ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL CONSULTATION

HC Deb 22 May 1984 vol 60 cc1008-40

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 9, page 41, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

The First Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 122, 42, 109, 91 and 123.

Mr. Alton

I draw the attention of the Committee to the purpose of clause 9. All hon. Members will probably be supportive of the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which allows electors to question the auditor, and to take a local authority to court, if they so desire. Clause 9 attempts to extend that power to constituent councils. This can have somewhat bizarre consequences, as I hope to point out.

If the clause remains unamended, it could mean that in areas where there is a split in the political balance, great confusion could be caused to the electors and councillors. On Merseyside, for example, five councils will comprise the metropolitan county area once this measure is enacted. Of those five district councils, three will be controlled by the Labour party and two by the Conservatives.

5.15 am

If an area has a Conservative majority—which, as I say. is not the case on Merseyside—and the interim authority spends too much, those councillors will challenge every item and be disruptive on every possible occasion. We saw an example of that during the "Fares fair" campaign in London in the Tory-controlled authority of Bromley. The clause as drafted will be a lawyers' paradise and will enable many Conservative-controlled authorities to do very much what happened in Bromley on that occasion. The whole system will be open to political abuse. That will cause confusion and chaos, which is all part of the general vendetta that the Government have been waging against local authorities.

Paradoxically, in an area such as Merseyside, with a Labour majority in the interim authority, the scope for decisions prejudicial to the best interests of local ratepayers will be at its greatest. The clause will give enormous power to local councillors who see their role as being purely to disrupt. Ironically, the clause will hand over to people such as Councillor Derek Hatton, the militant deputy leader of Liverpool city council, power to give instructions to the interim authority. Further, it will be incumbent on that authority to consult people such as Mr. Hatton, who has made it clear that his job and that of his colleagues is to bankrupt that authority and to take illegal action regardless of the cost to local ratepayers.

Imagine what the clause will mean for councillors who do not flinch from proposing illegal, bankrupting budgets for their councils. Consider what they will make of this opportunity. The possibilities are endless. There might, for instance, be a veto on spending on police matters, an aspect which inevitably will have to be covered by the interim authority. Such issues will be open to negative and destructive policies being put forward by people who see their role as one of creating the maximum mischief and chaos.

Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people should not be permitted to cause mischief and chaos. It has, however, been the role of Liberals in local government to take authorities to task on virtually every issue, even over a cracked pavement. Liberals have always exploited that situation. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that opportunity to disrupt should be removed?

Mr. Alton

There are bound to be times when councillors will wish to champion the causes of their local community, and it is legitimate for them to do that. It is illegitimate for councillors and local authorities to decide to break the law and run the local authority into bankruptcy. Some councillors have stated that, if they do not get their way, there will be riots. They say that there is no point in local government because the future is on the streets rather than in the council chambers. It is apparent that they are not interested, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) seems to think, in democracy. They are interested in creating the maximum amount of chaos. It is no surprise to anyone who has studied the outpourings of Militant Tendency that it frequently talks about the need to create chaos, because from chaos and disorder will come the things that they wish to pursue. If that were not the case, why have the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his colleagues been expelling such people from the Labour party in his constituency?

Mr. Straw

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that matter. Four of the people expelled from the Blackburn branch of the Labour party attended the count on 3 May for the municipal elections as scrutineers for the SDP-Liberal alliance. I possess a letter from the returning officer for Blackburn, Clifford Singleton. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is worrying that members of the Militant Tendency are now teaming up with the SDP-Liberal alliance? What exactly will the SDP-Liberal alliance do to clean up the Blackburn branch of the SDP-Liberals?

Mr. Alton

I am sure that the Committee will have been amused by the light relief introduced by the hon. Gentleman. If the SDP-Liberal alliance is subject to infiltration in the way in which he described, that is obviously a matter about which I would be most concerned. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for handing me some corroborative evidence, which we shall certainly investigate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the same action that he was prepared to see taken against the militants in his constituency will be taken against those people who are deliberately trying to bankrupt Liverpool and to bring it to its knees. This is not the light, flippant, humorous matter that the hon. Gentleman tried to make it; for people living in Liverpool it is a serious matter.

Mr. Straw

I have handed the hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter from the chief executive of the borough of Blackburn confirming that the four people named in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph on Friday 11 May — Rossina Harris, Kay Wright, Mary Orange and Des Mulcahy— signed the Declaration of Secrecy on 30 April, 1984 as part of the SDP-Liberal nominees for the Brookhouse Ward. The letter goes on the say that Mr. Ronald O'Keeffe, who is a past president of the Blackburn chamber of trade, acted as a Justice of the Peace in countersigning the Declaration. This matter may be light relief in the context of this debate, but it is not a light matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not regard it as in the least trivial that the SDP-Liberals in the Brookhouse ward of Blackburn should take members of Militant Tendency unto their bosom. I look forward to a statement from the hon. Gentleman that there will be an inquiry by the SDP-Liberal alliance at the national level about what has been going on.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. We have seen how we can get into deep water if we get away from the amendment. I ask the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to stick to the amendment.

Mr. Alton

Despite the red herring that the hon. Member for Blackburn tried to introduce into the debate, he raised a serious point, which I hope will be thoroughly investigated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will disown those people who have deliberately tried to bankrupt Liverpool. Under clause 9 the type of policies and methods that they have been promoting will become everyday practice, not just in Liverpool but in areas such as Manchester.

It is worth noting, in the context of the clause, that the current dispute in the city of Liverpool has already cost the ratepayers about £2 million as a direct result of money being paid to moneylenders to run services in the absence of a rate being levied. That shows the direct irresponsibility, negligence and failure to exercise fiduciary duty of the councillors inolved. The more the mischief, the merrier the militants.

That is the case not only in Liverpool but in other parts of the north-west. The hon. Member for Blackburn should be aware that only last night in the city of Manchester, the new Left-wing faction expelled all moderates — all Liberals, and all Conservatives—from the policy and finance committee of Manchester city council, just as the militants in Liverpool expelled all opposition councillors from personnel committees and school managing and governing bodies. Yet we will give the opportunity to those people, under clause 9, to have some say over the financing of the new interim authorities and the financing and running of bodies such as the police authorities.

Those left-wing people are not interested in tolerance, or in allowing others to put their own point of view. They are interested in maximum chaos and in using local authorities as a Marxist battering ram, a stalking horse against Government policy. They are interested only in manufacturing crises, and will use every opportunity that the legislation affords to have a field day. They will do that as a result of clause 9.

We have other reservations about the clause. Clause 7 provides for the full transfer of information to the boroughs and the districts, and the component parts of the new interim authorities. Therefore, much of clause 9 is purely repetitive. I refer the Committee to clause 7, which states that The Greater London Council and its officers shall furnish the Secretary of State, any London borough council and the Common Council with all such information relating to the Greater London Council or its functions as the Secretary of State or that London borough council or the Common Council may request.

Similarly, clause 7(3) states—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not discuss clause 7. We are discussing amendments to clause 9.

Mr. Alton

Indeed. I seek to draw the Committee's attention to a repetitive part of clause 9, which has already been dealt with by the Committee in clause 7. I have done that to illustrate that the legislation has been rushed through with indecent haste, mainly because the Government are not prepared to accept any drafting amendments, as has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as they know that if they accept any amendments, a Report stage will be required. It is just an abuse of the House and its procedures to proceed in the way that the Government have done.

Furthermore, clause 9 is lopsided. The duty is imposed on the interim authorities to consult and take note of the views of the boroughs or the districts, but no similar duty is imposed on the boroughs or the districts to take note of the views or wishes of the interim authorities. Why should they not have the same rights as the borough and the district councils, as outlined in clause 9? That would be fairer and more balanced, but of course the Government are not really interested in either of those virtues.

I once served on a metropolitan county council in Merseyside between 1973 and 1976. Before that I served for a year on the old unitary authority of Liverpool city council. Therefore, I was in the advantageous position of being able to judge the effects prior to reorganisation and afterwards. The House was profoundly misguided ever to have enacted the 1973 legislation.

I opposed that legislation when I was a member of that old unitary authority in 1972. I believed that a two-tier approach was unnecessary, costly and cumbersome. The House was mistaken in enacting that legislation. It is apparent that the Government are showing little humility in recognising the mistake that previous Conservative Governments made, and many of us who might be inclined to support the abolition of the identity crisis councils—the MCCs — which are neither local nor regional government, find it difficult to swallow legislation couched in such terms as clause 9, and legislation that abolishes elections and the one regional authority—the GLC—that we already have.

