HC Deb 09 May 1984 vol 59 cc985-1057

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 1, line 9, at end insert 'but no such order shall be made until a Royal Commission to inquire into the re-organisation of local government in Greater London and in the areas of the metropolitan counties has issued a report on that matter.'—[Dr. Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 317.

Division No. 284] [11.14 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo Fisher, Mark
Anderson, Donald Flannery, Martin
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Forrester, John
Ashdown, Paddy Foster, Derek
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Foulkes, George
Ashton, Joe Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) George, Bruce
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Godman, Dr Norman
Barnett, Guy Golding, John
Barron, Kevin Gourlay, Harry
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Ground, Patrick
Beith, A. J. Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Bell, Stuart Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Benn, Tony Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Haynes, Frank
Bermingham, Gerald Heffer, Eric S.
Bidwell, Sydney Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Blair, Anthony Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Boyes, Roland Home Robertson, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy Howells, Geraint
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Hoyle, Douglas
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Caborn, Richard Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Janner, Hon Greville
Campbell, Ian John, Brynmor
Campbell-Savours, Dale Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Clarke, Thomas Kirkwood, Archibald
Clay, Robert Lamond, James
Clwyd, Ms Ann Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Cohen, Harry Litherland, Robert
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Conlan, Bernard Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Corbett, Robin McKelvey, William
Corbyn, Jeremy Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Cowans, Harry Maclennan, Robert
Craigen, J. M. McNamara, Kevin
Cunningham, Dr John McWilliam, John
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Madden, Max
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Marek, Dr John
Deakins, Eric Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dewar, Donald Martin, Michael
Dixon, Donald Maxton, John
Dobson, Frank Maynard, Miss Joan
Dormand, Jack Meacher, Michael
Douglas, Dick Michie, William
Dubs, Alfred Mikardo, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P. Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ewing, Harry Nellist, David
Faulds, Andrew Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) O'Brien, William
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) O'Neill, Martin
Park, George Skinner, Dennis
Parry, Robert Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Patchett, Terry Snape, Peter
Pendry, Tom Spearing, Nigel
Penhaligon, David Steel, Rt Hon David
Pike, Peter Stott, Roger
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Strang, Gavin
Prescott, John Straw, Jack
Radice, Giles Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Randall, Stuart Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Redmond, M. Tinn, James
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) Torney, Tom
Richardson, Ms Jo Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) Wainwright, R.
Robertson, George Wallace, James
Rogers, Allan Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Rooker, J. W. Wareing, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) Weetch, Ken
Rowlands, Ted Williams, Rt Hon A.
Sedgemore, Brian Winnick, David
Sheerman, Barry Wrigglesworth, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Tellers for the Ayes:
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) Mr. James Hamilton arid
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.
Silkin, Rt Hon J.
NOES
Adley, Robert Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Aitken, Jonathan Chope, Christopher
Alexander, Richard Churchill, W. S.
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Amess, David Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcfiffe)
Arnold, Tom Clegg, Sir Walter
Ashby, David Cockeram, Eric
Aspinwall, Jack Colvin, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Coombs, Simon
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Cope, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Corrie, John
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Couchman, James
Batiste, Spencer Cranborne, Viscount
Beggs, Roy Crouch, David
Bellingham, Henry Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bendall, Vivian Dicks, Terry
Berry, Sir Anthony Dorrell, Stephen
Best, Keith Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Bevan, David Gilroy Dover, Den
Biffen, Rt Hon John Dunn, Robert
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Eggar, Tim
Body, Richard Evennett, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Eyre, Sir Reginald
Bottomley, Peter Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Fallon, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Farr, John
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Favell, Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Braine, Sir Bernard Fletcher, Alexander
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Fookes, Miss Janet
Bright, Graham Forman, Nigel
Brinton, Tim Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Brooke, Hon Peter Forth, Eric
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Browne, John Fox, Marcus
Bruinvels, Peter Franks, Cecil
Bryan, Sir Paul Freeman, Roger
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Gale, Roger
Buck, Sir Antony Galley, Roy
Budgen, Nick Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bulmer, Esmond Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Burt, Alistair Garel-Jones, Tristan
Butcher, John Glyn, Dr Alan
Butler, Hon Adam Goodhart, Sir Philip
Butterfill, John Goodlad, Alastair
Carlisle, John (N Luton) Gow, Ian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Gower, Sir Raymond
Carttiss, Michael Greenway, Harry
Cash, William Gregory, Conal
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds) Malone, Gerald
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Maples, John
Grist, Ian Marland, Paul
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Marlow, Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Hampson, Dr Keith Mates, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy Maude, Hon Francis
Hannam, John Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hargreaves, Kenneth Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Harris, David Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Mellor, David
Haselhurst, Alan Merchant, Piers
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Mills, lain (Meriden)
Hawksley, Warren Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Hayes, J. Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Hayhoe, Barney Moate, Roger
Heathcoat-Amory, David Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Heddle, John Montgomery, Fergus
Henderson, Barry Moore, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Hickmet, Richard Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hind, Kenneth Moynihan, Hon C.
Hirst, Michael Neale, Gerrard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Needham, Richard
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Nelson, Anthony
Holt, Richard Neubert, Michael
Hooson, Tom Newton, Tony
Hordern, Peter Nicholls, Patrick
Howard, Michael Normanton, Tom
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Norris, Steven
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Onslow, Cranley
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Oppenheim, Philip
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Ottaway, Richard
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Parris, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew Patten, John (Oxford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Pattie, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles Pawsey, James
Jackson, Robert Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Porter, Barry
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Powell, William (Corby)
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Powley, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Price, Sir David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Prior, Rt Hon James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Proctor, K. Harvey
Key, Robert Raffan, Keith
Kilfedder, James A. Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Renton, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom Rhodes James, Robert
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Knowles, Michael Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Lamont, Norman Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Lang, Ian Roe, Mrs Marion
Latham, Michael Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Lawler, Geoffrey Rost, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan Rowe, Andrew
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Ryder, Richard
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) Sackville, Hon Thomas
Lightbown, David Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lilley, Peter St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant) Sayeed, Jonathan
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) Scott, Nicholas
Lord, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lyell, Nicholas Shelton, William (Streatham)
McCrea, Rev William Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
McCurley, Mrs Anna Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Macfarlane, Neil Shersby, Michael
MacGregor, John Silvester, Fred
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) Sims, Roger
Maclean, David John Skeet, T. H. H.
Madel, David Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Maginnis, Ken Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Major, John Soames, Hon Nicholas
Malins, Humfrey Speller, Tony
Spencer, Derek van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Viggers, Peter
Squire, Robin Waddington, David
Stanbrook, Ivor Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Stanley, John Waldegrave, Hon William
Stern, Michael Walden, George
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) Waller, Gary
Stokes, John Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Stradling Thomas, J. Warren, Kenneth
Sumberg, David Watson, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) Watts, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman Wells, John (Maidstone)
Temple-Morris, Peter Wheeler, John
Terlezki, Stefan Whitfield, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. Wiggin, Jerry
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Wolfson, Mark
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Wood, Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) Woodcock, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm Yeo, Tim
Thurnham, Peter Young, Sir George (Acton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tracey, Richard Tellers for the Noes:
Trippier, David Mr. Carol Mather and
Trotter, Neville Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

