HC Deb 17 May 1993 vol 225 cc115-29

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 April], That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question again proposed.

10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones)

The motion before the House is a technical one. The question is whether an amendment made to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in another place should be referred to the Examiner. The opportunity for the House to consider the amendment will be at a later stage.

This motion simply enables the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to consider whether the private business Standing Orders of the House have been complied with in respect of an amendment made by the Select Committee of another place. The amendment, contained in clause 22 of the Bill, relates to the land drainage powers of local authorities. It provides the clarification of these powers requested by a Select Committee of this House.

We agreed the terms with Cardiff city council, the land drainage authority most directly affected, and no one petitioned against the amendment when it was advertised in the press. It found favour with the Select Committee in another place, which amended the Bill accordingly. That is why we have this procedural motion on the Order Paper.

10.23 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Has the Minister already sat down? Does that mean that he is not willing to answer an inquiry? I will put it in the form of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. has the Minister finished?

Mr. Gwilym Jones

indicated assent.

Mr. Rowlands

We have been treated to a disgraceful performance from the Minister by any standards. He rattled through a few nonsensical remarks and is not willing—[Interruption.] It is a technical matter, but it has certain implications—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Will the House please settle down? I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rowlands

From the beginning, the generic titles of the Bills that have added up to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bills have created various procedural and constitutional problems. This Bill is unprecedented because it began as a private Bill with hybrid concepts and became a public Bill after some considerable time. Therefore, we are dealing with an unprecedented case and we deserve rather more from the Minister.

We are perfectly entitled to probe what the technical motion means for the procedures of the House and the rights of hon. Members and, more important, the rights of the individuals affected by the Bill. From the beginning, bizarre procedural problems have arisen with such Bills, especially this public one. We now face another.

One of the problems is that, from the start, we have been in uncharted waters. Tragically —I hope that my hon. Friends agree—the passing of the Transport and Works Act 1992 after the introduction of the Bill meant that most such issues would in future rightly be dealt with by a local public inquiry. We have not been allowed to have that right; we have not been allowed to have a local public inquiry under the 1992 Act because the Bill started its progress before the Act came into force. We are left with a series of bizarre procedures, including this motion. The procedure means that we must now refer to the Examiners an amendment which has not yet been agreed by the other place and which has not gone through all the procedures in the other place.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)

Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that in Committee we considered whether the amendment would re-hybridise the Bill? I am sure that that is a partial explanation for the brevity of the Minister's speech. In Committee, he was asked: Does the Minister accept that the amendment will in effect re-hybridise the Bill? The Minister replied: No sir. I urge the Committee not to pursue the amendment. The Minister will have to eat his words tonight, which is why he kept them to a minimum.

Mr. Rowlands

My hon. Friend has again demonstrated the Minister's appalling performance. My hon. Friend's research in this respect is always assiduous. I had not spotted that reference, although I was a member of the Committee. However, I remember a number of probing arguments in Committee about the procedural aspects of the Bill. The Minister made bland and minimal speeches, as he has this evening. We are entitled to feel angry about the way in which the Minister introduced the motion.

We are asked to send to the Examiners an amendment that has been tabled in another place to a Bill that has not yet completed all its proceedings in another place. The other place may decide that it wants to send the amendment to the Examiners. Why should we decide in a Pavlovian reaction that because the other place decides to refer the amendment to the Examiners, we should do the same simultaneously?

As I understand parliamentary procedures, the amendment could be lost on Report in the other place and it could be amended at any subsequent stage in the other place. Although the Bill has not completed all its stages in the other place, we are being asked to refer the amendment to the Examiners. We can rightly object on principle to the notion that we should act in a Pavlovian fashion.

What precedents are there for behaving in such a fashion? There is one in my memory—the Channel Tunnel Bill. The only time such a motion was moved was during the proceedings on that Bill. It is worth reminding the House what happened on the previous occasion when this procedural device was adopted.

A Transport Minister came to the Dispatch Box in the 1985–86 Session and rattled through the same nonsense we have just heard. The words were almost identical. We were told that the motion was nothing more than a technical, procedural motion. We were told that it would enable the amendment to be referred to the Examiners who, in due course, would report back. We were told that the amendment would then be referred to the Standing Orders Committee and that everyone should happily accept the process.

