chamber, and I do not think that one has a copy of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. Those of us who want to take part in the debate want to know whose responsibility it is to supply copies of it. None is available in the Vote Office. I have been there, and the only thing I can get hold of is a copy of the Lords amendments. Whose responsibility is it to provide other bits of information so that we can get on with the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is a matter for hon. Members. If we get on with the debate, we may get answers to such questions.

Mr. Redmond

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) would have got up and explained the Lords amendments and how they affect the Bill that was discussed in Committee.

It emerged in Committee that the desire to control crowds and facilities for them was the main reason for the Bill. Since then, Conservative Members have said that that was not said. The Vote Office was unable to give me a copy of the Lords amendments until quite recently. If we had had copies this morning, when we asked for them, we could have examined the amendments and decided whether to support them. We have not had much time to consider the amendments, so I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, once again, to give us the benefit of the knowledge that he should have gained as the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight.

The House should not pass any measure that would be detrimental to the people of the Isle of Wight. Hon. Members should consider the amendments more carefully.

Mr. Harry Barnes

My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) should explain the amendments. Some of the amendments appear to be technical and only alter words here and there. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should take us through—I have had to number he amendments myself—amendments Nos. 10, 5 and 12, which make major changes.

Mr. Redmond

I accept what my hon. Friend says. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight had an opportunity briefly to explain the Bill on Second Reading. He failed to do so; it was moved formally and accepted. We cannot allow things to continue in that way.

I remember that the Local Government Act 1972 was huge. One needs it to hand to understand the implications of the first amendment. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that I should have checked it in the Library, but to have done so I would have needed the Lords amendments in my hand this morning. I have grave reservations about whether the amendments should be made because I am not sure of their implications. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should explain the implication of the amendments.

Mr. Barnes

Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 is several pages long. The Bill amends provisions of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971. The Isle of Wight Act 1980 waived the provisions in section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is beyond me to understand which part of those Acts is changed by the amendment. I believe that it is beyond hon. Members, because no one has sorted it out.

Mr. Redmond

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining that.

Everything is as clear as mud, and fully to understand the Bill one should have the relevant documents. Given the substantial changes that the amendments would make, the Bill should return to Committee.

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to continue speaking after he has clearly fallen asleep?

Mr. Redmond

I am sure that, just before I fall asleep, hon. Members will hear me cough. When they hear that, they will think, "He is heading for noddy land." Interruptions tend to disrupt the flow of one's speech.

Does the hon. Member for Isle of Wight intend to explain? If he will do his job efficiently and thoroughly, I am willing to sit down to let him explain. However, I am convinced that there will be silence from him.

1.15 am

Mr. Michael Welsh

The first Lords amendment deals with a point only four lines into the Bill, which is nearly unbelievable. I cannot get to the bottom of the matter. The local authorities want the power to control large overnight assemblies in the open. Does that mean that if there is a boy scouts' jamboree, they can control it, but if there is an acid house party, they may have no desire to control it? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain the meaning of the first Lords amendment, which applies so early in the Bill.

Mr. Redmond

In the debate on the International Westminster Bank Bill, my hon. Friend questioned the judgment of the people who had produced the legislation. I should love to be able to say that everything is crystal clear so that the House can make a decision. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I was not with their Lordships when they produced these amendments. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should intervene to allay our fears. In wanting to control large assemblies, do the local authorities want to control acid house parties, Nazi or National Front gatherings—to which reference was made earlier—or boy scouts' jamborees? The latter are also large organised gatherings, and many lads and girl guides enjoy them.

I am not a suspicious man, but what has transpired over the past few months has turned my trusting nature into one of suspicion. I now question everything. People can put over things quite nicely. We know that everyone wants to say, "We had a good day," and go home to bed and have a good night's kip.

Mr. Nellist

rose——

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to "Erskine May", which states: The Speaker has also stated that it is the custom for Members to wear jackets and ties. I have raised this matter several times with Mr. Speaker. He has ruled that he will not call Members who are not properly attired for the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is wearing a jacket and tie. Mr. Redmond.

