HC Deb 20 February 1992 vol 204 cc489-508

'. Where, following a public local inquiry pursuant to section I I above, the Secretary of State makes an order modifying or overruling the recommendation of the person appointed by him to hear objections, such an order shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.] Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may consider the following amendments: No. 101, in clause 1, page I, line 17, at end insert 'provided that no such order may be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'. No. 102, in page 1, line 17. at end insert 'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. No. 103, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert 'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.' No. 110, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, at end insert 'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.

Mr. Bennett

The new clause deals with one of the essential principles of the way in which we are changing the private Bill procedure and—I hope—getting rid of many such Bills from the House of Commons.

I think that most hon. Members would be very happy if we could pass responsibility for enacting legislation which is currently introduced in private Bills to local communities and local people. However, we would not be very happy if Parliament were to give up its powers, duties and rights to the Secretary of State. "[hat is the issue covered in the new clause and some of the associated amendments.

I understand perfectly that it is far better to hold a local public inquiry at which local people can put their case to the inspector than having people come to London—perhaps from the north of England—to put their views to a Committee of four hon. Members. One of those hon. Members has a casting vote and is there, so to speak, in a double capacity. Often, hon. Members are not especially interested in the issue—in fact, they must be disinterested parties, because they have a semi-judicial role. They may have to sit for many hours being told about local circumstances. Although they can visit the area involved, they do not have a great deal of knowledge. That is a very unsatisfactory procedure and it is far better—as the legislation provides—for people to be able to express their views to a local inspector.

If the local inspector hears their views, reaches a balanced judgment and makes recommendations to the Secretary of State who implements them, that seems eminently more sensible than the present private Bill procedure. Of course, if the scheme is of national significance, it is reasonable that Parliament should judge whether the principle should be accepted and the detail considered by an inquiry.

There might occasionally be arguments about whether a scheme is of national or local significance, but an amendment that was tabled to deal with that issue was not selected, although the Minister could not resolve the problem in Committee. He said merely that it was always easy to tell whether a scheme was of national or local significance, but when we tested him on one or two schemes, he could not answer.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Does my hon. Friend realise that, following his logic, it would in the end be for the House to have the powers to decide on a matter of doubt whether an issue was of national or local significance?

Mr. Bennett

Yes, I certainly tried to argue that in Committee and I tabled an amendment to that effect, but it was not selected.

I still believe that there is a problem—I hope that someone in another place will return to this issue—in deciding what is of national or local significance. Assuming that it is approved by Parliament, because it is of national significance, or it is referred directly to an inquiry by the Secretary of State, because it is of local significance, I envisage no problems, as long as the inspector makes a recommendation which is then made law by the Secretary of State. I envisage that problems will occur if the Secretary of State decides to take a different decision from that recommended to him by the inspector or if he decides to modify the recommendations substantially. At that point, Parliament should have the right to exercise a final judgment in the matter if there is a disagreement between the inspector and the Secretary of State.

We all know that, in most such cases, political pressure of one sort or another will have entered the equation. I have no doubt that, when the Minister replies, he will hold up his hands in horror and say that, when he gets the inspector's report, he does not let anyone else influence him. He will say that he merely reads what the inspector has said and arrives at a conclusion.

Mr. Spearing

indicated dissent.

Mr. Bennett

However, as my hon. Friend indicates, we all know that that does not happen. Of course, the Minister or the Secretary of State dealing with such an issue takes political considerations into account. There is nothing wrong with that in a democracy—in fact, we should be proud of the fact that Ministers respond to political arguments.

There is no problem with that, but if a Minister responds to a political problem, in the end it should be up to Parliament to decide whether that Minister has responded correctly or incorrectly to the political arguments and whether he should have followed the inspector's directions or suggestions. The amendment simply says that, in the relatively rare circumstance of the Minister's disagreeing with the inspector, the final decision should come back to Parliament. It would not introduce a complicated procedure—we have aimed for almost the minimum amount of parliamentary accountability—but in those circumstances Parliament should retain the last word. We should not hand over to the Secretary of State the power to make political judgments.

I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister will be able to find a way of accommodating the views expressed in Committee, and those being expressed on Report, on this important issue.

5 pm

Mr. Spearing

I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Clearly, if a Minister of the Crown reversed an inspector's public recommendation—although the recommendation would not be public until the Minister changed it—it would be right and proper for the House to have the final say. If that were written into the Bill, the Minister would, of course, bear in mind when considering his view the fact that the House would have the final say.

That is an important principle—it is what I call the "hidden gate", which Parliament provides on many issues. Those issues may not necessarily be debated, but Parliament's power is in the minds of Ministers and officials. If any part of that gate were taken away, the actions and decisions of Ministers and officials in Whitehall would be different.

I agree with my hon. Friend's new clause and will support it, but I do not believe that the restrictions and qualifications in it go anything like far enough. To the casual listener, the debate so far will have seemed to concern details about tramcars, railway crossings and bridleways. However, there is no doubt that clauses 1, 2 and 3 transfer enormous powers from Members of the House of Commons and therefore from those who sent us here to officials and Ministers in Whitehall. Nobody has denied that.

I am worried that in doing so we have left too few backstop measures at the end of the process—too few opportunities for the House to say no. The powers being transferred from the House to Whitehall represent almost the whole range of private Bills that have come to the House over the centuries. Transport Bills have included Bills in respect of canals—historically canals were the first —railways, harbours and, now, barrages in our estuaries. All works Bills relating to such matters are to be transferred to a completely new procedure. The powers exercised by an Opposed Private Bill Committee of the House are to be transferred to Whitehall.