The First Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'and supplementary' and insert `supplementary and consequential'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 2, leave out from `as' to `including' in line 3 and insert `are necessary for the purposes of the Order'.

Mr. Carlile

Amendment No. 51 deals with clause 1(3) which gives quite staggering powers to the Secretary of State to amend important legislation at will. We are concerned with the fundamental constitutional rights of the British public in large conurbations—the right of the public to vote, to be represented, and to have regular and democratic elections of accountable representatives.

In any state for which British constitutional lawyers have written constitutions in recent years the sort of rights which are contained in the Local Government Act 1972 and in the Representation of the People Act 1983 have been enshrined. No constitutional lawyer worth his salt would ever countenance putting this type of provision into the constitution of a new democracy which he was planning. It is an outrage and an insult to the House and an insult to the British public that the Government are seeking to include this type of sweeping power in the Bill and thus to do away with fundamental constitutional rights.

The Local Government Act 1972, which clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to amend at will, contains no fewer than 274 sections and 30 schedules. He can meddle about with those and tinker with his electoral spanner, or, perhaps more appositely, he can put his spanner in the electoral works. The Representation of the People Act contains 207 sections and 9 schedules. Therefore, we are giving the Secretary of State the power to play about in the way that he thinks fit with 481 statutory sections and 39 schedules. It is quite wrong to give the Secretary of State power, by order, to amend any of those sections and schedules as he chooses. It is worth noting that that power was never given in the Local Government Act or in the Representation of the People Act and that an attempt is being made to slip them into a Bill purporting to deal with interim provisions.

11.30 pm

It is right to ask how the Minister would exercise these powers to amend. For example, would he introduce proportional representation, which is so dear to the hearts of my right hon. and hon. Friends? Somehow I doubt it. Would he go to the other extreme and follow the Polish lead by restricting the number of candidates in local elections to two, to be approved by him or by some local official? In fairness to the. Minister, I doubt that, too.

But we should not have to speculate about how he would exercise these powers affecting constitutional rights. We should be able to see in draft statutory form how he anticipates acting. We should be able to see now how the Secretary of State may wish to exercise these immense constitutional powers never given before in modern times. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show us any respectable precedent in any respectable democracy in modern times in which such powers have been given. These powers give the Secretary of State the authority of a Caesar but with the ability to knife the constitution with the thrust of a Brutus.

The Government have dealt with these statutory provisions in the wrong way. They have taken the wrong starting point. The substantive legislation should have come first. There has been indecent haste to reject the precedents—the Local Government Acts of 1963 and 1972—in both of which the electoral provisions appear in the primary legislation. In modern times, the House has never been asked to deal in this way with electoral and constitutional matters of this import.

The House is used where necessary to dealing with electoral problems late in the day. I cite as an example the very late decision reached about the arrangements for European elections — a wrong decision in the event. Liberal Members feel outraged that the Government have taken such high-handed actions, the repercussions of which will be felt by millions of people who will live in uncertainty about future electoral arrangements and will, I am sure, look with contempt upon a Government and a Secretary of State who have been prepared to act in such a high-handed fashion.

Dr. David Clark

On Second Reading and again in Committee, one theme running through the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions has been that of worry about our democratic ideals. Many Opposition Members feel that the Bill is one of a long line of anti-democratic measures introduced by the Government.

As we have no written constitution, we depend for our freedom on Acts of Parliament and other sources. It is only right and proper, as the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, that we should pay special attention to a Bill that might affect the constitutional or electoral rights of the people. It is ironic that the Government, who wax so eloquently about freedom, especially freedom in Poland and East Germany, are not prepared to pay the same attention to Britain. One source of our freedom are the Representation of the People Acts, which have been fundamental in guaranteeing our voting system and electoral rights.

Clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power if he thinks it "necessary or expedient" to modify any part of the Local Government Act 1972 or the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Opposition maintain that that:,s too draconian a power to give to any man or woman. We realise that the Secretary of State would have to bring an order before the House, but with this Government it is plain that, no matter what the arguments are, that would be a mere formality. Earlier today someone said that we now have an elective dictatorship.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to limit the power of the Secretary of State to modifications necessary to the elections to the seven authorities that we are discussing. We believe that there should be no doubts about the clause, so our amendments seek to make any changes to the Local Government Act or the Representation of the People Act intra vires if they are necessary for the purposes of any order under the Bill. In amendment No. 7 the word "and" is crucial, because for anything to be intra vires all three points in the amendments would have to be met—it would have to be transitional, supplementary and consequential—and we would thus provide an additional safeguard and an essential limitation on the powers of the Secretary of State.

I hope that the Minister can accommodate our wishes in this respect, because he must recognise, from the strength of feeling on his side, that the Government do not have a good reputation in defending democratic ideals. ft would be a great reassurance to many people if they would concede these points.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West)

As I voted against Second Reading of the Bill and for the previous amendment, I should briefly explain the reasons that led me to do so.

This amendment raises a point of principle that goes to the heart of my argument. My basic objection to the Bill is not that it paves the way for the abolition of the GLC—I should be happy to see it abolished—but that it subverts the Government's greatest achievement, which is the restoration of the individual's sense of responsibility for his actions and choices. If that restoration of a sense of responsibility is to be long-lasting, it must be exercised continually, not sporadically. It is not enough for the elector to elect a Conservative Government with a massive majority and a mandate, and then sit back for five years and leave it to the Government to keep down prices, to cause industry to be competitive, and to stop local authorities being extravagant.