I remind hon. Members, especially those who were not here at the time, what happened when the procedure was used previously. A Minister moved the motion in terms identical to those used by the Minister today. On that occasion, the Minister told the House that the motion was technical and that it did not matter very much. He said that the substance of the issue was irrelevant and that the motion simply allowed the matter to be examined to discover whether it had offended our Standing Orders.

That kind of explanation is a fiction because we all know that on this occasion the alteration in the other place has already affected and offended our Standing Orders. If the Minister had been willing to allow an intervention, he would have had to admit that it cannot be argued that, as a result of the change in the other place, our Standing Orders will not be complied with. Therefore, the Standing Orders Committee will have to report to us on the matter.

The last precedent was serious because we were told by a Minister that the procedure was innocuous. However, the Standing Orders Committee reported that the amendment did not comply with our Standing Orders and actually recommended that we should not dispense with our Standing Orders. Five days after the last occasion when such a motion was moved, the House was invited to overrule the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee and, after a vote, the decision of the Standing Orders Committee was overruled. The Government rode roughshod over a specific recommendation from our own Standing Orders Committee.

Irrespective of where we stand in relation to the argument about the Cardiff bay barrage, we should be squeamish about that last precedent. I tried to obtain one simple assurance from the Minister. If the Examiners find in respect of this motion—as I suspect that they must—that the change in the other place means that it does not comply with our Standing Orders, and if the matter then goes to the Standing Orders Committee and that Committee finds as it did in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill—that it did not comply, and also did not recommend that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with—will the Minister assure us that he and the Government will not try to override the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee?

As the Minister refused to allow me to obtain that simple assurance, will he give us that assurance now? Way back in 1987, the House was bamboozled by a Minister who said that the issue did not matter, but the Government then came back to the House and refused to accept the Committee's recommendation.

We object strongly to the cheap and silly way in which the Minister introduced the motion. He refused to allow me to intervene to seek that simple assurance. I invite the Minister to intervene in my speech and assure me that the Government will not do what they did in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill, which is the only precedent that we have, and that the Government will not try to override any recommendations from the Standing Orders Committee?

The Minister either does not know or he does not wish to comment. Irrespective of the argument, we are not willing to be treated to such silly and petty behaviour from the Minister. Therefore, we must be concerned and squeamish about the exercise of such a procedure in this way, given that we have only one precedent and that not a happy one.

I was interested to read the debates on the last occasion when this issue arose. There were two debates. In the first debate, a number of hon. Members raised objections to the motion. They decided that the rights of individuals should not be overridden by a procedure of the kind that we have been asked to accept. The only vote that took place on such a motion was in the 1987 session—I apologise for not being there for that vote, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was present and voted against the motion—as did the Labour Deputy Chief Whip because, I assume, he sensed the constitutional or procedural issues involved.

Subsequently, when the House was faced with a recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee that it should not dispense with the Standing Orders relating to private Members Bills, and the Government sought to override the recommendation, there was a substantive debate about the rights of individuals. Indeed, if one reads that debate one genuinely senses that the House was expressing the view of many affected parties—some would have benefited but some would not.

In the case of the channel tunnel, the debate centred on the position of Mr. Patterson. Hon. Members from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) spoke with great force and passion about the rights of the individual, which could be overridden by procedural devices of the sort that we have been asked to agree to on the nod. For that reason, I object to the motion. The way in which the Minister introduced it was disgraceful.

One of the tragedies of the debate is that, since Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill, the House has passed legislation which would have allowed many of the arguments to be raised at the public inquiry and local inquiry levels. There are public expenditure consequences that the House should rightly debate. I should like the Minister to tell us whether a project such as the channel tunnel would have been subject to the Transport and Works Act 1992 if it had been in force.

We have had to act as a quasi-public inquiry, although such issues should properly have been heard and debated at a local public inquiry. If there were amendments of the sort that we face today, the Minister would have required a public inquiry at which people's rights could be protected cheaply and effectively rather than through the elaborate procedure of a private Bill.

It is sad that the people involved have not had the benefit of a public inquiry. Some Labour Members argued for an inquiry in a debate on a major amendment to the Bill. We said that such issues should be subject to a form of local public inquiry. If I remember correctly, we argued that case forcefully. As a result of not having that procedure, we are left in the bizarre position of having to examine an amendment which has been carried in another place.