Moreover, Ministers will exercise those powers, not by introducing a Bill in the House—a public Bill, as distinct from a privately promoted Bill—but by a single statutory instrument. Clause 1(2) says: The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument. It may not be known to hon. Members, still less to members of the public who may be listening to the debate, or even seeing it, via some electronic means—I did not know it myself until my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised it in Committee—but there are statutory instruments that are not even susceptible to a negative procedure. As well as the range of statutory instruments that become effective only after a draft has been laid or a motion approving them has been passed by the House, there is another range of statutory instruments for whose annulment it is not possible to put down a motion in the House.

One might suppose that even those who support the principle of shifting all the private Bills about which we are talking away from the House would want there at least to be an affirmative instrument to approve the Minister's decision, which may be contained in a 300-page wodge of paper. But there is not an affirmative instrument in the Bill —the instruments will not even be subject to annulment. In other words, unless the matter is of national significance, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, the House will have no say. The matter will be in the hands of Whitehall and the Minister. Unless we agree to the amendment that would change all that to an affirmative procedure, allowing a maximum of an hour and a half's debate in the Chamber—for the House to say yes to what the Minister and the inspector have decided as a result of the public inquiry—there will be no control whatever.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has tabled another amendment, which would make the process subject to annulment. I hope that he will speak to that amendment later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it would at least provide some safeguards, although I do not regard those as being as good as an affirmative resolution.

We have here a statutory instrument in camouflage. When people think of statutory instruments and regulations, they think of relatively small matters of detail, such as the design of buses and other vehicles, regulations on tramcar drivers or other abstruse administrative details. But under the Bill there would be a new breed of statutory instrument which would replace the scope of a Bill authorising a railway of pretty well any length. A future subject of such a single statutory instrument could be a railway line from King's Cross halfway to the coast —the document could be 300 pages long.

Such a statutory instrument could affect my borough of Newham, where the Ove Arup plans show a tunnel under the town, and various other buildings. That provides a convenient example, because, although there would be a public inquiry, the House would not be able to make a final decision on the balance of the public advantage that a railway would undoubtedly bring against the private disadvantage of the compulsory purchase orders that such a statutory instrument would entail.

This is a matter not only of compulsory purchase, although that is important, but of giving powers. Properly and understandably, private Bills have hitherto given their promoters powers to make byelaws and regulations on the operation of, for example, a railway system. Under the Bill, those powers could affect a system of new elevated magnetic track, such as we hear could well be introduced.

I have already mentioned coastal barrages. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish talked about the difference between local and national significance. A barrage across the Mersey has already been mentioned. Would that be a local or a national matter? A Severn barrage has been talked about for more than a century. Would that be a purely local matter for the west country and south Wales, or would it be a national matter? Certainly, if it affected electricity generation, it would be a national matter, but under the Bill the Minister would decide whether it was national or local. If the Minister or his successor decided that one of those projects—or a project in Scotland, such as a barrage across the Solway Firth—was not of national significance, the House would have no part to play.

Now we have some idea of the scope of the orders. As schedule 1 affects clauses 1 and 3, and the orders, I hope that it is in order to refer to it. It lays down in fair detail the matters that the statutory instruments can include. They may be surprising to some people outside in their scope and significance.

Schedule 1, which contains 18 paragraphs, is headed: Matters within sections 1 and 3", and covers the matters that can be dealt with by statutory instrument. The paragraphs include:

"2. The carrying out of any other civil engineering or other works.

3. The acquisition of land …

4. The creation and extinguishment of rights over land ….

5. The abrogation and modification of agreements relating to land.

6. The conferring on persons providing transport services of rights to use systems".

I hasten on to paragraph 9, which says: The making of agreements to secure the provision of police services. That means the creation of a police force. We are all familiar with the British Transport police and there are private police forces. One will be set up at the port of Tilbury; that is a very controversial proposal. The Bill could create a Severn barrage police force, a canal police force, or a channel tunnel railway police force which would have nothing to do with the Kent constabulary or the Essex constabulary. The provision is as bland as that.

The worst and most extraordinary of all is paragraph 18, which refers to: The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament. By virtue of a small paragraph which cannot be got at by the House, unless new clause I is accepted, any Act of Parliament relating to the powers of any body can be changed.

I think that when I came to this place, such a proposal by any Minister of any Government, whether right, left or centre, would have been thought impossible by any hon. Member. Here we have powers, not only in clauses I and 3, but in other clauses, to change Acts of Parliament by relatively obscure Orders in Council which cannot be prayed against by the House. A Minister can unilaterally, without any proceedings in the House, change any Act of Parliament within the defintion that I have just read. I challenge the Minister to tell me now that my interpretation of the Bill is wrong. We have been round the course already in Committee and, very unfortunately, the answer is that I am correct.

Time and again, members of the public, members of the press and Members of Parliament say that Whitehall and Ministers have too much power. We must claw back the power to the House of Commons. The Bill claws back nothing; it gives it all away—and on a quiet Thursday afternoon. I am not a betting man, but I bet that most hon. Members do not know that the Bill is giving away the rights of their constituents.

On the Solway Firth, anywhere in Scotland or anywhere where there is a coastal barrage, a railway, a tramway—I am glad to say that there will be many more railways and tramways, of which many of us are in favour —someone may go to an advice service. He may ask a Member of Parliament what he can do about a particular proposal. Unless the proposal has been designated as of national significance, the Member of Parliament can only say, "I will write to the Minister, I will see him with a delegation, I will see him in the Lobby or I will catch him when he comes to a garden fete, but I cannot do anything in Parliament."

