HL Deb 03 July 1984 vol 454 cc145-55

3.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 2 [Suspension of elections and appointment of councillors]:

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 17A: Leave out Clause 2 and insert—

("Restriction of term of councillors elected in 1985.

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall have power after the passing hereafter by Parliament of an enactment which provides for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and the transfer of their functions, to make an order to restrict to a term expiring not before 1st April 1986 the period of office of councillors of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils elected in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act.

(2) Pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence, the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils shall be one member elected for each of the electoral divisions in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act.

(3) In respect of the Greater London Council the electoral divisions shall correspond with the parliamentary constituencies in Greater London.

(4) In respect of a metropolitan county, the electoral divisions shall correspond with proposals made to the Secretary of State by 1st March 1985 following a review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England pursuant to subsection (5) below.

(5) The Secretary of State shall, not later than one month after the passing of the Act, direct the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to carry out a review of the boundaries and electoral divisions of any metropolitan county for which such a review has not been completed under the principal Act within the previous twelve months, and to make proposals by 1st March 1985.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment which is before the Committee today follows as a logical consequence of Amendment No. 1, which was the first amendment of the Committee stage last Thursday and which, as your Lordships will remember, was passed by a majority of 48. The purpose of that amendment was to delay the operation of Part II of the Bill until the passage of the main abolition Bill. The constitutional implications of the proposal to abolish elections and change political control by appointment at the GLC weighed heavily with the Committee. Equally serious in the view of the Committee was the suggestion that the elections should be cancelled before your Lordships' House had taken a full decision on the main abolition legislation.

In debate, the Minister stated that it would be impossible for the Government to enact the main Bill before the elections, due in May 1985. It is with dealing with those elections that the amendment I am now moving is concerned. The proposals of the amendment passed last Thursday made it clear that if this were proved to be the case then the elections should proceed; and several speakers in the debate attacked the proposal for interim councils and, in particular, the gerrymander of political control of the GLC. In his statement in another place on Friday, the Secretary of State sought to escape from the implications of the decision of your Lordships' Committee—I think one can only put it that way—and said that all the options were open except the holding of elections. In his words, he said, "It would be absurd" to hold elections on the basis that those elected might be in office for only two months before being replaced by interim councillors. But the amendment passed by your Lordships' Committee insisted on elections, which was one of the most important concomitants of the contents of that amendment.

It is extraordinary that the Government should be considering replacing elected councillors with appointed nominees so soon after an election; and this statement ignored the criticisms of interim councils made in your Lordships' House and their implicit rejection by your Lordships' Committee in passing the amendment. The amendment referred not just to the holding of elections but to the whole of Part II of the Bill, including the arrangements for the interim councils. This amendment, No. 17A, would complete the work of the first amendment and replace Clause 2, which sets up interim councils and at the same time cancels the elections. This clause is now really dead wood. In its place this amendment tidies up arrangements for an election but also allows the Secretary of State reserve powers in order to see the terms on which councillors are elected if the main Bill goes through.

The other option referred to by the Secretary of State was the alteration of the terms of existing councillors for a shorter or longer period. I think the Committee should be quite clear that any extension of the terms of those already in office represents a cancellation of the elections; and any such formula still requires the elections to be cancelled before Parliament as a whole has decided the abolition issue.

It was on this point, particularly, that the Committee made it very loud and clear on 28th June that it found the constitutional implications of such a step to be unacceptable. I believe it is crucial that we recognise that the Government's abolition date of 1st April 1986 is wholly unrealistic. The complexities of dismantling major authorities are more likely to require two years than one. The Government implicitly conceded this by their refusal to insert a time limit in the Bill or to guarantee that interim councils would not continue beyond April 1986. We must inquire why the Government have failed, according to the statement of the Secretary of State, to accept the clear view of your Lordships' Committee embodied in the amendment. The constitutional position of this House in Parliament requires that elections he held if the main Bill is not enacted by that date. Any, other option is, I believe, a gross presumption of the will of Parliament and should be rejected. The ball is now in the Government's court.

Amendment No. 17A should therefore be read in the context of the decision of the Committee on Amendment No. 1. The Minister has already said that he cannot get the main Bill through in time to cancel the elections. This amendment, therefore, restates the commitment already established by this House to hold the elections in May 1985. I hope that the Government, in reconsidering their position following our decision last week, will pay greater heed to the view of your Lordships following our debate this afternoon.