Mr. Nellist

Can my hon. Friend assist ——

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I clearly heard you call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). It is the third time in the past half hour that you have called him. We are in danger of a precedent being set as not only is he not wearing a jacket when you have called him, but he has his shirt sleeves rolled up. Will you please ask him to withdraw from the Chamber until he is properly dressed, or not call him again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I know that Mr. Speaker has dealt with this matter on a number of occasions. He has requested normal dress in the Chamber, but he has never said that it is an absolute condition for an hon. Member being called. He has merely deprecated abnormal dress. I call Mr. Nellist.

Mr. Nellist

Can my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) assist me? I am having difficulty with the first amendment. My hon. Friend will see that on his Amendment Paper it says that the amendment seeks to insert at the end of line 4 on page 1: By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. The Bill says: By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. I have read those words four times in the past two minutes and, to me, they are indentical. I cannot understand why we are being asked to discuss an amendment that is worded exactly the same as a provision of the Bill when it emerged from Committee. Can my hon. Friend explain that, or will he ask other hon. Members to explain it? If not, it is a waste of time.

Mr. Redmond

I shall do my best, but I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight if he wants to explain what the Isle of Wight Act 1980 says. A lawyer would understand. Like most legal documents, one would need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the amendments. Many Members are in the legal profession and will no doubt jump up to clarify the position.

As I understand it, when a Bill is presented to the Clerks' Office, they have a natter and a discussion. If everything is in order, the Bill is clarified, the proper procedures and notifications take place and the Bill then goes into Committee where those who support or oppose it can discuss it. They can listen to a barrister or a Queen's counsel—I am not sure which but, by God, they can talk. The Bill is then presented. After that, the Bill comes to this House and, if it is not amended, it goes to the other place. It then arrives back here duly amended.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend accept that I may have misled the House earlier when I complained that the Bill that we received from the Vote Office needed to have these amendments incorporated? The Bill should come from the Vote Office as it came out of Committee. Our problem is that we do not have the original Bill as it went into Committee. For my lion. Friend to see what has happened, we have to read the schedule, which sets out the provisions as amended. The difficulty is that we do not have before us the Bill in the form in which it went into Committee, which would have been helpful. However, it is not available at the Vote Office.

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In all seriousness, will you consider having the Bill withdrawn from debate, by whatever technical means may be necessary? If the Vote Office cannot supply us with the necessary paper work for us to consider the Bill properly, it is an injustice to all concerned with the Bill for the debate to continue. Will you consider having the Bill withdrawn from debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not prepared to do that. If we get on with the debate, we may get the answers.

Mr Redmond

I am sure that the answers will not be forthcoming from the people who should give them. I am sorry, but——

Mr. Hind

The South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill is not looking very good now.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had threats from Conservative Members. They are saying that if they do not make progress on this Bill, they will take it out on another Bill. That is not the way for the House to proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Matters are complicated enough. Let us deal with one Bill at a time.

Mr. Redmond

The more threats that are made. the more stubborn I become—sticks and stones.

I was elected to this place to try to do the best for the people of Don Valley. Rightly or wrongly, I will try to do that. It may displease Conservative Members if I want to represent my constituents: that may be a little foreign to their natures. However, I will represent them to the best of my ability, whether or not that pleases Tory Members.

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although he and I are here to represent our constituencies, we are not here to scupper whatever they want to do in the Isle of Wight? Can we not get on with the Isle of Wight business?

Mr. Redmond

I hope that we are not scuppering the Isle of Wight Bill. I hope that the residents of the Isle of Wight get their Bill. However, we hope that that Bill will be good and will be beneficial to the Isle of Wight arid to the people who live there so that they can enjoy the benefits of the Bill for centuries—unless another private Bill is introduced. I am not against the Bill. I just want to ensure that the people of the Isle of Wight, their children and their children's children can enjoy the benefits of a good Bill.

I am not sure whether the Lords amendments will meet that end. That is why I want clarification from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. However, it appears that he is more in the dark than I am.

Mr. Michael Welsh

I thought that we were discussing amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill. That is quite simple. However, we are not. We are discussing a Bill that, has been amended in Committee. We are not discussing Lords amendments to the Bill because no one has a copy of the Bill. We have only the amended version. The Bill is another piece of paper. Is this the procedure that we should follow? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is more knowledgeable than I on these issues and I hope that he can answer my points.

