HL Deb 16 February 1976 vol 368 cc330-47

3.46 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the draft London Councillors Order, laid before the House on 9th December last, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the London Councillors Order is to bring the term of office for councillors in the Greater London area into line with that in force in England and Wales generally. In the past, the term of office for local councillors everywhere was three years, but in the recent reorganisation of local government the term of office was changed to four years. The four-year term applied to all the new authorities and to parish councils in England and community councils in Wales, but did not apply automatically in London, which was not being reorganised. It would, however, have been anomalous to have left the GLC and the London boroughs with three-year terms, and Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1972 provided for this to be rectified by an order establishing a four-year term in London, too. The present order does just that. The way this was to be done was set out in Section 8, which was phrased rather differently for the two levels of authority. For the GLC, the section simply provided that the order should secure that ordinary elections of councillors should take place in the same years as ordinary elections of county councillors. The next county council elections are to be held in 1977, and the order simply moves the next GLC elections to that date. Subsequent elections will follow at four-year intervals.

I now come to the provisions for the London boroughs. First, the order provides, as in the case of the GLC, for the next elections to be deferred for a year so that the present term of office runs for four years. This has not been questioned, so perhaps I need say no more about it. The order, however, also provides for the continuance of whole-council elections, and, oddly enough, it is this provision not to make a change whose vireswere questioned in another place. It may therefore be for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal with this aspect of the order rather more fully.

First, I shall deal with the intention of the Act. Here we arc lucky, because the provision was introduced into the Bill by way of Government amendment at Report stage in another place, so its intention is well documented. The Minister in charge of the Bill, Mr. Graham Page, said, with particular reference to whole-council elections or elections by thirds, that: On the issue of annual or quadrennial elections, we have taken powers to proceed by order, after consultation with all those concerned. The last thing I wanted to do was to rush it into the Bill. That is why we have taken those powers for the Secretary of State…We are taking those powers for the benefit of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs to enable us to do what they want us to do. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Secretary of State ordering something which is not wanted by those local authorities."—[Official Report. Commons, 17/7/72; cols. 116–117.] It is clear from this that the Minister concerned was in no doubt that the section provided for London borough elections to be held on either a whole-council basis or by thirds, and that it should be left to the London boroughs themselves to decide which system should be adopted. This interpretation also lay behind his consultation document of 17th January 1973. This document explicitly gives the London boroughs the choice between a Section 8 order for elections by thirds or one retaining whole-council elections.

So much for the intention. Now let us look at the section itself. What the draftsman needed to convey was that elections for the London boroughs could not be in the same years as county and GLC elections but could be either in the three years of every four when metropolitan borough councils had elections—that is, all the years with metropolitan borough elections—or they could be once every four years midway between GLC elections; or they could be, as now proposed, once every four years in the year following the GLC elections; that is, in some of the years with metropolitan borough elections. With characteristic economy of words the draftsman provided for elections to be held in years in which ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors are held —that is to say, either in all such years or some such years. It is on these words that doubt has been cast, but with this background in mind even the lay reader like myself can see that the words provide neatly, economically, and unambiguously for the range of possibilities that the then Government rightly wished to cover. My legal advice is that there is no doubt at all about the matter. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments rightly paid particular attention to this question and must clearly have been satisfied, as they have not commented on the order.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having dealt with this point at such length, but in view of the confusion which seems to have arisen in another place I thought that it would be as well to put at rest any worries noble Lords may have had about the vires of this order.

Then I come to the main consequential effect of the order which concerns the abolition of aldermen. This again was effected for Wales and the rest of England on the recent reorganisation, and again provision was made to bring London into line. It makes sense for this to be done at the time of an election of councillors, and the Act provided for it to be done at the time of the 1976 elections for the GLC and 1977 elections for the Boroughs, subject to any change in the dates of those elections by order under Section 8. The present order makes that change, so it provides for the office of alderman to be abolished for the GLC at the time of the elections in 1977 and for the boroughs at the time of their elections in 1978.

As the previous Government promised, the laying of this draft order has been preceded by extensive consultations with the representatives of the London local authorities and with the main political Parties, and in view of the pledge—rightly given by the previous Government —that the wishes of the London authorities would be respected, we have therefore provided in this order for the continuation of the present system of whole-council elections. This, then, is an order on which a substantial degree of agreement has been reached. In essence it is the same as the one which the present Opposition, when last in Office, announced their intention of introducing. The order accurately reflects the wishes of the London authorities themselves, which was the paramount consideration when the enabling power was introduced in 1972. Its main provisions were accepted by the previous Conservative Government and have been confirmed by the present Government. I commend the draft order to the House.