The amendment restates the commitment to hold elections and seeks to modify the worst excesses of the Bill. It certainly is not a wrecking amendment, but seeks to make changes where these are necessary, within the structure and the Long Title of the Bill. In fact, this amendment would make the Bill more in keeping with the Long Title than it is at present. The amendment is intended as a comprehensive one to meet the charges which have been raised from all sides of the House against both the proposals in the Bill and the manner in which it has been brought to this House.

Under subsection (1) of the amendment the Secretary of State would have reserve powers to make an order for the purpose of limiting to a term expiring not before 1st April 1986 the period of office of directly elected councillors, and such an order could only be made after Parliament had approved and enacted legislation to abolish the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. The new clause also provides for the elections in May 1985 to be conducted on revised boundaries. The Long Title of the Bill refers to the making of, and I quote: provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence".

The new clause seeks to make such provision. In the case of the GLC, it ensures that the new parliamentary constituencies on which the 1983 general election was contested are introduced for the seats on the GLC. In the case of the metropolitan counties, the change is more substantial. Boundary reviews are pending in these areas and one has already been completed. These reviews are expected to produce significant changes in the composition of the metropolitan county councils and would have been expected to be completed in time for the elections in May 1985.

The issue of the bypassing of the House of Lords in this legislation which aroused such deep criticism from all quarters has been met by the new clause. The Secretary of State would be empowered to make his order only after the enactment by Parliament of the abolition proposals. Once abolition had been decided on, there could be no objection to his having the power to limit the terms of elected councillors to coincide with the date of abolition. This would accord with the precedents of local government reorganisations of the past and puts the cart once again firmly behind the horse.

Nothing in the new clause binds the hands of the House of Lords until it has had the opportunity to debate and decide on the main abolition proposals. The amendment seeks to revise the Bill to make it acceptable, both in terms of its democratic implications and, equally important, in terms of its implications for the authority of the House. It follows the course which might have commended itself to a government which had been in less haste to rush forward its abolition proposals and also with greater regard for the proper constitutional role of this House as a revising Chamber and as a safeguard against abuse. As I said when I introduced the amendment, it follows the clear view which was established on Amendment No. 1, and I hope the Committee will recognise its clear and deeply held views and will give its support to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bellwin

Of course, I do not accept just about everything the noble Baroness has said. She it is who refers to gerrymandering of political control of the GLC; I refuted that before and I refute it totally and absolutely now. She says that 1st April for abolition is now wholly unrealistic. Not at all. The date is 1st April 1986 and, subject to the confirmation of Parliament in due course, that is the date that will be met.

The noble Baroness also said, "Why have the Government failed to accept the decision of this House?" She will just have to have a little patience until she learns what decision the Government will take. I assure her that we are well aware that it is a decision that will have to be taken and it will be done without undue delay.

Amendment No. 17A would allow the Secretary of State to restrict the terms of office of serving GLC and metropolitan county councillors elected in 1985, once the main Bill is passed. It further seeks to require a review of MCC boundaries, unless one has been completed recently, and to determine the electoral divisions for the MCC elections accordingly. The review would have to be initiated within one month of this Bill's being enacted and the proposals made by 1st March 1985.

The intention of the amendment is clear. It would allow the May 1985 elections to take place, with revised boundaries in the MCCs. But I submit that this amendment is unnecessary, and indeed in parts it is inconsistent even with the Bill as amended by this Committee. The Bill as amended contains a provision to allow the suspension of elections by order. This amendment would remove that option. The Government are considering the position of the May 1985 elections in the light of Amendment No. 1. But if we were to go down the road of holding the elections—and that is only one of many options we are considering—this amendment would not be the way we would wish to do it, because, all else apart, it has a number of defects. There is no need to include in the Bill the provision for terminating GLC and MCC councillors' terms of office. If elections were to go ahead, the proper place for such provision is the main Bill.

As to the other provisions within this amendment, they are inconsistent with Amendment No. 1. Since this amendment would not have effect until the passage of the main abolition Bill—in all likelihood not until the summer of 1985—it is nonsense to make requirements about dates within one month of the paving Bill being enacted or by 1st March 1985. The elections would have taken place before the amendment had effect; so it could not affect the electoral divisions of the May 1985 elections. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment, or, if she does not, for your Lordships to resist it.

