10.23 p.m.

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 14, after 'appropriate', insert 'including a poll of the inhabitants'. We had a first-class and detailed debate on Clause 1 last night. It is not my intention to prolong the proceedings tonight. We want to make progress and, because of the seasonal situation, I am as anxious as everyone else to accommodate the House. On a matter of great importance involving the alteration of electoral areas and the specifying of numbers of councillors involved in local government reorganisation, why is there no provision for consultation? Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be included a poll of the inhabitants?

The Minister has made great play during the process of the Bill on the ground of new thinking. That new thinking arose out of a poll. We have had our conflict on the preceding poll. We have put that behind us. There is a radical change to the position which we had in Committee on the Local Government Bill arising from an assurance that opinion would be taken into account. Now that we have the Bill which has come about as the result of public opinion, what follows should be pursued in accordance with criteria laid down by the Minister. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he has valid reasons for not including a poll on the matters contained in the clause.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter). The Clause refers to the Secretary of State carrying out such consultation as he thinks appropriate". Who does the Minister think should be consulted? Will the consultations differ from consultations in other areas? The Minister knows our argument about the poll and we need not go over that ground. Is not this an opportunity to embark on an experiment in local government which the House should take?

I have to resist the Amendment on the ground that once the change has been made to the local government boundaries in this area—as I hope it will be under the Bill—it should be as if that had occurred under the Local Government Act 1972. I explained to the Committee why the boundaries as set out in the Bill were not included in the Act of 1972. The Bill is an endeavour to put the Act right. Once the Act has been put right we should abide by its provisions. That is what the Clause does.

The provisions as to consultation in Clause 2(2) follow exactly those in the Local Government Act 1972. The House of Commons found them reasonably satisfactory and they should apply once we make the alteration of the boundaries. The bodies to be consulted are the local authorities, county, district and parish, which are involved in the change; the parish was consulted on this occasion. One might say that that is the right and proper form of consultation if a change is being made in a parish boundary. One would seek the views of the parish council, and if the parish council wished to take the view of its parish meeting it would do so. That would be in the nature of a poll.

If it were a change in a district boundary, the district council would be the right body to consult. The members of the district council are elected to govern their area and it would be right for the Secretary of State to consult the district council and, of course, the county in so far as it was involved. Those are the bodies who have been consulted previously on the alteration of boundaries. The provisions are now new in law. They have been applied previously in boundary changes and have stood the test of time.

We must leave it to the secretary or State at the time to consider what consultations should be undertaken, and if he does not undertake the right consultations he is answerable to the House of Commons.

10.30 p.m.

We have had elections under the Local Government Bill, but the Bill before us is not yet an Act of Parliament. The transitional period has brought about a situation which Lord Garnsworthy in the other place and others have described as unique. The changeover will take place only several weeks before the operative date for the coming into force of the new system of local government, namely April 1974.

Therefore, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no "horse-trading" where differing interests are involved in terms of elected members of the non-metropolitan councils? It is obvious that conflicts of interests could arise. I hope that the Minister will consider widening the consultations beyond those he has already indicated, especially if conflicts in, say, Horley and Charlwood are not solved within a reasonable time and to the Secretary of State's satisfaction.

It is a reasonable request that we should look at these questions and not be hidebound in consulting only the local authorities concerned. We shall consult those authorities primarily since they are the elected representatives, but if there is any substantial alteration it may be right to consult further than the local authorities themselves. This is a hypothetical situation. A Secretary of State would wish to be certain that it was right to make alterations and would consult widely.

I am satisfied with what the Minister says. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 14, after 'instrument', insert 'and subject to approval by affirmative resolution of this House'. We now come to a point of some importance which concerns whether the procedure to be followed involves an affirmative or negative resolution of the House. I feel I must take some care in dealing with this point because, since the last edition of Erskine May was printed, the Select Committee on Stautory Instruments has established new procedures in respect of affirmative and negative resolutions. Although the Joint Committee on Delegated legislation in the first instance examines orders with great care in terms of their propriety and legal framework, there still arises the question by which resolution the matter should be covered.

The Minister may well be able to give us an assurance that the second stage of the changes laid down in the procedural requirements in Erskine May is satisfied by the establishment of Standing Committees for the examination of the instrument beyond the points of propriety and the legal sense of the instrument. But I must counter that by suggesting that taking an instrument, which is subject to the negative procedure, before a Standing Committee takes away from the House its powers to examine it.

So far as I am aware, the affirmative procedure is to indicate the importance of an instrument. The test is that the Government have to bring it before the House. That test is supported by the fact that parliamentary practice has established that that procedure is adopted when matters of substance and important portions of delegated legislation need to have a high degree of scrutiny. That does not apply to the negative procedure, even though in Standing Committee, because the matter is closed in Standing Committee.

