HC Deb 25 July 1963 vol 681 cc1797-816
Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 15 and insert:
5 "(2) If in the case of any London borough, on representations in that behalf made to the Privy Council by the Minister, Her Majesty by the advice of Her Privy Council thinks fit to grant a charter of incorporation of the inhabitants of that borough, Her Majesty may by that charter—
(a) make provision with respect to the name of the borough; and
10 (b) subject to the provisions of this Act, make any provision such as may be made by virtue of section 131 of the Local Government Act 1933 by a charter granted under Part VI of that Act;
15 and any charter which purports to be grantee, in pursuance of the Royal prerogative and this subsection shall be deemed to be valid and within the powers of this Act and Her Majesty's prerogative and the validity thereof shall not be questioned in any legal proceeding whatever.
20 (2A) In the case of any London borough whose inhabitants are not incorporated by such a charter as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection, provision for their incorporation shall be made by the Minister by order (hereafter in this Act referred to as an "incorporation order") which may include any such provision as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection."

Read a Second time.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "in that behalf".

There is another Amendment in my name to the Lords Amendment, in the same line, to leave out "by the Minister".

My Amendment deals with the subsection which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has said, has been inserted by another place arising out of discussions that we had and points which the Opposition raised, supported, I think, by hon. Members opposite, when the Bill was going through its earlier stages.

I maintained at that time that if the Minister was telling us, as he was, that the new Greater London boroughs were county boroughs—he kept referring to the county borough as the nearest analogy to their nature that he could give—they should, wherever possible, have exactly the same rights as county boroughs in the rest of the country—that they should not be given rights more akin to metropolitan boroughs, but should, wherever possible, have rights akin to county boroughs.

As the Bill was originally drafted, these Greater London boroughs had not the right to obtain a Royal Charter. We now have in this Lords Amendment a provision whereby, if the Minister decided to make application to the Privy Council on behalf of one of the local authorities, such a charter within the provisions of the Act itself, it shall be deemed, as suggested at the time, rather as an extension of, than remaining under, the Royal prerogative. If the Minister makes an application, a local authority may be granted a charter. I am criticising this very different procedure from that which operates for any other borough in the county. The Minister must justify, if he can, why a different procedure should operate.

To go back to what I was saying earlier, we were suddenly told in the early stages of the Bill that the new London boroughs were akin to county boroughs. Any county borough or, indeed, any borough or urban district council can itself, with the support of the inhabitants, petition the Privy Council for a Royal charter. I understand that at that stage the Minister makes his submissions and views on the application known to the Privy Council. It would be a rather stupid urban district council, non-county borough or county borough which applied for such a petition without first sounding out the Minister on the matter. Nevertheless, in the rest of the country the smallest urban district council, if it feels it should have county borough status, can take the initiative for an application for a charter.

But here these boroughs with populations of from 250,000 to 300,000, or more, will not be allowed to do this. They have first of all to try to persuade the Minister, and then the Minister will make application to the Privy Council. This is a comparatively small point, but why are we going out of our way with these large authorities to put them in an inferior position to any urban district council, non-county borough or borough in the country?

There is a matter of status in this. If these London boroughs are to have the status of county boroughs, they should not be vexed with pettifogging little differences of status like this compared with smaller authorities in other parts of the country. If the Minister is prepared to admit, as apparently he is, because we have this Lords Amendment, that charters can be obtained in appropriate cases, there is no reason why the London boroughs should not be allowed to make application for them in the normal way instead of our instituting a special method of application in their case which is completely different from that of other boroughs in the country.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph)

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has been an ardent campaigner throughout the Bill for equal rights and equal dignity for the new bodies being created from what are now the outer and inner London boroughs.

The origin of the difference, so far as incorporation of the new boroughs being built out of the inner and outer London boroughs is concerned, really reflects the background of their original incorporation. The outer London boroughs happen to be so grouped in Schedule I that each group contains a borough which originally had a charter, and, consequently, it is possible that the new boroughs to be created out of those outer London boroughs can each expect to have a charter. The inner London boroughs, on the other hand, all have their origin by way of Statute, and as a charter is really appropriate only to incorporating a body which has never been incorporated before, the fact that they have been incorporated by Statute precluded them, as it seemed to the House at the time, from hoping to receive a charter. That is the origin of the difference from which the Amendment stems.