Baroness Birk

In answer to what the Minister has said, in the first place, we do not know what is in the main Bill—nobody knows; I do not think the Government know; I do not think the department knows; I do not think anybody at all knows, except that the Government intend to bring forward a Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. That certainly is not good enough on something which is for us to discuss and on which we have to make a measured and serious decision. This is certainly not contradictory; it follows the line of the amendment that was passed last Thursday and what it does is absolutely consistent and entirely logical. It gets rid of the interim councils, because the amendment that was passed certainly includes the taking place of elections, unless the whole of the main Bill gets through by April 1985. This seems absolutely incongruous and quite impossible. Therefore, what this amendment does is to cover the time factor, and it gets rid of the interim councils which were really considered as a great anathema by many noble Lords in all parts of this Chamber and certainly not only from these Benches.

In fact, the word "gerrymander" in that debate did not come from these Benches in the first place but from the Benches opposite—yes, I am afraid it did—where noble Lords were concerned that overnight the control of the Greater London Council would turn from Labour to Conservative, although they were not speaking as members of the Labour Party or with any particular sympathy for Labour policy but were looking at it on a democratic and constitutional ground.

Since then the Government have not clarified their intentions. I appreciate that the Minister cannot possibly make a statement on the Government's attitude to that amendment at this moment and certainly I did not expect him to do so. But we are all rather in limbo at the moment about this—I should say that the Government are: I do not think that we are—because the amendment has gone through, and so far as this Committee is concerned it is now part of the Bill, which means that the rest of this Bill sits very incongruously on it. Frankly, much of the discussion this afternoon is going to be shadow boxing, because nothing fits round it: the legislative clothes no longer fit on the Bill. But because in the future we may be able to improve on this amendment, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, may wish to say something at this point, before any further action is taken. He told me that he intended to say something on this.

3.22 p.m.

Lord Evans of Claughton

As the noble Baroness said, I had intended to say something on this, but my notes have been mislaid and I have just been finding them. I can only assume, from the approbation that the noble Baroness was receiving, that she was saying what I would have said. I do know from discussions I have had with local authorities and other parties that, however the Government seek to interpret what happened last week, the noble Lord the Minister ought to give serious consideration to this, because elections should proceed if abolition is undecided by May 1985; and if the elections were to go ahead the officers should remain in office until abolition. It seems to me that this amendment, regardless of what attitude the Government take towards it, would improve the quality of the Bill and should be part of it, and I should like to support the amendment as moved by the noble Baroness.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The noble Lord apparently rests his case on what he said at the beginning; but I think he ought to take fully on board the unreality of much of what we are going to say as we proceed through the Marshalled List today. The Minister must know that he is inviting the Committee to take note of two circumstances. We are at the Committee stage of a Bill, the precise nature of which we shall not know until the Government make a Statement tomorrow. In other words, it is quite possible that we shall proceed today to discuss largely academically what our attitude would be if the Bill was different from what it is at the moment.

The Bill was changed last week. The Government are taking time—we have heard statements not only made in the newspapers but from Ministers outside the other place and also on the radio today, which make it appear that the Government intend to make a Statement today or tomorrow. The Minister could be enormously helpful to the Committee if he were to indicate what that Statement is likely to be so that we could adjust our consideration of the amendments.

The Minister has the opportunity to be helpful or to remain as he has been so far today, unhelpful, to the Committee. Much of what we are going to say will literally be a waste of parliamentary time. The Minister may very well feel that is the best way to proceed. Not only do we not know what the present Bill will contain but we do not know what it is that we shall have the opportunity of amending subsequently at the Report stage and later. And also the Minister is unable to tell us what the main abolition Bill will contain. We are talking in the paving Bill about a period between now and when a future Bill, whose details we do not know, may or may not become law.

Quite frankly, I believe that the Committee has been treated with contempt by the inability (I do not say the unwillingness) of the Minister to guide your Lordships on precisely how best to use our parliamentary time. Some of the amendments we have down are very, very important and far-reaching, and until the Statement that we understand is to be made tomorrow or on Thursday or Friday or next week or the week after is made the Committee is literally in a state of limbo as to what its proper attitude should be to a changed circumstance.

