§
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 8, leave out
order shall be made under subsection (2) above
and insert
such order shall be made
§ Mr. JenkinI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The guidance which you, Mr. Speaker, have been kind enough to give the House is extremely helpful, and I shall respond by moving this first motion briefly.
The Government introduced what is now Lords amendment No. 1 in another place to meet a wish which we recognised, that Parliament should be involved with the bringing into effect of part II of the paving Bill.
As the House knows, the Government have maintained throughout our very firm position that this paving Bill should in no way prejudge Parliament's consideration of the main abolition Bill, which I hope and intend to present to Parliament in the late autumn. From the date of the first print of the paving Bill we included the provision for a commencement order. The House will remember that on 36 Second Reading I made it clear that we would not make this commencement order until the House had agreed to the principle of abolition by giving the main Bill a Second Reading.
It was argued during the Second Reading and Committee stages, both in this House and in the other place, that not everyone considered this to be a sufficient constitutional safeguard. In another place it was said that merely to have the Second Reading in the House of Commons as the trigger seemed to show scant respect for another place.
The Government introduced what is now Lords amendment No. 1, in response to such concern. The amendment makes the commencement order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament and so ensures that both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity for further debate before part II of the Bill is activated.
I would make the point in our defence against the charge of not introducing this into the Bill in the first instance that the step is somewhat unusual. It is not usually held to be necessary that an order that merely brings into effect provisions that have been fully and recently approved by Parliament should be subject even to negative resolution procedure.
Nevertheless, we recognise the constitutional aspect of the legislation and the genuine concern expressed on both sides of the House and in another place. I am sure that the Government are right to respond to that by introducing Lords amendment No. 1, which proposes that the commencement order shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
§ Mr. BeithThe Secretary of State is right in pointing out that commencement orders are not usually subject to parliamentary procedures, let alone the affirmative procedure that is required by the Lords amendment. We should recognise the importance of the amendment, but that the shortcomings of the procedure will remain.
In recent years the House has not had a satisfactory way of dealing with delegated legislation — the statutory instruments by which Bills such as this are brought into force. Commencement orders are frequently not subject to procedure, and the orders that are subject to negative procedure have the most cursory and limited scrutiny. I had something to say about that a few days ago in a debate on another Bill. The House has a guaranteed opportunity to vote upon or debate only when the order requires the affirmative procedure. The other place was right to be concerned as it would be in relation to any Bill, because it is wrong in principle that Ministers should legislate without the legislature being able to challenge them for their actions. That is one of the great weaknesses of the procedure of the House, especially the Chamber, as opposed to the other place whose procedures are slightly better than ours in this respect. We are fortunate that the Bill has been subjected to scrutiny in the other place.
The importance of tightening up the commencement procedure is much greater in this case because the Bill depends entirely upon the passage of a later Bill for its stated purpose to be carried out. We do not know whether the House will pass that Bill. Who kows what lines of banana skins stretch out before the Government between now and then, or what opportunities will arise to change dramatically the political composition of the House. The Bill relies heavily upon what will happen in a subsequent 37 measure. If the later Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties does not go according to plan — this Bill certainly has not—for example, in another place, the steps that have been taken will be irrelevant.
§ Mr. Harry Cowans (Tyne Bridge)The hon. Gentleman is not making his case as boldly as he should do, and as he usually does. The case will be worse than he describes. The Bill presumes that the House will pass the next Bill, although the House has not seen dot or comma or it. If the later Bill is not passed, this Bill is nonsense.