Moved, That the draft London Councillors Order, laid before the House on 9th December last, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)

3.55 p.m.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, before my noble friend Lady Young deals with what I might call the policy questions to which the noble Baroness has referred, I think I ought to say something to the House about the question of vires. Although the noble Baroness says that she is quite happy about it, I think I should draw the attention of the House to the serious possibilities which might follow if she happened to be wrong and to the serious possibility that she might be wrong. Of course, what is completely irrelevant for this purpose is either what the Select Committee may have said or what may have been said by a colleague in the House of Commons at the time when the Amendment was introduced. The question is what the courts would say if it were challenged, and unless I am corrected by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack it could be challenged in the courts. It could be challenged in a variety of different ways, either by the individual citizen or by persons who were interested in county council elections. If, for instance, in these boroughs by-laws were effected by a vote and it was held that the borough in question was not properly constituted, being constituted under this order, this order was ultra vires, I can imagine very great inconvenience occurring.

I should like to put to the Government the dangers of proceeding by order when an Act of Parliament could have put the matter wholly beyond doubt. This order seeks to amend paragraph 6(2) of the relevant Schedule to the Local Government Act 1972. As the noble Baroness said, that paragraph did no more than state the law as it was at that time in relation to Greater London Council elections. In 1973, at the end of July, my colleague Mr. Graham Page told a Conservative Member that we proposed to have the Greater London Council elections every fourth year, starting with 1973. To do that we should have had to make an order under the powers conferred by Section 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, and that the present Government are now doing. Under that sub-section, The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act as appear to him to be appropriate for all or any of two classes of purpose.

Paragraph (a) gives no particular difficulty from the point of view of this issue. It says that the purpose under paragraph (a) is, to secure that ordinary elections of councillors of the Greater London Council take place in the same years as ordinary elections of county councillors. Up to this point I think that the noble Baroness is right, that the order is valid. It is, in fact, the course we in Government said we would take, although it may be that since those days events have occurred which lead us to doubt the wisdom of what then we proposed in good faith. That, however, is a pure question of policy and my noble friend will be talking about it. I have nothing more to say because I have no doubt whatever that that order is valid.

Then one comes to the second power under Section 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972. For this purpose it is important to remember that it is limited to orders for purpose (b): to secure that ordinary elections of London borough councillors are held in years in which ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors are held". By Section 7(2): The ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors shall take place in 1973, 1975 and every year thereafter other than a year of election of county councillors". In each of those years one-third of the council retires and one-third is elected, so the order will not bring the London boroughs into line with the metropolitan districts in the other conurbations, as I should have thought that Section 8(2)(b) of the Act prima facieintended.

The noble Baroness points, however, to the difference in the wording between Section 8(2)(a) of the Act and Section 8(2)(b), for the words in Section 8(2)(a) are that the order has to be for elections to take place in the same year as the county council elections, but for the London boroughs the order has to be for elections to be held in the years in which the metropolitan district council elections are held. So the noble Baroness argues that by the order the London borough elections will fall in a year when the metropolitan district elections are held, and that is what she argues Section 8(2)(b) requires. But it does not require them to be held in each year when the metropolitan district election occur, as I should have thought prima facie the section means.

It is difficult to believe that the noble Baroness is right about the intention of the 1972 Act. If it were the intention of the 1972 Act, what would be the point of Section 8(2)(b)—merely to avoid a county council election year? If so, it could have been expressed very much more simply. One could also argue that Section 8(2)(a), even if the same wording was chosen in respect of these elections, would produce the same difficulties. All I am saying is that the Government have elected to do this by order. Until the noble Baroness said explicitly that her advisers had given her unambiguous advice, my information was that the Government had received from different departments conflicting advice. I assume from what she said that this is not the case. I only point out that if the vires of this order can be questioned, very serious inconveniences could occur and I should have thought that a prudent Government would have seen to it that in the circumstances such a procedure would be by Bill and not by order.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will reply to that. I am not a lawyer I have no legal training, but I should like to correct one comment made by the noble and learned Lord. I did not say that I had received unambiguous advice; I said that to my lay view it appeared to be quite unambiguous but that my legal advice was that there was no doubt about this matter. If, when this Bill was first introduced, it had not been the intention of the Conservative Government to have a choice as to whether we had elections of one-third or whole council, why did they enter into consultations with all the authorities at that time?

