Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] (Hansard, 16 April 1991)

§ Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer to a letter which, contrary to all the conventions of the House, was sent by the Secretary of State for Wales to his Cabinet colleagues on 31 March. The third paragraph of that letter, which is relevant, says: Because of the conventions on private Bills, LG Committee has concluded that it would be inappropriate formally to Whip the payroll on this occasion. But given the importance of this Bill"— the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill— to the South Wales area, and the Government's consistent support for it hitherto, I am extremely anxious to prevent the spoiling tactics succeeding. I therefore very much hope that you, your junior Ministers and all your PPSs will do your best to be available to support the Bill, through the night if necessary. That letter is signed "Yours ever, David".
I take that to be an admission that whipping of the payroll on private business is contrary to "Erskine May", to the conventions of the House and to the rights of people objecting to private Bills. Having admitted that it is a thoroughly wrong thing to do, the letter from which I have just quoted actually whips the payroll. On behalf of my constituents and of other objectors, I must ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule that the letter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is clearly in breach of the conventions of the House.

§ Mr. Gwilym Jones (Cardiff, North)
Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to draw to your attention a letter of which I have been given a copy. It is addressed to all members of the Cabinet and is headed "Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill".

§ Mr. Morgan
The date?

§ Mr. Jones
I understand that the letter was sent in February 1991. It says: Do you really want to spend £150 million of taxpayers' money to obliterate this view for ever? It is signed "Rhodri Morgan, MP for Cardiff, West".

§ Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House has a procedure for dealing with private Bills. An essential part of that procedure allows individual Members of Parliament to come to their own considered judgment on whether legislation should be supported or opposed. There is a tradition, in pursuance of that objective, that neither the Government nor the Opposition take an official view, and that the Whips are not brought into play. The Select Committee that dealt with this Bill decided that, in view of the conflicting nature of the evidence, it would not be appropriate to come to a firm decision. Instead, it required the promoters to carry out a further investigation and to report to the Secretary of State for Wales 12 months after the Committee had finished. It then charged the Secretary of State to act in a quasi-judicial capacity—to weigh the evidence before him and come to a decision.
Clearly, the Secretary of State for Wales has prejudged the matter. He has decided, regardless of the evidence, to support the Bill and the building of the barrage. The Committee, which sat for a very long time and deliberated very closely4put its faith in the objectivity of the Secretary 213 of State. Now that its decision has been abrogated by the unilateral action of the Secretary of State, should not the Committee, before we proceed further, be offered an opportunity to review its decision?

§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before ruling, perhaps you will conside the fact that most hon. Members—in particular, Welsh Members—have received from nume-rous sources, especially on the Opposition side of the House, circular letters expressing strong objection to the proposed legislation. As Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee, I should like to point out that recently a private Bill concerning the London Underground was debated at some length. The Committee contacted all Members with a view to making them aware of what was happening. Letters urging all Members to participate in the debates on private Bills have become more common.
I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) a letter requesting my presence at the debate on this Bill. In all probability, my Friend sent a similar request to other Members. The Secretary of State for Wales is a member of the Government, but, as a Member of Parliament, he should have the opportunity—one is afforded to every other Member—to ask others to support or object to certain measures. I am not speaking as a Whip, and I am not here to whip my colleagues in respect of the Bill. I speak in my private capacity as a Member from the valleys, who supports the Bill. Every hon. Member must be at liberty to make observations in support of or against the Bill. I have no doubt that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the basis of what has been said, will be able to come to a considered judgment.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
I must listen to points of order that are genuine, and I shall do so. Indeed, these are serious matters. However, the House has already agreed that the Bill should come before us for further consideration on Report. In fact, the Bill is not yet before the House, and I intend to ask the Clerk to read—

