CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY BILL (Hansard, 15 January 1974)

Mr. Page
—and there will be district council elections for Charlwood to the Mole Valley District Council.
There will be county council elections for Horley and Salfords and Sidlow electoral division to the new Surrey County Council, and for Dorking electoral division, that part of Mole Valley which will include Charlwood, to the new Surrey County Council.
That is the contents of the Bill. I shall not stray from the rules of order to discuss any other boundary changes in the country that might have been included in the Bill. At the earlier stages of the Bill hon. Members said, in effect—indeed, I think they said it in so many words— "Good luck to Charlwood and Horley for getting what they wanted, but why could not other boundary changes be included?" At this stage I invite the House to omit that latter query and to say, "Good luck, Charlwood and Horley", and to give the Bill a Third Reading.

§ Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)
We are grateful to the Government for making time available for this Third Reading debate. As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, the Opposition have a history of support for the Bill on principle. That was made clear on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) when he said that basically we welcomed the Bill.
It is true that at earlier stages we said we wished that the Government would give wider application in what they were doing in the Bill to wishes expressed by polls in other areas. But we sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on the success that he has had with the Government in persuading them to bring forward the Bill and on getting it to its present stage.
However, as this is the Third Reading of a Hybrid Bill brought forward by the Government, which I understand is a unique occasion, we should say a little about it. On Second Reading my hon. 493 Friend the Member for Widnes congratulated the Government. He applauded them for bringing forward a Hybrid Bill in order that local issues could be dealt with. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, however, it has been debated only in a piecemeal fashion on amendments. This is a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs in view of the nature of the Bill, because one of the assumptions that we had when we gave the Bill a Second Reading was that there would be very detailed scrutiny by a Select Committee. The rigorous and scruplous examination which we expected by the Select Committee did not take place, so that the House is now being asked to give a Third Reading to a Bill the earlier stages of which have been truncated.
The Bill contains detailed changes of boundaries which affect private interests. That is basically the reason for its hybrid nature. Hon. Members will agree that the Hybrid Bill procedure is complex and is not easy to understand even for Members of Parliament who are supported by not only frequent references to Erskine May but also excellent advice which is freely available from the Clerks of the House.
It is a pity, therefore, that the petitioners to the Select Committee did not have an opportunity to put their case. They did not appreciate that the Secretary of State was waiting or them with a sandbag and that their locus standi could not be established. It was discredited by a QC employed by the Department of the Environment. I am surprised at the answer I have received from the right hon. Gentleman tonight to an inquiry I made about the fee paid to counsel. The Minister said that the fee was inappropriate to the occasion. It is unfortunate that that information has not been given to us and that it should be hushed up at a time when the last penny of the earnings of miners and other people is public knowledge and a subject of public discussion. One wonders what "appropriate" means, whether it means appropriate to a hatchet-man job or simply a representation job.
What was serious about the Select Committee procedure was that, when the locus standi was being discussed and was the subject of a question by a member of the Committee, the Queen's Counsel, Mr. Marnham, said in answer 494 to points as to whether the people concerned had locus standi, as reported at page 19 of the report of the proceedings: These … are arguments, I suggest, which should be, and could be, put on the Floor of of the House. With the best will in the world, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not possible through our procedure to discuss that sort of thing. We have been limited to discussing the Bill on amendments and now on Third Reading. Counsel, no doubt inadvertently, probably misled the Committee about the sort of scrutiny which could take place on Third Reading and in Committee. That was unfortunate.
I welcome the opportunity to place on record our dissatisfaction about the way in which the correct Committee procedure was not allowed to take place.
There is a certain vagueness in Clause 1(2). At one stage the boundary line is said to run on or near the general line of Horley Road". I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the speed with which he replied to a query I raised with him very briefly. I apologise if, in my brevity, I did not make the nature of the case clear, so that perhaps he was able to hold out a little more hope than he can now offer. His answer will be forwarded to the person concerned, who will no doubt consider whether to petition in another place if dissatisfied with that answer.
We are a bit concerned about this Hybrid Bill procedure. It is a most unusual thing for the Government to introduce. I certainly ask my hon. Friends to support the Bill's Third Reading, and we have no intention of impeding it, but certain doubts are raised in our minds about the whole matter.
In that connection, I was astonished to have my attention drawn to a letter in the Daily Telegraph of 25th February 1972 written by the Clerk of West Sussex County Council, who made serious allegations about a meeting which was to have been held and which had to be called off because he was told that militant opposition would prevent its taking place. Such a matter draws forth a number of people whose interests are perhaps carried to extremes, and are almost at times idiosyncratic, but for a person of the standing of the Clerk of the West Sussex County Council to write such a letter makes me wish that it had been 495 possible to give the Bill rather closer scrutiny.
Basically we welcome the Bill. We congratulate the hon. Member for Dorking. We congratulate the Minister on the way he has taken a certain amount of punishment about other areas in the country which we must not mention in this Third Reading debate. However, I am sure that he understands our point about this and we hope that the Bill will have equal success when it reaches another place.

§ Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
May I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and also congratulate my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. His contribution is worthy of congratulation. In his time in the House he has displayed a wealth of knowledge about local government and we are pleased that in what could be the fag end of a Parliament he has at last reached the position he deserves.
My hon. Friend asked us to support the Bill and it is only for that reason that I shall not oppose it tonight. My opposition would have been because I do not believe the end justifies the means. Quite clearly the means used by the Government to get the Bill to this stage have been questionable to say the least. My hon. Friend referred to the QC who was employed for an undisclosed fee. It is scandalous that that fee is not disclosed. The National Coal Board is spending a great deal of money to advertise the wage offer to the miners and it is most odd that a public servant directly employed by the Government should be able to keep his fee secret in this way. I should have been happy if the fee had been disclosed particularly since I have opposed the Bill because I thought Mr. Best had a reasonable case which he was prevented from putting before the Select Committee.
At an earlier stage we put the case of Mr. Best and expressed our discontent. I am sorry that my hon. Friend, having arrived at the Dispatch Box, has advised us to support the Bill and I shall do so only because of what he said.

§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)
I rise merely to comment briefly in the customary fashion at the end of reasoned discussion on legislation. I appreciate the Minister's patience and the time he has taken. He is a Minister of some experience. During the long hours of many debates when my party was in power he never displayed any lack of courtesy in the most trying of situations and he has always shown an abundance of patience and care. It is worth taking time to say a few words in that direction. The Minister knows our views because we put them forward forcibly.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) in the comments he made. The time has come, as it often does in the House of Commons, when the Government must have their Bill.
We have reached that time and I rise merely to accord to the Minister the courtesy which I believe he has earned not just for the first time but on many occasions. It is a good feature, when we are dealing with legislation which arouses differences of opinion, that we can always reach a state of agreement on the way in which we conduct our affairs.

§ Mr. Graham Page
With the leave of the House, may I thank the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) for his kind words. I know how persistent he can be when he wants to make a point. He makes his points very well and very thoroughly. I am grateful to him not only for his kind words but for the brevity of his speech.
It gives me personally great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) at the Dispatch Box. We have known each other across the Floor for a long time. It is a great delight to see him at that Box. I thank him, too, for the way he has received Third Reading. He said that he had hoped there would be detailed scrutiny by the Select Committee. It turned out, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, that there was not that scrutiny of the merits of the Bill. However, the Bill was throughly discussed on the Floor of the House and amendments were considered in Committee and on Report. The procedure before the Committee was 497 entirely within the Standing Orders of the House.
It would have been wrong for my Department not to have briefed counsel, and the best counsel, to put a case. Having taken the Bill that far, it was our duty to brief counsel. It is not the custom to disclose counsel's fees, but I do not see any good point in that custom or convention. I can tell the House that Mr. Marnham's brief fee was £600. It is not unusual in a case of this sort for counsel's brief to be marked at that figure.

§ Mr. Golding
Will the Minister tell us how many shifts he worked for £600?

§ Mr. Page
It is an appropriate brief fee. Of course, what counsel may do before the Committee is not all that he does in preparation of the case.
I was unaware of the letter in the Daily Telegraph which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, South. I am rather surprised at its contents.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) mentioned Mr. Best, who appeared before the Committee. I add my congratulations on the way he put his case on the points of locus standi. It is a pity that Mr. Best was not able, according to Standing Orders, to go on and put the merits of his case. He deserved a brief fee of £600 just as much as Mr. Marnham. He put his case very well.
I am grateful for the way that Third Reading has been received. I hope that the Bill can go on to another place and that it will get through quickly.