GENERAL

HC Deb 05 August 1976 vol 916 cc2268-74

Mr. Speed

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 15, at end insert which shall not remain in operation for longer than 28 days, unless it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament".

The Deputy Chairman

With this we may take Amendment No. 41, in page 8, line 16, after "order", insert (by statutory instrument to be laid before Parliament)". The Minister has given me notice that he wishes to move the following manuscript amendment, which would also conveniently be included in this debate: in page 8, line 16, after first "order" insert "in a statutory instrument".

I have decided to select the amendment. Copies of it are available, I understand, in the Vote Office and at the Table.

Mr. John Silkin

The manuscript amendment goes with Amendment No. 12, which the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) has just moved formally, and with Amendment No. 41, in the name of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).

The right hon. Gentleman's amendment provides that an Order revoking a previous Order should be by Statutory Instrument and should be laid before Parliament. One always gives due consideration to any point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. After giving due consideration to this one, I think he has a point.

Any general Orders under the Bill are by Statutory Instrument, and it seemed to us that a ratification Order should be in the same form. The Bill does not at the moment provide this. Therefore, we have tabled a last-minute manuscript amendment to put this right.

As I am on my feet, I should say that we do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about laying the Order before the House. In the first place, to be quite frank, it does not achieve any further parliamentary control, which we assume is what he has in mind. Secondly, it would be quite anomalous in relation to other water Orders which are not laid. Finally, the effect of the provision would be that these revocation Orders would be laid while other Orders under the Bill would not.

Mr. Graham Page

I shall address my remarks first to Amendment No. 41 and to the Minister's manuscript amendment, because the two go together. I see no reason why an Order of this sort should not be laid before the House. I have never seen any good reason for making Statutory Instruments and not laying them before the House.

It is true, as the Minister says, that it gives no further parliamentary procedure but at least it informs the House, and the House should be informed of Orders of this sort. If they are not laid, the only way they come before the House is by coming before the Statutory Instruments Committee, whether they are laid or not laid; therefore, at least a Committee of the House sees them. If they are out of order, they will be duly reported to the House.

I could never see why one should adopt the practice of not laying Orders when they are made. However, I am grateful for small mercies. If they are not laid, they will come before the Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman. Therefore, I suppose that I shall see them, although I do not see why I should be selected as a Member of the House to see these Orders when my colleagues do not see them.

10.30 p.m.

As regards Amendment No. 12, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think this is the most important amendment in the whole Bill. The Bill is one which I know is precedented by the 1958 Act. There was no provision in that Act for parliamentary procedure on the Orders made under it, but we are now in different circumstances from those which obtained in 1958. In 1958 the Secretary of State was to a great extent the dictator, the overlord, the manager of the water supply, because there were so many small undertakings providing water for the country. Now we have the large water authorities with all their resources, with all the large geographical area over which they are in control, and when the Secretary of State makes an Order either giving them further powers or taking away some of their powers the Order should receive scrutiny by the House.

The method that my hon. Friends and I have suggested in the amendment would not delay the operation of an Order. The Order under the Bill is to be made by Statutory Instrument, so that the Statutory Instrument will be drafted and could come into effect at once. All that we are asking in the amendment is that both Houses shall have the opportunity to debate these Orders. If the House does not wish to debate them they can go through, as it were, "on the nod", but this formula whereby an Order shall not remain in operation for longer than a period of 28 days—a common formula—unless it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament enables the executive to put into operation at once an Order that may be needed in an emergency but it allows Parliament the opportunity of debating by affirmative resolution whether it should remain in force. If it happens to be during the recess that the 28 days occur, the Government can produce another Order at the end of the 28 days.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas (Huddersfield, West)

Surely it is possible for the Opposition, if they wish to debate an Order, to do it on a Supply Day and put their problem to the House then. It need not necessarily be done by the Government.

Mr. Page

The hon. Gentleman is very naive. He must know that it is impossible to find time under the negative resolution procedure or to raise any resolution on an Early-Day Motion relating to a Statutory Instrument. Time is never found for it. There is scarcely any Prayer nowadays for which time is found. If it is found, it is found only in Committee upstairs.

Mr. Lomas

The Opposition could find a Supply Day.