It is true that in another place an Amendment was moved to meet this criticism. I hope that the House will welcome its terms. The terms of the Amendment—I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's speech in a moment—are that if the Minister—that is, for the moment, me—represents accordingly to the Privy Council, the Privy Council may, if it thinks fit, advise Her Majesty to grant a charter to incorporate all the inhabitants of that borough. If the Privy Council does so advise and if Her Majesty accepts that advice, then the rest of the Amendment lays out what may be included.

It only remains for me now to assure the House that I intend to make such representations to the Privy Council for the House to be satisfied, I hope, that the Amendment, if accepted, will achieve what I think the House intended—that all the boroughs, whether built from the inner London or the outer London components, will qualify for consideration for the same treatment; namely, for charter treatment. It is, of course, not for me or the House to say what the Privy Council may see fit to advise or Her Majesty sees fit to do, but I undertake that, so far as I am concerned, the process shall be initiated by my representation, and equal representation for all the boroughs.

To come to the point in the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is true that this is a different procedure from that available all over the country to other unincorporated, unchartered bodies. It is true that all over the country it is open to an authority to petition on behalf of its people that a charter be granted. In such a case the Privy Council normally requires an investigation to occur, and an investigation is carried out normally by the Department closely concerned, which is my Department. Upon the result of that investigation, the Privy Council decides its advice and Her Majesty considers that advice.

That procedure is inappropriate here for two reasons. First, there is no existing authority to represent the London boroughs. They do not yet exist. They will exist, and at the moment that they exist the job of incorporation will be done, and that having been done will preclude a charter being given later.

Mr. Reynolds

Will there not be statutory committees, part of whose job will be to deal with matters in connection with incorporation or Royal charters?

Sir K. Joseph

This is not a matter of commonsense committee procedure. We are dealing with something which must be considered quite pedantically. There are different procedures in the rest of the country from those in London. The procedure all over the rest of the country provides for a petition being considered by the Privy Council which would then have an investigation to see whether that petition should be granted. That stage is quite unnecessary in this case. There is no need to consider whether a petition should or should not be successful.

Incorporation has been decided by this House. That is not the same question as whether or not there should be a charter. If there is no charter, then another form of incorporation by Ministerial order is provided as a stop-gap by this Amendment. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment, because it meets the point desired by the House at an earlier stage. There should be this difference in this case from normal practice in the country.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

The right hon. Gentleman has not seriously attempted to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). He admitted that what he was doing was pedantic. Indeed, I have never heard such a pedantic argument. We are arguing that the London boroughs should be put into precisely the same position with regard to getting a charter as any other borough in the country. When we discussed this matter in committee, he raised all kinds of difficulties and objections as to why it could not be done. He said that it would be impossible and incongruous for any London borough to hope to get a charter and that it would not be realistic for it to do so.

We argued that it was absurd that metropolitan boroughs should not be entitled to get a charter. The gist of our case was that it would produce and perpetuate an absurd difference between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs if the outer boroughs were able to obtain charters while the inner boroughs were deprived of the right. The right hon. Gentleman replied that it could not be done and he resisted our Amendment to that effect.

In the event, the right hon. Gentleman has been proved entirely wrong. His arguments have been shown to be completely fallacious. If he rereads the speech he made on that occasion, he will see that it is riddled with complete nonsense. Now another place has conceded the basis of our argument, namely, that the metropolitan boroughs should be placed on precisely the same status and equality as regards charters as any of the outer London boroughs.

We thought that this move was essential because otherwise there would be an invidious difference between the two. The right hon. Gentleman says today that in the case of outer boroughs the Bill has been so drafted that it happens that all of them will have charters already within their boroughs and, therefore, that no question arises. But, in view of that, it is all the more important that the metropolitan boroughs should be on precisely the same footing. There should be no question of any invidious distinctions between the two.

Sir K. Joseph

There is not.