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) is absolutely right. Some hon. Members have heard the arguments go round and round, and perhaps we understate them. We should state clearly time and again that it is a constitutional monstrosity to discuss a commencement order that will bring into effect a Bill of which we have no sign, detail or picture. Parliament should not be treated in this way, nor should legislation be made in such a way; still less should the constitution and the distribution of power between central and local government be determined in such a way. That is why the commencement order is of unusual importance, and should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
It was open to the other place to press for a negative procedure, and for a commencement order to be subject to annulment by either House. We all know how absurd that is. If an order is subject to annulment, one might have the opportunity, if a prayer is tabled against the order, to debate it between 10 pm and 11.30 pm. On the other hand, the Government might not allow discussion on the Floor of the House, in which case the matter would be debated in Committee. If there is a debate in Committee, the vote will be of no effect. A negative vote in Committee is not formally reported to the House.
Many hon. Members still overlook the fact, however many times it may be stated, that we cannot secure a vote on the procedure on the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)It is even more bizarre in this case that reports have been published today informing us that the Secretary of State will make an announcement tomorrow about the future legislation. Before we have heard that announcement or even, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) has said, seen the legislation we are being asked to deal with the procedure for implementing the Bill before us. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that logic must dictate that the Government should make a statement before debating the procedures this afternoon.
§ Mr. BeithMy hon. Friend is right. It stands logic on its head to talk about commencement arrangements for legislation that depends on another Bill, about which the Secretary of State may tell us tomorrow. That is all the more reason for us to tighten up the procedures.
What has the other place managed to achieve for us by building into the legislation in Lords amendment No. 1 that the commencement order shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament? That is a great improvement as far as it goes. It ensures that both Houses of Parliament must vote on the matter. That is the difference between the way in which the affirmative and negative procedures work. Even if a matter is taken in Committee—heaven forbid that that should happen in 38 this case—it must be brought back to the Floor of the House for a vote. Hon. Members are probably aware that such votes appear mysteriously on the Order Paper, as a result of debates in Committee on statutory instruments.
We would expect a debate on the Floor of the House, rather than in Committee, on the commencement order under clause 1, but there is no requirement that the Government should provide much time for debate. They must provide only one and a half hours in which to debate whether to bring into force provisions to get rid of the basic essentials of democracy, of local authorities, which the Government have not decided to abolish. That is not adequate.
Although I welcome the efforts to improve the Bill, that were made in another place—probably as far as it could go in amending clause 1 — we shall not have an adequate safeguard against the constitutional absurdity of Commencement procedures for a Bill that is contingent upon another Bill.
We must also recognise that, if a commencement order comes before the House under the affirmative procedure and we debate it for one and a half hours, it will still not be susceptible to amendment. There is no provision for hon. Members to amend the order. Amendments may be tabled to a few kinds of statutory instruments, of which the order before us is not one.
On the face of it, it may seem unnecessary to amend an order for the date of commencement. But let us consider what quagmire we may be in, and what chaos and confusion might befall the legislation. It is arguable that dates on the commencement order could be inappropriate for the GLC or some of the metropolitan authorities. The order may be more complex than usual, and refer to more than one date, and may affect the GLC and the metropolitan counties in different ways. It is likely that hon. Members will try to amend the order to modify the dates.
I speak not just from the point of view of the political leaders of local authorities, who are firmly and resolutely against the enactment of the legislation, are fighting a hard battle and whose views might be conditioned by their continuing determination to stop the Bill from being carried through, but also from the point of view of responsible professional local government officers, upon whom we all lean for advice at different times on what is happening in practice. Most of them are frightened by the technical difficulties into which the legislation is likely to fall. It is on the basis of their experience and the problems that will confront them that I feel that when the commencement order is brought before us, we might need to seek to amend it.
