Foreign Corporations Bill [Lords] (Hansard, 17 August 1991)

§ Mr. Redmond
On a point of order, Sir Paul. Prior to the Division I started to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) a question. May I be allowed to complete it?

The First Deputy Chairman
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has the Floor. It is a matter for him.

§ Mr. Haynes
I have given way to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Redmond
On a point of order, Sir Paul. Is it in order for Conservative Members and for Ministers to make threats? Is that not intimidation?

The First Deputy Chairman
No point of order arises.

§ Mr. Redmond
This is an important point. Glorious tributes have been paid to the Solicitor-General about his capabilities. In view of all his experience and knowledge, why has he not clarified matters? Either my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield or the Solicitor-General is correct, but they cannot both be correct. Will the Solicitor-General clarify the issue?

§ Mr. Haynes
Before I come to what we are talking about, I want to say something. A lot of public school yobs have come in. I was referring to them not being here, but they are here now and just hark at them. We have had a nice quiet debate until now. It is high time that they went back to the Terrace where they came from instead of causing problems in here. You and I, Sir Paul, were doing all right until we had the Division. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover agrees. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) keeps asking me the same question, but I have already told him that the Solicitor-General has not yet spoken from the Dispatch Box to answer that question. He asked me two questions. I cannot answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). He must answer for himself about the nice things that he said about the Solicitor-General.
The Solicitor-General is putting the case for the Government. He has not done a good job tonight. I must repeat to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley because he keeps forgetting that we said right at the beginning that the Government were trying to slip the Bill through on the nod. But we have decided to scrutinise the Bill properly in the interests of those people outside who are being fiddled. I shall repeat what I said earlier. The Government are fiddling on this debate.

§ Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)
I for one, and perhaps others, would be happy for the House not to go into recess a week tomorrow but to go through until 1 August.

§ Mr. Haynes
That is the best suggestion that I have heard from the Government Benches tonight. That would give us the opportunity to scrutinise things properly. The Government are always slipping things through on the nod. I said it earlier, and I shall say it again—even Conservative Members do not know what is going on. I said that there is a right old fiddle going on here by the Government and there bloomin' well is.

§ Mr. Fraser
On a point of order, Sir Paul. Within the hearing of the Chair and certainly several other Members, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), from a sedentary position while my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley was speaking said—

§ Mr. Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)
The hon Gentleman was not here.

§ Mr. Fraser
I was sitting here.
Within the hearing of the House, the Under-Secretary of State said, "I am judging his City Challenge in the morning." He clearly implied that his judgment about the City Challenge would be influenced not by the merits of the submission but by the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley during this debate. Is it proper to intimidate a fellow Member of Parliament who is exercising his right to speak in an important debate?

The First Deputy Chairman
I am sure that no hon. Member is subject to intimidation. While I am on my feet I remind the Committee that we have had a good run on clause 2. I have been tolerant, allowing remarks which are not strictly in order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman whom I am about to call will address his remarks clearly to clause 2 stand part.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Sir Paul. I share your view that it is difficult to intimidate hon. Members, but if an hon. Member was intimidated by a threat from a Minister to withhold money, depriving inner cities that are in urgent need, it would simply necessitate a letter to the Speaker to see whether a breach of privilege had taken place. That Minister would have to go before the Select Committee on Privileges to defend his attempted intimidation.

The First Deputy Chairman
Sometimes it helps if the occupant of the Chair is a little deaf, and I am experiencing a little deafness at the moment.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. As there is a strong feeling that some local authorities will be losers, would it not be helpful if the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment went to the Dispatch Box to make it absolutely clear that he did not intend any threat? You may not have heard his remark, Sir Paul, but it was certainly audible on these Benches. It is important that it should be made clear that what is anyway a pretty unfair allocation of money will be dealt with extremely fairly, and that no account will be taken of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).

The First Deputy Chairman
I think that it would be wise if the Committee continued with the debate.

§ Mr. Redmond
On a point of order, Sir Paul. I accept entirely that you did not hear the remark made by the Under-Secretary of State, and I am sure that he made it in jest. If that is the case, one must accept also that there will be no penalty tomorrow in respect of the initiative.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Sir Paul. As you know, there is always a precedent, and I recall that when I addressed the House some years ago in regard to grants that the Greater London council was handing out, I mentioned that if any Conservative Members voted against the general powers Bill that the GLC was promoting, county hall would have to consider carefully grants and schemes relating to the constituencies that those Conservative Members represented.
I thought that was a genuine point, but I then found myself the target of some fairly nasty comments from Conservative Members, and the matter was referred as a matter of privilege. I subsequently had to apologise to the House for suggesting that if hon. Members voted in a particular way, they might put their constituents at a disadvantage. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) appears to have been intimidated by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in the same way that I allegedly intimidated Conservative Members on that previous occasion. It would help the progress of business if the Under-Secretary of State would make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley that no intimidation was meant.