The Minister may very well feel that he is unable to be more helpful. I am certainly going to say it is not his fault that we are in this situation. This Committee, collectively, has put the Minister in that difficulty, but until the Minister and his colleagues react to the situation, quite frankly we are going to be frustrated in our desire to try to produce proper legislation. The Minister and the Government ought to make a Statement at the earliest possible moment.

Lord Bellwin

It is not usual for me to treat your Lordships with contempt. In fact I think this is the first time I have ever been accused of doing that, and it is certainly not something that I do. The Government are considering carefully how they will respond to Amendment No. 1. As I said earlier, there are a number of options and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

A noble Lord

When?

Lord Bellwin

I cannot tell the House when, but it will be made as soon as possible. The Government's firm resolve to fulfil our election commitment to abolish these unnecessary and expensive upper-tier councils remains.

The effect of Amendment No. 1 is to delay the coming into operation of Part II of the Bill. It does not remove any part of Part II. The Bill as it stands continues to make provision for suspending elections and for the appointment of transitional councils. Those provisions remain in the Bill and therefore remain for debate in this Committee. To the extent that amendments on the Marshalled List are affected by Amendment No. 1 it must be for your Lordships to consider the implications for any specific amendment.

The Government are ready to play their full part in the Committee's examination of the detailed provisions of the Bill. I do not think I can be more helpful than that. I understand exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I agree that there is a certain difficulty; but in no way does it preclude our continuing consideration of the Bill. What we cannot do is to announce today what the decision will be. Also, it would be wrong to make assumptions as to what it will be. I do not think anyone should seek to do that, and therefore it is on that basis that I think we should proceed.

Baroness Birk

I understand what the Minister has said. I am sure my noble friend did not mean that the noble Lord the Minister was himself holding out on us. He did not mean that at all: what he meant was that we are waiting for a response from the Government this afternoon. The Minister has really said, again as I said earlier in moving the amendment, that we seem to be indulging in shadow boxing this afternoon. He has made it quite clear—and his position is absolutely understandable—that there is not much of any great consequence that he can say on any of these amendments because they are all entirely tied up with the central core of the whole argument.

Because this is the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, its main concern is to set up the interim councils and make provision for them. As both sides have pointed out, in the meantime we are not dealing with the abolition Bill here. In view of that, I think the Minister should consider very carefully, not just for its own sake and for our sake, but for the convenience of the whole House, as well as in the interests of common sense, whether this whole Committee stage should now be adjourned.

Lord Denham

I think that the noble Baroness is going much too far on this. We had this argument beforehand, after the defeat on the previous day. The noble Baroness and her friends, with their friends in the Alliance, put before the Committee Amendment No. 1 which they assured the Committee was not a wrecking amendment, and the Committee accepted it. We now have to carry on with the rest of the Committee stage of this Bill; the Bill will have its Report stage, and then it will go back to another place. There are other parts of this Bill, such as those dealing with the disclosure of information, and for the noble Baroness to seek to stop consideration of this Bill is going much too far.

Lord Tordoff

The noble Lord the Minister has said that we can make no assumptions. It seems to me that the assumption which your Lordships must make is that the Bill is as it now is; in other words, the Bill is as amended by Amendment No. 1. If we are to proceed, we should proceed on that basis, and certain consequences flow from that; namely, that the delegated members of a new council are, for the time being, a myth and that there will be elections in Greater London and the metropolitan councils next May. Therefore, any other interim provision relating to that is a non sequitur, so far as your Lordships are concerned at this moment, unless, and until, the Government come back with some other observations. I suggest we should proceed on that basis.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

May I suggest—

Lord Boothby

I want to say only a few words, as a very old parliamentarian. In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have told us that they have important new proposals to make as a result of the vote that was taken in this Chamber last week, and that we do not yet have any idea of what are those proposals—nor, apparently, have they, and I do not blame them for that; they deserve careful consideration—I submit to your Lordships, with all due respect, that the whole of today's debate is a complete waste of time.

Lord Denham

I must put the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, right. My right honourable friends have not announced that they have important new decisions to make—

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Denham

No announcement has been made. Your Lordships' Committee has carried Amendment No. 1 against the Government. That is a decision on which your Lordships were perfectly within your rights. We are now carrying on with the rest of the Committee stage, we will then have a Report stage, and the Bill will finally go back to another place. It is open to Her Majesty's Government to make further recommendations to your Lordships at Report stage or when the Bill reaches another place, but it really is not open to your Lordships, having amended the Bill, to suggest that it should be totally dropped and not considered at all.