If the Government want the idea of individual responsibility to apply also in local government — as they must—they should arrange matters so that voters in local government elections are brought up sharply against the consequences of their votes. They should be made to realise that, if they want nursery classes, swimming pools and free public transport, they will all have to pay higher rates. When they choose their councillors, they will have to balance what amenities they want against what they are prepared to pay for. This will happen only if there is a proper reform of the rating system.

Almost any of the reforms that were considered and rejected would have done something towards improving the sense of individual responsibility. Instead of tackling this fundamental defect, the Government are doing the opposite of what is needed. They are doing everything possible to weaken the sense of individual responsibility, and to encourage people to think that, having voted in a Conservative Government, they can sit back and leave it to them.

The Government have introduced rate capping so that the Government, not the electors, will clobber the more extravagant councils. The Government will abolish the most extravagant councils, and will stifle the democratic process in the most extravagant councils, thus preventing the electors of London and of the other metropolitan boroughs from using their votes.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment. He must relate what he is saying to the amendment.

Sir Anthony Meyer

I come to the amendment now.

In preventing the electors from using their votes, the Secretary of State is taking to himself in the clause powers to prevent their doing many other things. He is using these powers to prevent their expressing a verdict on spendthrift councils. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the polls show a greatly weakened sense of individual responsibility among the London voters.

I am not against the abolition of the Greater London council, nor, for that matter, the abolition of any of the other tiers of local government in England or Wales. I want to be sure that such of their functions as are necessary to be continued are effectively exercised, and subject to democratic control. That does not yet appear to be the case in London.

I am totally opposed to this measure. Looking through the list of amendments selected, and particularly the amendment before the Committee that seems to raise in an acute form the issue of principle here involved, I can envisage no occasion when I shall feel able to support the Government in the Lobby during the proceedings on the Bill, and few occasions on which I shall refrain from voting against them.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Poplar)

It would be wrong of me to comment on the explication de vote of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). I shall therefore confine my comments to one or two brief remarks about the amendments before the Committee. They can be brief, because there is little to add to the cogent arguments and clear explanations given by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I am worried, as they are, about the fact that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque on which he can write virtually any powers for himself that he chooses to write. I cannot recall—if I am wrong, I ask some more experienced right hon. or hon. Member to correct me—any other statutory provision made during the time that I have been a Member of Parliament that gives such wide, unlimited and undefined powers to a Minister.

I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomery will forgive me for saying that I thought that he understated the case. He described the powers in subsection (3) as the powers of a Caesar. For a great deal of the time of the Roman empire, the Caesars did not have powers as wide as are contained in subsection (3), although they did for parts of the time. In the history of the Roman empire, the relative powers of the executive and of the legislature varied a good deal from time to time, and, for long periods, no Caesar could get anywhere near the powers contained in subsection (3).

Those powers are greater than are within the grasp of the politburo of the central committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. They are greater than the powers within the grasp of General Pinochet of Chile. They are very wide indeed. As has been pointed out, as long as the Secretary of State, all by his little self, thinks that something is necessary or expedient, that is good enough. No other criterion is applied to decide whether a given provision in an order made under this clause is necessary and desirable, or unnecessary and injurious. No other test is applied. The only test is the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State. He makes words mean what he chooses them to mean.

We are back in that sort of wonderland with this clause. It is a gross abuse of democratic principle and practice. It is also a gross abuse of the British parliamentary tradition. I find it hard to understand how any hon. Member, who by definition thinks a great deal of this House — otherwise he would not have sought to come here—can conceivably vote for something that trenches on the rights, privileges and powers of the House as this subsection does. We should get rid of it, but if we cannot do that, the fallback position set out in the other two amendments—of which the second is much better than the first—would at least provide us with some limitation, albeit not very strong, on the arbitrary and capricious powers that the Secretary of State is giving himself. I hope that the House concurs with that view, and will vote accordingly.

11.45 pm
Mr. Spearing

At the end of the previous debate I was out of order in a disorderly manner. However, I make no apology for that, because in a press release after the Second Reading debate, I said that this Bill had a whiff of totalitarianism about it. I was shocked and surprised to hear the Secretary of State make a statement that was patently untrue, when he said that the local authorities, of the GLC, were handing back powers to existing authorities. We all know that a lot of quangos are to take over powers that have been held by an elected authority in London for 100 years. If a Secretary of State, in a democratically elected Parliament, does not know that, every Conservative Member had better watch out. There is more than a whiff of totalitarianism around in this Bill.

The Minister will no doubt say that that point relates to subsection (2), because that subsection, which immediately precedes the subsection that is the subject of this debate, relates to the repeal of large parts of this Bill and possibly their revival. As the Bill states:

any enactment repealed by this Act shall revive on the coming into force of the order. That refers not only to the Bill, but to other Acts that have been repealed. That is an extraordinary provision. The subsection states that legislation can be repealed by an Order in Council — not by another Bill — and that a revival of repealed Acts can also be brought about by means of an Order in Council.

I accept that on some occasions — the European Communities Act has been mentioned—such a device is by general consent accepted as necessary. I believe that both subsections (2) and (3) are unnecessary. Subsection (2) may be necessary from the Government's point of view to enable them to withdraw the Bill if they do not get a Second Reading for the projected legislation. That will be their fault for putting this Bill before the House in advance of the other legislation. Subsection (2) is unnecessary, as is the Bill.

Subsection (3) which the amendment would delete, builds upon subsection (2), which is bad enough because it provides that the Bill can be repealed or revived by order. Subsection (3), with which it must be read, goes much further. It uses the words: An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972". That is included, not just as an afterthought, but as a specific power in case of doubt. It means that all sorts of other provisions in all sorts of other Acts, not just the Local Government Act 1972, can be included at that time by an order under the clause.

Unless the Minister can tell us to the contrary, the powers taken in the two subsections state that if there is need for revival or repeal, at that point the Minister, by order, can include any provision of any sort. That power is totally unnecessary. Why not let it be confined to the purposes of the Bill? Why must it include any other provision? Even if I accepted subsection (2) for the sake of argument—which I do not—why is not subsection (3) tightly drawn to apply to statutes repealed or revived? Why must it go beyond that?

Mr. Tony Banks

The Secretary of State said that the reason for the abolition of the GLC had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's personal feelings towards its leader. He said that he did not think that I would believe him. That is the only time in this debate that he has been correct. I do not believe him. Nothing will convince me.