Mr. McLoughlin

I will come to the hon. Gentleman's wider point about the police later, because to deal with it now would take longer than an intervention allows.

The hon. Gentleman must be a little more generous about the idea that we are giving away powers. Under the Bill, we seek to remove the locus standi and we shall give many more people the right to be able to appear at public inquiries, which are usually held in their locality. That has been the subject of exhaustive debates in the House on many occasions. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not like what we are doing, but I believe that it is a greater democratisation rather than a removal of democracy.

5.15 pm
Mr. Spearing

I am extremely glad that the Minister has intervened in that way. He was very obliging in Committee, and he has been the soul of courtesy. However, he has forgotten one fundamental point. I agree, of course, that it is far better for some inquiries to be conducted locally. I am the first to understand that a bewigged and terrifying procedure in a Committee Room is far less satisfactory for some constituents than a local inquiry such as we have for planning.

However, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which made this recommendation, might have looked a little further into the matter. It was perfectly possible to ensure that one of the rules for private legislation was that planning permission and local inquiries—with which we all agree—were carried out and came to a conclusion before the private Bills were laid. That would get rid of all the problems, make the private Bill procedure swifter and save hon. Members' time.

Parliament would be used as a court of appeal, which it should be, rather than as a court of first instance, which it has become with many private Bills. If it had not been for the abuse of the private Bill procedure by some people, whom the Minister knows, and even by the Government, we should not be here today. It is perfectly possible to combine local hearings and local democracy with the central powers of a central democracy of this kingdom.

I have made a long contribution, but I believe that the seriousness of the matter deserves such comment. The powers under schedule 1 are very great. I did not read out paragraph 1, which refers to: The construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, demolition and removal of railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other transport systems within section 1(1) of this Act, waterways, roads, watercourses, buildings and other structures. Barrages are included because they affect navigation, which is included under clause 3.

As some colleagues know, because we debated the matter in Committee, that is not the extent of the Minister's powers. A lawyer or someone conversant with legislation might look at schedule 1 and say, "The Minister's proposal is not contained here. He cannot do it under the order." Having made some inquiries, I am sorry to tell the House that the Minister's powers under the orders are even wider than the powers under schedule 1.

Under clause 1, the Secretary of State may make an order relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction or operation of a transport system of any of the following kinds". The magic words—perhaps I should say ominous words —are "matters ancillary to" and "relating to". Let us suppose that a private person said, "The matter is not in schedule 1, it does not concern a police force, it is not this or that. The Minister cannot do it." Let us suppose that the matter went to court. The court might find that, although the matter was not covered by schedule 1, it was definitely "relating to" or "ancillary to" and the Minister would get away with it. The scope of the orders is almost beyond imagination and is certainly beyond belief.

Many people both inside and outside the House have said that the powers of the Executive have grown, are still growing and need to be diminished. Unless my amendment, which makes it necessary to have an affirmative vote in the House, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Redditch (Mr. Bennett) is passed, the power of the Executive will wax much greater. Many people will rue the day when the House loses the power of the people who sent us here to officials, Ministers and those in Whitehall who support them.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested that this measure will slip through on a quiet Thursday afternoon. There was never any prospect of it being a quiet Thursday afternoon, with the hon. Gentleman and others contributing to the debate. From beginning to end, the procedures on the Bill have been full of surprises. In Committee, what appeared to be relatively modest proposals on the amendment paper, time and again became issues of great principle. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that again this afternoon.

I thought that this was a relatively minor proposal. Very quickly, we returned to the fundamental principles of the Bill. The new clause is described as a simple procedure whereby the Secretary of State overrules the result of an inquiry—a relatively modest suggestion, and not impossible to concede. The hon. Gentleman soon talked about extending police powers and the privatisation of police forces, and perhaps applying them to the high-speed link to the channel tunnel, Severn barrage, and so on. On this relatively small point, the hon. Gentleman built an enormous argument of principle.

I have much respect and admiration for the hon. Gentleman, as do most hon. Members, but the truth is that he does not like the Bill at all. He is totally against the transfer of planning controls from Parliament to the planning system. It is a surprise that he did not vote against Second Reading, because he is totally against the measure. He wants to hang on as long as he possibly can to control over railway planning. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should continue to plan railways through the archaic private Bill procedure, he should apply the same logic to highways and to the myriad of major planning matters that are dealt with through the planning procedure.

If the hon. Member for Newham, South wants to control the details of a railway, he must consider why we should not bring back to Parliament control over highway matters. He might thoroughly enjoy that. He would probably claw back great powers from the Executive, but I am not sure whether that would help our constituents. It certainly would not streamline the planning procedures or get things done, but it would certainly bog down Parliament in a vast quantity of detail and not be efficient. With this proposal, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are clinging on by their fingertips to a little residual control over railway matters. Although I can understand that, it misses the point.

Mr. Spearing

Let me make our position absolutely clear. I would not want to claw back more powers over motorways, for example, although there were turnpike Acts many years ago. However, I want an hour and a half for debate on matters of local significance that may be very important. That is not time consuming—the rest may be done outside the House. Why not have an hour and a half?

