| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 639
In section 27(1), the words "or other person" and the words "or person".'.
No. 83, in page 156, line 1, column 3, at beginning insert
In section 108(12), in the entry relating to Schedule 14, the word "18".
In Schedule 3, paragraph 7.'.
No. 84, in page 156, line 8, column 3, at beginning insert
In Schedule 12, paragraph 25.'.
No. 85, in page 156, line 9, column 3, leave out and 25' and insert--
25 and 40
In Schedule 14, in paragraph 15(1), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (g).'.-- [The Attorney-General.]
Title
Amendment made : No. 185, in line 13, leave out
to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions ;'.-- [The Attorney-General.]
Order for Third Reading read. 12.8 am
The Attorney-General : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I express my warm appreciation to all hon. Members, and in particular to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and all those from the Back Benches on both sides of the House who have contributed greatly to the success of the parliamentary handling of the Bill. The Bill takes an important place in the Government's strategy of encouraging competition and the widening of choice, particularly the widening of choice for those who are customers here for legal services. I believe that the parliamentary process has worked very well because of the assiduity of hon. Members. I hope that, in turn, they feel that the Government have listened and responded constructively in many instances, although not in as many as they would have wished, to suggestions to improve the Bill. I am grateful for all that has been done.
I realise that the Bill has occasioned a great deal of approval in the country, but also a certain amount of anxiety. Each of those reactions has been well founded. I believe that much of the anxiety has been dispelled. The Bill will take its place as a constructive measure.
12.10 am
Mr. John Morris : If I am forgiven anything in this House, I am sure that I shall be forgiven my brevity on this occasion. I endorse the Attorney-General's thanks to the Committee for its consideration. I thank the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor for their courtesy and
Column 640
explanations at all times. I am especially grateful for the work done by Lord Mischcon and his team in the other place.The improvement of the Bill was necessary because of the severe criticism levelled at it.We have not objected to extending rights of audience. I was anxious that the power should not be enshrined solely in the bosom of a political Minister, even though he be the Lord High Chancellor. Now that the judges have a new and important role, we are anxious that the aims of the Bill are carried out. I am confident that they will be. If there is any breakdown, we shall have to return to the matter later and consider it afresh, but I am sure that that will not be necessary.
One of the sad omissions from the Bill is that it has no enhancement for legal aid. The professions are concerned about profitability in that area. I fear that one day we shall have to return to that.
12.11 am
Mr. Temple-Morris : This is broadly a good Bill which will result in a more balanced profession. Perhaps all those who have been closely associated with the Bill would agree that it is as important for that which has been discussed but is not in the Bill as for that which is in the Bill following our discussions.
During its progress, the Bill has been improved in relation to consumer safeguards in conveyancing. However, the danger to the small solicitor-- other than in Scotland where that has been overtly recognised--remains and must be monitored. We shall also have to monitor how the rights of audience work. There remains concern about the designated judges. Indeed, I had intended briefly to air that concern, had I spoken to the amendment which I did not succeed in moving a few moments ago.
I am sure that many people will carefully watch what happens with the new authorised conveyancers and the consumer interests relating to them. They should be no obstruction--I do not suggest that they will be--to solicitors' rights of audience in the higher courts. I welcome the role of the ombudsman and hope that increasingly the administration of the courts will be considered by that gentleman. I thank the Front-Bench spokesmen for both the Government and the Opposition for the spirit of courtesy that has prevailed during the passage of the Bill.
12.13 am
Mr. Alex Carlile : I thank the Attorney-General and the Solicitor- General for their courtesy and co-operation. I also thank their officials, to whom all members of the Committee had access during the Committee stage, which was extremely helpful.
I make no apology for saying that I still view the future of the legal profession with trepidation. It is essential for our constitutional safeguards and for the liberties of the citizen that there should be a strong and independent Bar in England and Wales. I hope that, through the process of consultation and reasonable argument, we have ensured that when the machinery set up by the Bill comes to consider the future of the profession it, too, will bear in mind the need for that strong, independent Bar as part of our legal establishment.