Mr. Fletcher

There is, and there will be unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts my hon. Friend's Amendment. The difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood the position. He admitted that his arguments for resisting my hon. Friend's Amendment were purely pedantic. They were not only pedantic, but absurd to the point of being nonsensical.

Sir K. Joseph

Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may intervene at some length. I think that somehow we have got on to ground which is not soundly based. I will try to get us on to the right ground. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has achieved the substance of what he wants by my undertaking to make the representations that initiative procedure which will lead to all boroughs, both inner and outer, getting charters if the Privy Council and Her Majesty so decide.

The hon. Member then asked why his Amendment should not be accepted, for it would bring the London boroughs into line with procedure in the rest of the country. He was not making the point which is being put by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—that there is still a difference between the outer and inner London boroughs. The point that the hon. Member for Islington, North was on was that, where an urban or rural district seeks incorporation as a borough, the procedure is that the local authority may petition. If it does petition, the Privy Council conducts an investigation—normally by my Department—and as a result the Privy Council and, ultimately, Her Majesty, make a decision.

I have explained that that procedure would be inappropriate to the inner and outer London boroughs because very few were urban or rural districts and because, where a borough has been an urban or rural district, it is not a new authority which will not exist until a charter is granted. It is commonly agreed that these boroughs are to be incorporated. The ground is, therefore, not a difference of treatment between inner and outer boroughs, but whether there is justification for a difference between all the London boroughs and urban and rural districts throughout the country.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not know whether, in that long intervention, the right hon. Gentleman has tried to explain his pedantic argument to the satisfaction of other hon. Members, but he has not explained it satisfactorily to me, so I shall have to pursue the subject. The right hon. Gentleman seems to confuse incorporation with the granting of a charter. The two things are quite different. What my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) is saying—and I agree—was that any metropolitan borough should be allowed to move of its own volition towards a charter. It is only by giving it that statutory right that we will give it equality with any other borough. That is the point of our argumnt, which we put on Second Reading and in Committee.

We want the metropolitan boroughs to be in the same position to have, as of right, power to apply to the Privy Council for a charter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us the procedure, how one may or may not get a charter. It may depend on the good will of the Minister of the day. Every metropolitan borough should have the right to decide whether it is to be incorporated under this Measure or any other.

Is the right hon. Gentleman giving an assurance that, when the Bill becomes law, he will make an application, on behalf of all the metropolitan boroughs which will become incorporated under this Bill, for a royal charter? Is that what he is saying?

Sir K. Joseph

I am going wider than that. I am undertaking to make representations involved in the Amendment for all the boroughs, both inner and outer. There will be exactly the same representations for all of them.

Mr. Fletcher

I am very glad to have that assurance. That is something that is on the record. I assume that it binds successive Ministers.

Sir K. Joseph

The hon. Gentleman need not be too glad about this. The assurance was given on behalf of the Government in another place and I am repeating it.

Mr. Fletcher

It is all very well having an assurance in this House, and by a noble Lord in another place, but we have had so much experience in the last few years of Ministerial assurances being completely disregarded over and over again. That is one of the great complaints about the Government.

There have been so many assurances by Ministers subsequently repudiated that it is time Parliament and the country learnt that it is not the duty of hon. Members to rely on the assurances of Conservative Ministers, but that they must seek to ensure, when dealing with matters affecting their constituents—both in the metropolitan boroughs and elsewhere—that the rights they are entitled to are included in Acts of Parliament and do not rely on the unsatisfactory basis of Conservative Ministers' statements.

My hon. Friends the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who have had great experience in this matter, know that over and over again they have had to rely upon Ministerial assurances of various kinds which have later been repudiated. It would be out of order for me to call such instances to mind. It has happened in connection with a number of Measures. The Attorney-General is familiar with an assurance which was given, but later disregarded.

4.30 p.m.