Mr. Moate

The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. It is just as logical to apply that argument to roads. Exactly the same argument applies. If he wants to bring that matter back to Parliament, he should argue that case. He again suggested the dual procedure—a public inquiry system outside the House, with Parliament retaining a system of control thereafter, with much of the work having been done. That point was considered by the Select Committee. Nearly everybody who has been concerned with those matters is totally against having two bites at the cherry. A public inquiry system—analysis outside this place—would be very unsatisfactory if it were known that it would thereafter go to Parliament and all the work would be thrown away because our unsatisfactory system could simply reject it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

New clause 1 does not mention that. It says that, if the inquiry reaches one decision and the Secretary of State comes up with a different decision, the House should be the arbitrator.

Mr. Moate

I understand what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish says, but the hon. Member for Newham, South was not saying that—he was going a little further. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Newham, South. He is desperately trying to cling on to a Parliamentary procedure when, fundamentally, the Select Committee and Parliament–1 hope that it will continue—have endorsed the principle of moving such planning matters out into the planning system.

The hon. Gentleman is right—of course that means that Parliament is giving up that control, but it is doing so deliberately, because it knows that it is almost an accident of history that we have retained control over such matters. There are efficient systems which we still ultimately have to control matters and for which we ultimately have political responsibility, but they are outside the House and it makes sense to apply the same rules to railways and ports.

Of course it is a litle irritating when a Minister overrules the decisions of an inspector, but surely the same logic applies to a range of other public inquiries. If Parliament said, "Because, for historical reasons, we have had all those controls, we wish to retain residual control just over railways," why should we not have the same power over highways and all other planning matters? Whenever the Secretary of State overrules a local inspector, he will be saying that an order should be brought to the House and subject to the same negative procedure.

We must accept the argument in principle of passing those matters into the planning system. Therefore, I do not feel that the case for the new clause has been made out.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

I refer to amendments Nos. 102 and 103. Of course we are not talking about an entirely unqualified procedure. Under clauses 1 and 3, which relate to the construction … of a transport system … or to matters ancillary to … the construction or use of an inland waterway", the Secretary of State is given power to produce statutory instruments which are not subject to any procedure. My amendment simply requires that they should be subject to annulment. That is to say, if a prayer is tabled and the opportunity is provided, there should be a debate of one and a half hours—inadequate but better than nothing. For the information of the House, in 1991, of 114 prayers that wer tabled, 25 were debated, it is not as though we are talking about an overwhelming number of prayers being debated on the Floor of the House.

Clauses 1 and 3 provide the Secretary of State with power to make instruments, but only on application under rules provided under the negative procedure in clause 6. In Committee, we improved the Bill by making the negative procedure—that is, instruments subject to annulment—a requirement for the production of the rules. There is some element of public accountability, but, once the rules have been laid down, the Secretary of State can consider an application. Under clause 11, he may cause a public local inquiry to be held for the purposes of an application made under clause 6 under the rules made by a statutory instrument. However, it is not an absolute requirement that the Secretary of State holds a public local inquiry, because he may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to hear an objection and then report to him.

5.30 pm

Of course, if the Secretary of State thinks that an application is frivolous or trivial, he can turn it down on those grounds. So he can turn it down on three different grounds. However, if a local authority applies, he must hold a local public inquiry. So there is a procedure. All that we ask in the new clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) says, is that Parliament should have reserve powers to examine an order if the Secretary of State differs from the decision or recommendation to hold a public inquiry.

What is the Minister's worry? If he makes an order after an application under clause 6, whether or not it is considered by a local public inquiry under clause 11, why should he not make an order with a negative procedure attached to it so that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to request a debate if they want one? There might be special local circumstances. There might be a difference of view between the local public inquiry and the Secretary of State. That would be one argument for having a debate. Another would be that a section of the local community was dissatisfied with some procedure of the inquiry. Local people might feel that their case had been denied a proper hearing. That might lead a Member of Parliament to table a prayer and seek a debate.

However, in our experience the likelihood is that a debate will not be sought. The likelihood is that one of the negative procedures will be used and the order will go through the House without objection. That would happen in the majority of cases. We simply want a reserve power to enable people outside the House to invoke the support of their Member of Parliament for a debate if they feel dissatisfied in some way.

Anxiety about a proposal might give rise to reluctance to allow the powers in the Bill to be used in such a way that they go unchallenged. The powers are pretty wide. Clause 5 states that an order under section 1 or 3 may apply, modify or exclude any provision of an Act of Parliament (or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament) which relates to any matter as to which an order could be made under section I or, as the case may be, 3, and (b) make such amendments, repeals and revocations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary". Those wide powers are known as a Henry VIII clause. In effect we are giving power to the Minister to repeal or modify primary legislation made by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is an important power.

I am pleased that we are having this debate because over the years Parliament has given a power such as we are discussing to lots of Ministers lots of times. It has slid through the House with the greatest of ease. People are now examining such powers a little more closely. It is fair and proper that we should do so. As the powers are wide and involve criminal sanctions—penalties could be imposed on people under them—we should have a reserve power to have a look at things.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments recently took evidence on an instrument presented to it. The evidence was not a bright, shining example of evidence submitted by a Department with clarity of thought. Indeed, the Department had clearly got things wrong in its memorandum. It apologised for that. After the evidence was given, we obtained from our counsel some comments about which Department was responsible for the most confusing and misleading instruments. I must tell the Minister that high on the list was the Department of Transport.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

It was the winner.

Mr. Cryer

As my hon. Friend says, it was the winner. So we would be giving powers to issue orders to the Minister and his Department when the Department has not the best record for clarity of expression. That is important, because people have to use these orders. The orders are laws, we should attempt to make them as clear as possible.