I realise that we cannot take any assurances from the Minister even if he says that our worst fears are unfounded. This part of the Bill gives the Secretary of State unbridled powers to do whatsoever he wishes. Frankly, it is one further example of the arrogance of power on the Government Benches. It was not a member of the Labour party who referred to the rate-capping legislation as being an example of an elective dictatorship. Those words are likely to continue in political currency for a long time because that is precisely what we are faced with. Here again is a classic example of the wherewithal whereby the elective dictatorship can be exercised.

As I understand it, under this part of the Bill the Secretary of State can do anything he wishes. I am sure that he would wish to restrict the ability of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to spend money on advertising their cause. Moneys that are spent by the GLC on grants are paid under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, it follows that when this Bill goes through, the Government will restrict the ability of authorities like the GLC to spend any money on advertising on what they consider to be party political matters — something of great debate — or on grants to organisations and groups of which they do not approve.

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State whether my fears are unfounded or unjustified. I shall be interested to hear what he thinks about that. If he were to say to the Committee that he can give a categorical assurance that there will be no interference with section 137 expenditure, I would be more content, but I must suspect that he cannot give that assurance.

In an earlier debate there was reference to the amount of money that the GLC is spending on advertising. Lest any Conservative Members might have base thoughts going through their minds, the sweat shirt that I am wearing was paid for by myself; my hon. Friends have paid for similar garments that they are wearing. These sweat shirts are available at a nominal price to Conservative Members if they are prepared to wear them in the Chamber. I hope therefore, that no one will accuse us of trying to put forward party political propaganda in the Chamber.

The GLC will continue to use its powers under the 1.972 Act to explain to Londoners precisely what the Government are doing. It is necessary to do this because we are not getting the facts from the Government. They are deliberately suppressing information that would be valuable to hon. Members on both sides of the Corrunittee. We know about the submissions in regard to Cmnd. 9063. We have not been given the opportunity to look at information which Ministers have had, so there has always been a readiness to restrict access to information.

A great campaign has been waged by Tory newspapers —The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—to put strong arguments against the continuation of the GLC It has been necessary for bodies like the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to explain the case to their electorate. They have done it so successfully that there is massive opposition in London to the Government's proposals. Much of that opposition has come about because of the success of the GLC's campaign. Conservative Members might consider that that is party political, but it is not. All that expenditure has been cleared through the GLC's legal department and I dare any Conservative Member to say that any of it has been illegal, because it has not been illegal, as I suspect they know.

In this part of the Bill power will be vested in the Secretary of State to stop all that if he so wishes. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who is desperately anxious to cloak his miserable argument with respectability, would be prepared to descend even further into the gutter to try to prevent hon. Members and Londoners from having free access to information. The Government do not have a case. The have failed palpably to produce any valid argument for their proposals. Having lost the arguments in the Chamber and outside, and using this subsection of the Bill, the Government will attempt to restrict the ability of the GLC and other bodies to continue to tell the truth. As soon as the Government stop telling lies about the GLC, the GLC will stop telling the truth about the Government.

12 midnight

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I am sorry that I did not rise to my feet a little more quickly to achieve the balance that you like, Mr. Armstrong. I was so mesmerised by the sweat shirt of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that I failed to get into the fray quickly enough.

When I read the clause and the amendments on the Notice Paper, I thought it might be proper for the Committee to press the Government to agree to the amendments. The clause reads in a way that suggests that the Secretary of State can do anything that he wishes. I understand why the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) used the analogy of Caesar.

With respect to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I can only conclude that he is not experienced in reading legislation. If we study the Bill, it is clear that what the Secretary of State is entitled to do under subsection (3) is precisely limited by three things. First, it is limited by the long title of the Bill, which makes it crystal clear that he can operate only within the limited framework that we are discussing. Secondly, it is limited because, as the hon. Gentleman will note if he turns to the first page of the Bill, clause 1 is described as dealing with the

commencement, and termination, of the interim measures and nothing else. Thirdly, it is limited by clause 1 itself, which is a safeguarding and limiting clause that prescribes what the Secretary of State can do only in some limited and precise areas. Indeed, it states what the measure cannot do unless certain provision are already agreed to. On that basis, some of the language that has been used during the past five minutes about dictatorship and the destruction of the rights of the House is palpable nonsense.

I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question comparable to one asked by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). In this subsection, my hon. Friend is not dealing only with the provisions of the Bill. The latter part states:

including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972 … or the Representation of the People Act 1983. I had some responsibility for putting the 1972 Act on the statute book. Although I do not rise to my feet to defend every aspect of it—indeed, I wish that I had not had anything to do with some aspects of it—by and large I would hesitate before authorising any Minister to dispose of any provisions that arose from that Act.

I hope that when my hon. Friend comments on the debate he will make it clear that the subsection applies to only those provisions of the 1972 Act or the 1983 Act that are pertinent to this specific, narrow exercise; that the second part of the Bill shall not come into force and that there will be a reinstatement of the elections; that it deals only with that an with those powers that could arise from the 1972 or 1983 Acts. If so, in my judgment he is home and dry.

Dr. David Clark

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does not matter what the Minister says tonight—it all depends on the way in which the courts interpret the wording of the Bill? We have sought legal advice and have concluded that this series of amendments—especially the addition of the words "and consequential" in the previous provision to which he referred—would firm up the provision and leave less in doubt for the interpretation of the courts, so achieving what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for.

Ms. Griffiths

I confess that when I first read the amendments I thought that they sought only to make clear the thrust of what I have been saying, and to that extent I have sympathy with them. However, if the Minister can show that my other argument is correct and that the amendments are not necessary, I shall listen to his case. But if he fails to satisfy me on that, on the logic of the argument that I have adduced, I should have to support the amendment.

Mr. Waldegrave

I enjoyed the bit of Roman history from the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). No one in the Committee looks more like a Roman emperor than he, and I should have been happy later in the night, when things might be less friendly, to listen at greater length to his exegesis. I can put his mind at rest on one point. We are proposing not an Order in Council but an order, under the affirmative procedure, of both Houses.

The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) arrived late, after the real thunder of the debate on the previous amendment. He put in his tuppence worth of bombast, but he was rather off target. As the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar allowed us a little history, perhaps I may be permitted to recall reading how Mussolini sent three or four squadrons of biplanes to join in the battle of Britain, but they arrived on 16 September, just after we had won the battle. The hon. Member for Montgomery might have joined in somewhat earlier because the higher flown rhetoric was more in place earlier in the day.