The First Deputy Chairman
If there is any suggestion of a breach of privilege, it is for the hon. Member concerned to write to Mr. Speaker, who will give the matter serious consideration.

§ Dr. Godman
I will be grateful, Sir Paul, if you will rule out of order any further references to the fact that I was a red-cap. The fact that I served with the Royal Military police—honourably, I hope—has nothing to do with the clause stand part debate. I hope that will be the end of it. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) can be a bit of a nuisance. The corps of military police is a fine body of service men and women, and it was an honour to serve in it.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Rubbish.

§ Dr. Godman
That remark comes from someone who does not know one end of a parade ground from another, or what RSM means.

§ Mr. Cryer
Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

§ Dr. Godman
Only if my hon. Friend's intervention relates to the Bill, not to red-caps.

§ Mr. Cryer
Certainly not. Is my hon. Friend aware that during the last Environment questions the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment shouted across the Chamber at me that he was also examining the claim for Bradford in the City Challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) said that the City Challenge was nothing more than local authority bingo: 10 local authorities would be awarded some money, and 15 had been selected as local authorities in need. The comments of Ministers, which have caused concern in the House, have not gone unheeded elsewhere.

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will not be led astray by his hon. Friend. He is nodding in confirmation.

§ Dr. Godman
It is difficult to lead astray someone who has served two years in the Royal Military police.
As we have no Scottish Solicitor-General, let me say very seriously to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who always listens attentively to my comments, and who knows that, although I am not a lawyer, I strongly support our unique Scottish law and legal institutions—that I do not understand why the clause does not mention Scotland. Subsection (2) states: This Act extends to Northern Ireland. I should like to see another subsection, stating: "This Act extends to Scotland."
The Bill could have important consequences for the administration of Scottish law. English Members of Parliament seem anxious to ensure that English law has primacy over Scottish law, especially in relation to commercial affairs. I reject that view, but some Scottish lawyers have some sympathy with it, particularly when it is seen in the framework of European Community law as it impinges on commercial contracts and relationships. Let me plead with the Solicitor-General, if I can catch his ear—

§ Mr. Skinner
While my hon. Friend is waiting for the Solicitor-General to get rid of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has been sent off to try to get some information to answer my hon. Friend's question, let me give my view.
I think that one reason why Scotland is not included in clause 2 is the Government's nervousness about representations in connection with the Western Isles and its money. The Government do not want my hon. Friend, or anyone else in Scotland, to make retrospective representations—for this Bill is all about retrospection. They do not want my hon. Friend to use the clause to say, "What about some money, retrospectively, for local authorities that took the advice of the Bank of England and the Secretary of State for the Environment when the circular was issued, and, as a result, are up to their necks in debt?" They fear that my hon. Friend and others may say that what can apply to the City of London retrospectively—that is what the debate is all about—should apply to the Western Isles, and all the other local authorities that are in the same position.
Northern Ireland is included because this is a "John De Lorean" clause, which takes account of everything that might happen in Northern Ireland so that, in future—retrospectively—the Government will be able to bail out some of the spivs they invite to build here and, supposedly, create jobs there. As a result, however, they rip off the Tory Government and put the money in their pockets. That is what it is all about.

§ Dr. Godman
I want my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to listen attentively to my reply. I know the Western Isles extremely well. I have a great deal of affection for the people of the Western Isles. The director of finance, however, has—

§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)
On a point of order, Sir Paul. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the Bill deals with companies that are registered in countries that are not recognised by the United Kingdom. The Bank of Credit and Commerce International is registered in Luxembourg, which is a country that we recognise. The hon. Gentleman's comments relate to matters that are outside the scope of the Bill and are, therefore, irrelevant.

§ Mr. Redmond
Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. The Bank of England was on the verge of allowing that bank to establish itself in this country. Therefore, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is correct. I hope that you will allow my hon. Friend to develop his argument.

The First Deputy Chairman
That bank is certainly not relevant to the consideration of the Bill, or this clause. However, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is doing his best to keep in order.

