Powers of Secretary of State (Hansard, 14 October 1975)

§ Mr. Raison
I beg to move Amendment No. 363, in page 44, line 16, leave out from 'shall' to 'a' in line 21 and insert 'cause to be held'.
In this very important clause, where the Secretary of State seeks to take away from an authority its functions under the Bill, he must, if the authority requests, hold a public local inquiry rather than simply give the authority the opportunity to make representations to his appointee. I do not intend to make a long speech because the House wishes to get on, but I remind the House that this clause, to which, rightly, a great deal of time was devoted in Committee and which is of very great importance, deals with the reserve powers of the Secretary of State in a case where he believes that an authority should cease to be responsible for exercising the functions conferred on it by the Bill.
In our view, this is a simple question of justice to the local authorities. The powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 50 are astonishingly wide. Where it appears expedient, as the Bill says, to the Secretary of State, he can deprive an authority not merely of functions under this Bill but under any other Act to do with the disposal and management of land. It is astonishing that a Bill of this kind should contain provisions which cover not only this Bill but other matters outside the Bill.
Then the Secretary of State proposes to give himself power to transfer an authority's functions to himself or to another authority or to some other body altogether. This is not just a case of transferring functions but of transferring also the property and rights of the authority. At the same time, if this procedure takes place all the expenses have to be paid by the transferee—in other words, by the authority having its functions and possessions stripped from it. These are Draconian powers, and because they are so enormous we believe that the local authorities should have the right to demand a public inquiry. In other words, we believe that the scheme put forward by the Government should not be allowed to operate unless the authority agrees.
1254 The authority is on trial and it should be entitled to a public inquiry rather than being treated in this way.
We believe strongly that justice should be seen to be done. I ask the Secretary of State what he intends to be published if there is to be no public inquiry. How will the findings be given to the public, and how much will be revealed of what has happened at this secret examination?
The clause as it stands is one more example of the tyrannical streak which runs through the Bill. However bland the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State may be when they discuss the Bill, when one looks below the surface one finds a number of matters which cause one great alarm. Our amendment is a case of simple natural justice.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I wish to add one further argument to those advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He put the case on the basis that the local authority should be fairly heard. I agree entirely with that, but the citizens of that local authority—the ratepayers—should be entitled to hear the public inquiry. It should not be behind closed doors between the local authority and the Secretary of State. They may be in collusion to the disadvantage of the ratepayers of the district when property is transferred either to the Secretary of State or to an organisation set up by him. It is the citizens we have to think about, and they are entitled to have a public inquiry when an order of this sort is to be made.

§ Mr. Oakes
Again, Opposition Members use hyperbolic language but I will explain what the Bill says and does on the question of transferred functions.
Quite deliberately, there is a two-stage approach for the Secretary of State to consider objections to the proposed transfer order. First, he must, where the authority concerned so requests, afford it a hearing. Secondly, he may hold a public inquiry. The two-stage approach is deliberate.
Any authority can if it wishes always put its case before the Secretary of State. Where the issues concerned are relatively minor ones, that will be sufficient, but where they are major issues the power to hold a public inquiry will ensure that 1255 they are properly ventilated. The public inquiry will normally supersede any separate hearing. There is only a power rather than an obligation to hold a public inquiry because it would be a waste of time and money to hold a public inquiry when the matters at issue are minor ones which can properly be dealt with at a hearing.
Amendment No. 363 would remove the two-stage process and simply require a public inquiry in all cases, and that is wrong for the reasons I have given.
I am surprised by the vehemence of the Opposition on this matter. We are dealing, first, with a local authority which is a public body whose doings are public in the sense that they are reported in the Press and, secondly, with the Secretary of State who is answerable to the House. However, in view of the strong feelings expressed by Opposition Members, although I believe their fears are misplaced, without commitment, I promise to look again at the matter.

§ Mr. Raison
The Under-Secretary of State has gathered that we feel very strongly about it, but in view of his assurances we shall not press the amendment to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 241, in page 44, line 21, leave out 'exercise of his powers' and insert 'making of an order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With that amendment, we shall take Government Amendment No. 243 and Amendment No. 242, in page 45, line 4, at end insert '(13) An order made under this section shall—

(a)be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either Houses of Parliament where a public enquiry has first been held under subsection (6) above;

(b)be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament in every other case.

§ Mr. Silkin
In Committee it was accepted that orders made under the clause should be subject to some form of parliamentary procedure. At that time there were basically two amendments to be considered, namely, an Opposition 1256 amendment providing for an affirmative resolution procedure and an amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton. Test (Mr. Gould) providing for a negative resolution procedure.
Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we reached some sort of deadlock. Suddenly, in the midst of the debate, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), wearing his Kissinger outfit, suggested a compromise by which orders should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure unless there had been a public inquiry, in which case they should be subject to negative resolution procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton. Test saw that as an attractive compromise. I must say that I did myself. We agreed to consider it. The amendment seeks to achieve the compromise which the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing an amendment in the right words. An Opposition amendment was tabled for the same purpose. I have never had the honour of being called a Kissinger before, but if it suits the amendment I accept the title.