I hope that I can console my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who, in spite of knocking us about, was genuinely seeking, as was the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to make sure that the powers in the clause were not too wide and were circumscribed in the way that they wanted.

The amendments reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose of subsection (3). It would be wrong to delete the subsection, as amendment No. 51 would do, because that subsection would help to restore elections should abolition not go ahead. It is the means by which elections could be reintroduced to the electoral cycle. For example, if abolition failed at some point after May 1985, it would be necessary to restore elections, with those elected serving less than the normal four-year period of office; they would serve until May 1989, when normal elections to the upper tier would again be due. That is the sort of transitional arrangement envisaged by clause 1(3).

There is no question of the clause applying, to start with, outside the metropolitan areas. The transitional arrangements relate only to an order made under clause 1(2), and that clause applies only to the metropolitan areas.

Powers under subsection (3) are not unfettered. They can be used only to make such modifications or provisions as are necessary or expedient to achieve two effects, which are to repeal the Act and to restore the original situation. Neither amendment No. 7 nor amendment No. 8 is necessary because as the powers stand they are not unfettered. The key phrase is "to restore the original situation". Any amendments that are made to the two powerful, important and fundamental Acts would have to be aimed only at meeting the criteria which I have outlined.

We considered with sympathy whether we could write in the Bill words such as "consequential" to make matters absolutely clear. We were told by our legal advisers and others that that would produce a mare's nest. We were advised that such additions could lead to strict legalistic arguments in the courts on whether a particular act that needed to be taken was consequential on the repeal of the Act. It would be wrong to circumscribe the power to such an extent that it could not effectively achieve its purpose. There would be too many opportunities for legal challenge on what is consequential and what is necessary. That would lead to delays in restoring the original situation.

I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will understand that I am trying to meet him on this issue. There is no disagreement between us on principle and I hope that he will accept that the Acts as written limit the scope of any changes to what is necessary to repeal the Act and restore the original situation. I hope that he will understand that if we try to insert additional words we shall find that we have excluded other measures that have not been properly described. I am advised that that happens quite often in the law. The courts would, of course, pay some attention to the will of the House of Commons as expressed in this place if there ever was a disagreement on this issue. The intention is properly circumscribed as written in the Act.

Dr. David Clark

I appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded to the points that the Opposition have made. I am taking at face value his assurance that he is concerned and has taken advice. Will he give the assurance that he will be prepared to reconsider the parts of the clause that have caused considerable anxiety on the Opposition Benches with the objective of introducing amendments in another place, especially if further representations that are made to him show that perhaps the original advice was not correct?

Mr. Waldegrave

We have been round this circuit before. Meetings have taken place on the parts of the Bill that we accept are fundamentally controversial. We have no desire to have unnecessary controversy. If it had been possible to make matters clearer without landing ourselves in extra potential difficulties, we would have done so. I am advised that the Act as written is safe from the worries that have been expressed.

Mr. Tony Banks

Did the Minister say that in the event of a dispute the courts would take account of the will of the House of Commons as expressed in these debates? I am sure that I did not hear him correctly because he must know that the courts could not take into account anything that was said in the Chamber on legislation. I hope that he will say that I misheard him rather than accepting that he made an erroneous statement. Secondly, is he able to give an assurance to the Committee that section 137 money will not be affected by the passage of the clause? Will section 137 be inviolate?

Mr. Waldegrave

The hon. Gentleman's second point is easier to deal with than the first. Section 137 and many of the other sections are without the scope of the Bill. By drawing that red herring across the trail he tempts me to make a speech about the advertising expenditure of the GLC, a speech which I shall refrain from making.

The Government have the power to advertise on hoardings on any subject that they like. Imagine the uproar if hoardings all over the country showed the Government's partisan position, for example, on cruise missiles—or I should say bipartisan, because the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) let the cat out of the bag. There rightly would have been an uproar, which is why we did not proceed. I am not saying that the expenditure in this direction by the GLC or the metropolitan councils is illegal. Some ratepayers would have gone to the auditors a long time ago if that were so. It is a breach of what until now had been one of the conventions that central Government were maintaining.

The intentions of Ministers can be relevant when examining the intentions of Parliament. It is unnecessary to rely on that fact, because we have been advised, after fairly exhaustive investigation, that the worries that were rightly put forward by hon. Members are met by the legislation as drafted.

12.15 am
Mr. Simon Hughes

I hoped that the Under-Secretary of State would have responded more positively and gone further down the road of the criticisms. Late in the day, we have been joined by my hon. and, since last week, learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I congratulate him on obtaining his silk and therefore, no doubt, being regarded as a better legal expert than he was when he was a mere junior member of the Bar. Unlike Conservative Members, we are united in our views on this matter and come in and out in support of each other. The Under-Secretary of State cannot rely on Conservative Members who normally have their best arguments when opposing the proposals of the Front Bench.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the purpose of the legislation, or, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the notes in the margins can be referred to by the courts. The courts have regularly renounced that part of that wording.

Mr. Waldegrave

As an hon. Member without legal training, let alone a silk, I was perhaps unwise to venture into such territory. I believe that the courts examine the nature, purpose and scope of the Act, but not the words said in the House.

Mr. Hughes

It is vital—this point has been made by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee—that the legislature must never allow the Executive to have powers other than those that are clearly and tightly defined and strictly necessary to our purpose. I do not accept that it is right to say that Parliament is seeking to achieve a minority vote represented by the majority of seats in the House.

If the other place agrees, subsections (2) and (3) will put on the statute book legislation to suspend the elections that should occur next May, pending other legislation that we have not yet seen. The Government will, if necessary, adapt the Local Government Act 1972 and the Representation of the People Act 1983 to permit that action. Presumably, although the Under-Secretary of State did not say this, the Government's justification is that there would be insufficient time or opportunity to consider a short piece of legislation again.

Our job as a legislature, whatever the colour of the party in Government, is to ensure that the Executive does not steal more power than it needs. We should, therefore, limit ourselves to leaving the provisions of subsection (2) in the Bill. That subsection states:

The Secretary of State may by order repeal Parts II to IV of this Act". The Secretary of State does not need another subsection.

I am surprised—I say that carefully but none the less seriously—that the Secretary of State is not here to deal with this part of the legislation because it covers the whole delicate and vital subject of electoral law and seeks to give him the power which one of the other amendments seeks to delete, and which enables him to act as he thinks necessary or expedient.