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, with regard to the first point, I do not think I misled the House at all. I said that I understood the noble Baroness to have received from her advisers unambiguous advice, by which I meant that it was contrary to the information which I had received, which was that different Departments had given conflicting advice about it. Do I now understand the noble Baroness to say that different Departments had not given conflicting advice or that they did give conflicting advice?

Baroness STEDMAN

With the leave of the House, my Lords, so far as I am aware we have not had conflicting advice. The only advice I have had is that there is no doubt at all about the matter.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, that reinforces what I originally said;namely, that I assumed from what the noble Baroness said originally, and what she has now repeated, that my information was wrong. If it had not been wrong, I was certainly going on to say that if there had been conflicting advice it would have been an extremely irresponsible attitude for a Government to take not to proceed by Bill. But I take it from the noble Baroness that my information was wholly mistaken and that so far as that is concerned there is only one set of advice which the Government have had.

I must point out to the noble Baroness —and this is why we are each speaking on different aspects of the matter—that this is not a political question at all. It is not a question of what the Conservative Government may or may not have intended. I cannot answer that question because I do not know and I probably would not have remembered even if I had been personally concerned with the matter. What I am now saying is that a serious question of vires has been brought to my attention. When the courts come to determine the matter they will not be allowed to know what my colleague said or did not say in the House of Commons in 1973 and they will not be allowed to be told, even if we remember, what we intended to achieve. They will have to construe the Act and the order and decide whether the order is intra vires the Act.

The noble Baroness is quite right in saying that she is not a lawyer. I am, and all I can say is that I would be the last person to express a concluded opinion about it. So we start on an absolute level as regards that. All I can say with authority is that if the noble Baroness is wrong—and it seems to me that she is arguably wrong; I do not say that she is and I should not like to express an opinion because it is a difficult question—if the Government were to turn out to be wrong the consequences might be very inconvenient indeed. Therefore it seemed to me to be right to draw the attention of the House to the arguable question.

4.6 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness for explaining this order so fully to us, and after the extremely important point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone there is only one other matter arising from the order that I should like to raise. It concerns the way in which the order has been brought to this House. It seems to me to be extraordinary that we should receive this order only eight weeks before the GLC elections are due to take place on 8th April. As I understand it, the order was originally laid in another place on 8th December. It was arranged that it should be debated and twice the arrangements were cancelled. The order was then presented to be debated in this House early in January and for very good reasons it was decided that it ought to be debated in another place first. I myself believed very strongly that it would be quite improper for this House to debate a matter of elections before another place had debated it. It suggests to me that there is something very strange about the proceedings on this order. Whether it is a matter of vires or something else is not for me to say, but from the point of view of the electors of London it does not suggest administrative competency to leave it until eight weeks before 8th April for a decision to be taken. It seems to me that an injustice has been clone, and no answer was given in the debate in another place.

As I understand it, Sir Desmond Plummer, who represents the St. Marylebone constituency, indicated last November his wish to resign from the Greater London Council. He was then told, quite rightly, that a by-election could not be held, because as I under-stand the position a by-election cannot be held within six months of there being a general election for all Greater London councillors. The consequence is that a by-election has not been held. Now we get an order to put off the Greater London Council elections for one year.

Last November, the Government must have known that it was their intention to bring in an order, or whatever it may be, to put off the elections. They must have known since they came into office in February 1974, because I am not going to dispute the past history of this in any way. But it was left until November for this series of events to take place and for it then to be discovered that a by-election could not be held for the St. Marylebone constituency. The consequences of this must no doubt have meant personal inconvenience for the man involved but, equally serious, I believe it to be quite wrong, where a by-election ought to be held, for it not to be held for at least six months, and that in a situation in which the Government could have put the matter right.

I do not know whether one just regards this as administrative incompetence or in fact as maladministration, but I cannot believe that it is good for London government. Although I do not intend to debate the whole of what has happened in London government over the last three years, I think the GLC stands indicted for its arrangements about this order and about that by-election in particular, which I think is a disgrace to democracy.

4.9 p.m.

