§ Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. BeithIt is a pleasure to have you taking over our proceedings at this hour, Mr. Hunt, giving a well-earned rest to the First Deputy Chairman.
The clause will give a title to the Bill that we maintain is wholly inappropriate. It may be the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, but there are many other titles one could give it. Its provisions are far from interim, so to call it an interim provisions Bill is wholly misleading. The title does not reflect the content of the Bill.
The Bill could better be described as the "Local Government Provisions That Will Become Permanent Bill" — not to mention the "Local Government (Dangerous Precedents) Bill". The provisions could become permanent because many of the major features of the Bill come into force immediately. Part II does not come into force until an order is made by the Secretary of State, but other parts come into effect without delay. For them to be interim, they must be repealed by the Secretary of State bringing forward an order. The procedure necessary to make the provisions interim involves processes at least comparable with the processes we are going through now.
The provisions do not lapse at a certain time. They would be genuinely interim provisions only if somewhere in the Bill there was a provision ensuring that certain parts expired by a given date—or that the provisions should have effect once certain steps had been carried out.
1042 The Bill is described in a seriously misleading way. It is designed to confuse the innocent reader who might stray into Her Majesty's Stationery Office and purchase a copy of the Bill, at £2.70—no doubt it will be more when it becomes an Act because the rate of inflation is so alarming.
It would be possible to consider a great variety of amendments. Some hon. Members, who have been conspicuous by their absence in the night hours, made suggestions on the Order Paper about the clause. No doubt there are good reasons why they should not be pursued in debate. It is simpler and more straightforward to concentrate our attack on the plain contention that the clause should not be approved—not only because it is part of an obnoxious Bill, but because it seeks to suggest that the provisions of the Bill are interim by character. They are not, and complicated procedures are required to make them interim.
The title as framed denies the fundamental problem which the Bill creates, which is that it sets out interim provisions based on legislation not yet brought before the House. I am sorry to reiterate this point, but if any Government Members live to see any extremist Government of the Right or the Left in this country, they will discover that the provisions and implications of the Bill were far from interim and that their effect passed into the constitutional fabric of our nation in a most harmful way. I wish that Government Members would sometimes reflect on the precedent that they have created and the possibilities that they have opened up for extremist Governments by pretending that one can describe a measure as "Interim Provisions", slip it through the House of Commons in three days, con the Labour party into muting its opposition to a derisory level, and not, in doing so, damage the constitutional fabric of the nation. Calling the Bill the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill is a cover-up job on a Bill that takes away basic constitutional rights and permanently damages the traditional and hither to unwritten safeguards of our construction.
§ Mr. Simon HughesDuring the Second Reading debate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that, were his party in opposition, it would have opposed the Bill far more solidly and forcefully than Her Majesty's Opposition have done. There were two reasons why the right hon. Gentleman, and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, made that point. They related it to the description of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is correct in saying that it is totally inaccurate to describe the Bill as interim when what it provides for is conditionally, if not completely, permanent. However, the title also totally misleads the country and may well have totally misled the electorate as well as many Government Back Benchers, because the Bill does much more than provide interim provisions for local government.
First—and the Secretary of State has been unable to suggest any precedent — it abolishes ordained and established elections. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the point that it does so by political sleight of hand, and that in London one political authority — at present the Labour party — is to be replaced by the Government's own political party. London is to be run by the Government's place people.
1043 The abolition of elections is not an interim provision. It is a fundamental constitutional reform affecting local and central Government. I am not aware of any recent examples in any other country of the abolition of elections being accompanied by a proposal to change the political party running a country or area, but if that were to happen there is no question but that our Government would say, "They are not a democratic country like the United Kingdom." But, without constitutional or practical precedent, that is what the Government propose to do.
I have not been a Member of this House for long enough to know whether it is possible for the title of a Bill to omit to mention the most important aspect of that Bill. I do not know whether that is a normal and regular procedure. But there is nothing interim about the abolition of elections next year or the replacement of a Labour-controlled council for London by a Conservative-controlled one by means of this provision.
§ Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North)Where did the Liberal party stand when the Labour Government delayed the borough elections in 1967–68?
§ Mr. BeithI was not a Member of the House at the time, but I understand that when the Conservative party and when the Labour party were in charge of local government reform the same authority continued in office until such time as the House decided what should replace it. On both occasions a new authority was created to take on the responsibilities and there was an overlap of one year during which the existing authorities continued in office and the new ones prepared for government. That is not proposed here. We have interim provisions to allow authorities to take over functions for which they were not elected and finally they will just disappear.
8.15 am
There is nothing interim about the abolition of elections and nothing that describes the contents of the Bill. If, within a mile of here, we purchased literature described as a children's newspaper but which was concerned with indecent exposure, it could be subject to prosecution under several laws and would have misled the purchaser. In this context, the purchasers are perhaps 18 million electors. The Government misled the country in their manifesto by not mentioning the abolition of elections. That will be broadcast ad nauseum.
§ Mr. BendallThe hon. Gentleman referrred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who tried to ensure the GLC's continuation for an extra year. I find that extraordinary because when the Labour Government put elections back for one year in 1967–68 he thought the action undemocratic.
§ Mr. HughesI cannot answer on behalf of a former Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman's point has nothing to do with the title of the Bill.
§ Mr. BendallThe hon. Gentleman raised the point.
§ Mr. HughesIndeed, because the criticism of a former Prime Minister has some weight outside the House. He said that this is a constitutional enormity that the public should oppose.
We can oppose the Bill best by describing what it does accurately, so that the irregular attenders of another place on whom the Government may rely know what they are 1044 supporting. The Bill is not what we understand a Bill to be because its substantive part will not be implemented. It will have to wait in limbo for us to make the substantive decision. We must first consider a Bill that we have not yet seen and which the Government may not yet have planned properly.