I said in the Standing Committee, and it is worth repeating here, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is not simply a policing body. It is an assisting body. If a Department approaches our counsel, who is an efficient and effective counsel, he will give advice if he finds faults in the instrument. An instrument can often be rectified before it is laid in the House. That is a useful service. If a Department does not have to go through any parliamentary procedure of annulment, of course it does not have to bother so much. It is important that the Department should have to bother.

It is not so much that we insist on having a one-and-a-half-hour debate,—but if that is at the back of people's minds, it helps them to concentrate on what is in hand. Under the orders, fines can be imposed, albeit not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. People can be accused of a criminal offence. So it is not a bad idea for the Minister to accede to our request to make them subject to annulment and, therefore, to some examination outside the Department of Transport.

Schedule 1 lists matters within sections 1 and 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to some such matters but I wish to draw the attention of the House to several other points. First, the orders can relate to The charging of tolls, fares (including penalty fares) and other charges, and the creation of summary offences in connection with non-payment (or in connection with a person's failure to give his name or address in accordance with provisions relating to penalty fares). So although a limited penalty is laid down in the body of the Bill, orders can cover a wide range of activities. Orders can also apply to sub-delegation. That is giving power to bodies not in Parliament, and other than Parliament, to make laws. Subdelegation comes under paragraph 13 of schedule 1 where it refers to: The making of byelaws by any person and their enforcement, including the creation of summary offences. We are not dealing with draconian offences or penalties but none the less they are criminal offences for which people can be taken to a magistrates court. The magistrates would consider the case and pronounce sentence because summary offences had been created.

Whether we should give the Secretary of State powers to make orders is arguable, but it seems even more dubious to give the Secretary of State powers to give a third party powers to create penalties and summary offences. Schedule 1(18) states: The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament. That impinges on primary legislation. The orders could change a body set up by an Act or the powers of such a body. To that degree the schedule curtails, alters, modifies and, indeed, extends legislation—an alteration could mean that the power of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament was extended.

I accept that, under the powers provided in clauses 1 to 3, an order is subject, before it is made, to a local public inquiry in most circumstances. But in some circumstances it will not be subject to an inquiry. Parliament should have a reserve power to assist the Department in drafting orders that are clear, without ambiguity and intra vires rather than ultra vires. That would be a help to the Department. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that we wanted to maintain control. He exaggerated the position. We do not seek control. We want to streamline the procedure. I am simply saying that Members' rights should not be eroded.

Perhaps in one in 100 cases—or not even that many —there may be a case of controversy, for example when railways are being considered or inland waters, which are being subject to rules of navigation. However, the areas covered in clauses 1 and 3—with the exception of the section of clause 3 which has been improved by making it subject to negative procedure—are not so likely to be free of controversy that we should exclude the 100th case when hon. Members may wish to raise the matter, on a prayer against an instrument, because they feel that it is wrong, is badly drafted or seeks to obtain powers not contained in the primary legislation that we are discussing. All those were problems mentioned in Committee and are realities.

The Minister has been helpful. In many other areas of the Bill the Minister recognised the strength of the argument that orders should be subject to negative procedure. As the powers contained in clause 1 and 3 are so extensive, they should also be included—in the way in which I have proposed—rather than excluded from further parliamentary procedure. That is not much to ask. It is not a question of holding on to centralised control but of saying that, as a last resort, because of errors, controversy or possible confrontation, Parliament should have the right to a mini-debate.

After all, it is not a bad idea to keep the spectre of a debate on a prayer before the Secretary of State. It ensures that he takes a closer look at the instrument. Instruments have been drafted—as the Minister knows—containing words and phrases that the Minister does not know about. The Minister has signed them. His civil servants did not know, and if he had asked them, they would have told him. The problem was that he did not ask them—and that was subject to negative procedure.

I am not asking much. This is a small request, and I hope that the Minister can meet it.

Mr. Snape

What the debate has lacked in numbers it has more than made up for in its quality. I have listened carefully to the four contributions and anyone who was impartial—none of us is—would have been swayed one way or the other listening to each speech in turn.

I shall consider the amendments in reverse order. The cricketing metaphor has already been used and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) proposes a long-stop piece of legislation. I listened carefully to what he had to say and was fascinated by his view that the amendment would only be used, if it became part of the Bill, in about one in every 100 cases.

I am not sure whether I can go along with that figure. I have known my hon. Friend for many years. A short time after he and I first entered the House he introduced me to some of the more bewildering complexities of orders and praying against them. After a comparatively short time here, he demonstrated a labyrinthine knowledge of some of those procedures.

Knowing my hon. Friend and his diligence, I suspect that, if we accepted his amendment, he would use each and every opportunity to have a debate—I do not blame him for that—although he tells us that that would arise only in one in every 100 cases.

Occasionally such matters can lead to competition between hon. Members—sometimes between hon. Members on the same side of the House. Having set that precedent, with the great knowledge which I know that he possesses, one could envisage that other hon. Members would also use the procedure. Far from being one in 100 cases, it would become accepted custom and practice.

Although I admired the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South pushed his amendment, if we accepted it, the loophole that it would open would soon widen into a window of opportunity and, given the amount of use that it would get, the wall on that side of the building would fall down.

Mr. Cryer

I think that my hon. Friend has attributed to me more of a spirit of inquiry than I justify. In 1991, about 1,750 instruments were laid before the House and a tiny proportion—perhaps 200—were under the affirmative procedure, but there were only 100 prayers from 650 Members of Parliament. I tabled only a handful. Based on that experience, my original claim that about one in 100 would be dealt with through that procedure is right.