5.30 am

When I was a member of that MCC, it horrified me to see the amount of duplication and waste. I give the example of highways, which is relevant to clause 9 because the same problems will apply if this clause is enacted. If one of our constituents were to approach us and ask for a bollard to be placed in a back entry to a street that runs down the back of people's homes, probably because of cars running through and short-cut traffic, one would have to go through a cumbersome procedure.

First, one would approach the local council — the district council in the case of Liverpool. A man in a white coat from the highways and byways department would come along, and probably take some Conservative Members away, but more likely he would measure up to see where a bollard could be appropriately placed in the back entry. If he agreed with the person who made the complaint, the bollard might eventually be erected.

Before that happens, the request has to go to a meeting of the highways and byways sub-committee where the members consider the views of the engineer. If it makes a recommendation, it goes to the highways and environment committee of the council. If that committee agrees with the recommendations of the sub-committee, and the recommendation of the engineer, the decision goes on up to a meeting of the city council. Some 99 councillors sit around and the civic chairman—they abolished our mayor and are doing the same in a number of other local authorities—bangs the gavel, and the council decides that that bollard should be placed in the back entrance.

However, that is not the end of the matter, because the decision is referred to the Merseyside—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that the amendment is directed to accounts and financial consultation. He is taking us rather wide of the amendment.

Mr. Alton

I refer to this because the consultations and costs involved in future will prove similar to those in the procedure that I am outlining.

This matter does not end with the decision of the city council— it goes on to the MCC, and then passes to another three tiers. It goes to a general purposes traffic management sub-committee, which considers the recommendation of the city council. The matter is then referred on to the highways, tunnels and airports committee, where another group of councillors consider the recommendations of the sub-committee. A few more weeks pass in a process that has already taken some months, and the matter is then referred to another 99 councillors, who meet in the Merseyside county council.

Six local government layers later, the gavel is brought down, a decision is achieved in the MCC and it is decided that a bollard can be placed in the back entry. Usually, traffic management orders are referred to the Department of the Environment, so the matter is referred to Piccadilly plaza—Manchester being one of Liverpool's better-class suburbs. Ultimately, it is referred to the Department of the Environment in London in Marsham street. Two central Government layers later, authority may be given for the bollard to be placed in the back entry. So, 18 months and a lot of old bollards later, a man comes out in a white coat with a wheel barrow and—

The First Deputy Chairman

This is an interesting tale, but I am sure that the Committee will be interested to know to which amendment the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Tracey

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong.

If this is a matter of interest to the Liberals, why did they not table an amendment?

The First Deputy Chairman

That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Alton

We were so pleased with amendments tabled by the official Opposition that we did not want to risk them not being debated. Although only five members of the official Opposition are here at this time, we are grateful to them for giving us the opportunity to discuss bollards.

Mr. Straw

I am sure that the public will wish to make their own judgments about whether a concession on amendment No. 40 and the withdrawal of the undertaking to withdraw the subsection that would have suspended the operation of the local government boundary commission during the Bill, is more important than this trivial discussion about bollards at back entrances—which even the hon. Gentleman cannot remotely make serious.

Mr. Alton

Perhaps a rather tender nerve has been touched. The hon. Gentleman well realises that the cosy wheeling and dealing that takes palce in a hole in the corner, to which he may have been privy but to which other hon. Members are not privy, means that no decision has been taken through the usual channels to ensure that democracy will be preserved. If a few trinkets have been handed to the Opposition, and if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been bought off by the harlots on the Conservative Benches—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Alton

Perhaps I should not have gone so far. I am sure that you, Mr. Armstrong, will understand that members of what is now regarded as the real Opposition have become angry at the cavalier approach of the official Opposition. For that reason, perhaps my temper got the better of me.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

While my hon. Friend is on the subject of how cheaply the official Opposition have been bought off, did he have time to read an interesting account in the newspapers—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to a specific amendment.

Mr. Alton

I did have time to read the interesting report, which I commend to hon. Members. In the meantime—

Mr. Wrigglesworth

Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the amendments—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is referring to one of the amendments.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

I am indeed, Mr. Armstrong. As you allowed the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to intervene, I am sure that it is in order for me to do so.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was referring to one of the amendments.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

As you allowed the hon. Member for Blackburn to intervene, Mr. Armstrong, I am sure that it is in order for me to comment on the matter that he raised.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was intervening on something that is wide of the amendment.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

If I could correct the mistaken impression given in my response to the intervention—is it not true that the cosmetic agreement that has been reached between the two Front Benches is to hide the fact that Labour Members were not prepared to stay tonight to oppose the legislation and try to see it fail?

Mr. Alton

My hon. Friend is leading the Committee to the truth. A sordid deal has been conducted in the usual way between the Government and the official Opposition to let the official Opposition off the hook because their Members wanted to go home to bed. The alliance is determined to fight for the rights of local government. That is why we are here.

I redirect the attention of the Committee to clause 9. The clause is typical of the Bill, in that it does little about local democracy and much to place yet more powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and of unelected cabals. We would have sought far more radical legislation. I would happily have seen the shire counties abolished, as well as the metropolitan counties, if they had been replaced by genuine regional government—by a federal system of government.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a clause stand part speech. He is not referring to the amendments. He must speak to the amendments.

Mr. Alton

If I catch your eye later on, Mr. Armstrong, I shall be happy to return to that issue.

Subsection (2) of clause 9 is an example of ill-conceived and ill-considered draftsmanship. It states that consultation is to take place, but it does not state how that consultation is to take place.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. Subsection (2) is covered by amendment No. 44, which we have not yet reached. The hon. Gentleman should reserve his speech for the occasion.

Mr. Alton

I shall be happy to return to that matter later on as well, Mr. Armstrong, if I have an opportunity, and so will my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).

Subsection (3) of clause 9 states: The Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council shall—

1. (a) comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) above before it determines for the purposes of section 11 of the General Rate Act 1967 the amount of its total estimated expenditure for the financial year mentioned in that subsection".

It is not clear how that is to be done or precisely what the liabilities of the local authority are to be. There could well be deliberate filibustering by some of the constituent authorities of the new interim authorities. Some of those authorities may go out of their way to try to ensure that the good governance of many of the municipalities is undermined.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have managed a better filibuster if there had been more than eight hon. Members on his Benches. What sort of Opposition is that?

Mr. Alton

If 30 per cent. of Conservative Members were present, I would be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Clause 9 is entirely consistent with the character of the Bill. It provides those of us who might have had some sympathy with the Government's declared original intention with an insight into their real motives. Political expediency and spite seem paramount in their considerations. If the Prime Minister were not so obsessed with the leader of the GLC, we might be involved in a more rational and fundamental reform of the way in which we govern ourselves.

Miraculously, the right hon. Lady has transformed the leader of the GLC—who will no doubt rub his hands with glee when he sees how clause 9 has been drafted—into a political folk hero. Given the unpopularity of Mr. Livingstone and the GLC just two years ago, that is quite extraordinary. The Government should have spent more time running the country and less time trying to run the GLC, and Mr. Livingstone should spend less time trying to run the country and more time trying to run the GLC.

Mr. Tony Banks

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that at least part of the popularity of Mr. Livingstone and the GLC stems from their successful policies? For example, "Fares Fair" and the travelcard have gained great support for the GLC among Londoners. It is not simply that Mr. Livingstone has benefited from the personal attacks made upon him by the Tory press and Mrs. Thatcher.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I am trying hard to relate the debate to the amendments. When we come to the clause stand part debate, I must bear in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman has gone wide of the amendments.

5.45 am

Mr. Alton

The intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) leads me even wider of the debate. I shall not reply to his point so as not to prejudice the debate on clause stand part.

Mr. Cohen

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that clause 9 is about accounts and financial information and the Secretary of State's unlimited power in that regard. Is he aware that the GLC is having an open week during which people can go to see how it works for London and to get financial information? If the Government want such information, should they not go across the river this week rather than put an unrestricted clause into the Bill?

Mr. Alton

If the Government want us to go and look at that information, I am sure that we could adjourn for half an hour.

Mr. Waldegrave

It would be of greater convenience if the hon. Gentleman went across to the other side of the river.

Mr. Alton

I do not think that I shall take the Minister's advice. Clause 9(4)—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if he persists in making a clause stand part speech. There is nothing about subsection 4 in the amendments.

Mr. Alton

I referred to it because the amendment says—

Mr. Corbyn

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. A rather serious noise is coming from under our Bench. It does not appear to be a sedentary Member.

The First Deputy Chairman

It will be investigated.

Mr. Alton

I referred to subsection 4 because it was originally intended that no extra cost would fall on the members of the interim authorities should action against the GLC or metropolitan counties be embarked on. I am worried that the councils might have to bear vast costs when this lawyer's paradise or Pandora's box in clause 9 is opened. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments, as they would rationalise clause 9 and make it sensible and workable. If the Committee does not accept the amendments we hope to press the matter further in the debate on clause stand part.

