§
Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 8, line 7, at end insert
and about any other proposal that would involve expenditure in a subsequent financial year".
§ Mr. WaldegraveI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThese amendments seek to introduce a sensible extension to a useful and reasonable requirement.
Subsection (2) requires the GLC and MCCs to consult their respective constituent councils about their proposed expenditure in 1985–86, and about the means of financing that expenditure. The borough councils, Common Council and district councils that will take on most of the functions of the GLC and MCCs have a direct interest in the financial affairs of the upper tier authorities in the run-up 190 to abolition. It is only reasonable, therefore, that they should have the opportunity to influence to some extent the financial situation that they will eventually take over.
That is the thinking behind the clause in general, and subsection (2) in particular. We have thought very carefully about how far that influence should go, and how best it can be assured. The provisions of clause 7 are not sufficient to ensure that the constituent councils know about the proposed expenditures, because that clause puts the onus on them to ask the right questions. Subsection (2) ensures that they are told about financial proposals at a stage where they can express their views, and where those views may—and, if the upper tier is responsible, will—be taken into account, without interfering with the GLC and MCCs' right — indeed duty — to set their own budgets.
However, subsection (2) as it stands requires consultation only about expenditure proposed for the financial year 1985–86. Constituent councils will be equally concerned about proposed commitments for expenditure in future years: commitments that they may well inherit. That is why amendment No. 13 extends the requirement to consult to cover proposed expenditure in financial years subsequent to 1985–86.
The requirement to consult about proposed future commitments will be subject, as is the requirement for 1985–86 expenditure, to subsection (3)(b). That is, in complying with the duty, the GLC and MCCs shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Such guidance could, for example, recommend that the constituent councils need be consulted specifically only in. respect of major items of proposed future expenditure. However the existing GLC will be responsible for only one more budget, that for 1985–86. Hence the consequential amendment—No. 14—to clause 9(3)(a).
The amendments give the constituent councils the opportunity to have a fair say about any proposed expenditure that will eventually become their responsibility.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI am sure that the House will be delighted to know that we do not propose to divide on these amendments. They at least bring some consistency into what the Government are now proposing, although only an internal consistency, as they are not consistent with everything else that the Government have been doing. there is just one appropriate comment to make. These amendments will make more clearly possible consultation by the MCCs and the GLC—in what the Government propose to be the final year of their existence—with their district and borough councils at the tier below them. In the Rates Act, the Government introduced proposals for consultation with the business communities in the authorities in question. It is an amazing paradox that there are now two successive pieces of legislation on local authorities, proposed by the Government, both of which propose extensive consultation, but both of which will be of no use if, in the case of the local authorities in the Rates Act, and of the MCCs and the GLC in this Bill, the authorities in question chose to ignore the results, which they are free to do.
However, at the same time as advocating greater consultation, although without remedy, the Government are taking away the basic constitutional and democratic right of election to authorities, and of authorities to make their own decisions. There will be castrated consultations 191 —consultations that will have no effect—as a result of this proposal, and at the same time the Bill is introducing a process of demolition about which there is no consultation, because the substantive parts of the proposal do not see the light of day from the time that they arrive at Marsham street. Consultation is desirable, but consultation for a year is hardly a reward to either local authorities at district and borough levels or their electors, for the price that they have had to pay is too high.
§ Mr. John FraserI congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his brevity.
An extraordinary feature of this Bill is that local authorities will now be subject to Government guidance by way of grant-related expenditure, targets, and consulta-tions with lower tier authorities, Government compulsion by way of rate capping, Government control by way of control of contracts, and in addition they will be responsible to those who elected the constituent county councils. That goes to show the extraordinary lengths to which the Government have gone in breaking their promise to set local government free.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 8, line 26, leave out subsection (5).
§ Mr. WaldegraveI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. WaldegraveAmendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consequential to the amendments to part II of the Bill, which the House agreed earlier in these proceedings.
The Bill as originally drafted defined "constituent councils" in part II. However, the amendments to part II, which both Houses have agreed, include the deletion of that definition of "constituent council". That was right and proper, because there is no need to define the councils there, now that they are not going to appoint councillors to the transitional GLC and MCCs. However, it does mean that we also need to delete the definition in clause 9, because it refers back to the part II definition—which is no longer there. That is the purpose of amendment No. 15.