Even so, the outstanding objection is that finally the negative procedure, having gone through the steps I have outlined, is still subject to catching the attention of an hon. Member. We all know what happens. Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments have used the lateness of the hour to get by the ordinary Member, who has perhaps not been so careful as he might have been, or has been so busy that he has not noticed a statutory instrument in time to put down a Prayer to seek its annulment.

We are dealing with a matter which concerns people very much. I can see that the questions of deciding electoral areas and specifying the numbers of councillors and times of elections are matters which can follow the areas of consultation which the Minister has described. I readily accept that now. The corollary is that the end product of the exercise and related matters should come before the House on the affirmative procedure.

The affirmative procedure enables the House of Commons to fulfil its traditional rôle. We proceed on the basis that the Government must bring their order to the House. The Government having come to the House of Commons, they must submit the order to a debate lasting at least 1½ hours after 10 p.m., no matter what the business may be and no matter what Standing Order is invoked to interfere with the business during the day. Even though there is a debate under Standing Order No 9, which occupies some hours during the day, the affirmative procedure enables the House of Commons to debate an order for 1½ hours.

Not so with the negative procedure. I concede that the Select Committee on Procedure has done much to try to deal with the difficulty, but we must make it clear that no matter what happens in the Joint Committee and the Standing Committee, once a statutory instrument becomes subject to the negative procedure the debate is closed at 11.30 p.m. The business could carry on till 11·25 p.m. and we would be left with only five minutes. The usual channels ensure that "a Nelson" is done and it is forgotten about, but a Back Bencher who feels seriously about the matter must be very much awake; and he has only five minutes to deal with it.

I am ready to accept the Minister's good intentions as to enlarging areas of consultation, should that be required. After that, when we have to deal with specific statutory instruments the right thing to do, when it involves the public and electoral matters, is to employ the affirmative procedure.

10.45 p.m.

Here again, we are following the procedure which was adopted in the Local Government Act 1972 and which was accepted by the House of Commons at that time. The provisions in Clause 2(2) of this Bill as to consultation follow exactly those in the 1972 Act. Clause 2(2) provides for the Secretary of State's order to be subject to no parliamentary procedure, not even the negative procedure. This is not a question as to whether it should be the affirmative or negative procedure. It is a statutory instrument. The invariable practice in reorganisation Bills of this sort has been that the order is made without formal parliamentary procedure. We consider that there should be no change in this case.

The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has discussed the procedure we now have for dealing with instruments under the affirmative procedure and under the negative procedure. The way one would endeavour to bring a statutory instrument of the sort mentioned by Clause 2(2) before the House would be by an Early Day Motion and persuading the usual channels to accept a motion, perhaps. But this would be the only way to bring an instrument of this sort before the House. I do not think the House should necessarily need, unless there is something going very wrong on the matter, to debate an order of this sort.

Perhaps it would be a good thing to put on record just what is to happen. We did not describe it fully on Clause 1. What we are dealing with under Clause 2 is the need of the Secretary of State to make the decisions on electoral areas for the elections which are required under Clause 1. First, we have, by Clause 1, decided what elections there shall be, and I should like to put them on record.

There will have to be by-elections for new parish councillors for Charlwood; for new parish councillors for Horley No. 3 Ward—not for the other two wards; new district councillors for Horley on the Reigate and Banstead District Council; new district councillors for Sal-fords and Sidlow on the Reigate and Banstead District Council; a new district councillor for Charlwood on the Mole Valley District Council; a new district councillor for Horley and Salfords and Sidlow on the new Surrey County Council; and a new county councillor for the new Dorking Division, now including Charlwood. The areas of Charlwood and Horley to remain in West Sussex are too small to be separate divisions and they will be added to existing divisions.

Particularly in the last case, these are matters which would be dealt with by statutory instrument under Clause 2(2), but in all these cases the electoral wards have to be decided for all the councillors to be elected. This, as in the past, is a matter between the Home Secretary and the people of the district. Perhaps I may point out, without going back to the previous Amendment, that now that we have decided where the elections have to take place, what is happening is that public comment has been invited, including comments from the political parties, and these will be considered by an independent committee which will advise the Home Secretary as to the course to be taken.

I think the public are fully protected in this and that it is not a matter which we should be obliged to debate in the House. If, of course, anything goes disastrously wrong with it, I have no doubt that hon. Members will hear about it and will make the Home Secretary responsible by calling him to answer in the House. On these grounds, I would not wish to alter the invariable practice as laid down in this Clause for setting out the electoral areas.

The Minister has said the right thing in the sense that he has placed these matters on record. I am glad that he has done so. The sense of the Clause is now on record and I am satisfied that it will perhaps save time in future in a way which would not have been possible if it had not been on the record. For this reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'or altering'.