Mr. Redmond

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North should sit in on these Committees and he would be able to say whether we should be discussing Lords amendments now. After the Bill has passed from the Private Bill Office and has been explained and discussed, my hon. Friend may understand what is happening. Unlike my hon. Friend, who is suspicious, I am trusting. Unfortunately, that trust has turned sour.

Whether hon. Members like it or not, I want to search for the information so that I can say whether an amendment is okay. It is different to reach such a decision because of the lack of information. Lawyers, and there are plenty of them in here, have stacks of books containing case history after case history to help them make decisions. If a private Bill is bad and we decide to kick it out, who rectifies that mistake? Is it left to the judicial procedure or is the approval of the House required to make the necessary amendments? The Bill and the Local Government Act 1972 are no mean documents, but reference is also made to other documents, and so it goes on.

1.30 am

If hon. Members want to intervene or make sedentary interventions I shall gladly give way, as I did a moment ago. I should be happy if they clarified the position about the amendments.

The amendment on page 2, line 6 talks about four months. I should have thought that it would have been in the interests of the Isle of Wight authorities to be flexible about the time scale. To organise an event properly may take two years, two months, two days, 24 hours or even an hour. The Government usually work to the shortest possible time scale when considering private Bills.

It is important that consideration is given to the Lords amendments. I will sit down happily if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight explains the amendments. I am not sure that he will do so. By my probing I hope to provoke some comment which will enlighten our proceedings. I shall not vote against the amendments if it is proved that they are good for the people of the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has said that they are beneficial to those people, but he should get up and prove that. I will happily accept the Bill if people tell me what certain things mean, why it must be altered and why there is such a rush to get it through on the nod. I do not like to be criticised for trying to find out those answers.

I am opposed to acid house parties. That youngsters want to attend such parties is a terrible indictment of our nation. We should provide better means to keep those youngsters away from such parties. We are concerned, however, to ensure that we do not take steps to stop all large gatherings as that would would be an infringement of civil liberties.

We must consider the amendments carefully and I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will get up to explain them.

Mr. Barry Field

indicated assent.

Mr. Redmond

I shall sit down in good faith and in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain away my fears.

Mr. Field

The original Bill was passed by the House in 1971 as a result of between 80,000 and 100,000 young people attending a pop festival on the Isle of Wight. My predecessor Mark Woodnutt sought the support of the House in endeavouring to obtain legislation to regulate and control such a large gathering on the island. That was partially effective, and the pop festivals have subsequently been replaced by scooter rallies in which 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 individuals arrive on the island for a bank holiday weekend. They congregate on one particular site—usually a rented field.

As I have already said, the Bill's purpose is to ensure that proper notice is given by the organisers of such an event, to ensure that sanitation, fire engines, police and St. John Ambulance are present to ensure that the young people enjoy themselves in an orderly and safe way. After amendments had been passed in the House, an event took place which 6,500 young people attended on their scooters. There is some evidence to lead us to believe that the organiser pocketed a considerable amount of money. The beer tent charged a high price for a can of lager. Various elements on the site—which the local police have said were definitely National Front supporters—stoned the fire engines, burned down the beer tent and generally ran riot.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will know that the Isle of Wight has the highest percentage of any county council in the country of over 75-year-olds who live independently in their homes. They were clearly terrified. The behaviour of the individuals was appalling. A small caucus of the youngsters, not the majority, came from the National Front to disrupt what would otherwise have been a perfectly reasonable weekend for the other young people.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose——

Mr. Field

No, I shall not give way.

Unfortunately, when charges were brought against the organisers in the local magistrates courts, the magistrates had to conclude that they could not proceed with the charges because the original Act was defective. I hope that, tonight, the amendments will win the support of all hon. Members.

As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has already mentioned, the local Labour party on the Isle of Wight supports the Bill, as does the Social and Liberal Democrat party despite the fact that its members are absent tonight. That is an appalling indictment of the party when we consider that that is the only county council in the country which it controls.

I hope that we may yet obtain the support of Opposition Members for these reasonable amendments, so that next time a charlatan organises an event on the Isle of Wight, overcharges young people and does not abide by the proper regulations which ensure that such events are reasonably organised so that young people can enjoy themselves in a proper way and undesirables are kept out, we shall be able to bring a prosecution. The fines would be quite substantial.