With that in mind, I wish the Bill a fair wind, although I suspect that we shall argue some of the issues time and time again.
Column 641
Question put and agreed to.Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
PROCEDURE
Motion made,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).
Hon. Members : Object.
QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.
Motion made
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of Motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made--
Time for taking Questions (1)--Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.
(2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business. (3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day. Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments (1)--Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office. (2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half- past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.
(3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.
Column 642
(4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.(5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day for answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.
(6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.
(7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order. (8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer ; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.
Hon. Members : Object.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Motion made,
That Mr. Peter Lilley be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Francis Maude be added to the Committee.
Hon. Members : Object.
Column 643
Humberside (Boundary Commission Investigation) Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Wood.]
12.14 am
Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : It is a pleasure and a privilege to address the House on the day of the appointment to Government of my hon. Friends the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), all of whom I am delighted to see in their rightful places on the Treasury Bench. I wish them all a long and distinguished career, and I wish them well in their new, arduous and onerous responsibilities. I remind the House that the reason for this debate was the excellent decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who in 1989, as Secretary of State for the Environment, was so concerned about the strong feeling against the existence of Humberside county council that, exceptionally, he ordered the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the case for that county's abolition.
My right hon. Friend was moved to take that decision because he had received about 7,000 representations from the people of the ill-loved county of Humberside expressing their opposition. He took the view that it was right and proper for the Boundary Commission to consider whether the people concerned should revert to residing in their rightful counties of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
The commission's interim report did not, sadly, accord with the wishes of my constituents. Just three weeks ago, on 5 July, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated an Adjournment debate on the same issue. He drew attention to the guidelines given to the Boundary Commission, whose interim review published on 7 March states in paragraph 47, on page 13, that there are three strands to any consideration of boundaries. As the commission approaches the task of drafting its final report, I take this opportunity to remind it of its terms of reference, and that the three strands that it is obliged to take into account are : "whether the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants ;
(ii) whether it reflects the pattern of community life ; and (
(iii) whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government or any associated services."
On the first test, there is no doubt that the majority of my constituents-- and, I suspect, those of Glanford and Scunthorpe and of Great Grimsby--wish to return to the county of Lincolnshire, as that most likely to reflect
"the pattern of commmunity life".
Lincolnshire has a natural boundary in the form of the river Humber estuary. The old country of the east riding of Yorkshire was the other county which had the river Humber as a natural boundary. The residents of south Humberside look to Lincoln and to the county of Lincolnshire as the county with which they identify.
Our experience of living under the dreaded county of Humberside over the past 15 years with regard to whether it is
"conducive to the effective operation of local government" is that the county of Humberside fails that test. The community charge in the county of Humberside is about
Column 644
£100 higher than it is in the county of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire can deliver its local government services-- eduacation, social services, roads and all the ancillary services--at a cost to the charge payer that is £100 less than the charge in the county of Humberside. That test proves conclusively that Lincolnshire is the county which is most conducive to the effective operation of local government for my constituents.I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who was kind enough to reply to the debate three weeks ago that the hatred of my constituents for the county of Humberside is virtually total. The unhappiness about the concept of Humberside which persists among many of its residents 15 years after its creation shows that now is the time to urge the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to consider the strength of local feeling. I fully accept that it is probably unlikely that my hon. Friend the Minister can add much more to what he said three weeks ago, but I hope that he will assure me and my constituents today that he will draw the attention of the Boundary Commission to the strength of feeling that I am expressing on behalf of my constituents.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw to the commission's attention the fact that I was elected by the people and speak for them. My voice on their behalf must be considered when the commission produces its final report. This is the appropriate time to urge the Boundary Commission to accept the challenge thrown down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. At this point in the sad history of the county of Humberside, people's confidence in the county has been sapped. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to pass on my views.