I would not be at all surprised to receive representations from the organisations representing chief officers of local authorities or from the officers of various local authorities, calling for an adjustment of the date or some of the other detailed and specific provisions of the commencement order. What are we to say to them then? That the House of Commons has no procedure for amending, adjusting or altering the commencement order? We will say, "Thanks to the Lords amendment we are somewhat better off. The matter will come before the House of Commons and we can vote, but that is all that we can do. We can only vote, take or leave it." There is a group of people to whom that will present an especial difficulty. That group of people has been going through many difficulties of late. I refer to those on the Government Back Benches who have deep 39 and genuine reservations about the Bill. That also applies to those in another place. They have been prepared to stand up and pursue their objections. Some Back Benchers do not object to the principle of abolishing the GLC or the metropolitan counties, but they have genuine and detailed reservations. They are the very people who might want to say, "All right, we go along with the Government. We shall support the general abolition, but all the advice that we are getting is that the Government have made a mess of it, and we must adjust the commencement date and make a detailed adjustment to the way that the provision is being carried out, or we shall finish up in a worse position than the one in which we started." That thread of argument has been common to speeches by Government Back Benchers in this Chamber and in another place. They suggest that there are particular and detailed objections to the Bill that arise not from total opposition to its intentions and basic provisions. I do not want this to come as a surprise to those people, which is why I underline it now. They will find that there is nothing that they can do to the commencement order.
It is therefore deeply unsatisfactory that once again we should place heavy reliance on the House of Commons's grossly inadequate means of dealing with delegated legislation. Even if we take the best of a bad job and the best of the possibilities for dealing with such legislation — the affirmative procedure — I contend that it is inadequate, particularly in relation to such a Bill, because of the Bill's constitutional importance and the constitutional absurdity of our making provisions to abolish elections to authorities that we have not as a House decided to abolish.
§ Mr. StrawLords amendment No. 1 is better than what preceded it, but like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I believe that it is not the best amendment.
It was a constitutional outrage that the Bill should come to the House as originally drafted. Of that there is no doubt. It is indicative of the cavalier way in which the Secretary of State treats the liberties of the House and the British people that this relatively minor concession was not volunteered but forced out of the Government only after pressure from the other place and a great deal of public opposition to what the Government seek to do in this part of the Bill, as in so much of the rest of it.
In our view there should be no need for such an order because there should be no need for any such Bill. There is no precedent for an interim provisions Bill. Every previous reorganisation of local government has proceeded with a main Bill, and the interim provisions tying the old authorities into the new ones have been contained in the main Bill, and not come into force until the main Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Secretary of State will remember that when he seeks to argue, as he no doubt will on Lords amendment No. 2, that there is a precedent for cancelling elections before other authorities take over from an outgoing authority. There is no precedent for any of the measures in this interim provisions Bill because there has never been an occasion when a Government have been so desperate to whip away and steal the democratic rights of citizens in the towns and cities of this country that 40 they do not even have the democratic decency to develop their ideas in detail and put them before both Houses prior to introducing such measures and having them passed.
Reference has been made to the fact that there is very little detail of what the main Bill, which will be the trigger for the orders in clause 1(4), will contain. The Secretary of State has promised ad nauseam that there will be a consultative document about the services that are to be taken over by joint boards and those that are to be transferred to districts. He gave an undertaking that that document would be published before the summer recess. We read in The Guardian this morning—I am glad to know that the newspapers were told before the House was told——
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave)The hon. Member told the newspapers.
§ Mr. StrawThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary thinks that the newspapers were told by me. It is not my briefing. The Guardian reports a comment by me. If the Secretary of State wishes to hear my comment, I am happy to quote it. It was reported that I said:
that Mr. Jenkin did not have 'a dog's chance' of getting the legislation through in time for the abolition of the authorities by April 1986. 'Even so, it is not a durable set-up, and it won't last. And even if there is a Thatcher Reich for a thousand years, they will still have to change it.'That is my prediction. However, possessed of a great deal of knowleedge as I am, I do not have the mind of the Secretary of State—I am pleased about that. It was not I who told The Guardian of the Secretary of State's intention to publish the consultative document tomorrow. Of that I assure him. I dare say that the Secretary of State or his press officer told The Guardian. He told the House only that it would be published before the recess. It was inappropriate and wrong of him not to publish the document in good time for today's debate. If it is ready to be published tomorrow, it was ready to be published last Thursday or Friday.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)The Government are hiding it from us.