§ Mr. Ron Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am on my feet, and I am trying to be helpful. I know that, among some hon. Members, this is a contentious issue. Let us get the Bill before the House, and then I shall take points of order relating to it.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the comments made a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), may I point out that there is only one difference between the letter circulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the one circulated by the Member for an English constituency who happens to be the Secretary of State for Wales: my hon. Friend sent out his letter on paper that carried his private address, whereas the Secretary of State sent his out on 214 official Welsh Office notepaper. In other words, the Secretary of State was sending an official communication to his Cabinet colleagues. That communication states: Because of the conventions on private Bills"— so the Secretary of State accepts that there is a convention, but why has he been breaking it?— it would be inappropriate formally to Whip the payroll on this occasion. But … I am extremely anxious to prevent the spoiling tactics succeeding. I therefore very much hope that you, your junior Ministers and all your PPSs will do your best to be available to support the Bill, through the night if necessary. If my hon. Friend does not recognise that as an official communication from the Secretary of State for Wales, I am very sorry. There is a world of difference between what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has done legitimately on behalf of his constituents and the action of the Secretary of State, who, seemingly, has followed the actions of his predecessor in supporting Associated British Ports for the purpose of developing the Cardiff bay area.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fortunately, I have a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from which it is clear that the LG Committee considered the Bill. That means that it was considered by Ministers. Page 896 of "Erskine May", headed "Ministerial reports", says: All reports made by a Minister of the Crown on a private Bill stand referred to the committee on the bill … The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure 1954–55 recommended that Ministers' reports should as a rule be made available to all interested parties not less than fourteen days before the committee of the first House sits on the bill. When by agreement of the parties the committee sits less than 14 days after the second reading of a bill, the report should be issued as soon as possible after second reading. This recommenda-tion was accepted by the Government. Ministers have ignored the Bill publicly and have not produced a report—or if they have, not at the appropriate stage—but have further considered the Bill and ignored the rules that require those reports to be considered by a Committee of the House. The only way in which this underhand, shabby business can be properly scrutinised is for proceedings to be delayed so that the Committee that considered the Bill can be reconvened to consider the Minister's report.
The letter makes it clear that Ministers have been considering the Bill behind closed doors in Whitehall. The Secretary of State for Wales is answerable to the House and should have provided the Committee's report to the Private Bill Committee, but he has failed to fulfil his duties. We have had 10 years of the Government trampling over the rights of Parliament, but it would be helpful if we could have an adjournment so that this matter could be examined carefully and the Minister's report submitted to the reconvened Committee.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The House has ordered that the Bill be considered. Many important amendments must be debated. I must hear points of order, but I hope that they are pertinent and that they can be dealt with by the Chair.

§ Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have raised a serious issue on the function and role of the Secretary of State for Wales. The report of the Private Bill Committee says: 215 The Committee requires an undertaking on behalf of the promoters that they will proceed with the Bill only after the consent of the Secretary of State has been given, and the Secretary of State should give his consent only when he has before him the Hydro technical report, the promoters' conclusion and all other representations made to him during the three-month consultation period to which the Committee had referred. The Secretary of State should be satisfied that all the relevant economic, technical and safety criteria can be met by the Bill. If he is not satisfied, no public funds should be put towards the construction of the barrage. The Committee charged the Secretary of State with a specific objective role—to judge and assess—but he has written letters to Cabinet colleagues supporting the Bill and asking them to vote for it. He was asked to fulfil an important—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The points that are being made are arguments for Third Reading. As I said, the House has determined that the Bill be now considered. Hon. Members should proceed to consider the amendments that have been selected.

§ Mr. Morgan
Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who referred to my circulating in February a photograph of Cardiff bay at low tide to members of the Cabinet asking them to consider whether they could not think of better ways of spending £150 million than destroying—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. With respect, that is not a point of order for the Chair. There is nothing untoward in hon. Members encouraging other hon. Members to attend a debate. I shall listen to points of order, but I ask that they be genuine points with which the Chair can deal rather than matters for debate.

§ Mr. Ron Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand your difficulties and I am sure that all Labour Members appreciate the kindness and courtesy with which you are trying to deal with these difficult points of order. We do not wish to make your life difficult or embarrassing. However, these important matters must be dealt with. I listened carefully to your ruling that the House has resolved to consider the Bill. We do not dispute that, but the matter in issue is that when the House decided to consider the Bill it was not aware that the Secretary of State for Wales was about to involve himself, in a direct ministerial capacity, in trying to influence the passage of the Bill. [Interruption.] I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was trying to intervene, but he was not.

§ Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)
I cannot intervene on a point of order.

§ Mr. Davies
I would not put it past my hon. Friend, not that I would oblige him by giving way.
The Opposed Private Bill Committee gave the Secretary of State precise responsibility, in a quasi-judicial capacity, to reach a judgment on behalf of the House. It can no longer have confidence in the Secretary of State making that judgment. I appreciate that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, cannot give a ruling on that, but will you draw it to the attention of Mr. Speaker and your colleagues to see whether the Select Committee on Procedure should consider it and decide whether, in the light of the decision 216 of the Opposed Private Bill Committee, further guidelines should be issued to Committees that consider private legislation so that they can decide whether they should repeat the confidence that the Opposed Private Bill Committee showed?
In his letter, the Secretary of State makes it clear that he regards any further debate on the Bill as spoiling tactics. I resent that because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I and other hon. Friends have spent much time preparing amendments which we believe will improve the Bill. For example, we have sought to—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing my good will. The first new clause appears in his name and I hope that he will allow the House to get on with it.