'HMSOSTANDARDNobody would say that this is an unreasonable piece of legislation. I am sad that Opposition Members, whom I have got to know quite well, seek to hold up this perfectly reasonable legislation. Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not prepared to accept that motion at the moment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

For a long time, I have contended in the House that private legislation is not appropriate to deal with matters such as this. The point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) well illustrates that. The private Act was put on the statute book with every good intention of dealing with a problem that had arisen on the island, but its drafting turned out to be defective. It is clearly the responsibility of the House to ensure that we do not produce an Act this time which is equally defective. We do not want an organiser of one of these events to be able to drive a coach and horses through the measure.

It would be much more appropriate to bring forward a Government Bill which could be carefully scrutiinised and amended. That would result in a better chance—although not a certainty—that the legislation could deal with the problem

I wonder whether the hon. Member for Isle of Wight would take us through some of the problems with these amendments. First, this Bill will apply only if the organiser believes that more than 5,000 people will turn up at an event. What would happen if two people organised two separate events in two separate fields in fairly close proximity? If 3,000 people turned up at each event——

Mr. Barry Field

That is exactly what happened when the Hell's Angels arrived on one site and the scooterists on another. The situation was fraught with danger, and we wanted to keep the two groups, apart for obvious reasons.

Mr. Bennett

How would this Bill keep them apart? Perhaps I have misread the Bill, but as long as each group can reasonably assume that not more than 5,000 people will show up, the Bill will not deal with the problem. I do not see how it will be possible to adjudicate——

Mr. Field

If the hon. Gentleman comes to the Isle of Wight, I shall he happy to show him how.

Mr. Bennett

The point of scrutinising the legislation in this House is to make sure that it will work. I would be happy to go to the Isle of Wight, but we must ensure that the problem does not arise again.

Back in 1971, a problem arose in the island, and all this time later it appears that the legislation of the time did not solve——

Mr. Field

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The original legislation helped with solving the problem, but subsequent amendments have since been shown to be defective when it came to prosecuting the organisers.

Mr. Bennett

That is the point. We need to be certain that we have got it right this time, so that the legislation catches someone who tries to get around the law next time ——

Mr. Field

The hon. Gentleman is a perceptive Member and aware that trends in society change. We cannot freeze human nature or activities, so the Isle of Wight might have to come back for more legislation in future if confronted by acid house parties, for instance.

Mr. Bennett

I accept that, but we must be careful to make the legislation as nearly correct as possible——

Mr. Skinner

Page 5 of the Bill states: An assembly to which this section applies is an assembly in the county in the open air at which there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are more than 5,000 people present at any time not being an assembly held—". It is an offence if the defence cannot show that the organisers have reasonable grounds for believing that there would be more than 5,000 people present". Who is to decide? Someone may say, "I am sorry, judge, but I thought only about 4,000 people were going to turn up. I am sorry that there were 6,000 or 20,000." That is the effect of the Bill. I am certain that the Bill would need to come back to the House.

1.45 am

Mr. Bennett

I accept what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that he has also gone to meetings, hoping that a certain number of people will turn up. One is often a Little disappointed. On other occasions, a much larger number of people turn up. That is one of the problems with this legislation. The figure of 5,000 obviously denotes a big event, but it creates some difficulties.

Mr. Michael Welsh

We sympathise with the Isle of Wight and the trouble it has had with big parties. However, no city or town should suffer such trouble. If trouble is stopped in only one area, it will be exported somewhere else unless we have a Bill which applies to the whole United Kingdom. Such a Bill would be debated fully and would put an end to all trouble throughout the United Kingdom. Is that not what we wish?

Mr. Bennett

My hon. Friend makes a point which I have made on several occasions. These issues should be covered by Government legislation. The sooner we get private business sorted out, the sooner we can avoid proceedings such as these.

Debate adjourned.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Debate to be resumed on Monday 13 November.

c1288
1. ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order) 20 words
c1288
2. HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order) 20 words
c1289
3. NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order) 20 words
c1289
4. CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order) 20 words
c1289
5. BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order) 18 words
c1289
6. LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order) 18 words
c1289
7. SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order) 18 words
c1289
8. UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (By Order) 18 words