'Access to documents of councils (Hansard, 28 March 1985)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 55 and 56.

Mr. Baker
In the period before abolition day, the residuary bodies will have to acquire a close working knowledge of the authorities whose residual affairs they will take over. Without that knowledge, they will be unable to make detailed preparations for the responsibilities this Bill will lay on them, and without such knowledge they could not ensure that important activities such as computer systems, pensions payments, and payments to external creditors continue without interruption.
I regret to say that there are still those in some unions and in some expiring authorities who consider that they can disrupt such preparations after the Royal Assent to the Bill. Amendment No. 54 should make it clear to all concerned that the residuary bodies will have every right to get to grips beforehand with the task they will inherit on abolition day.
The amendment will have a further effect. In the run-up to abolition, GLC and MCC employees will, as a matter of professional pride, be working towards a smooth handover of services. I am confident that they will do that. Moreover, some of them could hold dual appointments where their current work is to go to a residuary body. In such cases, this measure will protect staff from any improper pressure to withhold vital information from the residuary bodies.
723 Amendment Nos. 55 and 56 make a minor adjustment to the powers of residuary bodies. They enable the bodies to enter into agency agreements with central Government for the discharge of functions. This is a necessary complement to their general role of facilitating the transition to the new structure.

§ Mr. Cowans
This is once again an example of the Secretary of State taking draconian powers without recourse to the House. I remind the Minister that no such power was dreamt of during the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. The power will entitle officers appointed by the Secretary of State, answerable not to Parliament but only to him, to demand information, much of which may be confidential. Indeed, it could relate to the pension rights of members of an elected body.
Moreover, through the residuary body, the Secretary of State will transfer all those services to himself. One can visualise how those services will be used. It is an unnecessary provision; indeed, it is government by bludgeon. The Secretary of State cannot argue the case and obtain the co-operation of the staff, so he takes everything to himself. The provision is also one-sided, because the penalties for failure to supply information do not take into account staff being ill or having to conduct other extremely important work. They must do as they are told, and, if anything gets in the way, they will have to pay considerable fines.
The amendment also means that the Secretary of State — I am sure that he will enjoy this — will become a public body. While the draconian powers that he has unto himself now may make him look like a divine body, he does not need to become a public body as well. There is a bare-faced, unnecessary transfer of power and services to the Secretary of State. Here he is—judge, jury and executioner. Through this amendment he seeks to make that legal. It is nonsense.