Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill (Hansard, 22 October 1990)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
I call Mr. Richard Holt.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
rose—

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that last week the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill was withdrawn because of technical imperfections. Have the Clerks obtained from the Committee the minutes for the Bill that we are about to debate? Have they also obtained the record held by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office? I understand that there could be a discrepancy between the two and I should be grateful for your guidance. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Hon. Members not taking part in the debate should leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.

§ Mr. Cryer
I am sorry about the interruption from the parliamentary agents to whom more discipline might be applied. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for curbing their activities. I want to know whether the minutes of the Committee and the record held by the Clerk to the Private Bill Office for this Bill are before you or the Clerk of the House so that we can seek guidance if necessary.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand that the report of the Committee is available.

§ Mr. Cryer
I am asking whether the Clerks have it, because it is an important source of guidance to the House in debating the Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am sure that whatever documentation is relevant and necessary for our debate is available to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
We heard that story last week on the Redbridge Bill and for about half an hour we were told that we were debating clause 6. After some hurried consultations we were told that clause 6 was not in the Bill. You were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member who was moving the Bill had to abandon it. We just want to make absolutely sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) does not start to debate a part of the Bill that is not there for hon. Members to examine. The Redbridge Bill was introduced in the Lords, nobody spoke on it and it went through like a dose of Epsom salts. Let us be sure this time. Are we in order? It is a fair question.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
My recollection of the events of last week is a little different from that of the hon. Gentleman. When the matter to which he refers was raised I suggested that, pending clarification, we should proceed with the debate. When I eventually received the information that was relevant to the point of order I took the appropriate course. We should sensibly proceed that way again. I am assured by the Clerk that all the relevant information is available.

§ Mr. Holt
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As all the relevant information is before the House, I should like your guidance on the distinction that seems to exist between the record of the proceedings of the Committee, which is held by the Clerk in the Private Bill Office, and its formal decisions, including those taken in private session, and the minutes of the meeting in public session. A decision was made about the placement of the headquarters of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is a matter that can be dealt with in the debate.

§ Mr. Barnes
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Now that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has moved the Third Reading, it may be useful if I tell the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment for recommittal in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and others. The matters that gave rise to that amendment can be discussed during the debate if hon. Members so wish. Is that the point that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is raising?

§ Mr. Barnes
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not making a point about the placement of the authority, which is a matter for debate. I am making a point about the distinction between the record of the proceedings which is held in the Private Bill Office and the minutes. There is a clear discrepancy between the two on one point. The minutes say that the issue of the headquarters of the authority will be dealt with in the House of Lords, and that the promoters have agreed to that. However, the records of the proceedings of the Committee do not include that undertaking. What is the significance of that discrepancy? Should we adjourn until it is resolved?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
For the purpose of our Standing Orders and our procedures, the relevant record is that contained in the official record of the proceedings of the Committee. I understand that that is available.

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for letting the House know that the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends has not been selected by Mr. Speaker. The point of order on which I seek your guidance relates to a point made in the Committee examining the King's Cross Railways Bill, which said that any amendments agreed in Committee ought to be taken on the Floor of the House. I respect and accept the decision made by Mr. Speaker about our amendment, but that Committee said: We are quite clear that if a House of Commons committee considers that a Bill referred to it stands in need of amendment, then it is the duty of that committee to make that amendment. The Committee examining the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill has acted in a way condemned by the King's Cross Railways Bill Committee. If the amendment that the Committee wanted but did not make is not inserted into the Bill, the other place may take a contrary view. If it does so, this House will have no further opportunity to amend the Bill. Thus, the will of the Commons will be frustrated 108 and that is hardly in the interests of parliamentary democracy. Although the promoters have undertaken to propose an amendment to the Bill in the other place, they have done so only in order to avoid further scrutiny on Report. That is undemocratic and weakens the House of Commons.
The House of Commons has a duty to maintain a vigilant watch over the Executive and hold it to account. Democracy is weakened by a thousand small cuts. While the failure of the Committee to refer the Bill back for Report in the House is a small cut, it is an important one.
On 21 June 1990, the Government issued a consultation document called "Private Bills and New Procedures". May I have your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the points of order that we have made tonight, as the Bill returns to the Floor of the House from Committee, will be passed on to those who prepared the document, so that the House can exercise its right to protest and say that this is wrong? The House of Commons must look at amendments coming from Committee. The Committee cannot decide simply to have these referred to the other place, thereby depriving Members of Parliament of a proper and valid scrutiny over the Executive.