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, I must first declare an interest, in that I am a Greater London councillor. I was elected by the electors of Stoke Newington and Hackney North on 12th April 1973 for a four-year term. I am asserting that because all the arguments and discussions that occurred before the election indicated that that was the period for which people were being elected to the Greater London Council. Thus my electors and my opponents all knew that the election was for a councillor until April 1977.

I do not want to bore the House with too much detail, but I must draw attention to the extent to which this matter was discussed in County Hall. At that time there was a Conservative majority in County Hall of almost two to one. Therefore, there was no question of the extent to which the Conservative Party is committed to this term of office. On 22nd June 1971, when we were discussing the White Paper on local government, the Council went on record—and I will read this paragraph because it illustrates the point—as stating: The primary reason advanced for a longer term is that most of the Council's functions necessitate long-term programmes which can often barely be got under way in three years, let alone be brought to fruition. On a change of political power it is particularly difficult for an incoming majority to produce results in spheres such as housing, roads and other engineering projects in their first three years in office. The tendency is, of course, to forecast and programme the Council's work further ahead so that whatever the term of office the majority Party, in the period before an election, will be considering a programme well beyond the date of election and indeed entering into commitments, however tentative these may be. We consider that a four-year term should be supported. That was the report; the report was debated; the Motion was proposed by the chairman of the committee, the report was received, and after debate the Motion was put and agreed to. Therefore, the Council was committed on 22nd June 1971 to supporting a four-year term. In fact, the Council, while accepting the abolition of aldermen, felt that it would create hardship in regard to the manning of the Council's committees. There were to be discussions as to the sort of co-options that should take place. In fact, there was a division on that, but there was no division on the subject of the four-year term, in that the majority Party, at that time the Conservatives, wanted co-options to the whole Council, whereas the minority Party, at that time the Labour Party, wanted co-options only to the committees. There was no question, on the term of office, that Greater London Council was committed to a four-year term.

My Lords, when the Bill was published, the issue was raised again. It was raised on 14th December 1971, and again the Council committed itself to wanting a four-year term of office. In-as much as the Bill did not provide for a four-year term, the Council instructed its officers to try to secure an amendment of the Bill in order that the Greater London Council term of office of councillors should be four years. That attempt to amend the Bill brought the section under which this order is now made, because what the Government did not do was to amend the Bill. They produced that particular section which gave the Secretary of State the power to introduce such an order. Of course, it may well be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is right, and it would have been more sensible to have put it in a Bill. Of course his friends must take their share of the blame, because we in County Hall wanted them to put it in a Bill.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, my point was confined to borough elections. The powers under Section 8(2)(a) are, I believe, unambiguous. Section 8(2)(b) gives rise to the difficulty, and that, I think, is in regard to boroughs and not the county council.

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his intervention, and I accept that. I should like now to make a small suggestion. I was endeavouring to convince this House that there was no question at all of the Greater London Council not being committed to a four-year term. It is not merely that the Council was not permitted a four-year term. Assurances were given. I am talking now of the period before 12th April 1973; that is, before the election.

My Lords, on 29th January, Sir Desmond Plummer, then the Leader of the Greater London Council, wrote to the Home Secretary indicating that the Council is on record as supporting a four-year term and that the Council was anxious that not only all the candidates, …but also the electorate should know for what term of office they arc voting in their candidates ". I have underlined parts of this letter written by Sir Desmond Plummer to the then Home Secretary. As a consequence of that, I think there was a Question in the House of Commons on 20th March 1973 before the General Election. The Answer of the Home Secretary was to the effect that he would introduce an order under Section 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, providing for a four-year term of office for Greater London councillors. He went on to say that this will mean that councillors elected in 1973 will serve until 1977; that is absolutely clear.

Again, the consultative document came out from the Home Office and the Department of the Environment which was in unambiguous terms so far as that is concerned. It is on that assertion that I am saying firmly that when I was elected to the Greater London Council on 12th April 1973, my electors knew they were electing me for four years. The only thing required then was that there should be an order to put that into effect.

My Lords, immediately after the election in July, there was another Question, this time by Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg —incidentally, my Member of Parliament—the same Geoffrey Finsberg who was busily opposing the order in another place. He asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he would make a statement on the future electoral arrangements for Greater London. In reply, Mr. Graham Page said that: The Government have concluded that the normal term of office for Greater London and London borough councillors should be four years. The next election of Greater London councillors will thus he held in 1977. The Government do not propose any change in the date of the next election of councillors to the London borough councils, which, under the Local Government Act 1972 will be held on 2nd May 1974".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/73;col. 455.] I would have said that that Answer also confirmed that Greater London Council councillors were being elected for four years, and also indicated that the borough councillors who were being elected in 1974 were being elected for four years. I think this is so.

