§ Mr. Matthew TaylorI beg to move amendment No. 204, in page 23, line 35, at end insert—
`( ) No party or group representing 10% or more of a nominating body shall be totally excluded from the committee or sub-committee to which nominations are being made.'.We strongly support the principle that underlies proportionality on committees. That point is dealt with in this clause. To that end we have tabled amendment No. 204. Despite Ministers having made their intentions clear, the Bill does not specifically provide for the protection of minorities. There are some local government politicians who are determined to frustrate the Government by ignoring the spirit of the clause.The Secretary of State will be aware of the example that I shall use to illustrate my point. It concerns Cambridge city council and Cambridgeshire county council, though it is by no means the only example. In Cambridge there is a joint traffic management sub-committee, consisting of councillors from both councils. This year an arrangement has been reached between the majority city Labour group and the majority county Conservative group to exclude Democrats and to share the 10 seats equally between themselves, despite the fact that we hold seven of the 42 city seats and 10 of the 77 county seats.
A motion was put to the city council supporting the principles that are included in this clause, but Labour and Conservative members united to defeat it. Socialist members claimed that the Bill would not apply to that committee and therefore we seek to amend the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment would strengthen the Bill because clearly there are those who intend that these provisions should be held in contempt. It is not always the Democrats who are in danger of being squeezed in that way. Other parties in other local authorities are in similar circumstances. It is not a partisan point. Presumably the Minister accepts that, otherwise he would not have produced the provisions in this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 204 seeks to ensure only that the Government's intentions are adhered to. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister will accept the intention of the amendment.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier)I am anxious to respond in the same spirit which has been evinced by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I am very happy to look at the specific example which he has given the House.
My purpose is to convince the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is unnecessary. The Bill is being considered on Report and the legislation has not been enacted, so it will be interesting to discover whether the example which he cites will be caught by the legislation.
On the amendment which he tabled, simple arithmetic shows that any committee consisting of more than 10 members would be expected to include at least one representative of a party which comprises 10 per cent. or more of council members. Such an individual would be excluded from smaller committees of fewer than 10 members—and the amendment refers to sub-committees.
§ Mr. Matthew TaylorThe Minister is wrong about that. If there were fewer than 10 committee members, there would still have to be at least one representative of a group that represented 10 per cent. of the council. That group would then be disproportionately represented. Under the amendment at least it would be represented.
§ Mr. TrippierI understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He kindly paid tribute to the fact that the Bill was seeking fairer proportional representation—if I dare use that expression—in terms of membership of committees.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI have never fully understood the concern about representation of minority parties on committees such as local authority policy committees. Why are the Opposition not invited to have representation in Cabinet, for example? Why is it that Opposition parties are not represented in Cabinet? Why is it that we have a system in Westminster that totally excludes any Opposition Members on the policy-framing body of Government—the Cabinet—yet we impose it in local government? I do not understand that.
§ Mr. TrippierI caution the hon. Gentleman not to press his point too far. If he is suggesting that he or right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would like to be members of the Cabinet or its Committee, given that there is collective responsibility among Ministers, he would have to be prepared to share responsibility for decisions which the Government take. I wonder whether that would be stretching credulity to breaking point. If that is official Labour party policy, let us hear about it, preferably from the Leader of the Opposition. I doubt whether we shall hear much more about it.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)When I was Conservative leader on a London borough, one of the things which most annoyed me was the fact that we, as the major opposition party, were excluded from the policy committee of the council which actually fixed the rate. The difference between a local authority committee and the Cabinet is that a local authority committee is an executive 814 committee which can put council policy into practice, without any further discussion. All Cabinet decisions have to be ratified by law through this House. That is a major difference. It is right that all elected councillors should have a say in the policy of the authority before it becomes law in the council.
§ Mr. TrippierI do not know how far we are able to stray on this particular point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you rule us out of order. The most specific point that I can make to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is that in local government the whole council is responsible for the executive decisions. In national Government, the Government are a separate executive.
§ Mr. SoleyI offer the helpful advice to the Minister that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing a good job for the Opposition in the Cabinet. I think that he should be encouraged.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. I hope that we are not going to stray into higher constitutional principles.
§ Mr. TrippierI was only going to reply briefly, before you ruled me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the greatest advantage we have at the moment is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, especially in view of the remarks that he made over the weekend.
However, I will now reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Truro. Main council committees, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will agree, normally consist of more than 10 members. The rules at least provide for members from an opposition group to be represented even on very small committees. The amendment would make it difficult or impossible for some councils to set up small committees to deal, for example, with urgent matters. Those of us who have served in local government know that there have to be committees or sub-committees set up for that precise purpose. If, for example, there were two minority groups with more than 10 per cent. of members, such small committees, under the terms of the amendment, would have to consist of at least five councillors from the majority party for them to retain a majority. I suggest to the House that that would be excessively bureaucratic.
I remain unconvinced by the thrust of the amendment. However, having given the undertaking to the hon. Member for Truro that I will look with great interest at the example he gave to see whether it will be caught by the Bill, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. Matthew TaylorI have listened with care to what the Minister said. Given that he has undertaken to look at the specific example I gave and see whether the difficulties I illustrated are likely to arise, I do not wish to press the amendment. I understand the Minister's concern about the terms of the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.