JOINT BOARDS (Hansard, 13 October 1975)

§ Mr. Clegg
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert— '(4) Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 (admission of the public and Press) shall apply to Joint Boards constituted under this Act and to their committees'. I move this amendment in order to make assurance doubly sure. We are anxious, as no doubt are the Government, that under the Bill's provisions the proceedings before joint boards should be under the full scrutiny of the Press. Therefore, we are asking that the public and the Press should be admitted to such meetings of joint boards as they are to meetings of local authorities.
I have been into the law on this matter and it seems to me that a schedule to the 1960 legislation makes provision in this respect. If the Minister can give an assurance that the Press will be admitted to these vital meetings, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Oakes
This is an occasion on which both sides of the House are united in agreement. We believe that it is essential that these boards should be under the scrutiny of the Press and that the Press should be allowed to attend their meetings.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) is right in his research. As I said in Committee, this matter is covered by the general law, and for that reason, and for that reason alone, we do not want specific reference made to that matter in this legislation, because it is not necessary. If we were to take that step we would have to include the provision in every Act of Parliament. Therefore, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks, and I assure him that 963 the situation is covered by the general law.

§ Mr. Clegg
In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Oakes
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 19, after 'section', insert: 'may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient and, in particular'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
With this amendment, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 4, in page 3, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 5, in page 3, line 26, at end insert: 'other than in a substantive manner'. Government Amendment No. 6.
No. 7, in page 3, line 29, at end insert: '(d) may not contain any provision the effect of which would be to confer upon the joint boards greater powers than those exercisable by the constituent authorities acting separately under this or any other enactment'.

§ Mr. Oakes
Hon. Members who took part in the Committee proceedings will remember that this matter was raised by the Opposition, I then gave an undertaking that I would look at the matter.
The Opposition were worried that the powers were too wide. They were particularly worried about the fact that a joint board might have powers which a constituent authority did not possess. I have examined the situation and, in consequence, we are limiting the powers given. This limitation is achieved by Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 6, and therefore it would appear that Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 are no longer necessary, because we have adequately covered the point.
However, I am afraid that I must ask the House to resist Amendment No. 4 because there is no power in the Local Government Act 1972 for a joint board to exercise management functions. The power in Clause 2(5)(b) is necessary for that reason. I think the Opposition spokesman will agree that this is not a major point, but I am sure he will also 964 agree that we have covered the point dealt with by the Opposition in Committee.

§ Mr. Rossi
I am grateful for the Minister's reply. In Committee we were most concerned about this provision. It appeared to us that the wording gave the Secretary of State the extraordinary power to amend by regulation not only this Bill but any other legislation. We felt that that was a function for the House to consider in respect of legislation rather than that it should be a matter for regulation.
The point seems to have been conceded by the Government. They have tabled these amendments, which appear to be acceptable. They make clear that any regulation must be ancillary or subsidiary to the main provision. We appreciate that from time to time regulations are required to tidy up minor matters. To that extent we gratefully accept the Government amendment, which appears to meet our very real objections to the clause. Therefore, we shall not proceed further with our amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I am grateful to the Minister for examining this matter carefully and for tabling amendments, but there are still doubts as to the extent to which an order under subsection (5) can be made. An order under Government Amendment No. 3 may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appear…to be necessary or expedient… That surely means something supplemental to the order creating the joint board.
We look back to Clause 2(1) to discover what the order can do in appointing a joint board. It is not right to say that the order cannot give the joint board any powers which the constituent authorities do not possess. Subsection (1) is wide. The order constitutes certain areas as districts for the purposes specified in the order". There is no limitation on the powers which can be given to the joint board. There is little limitation on what the Minister can do to alter the law relating to the acquisition of land under subsection (5)(b).
965 It was with that matter in mind that we sought to place limitations to the effect that if it were decided to seek to alter the law on the acquisition of land, it should not be in a substantive manner—in other words, it should not deal with compensation or valuation of property and the reasons for compulsory acquisition, and so on. It may be necessary to make certain procedural alterations to adapt the law to the joint boards but not to alter the basis of acquisition of land. We felt that some further limitation was required.
Therefore, it is not right to say that the order could not give the joint board any power that was not possessed by constituent authorities. I think that it could, and that it might extend a long way in respect of supplementary provisions which may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

§ Mr. Oakes
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels that the Government amendments do not limit this provision in the way that he desires. That was our intention, except with regard to Amendment No. 4. Perhaps I was trying to get on too quickly and did not sufficiently explain why we believe that Amendment No. 4 should be resisted, but merely hinted at it.
The need to include modification of other legislation really arises from the fact that the Bill does not include any new powers for local authorities to manage and dispose of land. Land which they acquire under the Bill will be managed and disposed of by virtue of the general powers in the Local Government Act. That is why Clause 43 operates by amending that Act. Clearly, any joint board would need power to manage and dispose of land, and it might therefore be necessary to modify the 1972 Act to give it the necessary power.
It is really on that very fine and innocent point that we wish to retain the power in Clause 2(5)(b)—not for any ulterior or sinister motive. I said in Committee that no Secretary of State would use this provision in the way the Opposition feared, but to make assurance doubly sure, under Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 we are making it quite certain that no Secretary of State could do so. I hope 966 that that explanation satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.