We need to retain somewhere a definition of "constituent council", because it is a term which is used in other clauses of the Bill. It would be appropriate to provide that definition in clause 11—the interpretation clause—and that is the effect of amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 20 is consequential on Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, which introduce new counter obstruction controls on the GLC and MCCs in their general expenditure powers under section 137 and on disposals of land and the entering into contracts above certain threshold limits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have already explained why it is necessary to introduce these further obstruction measures and it is only reasonable to reflect these additions in the long title. The introduction of these controls does not alter the basic Aims or nature of the Bill, which is to pave the way for the abolition of these authorities, by making suitable — and workable — interim arrangements. The short title of the Bill remains apt and accurate. Lords amendment No. 20 merely makes the long title more comprehensive.
192 I have great pleasure in commending the amendments to the House.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThere are two sorts of amendment before us. The first relates, as the Under-Secretary told the House, to the definition of "constituent council", and the second relates to the long title. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) seems to be almost inviting me to list the constituent councils. I am tempted to do so, but at this stage I do not think that hon. Members would wish me to. However, I am prompted to point out that, as a result of efforts made during earlier stages of the Bill's passage, the Government have apparently begun to recognise that their original lists of constituent councils were inaccurate in respect of London. They ignored the fact — although they have now put it right — that there are 33 authorities in London. One of them — the City of London — is anomalous, but is nevertheless there for the time being. At least the Government now understand the pattern of local government, even if they do not understand the implications of the new regime. The amendments at least give the Government's legislation some logical pattern.
The most important amendment involves the long title. It is bizarre and anomalous, and strange to the public, that the Government should ask us last of all to support the other place in amending the Bill's title, which comes, of course, at the beginning of it. Some months ago, when the Bill was introduced, the Government said that it sought simply to deal with the problem of elections so that their proposals eventually to abolish the seven county councils, would not, as they saw it, be frustrated by those elections. They saw the elections scheduled for next year as a hurdle which they were unwilling to jump themselves, so they drafted a long title which dealt specifically with the purpose of the Bill.
Now, in the dying stages of our debates, the Government want to amend the Bill. They want to obtain permission to make the Bill into an Act that will control the general expenditure powers of, as well as the disposals of land and contracts made by, the seven largest authorities in England. One might have considered supporting the Government if they had made out their case, but the tragedy is that, as their own Back Benchers have pointed out from the beginning, they have lamentably failed to make the case that they set out to prove.
3.30 am
In 1688 a trial took place in this building which was called the trial of the seven bishops. They were brought before the court for offences of treason and undermining the authority of Britain. They were acquitted because the evidence against them was inadequate to convict them. The Government have, day in and day out since the measure was before us, been asked for evidence of why the seven councils on trial at their instigation should be convicted by them.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We have had Second and Third Readings. We are on Lords amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to those.
§ Mr. HughesThe long title of the Bill is meant to be the accurate title of the Bill. It is meant to have its contents borne out by the facts in the clauses. They are meant to be supported by evidence and argument that should be convincing and win the day.
193 Those of us who have, from the moment the Bill saw the light of day, said that we intended to oppose it, have done so because we do not believe any more now than at the beginning that the Government have a right to tamper with local government as they are now tampering with the long title of the Bill in order to have their objectives fulfilled, whatever the implications, merits, arguments or opposition.
If the Government persist in making sure that the Bill goes on to become law in the next few hours or days, that will not be the end of their problems. They may think that they have encompassed for the time being in this long title what they propose, but the electorates of the seven counties in question and their representatives in this place will make sure that the Government are not allowed to forget, that they had no good plans at the beginning, that they are no better now and that they will be no better until they are amended out of existence and back to something that we can recognise as democratic proposals fit for the consideration of this place and fit for ultimate approval by Parliament, which these manifestly are not and never have been.
§ Mr. StrawThere are two overwhelming arguments against the Bill. The first is that it is an affront to democracy. The second is that it has given wholly unnecessary opportunities to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to make tedious speeches in the watches of the night, in which he has sought to explain why the Liberal and SDP alliance pledge to abolish the metropolitan county councils and the GLC is different from that of the Government.