§ Mr. Cryer
May I ask for your guidance, Sir Paul. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to Mr. John Z. De Lorean. You may recall that Mr. De Lorean was persuaded to go to Northern Ireland, unfortunately, instead of investing in Puerto Rico, which is a state that may not be recognised by this Government. Therefore, it would surely fall within the scope of the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman
That is not in question at the moment. Let us listen to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, who has the Floor.

§ Dr. Godman
Thank you, Sir Paul. During the eight and a half years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never encountered so many points of order during a speech. Despite the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), what I was saying is very important: the Bill does not refer to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is an English lawyer, and he does not give a damn for Scots law. I am concerned about the lack of wisdom shown by the director of finance for the Western Isles in investing such a huge sum of money in such a disreputable outfit, but I am deeply sorry for the people he is supposed to serve.
I should be extremely grateful if the Solicitor-General extended the clause in the way I suggested. It would lead to the avoidance of doubt. Some of my constituents go to the public libraries in Greenock and Port Glasgow to examine Acts of Parliament. They may ask why this short measure, which mentions Northern Ireland, does not mention Scotland. During the proceedings on another Bill, the Solicitor-General gave me an assurance, which I was perfectly willing to accept, about the people of Scotland.
A number of my hon. Friends have criticised the Solicitor-General concerning Scots law and, in doing so, have commented on the (act that there is no Solicitor-General for Scotland. With respect to my hon. Friends, I have to say that they display a perhaps understandable ignorance of the legal administration in Scotland. We have Mr. Alan Rodger, QC, some of whose mail, incidentally, is directed to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I do not think that the initials QC appear after the name of my hon. Friend. Mr. Alan Rodger is a very fine gentleman, with a superb 452 legal mind in the best traditions of that ancient office. I have some support—if not from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), from the Solicitor-General, who knows how serious the issue is.

§ Mr. Hind
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Dr. Godman
No; this is too important for facetious interventions.
I have found Mr. Alan Rodger, QC, extremely helpful in all matters.

§ Mr. Hind
Read the Bill.

§ Dr. Godman
I have read the Bill. There is no mention of Scotland, but there is mention of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Alan Rodger is extremely helpful to hon. Members from different Scottish parties, but he is not a member of the House. There are no Scottish Law Officers in the House, so we are denied the opportunity, which is given to all English Members, to cross-examine a Law Officer about administration. We do not have that privilege, and that is a matter of considerable concern.
We are denied the opportunity on the Floor of the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee to question senior legal officers who represent the Crown. That is a major failure. I would even have accepted willingly the promotion of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir. N. Fairbairn) to the post which he once held. It is absolutely essential that the administration of Scottish justice is protected by a Scottish Law Officer from the Government Dispatch Box.
Despite sedentary interventions from—I think—a solicitor who passed his examinations perhaps 30 years or 40 years ago, I tell the Solicitor-General that Scottish Members of Parliament should have the right to ensure that laws such as this—[Interruption.] I am not a lawyer, but if clause 2 were extended to read, "This Act extends to Scotland", the right hon. Gentleman would be doing my constituents a service.
I welcome the numerous foreign companies who have invested in Scotland, and I only wish that more would come to Greenock and Port Glasgow instead of going elsewhere. No matter how fine and honourable Mr. Alan Rodger is—and he undoubtedly is—in the absence of a Solicitor-General for Scotland in the House we come to the Solicitor-General to ask questions.
That has happened during the proceedings on the Child Support Bill, which is not an English Bill. It has provisions that are specific to the Scottish legal system, as the right hon. Gentleman readily acknowledged in Committee. There was no Scottish Law Officer to sit alongside him, so two officials from the Scottish Office were sent from St. Andrew's house to give him assistance, although I am not sure that he needed it.
I believe that an amendment should be made to the Bill to extend it to Scotland. My constituents and people throughout Scotland deserve no less.

§ The Solicitor-General
We have had an interesting debate, and I have replied once to part of it. It has been extended, and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who is no longer in his place, made a long and interesting contribution. Now the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has asked a pertinent question about the extent of the Bill which raises an interesting question concerning our conventions.
453 As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a Scot, although I am half a Scot, my father having come south when he was 19. Our convention in relation to Scotland is that, if a Bill is silent on whether it mentions Scotland, it covers Scotland. If it is only to cover England and Wales, it has to state that specifically. Those who have Scottish pride in their hearts or ancestry may find that a satisfactory way in which to deal with matters. Likewise, it is our convention that, if the Bill is to extend to Northern Ireland, it expressly mentions the fact. I hope that that is of assistance to the hon. Gentleman.
This has been a wide-ranging debate and we have focused on a number of questions relating to clause 2, which I commend to the House.