Therefore, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill describes something that is only a paving Bill. It will come into force with its draconian powers only when we see the colour of the Government's money on their substantive proposals. We have a right to insist that the Government go away and redraw the title so that it makes that clear. When we have an accurate title that describes the content of the Bill—a principle that the Government are normally very concerned about—we may consider supporting that description.
§ Mr. CorbynI know that it is unusual to hold a debate on the title, but this Bill is so obnoxious, nasty and devious that it must be opposed in every way possible. To call it the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill gives it a nice ring of bureaucratic certainty that it will all be OK, and that it is done in the best interests of everyone. However, as we well know, the Bill makes a major constitutional change. It represents the destruction of democracy for nearly 14 million people, and it is a disgrace that it should have this title.
An enormous campaign has been waged against the Bill, which has aroused people's passions. When people are told exactly what the Bill means, they say, "But it says that it is the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill." My answer to that is that it needs a new title. I would call it the "Local Government (Destruction of Democracy) Bill". That is exactly what it is. That is its purpose, and no more.
During the campaign against the Bill there has been tremendous enthusiasm for something that people have come to regard as part of life. People are used to going to their local authority, which either will, or will not do something for them. They can get rid of the council after four years if they do not like it. In London, the GLC has actually been trying to provide something for them. The Bill is an act of political spite. The trade unions, the local Labour parties and the community organisations have taken the lead in the campaign against the Bill. Together they have realised—
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Hunt)Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the clause is very narrow and deals only with the title. His speech is going rather wide of that.
§ Mr. CorbynThank you, Mr. Hunt, for that advice. I have no wish to stray from the subject under debate. However, I am sure that you understand that the title of a Bill means quite a lot. If succeeding generations look through their history books they will ask what all the fuss was about, saying that the Bill was only called the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. But there is an awful lot in a title. I hope that the House will recognise that this is a bad Bill of evil intent, which is very dangerous for democracy. Such a Bill deserves a more appropriate title.
§ Mr. FreudDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that "provisions" is a misnomer, in that that word appears to mean that something is provided whereas in this Bill something is quite patently taken away?
§ Mr. CorbynThe hon. Gentleman has more experience of short speeches than me. Fifty-eight seconds seems to be his normal length, although I enjoy listening to him. Of course, the Bill does provide for something—it provides for the centralisation of power around one person. That is all. It takes everything away from the rest of us. It is wrongly titled in that it suggests that it includes a general provision that is of value to anyone. The Bill is bad and is mistitiled, and I look forward to the Mininster admitting that the Government got it wrong, and that the real title should be the "Local Government (Destruction of Democracy) Bill", because that is what it is.
§ Sir George YoungThe hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that there had been an outpouring of enthusiasm in the campaign against the Bill. As I look at the Opposition Benches, I see no evidence of such an outpouring.
This is a wholly innocuous clause which simply states:
This Act may be cited as the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984.The long title states that it isA Bill to make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence.The explanatory and financial memorandum states thatThe Bill makes interim arrangements for the Greater London Council … and the metropolitan county councils.Against that background, and the debates on the Bill, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill is a perfectly fair description of what we have been debating for some time.The short title accurately and concisely reflects the purpose of the Bill, although, as has been said, it is now called the paving Bill. I ask the Committee to agree that the clause, which is wholly inoffensive and innocuous, should stand part of the Bill.
§ Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 165, Noes 23.
1046| Division No. 326] | [8.25 am |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Couchman, James |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Amess, David | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Batiste, Spencer | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Bellingham, Henry | Dover, Den |
| Bendall, Vivian | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Farr, John |
| Best, Keith | Favell, Anthony |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Forman, Nigel |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Franks, Cecil |
| Bottomley, Peter | Freeman, Roger |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Galley, Roy |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Bright, Graham | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Brinton, Tim | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Gorst, John |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Greenway, Harry |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Grist, Ian |
| Butterfill, John | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Cash, William | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Chope, Christopher | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hawksley, Warren |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hayes, J. |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Coombs, Simon | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Cope, John | Henderson, Barry |
| Hickmet, Richard | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Hind, Kenneth | Raffan, Keith |
| Hirst, Michael | Renton, Tim |
| Holt, Richard | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Hooson, Tom | Rowe, Andrew |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Ryder, Richard |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Hunter, Andrew | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Jessel, Toby | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Jones, Robert (W Herts) | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Key, Robert | Speller, Tony |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Spencer, Derek |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Squire, Robin |
| Knowles, Michael | Stern, Michael |
| Lang, Ian | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Sumberg, David |
| Lightbown, David | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Lilley, Peter | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Lord, Michael | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Maclean, David John | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Malone, Gerald | Tracey, Richard |
| Maples, John | Trippier, David |
| Marland, Paul | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Viggers, Peter |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Waller, Gary |
| Moate, Roger | Ward, John |
| Moore, John | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) | Watson, John |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Watts, John |
| Murphy, Christopher | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Wheeler, John |
| Neubert, Michael | Whitfield, John |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Norris, Steven | Wood, Timothy |
| Ottaway, Richard | Yeo, Tim |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Parris, Matthew | |
| Pawsey, James | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Porter, Barry | Mr. Douglas Hogg and |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Mr. John Major. |
| Powley, John |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Maxton, John |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Michie, William |
| Ashton, Joe | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Barron, Kevin | Nellist, David |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Cartwright, John | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cohen, Harry | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Craigen, J. M. | |
| Freud, Clement | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Mr. A. J. Beith and |
| Kirkwood, Archibald | Mr. Michael Meadowcroft. |
| Marek, Dr John |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.