What is worse, the procedure on the channel tunnel created a precedent in that, if the Standing Orders Committee recommends that we should not dispense with Standing Orders Nos. 10 and 11, the Government will come back and try to override that recommendation, as happened in 1987.

For those reasons, therefore, we have every right, first, to object to the manner in which the Minister introduced the motion, and secondly, justifiably to express the queasiness that we should all feel about the bizarre prodedural devices being used to railroad the Bill through.

10.39 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)

It is evident to all of us that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is on trial, if I may speak figuratively, in the proceedings tonight. As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), the Minister claimed in the Standing Committee that the amendment would not rehybridise the Bill. It is perhaps not out of order for me to make it clear where in the proceedings the Minister said that.

The Minister briefly referred to the Select Committee in his extraordinarily short and deficient introduction of the motion. It was not worthy of a Minister who expected to have anything other than a quick reshuffle this summer. The Select Committee had to defend the case that was made in accordance with its guidelines. The Select Committee made a recommendation on its final day on 20 February 1992. It said that there was a problem with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in respect of the powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991.

The Committee said that there was a problem that would have to be dealt with either in Standing Committee or in the other place. When something comes before the House, it is obviously better for it to be dealt with by the House. The opportunity to do that was in the Standing Committee on 2 July last year. It was not taken, because an undertaking was given by the same Minister who introduced the motion with extraordinary, if understandable, brevity. I suppose that if he was from the far east, he would perhaps have come to the House and fallen on his ceremonial sword.

The motion says in effect that the Minister accepts that he was completely wrong. I see the Secretary of State trying to nod some words of encouragement to his junior Minister. Perhaps the junior Minister will respond to those encouraging words and defend his indefensible position. Perhaps he will explain how the words, "No Sir, it will not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill," are compatible with the motion before us. Is the Minister saying that he did not believe then that the amendment would rehybridise the Bill, but that he has since had further education and elucidation from Government legal advisers?

Was the Minister perhaps not using the 22-carat sincerity for which he is famous when he said, "No, Sir" to the Standing Committee last July? There must be some explanation. The Minister seems remarkably reluctant to give it—I put it no higher than that. [Interruption]" We seem to have a Whip who has departed from the Trappist vow by which he usually abides, even if we have a Minister who has taken the Trappist vow tonight, when he is not supposed to. I am not sure what is happening on the Government Front Bench tonight. Perhaps the Minister and the Whip have swapped jobs and we have not been told. Perhaps they have anticipated the summer reshuffle. We do not know.

Let us explain how the rehybridisation, which is a relatively rare parliamentary life form, comes about. It comes about largely as a result of the way in which the old private Bill meshed with the new Government-backed hybrid Bill. We have had four Bills on the Cardiff bay barrage—two private and two public. I shall not go through the whole history tonight—[HON. MEMBERS:"Go on."] I realise the public pressure on me to do exactly that, but I am sure that you would not find that to be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There is one point at which the second Bill and the fourth Bill—which we are discussing—mesh together. They offer the explanation for the procedure being used by the Government as they attempt to escape from the trap that they have made for themselves.

The second Bill was initiated in November 1988 as a private Bill and died in early 1991 when the Government failed to win the closure motion. The Bill was then replaced by a hybrid Government Bill. I shall not expand on the third Bill, as it did not last long—it was one of the specialities of Nicholas Bennett, who was then the hon. Member for Pembroke. He believed that Wales needed the smack of firm, if incompetent, government, and the Bill died immediately. But he did not learn his lesson and introduced a second public Bill in November 1991, which we are discussing tonight.

The problem was that the research on groundwater had not been completed in November 1991. The day after the private Bill died because the closure motion was defeated, the Secretary of State said that the 12 months' worth of research on groundwater which the Select Committee on the private Bill had determined should he undertaken would still be carried out for the hybrid Bill. The research into groundwater was conducted over 12 months—it could not be completed in less time, as the effect on groundwater of the rainfall variations over the four seasons needed to be studied.

When the four-season study—which the Secretary of State agreed that the Government would continue to commission even though the private Bill was dead—was complete, the Secretary of State said—this is the key issue —that his groundwater consultant, Mr. Roy Stoner, head of the institute of irrigation studies at Southampton university, would advise him on the accuracy of the groundwater engineering studies conducted on the orders of the Cardiff Bay development corporation for the then dead private Bill. Mr. Stoner's report was published in January 1992. I have a copy with me tonight; it makes interesting reading, although I do not agree with everything in it, and the Government have not agreed to fund everything in it.

