| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Lloyd : He might do so, but those powers to recommend exist in previous legislation. As I told the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, another local government boundary commission review is not due this decade. Commissions make their reviews at intervals. We are in the middle of a review now. A review under the terms of the new legislation--not dissimilar to the 1986 Act--is not expected until into the next century.
London boroughs and their boundaries are not due to be considered in the foreseeable future. In the normal scheme of things, that will be done 10 or 15 years after the current commission has reported.
Mr. Bermingham : I am well aware of the local government review proposals and of the action that Sir John Banham intends to take. Is it already in mind to change the shape of London boroughs at some future time? If so, that surely adds weight to the suggestion that I made to the Home Secretary earlier today with regard to the 1986 Act--that the parliamentary boundary commissioners should be allowed to cross London borough boundaries to ensure parity with the rest of England.
Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman concentrated on that point for most of his speech, and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I appreciate the force of the argument. It is open to the boundary commission to cross London borough boundaries if, in the
Column 176
commission's judgment, an unreasonable and unacceptable disparity in the size of a constituency's population would otherwise exist. In the same way that the commission can cross London boundaries, it can cross other base line boundaries in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is for the commission to decide whether the disparities have become so great that it must cross boroughs. It is for the commission, not the Government, to interpret its responsibilities under the schedule in question.I and the Government would be loath to alter the boundary commission's rules at this stage. I hold out no hope that I would think it practicable and right to do so. I shall, however, discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department the points made in the debate. I emphasise that at this stage I do not consider that change would be practicable. Nevertheless, we will turn our minds to the comments that have been made and to the possibilities before Report stage and Third Reading.
Mr. Bermingham : Does not the Minister appreciate that at the heart of the 1983 case was the ruling by the appellate committee in the House of Lords that it could not interfere with a statutory base? The position has worsened--as the Minister knows from the experiences that other Conservative Members recounted this afternoon. If the review is to be just and not to be seen as partisan, the rules for London ought to be the same as for the rest of the country.
Mr. Lloyd : In the rest of the country, there are always boundaries over which the commission may not trespass other than in exceptional circumstances. There are different boundaries for different reasons in different parts of the country. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is right and that the position has deteriorated in respect of London. It may be more difficult to devise constituencies of roughly equal size or of acceptably similar size--in which case, it will be for the boundary commission to reach its own conclusions under the rules in the 1986 Act, on which it is entirely for the commission to reach its own judgment.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : My hon. Friend's earlier remarks will have provided some comfort to hon. Members in all parts of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) spoke of a skin or envelope around one or possibly two constituencies. That is very different from the situation in most English counties, whose boundaries contain at least four constituencies--except in the Isle of Wight. The figure can be as many as 14, but the lower limit is what matters. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to return at a later stage to say whether he believes that the proposition made in the amendment that was not called today, that "excessive disparity" can mean 10,000 extra votes, and should certainly apply in the case of 20,000 votes, is one that the boundary commissioners might be expected to share. If the commissioners do not consider a disparity of 20,000 votes excessive, we ought to change the primary legislation.
Mr. Lloyd : My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the difficulties confronting the commission when he refers to the envelopes in other parts of the country that contain a varying number of constituencies. In other parts of the
Column 177
country, that number is very small compared with the huge number in the whole of Greater London. If we abandon the instruction contained in schedule 2 to the 1986 legislation, we shall create enormous difficulties for the commission. I am not sure that the suggestion--and as this was made in an amendment that was not called, I shall not dwell on it--that the boundary commission should be given some instruction as to an excessive disparity would answer the case. Even if such an amendment were made, the Bill would still contain the requirement that the commission is obliged to give precedence to the borough boundary-- even though the numbers were unequal. Substantial problems would still exist. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion represents an effective remedy.Having considered that point, I believe that it would be extremely difficult to introduce an acceptable change. I understand the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House--albeit not unanimously, because the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) argued the other way. However, there is sufficient force of argument for me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to want to reconsider the issues. Nevertheless, I would be misleading the House if I were to lead hon. Members to believe that I envisaged a solution. I want to consider the arguments again.
Mr. Bermingham : The problem is not so great. In the shire counties, 10, 12 or 14 seats can bring us closer to the norm. I believe--the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will correct me if I am wrong-- that merely allowing one seat to cross the boundary between certain south London boroughs would remove all the disparity, allowing us to reach the required norm of 69,000 very quickly. The boundary commission knows where those boroughs are. The difficulty has been dealt with elsewhere in the country, and it can be dealt with very simply in London.