I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), a Yorkshire Member, is present in the Chamber. He has told me that he would like to support my comments and I will now allow him to substantiate some of my points.
12.22 am
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on initiating this debate and I agree with everything that he has said.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) initiated a debate on this subject on 5 July. He spoke in similar terms and argued for the abolition of Humberside, for the creation of a new county of East Yorkshire and for the return of South Humberside to Lincolnshire. The fact that we have had a second debate so soon after the first, shows the strength of feeling about this.
Both debates have been initiated by hon. Members representing constituencies south of the river Humber. Lest it be thought that the strength of feeling is greater in the areas that were formerly unashamedly in Lincolnshire, I remind the House that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England found that the strength of feeling--or outrage as I would describe it--about their incorporation in Humberside is even greater among those who live to the north of the estuary.
Although I represent a constituency in West Yorkshire which is quite a long way from Humberside, I speak as a native Yorkshireman and a member of the Yorkshire Society. I have no trouble in understanding why the
Column 645
changes that came about in 1974 have never been accepted. Those who drew purely artificial lines on the map to create this concoction cannot easily be forgiven.Some think that the problem of assuaging traditional loyalties could be resolved either if Humberside changed its name, although it is difficult to think of an alternative, or if postal addresses were altered. That argument is similar to that put by those who argued for the new administrative counties at the time of the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. They claimed that there was no problem because people would still be able to retain their traditional counties. Most of those on the north side of the estuary still feel themselves to be Yorkshire people, but know that something significant has been taken from them by the creation and continuation of a new administrative county for which they feel no affection and little, if any, loyalty.
The Boundary Commission considered issues under the two heads of convenience of administration and traditional loyalties as well as patterns of community life. On the first, it concluded that a reversion to more traditional boundaries would be
"no better able to provide effective and convenient local government than the present Humberside County Council."
At no point did the commission suggest that local government would be any worse. Not surprisingly, it found that there were too many imponderables to make a judgment as to whether there would be an improvement or a deterioration. The main issue, therefore, related to the transitional inconvenience of a further disruption in local government.
When it comes to the preferences of the people as a whole rather than those of people with a stake in the status quo, there is no doubt about how they feel. When asked for their opinion, 62 per cent. of all residents wanted a change from the present county. On the north bank, 64 per cent. stated a wish to see some sort of Yorkshire solution. Many, like me, felt that the answer could be the creation of a new East Yorkshire county, including Selby, although that issue has not exercised most people's minds at this stage. Curiously, a reason why the Boundary Commission seemed to come down against that option was that the present boundary between York and Selby is unsatisfactory. Surely, more urgent attention could be given to that matter if necessary, rather than leaving it until the Humberside issue has been resolved.
The Boundary Commission rather airily dismissed the deep feelings of people for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, stating :
"Such loyalties should be able to co-exist with support for Humberside as an administrative unit."
Unfortunately, that statement is out of touch with reality. After many years, the survey carried out on behalf of the Boundary Commission shows that only just over a third of the people of Humberside would support the retention of the county. That being so, I find an element of perversity in the Commission's conclusion, especially bearing in mind the strong lead given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the former Secretary of State for the Environment. I accept that it is difficult for any group of people to reach one decision and then to come to a contrary one.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot say anything substantive today. I realise that the law does not allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
Column 646
State to reach a conclusion off his own bat. Rather, he must endorse or refuse one presented to him by the Boundary Commission. I can only say, with a great deal of support from those who still think of themselves as Yorkshire or Lincolnshire people, that I hope even now that there will be a recognition that a decision to go back to something like the ancient Yorkshire and Lincolnshire which existed before 1974 would be enthusiastically applauded not only in the present Humberside but far outside the existing boundaries of that unloved teenager.11.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory) : It was no surprise to me that my hon. Frienthe Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) chose this subject. I have been aware of his strong feelings on the issue. He has never been one to be shy about making his views known, particularly when his constituents are concerned. He set out his case against the present county structure with his usual skill and exuberance, and he was supported in that by some additional points by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who gave his views from a slightly different perspective--from West Yorkshire. On 5 July I answered a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes intervened on that occasion as well.