The report was the carry-over—I use the word "carry-over" in the normal vernacular sense, not in the technical parliamentary sense-—or bridge between the private Bill and the Bill before us. The Roy Stoner report covered the recommendations of the Select Committee on the private Bill which had died. The Secretary of State had agreed to abide by that Committee's undertakings when he presented the hybrid Bill, the second version of which we are discussing tonight.

The text of the private Bill was submitted in November 1991, whereas Roy Stoner did not publish his work until 1992—two months later. It is because of that two-month gap that we are here tonight. If the Government had waited until January 1992, we would not have faced a problem, because the results of Roy Stoner's recommendations could have been incorporated into the Bill, which would then have been a clean, not a dirty, Bill.

That is a fair description of the way in which the Bill has been messed up by the desire of the Minister's predecessor, Nicholas Bennett, to hurry everything through. He wanted everything to be done at 100 mph, but not in order to comply with the procedures of the House. We must all be jealous of those procedures—there are times when we regard them as a bore and times when we know that they are important to the rights of ordinary individuals in this country who, for centuries, have had to petition the House if a Bill, whether hybrid or private, affects their property. That is the problem.

I realise that some people regard this story as complicated, but that is not our fault. It is the fault of Ministers. The Bill might be described as the parliamentary equivalent of "The Mousetrap". The idea was dreamed up by Lord Crickhowell, who I understand is the nephew of Agatha Christie. At any rate, we have been with the Bill in its various forms for five and a half years now; I know of no other Bill that has gone on that long. It has been an indescribable saga of incompetence on the part of the promoters and the Government. Tonight is another superb example of how the Government attempt to rush these measures through.

These are not only my views. The Chairman of the Select Committee came to the same conclusions, even though he is a Conservative Member. He now chairs the Defence Select Committee—

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt)

This is a filibuster.

Mr. Morgan

The Secretary of State is trying to limit the rights of hon. Members, even though he once spoke for more than four hours on the Mersey ferries legislation. If, when he has read Hansard, he still believes that he has evidence of tedious repetition on my part, he may feel that he should take the Chair when he approaches the Prime Minister to learn what job he is to get in the summer reshuffle.

The Chairman of the Select Committee, dealing with the problem of what happens when the ground is saturated and may or may not qualify for the definition of flooding in such a way as to give Cardiff city council a responsibility for dealing with it, said: This Committee is not entirely satisfied that the Bill in its present form covers that eventuality and we would hope, therefore, that the Bill would not proceed to the Statute Book without the position being much better clarified at a later stage of its progress through both Houses. Whether that is something best done by the Standing Committee of this House or by the Committee proceedings similar to this Committee which will take place in the other House. I leave the Promoters and those involved to judge. But I would put on record that the Committee is not entirely satisfied that the Bill as currently drafted gives adequate protection in those circumstances. My points this evening are, thus, the same as those made by the Chairman of the Select Committee. After having failed to get satisfacton from Mr. Sullivan, who was acting for the Government and for the development corporation, the Committee wanted to know how he would deal with the fact that the city council did not believe that it had powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to deal with saturation flooding.

For some reason, Mr. Sullivan did not concede the point there and then. But the Committee did not agree with him, as we read on page 385 of its report. They conferred and concluded that Mr. Sullivan was wrong and the country bumpkin lawyers from Cardiff city council were right, and the city council did not have the powers to deal with saturation flooding. Therefore, it would require an amendment. We can only speculate why the Committee did not accept that, but there was enormous pressure on the Committee from Government business managers to try to complete the Bill before the election. They knew that an election was pending.

The matter should have been dealt with there and then. The promoters should have come clean on 20 February and said, "The game is up. The city council is right and we concede that the saturation issue is not dealt with. The Land Drainage Act 1991 does not confer powers on local authorities to deal with such flooding and the only precedents for the definition of flooding to be used are those that are conventionally applied to over-the-ground flooding. Saturation flooding is an entirely different matter and will require an amendment to the Bill."