Mr. Snape

My hon. Friend does not care to tell us what percentage of the 100 he tabled. I guess that it was more than one.

Mr. Cryer

That is quite right—it was more than one.

5.45 pm
Mr. Snape

If he tabled more than one, it has blown a hole in his argument that it will only be one in 100. He knows full well that all too often such matters generate controversy when other proposed work does not.

I invite the House to look at today's Order Paper, which contains a considerable number of such Bills. Most of them would be covered by the proposals in this legislation and many of them prayed against. I do not single out one and I am sure that the names of those of my hon. Friends which appear on the blocking motions appear there because those hon. Members are concerned about the scheme involved.

Let us take as an example a non-railway Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who represents a large part of my home town of Stockport, has a deep and abiding interest in the Alliance and Leicester (Girobank) Bill, and that is why his name appears on the blocking motion. The fact that our procedures allow so many railway Bills to be blocked at present does not fill me with confidence that the acceptance of some of these amendments would speed up our procedures.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I remind my hon. Friend that, soon after I entered the House in 1974, he told me of the brilliant Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which he served, and suggested that I might like to take his place on it. I have served on it ever since. The ability to question statutory instruments does not mean that they always have to be questioned, just as the ability to table a blocking motion does not mean that legislation always has to be debated. It may well mean that the promoters will want to talk and to give assurances—just as, if one tables a prayer against an order and starts to make a fuss about having a debate on it, Ministers are sometimes prepared to be helpful to Members to avoid a debate. It is not necessarily a question of having a debate, but prayers allow Members to apply pressure.

Mr. Snape

There was no doubt that I was wise to give up my place on the Statutory Instruments Select Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. It has allowed him to display the remarkable expertise that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South display with great regularity in the House. The fact that I so willingly relinquished my position on that Committee to him explains why he can run rings around me and many other hon. Members when it comes to procedural matters.

While accepting everything that he has just said about the importance of getting Ministers in any Government to reconsider proposals—especially when, in the opinion of the hon. Member concerned, they might adversely affect the interests of his or her constituents—we are talking about finding some method of dealing with certain legislation.

As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moale) rightly pointed out, railway legislation regularly comes before the House only as an accident of history. Uniquely, railway matters—even supposedly less controversial railway matters—have to come before the House. I am told that the purpose of the legislation—or at least the Government said it was—

Mr. Spearing

Ah!

Mr. Snape

I shall reply to my hon. Friend's scepticism in a moment.

I am told that the legislation was intended to put different modes of transport on an equal footing. I know that that philosophy unites all Labour Members. Many of us have long felt that the railway industry has been unduly penalised because of those procedures. Delays have been regularly inflicted upon railway projects because of the time that they take to clear the hurdles of the House.

The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), is not a long-stop amendment, to continue the cricketing parlance. He has moved all the fielders to one place and they are all lining up. If the first seven miss the ball, there are still a few more behind them to stop it. I do not see any purpose to the Bill, if each and every case comes back to the House in the way that my hon. Friend outlined. I am more attracted to new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, whereby, should the Secretary of State overrule the results of an inquiry, an order will be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. Again, although I see the merit in that, it would outweigh some of the advantages gained from transferring legislation on railways from the House to inquiries at a local level.

Mr. Spearing

My hon. Friend passed rapidly over my amendment. However, does he agree that its advantage would be that, instead of debating a controversial Bill for up to six hours on Second Reading and spending four or more weeks in Committee, which would engage many hon. Members in long hours, we could have a debate of an hour and a half only on the Floor of the House? Surely, from my hon. Friend's point of view, that would be a great advantage.

Mr. Snape

No, it would not. The purpose of the Bill is to take many of those matters from the House and to put them where many of us believe they should be discussed —at a local inquiry. My hon. Friend's amendment would bring them all back again.

Mr. Spearing

No, it would not.

Mr. Snape

My hon. Friend says no, but he knows that it would, because—I say this with utmost respect—he is one of the most artful users of the rules of this House. He is as artful as my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish and for Bradford, South.

The discussion of procedures relating to railway legislation should be transferred to where I believe it properly belongs—inquiries at local level. Therefore, the amendments and the new clause should be resisted.

Mr. McLoughlin

I am not sure whether I should intrude on the private grief of the Opposition.

In Committee, we had many interesting debates on how to go forward most effectively. I wish to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and the Opposition Front-Bench team for their constructive approach. I also extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). This is an important Bill and we are making numerous changes. I hope that the constructive approach that we took in Committee allayed some of the fears of hon. Members.

I cannot recommend the amendments and new clause 1 to the House. New clause I would mean that every order made under clause 1 or clause 3 where the Secretary of State had modified the inquiry inspector's recommendation would have to be laid before Parliament, however small the modification, and even if the modification had been the subject of a further inquiry. That would introduce an added—and I would suggest unwelcome—procedure into the decision-making process for railway and tramway schemes which does not apply to highways projects or to general planning applications. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). It would introduce further delay and uncertainty into a procedure which railway and tramway promoters —and indeed some Labour Members—already regard as potentially very protracted.

Amendment No. 66 was tabled by all the Labour hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. It refers to "unreasonable delay", but I shall explain why I think that it would add to that delay.

I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has in mind, in particular, schemes of national significance where, following an inquiry, the inspector recommended major changes which, if accepted, would conflict with the terms of the parliamentary approval. I agree that, as clause 9 is currently drafted, the Secretary of State might be tempted to reject the inspector's recommended changes, but I think that amendment No. 86, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, provides a more satisfactory and practicable solution to that point. However, the new clause would affect all orders—not just those of national significance.