Therefore, there is no doubt at all that the Conservative Central Government and the Conservative Greater London Council were both agreed that the elections for councillors in London, first in 1973 for the Greater London Council and then in 1974 for the borough councillors, were for four years. Nothing has changed except, of course, that there is now a Labour Central Government and a Labour Greater London Council. I can-not believe that we will carry political opportunism to this length, because that can be the only interpretation of what took place in another place a fortnight ago. I am hoping we shall not get that sort of performance in this House, and that honour, integrity and respect for democracy will prevail.

Lord HAILSHAM SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, sits down, may I say on the point I was putting that the point at issue is not the length of term of the borough councillors, but the incidence of elections. What I understood, although I may be wrong, was that the purpose behind Mr. Graham Page's handling of the Act, was to bring the London borough council elections into term with the metropolitan district council elections, and this is how I read Section 8(2)(b) of the Act. It has not to do with the length of term, which, admittedly, on both views, is four years; it is bringing them into line, and that the order admittedly does not do.

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness dealt with that. When the Bill was considered it was indicated that there were going to be consultations with the boroughs. The consultations have taken place, and it is as a result of the consultations that the order is framed in the way it is. The councils were all asked whether they wanted elections every four years or elections every year, and the vast majority chose elections every four years. It is worth noting that the majority of the outer London boroughs as well as the inner London boroughs chose every four years. That is remarkable, because until 1965 the outer London boroughs had elections every year. It is only since the reorganisation of London government that they have had this whole council election. It seems as though they prefer it to the old system. As I see it, that is all that this order does; it gives statutory effect to the wishes of the boroughs that the elections should be whole council elections every four years.

I was going to make two points about what has happened. The first is that I think the Government are deserving of criticism for having delayed the order so long; the Government ought in fact to have produced this order a long time ago. We should not be in the position we are in now, with the order being discussed at this stage. The noble Baroness is right. On the other hand—this is the point I was making at the beginning—there was no misleading in so far as the electors are concerned. I imagine the town clerk of Westminster would not like me to refer to him as a technician, but as an official he interpreted the Act he had in front of him. The Act indicated that there was to be an election in 1976, and since the Act indicated that, he could not possibly allow a by-election six months beforehand.

On the other hand, I am sure that no elector in Greater London expected an election in 1976, because all electors there voted for candidates who were standing for four years. Therefore, in so far as the electors are concerned, the mere fact that Desmond Plummer tendered his resignation when he did indicated that he thought the elections were in 1977 and not 1976. Had he thought the elections were in 1976 he would not have bothered. Therefore, the whole atmosphere was one of acceptance of elections in1977. It this order is passed today, 14 days from now Desmond Plummer can resign and within 30 days the people of Marylebone can have their by-election. That answers the point the noble Baroness made. The longer the order is delayed the longer the electors of Marylebone will be deprived of having a by-election. Within 30 days of the passing of the order an election can be held and the people of Marylebone can elect whomsoever they wish to the London Council.

If the noble and learned Lord is right, and there is a problem about the borough elections, I should have thought there is still time for the Government to introduce a Bill, if a Bill is required, because so far as the borough elections are concerned there is in effect no need for elections before 1977, whatever interpretation one gives. Therefore, in effect there is plenty of time if there is need to remedy the order in so far as the boroughs are concerned. I am sure the noble Baroness and her advisers have already gone into that. I have heard the same rumours as has the noble and learned Lord. I have mentioned this to the Minister, and I am sure she has consulted her friends in the other Department. The point is, however, that the order should go through now, and I hope your Lordships will see that it does. If there is need for any remedy so far as the boroughs are concerned, as I see it there is plenty of time. There is no need for elections to the boroughs before May 1977.

Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH

My Lords, there is no controversy about the object which it is intended to attain. The only point of doubt is whether this order in fact achieves the objective in view. I must confess, with all respect to my noble friend Lady Stedman, that I do not feel convinced by the exposition which she gave of the validity of this order. The one point which I should wish to add is this. If it should happen that part of this order is ultra vires, will the rest of it be intra vires, or will the whole order fall to the ground?

