LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL (Hansard, 11 November 1980)

HC Deb 11 November 1980 vol 992 cc223-439 223

§ Lords amendments considered.

4.46 pm

§ Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might raise two related points of order but, for the sake of brevity and clarity, deal with each one in turn.
The first concerns the availability of papers to this House. I understand that it is the convention of the House that Bills and Lords amendments to Bills which are to be discussed in this House are published in time for right hon. and hon. Members to make serious estimates of their contents before we proceed to debate them. Traditionally, that convention has been interpreted as making at least a weekend elapse between the publication of a document and its being debated on the Floor of the House.
On Friday, the Government published 265 Lords amendments to the Bill, leaving the House with what I think all right hon. and hon. Members will agree is the minimum tolerable period—Saturday, Sunday and Monday—for the assimilation and understanding of those amendments. It transpires that, some time yesterday, 28 corrections to those amendments appeared in the Vote Office, some of them of very great complexity. Therefore, it was not possible for right hon. and hon. Members to know the contents of 28 of the Lords amendments to the Bill until after lunch time on the day before we were to debate them.
It is intolerable that this House should be asked to examine these complex matters with literally less than 24 hours to read and understand them. If it were simply another example of the incompetence displayed at every stage of the passage of the Bill, I, for my part, would not have raised the matter today. However, if the Government want the House to discuss the amendments in a real sense, we must have time to understand them. If they simply want the House to rubber-stamp the Bill, they will proceed, saying that the time does not matter.
224 I wish to ask two questions. First, I ask what protection you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker himself can provide for those of us who want to understand what we are debating before we vote according to the recommendations of our respective Whips.
My second question is directed to the Government. I do not even hope that the Government will postpone the entire proceedings on this Bill. As the Secretary of State implemented some of its provisions in September, he naturally wants to get it on to the statute book at the first opportunity so that his action can be retrospectively legitimised. However, there is a compromise which the Minister, Chief Whip, or even the Leader of the House—if he is about somewhere—might consider.
I understand that within the rules of order it is possible for the Government to propose that the 28 amendments of which we received notice only yesterday should be abstracted from our consideration today, taken out of order and discussed tomorrow, when we will have had 48 hours rather than 24 hours to consider them. As well as asking for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the Government to consider whether they are prepared to give that minimum courtesy to the House. It affects only 28 amendments about which we did not know until yesterday, and I suggest that they should be debated tomorrow rather than today.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many Opposition Members, including myself, who did not serve on the Committee have spent many hours going through the Bill and the amendments in order to make a contribution today. We tried to do some of that work at the weekend. It was, therefore, of great concern to us that when we went to the Vote Office yesterday we discovered a correction sheet.
If you look at that sheet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that these are not merely trivial omissions of a typing error kind but that some are major omissions which substantively alter the amendments already put forward in the House of Lords. For example, I draw your attention to amendment 4C, which has the effect of giving the Secretary of State 225 a discretion rather than imposing a duty upon him. That is of major significance. It takes time to determine what attitude hon. Members should adopt, yet effectively we have had no time whatever to consider these amendments.
In my submission, it is an abuse of the privileges of the House for the Government to act in the way that they have. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take cognisance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said and to put all the pressure and moral authority which the Chair can upon the Government so that they adopt his suggestion that we debate these additional amendments tomorrow.

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to labour this point, but many hon. Members representing Inner London constituencies who did not serve on the Committee, and whose constituents' prospects are likely to be seriously affected one way or the other, have had a monstrous task. This place is a law factory. We may get marks for productivity at the end of today, but it is fairly likely that we shall produce some inferior and shoddy products unless we accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
I understand that the convention of the House is that Lords amendments should be made available to hon. Members who should have at least a weekend to consider them. I suspect that the conventions are normally geared to the three or four pages of amendments that we can expect from the other place rather than to 94 pages of amendments, which some of us have tried to assimilate during the weekend. As a result, we were rather devastated yesterday when we were presented with four pages of further amendments, which has made a farce of what some of us have tried to do. They relate to matters of great importance.
Certainly, with regard to the area that I represent, I have not been able to assimilate the effect of these corrections on the Inner London Education Authority. At this moment, I do not understand what the effect will be. What I do understand is that the object of the Bill is to transform 226 the circumstances of the ILEA, which provides an education for children in inner London, including my own area. To that extent, I declare an interest. However, presented as I am with this latest list of amendments to amendments, I cannot discharge my obligation to my electorate to assess whether the amendments improve the Bill or make it worse.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
I have sympathy with the point of order that has been raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his hon. Friends. It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that the papers are available. The timing of the debate is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister will have heard what has been said. In view of what has happened, perhaps the most helpful thing that I can say is that, if hon. Members wish to submit manuscript amendments as we proceed, they will be considered by Mr. Speaker in the normal way.

§ Mr. Hattersley
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said. I understand and accept at once that you can go no further. However, if we are to be treated with even a modicum of courtesy, I hope that the Minister will comment on my suggestion. The thought that he would not even reply never struck me. Perhaps he will now bring himself to say something.