Decisions on transport developments are seldom clear-cut. Judgments have to be made which weigh, on the one hand, the impact of the scheme on people and the environment at the local level and, on the other, the wider public benefits which the scheme might bring. The inspector, having heard all the evidence at an inquiry, will have a view and will reflect this in his recommendation. In cases where the arguments for and against the development are finely balanced, the inspector might, in his report, recommend that the scheme should proceed subject to certain conditions and modifications. Equally, he might recommend rejection, but in terms which would provide a basis for the Secretary of State to reach a different view if he concluded that more weighting should be given to the wider public good.

Under the proposed new clause, if the Secretary of State decides to turn down the order, perhaps against the recommendation of the inspector, Parliament would be able to do nothing about it. On the other hand, if he makes the order but in so doing rejects, say, certain conditions recommended by the inspector or imposes others, the order would have to be laid before Parliament. Consequently, the effect of the new clause would be to upset the careful balance we have sought to achieve between the interests of promoters and of objectors in favour of the latter.

As I have said, the new clause would introduce further delay—as much as five months in certain circumstances —and uncertainty. If an order were successfully prayed against in either House, it would be lost. The applicant would then have to start the process all over again because the Secretary of State would not be able to modify an order that he had already made. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish might say that this would be unlikely to arise, but I cannot see what purpose the parliamentary scrutiny would serve if it did not provide the opportunity to change the Secretary of State's decision.

I remind the House that the Secretary of State is required under clause 14(2) to give reasons for his decision on an order. The inspector's report would be published when the order is made, so the Secretary of State would be bound to say why he had departed from the inspector's recommendation. Moreover, his decision would be open to challenge in the courts.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked whether the level of fines should be extended. He is an expert in such matters and I am sure that he is already aware that hundreds of byelaws that create criminal offences are made by the Government and local authorities which are not subject to parliamentary supervision. I do not believe that we are talking about a great extension of such powers.

Mr. Cryer

Under the provisions of paragraph 12 of schedule 1, some delegation of powers is allowed to virtually any body that is not democratically elected. We are democratically elected—we are soon to be embroiled in an election—and so are local authorities. I understand why local authorities have such delegated powers, and rightly so, but at least there is an element of accountability. That is why I am concerned about paragraph 12.

Mr. McLoughlin

A balance must be struck, and I believe that the orders would have an important effect.

This has been a good debate, but I cannot accept the new clause and the amendments. I ask the House to reject them.

6 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I am a little disappointed by what the Minister says. Although he gave us a fair number of concessions in Committee. I hoped that he would have picked one of our amendments to give us a little more parliamentary control.

I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who served on the Committee, does not want us to rush to a vote at this moment, but I want to explain to the Government that we are still not totally happy with the question of parliamentary control. Perhaps in the other place their lordships may feel that they should try to insist on the rights not only of this House but of the House of Lords.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) suggested that a general election is imminent, I hope that the Bill will get through before that happens. I realise that the schedule will be tight if the House of Lords is to come up with amendments, but it is important that it considers the questions of parliamentary scrutiny and where Ministers make different decisions from those of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend said that he was not anxious to press the matter to a vote. I think that we should divide on the new clause, because the Minister would unfortunately not even accept my more moderate suggestion that any instrument should be subject to negative procedure. It is therefore important that my hon. Friend should consider the need for a gesture, in the form of a vote, to show that some of us are unhappy that some parliamentary accountability is not being retained in the clause.

Mr. Bennett

I assure my hon. Friend that I am working in that direction. It is a little ironic that many of our colleagues are at this moment meeting the parliamentary Labour party to consider next week's business, and I suspect that some Conservative Members are in a meeting of the 1922 Committee. It will not be particularly popular with hon. Members in either of those meetings if their proceedings are interrupted by a Division on the Floor of the House. It may be to their convenience, therefore, if I say a few more words on the matter before I press it to a vote. The slight irony of the matter is that, when dealing with private Bills, I must often speak from these Benches at considerable length to delay the procedure.

Mr. McLoughlin

I understand how the hon. Gentleman is trying to facilitate the business of the House. However, may I draw his attention to the fact that, if the Secretary of State were to make different kinds of orders, he would be required under clause 14(2) to give the reasons for his decision. The inspector's report would obviously be published once the order was made and the Secretary of State would be bound to say why he had departed from the inspector's recommendations. His decision would then be challengeable.

As for the idea that we are somehow taking the issue out of the domain of Parliament, the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) do not need me to explain to them how they can bring matters to the attention of the House, hold up business and make their views well known. Moreover, I am sure that they are capable of advising any other hon. Member about that.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister used that argument in Committee. There are all sorts of techniques that hon. Members can use to draw attention to problems. Yesterday, when we heard the Secretary of State for the Environment speaking, one or two of us wondered whether the Mace would be removed.

Mr. Cryer

He was on Ecstasy.

Mr. Bennett

Although perfectly legitimate devices for drawing attention to grievances or problems exist, there are advantages in following rules and regulations that encourage and facilitate debates, rather than having to look for ways of breaking rules and regulations to draw attention to a problem. We are asking the Minister to give us a natural channel of rules and regulations to work through, rather than having to look for extra-parliamentary activities.

I could cry, "I spy strangers," at this point and create a vote. If that is done in the middle of Prime Minister's Question Time, it attracts more publicity to an issue than many hours of debate in a statutory instruments committee. I understand that there are plenty of ways to draw attention to a problem, but let us try to do it properly.