Mr. Tony Banks

Unlike the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), I shall try to restrict my comments to the amendments and to what that part of clause 9 is all about. It is a further example of an attempt to load the dice and to go for overkill.

Those who understand the provisions of the Local Government Acts 1933 and 1972 and the Local Government Finance Act 1982 will know that they contain powers to allow any local government elector to inspect a local authority's accounts. The authority for doing that is that the local government elector has elected or played a part in electing the local authority through the ballot box. Thus there is a direct relationship between the challenger and the local authority being challenged. But, of course, under clause 9 the Government propose that the powers vested through the local government elections should be extended to other authorities — each London borough and each metropolitan district council. Frankly, I should have thought that any challenge that the borough or district wished to make against the metropolitan authority could be made through the existing system of audit or through the courts.

Therefore, one has to attempt to understand, if one can, why the Government are writing in this additional power. One can only assume that they anticipate there being many problems with the local authorities, and that those local authorities will try to create problems for the successor authorities. If that is the case—I do not think that it necessarily will be—surely audit or the courts would have been sufficient to bring those erring metropolitan authorities to account.

In effect, the clause will set one elected public authority against another. London's ratepayers will have to fund the cases that are consequently raised. That seems most unfair. Mention has been made of the mendacious, vexatious, and vindictive charges made against the GLC by Bromley borough council. The "Fares Fair" policy was in the GLC's manifesto, but the challenges made by Bromley cost the Bromley ratepayers, who paid the cost of challenging the GLC, and the GLC ratepayers generally — including an element for Bromley — dearly. In the circumstances, it was the poor old ratepayers in London who had to pick up the tab for that particular piece of political vindictiveness launched by Bromley against the GLC.

Clause 9 could allow that to continue unrelentingly. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill was concerned about the possible effect — as he sees it — of Left-wing militants having a go. I am much more concerned about the Right-wing extremists who run councils such as Bromley and Westminster, who would undoubtedly try to take the GLC to court as often as possible and who would create as many difficulties as possible for that authority.

Mr. Corbyn

Over the past five years I have been concerned by the increasing use of the law against progressive local authorities. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea of the costs forced on the GLC through continuously having to defend itself by legal means since the present administration took office in 1981? Does not my hon. Friend think that this legislation, and in particular the clause, is likely to lead to further litigious activity and so to further heavy expenditure of public money on both sides? The only people to benefit, of course, will be those in the legal profession.

Mr. Banks

It would be difficult to put a precise figure on the costs incurred by the GLC in defending itself against actions brought by Bromley and Westminster councils. Although the Westminster council case did not come to court, the GLC had to take counsel's advice, which is very costly. My hon. Friend is correct to say that, since the judgment by the law lords on the "Fares Fair" policy, every committee paper of the GLC that involves expenditure has had to be subjected to legal consideration—to outside counsel—so that councillors could be sure that members at county hall were not being asked to vote for illegal measures. That has cost London ratepayers many hundreds of thousands of pounds, all of which has gone into the pockets of the lawyers. They are one of the greatest growth industries in the capital city, because of the Government's determination to hedge round local authorities with restrictions which, for the safety of the councils, it is necessary to clear with legal advisers before they proceed. That is the effect that this legislation and the attacks upon local government are having on the relationship between councils and their officers.

That leads me to my third point, which relates to clause 9. It greatly increases the chances of council members being surcharged for taking decisions which the courts or, indeed, the district auditors judge to be illegal.

Mr. Corbyn

While my hon. Friend is dwelling on this aspect of the legislation, will he comment on the decisions made by the courts during the lifetime of the present GLC administration? It seemed to me that there was a clear intent by Bromley council's action and by the Government's lack of action to destroy the concept of a mandate given by the electorate to elected representatives in local authorities and instead to impose a decision of the judges, as was the case with the "Fares Fair" policy.

Mr. Banks

For a while the Law Lords' decision reduced London Transport's fare structure to chaos. This clause would lead to similar action being taken against the GLC on policies that it decided were in the interests of London ratepayers.

I have no doubt that people such as Lady Porter of Westminster council and Bromley borough council will seek to use clause 9 to its full effect, which will cost London ratepayers dear and will lead to further confusion in local government structure. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North was correct to say that there was much chaos following the law lords' decision. Instead of the Government being appalled by the chaos that was threatened in London's local government structure and in London Transport, the Prime Minister thought it a wonderful wheeze. I remember hearing her being interviewed and saying that it served the GLC right, and that it was all its fault. That is the irresponsibility of Conservative Members and their leader. She was delighted to see the chaos into which local government is descending under the legislation being imposed upon it. Clause 9 will bring further chaos and further risk of councillors being surcharged. Local government officials and councillors now face being dragged through the courts.

To avoid some of those obvious and unpleasant pitfalls, I encourage the Committee to support the amendments.

Mr. Waldegrave

The filibuster mounted by the alliance was one of the feebler efforts that I have heard in my time in the House. Those of us who, like my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), have been present throughout this debate as well as the debates on the Rates Bill know a professional filibuster when we hear it. When the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) gets going, that is artistry. What we have heard from the Liberal party today was more of a shambles, although it perhaps allowed us to have a useful stand part debate in advance, despite your efforts to bring us back to the amendments, Mr. Armstrong. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—a far more formidable debater in these matters—indeed brought us back to the amendments, all of which concern subsection (1).

6 am

The reason for including clause 9(1) in the Bill is straightforward and sound. The borough councils, common council and districts which will take on most of the functions of the GLC and the MCCs have a direct interest in the financial affairs of the upper tier authorities during the run-up to abolition. Therefore, it is only reasonable that they should have some access to, and rights to object to, accounts which will define the financial situation that they will eventually take over.

Subsection (1) merely gives constituent councils the same rights as electors to see the accounts, to question the auditor and to make objections. Those rights will apply to the constituent councils only for the years from 1983–84.

Mr. Tony Banks

If the borough and district councils in the metropolitan areas are to have rights equivalent to those of local ratepayers, why is not that principle extended to the shire districts, which are very interested in the shire precepts?

Mr. Waldegrave

The hon. Gentleman has been giving the answer to that question all night with threats of disruption and so on in the metropolitan areas. It is to enable the authorities in those areas to have some say in regard to rates and the kind of action promised by the hon. Gentleman that we take the view that a special situation exists.

Amendment No. 42 seeks to remove this useful and entirely reasonable provision for no good reason.

Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 attempt to make it mandatory for the courts to order a constituent council to pay all costs and expenses if an objection is not upheld. I assume that that is intended as a safeguard against nitpicking interference. There is no reason to expect that constituent councils will abuse their rights, but, even if they did, the courts already have a general power to award legal costs against any of the parties involved. The existing power is discretionary, whereas that proposed in the amendments would be mandatory. The discretion is important as there might be cases in which, although the upper tier authority was not found to be at fault, the constituent council was perfectly justified in bringing the case to appeal—for example, because the upper tier authority failed to provide all the facts. In such a case the court might decide that it would be inequitable to lay all the costs on the constituent council. The amendments would remove that discretion.

Amendment No. 91 also goes somewhat further than the existing ordinary discretionary power in that it would involve expenses as well as legal costs, as do the discretionary powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1982, but whereas a local elector's or auditor's expenses may be reasonably easy to assess, that would not be the case for local authority expenses and the precise administrative costs involved in processing an objection or appeal whould always be open to challenge. I am advised that the normal principle that costs follow the event would ensure that constituent councils would have to pay all legal costs if they were in the wrong. That is sufficient safeguard against spurious challenges. It would be quite wrong to remove the court's discretion in such matters.

Amendment No. 109 restricts the application of subsection (1) to the accounts for 1984–85. As the Bill stands, the rights would apply to accounts for the years 1983–84 to 1985–86 inclusive. Clearly the constituent councils will have a particular interest in the accounts for 1984–85 as it is the financial year preceding the transitional councils, but the abolition proposals will have been very much in mind in 1983–84 and the existing upper tier councils will have the whole of April and the first week of May 1986 under their control, thus affecting the 1986–87 accounts.

Mr. Michie

I understood that constituent councils were democratically elected. I do not understand what the Minister means by constituent councils in this context. In debates in Sheffield and south Yorkshire about a year ago business men said that they should have more votes because they paid more rates than other electors. Is this one way of getting round that problem?

Mr. Waldegrave

It has nothing to do with that. The term "constituent councils" in this context means lower tier councils in the district or borough councils in the areas where the councils are to be abolished.

It is, therefore, entirely equitable and necessary that the constituent councils have access and the right to object to the audit of the accounts of all three financial years, as any one of them might contain attempts to frustrate the tasks of the successor authorities.

Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 would mean that the constituent councils would not be able to use the rights to see, question and object to upper tier budgets at audit on any matter on which they had been consulted under the provisions in clause 9. The argument for this change will be that if the constituent councils have been consulted they have no need to see the accounts later at audit, nor any ground to object, since they were involved in the preparation of the budgets. The duty laid on the upper tier councils is purely to consult. The constituent councils may therefore be able to influence the budgets, but they have no power to insist on anything, and the upper tier councils are not obliged to obtain agreement. Constituent councils would still need the rights conferred on them by clause 9(1) since the budgets may not have taken account of their views.

The amendments would mean that, once an upper tier council had consulted its constituent councils, which it might regard as no more than a formality, it would be free to make whatever budget it liked, without fear of the constituent councils being able to see and question it at audit. That cannot be in the best interests of the smooth transfer of functions.

All the amendments would, to a greater or lesser extent, deny or frustrate the constituent councils' exercise of rights which Parliament has already deemed reasonable and workable for local electors. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Alton

I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments. It was ironic that the Minister referred to the smooth transfer of function because that must be the last thing to which the legislation has led. He had the temerity to suggest that the filibuster of Liberal Members—we would not describe it as such — was a shambles. Compared with the shambles of the legislation, our attempts to block it are professional. It is clear that the Minister and his hon. Friends, who are present seven hours after their expected bedtime, are growing increasingly tetchy.

The position of councils remains extraordinarily unclear. The Minister has not made any clearer what will happen to councillors who go to the district auditor and challenge a budget which has been drawn up by component authorities in the Greater London council area or metropolitan counties. When they read our debates many councillors may worry that they could be liable for surcharge for a failure to fulfil their fiduciary duty.

Furthermore, the Minister made it clear that those matters are to be left to the courts' discretion. The situation could not be more unsatisfactory. Anything more unsatisfactory is hard to imagine. We are determining legislation, but are so unclear about its purpose that the Minister must admit that those matters will be left at the courts' discretion. That will create a lawyers' paradise, which is why we shall force the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 185.

Division No. 321]	[6.08 am
AYES
Alton, David	Maxton, John
Ashdown, Paddy	Meadowcroft, Michael
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Michie, William
Barron, Kevin	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Bruce, Malcolm	Penhaligon, David
Cohen, Harry	Randall, Stuart
Corbyn, Jeremy	Sedgemore, Brian
Fisher, Mark	Skinner, Dennis
Freud, Clement	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Kirkwood, Archibald	Tellers for the Ayes:
Madden, Max	Mr. A. J. Beith and
Marek, Dr John	Mr. John Cartwright.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Fookes, Miss Janet
Amess, David	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Franks, Cecil
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Batiste, Spencer	Freeman, Roger
Bellingham, Henry	Gale, Roger
Bendall, Vivian	Galley, Roy
Berry, Sir Anthony	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Best, Keith	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Goodlad, Alastair
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Gorst, John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Greenway, Harry
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gregory, Conal
Bottomley, Peter	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Grist, Ian
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bright, Graham	Hanley, Jeremy
Brinton, Tim	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Brooke, Hon Peter	Harris, David
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Haselhurst, Alan
Bruinvels, Peter	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Bulmer, Esmond	Hawksley, Warren
Butterfill, John	Hayes, J.
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Hayhoe, Barney
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cash, William	Heddle, John
Chope, Christopher	Henderson, Barry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hickmet, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hind, Kenneth
Coombs, Simon	Hirst, Michael
Cope, John	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Couchman, James	Holt, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount	Hooson, Tom
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Howard, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Dover, Den	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Emery, Sir Peter	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Evennett, David	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Jackson, Robert
Farr, John	Jessel, Toby
Favell, Anthony	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)	Ryder, Richard
Key, Robert	Sackville, Hon Thomas
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Knowles, Michael	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lang, Ian	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lawler, Geoffrey	Sims, Roger
Lawrence, Ivan	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Speller, Tony
Lightbown, David	Spencer, Derek
Lilley, Peter	Squire, Robin
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Stern, Michael
Lord, Michael	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Lyell, Nicholas	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
McCrea, Rev William	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Sumberg, David
Maclean, David John	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Major, John	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Malins, Humfrey	Temple-Morris, Peter
Malone, Gerald	Terlezki, Stefan
Maples, John	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Marland, Paul	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Maude, Hon Francis	Thornton, Malcolm
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Tracey, Richard
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Trippier, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Moate, Roger	Viggers, Peter
Moore, John	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Moynihan, Hon C.	Waldegrave, Hon William
Murphy, Christopher	Walden, George
Needham, Richard	Wall, Sir Patrick
Nelson, Anthony	Waller, Gary
Nicholls, Patrick	Ward, John
Norris, Steven	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Osborn, Sir John	Warren, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard	Watts, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Parris, Matthew	Wheeler, John
Porter, Barry	Whitfield, John
Powell, William (Corby)	Wiggin, Jerry
Powley, John	Wood, Timothy
Proctor, K. Harvey	Yeo, Tim
Raffan, Keith	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Renton, Tim
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)	Tellers for the Noes:
Roe, Mrs Marion	Mr. Carol Mather and
Rowe, Andrew	Mr. Michael Neubert.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Straw

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 8, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

The First Deputy Chairman

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 124, in page 8, line 17, leave out from 'consultation' to end of line 21.

No. 45, in page 8, line 23, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 25 and insert 'and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Straw

By clause 9(2) the GLC and each metropolitan county council is required to consult its constituent councils—the metropolitan districts in the metropolitan areas and the London broughs in the GLC area—about its expenditure proposals and the financing of that expenditure during the year beginning 1 April 1985.

By clause 9(3)(c) the GLC and the metropolitan counties are required to make available to their boroughs and districts such information concerning their past and present expenditure and the financing of that expenditure as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. By subsection (4) the regulation power is subject to the negative procedure and not the affirmative procedure of the House of Commons.

Amendment No. 44 operates to strike out subsection (2), amendment No. 124 operates to strike out subsection (3)(c) and amendment No. 45 introduces the affirmative procedure for the making of regulations under clause 9(3)(c).

We object to the proposal that is made in this part of the Bill because we believe that it is unconstitutional and will have a bizarre effect. Each local authority currently has to determine its own expenditure and then answer to its own electorate for that expenditure. At no stage during the discussions on the Rates Bill, as it then was, and the additional central control which the Government will take over local authorities under that measure was it suggested that an individual local authority should have a duty to consult its electors, either directly or indirectly, about its expenditure and consult another authority within its area. We believe that it would be unacceptable to change the present system.

Within the metropolitan counties and the GLC the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs have no electoral power to control the metropolitan counties or the GLC, and the Bill does not propose to give them any special power to do so. Those responsible for the GLC and the metropolitan county budgets are the councillors who are elected to those councils. To give a right of consultation to constituent cuncils would undermine the authority of elected councillors. If the Bill is enacted, these provisions will even undermine the authority of councillors who are nominated by the districts to serve on the successor boards that will operate during 1985–86. It is not proposed to give any similar rights to shire districts in respect of the budgets of shire county councils.

The GLC and the metropolitan counties are being singled out for an invidious form of interference by constituent councils which have no special need to interfere and no special powers to control the GLC and the metropolitan county council budgets. It is important for the Committee to bear in mind that no such power to interfere with the budgets of the old councils—those that disappeared on 1 April 1974—was given to the shadow authorities set up on 1973. I think that is an important precedent that the Government ought to follow. In making such a proposal, the Minister is without any precedent even from previous Conservative Governments.

The amendments would retain the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, in their relations with their constituent councils, in the same position that they are in at present, and in the same position in which the shire counties are to shire districts.

We regard the proposal as unconstitutional and unacceptable, even if every authority within a metropolitan area or within the GLC were of the same political complexion. We object to the idea that one tier of authority should have a right to interfere in another tier of authority. This is made doubly unacceptable because the proposal, as it stands, would give Conservative-controlled borough councils in London and district councils in the metropolitan areas the right to be consulted about the budgets of Labour-controlled county councils and the GLC. What purpose will be achieved by asking Conservative councils to offer comments on a Labour council's budget, or by asking Labour councils to comment on the budget of a Conservative council? This may not have been the intention, but the effect is politically prejudiced. It adds nothing to the Bill that I can discern. It is an unnecessary imposition on the authorities, and the power given to the Secretary of State under clause 9(3) is an unacceptable power.