4.27 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, may I first of all advise the noble and learned Lord opposite that since he raised his point I have received confirmation that there has never at any time been any conflict of advice from Government Departments on the issue which we were discussing. So far as the consultations are concerned, these of course were instituted by the previous Conservative Government, and they have been continued by the present Government, so in fact the London boroughs have been consulted twice by the two Governments. Both the London authorities and the main political Parties expressed unanimous agreement with the main provisions of the order, and in particular the introduction of the four-year term of office and the postponement of the next elections for one year. There was rather less unanimity about the question of the London borough council elections, whether they should be held on a full council basis or by thirds, but a very clear majority of the London boroughs opted for the system of the whole council elections.

As I said, they have been consulted twice about this, once by the Conservative Government in 1973 and again by the present Government after the April 1974 London borough elections, and on both occasions a clear majority of the boroughs expressed a preference for whole council elections. On the first occasion 25 out of the 32 boroughs elected for whole council elections; on the second occasion only 30 boroughs responded, and of those 21 wanted whole council elections. I would emphasise that the voting of the boroughs was not on Party lines. In the first round of consultations the 10 Conservative controlled boroughs divided equally on the issue, and the second time round the majority of Conservative controlled boroughs, 7 out of 13, favoured whole council elections. On both occasions, a majority of the Labour controlled boroughs favoured whole council elections.

There has been a series of announcements by successive Governments about the dates, and there should not he any doubt in anyone's mind, either that of the London Boroughs or of the GLC. On 20th March 1973 Mr. Robert Carr—whom I am pleased that we shall shortly be welcoming into this House—announced the decision to defer the GLC elections until 1977. I understand that this statement was deliberately made before the closing date for the nomination of candidates. This was at the urgent request of the then Conservative GLC, so that candidates would know that in reality they were in for a four-year term. So the candidates and the voters knew before the 1973 election that the elected councillors would serve a four-year term and would expect to retire in 1977.

Then Mr. Graham Page, the then Minister of Local Government, repeated this statement in July 1973, and at the same time he announced that the normal term of office for London borough councillors would also be four years. On 18th December 1973 he confirmed the decision on the four-year term for London borough councillors, and announced that the next elections would be held in 1978. In answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place on 19th December 1974, my right honourable friend made a similar announcement about this Government's intentions, including, in the light of views expressed by the majority of the London boroughs, the retention of the whole Council elections, the intentions of which are now given effect in this order.

I cannot accept the noble Baroness's charges of maladministration or of incompetence. There has been some delay here. The delay has been due to the necessary consultations—and surely we want the widest possible consultations with local authorities—and also because of the way in which local government reorganisation was dealt with by the previous Government, in that London was reorganised in advance of the rest of the country. My noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch asked whether the order stands or falls as a whole. It does. It stands or falls as a whole. We cannot have any one part of it intra vires.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes her speech, may I say that the point I was making about maladministration was that the by-election could not be held in St. Marylebone until an order had been carried postponing the elections. The Government did not introduce the order on time, so that the elections, as of now, are to be held on 8th April. This meant that for the preceding six months there could be no by-election held anywhere in the Greater London Council. I believe that to be maladministration, because the Government could have introduced the order earlier, and they should not have disenfranchised the electors of St. Marylebone. I should like an answer on that point.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I accept that until this time no by-election could be held. But we know only what the Press has said about Sir Desmond Plummer's intention to resign. As my noble friend Lord Pitt said, once this order has gone through both Houses there will be no reason why he should not resign if he wants to do so. I am sure that the previous Conservative Government were right to give the pledge that they would respect the wishes of the London boroughs and that we should have the right consultation procedure, which both Governments have gone through. The wishes of the London authorities have now been clearly expressed, and I think that the draft order faithfully reflects them. It will enable the pledge given by the previous Conservative Government to be honoured. On this occasion at least I am glad to be instrumental in helping the Conservatives to keep the pledge which they made.

The order adopts the only simple and immediate way of giving effect to the widely desired transition to the four-year term of office for London councillors. The advantages of the straightforward approach will be self-evident. I am sure that your Lordships will be conscious, in dealing with the electoral matters covered by the order, that we are dealing with something which has been fully debated and approved in another place. I do not think it necessary to say more, and I hope that the Housewill accept the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.