§ Mr. Davies
The amendments that we have tabled would improve the Bill. The Secretary of State regards any further attempt to amend the Bill as a spoiling tactic. Would not it be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to say from the Dispatch Box whether he is prepared to accept one of the 300 amendments? That would offer the House further guidance—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We shall hear what the Secretary of State has to say when we proceed with the amendments.

§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the procedures for private Bills. The letter from the Secretary of State shows that he has breached the principle of neutrality on a private Bill. As you will be aware, this is not the first time that concern has been expressed about the way in which the private Bill procedure works. This seems to be another sham in terms of genuine neutrality when the Government are organising behind the scenes. In those circumstances, should not this Bill be regarded as a hybrid Government Bill? Should not the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and make it clear what the position is, rather than go behind the scenes with private letters whipping up clandestine support?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. These are matters which the hon. Gentleman can rightly bring out in debate. This is the last point of order.

§ Mr. Rogers
On a point of order—a quite separate point—Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, business that comes before the House should be judged by Members without fear or favour. While I was walking over here from Norman Shaw building I was talking to a Conservative Member. He asked how long the business would go on and I said that it would probably be at least two days. I asked him what he was doing about it and he said that he was rather committed because last August or September he had an invitation to Cardiff and stayed overnight as a guest of the promoters—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Rogers
This is a very pertinent point of order.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would come to a point with which I might be able to deal with.

§ Mr. Rogers
He said that last August or September he had stayed in Cardiff overnight as a guest of the promoters of the Bill. We know—it is in parliamentary records and we also have copies of the correspondence—that there was an invitation, a corrupt invitation in my view, from the promoters of the Bill to influence Members by offering them and their wives free accommodation and meals in Cardiff, as a measure for promoting the Bill. I would not have raised this except that a Conservative Member told me that he was influenced by this. I would not betray a private conversation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"] I would not betray a private conversation by naming the hon. Member, who at least is honest about his views, but I would certainly provide his name in confidence to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you so desired. In view of the action of the promoters of the Bill in corruptly trying to influence Members of the House, will you ask our hon. Clerk to investigate the matter urgently so that you can rule on it before tonight's business is proceeded with?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
It is not a matter for the Chair at this stage.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention in connection with private business to Standing Order No. 144? I have referred to and quoted from "Erskine May", which pointed out that reports from the Minister had to be made at the Committee stage. The reason is that the Committee has the duty and obligation to examine, and to allow the Government Department to examine and make representations on, any report which the Minister makes. I am suggesting to you that the letter from the Secretary of State, which falls absolutely within the terms of Standing Order No. 144, as it is from a Minister of the Crown, which means the holder of an office in Her Majesty's Government, and includes the Treasury, should be treated as a report by a Minister for the purpose of Standing Order No. 144. If that is the position, we are in a mess over this Bill, because the report cannot be considered by the Committee, the Committee stage having been completed.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The Standing Order refers only to reports submitted to the House; it does not relate in any way to letters that might be sent by a Minister to any of his colleagues.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Is it a genuine point of order?

§ Mr. Hughes
It is, and I will be very brief. I was not aware that there would be this preliminary argument and I want to ask about something on which I have not heard you rule and which is of general interest. Is it or is it not in order for Government Members to whip Back-Benchers on private business?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
A Whip encourages Members to be present during a debate and to divide and vote at the end of a debate on a private Bill as they wish. But any individual Member, including a Minister, can encourage his colleagues to be present for a debate and then determine for himself how he votes at the end of that debate. There can be no further point of order on that one.

§ Mr. Hughes
I understand that. I do not have a copy of the letter that colleagues clearly have, but, as I understand 218 from what was read out, it did not just advise them to attend; it advised them to attend and made a very clear recommendation as to which way they should vote. That appears to offend against what I always understood was the convention and is the rule governing the conduct of private business. If that is the case, even if it is by a Secretary of State, surely it is out of order.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I have not seen the letter, but, as I understand it, it does not instruct Members to divide or to vote one way or the other; it invites them to support the Bill.
I think that we should get on with the Bill now. There have been sufficient points of order.