Mr. Ashdown

When a Government suddenly act totally out of character with what they have been doing hitherto, Opposition Members, of whatever party, have reason to become suspicious of what is being proposed. It is remarkable that the Government, who have shown no inclination or enthusiasm for consulting anybody about what they have been doing, or about what they have sought to impose upon the people and institutions of Britain, suddenly say in a Bill: The Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council shall consult its constituent councils". Not only have the Government changed their spots in advising consultation; they are positively imposing it. This comes from a Government who, as I shall prove, have a well-identified tendency to tyranny which is recognised throughout the country and which has been perfectly clearly expressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members may well shout, but they need only look at the results of the by-elections.

I observe that the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) has just left the Chamber—perhaps that is why. The constituents of Surrey, South-West are clear about the intentions of the Government, and the way in which they have been prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the people and constitutional institutions of Britain.

We have a Prime Minister who shows no intention to consult. Indeed, the people whom she might have consulted in Cabinet, and who might have given her views different from her own, have been banished to the Back Benches. She has stated clearly that she opposes the concept of consensus, which depends on consultation.

I am seeking to prove—I may have more success in doing that to Opposition Members, who have rather more open minds than Conservative Members—that there is a deep hypocrisy in this sudden imposition by a Government who have hitherto shown no intention to consult. What is the reason for their change of heart, if that is what it is?

6.30 am

Mr. Alton

Ask the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).

Mr. Ashdown

I would, but I think that he is comatose to a point at which it would be impossible for him to reply.

The Government are now imposing consultation on the GLC and metropolitan councils — imposing it, not advising it—yet this is the same Government who did not consult the GCHQ work force about abandoning their union membership; who did not consult local councils about rate capping; who did not consult the GLC about its abolition; and who did not consult the GLC about the abolition of elections. I will not mention the miners because the NUM, not the Government, did not consult the miners, so we had better draw a small curtain over that. The Government did not consult the British Telecom workers about privatisation and they did not consult the workers at the royal ordnance factories. The Government did not want to consult in those cases because they knew that they would have got a clear answer of no.

Mr. Cohen

When did the NCB and the Government consult the miners about closing pits, thereby taking away their jobs?

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. If the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) were to answer that, he would be getting away from the subject of the amendment.

Mr. Ashdown

I would not wish to stray in such a way that would detract from the expedition of our business, Mr. Armstrong.

To impose consultation in this way is totally out of character for the Government. After all, they did not consult their partners in the EC on certain matters. If ever a Government had proved themselves consistently uninterested in consultation, they are in power now. From the Prime Minister down, through all their actions, the Conservatives have proved to be totally uninterested in consultation.

When I was asked to participate in this debate and when I read this provision about consultation, I wondered why we should oppose it, because participation and consultation are the stuff of the Liberal party. I am delighted that the council leaders in south Yorkshire felt that they should consult Labour hon. Members about their appalling attendance here. They are not present now, either. No doubt another postbag containing admonitions is wending its way to the Labour Whips' Office.

What worries us is that this aspect of the legislation is totally out of character for the Government. Have they, we wonder, undergone a sort of Pauline conversion? Is this the road to Damascus for the Conservatives? Have they suddenly decided to embrace the concept of consultation? I doubt it, especially as they are granting powers in this provision which have never been granted before, as the hon. Member for Blackburn pointed out.

Why have the Government done this?

Mr. Tony Banks

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's breakfast cereal speech—all snap, crackle and pop. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, because he has previously asked who forms the Opposition, that the Committee contains far more Labour than Liberal-SDP Members.

Mr. Ashdown

I do not intend to go down that line, Mr. Armstrong, because I am afraid that you would admonish me. I see that 30 per cent. of my hon. Friends and a depressing percentage of other hon. Members are in the Chamber. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that we have managed to get some response from Conservative Members. Have the Government suffered a Pauline conversion? Is this their road to Damascus? Have they set a precedent for the rest of their legislation? We need to examine these matters. The clause is a mechanism not to consult, but to inhibit the capacity for the existing organs to do their job. In every case, with the exception of the GLC, the political colour of the nominated metropolitan councils will differ from that of most of the constituent councils. The Bill is a mechanism to control, obstruct and manipulate.

I hold no brief for the politics of Liverpool, but the Liverpool people elected the current council, whether we like it or not. The Government are sufficiently powerful and free to use their so-called mandate to impose their will on other people without consultation, so what is their right to manipulate or control the mandate in the hands of the metropolitan councils? The figures show that every metropolitan council in England was elected with a higher share of the vote than that enjoyed by the Government. The Government received 42.5 per cent. of the vote—a landslide in the number of seats because of our ridiculous voting system—which is lower than the percentage won by every metropolitan council in England which the Government wish to manipulate through this so-called system of consultation.

Mr. Alton

The Committee might like to reflect on what happens when there is a tyranny of the minority. Reference has been made to Liverpool where in the municipal elections 100,000 people voted against the Labour party's policies and only 90,000 voted for them, yet the Labour party achieved an overall majority on the city council. It is not just a matter of the tyranny of a minority in this place, despite the fact that 34 per cent. of voters voted for the Government in the last election and two out of three did not vote for them. The same can happen in local government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the tyranny of the minority can occur in places such as Liverpool city council, just as it happens here?

Mr. Ashdown

I readily agree, but I think that you, Mr. Armstrong, would take me to task if I followed that line.

The legislation aims not for consultation but for control of all those who suffer from the sin of disagreeing with the Government. The Government are talking of consultation, so that the weight of opinion reflected in the councils will be countervailed in some sense by providing a right of consultation, which has never been granted before and to which the Government have shown themselves in every environment to be unsympathetic. Clause 9(2) is not aimed at consultation but is a cynical attempt to control those who have no less of a democratic mandate, but suffer from the singular sin, in the Government's eye, of daring to hold views different from the Government's views.

If one looks at it in detail, the proposal is revealed to be unworkable. We need to ask ourselves about the consultation. How will it take place? Who will be present? Will the people involved be the chairmen of the finance committees, or will the entire councils be involved? Will the consultations have due regard to the political balance of each of the constituent councils? The budgets are possibly the most strongly publicised areas of local government. Therefore, will the consultations take account only of the majority view on each council? Will they have regard to the minority view? Will the consultations be open to the public? As the joint boards have no direct democratic responsibility or accountability, one would imagine that it is especially important that arguments should be deployed in public. If the Minister is keen on consultation, will it be in public?

Mr. Alton

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the way in which consultation would take into account purely the views of the majority? Is that not one of the most disturbing features of the way in which it is proposed that consultation should take place? Only the views of the majority will be taken into account, and the legitimate views of the minority will be ignored.

Mr. Ashdown

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister will recall that that was one of the questions that I asked. Will there be a mechanism in the consultation process for the minority view to be heard? We should like to hear an answer to that question. Will the minutes and the papers of the consultation be published?

Mr. Alton

I am particularly concerned that my hon. Friend should emphasise this point. In the city of Liverpool, the Conservative party is a small party, and won only three out of 34 wards in that city at the elections. As it is such a tiny party, it is important that its views should be represented. I hope that my hon. Friend will emphasise that.

Mr. Ashdown

That is precisely one of the points that I should make. I believe sufficiently in democracy to believe that even, or perhaps especially, the Conservative party should have the right to representation on councils such as Liverpool city council, where its view might not be sufficiently expressed or heard.

We can ask other questions. Will the consultation procedures have regard to petitions that may be presented? There are further questions about the effectiveness of such consultations. For instance, what status will they have? What, if anything, are the GLC and metropolitan county councils supposed to do after the consultations, especially in view of the rebellious constitutional position espoused by some of the authorities concerned? In short—

Mr. Michie

Oh—in short?

Mr. Ashdown

It would be shorter if the hon. Gentleman let me conclude in the normal fashion.

Given the uncertain nature of the consultations, is this not another example of how the proposals will create the very thing that the Government have told us that they are against—more bureaucracy? It will cost more money than the existing structure.

One is led to the conclusion that the co-called consultation proposal is an attempt to emasculate the vestiges of these already emasculated councils. It is like taking a condemned man and roughing him up before sending him to the scaffold. Are the Government so frightened of what the rump of those organisations can do that they must tie them down by such controls and impose consultations that are not about consultation, but about limiting their power to do their job effectively?

As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, we are establishing something for which there is no precedent. It will now be an established process. It is a precedent that can now be used by other Governments. We know, for example, that the Labour party believes quite strongly that we should abolish the shire counties. There is nothing to stop them using the precedent that we are establishing to inhibit the operation of the shire counties and to tie them up with regulations and consultations.

This clause is not an attempt at consultation, but is a clear attempt by the Government to ensure that they have their way down to the last detail. First, they will abolish the elections and then they will so hamstring what is left that it becomes meaningless.

6.45 am

Mr. Alton

Before my hon. Friend moves on to another amendment, will he clarify one issue that is of concern to Liberals throughout the country who have fought for the right to petition their councils? Will he press the Government to say whether petitions will be permitted as part of the consultation process when the Government and the new interim authorities consider such consultation during the procedures?