6 pm
Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman's proposed solution would tend to leave matters as they are. If it is so simple to achieve a rough uniformity in that part of London, it can reasonably be left to the boundary commission to regard the opportunity as an exceptional one of which it would be right to take advantage. However, what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said about the grouping of boroughs in parts of London underlined the complexity of what he proposes. There are 84 constituencies in Greater London, and I suspect that, if the boundary commission is to manage them effectively, they will have to be grouped. We are well down the track with the boundary commission review, and I do not think that it would be right or practicable to change the rules at this stage, given the complicated adjustments that that would require.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer in his place --
Mr. Tony Banks : My hon. Friend has gone to check the Hansard report. Apparently, he said something that has caused concern.
Column 178
Mr. Lloyd : In that case, I shall read Hansard with interest tomorrow. According to the rules, the meaning of what an hon. Member has said must appear in the record, even if the grammar has been tidied up.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, East cast such fantastical aspersions on the objectivity and non-partisanship of the boundary commissions, but I shall not dwell on the matter, except to say that the hon. Gentleman did not seem to carry either side of the House with him, and to add that, at the last general election, it took some 71,000 voters to elect a Conservative Member and some 61, 000 to elect a Labour Member. If the boundary commission was indeed biased in favour of the Conservative party, it did an extremely poor job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) asked whether we would examine the boundaries of Greater London and the county of Surrey. I must disappoint my hon. Friend, and tell him that we do not intend to do so in the foreseeable future--probably not during this century. That issue is tied up with the whole question of the distribution of seats in London.
We have said very little about amendment No. 8 itself. The amendment would enable the parliamentary boundary commission for England to delay its report for London until it knows what the London borough boundaries will be on 12 June 2000. I hoped that an Opposition Member would explain the significance of that date. Perhaps it is a printer's error for 1 June ; if not, however, its significance escapes me--and it seems to have escaped the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central as well.
I note that the amendment uses the words "may delay". Presumably the commission would be able to produce its report without knowing the boundaries if it felt that that was the right course. As we established yesterday, however, the 1986 Act requires the commission to produce reports that relate to all the parts of the United Kingdom for which they are responsible. That would prevent the English commission from presenting a report that left out London. The Bill, on the other hand, requires the commissions to produce their reports by the end of 1994.
The amendment manages to contradict parts of the 1986 Act as well as the central feature of the Bill. If accepted, it would produce internal contradictions in the legislation. I realise that it is a probing amendment, but I believe that Opposition Members intend to divide the House, so I shall explain why I do not think it should go on to the statute book. There is a good practical reason--albeit a technical one--for my view.
As I have said, I can give some comfort to Opposition Members. The local government boundary commission for England will produce its recommendations for the London and metropolitan boroughs in the autumn ; there will thus be adequate time for the House to approve them by statutory instrument, so that they are effective by 1 April 1994. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wisely refrained from moving amendment No. 6, there will also be adequate time for the boundary commission for England to take the revised London borough boundaries fully into account ; indeed, it will be obliged to do so before submitting its final report.
Although the amendment is not acceptable, what it ostensibly seeks to achieve will almost certainly happen, because the London boroughs will not be due for another boundary review for 10 to 15 years. That will take us well into the next century, far beyond the magic and unexplained date of 12 June 2000.
Column 179
Mr. Dowd : I support the amendment. I have not been reassured by anything that the Minister has said, principally because for many years the Tory stewardship of London's affairs has served Londoners very badly, especially inner Londoners.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) produced their traditional sterling defence of the Greater London council. Some of us, however, regarded its creation with little more than equanimity. It was created by a Conservative party that had given up hope of ever securing a majority on the even earlier and much more lamented London county council. I did not take a very active part in the debate that took place across London at the time, because I was at the council's tender mercies in one of its schools. The fact remains, however, that the traditions of the LCC and its successor are now denied to the people of London.
The amendment holds that it is not a good idea to allow for a wholesale review of the governance of London that does not include at its heart a review of the provision for that governance. The date of 12 June seems reasonable, although I am not sure why it is there ; I would support 11 June or 19 June--particularly 11 June, which is my girlfriend's birthday and would have some sentimental value, if nothing else. The point is, however, that we need more reassurance than the Government have given about the form of government that London can expect.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that he was prepared to debate the matter some other time. Let us debate it first, and then return to parliamentary boundaries. Opposition Members consider it imperative for us to know what the people of London can look forward to before deciding that their parliamentary representation adequately reflects their needs and aspirations.