We do not believe that at this stage we should give a hostage to fortune and allow a supplementary order to be brought before the House, whatever the procedural advantages of the mechanism for which the Government have provided — as opposed to other procedural advantages—which is not necessarily consequential, and the less substantial amendments would have that matter inserted. Clause 1(2) allows the Secretary of State enormous discretion.

We do not know the details. We should know what would happen if this House or the other place, when it sees the Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils, and has confirmed that the Government's policies are a muddle and have not been thought through, decides to reject the Bill. We should know when there will be elections, in what form they will be and how they will take place.

The Government are yet again—the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) used the phrase—asking for a blank cheque, without precedent, on a matter of electoral law. The Minister did not try to pretent that there was any precedent. We shall therefore press this matter to a Division. I believe that the Minister wishes to intervene before I do that.

Mr. Waldegrave

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I hope that he will agree that there is no blank cheque here. The matter is limited, as I said, first, to the areas concerned and, secondly, to what is necessary and expedient. The only reason for not trying to describe that in more detail is that one could land oneself potentially in legal difficulties if one did.

Mr. Hughes

Will the Minister look at page 2? He will see that clause 1(3) states: An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient including provisions to amend two enormous pieces of legislation, with all the schedules, that the Secretary of State might suddenly decide need a change to alter the balance of power in other authorities to compensate for elections elsewhere. It is an open-ended commitment. The only way in which this House can check that is to have a debate on an order, but even that does not give us an opportunity for proper considered debate on constitutional safeguards on a matter such as this.

The courts would not intervene. I do not believe that the advisers in the Department of the Environment or the Law Officers of the Crown would have advised that the courts would stop the Secretary of State doing what he wanted once this Bill was on the statute book.

I know of no constitutional precedent that says that such an act would be ultra vires, because the Bill's whole purpose, provided that we are talking only about the GLC and the metropolitan areas and elections, is to allow the Secretary of State to return with proposals to defer the matter from May 1985 to May 1986 or May 1987 and there would be no obligation for it to come back until the next general election.

The whole power is discretionary. Clause 1(2) contains the phrase

The Secretary of State may by order". The Secretary of State has given a commitment that he will, but there is no legal, parliamentary or constitutional guarantee that he would. There are other ways in which the matter could be drafted, but the best way would be to leave out clause 1(3) and let the Secretary of State come before us with a proper proposal which we can then consider. The proposal is not good enough and should be rejected, whatever our views about the substantive issues, the GLC, the metropolitan counties or the goings on in any of them.

Mr. Spearing

The Minister paid me the compliment of taking on the chin some remarks that I made about our Second Reading debate part 2, which we had earlier this evening. They were about taking away the people's right to vote for things and people that they have voted for for a century, and about the whiff of totalitarianism. He could deny neither of those charges. Therefore, it behoves the Committee to look carefully at legislation such as this, because if we are taking away those rights, may it not be possible that the Government are taking on more powers through such legislation than they should have?

Mr. Waldegrave

If the hon. Member asks me to deny the charges, I shall do so, but I assure him that the Act as written does not give the wide powers that he fears that it does.

Mr. Spearing

I shall come to the latter point soon, but on the other point, although he denies it, the Minister is wrong, because, quite patently, the Secretary of State made a statement that was not correct, in so far as the Bill takes away a century of rights, to vote, including those of women, since the year 1888. That has about it a whiff of totalitarianism, because London will no longer be able to govern itself in terms of all-London services. I challenge any hon. Member to get up and deny that fact. The one follows from the other, and that is why this legislation, and our debates on it, are of a different order from some of the debates that we have had in this Parliament so far. That is why my hon. Friends are extremely angry. If it was Yorkshire, Essex of Surrey county council being abolished, then we should hear all about it from Conservative Members.

I shall now move away from the lightning and thunder and back to the point. The Minister was kind enough to say that I had seen something of the purposes of subsection (3) in my previous speech. However, the Minister has not replied to my point about why subsection (3) is couched in wider terms than the needs of subsection (2). We are assured by him that it does not go wider, but he then said something to the effect that the Government have to be sure that the provisions cannot be challenged. I know what parliamentary draftsmen are like, and if I were one, I should make sure that I took powers that would cover me. The Minister is not a parliamentary draftsman; he is introducing the legislation. He may be advised that it is desirable to go fairly wide, but the question is whether the House should allow it to go that wide.

The Minister said, and the Committee understood, that subsection (3) is to modify electoral arrangements, or conceivably even the composition of councils—although that is going a bit far—should elections be necessary because the next Bill fails to get a Second Reading. Let us accept that for the moment, and let us accept that it is necessary to do it by Order in Council, not as legislation, which is what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) questioned. The Minister has to say why this has to be done by order. In that case, why are not the powers in subsection (3) constrained by such words as "such as are necessary in relation to elections", or "as necessary for the composition of the local authorities aforesaid", or whatever it may be. If those words were put in to restrict the use of subsection (3), the House would be satisfied. It is the non-restricted element, the deliberate—I hope not purposeful—use of the words as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient that is worrying. The House is going with the Secretary of State as far as the reinstatement of the elections, so why not put that in as the restraining purpose in the other place, or on Report? I leave that question for the Minister to answer when he replies.

The second substantive point that needs to be made is about what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was concerned about additional powers restricting the finances of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman said that the power will be restricted within the long title. If he reads that, he will see the words:

Make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils … and to confer rights in respect of the accounts and finances of those authorities on London borough councils . . . and metropolitan district councils.

12.30 am

Does the phrase "confer rights" mean that the Secretary of State may confer duties and restrictions also? It may refer to the rights of law as well as to the rights that are associated with expenditure under, say, section 137. That would confirm my hon. Friend's view.

However, if the Minister said, at my suggestion, that the form of words in subsection (3) in relation to the purposes of election would be inserted, we could forget about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I look forward to the Minister's reply. The essence of the problem is that the draftsmen want to make the provision wide and that Parliament, rightly, wishes to make subsection (3) refer entirely to the purposes of election, should they be necessary again. I hope that they will.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Michael Shaw)

The Question is, That the amendment—

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order. I can understand that you have started to put the Question, Sir Michael, as there was no indication that a Minister wished to reply. However, I have asked a specific question and should like to hear a reply.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I have begun to put the Question, and I must now do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 289.