It might be appropriate if I set out a little of the background, because the present boundary review takes place in a more general framework. I shall then comment more specifically on the Humberside review.
Until 1972, the review of local government boundaries was somewhat haphazard and intermittent. There were periods of great change interspersed with periods when little happened. In 1972, it was thought that a new system would be appropriate. There was general agreement that it should not be possible for the Government of the day to make changes as they saw fit, because that would introduce the temptation to change electoral boundaries for political convenience. I believe that Governor Gerry of Massachussetts was the first politician who fell victim to the temptation to alter boundaries to suit his political ends. I understand that he designed a constituency which looked rather like a salamander. Someone thought that it should be called a gerrymander, so he gave his name to a political system and it passed into our language.
In 1972, the then right hon. Member for Crosby, the late Graham Page, wisely wished to protect his successors as Ministers for Local Government from the temptation to follow in Governor Gerry's steps. He designed a system which ensures that changes can be made when they are desirable for
"effective and convenient local government."
Those words appear in the Local Government Act 1972, which also imposes constraints upon the Secretary of State of the time in initiating such changes.
Effective and convenient local government has three components, to which reference has been made--first, whether the proposed boundaries reflect the wishes of the majority of the local residents ; secondly, whether the alterations would provide more efficient services at county or district level ; thirdly, whether they would better reflect the pattern of community life.
Column 647
Under the Local Government Act 1972, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was set up. It is a small, expert body of people who review local government boundaries throughout the country and form a view of what will make for effective and convenient local government. The legislation provides for the commission to take the Government's views into account. That is done by way of Department of the Environment circulars. The legislation also provides for local people to be given every opportunity to have their say, both before the proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State and afterwards.A very important feature of the system is that the Secretary of State can only work within the framework of the commission's recommendations. He can either accept its recommendations or reject them. He can accept them with some modifications, but what he cannot do, and has no power to do, is to devise changes of his own and come up with something quite different from the commission's recommendations.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on Humberside. The guidelines for the first Humberside review laid down that the abolition of the county council or any principal authority should not be recommended. However, after the Commission recommended that there should not be a major change on Humberside, a large number of people took issue with the report. Over 7,000 representations were received. My hon. Friend mentioned that figure.
In the light of that response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury decided that the commission should have a further look at the question, without the previous constraints. He therefore directed the comission to carry out a further review and to take a
Column 648
completely fresh look at the question. It was able to consider the abolition of Humberside county council and the division of the county in whatever way seemed appropriate, and that remains the position. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey earlier this month, we now await the commission's report on its further review. We know that the commission is carrying out careful and thorough studies of all aspects of the question. It has told me that its consideration of all the questions involved is proving somewhat more difficult than expected. Nevertheless, I should prefer the commission to take a careful, considered and painstaking look at every aspect of these possible boundary changes rather than trying to meet an artificial deadline.My hon. Friends know that the Government cannot express an opinion at this stage. I have listened carefully to what they have said today and I shall draw the Boundary Commission's attention to the debate. It is right that it should be made aware of expressions of opinion in the House.
Mr. Waller : Is my hon. Friend aware that when a debate on this issue took place recently in the other place all who spoke in it expressed very much the same sort of view as has been expressed in this House?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : Yes, I have read the report of that debate, and Lord Hesketh sent the report of the debate to the Boundary Commission, so the chairman and the members of the commission are also aware of it.
At this time I can express no views on the merits of the case, but I await the commission's report with interest. In conclusion, I repeat that I will ensure that the commission is made aware of the views that have been expressed today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.
| Written Answers Section
| Home Page |