Mr. Tony Banks : I am sorry to interrupt, but my hon. Friend has mentioned the governance of London. Did he observe the ghost of Christmas past sidling into the Chamber and seating himself on the Front Bench, in the form of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)?
Mr. Dowd : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I sincerely hope that it is not the ghost of Christmas to come, otherwise we are all in for a pretty lean time.
The primary function of the Greater London council was as a redistributive tax mechanism. The Government chose to abolish that, and once they had done so the council's value to Londoners, principally to inner Londoners, was zero, because the problems of inner London are not the same as the problems of outer London : the problems of Surbiton are not the problems of Deptford. Simply to hoick them into a job-lot for the convenience of the Conservative party was a totally inadequate reason for the existence of the GLC once its redistributive mechanism had been lost.
Mr. Tracey : The hon. Gentleman makes one of the strong points that the Conservative party has made consistently in the past decade--that the interests of the people of Surbiton were not the same as the interests of the people of Deptford. Therefore, the Greater London council was superfluous, irrelevant and a costly nonsense, which is why we got rid of it.
Column 180
Mr. Dowd : The Conservative party got rid of the GLC when it ceased to serve its purpose.
Mr. Robert B. Jones : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you confirm that we are still dealing with amendment No. 8, my copy of which may be printed differently from the hon. Gentleman's, but which seems to refer to the boundaries of London boroughs, not to the future or past of the Greater London council or a greater London authority?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes) : It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) has been going rather wide of the amendment. I try to give reasonable latitude to hon. Members, but I hope that the hon. Member will take that point on board.
Mr. Dowd : I apologise if I have stretched parliamentary convention to its limits, and perhaps beyond it. I am learning rapidly. I hope that you, Dame Janet, will forgive Labour Members if they express grave misgivings about the proposed Banham commission. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East word for word, lest I have to leap out to the Hansard office every few moments.
Mr. Tony Banks : Given the allegations that have been made, my hon. Friend can call me an old cynic if he likes, but when the chairman of the Local Government Commission is the ex-director general of the CBI--an organisation that is well known as the lickspittle of the Government--it is not surprising that we think that there is some stitch-up going on.
Mr. Dowd : As I said, I am learning fast in this place. I have just learnt not to let my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West sit behind me, because that is what I have written down here. Before Sir John Banham was director general of the CBI, and before he was knighted, he was in charge of the Audit Commission. Where do hon. Members imagine the current director general of the Audit Commission will go when the director general of the CBI retires?
Mr. Dowd : I shall happily give way if anybody wants to answer. Howard Davies of the Audit Commission will occupy the seat that will be vacated by Sir John Banham.
The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. The only disgrace is the way in which Members are intervening from sedentary positions. I suggest that everybody sit more quietly and that we permit the hon. Member to resume his speech, but strictly according to the amendment under consideration.
Mr. Dowd : The Banham commission is a central part of the Bill, certainly of future provisions for boundaries.
Mr. Winnick : As the amendment refers to the report of the boundary commission, is it not essential that we should have full confidence in the impartiality of the boundary commissioners? If there is a feeling that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) have pointed out, we cannot have confidence in the impartiality of the commissioners, that is
Column 181
disturbing indeed. I do not know whether corruption has occurred, but in the past 13 years the Conservative Government have been keen to place their own people in positions of authority. If boundary commissioners are sympathetic to the Tory cause, our confidence in their impartiality is undermined. The Home Secretary had to reassure us that all is well with the Bill. Like my hon. Friends, I am rather disturbed by everything--The Second Deputy Chairman : Not for the first time, I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short. That was far from short. 6.15 pm
Mr. Dowd : I shall explain why some of us are so suspicious about the powers that have been granted to the Banham commission. Dulwich Conservative association, whose most illustrious member is Lady Barking, has called for the creation of a borough comprising the southern part of the London borough of Lambeth, the southern part of the London borough of Southwark and two wards forming the western part of the London borough of Lewisham. Such a creation had never occurred to anybody in the history of south London. Such an artifice would have so little in common with the people and communities that it covered that it would defy logic, except in one respect : it would create a Conservative-held stronghold in an area that is currently denied to it. Labour Members are deeply alarmed about the Banham commission having powers to create such monstrosities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : This is becoming a slightly schoolboy debate, with Labour Members attacking the impartiality of the commissioners. We know that the vast majority of sensible members of the Labour party, as opposed to a few left- wing Labour Members from London, do not agree. The Banham commission is not the subject matter of the Bill. We are dealing with the parliamentary boundary commission, which nobody can traduce. The purpose of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just made clear, would be to delay the English boundary review until the year 2000. That delay cannot be defended on any high moral ground by the Labour party. It is seeking to go back on its acceptance of the Bill, and the principles behind it, on Second Reading. It is disgraceful that it has moved an amendment that is a thinly veiled disguise for an attempt to delay the Bill and has tried to occupy the high moral ground by making unjustified attacks on the impartiality of public servants who give up their time for the boundary commission.