I assert as a matter of principle that it is the duty of the House, when something is conceded as a matter of substance, to ensure that it is written into the Act. Amendments should not be resisted on the ground that the House need not bother about putting words into an Act of Parliament because the Minister says that he will do this or a noble Lard in another place says that he will do that. That is not a ground for resisting the Amendment. If there is any sincerity in what the Minister has said, he should accept the Amendment, because then the matter would be crystal clear. We should then know where we were. Then these metropolitan boroughs would have their rights written into an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Reynolds

The Minister said that he will make an application for such charters for all the Greater London boroughs. My Amendment would leave it to the boroughs to make the application themselves for such a charter. The Ministers action will mean that he will be asking for charters when it is possible that some members of the boroughs will not wish to have such a charter. In the past a charter has been granted only at the request of the inhabitants of the area. Some of these new boroughs may not wish to have such a charter. As I understand the Minister's assurance, he will apply for charters for all of them. I would rather take that than nothing at all, but it will create the anomaly of a charter perhaps being imposed on people who have never asked for it and may not want it.

Mr. Fletcher

I agree. The more I think about this the more I am dissatisfied with the pedantic nonsense that the Minister talks. Are we to understand that, as soon as the Measure is passed, the Minister will apply for charters simultaneously on behalf of all these boroughs?

Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.

Mr. Reynolds

Mass-produced charters.

Mr. Fletcher

This is contrary to the basis on which applications are made for a Royal charter. We want Parliament to legislate. We must assert as often as we can that Parliament must lay down the law. We must stop this continued invasion and these continued inroads by the Executive into the proper functions of Parliament. We have had instances over and ever again of the Executive trying to arrogate to itself by means of Ministerial assurances and promises matter which should be properly expressed in an Act of Parliament.

I am getting tired of this, because it is our duty, when legislating on important matters of this kind, to ensure that we legislate properly. When it is conceded that something should be done, and when there is no possible objection to what we are asking for, except a purely pedantic objection, it is not good enough for a Minister to say, "We will do exactly what you want, but we do not want to put it in proper form in an Act of Parliament. We want you to accept my personal assurance as a Minister of the Crown, or an assurance given by a noble Lord in another place, that we will do something".

This is not good enough. It carries no weight. There is no sanction open to the House if the Minister repudiates his promise. During the tenure of the Conservative Government we have had many illustrations of repudiated promises. It is time that we dug in our heels. Now that the substance of our case has been accepted, after a great deal of reluctance and opposition at earlier stages, we should maintain our position. It should be put into the proper statutory form. We should insist on the Government accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

It has now been amply proved that discussion on the Amendment is pedantic. As a pedagogue, I object to anybody else being pedantic. I cannot understand what all the fury is about. Where the inhabitants of a district ask for a charter of incorporation, the demand goes to the Privy Council, which appoints an inspector. He goes along, hears the remarks of the various Government Departments about the way in which the place has been administered hitherto, hears any objections to the proposal, and then recommends either that the charter should be granted or that it should not be granted. The Privy Council usually follows the advice of the inspector, but it is not obliged to do so.

Each charter is an individual document. I do not understand this mass application for charters to deal with districts that present very difficult problems. A charter granted in the ordinary way appoints a person to act as mayor of the borough until the first meeting of the town council, the election of the mayor, and the appointment of the town clerk and the treasurer. After that he ceases to function and the ordinary procedures of the borough follow. Once the charter has been granted, there is a series of negotiations between the Privy Council and the promoters of the application concerning what shall go into the charter. That varies with the requirements of each district.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that, as from the time when the decision has been made by the Privy Council, there will be local consultation between the Privy Council and the persons interested in the new borough to ensure that they get a charter that meets their requirements? This is the only point that interests me. I was named in the charter which incorporated Epsom and Ewell to act as mayor until the borough treasurer was appointed. I never handled the borough finances myself. That was a transaction between the treasurer of the former district council and the treasurer who was appointed prior to my leaving the chair at the first meeting of the town council.

Can we have an assurance that the arrangements will be such that consultation between the authorities of the new area and the Privy Council will take place so that the charter can deal with the requirements of the new borough and not be merely a mass-produced document that might have very little relevance to some of the requirements of the new borough when it comes into being?