If noble Lords opposite are saying that and are claiming that the Bill is emasculated, then I would say that, believing that, they have been improper to have done what they did. But I believe that they put down that amendment thinking that it did not drastically alter the whole Bill and they thought that it was a proper thing for your Lordships' Committee to do. Therefore, having carried that, we carry on with the rest of this Bill and it goes through its other stages. It may well be that another place will wish to consider what we have done in all parts, but we cannot drop the rest of this Bill; it would be procedurally incorrect.

Baroness Birk

As the Chief Whip has now come into this discussion, can he answer one question? Is he saying that what was said on the "World at One" news programme today by Brian Curtois of the BBC is completely untrue? Is no statement to be made by the Government tomorrow?

Lord Denham

I am in a little difficulty here, because I did not hear the "World at One" and what Brian Curtois said. What I understood—I think at about third-hand—was that it was suggested that the Government had already made up their mind as to what should happen and made up their mind in a particular direction. I can tell your Lordships that that is not so.

Baroness Birk

The Chief Whip also said that there is no reason why we should not continue with this Bill after the passing of the first amendment. I put it to him very strongly and clearly that this Bill is very different from a great many other pieces of legislation which are before us, because they stand on their own. This is known as a paving Bill to the main legislation. That first amendment has made a tremendous difference to this Bill and also to the paving to the main legislation. We have already found from the first amendment, and indeed from the Minister's replies to it, that it will be even more difficult to continue than I had previously thought. I was very doubtful about it. There are a great many amendments that we are not moving and which we cannot move because of the connections not only with our amendment, but with what the Government are now to do. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was not incorrect—he was quite right—when he said that it will be a big waste of your Lordships' time, if nothing else.

Lord Denham

I really must suggest to the Committee that we carry on with this Bill, as has been proposed.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

May I suggest a simple procedure, which is that we move amendments, withdraw them without argument, get through the afternoon extremely quickly, and bring them back on Report?

Lord Denham

That is, of course, the right of your Lordships to do, if any of your Lordships so wish. Her Majesty's Government cannot force the Committee to express an opinion on the amendment of any noble Lord who does not wish to push it to a Division.

Lord Barnett

May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he intends to reply to the debates on the assumption that Amendment No. 1 was carried and is therefore part of the Bill, and that every other amendment stems directly from what is now in the Bill, or whether he intends to say on every occasion that we must wait to see what the Government propose to do?

Lord Bellwin

The answer is, a bit of both. We really are trying to catch up with what goes on in another place. The fact is that there will be certain matters raised which have nothing whatsoever to do with Amendment No. 1. There will be others where there is a connotation based upon what will be the ultimate decision. In responding to amendments that are moved I shall try to point out, where it has to be pointed out, where there is a difficulty. I think that this does not apply to the majority of the amendments before us today, and that ought to be made clear, so that there is no doubt. The majority of the amendments here are not affected by that and therefore it does not apply. But where it does, I shall do my best to be helpful where I can and point out where there is a difficulty and what are the arguments, on the assumption that the Bill is as amended.

Lord Barnett

Nobody is accusing the noble Lord personally of being unhelpful, because from my brief experience in this House I know that he is a most helpful Minister. But the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was surely absolutely right, and, judging from the Minister's initial answer to my noble friend Lady Birk, it seems that he will on almost every occasion—indeed, he has admitted it now—be speaking in both directions. The net result will be to make a nonsense and a mockery of all our debates this afternoon. Surely it must be in the interests of your Lordships not to pursue the matter further.

Lord Denham

I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is speaking on this particular point. Is he in temporary charge of the Front Bench opposite, or is he in temporary charge of this particular Bill so far as the Opposition is concerned? We are getting very much out of order on this point. Could we not, please, continue with the Bill? The Motion before the Committee is that Amendment No. 17A be considered. Can we please return to the Motion which is on the Marshalled List and not go into the realms of theory as to what may or may not happen elsewhere and what may or may not have been said elsewhere?

Lord Boothby

If the Government themselves, as they have admitted, do not know what we are talking about, how the hell should we know?

Baroness Birk

On that very sound note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Denham

This is probably the appropriate moment to resume the House in order that the Statement may be made. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.