Mr. Page

The hon. Gentleman cannot ask the Opposition to provide a Supply Day on a water Order. I think that the House should have the opportunity by affirmative resolution to consider these Orders. It may be that nobody will wish to debate them if they are uncontroversial, but to provide that these important Orders for important bodies—the water authorities—should merely be made by Statutory Instrument and that the House should be so disregarded that the Orders do not even have to be laid before it shows a great defect in the Bill.

I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to say that he would bring the Orders before the House. He wants the emergency provision to bring them into operation at once when they are made, but when they are made the House should be allowed to see whether they should remain in operation. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that on this occasion all he would be doing by accepting the amendment would be respecting the House. The precedent of the 1958 Act should not apply here because of the different circumstances of those in control of the water supply at the present time.

Mr. Speed

I endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I know that there is a difficulty here. This concerns the question of the control of Parliament, particularly in a situation which has arisen many years after the 1958 Act. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a sympathetic response. I am sure he will appreciate that this is an important point, particularly in view of the situation we have got ourselves into with Statutory Instruments. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), Supply Days are not suitable for dealing with this issue. There could come a time when his party will be the Opposition and he will wish to use Supply Days for all kinds of other purposes.

Mr. Lomas

I do not envisage the day when the Labour Party will be in Opposition, but if we were we would have the right to pray against an Order or to table amendments.

Mr. Speed

My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby knows more about this than I do. We had an exchange with the Leader of the House during business questions today on this topic. It is difficult to deal satisfactorily with Prayers. I am certain that any Opposition Chief Whip of any Leader of the Opposition would never wish to use a Supply Day for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

There is a difficulty here. We are concerned about these Orders, which could have considerable implications. This also affects parliamentary and ministerial control. We have also to face the fact that these Orders would be likely to be laid in the Summer Recess because, by definition, we are dealing with a drought situation, which I do not think is likely to happen in January, February or March. If it did, we would be in trouble. It could well occur, however, at this time of year.

Mr. John Silkin

The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) put his finger on the most difficult point about this provision in his last sentence. Unfortunately, the sort of Order we are envisaging is likely, by force of circumstances, to arise when the House is in recess in the middle of the summer.

There is one point I should like to make to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). We are dealing with local Orders. They will be important but they will affect a particular region and not the entire country. Such Orders will apply after advertised objections and, apart from cases of extreme urgency, will be subject to inquiry. It is not a case of an Order simply going through. I do not believe that this is an appropriate case for requiring an affirmative resolution of both Houses.

The point about the recess makes matters difficult. If the issue is so important, I honestly cannot imagine any Minister being able to get away simply with renewing an Order after 28 days and continuing to do so after another 28 days and repeating the process three times during the Summer Recess. We would reach the position when there would have to be a recall of Parliament. I do not think that is practical.

There are other ways of meeting what is a formidable objection. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he is asking us to do something that was not embodied in the 1958 Act, when the current emergency was not even contemplated. I repeat a suggestion made by my right hon. Friend earlier in relation to Clause 1, namely, that I or another Minister in the Department will always be available during the recess should any right hon. or hon. Member be worried about the effect of an Order. We would then be in a position to discuss things.

If the amendment were accepted there would inevitably be a conflict between the various provisions in the Bill for the Orders to run for six months in the case of Clause 1(8) or three months under Clause 2(10) and the provision in the amendment keeping Orders in force for only 28 days. How that would be resolved I cannot imagine.

Mr. Graham Page

If an Order is approved by the resolution suggested in Amendment No. 12, it would remain in operation for the length of time stated in the other part of the Bill. There is no difficulty in that at all. The right hon. Gentleman is making a great burden of this. These 28-day Orders are well-known in other spheres. Customs and Excise is one example.

Mr. Silkin

But this is an emergency.

Mr. Page

Yes, in emergency too. Certainly this has happened with Customs and Excise. This procedure is well known to the House, and if the 28 days runs out during the recess it is not unusual for the Ministry to issue a further 28-day Order.

The House should be given an opportunity in Parliament to provide for these Orders. They are to be made by Statutory Instrument, not even acknowledging that the House is entitled to read them. There is not even any procedure for debating the Orders. The Minister is not treating the House in the way he should.

Mr. Silkin

I am treating it in the same was as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues treated it in 1958 and 18 years thereafter on a question not nearly as important and difficult as the present one. I am following a precedent. I wish that he would not be so impetuous and impulsive. This youthful impetuosity frightens the life out of us.

Amendment negatived.

Manuscript amendment made, in page 8, line 16, after 'order', insert 'in a statutory instrument.'—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.