There is a racing certainty that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent some time before 31 August. Therefore, this may be the last opportunity that I have to comment on it before it becomes law. All that I would say to the Secretary of State is that if the Bill, as I suspect it will, becomes law his troubles will only just have begun. He will rue the day that he sought to put on to the statute book such an undemocratic and antidemocratic measure.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 41.
| Division No. 464] | [3.32 am |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Brinton, Tim |
| Amess, David | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Ashby, David | Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Browne, John |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Bruinvels, Peter |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vail'y) | Buck, Sir Antony |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Budgen, Nick |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Butterfill, John |
| Batiste, Spencer | Carlisle, John (N Luton) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Carttiss, Michael |
| Best, Keith | Cash, William |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Chalker, Mrs Lynda |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Chapman, Sydney |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Chope, Christopher |
| Body, Richard | Churchill, W. S. |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Cockeram, Eric |
| Bottomley, Peter | Colvin, Michael |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Conway, Derek |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Cope, John |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Crouch, David |
| Bright, Graham | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Dicks, Terry | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Dorrell, Stephen | MacGregor, John |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Dover, Den | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Durant, Tony | Maclean, David John |
| Eggar, Tim | Malins, Humfrey |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Malone, Gerald |
| Fallon, Michael | Maples, John |
| Farr, Sir John | Marlow, Antony |
| Favell, Anthony | Mates, Michael |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Forman, Nigel | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Forth, Eric | Mellor, David |
| Fox, Marcus | Merchant, Piers |
| Franks, Cecil | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Freeman, Roger | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Gale, Roger | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Moate, Roger |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Moore, John |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Mudd, David |
| Gorst, John | Murphy, Christopher |
| Gow, Ian | Neale, Gerrard |
| Grant, Sir Anthony | Needham, Richard |
| Greenway, Harry | Nelson, Anthony |
| Gregory, Conal | Neubert, Michael |
| Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Normanton, Tom |
| Grist, Ian | Norris, Steven |
| Grylls, Michael | Onslow, Cranley |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Osborn, Sir John |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Ottaway, Richard |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Hannam, John | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Harris, David | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Harvey, Robert | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Hawksley, Warren | Pawsey, James |
| Hayes, J. | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Pollock, Alexander |
| Heddle, John | Porter, Barry |
| Henderson, Barry | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Powley, John |
| Hirst, Michael | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Raffan, Keith |
| Holt, Richard | Renton, Tim |
| Hooson, Tom | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Howard, Michael | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Ryder, Richard |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Hunter, Andrew | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Jackson, Robert | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Jessel, Toby | Shersby, Michael |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Silvester, Fred |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Sims, Roger |
| Jones, Robert (W Herts) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Key, Robert | Speller, Tony |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Spencer, Derek |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Lamont, Norman | Squire, Robin |
| Lang, Ian | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Latham, Michael | Steen, Anthony |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Stern, Michael |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lightbown, David | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Lilley, Peter | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Lord, Michael | Sumberg, David |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Warren, Kenneth |
| Thompson, Donald (Calder V) | Watson, John |
| Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) | Watts, John |
| Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Thornton, Malcolm | Wheeler, John |
| Thurnham, Peter | Whitfield, John |
| Townend, John (Bridlington) | Whitney, Raymond |
| Trippier, David | Wilkinson, John |
| Trotter, Neville | Wolfson, Mark |
| Twinn, Dr Ian | Wood, Timothy |
| van Straubenzee, Sir W. | Woodcock, Michael |
| Vaughan, Sir Gerard | Yeo, Tim |
| Viggers, Peter | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Wakeham, Rt Hon John | |
| Waldegrave, Hon William | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Walden, George | Mr. John Major and |
| Waller, Gary | Mr. Archie Hamilton. |
| Ward, John |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Barron, Kevin | Hughes, Simon (Southward) |
| Benn, Tony | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Bennett, A. (Denfn & Red'sh) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | McGuire, Michael |
| Boyes, Roland | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Nellist, David |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Parry, Robert |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Pike, Peter |
| Cohen, Harry | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Straw, Jack |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Winnick, David |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Mr. A. J. Beith and |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Mr. John Cartwright. |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 20 agreed to.