If that had been done and the promoters had acted without the pressure of an impending election, the Bill would have been rehybridised on 20 February 1992, 15 months ago, rather than now. I have already referred to the next opportunity for doing that, which was in the Standing Committee last July. That opportunity was not taken, not because the Standing Committee did not wish to take it but because the Minister gave an undertaking that his legal advice was still to the effect that the Land Drainage Act 1991 conferred such powers on Cardiff city council and, if it did not, it would not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill. We all knew he was wrong, and I think that he knew he was wrong, but he had to bluff his way through the Committee because the Government thought that it would be easier to deal with the matter in the other place. However, it has to be referred back here to our Standing Orders Committee.

We are debating the Bill tonight because the Minister did not take the opportunity to put the matter right in July in the Standing Committee and because the Select Committee was not hard enough with Government business managers because of pressure in the run-up to the election.

What are petitioners to make of this farrago of bungling and incompetence and lack of integrity in answering direct questions? We have to try to pick up the pieces by considering why, at this stage in the Bill's passage, we have to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee. Prior to debates on the Bill, people in Cardiff ask me, "Is the Bill now back in the House of Commons?" I say that it is not because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, the Bill is in the House of Lords. However, for a nanosecond tonight it has been magically transformed into a Commons measure again, only to be dispatched to the Examiners and probably to the Standing Orders Committee—depending on what the Examiners say.

It is a Commons motion tonight not because the House of Lords has asked us to debate it. The Lords do not make requests to this House and we do not make requests to them, but the practical effect is that the Lords have said, "Our Standing Committee has ruled that the amendment has the effect of rehybridising the Bill. That means that the Bill has not been advertised in the proper order before November 1991. The Commons may wish to consider that."

The Lords could have decided to consider it and that would not have caused us any problems, although one would still argue that the issue should have been dealt with much earlier by Government business managers. The Bill is now stuck halfway between the Lords Select Committee, which has completed its consideration, and has passed through the Standing Committee in the Lords which has rules that it is now rehybridised. It has not yet gone to the Lords equivalent of a Committee of the whole House. It has not had a Report stage or Third Reading; nor have we considered—nor will we be considering—the merits or demerits of the amendments.

This is simply a procedural motion. The other place has not made a request, so in effect we are being asked by the Government to take note of the "message" from the other place. We are being asked to condone the way that the Government refused to concede, in the Select Committee last year, that the Bill was being rehybridised. The Select Committee knew on the final day that it sat, as, indeed, the legal advisers to the promoters did before the general election was called on 20 February, that the Bill had to be rehybridised, but they wanted to do that at the latest stage possible so as to cause the least stir possible.

That brings up the question how jealous we should be of the rights of petitioners and of our rights, but the former most of all. If the Government had done their homework properly, after the Secretary of State's groundwater expert had given his advice, they would have known that the city council would need additional powers to slit trenches underneath—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. There is too much noise.

Mr. Morgan

If the Government had done their job properly, they would have known that Cardiff city council was right. It knows its business, it knows how the land drainage Acts work, and so it should have the powers to deal with saturation. People who use the parks of Cardiff and have houses near the river might think that the council would need to go into their back gardens and dig slit trenches across and under garden walls, fish ponds, bike sheds, tool sheds, greenhouses or whatever it might be. They might not like it, but the council would have the power to do it compulsorily, and that would be part of the package that would have to be accepted with the Bill.

Unfortunately, the Government wanted to do it the slippery way, saying, "Okay, we'll tell you the main part of the Bill now, but we will keep this back until la ter." They decided to do that initially because of their incompetence, having rushed drafting of the Bill in November 1991, and later because they did not dare admit, while the Bill was before the House, what a mistake they had made. They wanted to brass-neck it out, and said that such matters would be easier to deal with in the other place.

That is not a good advertisement for the rights of the House, in both its Select Committees and Standing Committees. Fewer procedures in the other place to deal with such matters mean fewer rights for petitioners. Members of the other place have fewer rights in respect of rehybridisation. That is not an argument for doing something there, unless one is a Government business manager of the old school—we may have a few of those here tonight.

Putting the order through the other place would not have required an instruction from the Floor of the House. One is required here, which is why we are debating the motion now. Had it been done properly, in this House and in time and in order, the package of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill would have been much fairer to the potential petitioners, who would have known what to expect.

The Minister made the point—perhaps the only one in that abbreviated introduction—that nobody petitioned against the Bill in the other place. The number of petitions against the Bill in the other place was enormous—10 more than in this place. There were 83 before the Commons Select Committee last summer; there were 93 before the other place earlier this year. That is what is known to the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation as "exhausted opposition". I understand that that is what he said on Radio 2 the other day. He also said that tenders were going out shortly. That is an unwise remark for any promoter of a private or hybrid Bill to make.