The First Deputy Chairman:

With this we can properly discuss the following amendments:

No. 17, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'or altered'.

No. 19, in page 3, line 24, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 seek to remove what appear to be superfluous words which do not seem to add to the sense of the Clause.

Amendment No. 19 is possibly a more substantial matter, with which I hope the Minister will deal, because it seeks the deletion of paragraph (d), assigning existing councillors to any new or altered electoral area".

The Minister will recall that this was one of the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) on Second Reading, in a speech which we all enjoyed, when, talking about points which he felt should be dealt with in Committee on Clauses 1 and 2, he said: As a point of principle, the Bill should lay down clearly—if we do not do so, the Select Committee will"—

that was rather wishful thinking; that was before the Department of the Environment had mugged the petitioners who were attempting to put forward their case— that new councillors for the affected areas should be chosen as a result of a further election. I should like clarification from the Minister that all councillors at county, district and parish level for all the areas affected will … be elected by fresh elections; otherwise"—

this is the point to which I draw particular attention— it will be parliamentary intervention in local elections and the creation by Parliament of councillors in office who were not elected by those whom they will in future serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 448–9.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes raised a substantial point. If there is any purpose in a Committee stage, it is to make clear that parliamentary intervention should not take place and impose on people representatives whom they have not directly chosen.

This would be Intervention in the sense indicated by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), but it is intervention to assist the local authorities and local government units concerned rapidly to carry out the elections of their councillors and see that the electoral areas on which those elections are based are correct.

Clause 2(2) gives the Home Secretary power to prescribe electoral arrangements which may involve altering existing electoral areas as well as creating new ones. It would be wrong to remove the power to alter and leave merely the power to create. The assigning of existing councillors to electoral areas which are only slightly altered may be involved. If the Home Secretary took it upon himself to make substantial alterations by an order of this kind I have no doubt that he would be called to book by hon. Members responsible in this House for that particular constituency.

The clause gives considerable discretion to the Home Secretary, but this is common practice. It has been used for many years in local government reorganisation after both borough re-warding and new county electoral divisions have been devised.

I can give the hon. Gentleman the effect of what is in contemplation here in altering the electoral areas as they now stand. The numbers of electors to be added to the three electoral divisions and three wards are 188, 167 and 44 respectively. These are small figures compared with the totals for those areas. However, I agree that this is deliberate action by the central Government to put a certain number of electors into a particular electoral area. To that extent it may sound very dictatorial. But no one will do that unless it is to the benefit of the areas concerned and satisfactory to them.

In this particular case, and on the sort of figures I was giving in the small areas, the assignment has been proposed in local consultations and seems right in the circumstances. Therefore, if it has worked out all right in this particular case with the authorities concerned, I think that we should leave the power to the Home Secretary. It has been used in other cases without complaint, because it has always been used with full consultation. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall faithfully report to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who was concerned about this point. If he feels that the Minister's explanation is unsatisfactory, no doubt he will take appropriate action in Another place. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, Amendment No. 23, in page 4, line 4. leave out subsection (7) and insert— '(7) All resolutions passed before 1st July 1974 shall be binding on the council'. This is a probing amendment. I have wrestled with this subsection (7). I have done my best with it. In the subsection in the Bill there is not a full stop in nine lines of print, until the end. We are trying to encourage interest in local government and legislation, and the words that I have suggested as a substitute might meet the case. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on the matter.

I, too, wrestled with subsection (7) when it was presented to me by the parliamentary draftsmen. I knew what I wanted. I tried to find out whether it was in the Clause. I was assured that it was, and that it was not possible to reduce the wording.

The purpose of subsection (7) is to require a district council affected by the Bill to postpone exercising its option over whether it should have whole council elections or elections by thirds until after 1st July 1974, by which date the new councils—provided that the House allows us to have the Bill in a short time—will have been elected under the Bill. It is clearly wrong that a council should be able to exercise this important option before it has on it the councillors for whom the Bill provides. All that we are doing is saying to the district council, "Hold your hand. There are more councillors coming on to your council who will want, perhaps, to make their voices heard on whether in future there should be whole council elections or elections by thirds." For that reason we are saying that any resolution before those new councillors come on to the council should be ineffective.

But, as the hon. Gentleman will see, as recompense for that we have extended the period in which that option can be made. It does not have to be made until 1st January 1975, so between 1st July 1974 and 1st January 1975 the council can decide whether it shall have in future whole council elections or elections by thirds. That means that the new councillors will be there to make their voices heard in any debate on that subject.

11.0 p.m.

The Minister becomes more and more reasonable, although he has taken a battering today and still has an Adjournment Debate to face up to. I feel that if he ever comes back on this earth in another form he should come back as a parliamentary draftsman, because he has clarified the situation wonderfully well and I am quite happy with what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment; to be read the Third time tomorrow.