Mr. Ashdown

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I mentioned that point, but his intervention will serve to reinforce my point.

Amendment No. 45 has been called a negative instrument. As we recognise, there are great constitutional issues at stake in the Bill. Any self-respecting Government committed to democracy would allow a full debate on such issues. We recognise that there is a good deal of public disagreement with what the Government are trying to do. This is another although perhaps smaller item in the catalogue of instruments for the repression of a full debate on these issues. We all know that a negative instrument is used to curtail debate and, along with other signs, this seems to show the weakness and bankruptcy of the Government's arguments. There is no reason why we should not bring this matter back to the House, and there is no need for a negative instrument. We have consistently opposed this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken against the use of the negative instrument. The Government do not need the negative instrument, and should not need to curtail debate on this subject.

Amendment No. 124 is on clause 9(3)(c), which is also something of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It looks like something tending towards a freedom of information Bill. A certain amount of information shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State. It is only financial information and not a broad aspect of information. For the first time, a Government who have consistently opposed a freedom of information Bill are having to prescribe information. The Secretary of State will lay down what forms of information will be provided. We have to look at what the Government are seeking to do in the light of their reputation.

Mr. Freud

Is it not the case that if one prescribes what information is available it is wrong to call this freedom of information?

Mr. Ashdown

My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I should rephrase it to the providing of information. My hon. Friend is well known for having pursued the subject of freedom of information. That means free access to a range of information. In this case, the Secretary of State will say that certain information will be required. Under this Government, all information is limited and proscribed, so if some is prescribed that might look like freedom of information.

We know that the Government have no real interest in providing free access to information. We are worried that the clause could be used by the Secretary of State to prescribe ludicrously detailed information that is designed, once again, to hamstring and control the operation of the new authorities.

Someone might say that that is a rather ungenerous view. Why should we doubt the integrity of the Secretary of State? Why do we believe that he will act in that fashion? Why do we believe that he will act malevolently rather than benevolently? That is what has characterised everything about this legislation from start to finish. The Secretary of State and the Government have been prepared to use this legislation and other legislation in a way that has been blatantly vindictive. That will continue. We are concerned that the Secretary of State will use this clause in a vindictive way. We distrust the Secretary of State and the Government who may misuse the clause in a damaging manner.

I do not have to tell hon. Members about our commitment to the freedom of information. We do not believe that the decisions about what information should be released should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. If the Government think that providing information is a good thing — if they have genuinely had the conversion to which I have referred—I ask the Minister to follow through the rhetoric.

When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will say that that is the principle that will be applied in broader areas. I do not expect him to say that he could support a freedom of information Bill. I want him to say that that is a principle that he wants to see carried forward. If he does not say that, and I suspect that he will not, we must reach the only conclusion that the intention is not to provide information but to act as another instrument to control and manipulate the last dying days of these rump organisations.

The Government's vindictiveness and the instrument that they now have for venting that vindictiveness worries us most. I can draw the conclusion only that this will be yet another Government attempt to emasculate even the last fluttering remnants of local democracy that they have done so much to destroy. That is why we shall support the amendments.

Mr. Tony Banks

Perhaps we should be obliged to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for such a lively speech. I notice that one or two cadavers round the Chamber were not penetrated by his tones. He made a number of good points.

This measure is an example of a Government who are refusing to provide information, but through the Bill require others, under threat of coercion, to provide information. The Government refuse to consult, but try to compel others to consult. They are trying to load all the dice in their favour with this clause.

Although I am happy to support amendment No. 44, frankly it is unnecessary because the GLC already consults widely with regard to its annual budget. Therefore, the procedures set out in clause 9 (2), (3) and (4) are wholly unnecessary, as the consultative document produced for the GLC's budget for 1984–85 will be reproduced for 1985–86. I have spent much time during the past 12 or 14 hours showing the Minister documents and asking him whether he has read them.

Here is the 1984–85 public consultation document on the budget. It was not necessary for the Government to impose on the GLC a duty to consult. The GLC is aware of the need to consult the boroughs, the chambers of commerce, the voluntary organisations and other public bodies and interested individuals in London. In many ways, the requirements that are being imposed on the GLC are unnecessary.

I support amendment No. 44 because I believe that there is no great need for the subsection. But if the Under-Secretary believes — as I assume he does — that consultation on budgets is so important, why does he not extend the provision in the clause into a requirement on the shire districts and the shire counties? Why not allow the same powers to be given to the shire districts? If the hon. Gentleman accepted that, he would show that he has a genuine concern and love for consultation about budgets. If he refuses to do so, one can only conclude that this is another bit of Government malice—an attempt by the Government to make doubly sure that they will get what they want.

On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has been pushing at an open door. He may not have known how extensive the GLC's consultations have been, and will be in 1985–86, when an elected GLC will still have been responsible for formulating the budget.

Mr. Tracey

As the clause and the subsection are most important, I wish to put one or two points on record, and, I hope, to strengthen certain parts of the clause.

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) presented his arguments plausibly, with all the innocence of a choirboy, but against the impression created by the hon. Gentleman we must set some frightening things said earlier by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). A few of us challenged the hon. Gentleman at the time on the grounds that what he was suggesting was anarchy in the GLC. That is what gives this clause—like one or two previous clauses—its importance.

The clause would enable the Government, the interim council and the borough councils in the GLC and metropolitan county areas to avoid a booby trap. I have talked to various borough council leaders in the GLC area, and there is no doubt that they are afraid of certain things happening and of certain booby traps being set for them. At the moment when the interim council takes over from the GLC, it could find that it is landed with problems which will be very difficult to unscramble.

The Under-Secretary should perhaps tell the Committee today what his views are, and, perhaps, bring forward amendments in another place. Will my hon. Friend consider requiring the GLC and metropolitan counties to consult on section 137 expenditure, which is controversial? A few days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) introduced a ten-minute Bill. She set out clearly the fears of responsible members of borough councils and many ratepayers about how section 137 expenditure is incurred by local authorities, especially the GLC and the metropolitan counties.

I and borough council leaders are also worried about contracts. Contracts for more than £100,000 for things other than the annual provision of supplies and services, and which would create liabilities for the successor authority, should also be examined. It has been suggested that the GLC should have to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for such contracts.

7 am

The transfer of property between authorities and the use of capital receipts for its purchase from London boroughs should also be examined. We have seen some pretty gross examples of that recently. I believe that the GLC purchased property from Lambeth, so putting cash into Lambeth's coffers, with the intention of selling the property back in due course. That is an abuse of the GLC's powers.

Mr. Tony Banks

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tracey

No. I do not wish to delay the Committee.

Mr. Banks

Get it straight then.

Mr. Tracey

Council leaders are also worried about the creation of additional capital or revenue balances and the closure of reserve funds. There are some highly technical areas in which the GLC or metropolitan councils could leave behind some serious problems for their successors. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give fair consideration to the fears of council leaders that I have expressed on their behalf.

Mr. Michie

I have listened to the debate for many hours, and no doubt there are many more hours to go. I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said about accountability and consultation.

Many of us had misgivings about the local government reorganisation of the early 1970s by which the metropolitan counties were established. I have been a metropolitan county councillor since then and a district councillor, so I have no axe to grind. The metropolitan counties realised that they were distant from the electorate and went out of their way to ensure that there was consultation on budgets, highways, planning, consumer protection and the rest. They have been criticised because they have spent so much time and money on consultation with the electorate.

Whatever the shortcomings of the metropolitan counties might have been, I believe that they have done a magnificent job. The electorate is not very happy about the two-tier system, as it is confusing to some people. But it has still proved to be of benefit when it comes, for example, to transport in south Yorkshire, the environment, and so on. Every budget and policy has been explained to the electorate. What is why such authorities are returned year after year. That is what has upset the Government. Those authorities will continue to be returned, and that is something that the Tories cannot stand.

Mr. Waldegrave

We have had arguments that balance and to some extent contradict each other. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a vigorous speech in favour of the general principle of consultation. On the left flank, as it were, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that it was all done anyway, and that the powers in the Bill would not make any difference to anything that happened, because there were no teeth to the consultations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) raised very different worries, which I have also heard forcefully expressed by borough leaders who fear that there will be deliberate obstruction by the councils affected by abolition at the ratepayers' expense. Of course, we have been given due warning of that by Opposition Members in the course of great rhetorical flourishes during this interminable debate. So even if my hon. Friend had not made his speech we would have been warned. I say to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—I am sure that he is here somewhere—that the questions raised lead me to think that we may be falling between two stools in the way in which we have drafted the matter.

Mr. John Fraser

"Stools" is the right word.