§ Mr. StrawThat is so. The Government are ashamed of virtually every aspect of this policy. They wish to skulk in their tents to ensure that it is scrutinised as little as possible. I am sure that it is for that reason that they chose to publish the document tomorrow, no doubt in answer to a written question, in time-honoured fashion, to make sure that the information slips out and publicity is avoided. If that is the Secretary of State's intention, it will not be carried out because we shall scrutinise the document. I wonder what was going through his mind when he decided to publish it not on Thursday or Friday, to make sure that we had a proper opportunity to scrutinise it because it is relevant to today's debate, but tomorrow.
None the less, as I and others have said, the amendment is an improvement to a thoroughly disreputable Bill. We shall not vote against it.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 12.
42| Division No. 452] | [4.38 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Amess, David |
| Alexander, Richard | Ancram, Michael |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Ashby, David |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Gow, Ian |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Gregory, Conal |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Grist, Ian |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Ground, Patrick |
| Batiste, Spencer | Grylls, Michael |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Best, Keith | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Hannam, John |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Harris, David |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Harvey, Robert |
| Bottomley, Peter | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hayes, J. |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Heddle, John |
| Bright, Graham | Henderson, Barry |
| Brinton, Tim | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Hickmet, Richard |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Hill, James |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Hind, Kenneth |
| Browne, John | Hirst, Michael |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Holt, Richard |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Hooson, Tom |
| Budgen, Nick | Hordern, Peter |
| Butterfill, John | Howard, Michael |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Cash, William | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Chope, Christopher | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Irving, Charles |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Jackson, Robert |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Jessel, Toby |
| Colvin, Michael | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Cope, John | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
| Critchley, Julian | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Crouch, David | Key, Robert |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Dicks, Terry | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lamont, Norman |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Lang, Ian |
| Durant, Tony | Latham, Michael |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Eggar, Tim | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Fallon, Michael | Lester, Jim |
| Favell, Anthony | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Lightbown, David |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Lilley, Peter |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Forman, Nigel | Lord, Michael |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Luce, Richard |
| Forth, Eric | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | McCrindle, Robert |
| Fox, Marcus | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Franks, Cecil | MacGregor, John |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Freeman, Roger | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Fry, Peter | Maclean, David John |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) | Madel, David |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Major, John |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Malins, Humfrey |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Malone, Gerald |
| Gorst, John | Maples, John |
| Marland, Paul | Sims, Roger |
| Marlow, Antony | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Mates, Michael | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Speller, Tony |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Squire, Robin |
| Mellor, David | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Merchant, Piers | Steen, Anthony |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Stern, Michael |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Moate, Roger | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Moore, John | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Stokes, John |
| Mudd, David | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Murphy, Christopher | Tapsell, Peter |
| Neubert, Michael | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Newton, Tony | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Normanton, Tom | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Norris, Steven | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Osborn, Sir John | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Ottaway, Richard | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Page, Sir John (Harrow W) | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Patten, John (Oxford) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | Trippier, David |
| Pawsey, James | Trotter, Neville |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Pollock, Alexander | Viggers, Peter |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Waddington, David |
| Powley, John | Wainwright, R. |
| Price, Sir David | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Raffan, Keith | Walden, George |
| Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) | Waller, Gary |
| Renton, Tim | Ward, John |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Warren, Kenneth |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Watson, John |
| Rifkind, Malcolm | Watts, John |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Wheeler, John |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Whitfield, John |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Whitney, Raymond |
| Rost, Peter | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Rowe, Andrew | Wilkinson, John |
| Ryder, Richard | Wood, Timothy |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Woodcock, Michael |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Yeo, Tim |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Shersby, Michael | Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tim Sainsbury. |
| Silvester, Fred |
| NOES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Wainwright, R. |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | |
| Kennedy, Charles | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. John Cartwright. |
| Penhaligon, David |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.