§ The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King)
We can perhaps understand why today of all days there may be some element of hyperbole from Labour Members. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman addressed a point of order to the Chair. I do not think that it was proper for me to reply.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware, there was unfortunately an error in the printing in that the amendments referred to on the supplementary list were omitted by the printer. They were supplied by the Government but, unfortunately, were not included. That is a matter for the Chair. On behalf of the Government, I apologise for the fact that hon. Members may have been inconvenienced. However, the right hon. Gentleman addressed his point of order to the 227 Chair and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite properly replied. I add my concern that there may not have been as much time as the Government would have wished for hon. Members to consider these amendments, but the matter was not within our control.

§ Mr. Hattersley
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am advised that on these 28 amendments alone—I ask for nothing in relation to the other 237—it is within the Government's power to abstract them from today's business, take them out of order and give the House an opportunity to discuss them tomorrow when we have had another 24 hours to understand what they mean. Can the Minister say whether the Government are even prepared to consider that suggestion, or do they dismiss it out of hand?

§ Mr. Straw
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for clarification. I think I am right in saying that when you replied to my right hon. Friend you said that this was a matter for the Government. However, the Minister denied that it was a matter for the Government and said that it was a matter for the Chair because this was an error in printing rather than an error in the directions given to the printers. Perhaps we can have some clarification as to whose responsibility it is. If it is your responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely it lies within your power to insist that these matters be discussed tomorrow rather than today.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The responsibility of the Chair is to ensure that papers are available. The timing of the debate is wholly a matter for the Government and the usual channels.

§ Mr. King
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but I do not feel that the action which he suggests would be justified. I remind the House that discussions on the Bill commenced last December. A number of these matters arose many months ago in this House and more than a month ago in the other place. Those hon. Members who have been concerned about the progress of the Bill will be aware of that. They will also be aware that most of the amendments are either technical or consequential. I have considered the right hon. Gentleman's representations, but I 228 cannot advise the House to proceed in the way he suggests.

§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that as there are more than 230 amendments the House could, if it wished, have more than 230 votes?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is correct. It would be possible to vote on each of the Lords' amendments.

§ Mr. Hattersley
Perhaps I can abandon my first point, after the success that I fear we have grown to anticipate, and turn to my second point of order, which relates to a specific clause in the Bill.
5 pm
The provision concerning financing of trading undertakings was amended in the House of Lords. It was initially proposed by the Government and then carried against the Government's advice. On Third Reading the Government announced that they did not propose to try to reverse the decision. The decision imposed on the Government by the other place enabled local authorities to finance capital expenditure from profits on trading undertakings without such expenditure counting against annual capital allocation.
Today the Association of Metropolitan Authorities drew the Government's attention to the need for consequential amendments to the Bill if the amendment that they had accepted—which is part of clause 63—was to be made sense of. The message was sent to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that the Government accepted that clause 63 as it now stands cannot be operated in the way in which it was intended to operate. But the Government were not prepared to put down the consequential amendments lest when those amendments were returned to the House of Lords so much time was occupied that the Bill did not make progress at the speed that the Government wished. On their own admission, the Government are offering the House a clause that is inoperable and ineffective.
I raise two points on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first concerns the protection which the House may receive from the Chair against Ministers intentionally 229 asking hon. Members to support a clause that cannot be operated in the way it should be operated. Secondly, I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities was told that, as this clause is related to capital expenditure, the Government would make up for the inadequacy in drafting by making certain additional capital sums available to authorities that might be penalised as a result of the inadequate drafting. We need to know now, simply for business reasons, whether the Government are saying that they are not prepared to amend clause 63 to bring it into line with reality, and whether they will make up for that deficiency by paying local authorities moneys that they have already been promised.
If the Government cannot give a satisfactory answer on those two points, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, consider accepting, very late in the day, a manuscript amendment to rectify the Government's error? With the assistance of Mr. Speaker's staff, Labour Members have tried to put together an appropriate amendment, but the Bill is so complicated and complex, and we are struggling against House of Lords amendments and corrections to House of Lords amendments, that we shall not be in a position until later this evening to put down a correcting amendment.
I hope that the Minister of State will now tell us his attitude towards the deficiencies of clause 63, and say whether he will make an attempt to remedy them, and whether he will make up for the mistakes by paying the moneys that have been promised. If not, may I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there may be need for very late manuscript amendments.

§ Mr. King
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that this part of the Bill is inoperable unless the Government move certain further amendments. That is not correct. There has been some misunderstanding about this issue, and I am aware that discussions have been taking place. These are not consequential amendments. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if they were essential and unavoidable consequential 230 amendments to an amendment that was carried in another place. That is not correct. It is a matter for debate whether further amendments could be made, but the Bill is workable within the spirit of the amendments that were carried in the other place. That can be observed. When we debate the matter, I shall be happy to give the House clarification and assurance on that point.
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that we can debate the Lords amendments out of order. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook implied that the Government are proposing to accept an amendment that in some sense will be deficient or inoperable. That is not the case, and I shall be happy to enlarge on that during the debate, if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
This is a political matter; it is not one for the Chair. May I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of the delay and the complexity of the Bill, Mr. Speaker would certainly consider manuscript amendments in the usual way if they are submitted to him. Shall we now proceed with the Bill?