Mr. Livingstone : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have now seen the disturbing face of prejudice, bias and corruption, which confirms what I said earlier. May I appeal to you to suspend the sitting until members of the boundary commission can be brought here to give detailed answers to the points of corruption that we have raised ?
The Second Deputy Chairman : The answer is no.
Mr. Dowd : Conservative Members will be delighted to know that I have almost finished.
Mr. Gorst : Will the hon. Gentleman kindly help us by saying exactly what would give him confidence in the boundary commission ? Would it help if, for example, the commission were to bend the arrangements slightly in one
Column 182
or two constituencies to enable Labour to secure seats that it does not already have ? What else would give Labour confidence ? It would help us enormously to know precisely what it had in mind.Mr. Dowd : In response to that intervention, one thing that would reassure me would be for John Banham to have absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary constituency boundaries in the future. As I said, the people of London have been singularly ill-served by Tory stewardship in the past. The bigotry of the Thatcher years was merely its zenith, not its origin. Until we have a damn sight more reassurance than is forthcoming at the moment, hon. Members representing London constituencies in particular will not stand by and let people in inner London be so ill-served in the future.
Mr. Spearing : The Minister conceded that there was something different about London, and I gathered from his brief speech that he is opposing the amendment because of the timing. What he said about the date was reinforced by the Home Secretary, but I think that the Minister will agree that there is a reason for delaying the review--not necessarily for the time mentioned in the amendment. Mr. Peter Lloyd indicated dissent.
Mr. Spearing : The Minister shakes his head, but let us test that. Once the boundary commission has presented its recommendations to the Home Secretary this autumn, is not the plan to lay the necessary statutory instruments in 1993 ? I think that that is the timetable. Mr. Lloyd indicated assent.
Mr. Spearing : The Minister nods. That means that around this time next year there will be some debate on the merits of the statutory instruments, whatever they may be. It is clear from the scope given to the boundary commission, which I quoted in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and which he also quoted in his concluding remarks, that it is at least conceivable--I hope that the Minister will respond briefly--that he intends to publish the recommendations before he decides which to accept.
The timing is important. Until the recommendations are published, until the statutory instrument is laid or until the Minister states that he does not intend to lay one, it is conceivable that any London borough--I presume that the power is not merely for one but for any number to be abolished-- which feels that it might be up for dissolution will feel any degree of security. That is how I understand it, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the timetable. If it is, I suggest that any degree of certainty for local government administration and the distribution of seats is at risk. Therefore, uncertainty precedes the delay that we are advocating.
Mr. Lloyd : Any recommendations of any commission must cause uncertainty before they are known, because no one knows what they suggest. The boundary commission will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the near future. He will introduce orders to put into effect the recommendations as they stand or with modifications, or he may decide not to introduce orders, but that will be made known to the House and it will be for the House to decide whether a statutory instrument should be put into
Column 183
effect. The timetable will be such that there will be time for the parliamentary boundary commission to have regard to the recommendations in the proposals which it must make to the Home Secretary at the end of 1994. That is clear and logical.I hope that it satisfies the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) because there is no other way to proceed if we are to achieve what Labour Members apparently want--no change to the parliamentary boundaries in London until we have the borough boundaries in place as they are likely to be for the next decade. That will be the case because the review of local government boundaries will be carried out by the present local government boundary commission, and the new one that is taking over is not due to report until the normal interval has elapsed, which should take us well into the next century.
Mr. Spearing : I think that the Minister has confirmed almost precisely what I was saying. My concern is not only with the linkage of parliamentary seats and the future of local government in London but with the uncertainty that must arise between now and when the Minister or the Home Secretary chooses to reveal his intentions about any such recommendations. That reinforces the case for some delay. This debate has been partly a London debate, but the two Ministers do not represent London constituencies. I make no complaint about that, but they should realise that in London the link between the function of a Member of Parliament and the function of local government is, I suspect, rather more intimate than in other parts of the country, not least because the functions-- [Interruption.] The Home Secretary should not laugh.