An even more worrying remark that the Minister made was that the Government were taking matters away from Parliament and giving them to local inquiries. A Minister would then have the power to override a local inquiry. He then said that, if that Minister did not do his work properly, the power would be given to the courts. I resent the idea that Parliament—the high court of the land—should hand over decisions to the judiciary. I do not wish to spin out the debate, even for a minute or two, discussing the merits of our judges, but I have more trust in most Tory Ministers than I have in most judges.

Mr. McLoughlin

I know about that concern, because it was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford—

Mr. Cryer

South.

Mr. McLoughlin

I shall get it right by the end of the night.

I agree that that would be the last recourse that any hon. Member would take, but any Minister considering changing the order would bear that in mind. The responsibility would not stop at the Minister, because he would be challengeable elsewhere.

Mr. Bennett

I thank the Minister for that information. However, to send a marker to the House of Lords, it is important that we divide on one group of amendments, and it would be far simpler to divide on new clause 1. The House of Lords may prefer to return to one of the other amendments, but I hope that it will pursue the Government on that.

Mr. Moate

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the specific point that I tried to address to him? Does he concede that a road inquiry can be just as controversial —probably more so because there are more of them—than a railway inquiry? If the new clause argues that a negative procedure of the House should apply to any situation where a Minister changes or overrules an inspector's decision, why does not the hon. Gentleman apply exactly the same argument to highways, for instance?

Mr. Bennett

I would second that as a proposal if the hon. Gentleman would care to table it as an amendment. Most highway orders are done by statutory instrument so it would be merely a question of making statutory instruments for highway matters subject to negative procedure, where there is a difference between what the inspector recommends and what the Secretary of State intends to do. The occasions when the Secretary of State decides to modify an order are rare and there is a strong reason for insisting that this decision should be accountable to Parliament.

Mr. Spearing

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great distinction between the compulsory purchase of highways, buildings or plant and the creation of a transport system, where power as well as property are involved, and where the making of law as distinct from the purchasing of property is a great feature? Moreover, much of the legal infrastructure for policing and control already exists with regard to highways, whereas in any transport system it must be specific.

Mr. Bennett

Yes, I accept that.

I hope that the two meetings to which I referred are now over and that we can divide on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 173.

Division No. 89] [6.08 pm
AYES
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Leighton, Ron
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) McFall, John
Bellotti, David Madden, Max
Benton, Joseph Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Meale, Alan
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Carr, Michael Nellist, Dave
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Rooney, Terence
Corbett, Robin Salmond, Alex
Cox, Tom Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Dalyell, Tam Skinner, Dennis
Dixon, Don Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Fearn, Ronald Spearing, Nigel
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Fisher, Mark Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Fyfe, Maria Vaz, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A. Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Gordon, Mildred Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Tellers for the Ayes
Haynes, Frank Mr. Bob Cryer and
Howells, Geraint Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
Kirkwood, Archy
NOES
Adley, Robert Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Alexander, Richard Brazier, Julian
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Bright, Graham
Amos, Alan Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Arbuthnot, James Buck, Sir Antony
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Burns, Simon
Atkinson, David Burt, Alistair
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Butler, Chris
Batiste, Spencer Butterfill, John
Beggs, Roy Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Bellingham, Henry Carrington, Matthew
Bendall, Vivian Cash, William
Benyon, W. Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Biffen, Rt Hon John Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Blackburn, Dr John G. Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Boswell, Tim Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Bowis, John Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cran, James Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Mitchell, Sir David
Davis, David (Boothferry) Moate, Roger
Dunn, Bob Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Eggar, Tim Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Emery, Sir Peter Morrison, Sir Charles
Fallon, Michael Moss, Malcolm
Farr, Sir John Needham, Richard
Favell, Tony Neubert, Sir Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy Nicholls, Patrick
Fishburn, John Dudley Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Forman, Nigel Oppenheim, Phillip
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Paice, James
Fox, Sir Marcus Patnick, Irvine
French, Douglas Pawsey, James
Gale, Roger Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Sir George Powell, William (Corby)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair Price, Sir David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Riddick, Graham
Gorst, John Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Gregory, Conal Roe, Mrs Marion
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Ground, Patrick Rost, Peter
Hague, William Rowe, Andrew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith Sackville, Hon Tom
Hannam, Sir John Sayeed, Jonathan
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Shaw, David (Dover)
Hayward, Robert Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Shelton, Sir William
Hill, James Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hordern, Sir Peter Sims, Roger
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Hunter, Andrew Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Irvine, Michael Speed, Keith
Jack, Michael Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Jackson, Robert Stevens, Lewis
Janman, Tim Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Jessel, Toby Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Summerson, Hugo
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Tapsell, Sir Peter
Kilfedder, James Taylor, Sir Teddy
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Kirkhope, Timothy Thorne, Neil
Knapman, Roger Thurnham, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Tredinnick, David
Knox, David Trotter, Neville
Lawrence, Ivan Twinn, Dr Ian
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Viggers, Peter
Lightbown, David Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Waller, Gary
Lord, Michael Warren, Kenneth
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard Wells, Bowen
McCrindle, Sir Robert Wheeler, Sir John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Widdecombe, Ann
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Wilkinson, John
McLoughlin, Patrick Wilshire, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick Wood, Timothy
Mans, Keith Yeo, Tim
Maples, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Tellers for the Noes:
Mates, Michael Mr. John M. Taylor and
Maude, Hon Francis Mr. Sydney Chapman.
Meyer, Sir Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to