HC Deb 13 April 1981 vol 3 cc115-7

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Woolmer

I do not wish to detain the Committee, but, although I understand the technicalities, the response to my question on Second Reading was unsatisfactory, certainly to my constituents. I drew attention to the way in which matters have apparently been consolidated in the clause. I think that the Committee will agree that the Secretary of State's powers set out in the clause are wide-ranging. They relate to the kind of issue to which I drew attention.

I accept that the Solicitor-General may not be able to give an immediate response, but the way in which operations are being carried out and the interpretations of the consolidation——

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. On a consolidation measure, the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the Bill. It is purely a question whether clause 2 as it stands should be consolidated in the Bill.

Mr. Woolmer

I apologise, Mr. Godman Irving, but I hope that you will agree that it is of some importance that I should understand what the clause means in relation to how it has been understood in the past. However, perhaps I am wrong——

The First Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is not what we are debating. We are debating whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Sheerman

What places both me and my hon. friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) in a quandary is that we do not wish to oppose the Bill but we seem to be forced into opposing certain clauses because we are very disturbd about some of the activities that have been going on within the corporation as they affect West Yorkshire. We have not had much guidance from the Chair on Second Reading. In this Committee stage, Mr. Godman Irvine, perhaps you could give a little guidance as to how we may object to clauses which we find harmful to the interests of our constituents.

The First Deputy Chairman

I can assist the hon. Gentleman. This is precisely the law as it stands today. There is no question about debating the law. It is merely a question whether it is more convienient to have it in one Bill.

10.30 pm
The Solicitor-General

Perhaps I may say that my responsibility is to satisfy the House of Commons that this measure is pure consolidation. I entirely accept that responsibility. We have had a very happy relationaship over these debates. It is important that it should be recognised that that is the Minister's responsibility. I shall never shirk that responsibility.

The effect of the law is another matter altogether. All that is at issue here is the convenience of having it in one Bill. That is undoubted. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) would confirm, my responsibility is to satisfy myself, and therefore the House of Commons, that we are not making any changes in the law. I assure the Committee about that in connection with the clause. I hope that we can make progress on that basis.

Mr. Woolmer

I have no wish to detain the Committee, and I do so only because this is a matter of considerable importance to my constituency. As to subsection (6), in guiding us in knowing whether that consolidates what was previously the law as I understand it, I ask the Minister to indicate on how many occasions the powers under that subsection have been applied. If the answer is "None", will the Minister assure us that this is a consolidation?

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. Again, I fear that that is not in order. The Solicitor-General has already explained clearly that it is purely a question of consolidation. This is the law, and it is only a question whether we should have it in the one Bill.

The Solicitor-General

Of course I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what he asks. If he had asked me the question before tonight, I might have been able to do so. I am sure that he has been a Member long enough to know that we do not all reckon to answer every question off the cuff. We would be very silly if we did so. I am here to assure the House of Commons on one thing: that the Bill merely consolidates the law as it is. That assurance I give. I hope that we can make progress on that basis.

Mr. Archer

In an effort to be helpful, perhaps I may make a suggestion to the Solicitor-General. Historically, I think, on consolidation measures there has been some argument whether, when there is an ambiguity in the existing law, that ambiguity should be deliberately perpetuated in the consolidation measure or whether an attempt should be made to resolve it.

I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) and for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) are suggesting that there may be an ambiguity in the existing law. If the Solicitor-General were to indicate that he would draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State, it may be as much progress as we can hope to make tonight. It may be a method of satisfying the Committee.

Mr. Sheerman

I welcome the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He has correctly indicated the point that disturbs my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) and myself. We thought that we understood what the Bill meant. The Bill led us to understand that the corporation could act legally in our constituencies and in West Yorkshire until intermediate development status was withdrawn, but we understood from the original legislation that this was not allowed. We do not want this ambiguity to be perpetuated—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to debate another Bill. We are repeating the section that appeared in the original measure. That we cannot debate further, other than to ask whether it should be in the Bill.

Mr. Sheerman

I apologise, Mr. Godman Irvine, for the persistence of myself and my hon. Friends. It seemed to be suggested by the Solicitor-General that certain hon. Members were second-class citizens and that unless one is a solicitor one cannot participate in debates on consolidation measures.

The Solicitor-General

That is not right. I have been in this place a long time and I know that when one makes a point it is made no stronger if it is repeated on umpteen occasions. The hon. Gentleman knows that the point is on the record. I have no doubt that it will be considered. My job is to assure the Committee that this measure repeats the law as it is and makes no change. Labour Members have argued their case firmly, and I suggest that it becomes no stronger by unlimited repetition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Back to