People should never presume about this House. The procedures of both Houses are based on the principle, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings", to paraphrase "Erskine May"—[Interruption]. If Damon Runyon had drafted "Erskine May", it would be, "It ain't over till the gracious lady signs." We do not take kindly to the attempt by the chairman of the corporation—a great friend and appointee of the Secretary of State—to presume that everything will proceed in the way he wants, despite the fact that there are still procedures to be followed and the rights of petitioners to be considered.

Obviously, there are times when we are in favour of a Bill and we think, "Let's get the whole thing over with; why are we fussing?" However, there are other times when our constituents are affected, so obviously we think differently. We must be sure that we do not condone bypass procedures, slack draftsmanship or Bills being drafted while the engineering studies are still under way. Indeed, the Secretary of State gave a commitment to the House about those studies. If, because of that, the Bill then comes to the House in a sloppy form, it must be put right by a backwoods procedure that means that petitioners—with the foreknowledge of the Government—can petition in only one House on certain aspects of the Bill.

I am sure that we all agree that, in principle, all petitioners should have the right to petition before both Houses of Parliament. If unexpected improvements are made to a Bill, of course we must accept that they will probably come halfway through the Bill's proceedings and can be dealt with only in the other place. However, in this case, the Government knew the details at the drafting stage, but still proceeded with the Bill, thereby ensuring that the petitioners would be heard in only one House rather than two. That was a matter of Government intent or of neglect of petitioners' rights.

Surely we should be jealous to protect those rights, whatever our views on the Bill. It is important to register the fact that we are not discussing the merits or demerits of the Bill.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great care. I can understand his criticism of the procedure that has brought us here tonight. However, I am not clear about the practical effect of what is happening. As I understand it, the motion is to refer to the Examiners an amendment that meets the concerns of the Select Committee, the Lords and the petitioners, including our colleagues on Cardiff city council, and that there is no petition against the amendment. If the procedural motion were to be passed, the amendment would then go to the Examiners.

Is my hon. Friend saying that that places us in a dilemma because we would either have to block an improvement to the Bill—which presumably we want—or appear to condone bad procedure? Is that the essence of my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Morgan

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Any improvement that is proposed late in the passage of a Bill inevitably places us in a dilemma, whatever our views about the barrage. We may say, "Procedurally this is a mess, but on the other hand, are we or are we not against this improvement requested by Cardiff city council?"

Tonight is not about the merits or demerits of the barrage or of Cardiff city council's amendments, which it should have been granted in the Select Committee a year last February. The Minister should have conceded in Standing Committee last year that it was necessary to incorporate them; he only agreed to incorporate them belatedly. Having denied in Committee that they would rehybridise the Bill, he agreed to incorporate them in another place.

We are not talking, either, about the merits or demerits of Cardiff city council acquiring powers, by amending the Land Drainage Act 1991, but about the bypass procedure being requested of the House tonight, which, in effect, condones the Government's bungling of the saturation flooding question.

The last thing that I want is to deny Cardiff city council the powers to deal with saturation flooding, but that should have been done in February 1992. The Government's business managers knew that all along, but acted in the way that they did because of the pressures of the upcoming election in February and because the procedures in another place for rehybridisation are easier than in this House, because they do not require an instruction from the Floor of the House.

Giving evidence to the Select Committee in January 1992, James Stewart Mackay said that it had all happened in a rush. People may ask, "With a Bill that has been before the House for five and a half years, how can anything be done in a rush?" But that is what occurred in November 1991. Mr. Mackay was asked by the Select Committee, "Are you saying that you actually gave this matter serious consideration in the city council?"—but the council did not have that much time to consider it. Nevertheless, it managed to get to the heart of the matter straight away. I believe that privately the Government's business managers also got to the heart of the matter straight away but did not want to tell this House.

The Government's business managers have not been straight with this House, and neither were they straight in pressurising the Standing Committee not to recommend that the Bill should incorporate the amendment to the Land Drainage Act 1991. They knew in their heart of hearts that that was required, but instead recommended that a correction should be made at a later stage. That later stage was reached in another place, when it should have been dealt with by the Standing Committee last July. The Minister has been shy about offering his view on those matters tonight, and obviously the Government did not do their homework.