The functions of the Greater London council were not those advertised by the former Government in their propaganda. The GLC was fundamental to the services of London and if its duties are not taken on by the borough councils, they must be taken on by hon. Members. Therefore, the number of issues with which London Members have to deal day after day, in telephone message after telephone message and green card after green card, in relatively small constituencies but in highly complex urban areas are of a different character and calibre from those facing many hon. Members from other parts of the country. That is especially true in comparison with those representing cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham which have different local government set-ups to which they can refer.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke : I have listened to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whose views I usually respect. My expression was one of exasperation because he has not accepted the clear explanation that account will be taken of London local government boundaries when the parliamentary boundary commission reports. The hon. Gentleman may have been misled by some of the earlier debate. He does not belong to the loony left in London, although the debate has largely been dominated by the loony left which has attacked members of the Banham commission, which is not involved in the process, and has taken the opportunity to attack people who are not in the House to defend themselves.
Column 184
The local government commission sitting in London is almost due to report. That commission, which is not the one chaired by Sir John Banham, will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the very near future. He will no doubt make proposals to the House in the light of itsrecommendations. That will be in time for the parliamentary boundary commission, which we are now considering, to take into account the new boundaries when it undertakes its review which we believe should end by December 1994. When the--
The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. Interventions should be short, even those from Secretaries of State.
Mr. Clarke : I apologise, Dame Janet, but I hope that what I said was clear. The hon. Gentleman's argument was beside the point. The amendment would delay the whole shooting match until the year 2000.
Mr. Spearing : The Home Secretary's need to enlighten the Committee- -I am grateful to him--underlines my point. There is a degree of uncertainty in the matter which should not exist. I agree with the Home Secretary that there is a sequence in the report of the local government boundary commission, the laying of orders and the final recommendations of the parliamentary boundary commission. My point concerns the opportunity that the House will have to discuss and to consider those recommendations. Despite my request, the Minister has not said when that opportunity will be. I suggest--I think that the Minister agrees--that boundaries could be changed in London by the laying of a single statutory instrument. I do not know whether it will be a negative or an affirmative instrument. Even if it is an affirmative instrument, the local government map of London could be changed by a maximum of one and a half hours of debate. 6.30 pm
The extent to which the Conservative party wipes away the importance of local government can be illustrated by the statutory instrument which set up the London Docklands development corporation. Half of its area is in my constituency, but I was not even able to speak on that instrument. I suggest to Ministers that they take a little more care in their concern for the operation of local government and for the work of their hon. Friends in Greater London than they have done previously.
Mr. Tony Banks : My point relates to something that the Home Secretary said in his intervention. Does my hon. Friend share my sense of annoyance about the Home Secretary's reaction when we criticise someone such as Sir John Banham, formerly director general of the Confederation of British Industry? If a Labour Government had put a former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress in charge of a boundary commission, the accusations from Conservative Members would be legion. It is a bit much for the Home Secretary to say that we are crying foul when he knows damn well that if we put up one of our stooges in place of one of the Government's stooges, he would say precisely what I have been saying.
Mr. Spearing : My hon. Friend knows well that commissions which look at matters objectively carry the
Column 185
confidence of all parties. From what I have heard of the debate this evening, that does not appear to be the case in this instance.Mr. Peter Bottomley : The underlying point is that the amendment includes the word "delay", and the delay concerns the bringing in of fairer constituencies. The electorates of the three Newham Members added together come to roughly the same as the electorate of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the electorate of my hon. Friend the Minister. Looked at in that way, the Labour party is arguing for unfair constituencies and unfair voting.
Mr. Spearing : My case does not necessarily concern the dates. The amendment is a probing amendment. I seek greater care and, therefore, a longer time scale, which could be called delay, for considering these important matters.
I will explain why boundaries in London are important by reference to the Minister's speech. The Minister told us that the Conservative party made clear in its election manifesto that there was to be a Cabinet committee which, in effect, would take over responsibility for the co-ordination of public affairs in London. Previously, that co-ordination was the responsibility of the Greater London council. In relation to the east Thames corridor or the organisation of docklands, there may be a recommendation from the boundary commission for significant changes. All sorts of rumours have been going round about that. It will be necessary to take a far longer period in which to consider the consequences.