Mr. Waldegrave

I think that the hon. Gentleman must be referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), which concentrated a good deal on that sort of thing.

We will reflect further on these issues. It would not be sensible simply to include a provision that had no effect. If we are only duplicating the powerful measures concerning general information requirements in clause 7, there may be no point in proceeding. We undertake to reflect further, although I do not give any commitment to change the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown

We are, of course, happy to hear that the Minister is prepared to think again. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that, if that is the deal, what an appalling, paltry, squalid little trinket it is! Labour Members have sold their birthright and their vote for such a paltry little trinket. That will not satisfy the people of south Yorkshire. Yet another lot of letters will flood in to Labour Members, no doubt justifiably complaining that instead of protesting against the Bill they have sold their birthright for a miserable squalid little promise on the part of the Minister to think again.

Mr. Beith

Before my hon. Friend completes his demolition of the Minister on this point, I hope that he will consider what the Minister said—that he would reflect, without any indication of where his reflections would lead or at what point they would be brought to bear. I hope that my hon. Friend is not overlooking the fact that the Government have arranged that there will be no Report stage on the Bill. Therefore, we can only extend pious hopes to another place.

Mr. Ashdown

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This is a typical example of the old alliance at work in exchanging these little confidences. But enough of that. As the Minister has been unable to give any assurance, and as we shall not have an opportunity to raise matters on Report—it appears that the Government will do anything not to have a further debate on this issue — and since we cannot test the Minister's so-called reconsideration, we have no alternative but to divide the Committee on this group of amendments.

Mr. Corbyn

I support the amendments. It was very sad to hear the Minister's reply. The Government are proposing a most devastating centralisation of power, and all that he can say at the end of nine hours of debate is that he will reflect again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen hours."] I am sorry; time passes so quickly when one is having fun.

This clause proposes a most disgraceful move. The Government abolish elections and try to abolish our councils, all of which are controlled by the Labour party. They know that they would remain controlled by the Labour party whatever elections might take place. We need no lectures from Liberal Members about the success of local administration in providing the transport that people need and the services that the people of London want. Liberal Members should consider which party is the most popular in London at present.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a clause stand part speech. He must direct his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Corbyn

I was directing my remarks to the amendment, but I was sidetracked by Liberal Members. Subsection (2) of the clause uses the words, shall consult such associations of local authorities. The operative word there is "shall", because the only words that the Government understand are "shall", "must" and "obey". That is the language of oppression and of intimidation. It is the only language that they understand.

Mr. Tony Banks

She who must be obeyed.

Mr. Corbyn

As my hon. Friend says, it is she who must be obeyed.

Mr. Ashdown

While the hon. Gentleman is distributing so much blame to the Liberal party and to the Government, will he also — since he said that he supports the amendment — say a few words in mild criticism of the Labour Front Bench spokesmen, who put down this amendment but did not wish to force it to a vote?

Mr. Corbyn

It would be wrong for me to be diverted down that path. It would be more correct to say that several of us, who have spent many years as local councillors and who have fought for resources and democracy for our areas, are prepared to stay here for as long as it takes to defeat this disgusting legislation.

The amendments are trying to remove the compulsion that the Government are so keen to force down the throats of the people of London and the metropolitan counties, and substitute the sort of co-operation that the GLC and the metropolitan councils have offered to district and borough councils — co-operation in discussion about services. The borough of Islington does not need the Secretary of State to come along and say, "You will be consulted and you will agree." That means a 31.8 per cent, cut in our social services budget, an enormous cut in our housing budget, longer waiting lists, more unemployment, more misery and more poverty. That is what that form of consultation means. What the people of Islington have received from the GLC is support, sympathy and understanding — and, yes, money raised from other London ratepayers, because the GLC recognises the special problems of inner-city boroughs.

All of that will go as a result of this legislation and the kind of consultation that the Government propose. Then-idea of consultation is like a hammer to a nail—straight down and straight in. It is not understanding or sympathy, but destruction. I hope that the amendments will now be carried bright and early in the morning, so that the Secretary of State at least has to come back to Parliament with his proposals.

As it stands, the Bill takes power away from locally elected people and hands it over to the Secretary of State—and we all know what his intentions are with the Bill and his form of consultation.

I am glad to see that Conservative Members are now awake. Good morning, all. I trust that they will recognise the justice of the amendments and carry them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 173.

Division No. 322]	[7.15 am
AYES
Alton, David	Maxton, John
Ashdown, Paddy	Michie, William
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Barron, Kevin	Nellist, David
Beith, A. J.	Randall, Stuart
Bruce, Malcolm	Sedgemore, Brian
Cohen, Harry	Skinner, Dennis
Corbyn, Jeremy	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Freud, Clement
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Kirkwood, Archibald	Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and
Madden, Max	Mr. John Cartwright.
Marek, Dr John

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Hunter, Andrew
Amess, David	Jessel, Toby
Arnold, Tom	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Batiste, Spencer	Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Bellingham, Henry	Key, Robert
Bendall, Vivian	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Berry, Sir Anthony	Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Best, Keith	Knowles, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Lang, Ian
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Lawler, Geoffrey
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lawrence, Ivan
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Bottomley, Peter	Lightbown, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Lilley, Peter
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Lord, Michael
Bright, Graham	Lyell, Nicholas
Brinton, Tim	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Brooke, Hon Peter	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Maclean, David John
Bruinvels, Peter	Major, John
Bulmer, Esmond	Malone, Gerald
Butterfill, John	Maples, John
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Marland, Paul
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Mather, Carol
Cash, William	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Chope, Christopher	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Moate, Roger
Coombs, Simon	Moore, John
Cope, John	Moynihan, Hon C.
Couchman, James	Murphy, Christopher
Cranborne, Viscount	Needham, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Nelson, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen	Neubert, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Nicholls, Patrick
Dover, Den	Norris, Steven
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Ottaway, Richard
Farr, John	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Favell, Anthony	Parris, Matthew
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Pawsey, James
Fookes, Miss Janet	Porter, Barry
Franks, Cecil	Powell, William (Corby)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)	Powley, John
Freeman, Roger	Raffan, Keith
Gale, Roger	Renton, Tim
Galley, Roy	Roe, Mrs Marion
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Rowe, Andrew
Goodlad, Alastair	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Gorst, John	Ryder, Richard
Gow, Ian	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Greenway, Harry	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gregory, Conal	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Grist, Ian	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Speller, Tony
Hanley, Jeremy	Spencer, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan	Squire, Robin
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)	Stern, Michael
Hawksley, Warren	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Hayes, J.	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Hayhoe, Barney	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Heddle, John	Sumberg, David
Henderson, Barry	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Hickmet, Richard	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Hind, Kenneth	Temple-Morris, Peter
Hirst, Michael	Terlezki, Stefan
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Holt, Richard	Thornton, Malcolm
Hooson, Tom	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Howard, Michael	Tracey, Richard
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Trippier, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Viggers, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Hon William	Whitfield, John
Walden, George	Wiggin, Jerry
Wall, Sir Patrick	Wood, Timothy
Waller, Gary	Yeo, Tim
Ward, John	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Warren, Kenneth	Tellers for the Noes:
Watts, John	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)	Mr. Tim Sainsbury.
Wheeler, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Beith

I beg to move, That the Chairman do leave the Chair. This motion is in no sense a reflection on your excellent conduct of our proceedings, Mr. Armstrong, over the past many hours. I pay tribute to the care and patience that you have shown. I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn the proceedings by means of that motion at this stage to enable some of the reflection to which Ministers have referred to take place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has said several times that he intends to reflect. We are anxious to provide him with the opportunity to do that, and hope that there will be an useful outcome from that process. I am not sure that Ministers want the outcome to be all that specific. Such a break would be for the assistance of hon. Members, although my hon. Friends are happy and indeed anxious to debate a number of other features of the Bill.

I detect from Conservative Members the sense that they have been kept here for a long time discussing a Bill to which they are not enthusiastically committed, to put it mildly. [Interruption.] Perhaps I am wrong and they are anxious to get ahead.

In a Bill as important as this, whose provisions are as complicated as these, it would be immensely to the Committee's advantage to stand over the proceedings now and return to the matter on Thursday, when time has been set aside for the remaining stages.

I know that the Government intend that there will be no Report stage. It seems that they may succeed in that, because although their numbers are dwindling they still have a comfortable majority. However, if the Labour party brought its members into the Lobby now we could beat the Government's majority.

I believe that it is a reasonable prediction that there will be no Report stage and that therefore the time available to us on Thursday could easily be divided between the remaining amendments and new clauses. A debate on clause stand part remains before we reach the other matters. There is still enough time for us to tackle those things and the Third Reading.