This is one of the things that we inherited from the old metropolitan vestries which were abolished by the Act which created the metropolitan borough councils. As Lord Morrison of Lambeth once said, they were glorified parish councils. We must ensure that from the beginning these boroughs will have an individual life of their own with a charter that is adapted to their individual needs.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

The Minister sits and laughs, as if to say "You are a lot of stupid fellows. I have given you an assurance. What more do you want?" My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) have raised an important point of principle. We are asked not to proceed with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend because the Minister has given an anssurance, and because a noble Lord in another place has given a similar assurance on this matter. This Bill will shortly become an Act and become part of the law. There is nothing in the Bill to show that the Minister has given this assurance, and I therefore do not see how it can be said that we need not worry about making this Amendment.

This is a simple matter. It is the right of the inhabitants of a locality, through their elected representatives, to apply for a charter. They may or may not apply for one, but the decision should be left to them. If they apply, the application will be considered, a report will be issued, and following that a charter will be granted. Why should the Minister have the right to prevent people making this decision for themselves, and be entitled to say to us, "Do not worry about it. Never mind what they want. I undertake to make a mass application on behalf of these people"? This, on the face of it, appears to be constitutionally wrong, and I think that we should assert the importance of this constitutional principle.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

I share the surprise expressed by other speakers from this side of the House that the Minister cannot accept this modest Amendment. Having accepted the principle of the Lords Amendment—which I consider to be an important one and I am pleased the Minister has accepted it—not to accept this small Amendment is like straining at the gnat after having swallowed the camel.

When this matter was discussed on a previous occasion, we had a long debate about the Royal prerogative and how it was possible to apply for the charters. We have opened the door to the extent of accepting the Lords Amendment. If the purpose of the Bill is to bring local government closer to the people, which the Government claim it is, so that the citizens of the various boroughs can feel that they are joining in in taking decisions, this Amendment seems a logical step to take. If people in the locality feel that they are not only enjoying the privilege of having a charter, but that they participated in getting it and in helping to decide its provisions, they will feel that they have achieved something.

I do not distrust the Minister on this issue, though I distrust him on many others. The assurance that he has given appear to mean that he genuinely wants to achieve the same result as we do. If this is so, why not accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, South-West)

I am sure that the Minister must realise that there are all sorts of dangers in monkeying about with London's local government. Lord Morrison of Lambeth has often warned both the Government and his own party to be careful when they start monkeying about with local government.

A lot of confusion appears to have been caused by this modest Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) referred to the whole thing as pedantic.

Mr. Fletcher

It was the Minister who said that what he was saying was pedantic, and I agreed with him.

Mr. Evans

The Minister declares that the whole matter is pedantic, whereas, in fact, it is an attempt by the Government to get out of a practical difficulty. We pressed this on an earlier occasion, as a result of which the Government were obliged to try to find a solution to the problem when the Bill was considered in another place, and the Lords Amendment is the result of that consideration.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked the Minister whether he would give an assurance that when this matter went to the Privy Council, the Privy Council would take a certain course. Is it within the competence of a Minister to give that assurance? Is it possible for the Minister to assure my right hon. Friend that the Privy Council will act in a certain way in respect of a certain matter? I should hardly have thought so.

The Minister has brought this danger on himself by the wholesale way in which he is attempting to recast local government in this country. He is in danger of bringing the idea of a Royal charter into disrepute. The essence of a Royal charter is that it gives prestige and dignity to the area which receives it. It enhances the behaviour and the performance of the people in the locality.

The Minister says that he will make 32 Royal charters as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. He is going to roll out 32 charters at once without considering the circumstances of each locality, without considering the dignity and opinions of the local burgesses, and without taking into consideration the wishes of the local inhabitants. To get himself out of a practical difficulty the Minister is to make 32 Royal charters at one fell swoop. I might almost say that he is cocking a snook at the Royal prerogative.

The Minister should not do this kind of thing. He should not take on himself the assumption to instruct the Privy Council, which is what he is doing. He should not take on himself the assumption to turn out 32 Royal charters without some regard to the Head of State.

Sir K. Joseph

I do not want to let the hon. Gentleman continue. All that I am undertaking to do is to make representations. I cannot make charters. How could I dream of assuming to do anything like that?