Division No. 285] [12.32 am
AYES
Anderson, Donald Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Benn, Tony
Ashdown, Paddy Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)
Ashton, Joe Bermingham, Gerald
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Bidwell, Sydney
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Blair, Anthony
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Boyes, Roland
Barnett, Guy Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Barron, Kevin Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Caborn, Richard Litherland, Robert
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Campbell, Ian Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Campbell-Savours, Dale McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) McKelvey, William
Clarke, Thomas Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Clay, Robert McTaggart, Robert
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Madden, Max
Cohen, Harry Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Martin, Michael
Conlan, Bernard Maxton, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) Maynard, Miss Joan
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Meacher, Michael
Corbett, Robin Michie, William
Corbyn, Jeremy Mikardo, Ian
Cowans, Harry Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Craigen, J. M. Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Nellist, David
Cunningham, Dr John Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) O'Brien, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) O'Neill, Martin
Deakins, Eric Park, George
Dewar, Donald Parry, Robert
Dixon, Donald Patchett, Terry
Dobson, Frank Pendry, Tom
Dormand, Jack Penhaligon, David
Douglas, Dick Pike, Peter
Dubs, Alfred Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Duffy, A. E. P. Prescott, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Radice, Giles
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Redmond, M.
Ewing, Harry Richardson, Ms Jo
Faulds, Andrew Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) Robertson, George
Flannery, Martin Rogers, Allan
Forrester, John Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Foster, Derek Ryman, John
Foulkes, George Sheerman, Barry
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Godman, Dr Norman Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Golding, John Skinner, Dennis
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Smith, Rt Hon J. (M Vas E)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Snape, Peter
Haynes, Frank Spearing, Nigel
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Steel, Rt Hon David
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Stott, Roger
Home Robertson, John Strang, Gavin
Howells, Geraint Straw, Jack
Hoyle, Douglas Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Wainwright, R.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) Wallace, James
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Wareing, Robert
Janner, Hon Greville Weetch, Ken
John, Brynmor Williams, Rt Hon A.
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Winnick, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Tellers for the Ayes:
Kirkwood, Archibald Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.
NOES
Adley, Robert Bendall, Vivian
Alexander, Richard Berry, Sir Anthony
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Best, Keith
Amess, David Bevan, David Gilroy
Arnold, Tom Biffen, Rt Hon John
Ashby, David Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Aspinwall, Jack Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Body, Richard
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Bottomley, Peter
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Batiste, Spencer Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Beggs, Roy Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Bellingham, Henry Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brinton, Tim Hawksley, Warren
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Hayes, J.
Brooke, Hon Peter Hayhoe, Barney
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Heathcoat-Amory, David
Browne, John Heddle, John
Bruinvels, Peter Henderson, Barry
Bryan, Sir Paul Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony Hickmet, Richard
Budgen, Nick Hind, Kenneth
Bulmer, Esmond Hirst, Michael
Burt, Alistair Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Butcher, John Holt, Richard
Butler, Hon Adam Hooson, Tom
Butterfill, John Hordern, Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Howard, Michael
Carttiss, Michael Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Cash, William Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Chope, Christopher Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Churchill, W. S. Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hunt, David (Wirral)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Hunter, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Colvin, Michael Jackson, Robert
Coombs, Simon Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Cope, John Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Corrie, John Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Couchman, James Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Cranborne, Viscount Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Crouch, David Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Currie, Mrs Edwina Key, Robert
Dicks, Terry Kilfedder, James A.
Dorrell, Stephen King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. King, Rt Hon Tom
Dover, Den Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Dunn, Robert Knowles, Michael
Eggar, Tim Lamont, Norman
Evennett, David Lang, Ian
Eyre, Sir Reginald Latham, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lawler, Geoffrey
Fallon, Michael Lawrence, Ivan
Farr, John Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Favell, Anthony Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Fletcher, Alexander Lightbown, David
Forman, Nigel Lilley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) Lord, Michael
Forth, Eric Lyell, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman McCrea, Rev William
Fox, Marcus McCurley, Mrs Anna
Franks, Cecil Macfarlane, Neil
Freeman, Roger MacGregor, John
Gale, Roger MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Galley, Roy Maclean, David John
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Madel, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan Maginnis, Ken
Glyn, Dr Alan Major, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip Malins, Humfrey
Goodlad, Alastair Malone, Gerald
Gow, Ian Maples, John
Greenway, Harry Marland, Paul
Gregory, Conal Marlow, Antony
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Mates, Michael
Grist, Ian Maude, Hon Francis
Ground, Patrick Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Grylls, Michael Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Mellor, David
Hampson, Dr Keith Merchant, Piers
Hanley, Jeremy Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Hannam, John Mills, lain (Meriden)
Hargreaves, Kenneth Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Harris, David Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Harvey, Robert Moate, Roger
Haselhurst, Alan Montgomery, Fergus
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Moynihan, Hon C. Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Neale, Gerrard Squire, Robin
Needham, Richard Stanbrook, Ivor
Nelson, Anthony Stanley, John
Neubert, Michael Stern, Michael
Newton, Tony Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Nicholls, Patrick Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Normanton, Tom Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Norris, Steven Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Onslow, Cranley Stokes, John
Oppenheim, Philip Stradling Thomas, J.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Sumberg, David
Ottaway, Richard Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Page, Richard (Herts SW) Temple-Morris, Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil Terlezki, Stefan
Parris, Matthew Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Patten, John (Oxford) Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Pawsey, James Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Porter, Barry Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Powell, William (Corby) Thornton, Malcolm
Powley, John Thurnham, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James Townend, John (Bridlington)
Proctor, K. Harvey Tracey, Richard
Raffan, Keith Trippier, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Twinn, Dr Ian
Renton, Tim van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Rhodes James, Robert Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Viggers, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) Waddington, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Roe, Mrs Marion Waldegrave, Hon William
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) Walden, George
Rost, Peter Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Rowe, Andrew Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Waller, Gary
Ryder, Richard Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Sackville, Hon Thomas Watson, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Watts, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Sayeed, Jonathan Wheeler, John
Scott, Nicholas Whitfield, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Wiggin, Jerry
Shelton, William (Streatham) Wolfson, Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Wood, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Woodcock, Michael
Shersby, Michael Yeo, Tim
Silvester, Fred Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sims, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Tellers for the Noes:
Soames, Hon Nicholas Mr. Carol Mather and
Speller, Tony Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Spencer, Derek

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 143.

