HC Deb 11 November 1975 vol 899 cc1481-2

Lords Amendment: No. 173, in page 45, line 25, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert— (4) The Secretary of State shall not make the order except after holding a public local inquiry unless the authority from whom the functions are to be transferred have consented to the making of the order; and an order made after such an inquiry has been held shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Oakes

I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker

With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 174 and 176.

Mr. Oakes

The amendments achieve two purposes. First, they meet the arguments put by the Opposition on Report—that where an authority objects to the transfer, there should always be a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend said that he would re-examine this, and we agree that it is proper that there should always be a public inquiry where the authority objects to the transfer.

The second amendment is a drafting amendment. It provides that if a joint board is set up under Clause 2, the normal provisions of an inquiry under Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply.

Mr. Atkinson

The amendment raises a matter which I raised previously and which the House should consider seriously. If the Lords are saying that a public inquiry should be held in accordance with an earlier statutory appeals procedure, that will cost money. On a strict interpretation of the rules of privilege, the Lords are not entitled to say that a statutory provision that costs money should be added to the Bill. The effect of saying that there should be a compulsory procedure, whether by way of public inquiry or otherwise, is that more money has to be spent. We should not be discussing these amendments, which are out of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the amendment were out of order I should not allow it to be discussed. It is in order and within the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. Atkinson

I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the habit has crept in over the years because this is a convenient way of proceeding. If the Government wish to make amendments which are promised in Committee, they waive privilege and proceed in this way. That habit is growing. The House of Commons should assert itself and be more vigilant about Lords amendments which, I claim, are out of order. This amendment will cost money if it is carried. I understand that the House of Lords is not allowed to insert amendments that impose a monetary burden on the Government.

Mr. Graham Page

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) should ask us to be vigilant when he has not been vigilant throughout the night. He has only just turned up to make a rather stupid speech.

Mr. Atkinson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow that remark to pass. I have spent many hours during the night on this Bench. I have witnesses who have seen me here for many hours.

Mr. Page

The hon. Member for Tottenham has not been awake on that Bench though, and that is what I was complaining about. He has not joined in the debate.

It is interesting, too, that from that side of the House the hon. Member for Tottenham should object to a local authority's having the right to a public inquiry when the Secretary of State is depriving it of all its powers. Is he suggesting that the House should not agree to that public inquiry?

Mr. Atkinson

What I am suggesting is that the House of Lords has no power to spend Commons' money.

Mr. Page

If the Commons accept an amendment from the House of Lords and waive privilege, that is in accordance with the constitutions of the two Houses. On this occasion we are satisfied to waive privilege.

Mr. Speaker

In fact no question of privilege arises on this amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Forward to