Many hon. Members want to take part in those debates, and rather than rush them through this morning, when there are Committees, that would be a reasonable way to pursue the matter. I hope that Ministers will give us their view of how they see matters proceeding.

I assure Ministers that we are willing to continue and if they would prefer to continue in that way we shall do so. I am giving them that opportunity and you, Mr. Armstrong, the opportunity for a well-deserved break from the duties that you have carried out so well.

The First Deputy Chairman

The Question is, That the Committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Waldegrave

Mr. Armstrong, there was a moment a few hours ago when I thought for a time—

Mr. Beith

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I did move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair, not the motion that you put.

The First Deputy Chairman

That is an antiquated form. We must formalise the matter, and the Question I put is the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Beith

Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I was most anxious to ensure that the Leader of the House did not have denied to him the opportunity at a later stage to move the motion, That the Committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again. I am always anxious to assist the Leader of the House. It is for that reason that I avoided the moving of a motion that might be duplicated. Therefore, I moved, that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

The First Deputy Chairman

In no way is the Leader of the House being denied the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman wants to give him.

7.30 am

Mr. Waldegrave

I think that an antiquated form is indeed what the Liberal party is interested in. There was a time, a couple of hours ago, when I thought just for a moment that the Liberal party was trying to run a filibuster. It did not last long. Having run out of things to say on the Bill, Liberal Members are using antiquated forms to see if they can waste time on this sort of thing. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Madden

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. The Leader of the House might wish to reflect on whether or not the Committee should proceed because during the last Division there was only one Clerk allocated to the Aye Lobby. I am sure you can imagine, Mr. Armstrong, the great difficulty he experienced moving from one desk to the other to take the names. I appreciate that the Government are in considerable difficulty in securing the legislation. We also appreciate that cuts are biting very deep into all corners of the Committee, but I ask you, Mr. Armstrong, to ask the Leader of the House to ensure that if the Committee continues, adequate arrangements are made for Clerks to attend in the Aye Lobby to ensure that the difficulties experienced in the last Division are overcome.

The First Deputy Chairman

I understand that there was unavoidable delay but that it was quickly overcome. I understand that the voting was properly recorded.

Mr. Simon Hughes

On a point of Order, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

You scruffy little man.

Mr. Hughes

Had hon. Members who are complaining about some apparel in the Committee been here all night they, too, might feel the need to take off their jackets. Further to the point of order raised a moment ago—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. This is a debatable motion, but is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order?

Mr. Hughes

This is a point of order. Further to the point of order raised a moment ago, it would help the Committee to expediate the business, because of the shortage of Clerks, if the official Opposition were to indicate that they will not have their numbers here. In that case we might be able to survive with one Clerk telling in the Lobby. If considerable numbers of the official Opposition are expected in the foreseeable future the Committee would need to know.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Question put, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 165.

Division No. 323]	[7.33 am
AYES
Alton, David	Maxton, John
Ashdown, Paddy	Meadowcroft, Michael
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Michie, William
Barron, Kevin	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Beith, A. J.	Nellist, David
Bruce, Malcolm	Sedgemore, Brian
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Skinner, Dennis
Cohen, Harry	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Kirkwood, Archibald	Tellers for the Ayes:
Madden, Max	Mr. John Cartwright and
Marek, Dr John	Mr. Clement Freud.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Gorst, John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Greenway, Harry
Amess, David	Gregory, Conal
Arnold, Tom	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Batiste, Spencer	Grist, Ian
Bellingham, Henry	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bendall, Vivian	Hanley, Jeremy
Berry, Sir Anthony	Haselhurst, Alan
Best, Keith	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Hawksley, Warren
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Hayes, J.
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hayhoe, Barney
Bottomley, Peter	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Heddle, John
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Henderson, Barry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hickmet, Richard
Bright, Graham	Hind, Kenneth
Brinton, Tim	Hirst, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Holt, Richard
Bruinvels, Peter	Hooson, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Butterfill, John	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Cash, William	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Chope, Christopher	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hunter, Andrew
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Jessel, Toby
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Coombs, Simon	Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Cope, John	Key, Robert
Couchman, James	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Dorrell, Stephen	Knowles, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Lang, Ian
Dover, Den	Lawler, Geoffrey
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lawrence, Ivan
Favell, Anthony	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Lightbown, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lilley, Peter
Franks, Cecil	Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Freeman, Roger	Lord, Michael
Gale, Roger	Lyell, Nicholas
Galley, Roy	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Goodhart, Sir Philip	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Goodlad, Alastair	Maclean, David John

Major, John	Speller, Tony
Malone, Gerald	Spencer, Derek
Maples, John	Squire, Robin
Mather, Carol	Stern, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Moate, Roger	Sumberg, David
Moore, John	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Moynihan, Hon C.	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Murphy, Christopher	Temple-Morris, Peter
Needham, Richard	Terlezki, Stefan
Nelson, Anthony	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Neubert, Michael	Thornton, Malcolm
Nicholls, Patrick	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Norris, Steven	Tracey, Richard
Osborn, Sir John	Trippier, David
Ottaway, Richard	Twinn, Dr Ian
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Viggers, Peter
Parris, Matthew	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Pawsey, James	Waldegrave, Hon William
Porter, Barry	Waller, Gary
Powell, William (Corby)	Ward, John
Powley, John	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Proctor, K. Harvey	Warren, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith	Watts, John
Renton, Tim	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Roe, Mrs Marion	Wheeler, John
Rowe, Andrew	Whitfield, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Wiggin, Jerry
Ryder, Richard	Wood, Timothy
Sackville, Hon Thomas	Yeo, Tim
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sayeed, Jonathan
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Tellers for the Noes:
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Mr. Archie Hamilton.
Soames, Hon Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

The First Deputy Chairman

The Question is, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

In accordance with the power conferred upon me by Standing Order No. 50, I think that the principle of the clause has been well discussed.

Mr. Freud

rose—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. No point of order arises on this matter.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 24.

Division No. 324]	[7.43 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Bulmer, Esmond
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Butterfill, John
Amess, David	Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Arnold, Tom	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Batiste, Spencer	Cash, William
Bellingham, Henry	Chope, Christopher
Bendall, Vivian	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Berry, Sir Anthony	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Best, Keith	Coombs, Simon
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Cope, John
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Couchman, James
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bottomley, Peter	Dorrell, Stephen
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Dover, Den
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bright, Graham	Favell, Anthony
Brinton, Tim	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Brooke, Hon Peter	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Franks, Cecil
Bruinvels, Peter	Freeman, Roger

Gale, Roger	Needham, Richard
Galley, Roy	Nelson, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Neubert, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Nicholls, Patrick
Goodlad, Alastair	Norris, Steven
Gorst, John	Ottaway, Richard
Greenway, Harry	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Gregory, Conal	Parris, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Pawsey, James
Grist, Ian	Porter, Barry
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Powell, William (Corby)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Powley, John
Hanley, Jeremy	Proctor, K. Harvey
Haselhurst, Alan	Raffan, Keith
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)	Renton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren	Roe, Mrs Marion
Hayes, J.	Rowe, Andrew
Hayhoe, Barney	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Ryder, Richard
Henderson, Barry	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Hickmet, Richard	Sayeed, Jonathan
Hind, Kenneth	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hirst, Michael	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Holt, Richard	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Hooson, Tom	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Speller, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Spencer, Derek
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Squire, Robin
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Stern, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Hunter, Andrew	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Jessel, Toby	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)	Sumberg, David
Key, Robert	Taylor, John (Solihull)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
King, Rt Hon Tom	Temple-Morris, Peter
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Terlezki, Stefan
Knowles, Michael	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Lawler, Geoffrey	Thornton, Malcolm
Lawrence, Ivan	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Tracey, Richard
Lightbown, David	Trippier, David
Lilley, Peter	Twinn, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Viggers, Peter
Lord, Michael	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Lyell, Nicholas	Waldegrave, Hon William
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Waller, Gary
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Ward, John
Maclean, David John	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Major, John	Watts, John
Malone, Gerald	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Maples, John	Wheeler, John
Mather, Carol	Whitfield, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Wiggin, Jerry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Wood, Timothy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Yeo, Tim
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Moate, Roger
Moore, John	Tellers for the Ayes:
Moynihan, Hon C.	Mr. Ian Lang and
Murphy, Christopher	Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

NOES
Alton, David	Marek, Dr John
Ashton, Joe	Maxton, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Meadowcroft, Michael
Barron, Kevin	Michie, William
Beith, A. J.	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Bruce, Malcolm	Nellist, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cartwright, John	Randall, Stuart
Cohen, Harry	Sedgemore, Brian
Corbyn, Jeremy	Skinner, Dennis
Ewing, Harry
Freud, Clement	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth and
Madden, Max	Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9 orderd to stand part of the Bill.