Division No. 286] [12.45 am
AYES
Adley, Robert Biffen, Rt Hon John
Aitken, Jonathan Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Alexander, Richard Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Body, Richard
Amess, David Bottomley, Peter
Arnold, Tom Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ashby, David Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Aspinwall, Jack Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Brinton, Tim
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Britten, Rt Hon Leon
Batiste, Spencer Brooke, Hon Peter
Bellingham, Henry Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)
Bendall, Vivian Browne, John
Berry, Sir Anthony Bruinvels, Peter
Best, Keith Bryan, Sir Paul
Bevan, David Gilroy Buck, Sir Antony
Budgen, Nick Hirst, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Burt, Alistair Holt, Richard
Butcher, John Hooson, Tom
Butler, Hon Adam Hordern, Peter
Butterfill, John Howard, Michael
Carlisle, John (N Luton) Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Carttiss, Michael Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cash, William Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Chope, Christopher Hunt, David (Wirral)
Churchill, W. S. Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hunter, Andrew
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Jackson, Robert
Cockeram, Eric Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Colvin, Michael Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Coombs, Simon Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Cope, John Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Corrie, John Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Couchman, James Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Cranborne, Viscount Key, Robert
Crouch, David Kilfedder, James A.
Currie, Mrs Edwina King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Dicks, Terry King, Rt Hon Tom
Dorrell, Stephen Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Dover, Den Knowles, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Lamont, Norman
Dunn, Robert Lang, Ian
Eggar, Tim Latham, Michael
Evennett, David Lawler, Geoffrey
Eyre, Sir Reginald Lawrence, Ivan
Fairbairn, Nicholas Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Fallon, Michael Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Farr, John Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Favell, Anthony Lightbown, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Lilley, Peter
Fletcher, Alexander Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel Lord, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lyell, Nicholas
Forth, Eric McCrea, Rev William
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman McCurley, Mrs Anna
Fox, Marcus Macfarlane, Neil
Franks, Cecil MacGregor, John
Freeman, Roger MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Gale, Roger Maclean, David John
Galley, Roy Madel, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Major, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan Malins, Humfrey
Glyn, Dr Alan Malone, Gerald
Goodhart, Sir Philip Maples, John
Goodlad, Alastair Marland, Paul
Gow, Ian Marlow, Antony
Greenway, Harry Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Gregory, Conal Mates, Michael
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) Maude, Hon Francis
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Grist, Ian Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Grylls, Michael Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Mellor, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Merchant, Piers
Hampson, Dr Keith Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Hanley, Jeremy Mills, lain (Meriden)
Hannam, John Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Hargreaves, Kenneth Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Harris, David Moate, Roger
Harvey, Robert Montgomery, Fergus
Haselhurst, Alan Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hawksley, Warren Moynihan, Hon C.
Hayes, J. Neale, Gerrard
Hayhoe, Barney Needham, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David Nelson, Anthony
Heddle, John Neubert, Michael
Henderson, Barry Newton, Tony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Nicholls, Patrick
Hickmet, Richard Normanton, Tom
Hind, Kenneth Norris, Steven
Onslow, Cranley Stanley, John
Oppenheim, Philip Stern, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Ottaway, Richard Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Page, Richard (Herts SW) Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Parris, Matthew Stokes, John
Patten, John (Oxford) Stradling Thomas, J.
Pattie, Geoffrey Sumberg, David
Pawsey, James Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Porter, Barry Temple-Morris, Peter
Powell, William (Corby) Terlezki, Stefan
Powley, John Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Prior, Rt Hon James Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Raffan, Keith Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Thornton, Malcolm
Renton, Tim Thurnham, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Tracey, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) Trippier, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) Twinn, Dr Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Rost, Peter Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rowe, Andrew Viggers, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Waddington, David
Ryder, Richard Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Hon Thomas Waldegrave, Hon William
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Walden, George
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Sayeed, Jonathan Waller, Gary
Scott, Nicholas Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Watson, John
Shelton, William (Streatham) Watts, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Wheeler, John
Shersby, Michael Whitfield, John
Silvester, Fred Wiggin, Jerry
Sims, Roger Wolfson, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Wood, Timothy
Soames, Hon Nicholas Woodcock, Michael
Speller, Tony Yeo, Tim
Spencer, Derek Young, Sir George (Acton)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Tellers for the Ayes:
Squire, Robin Mr. Carol Mather and
Stanbrook, Ivor Mr. Robert Boscawen.
NOES
Anderson, Donald Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Ashdown, Paddy Corbett, Robin
Ashton, Joe Corbyn, Jeremy
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Cowans, Harry
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Craigen, J. M.
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Cunliffe, Lawrence
Barnett, Guy Cunningham, Dr John
Barron, Kevin Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Davis, Terry (B'ham, h"ge H'I)
Benn, Tony Deakins, Eric
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Dewar, Donald
Bermingham, Gerald Dixon, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney Dobson, Frank
Blair, Anthony Dormand, Jack
Boyes, Roland Douglas, Dick
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Dubs, Alfred
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Duffy, A. E. P.
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Caborn, Richard Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Ewing, Harry
Campbell, Ian Faulds, Andrew
Campbell-Savours, Dale Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Flannery, Martin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Forrester, John
Clarke, Thomas Foster, Derek
Clay, Robert Foulkes, George
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Cohen, Harry George, Bruce
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Conlan, Bernard Godman, Dr Norman
Golding, John O'Neill, Martin
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Park, George
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Parry, Robert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Patchett, Terry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Pendry, Tom
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Penhaligon, David
Home Robertson, John Pike, Peter
Howells, Geraint Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hoyle, Douglas Prescott, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Radice, Giles
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) Redmond, M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Richardson, Ms Jo
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Janner, Hon Greville Robertson, George
John, Brynmor Rogers, Allan
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Rowlands, Ted
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Ryman, John
Kirkwood, Archibald Sheerman, Barry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Litherland, Robert Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Skinner, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Snape, Peter
McKelvey, William Spearing, Nigel
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Steel, Rt Hon David
McTaggart, Robert Stott, Roger
Madden, Max Strang, Gavin
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Straw, Jack
Martin, Michael Wallace, James
Maxton, John Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Maynard, Miss Joan Wareing, Robert
Meacher, Michael Weetch, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael Williams, Rt Hon A.
Michie, William Winnick, David
Mikardo, Ian Wrigglesworth, Ian
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Tellers for the Noes:
Nellist, David Mr. Frank Haynes and
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Mr. Roger Thomas.
O'Brien, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  1. Clause 2
      2. cc1007-57
    1. SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLORS 29,363 words, 2 divisions
Forward to