Mr. Evans

The Minister knows that he is in a difficulty. He knows that he has to treat these 32 boroughs on the same footing. He cannot complete the new arrangement with some boroughs being incorporated by a Royal charter, and others being incorporated by Statute. Therefore, to get himself out of his difficulty he proposes to grant Royal charters to them all, and he proposes to make representations to the Privy Council.

What he is saying to the House is, "It is all right; I shall fix it with the Privy Council, and with the Head of State". By using this method to get round his difficulty the Minister is lowering the dignity which we have always considered attached to the granting of a Royal charter, and which we have always considered should be applied for by the citizens of the locality in question.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

If the debate continues in this way I shall find myself in the surprising position of being rather in sympathy with the Minister. He seems to be in the position of somebody who has endeavoured to give a large, friendly-looking dog a pat on the head and been savagely bitten. The reason that this has happened is that within the framework of the Bill nothing which the Minister can do can be right. Londoners do not want these boroughs. It would not be in order, in this discussion, to raise the general issue of the Bill, but nothing that my hon. Friends say today must be taken as in any way prejudicing or mitigating our total opposition to the Bill.

We are carrying on the discussion on the assumption that the Bill will become law, and asking ourselves, "What, on that unhappy assumption, is the best way of handling the matters that arise?". I think that I shall carry my hon. Friends with me when I say, first, that, ideally, all we want in this matter is that every London borough should have the right to apply, on its own behalf and not through the Minister, for a charter, as a provincial body can do. Secondly, we want, also, to be sure that if it applies for a charter it shall get one.

Thirdly, we want to be certain that the charter shall not be one of a series of mass-produced documents, but shall have regard to the particular needs and dignity of each borough. Fourthly, I suppose, we want to be assured that if a borough does not want a charter it will not have one thrust upon it against its will.

Let us see what way there is of obtaining those four requirements.

Mr. John Barter (Ealing, North)

As I understood the earlier argument of hon. Members opposite, it was that all these boroughs must be treated alike. Assuming that some of the new London boroughs desire a charter and some do not, how can they all be treated alike?

Mr. Stewart

They can be treated alike in the sense that they can all have an equal opportunity of applying and an equal certainty of getting a charter if they want one. They can be equal in being able to get what they want.

The Minister has told us—and we must accept his advice—that the first requirement is something which, quite genuinely, with the best will in the world, cannot be met. These boroughs cannot, like provincial urban or rural district councils, by their own motion and not through the Minister, apply for a charter, the difficulty being partly that some of them are already corporate bodies, and that being given a charter is a way of becoming incorporated.

It is not the only way, but it is a way. If one is incorporated in one way already, it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply for a charter. Therefore, the possibility of obtaining a charter in the same way as a provincial body obtains it seems to be ruled out. We must reluctantly accept that.

But of the four demands, that is the least important. We should be willing to accept a proposition that if a borough cannot obtain a charter in a way that is absolutely an outward sign of the dignity and independence which a provincial body has, we should arrange for it to obtain the charter by some other legal means.

The next proposition was that a borough can be sure that it will obtain a charter if the Minister applies on its behalf. What the Minister has given us is his assurance that he will make the necessary representations. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) will agree that if the Amendment were carried the boroughs would have no greater certainty of obtaining charters than they have under the Lords Amendment. They would have offered to them a different way of applying for a charter, but no greater certainty of getting it.

Mr. Fletcher

Is that entirely right? All that the Minister can do is to give us an assurance that he will apply for a charter. He cannot possibly give us an assurance that the Crown will grant a charter. While he may attempt to abstract the rights of Parliament he cannot attempt to derogate the powers of Her Majesty.

That would be more than even the Minister would attempt. Therefore, we must envisage circumstances in which, although the Minister applies for a charter, the charter is refused by the Privy Council. In those circumstances, unless the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is accepted, the borough concerned will not be able to make further representations to Her Majesty—which I think that it should be allowed to do.

