HL Deb 15 June 1988 vol 498 cc345-6

8.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move to resolve, That the order be annulled.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I propose in moving the first Motion also to speak to the second Motion. I am sure that this will be for the convenience of the House.

These are rather unusual Motions. They invite your Lordships to annul two orders that had been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Uncharitable people—who I am sure exist only outside this House—might perhaps think that it is an example of political back-stabbing. They might suppose that I am so envious of the considerable achievements of my right honourable friend that I am trying to undo them in any way that I can. I can assure you that this is not the case. I am behind my right honourable friend in everything that he does, and in the same way he is in agreement with these Motions.

The truth is less dramatic. These are two orders that were made last year under the Harbours Act 1964. One establishes the Harwich Dock Company as a statutory harbour authority with powers to appoint a harbour master, make by-laws, and levy harbour dues. It also gives the company powers to extend its long-established dock facilities in Harwich Haven. The other order is a revision order relating to the Harbour of Newport, Isle of Wight, where the Medina District Council is the harbour authority. It adds to the powers of the council to maintain and manage the harbour, and also has the effect of excluding a small creek in Newport, known as the Western Creek, from the statutory harbour area.

After public inquiries into both these orders to hear objections to them, my right honourable friend and I judged that the orders are desirable in themselves. That is why they were made. But some of the objectors persisted in their objections, so the orders have gone to special parliamentary procedure. It then came to light that unfortunately they were made with technical errors in the wording of the commencement provisions. The effect of these errors is that the orders as made will not come into force. In the circumstances, the best thing we could do is to invite your Lordships' House to annul them.

The effect of annulment will be to go back to that stage in the statutory procedure at which the orders were originally made. It is then our intention immediately to remake them in correct form. Notice of the making would be given to the objectors, and it would be open to them, as before, to maintain their objection if they wish and so secure that they undergo special parliamentary procedure.

I am aware that this has caused inconvenience, delay and some extra expense to the applicants for the order, the Harwich Dock Company and Medina District Council. My apologies are due to them, and since they have taken all this with good humour and forbearance, I must thank them also. I beg to move.

Moved, That the order be annulled.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am sure that the House will appreciate the openness of the statement which has been made by the Minister. It gives me great satisfaction that for once we can vote for the annulment of an order. Although we often have a debate on the prayer to annul, we never vote on something which has been passed in the other place. However, we can do that quite readily tonight. It makes a change.

There is no question of apportioning blame. We know that eventually the Minister concerned must take responsibility. However, it is good that we have a procedure whereby an error of this kind can be found before great expense is involved. That would happen if an order went through and the error was found subsequently, and that would involve considerable legal costs.

The Minister said that objectors would be able to object to the new orders. If those objectors were people who had objected to the original orders and extra expense was therefore involved, would they he compensated for the extra expense? That would seem to be a fair procedure to adopt.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his understanding. I hope that this Motion will not come to a vote this evening. As concerns the noble Lord's question about expenses of objectors or petitioners, we can consider that point; but I cannot make a promise. The extra expense that is likely to be involved is minimal because all that needs to be done is to put in the same petition as before. I shall certainly undertake to look at it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.