The effect of not accepting the amendment tonight would, as far as one can tell, be relatively modest. It would not, I believe, kill the improvements. I should be happy to be corrected, if the Minister wants to rise from his torpor. The effect of the matter not going to the Standing Orders Committee now would be that we would allow the message from another place to rest on the table for the time being. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that.

The other place could then proceed, as it could have done when its Select Committee reported to its Standing Orders Committee that the effect would be to rehybridise the Bill. It would then go before a Committee of the whole House in another place, and there could be a Report stage and Third Reading. It would then return to this House and be referred to the Standing Orders Committee by the Examiners, if it was felt that the change had rehybridised the Bill.

It is just a question whether we are happy for the Bill briefly to have a parallel life in both Houses. That is what we are discussing tonight. It is acceptable if we emphasise the fact that Cardiff city council has been proved right, and requires additional powers, contrary to what the promoters said in the Select Committee. I believe that they conceded the point to the city council within half an hour of the end of its sitting. That is not a very happy set of circumstances.

It could be said that allowing the motion to be passed would mean condoning this way of doing things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney implied, the Government business managers will get their way anyway, regardless of the rights of petitioners. It is the "crime pays" argument. Legislative crime pays: it is possible to bluff one's way through a Standing Committee, as the Minister does by saying "No, Sir," when he should have said "Yes, Sir." I hope that a suitable opportunity will arise for him to tell us why he said that this development would not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill.

The silence is deafening. If Ministers who cannot defend themselves choose to remain silent, we can all read into it whatever we wish. Is the Minister willing to accept that he was uttterly, miserably wrong when he said "No, Sir" in July last year?

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)

Answer.

Mr. Morgan

Does the Minister now wish us to pretend that that did not happen—that he was not there? Did the Eskimos take over for a day?

Mr. Davies

Answer.

Mr. Morgan

Did a doppelganger or lookalike turn up in Committee on the day concerned? [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. There are too many seated interventions, and there have been one or two private conversations as well.

Mr. Morgan

However, we may take the view that the emphasis should be on ensuring that ministerial conduct is of the best, and on an unwillingness to condone slack, incompetent, bungling ministerial conduct. If we take that view, we must adopt a strong line. The Minister could, and should, have put matters right well before now: he should have taken the legislative consequences if the Bill had to be delayed by two, six or 12 months. That does not matter, as long as the rights of petitioners are dealt with fairly. People should know who will be affected when a Bill is presented to this House, as this Bill was in November 1991.

Everyone is supposed to know by a certain date—usually in November—which private and hybrid Bills are being presented, in what form they are being presented and whether they themselves will be affected. Some users of property in the affected area knew in November 1991 that the Bill would affect them; others did not. We are concerned tonight with those who did not.

The Minister said that no one had petitioned against this aspect of the Bill. I entirely accept that; but the people concerned did not petition because they had been placed in an impossible position. If they petition against the Bill in the other place when it has already been given half its consideration, they will be left in the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Anyone who petitions effectively against that aspect of the Bill in isolation—in isolation, because it has arisen at a late stage in the other place—will be faced with a dilemma: "Do I want an improvement in the Bill which, according to the city council, is necessary to prevent saturation flooding? If I do, I should like to have been told nevertheless. I should have been given the total package of the Bill, with all its consequences, when it was first presented."

That is the problem that we encounter when Bills are drafted incompetently. The material date for those who knew about the effects on their property to petition against the Bill was November 1991; but those whose property was affected by the clause that we are discussing did not know until earlier this year, when the Bill went to another place and the Government introduced their amendment. Their rights have been adversely affected. They were not told. It was not something that came like a bolt from the blue: it was already implicit in the work that the Government's own engineering adviser, Roy Stoner, was doing. It is not good enough to say, "We will make it up as we go along and put it right when we feel like it."

The Government have put themselves in a position of extraordinary weakness—as they did in May 1991, when they failed to get a closure; in July 1991, when the first hybrid Bill failed to get through the Standing Orders Committee; and again in November 1991, when the present Bill was drafted, two months before the Government's own engineering adviser, who could have told the Secretary of State what would need to be incorporated in the Bill if it was ever to reach a satisfactory state of engineering competence, finished his work. But engineering competence, as well as political competence, is something that we have learnt the hard way not to expect from the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.