Mr. Stewart

If the Amendment to the Lords Amendment were carried a borough could make representation—unless it proves to be the case that there is a completely legal bar in the case of a body which is already incorporated. There is that risk. Secondly, a borough would run the risk that even if it made representations it would not be granted a charter. It could fairly be argued that although the Minister cannot bind the Privy Council or the Crown there is a much better chance of a borough getting a charter under the Lords Amendment as it stands, for the reason that we generally accept the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility as being part of our Constitution—although it is nowhere written down in a Statute.

We would probably all agree that when a Minister, as a Member of the Government, says that he will make representations for a charter, he does not say that without having the consent of his Cabinet colleagues. It seems to me to be extremely likely—to put it no lower—that if representations were made to the Privy Council the Council would see fit to advise Her Majesty to accede to those representations. It would, therefore, seem to me that on the question of the prospect of obtaining a charter, the boroughs are better off under the Lords Amendment, unamended. I agree that the Minister cannot do more than make representations.

The next point—and this is one that the Minister has not quite cleared up; it has arisen out of the debate, and is of importance—is that the charters should not be mass-produced documents, but should pay regard to the dignity, history and circumstances of each borough. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance about that.

Fourthly, there is the rather paradoxical point—and we are indebted to my hon. Friends for bringing it out during the debate—that there may be a borough which says, "We do not want a charter". I assume that the Minister's undertaking was made on the assumption that they would not all want charters, and that he would not insist on making representations on behalf of a borough that firmly said that it did not want one.

Although the first point is not secured, and cannot be, if we can have assurances that boroughs will have as good a chance of getting a charter as we can hope to give them—and, speaking unpedantically, I have not the smallest doubt that they will get them—and also assurances on my other points, namely, that charters will not be imposed upon boroughs that do not want them, and that there will not be a mass production of charters without regard to the circumstances of individual boroughs, I think that myhon. Friends could allow the Lords Amendment to pass.

Sir K. Joseph

With the permission of the House, I shall try to answer the points which have been raised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for—on this occasion—his friendly protection from his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was determined to be angry with me, but all I was trying to do was to carry out the undertaking that I gave when his side of the House demonstrated, in our earliest debate on the Bill, that it wanted both inner and outer London boroughs to be treated in the same way.

I then explained—and this is where I referred to my pedantry—a number of legal obstacles, or apparent legal obstacles. I explained these fully, the House demonstrated that it wanted me to try to overcome them, and I gave an undertaking that I would try to do so. For the record, it is right that I should pay tribute to the efforts of the officials of the Privy Council and the Palace, and to the service and co-operation of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, in enabling me to ask, at an earlier stage, that my noble Friend should put this Amendment on the Notice Paper. There was a good deal of discussion to enable this to be brought about.

5.0 p.m.

There are, however, a number of questions which I still need to answer. The most important is perhaps that raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Certainly, this proposal is not meant to be a wholesale transaction. The Bill as originally brought before the House provided that the Minister should make incorporation orders for each borough and then provided that some of these incorporation orders should be by way of charter. It was the distinction between the two which upset hon. Members opposite, understandably. But the Ministerial initiative has been in the Bill all the time.

The hon. Member for Fulham said that ideally he would like a combination of four things, which he precisely set out: each borough would have discretion to apply; there would be an assurance that it would get what it wanted; what it wanted would be carefully tailored to its needs; and in no case would incorporation be thrust upon it against its wishes. If that is what he wanted, he should have put down an Amendment. He did not do so.

I come back to the point of substance. It is essential to either operation—that originally in the Bill or that which would result if we accepted the Amendment—that the Minister, as soon as the Bill becomes law, should consult the London boroughs to know what they want. There are a number of things which I shall need to know, among which will be their names. I certainly undertake to consult them with a view to seeing which special provisions they would like ideally to see in any charter granted to them, and to consult them about any provision at present in their document of incorporation, be it a charter or not, which they would ideally wish to retain. I would pass on the results of such consultation. If I discovered that one London borough desperately did not want a charter, I would pass on that information, too, and I cannot imagine that a charter would be thrust upon it.

I think that those are the main points except, as the hon. Member for Fulham stressed, that a Minister cannot guarantee what the Privy Council will recommend or what Her Majesty will decide. All we are discussing are the preliminaries to that consideration.

Mr. Reynolds

In view of the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.