So far, the Government have not shown any sensitivity when dealing with strategic affairs in London. If they had, we should not have the debacle of Canary Wharf, the debacle of the docklands light railway or what is likely to be a further debacle--the mess over the docklands-Thames corridor and the planning for the high-speed link to the channel. That may appear to be a long way from local government, but it is not in view of its consequences for London. I support the element of delay and the element of reconsideration which are the main parts of the amendment.
Mr. Darling : This has been a useful debate even though, at times, it has strayed rather more widely from the terms of the amendment than I might have anticipated.
As I and some of my hon. Friends have said, the amendment is essentially a probing amendment. Given the narrow nature of the long title of the Bill, it was possible only to table such an amendment if we were to remain in order. The purpose of the amendment was to draw the Government on what they planned to do about the structure of local government in London over the next few years, which has some significance for the parliamentary boundary commission.
The Home Secretary is right in saying that the date of 12 June 2000 is arbitrary. In fact, the date was 1 June when the amendment left my desk ; it seems to have been transcribed as 12 June by the time it appeared on the amendment paper. As the date was arbitrary, I saw no need to table a further amendment or to do something to get it back to 1 June.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to delay. There is no intention to delay the report of the boundary commission until the year 2000, which would be absurd. Equally, it would be absurd to hold back the
Column 186
boundary commission for England just because there might be problems in London. That was not the point, as I think the Minister, the Home Secretary and those advising them--although they will have advised Ministers to answer the points in detail--will have grasped. They understand that the object of the exercise was to try to ascertain from the Government what they planned to do with regard to local government in London.Interestingly, Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members raised questions about the future government of London. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who is not in his place, clearly has territorial ambitions as he represents the smallest constituency in London, if not in England. He asked where London would end in the next few years, and whether it would extend or whether the area covered by the London boroughs would decrease.
Under the terms of schedule 4 to the 1986 Act, it is clearly intended by Parliament that the boundary commission must have substantial regard to the London boroughs. Our argument is that if the pattern of the London boroughs is to change over the next eight to 10 years, we should know so that the boundary commission can have regard to those changes. I say that for all the reasons given by hon. Members of all parties. I am glad that the Minister appears to be nodding ; at last he has grasped the point.
Other useful points were raised. I emphasise one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who seems to be off checking Hansard again. He drew our attention to the fact that from the terms of the parliamentary answer given by the Home Secretary today to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who has also gone, the quota entitlement for Brent would be 2.4, although, as I said earlier, 18,000 people were missing from the register between 1987 and 1992. If the boundary commission wants to reach the correct allocation of seats, it should have regard to the actual number of people in Brent rather than merely to those on the register, if the register is inaccurate.
Other hon. Members have drawn attention time and again to the point that there are problems in London because we believe that the Government intend to change the pattern of local government there. I and my hon. Friends referred to the report by the local government boundary commission which has drawn attention to substantial difficulties in drawing boundaries in London. It has drawn attention to the role and functions of local government in London, and to the mixed pattern of administration between Government and non-Government bodies.
Given the powers of the local government boundary commission, the report is extremely strong stuff. It asks the Government to have regard to the formidable difficulties in London. In an intervention in an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew attention to paras (d) and (e) of section 14(3) of the Local Government Act 1992, which make it clear that the Local Government Commission--the body chaired by Sir John Banham, as opposed to the local government boundary commission- -has the power to examine the constitution of London boroughs.
If the Government intended the Local Government Commission to examine the constitution of London boroughs, they must have contemplated that the boroughs would be changed. If changes are made to the boroughs,
Column 187
changes will be made to the boundaries. The local government boundary commission might wish to have regard to all those matters when compiling the report which it will lay before Parliament some time after the end of 1994.I said that the amendment was a probing amendment, and so it is, to a substantial degree. It was never intended to be a perfectly drafted amendment suitable for inclusion in the Bill. It was not the intention to table a wrecking amendment. Indeed, a wrecking amendment probably would not have been in order. But, as the Government have failed to give any satisfactory answer on what they plan for London, even though the Secretary of State and the Minister are here to answer on behalf of the Government-- whether the answer is from the Home Office or any other Department is irrelevant--I regret that the Opposition feel that we should press the matter to a Division. Accordingly, I invite the Committee to support the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made :-
The Committee divided : Ayes 248, Noes 302.
Division No. 40] [6.40 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Austin-Walker, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry
Battle, John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Bennett, Andrew F.
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyce, Jimmy
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Burden, Richard
Byers, Stephen
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Cann, James
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Chisholm, Malcolm
Clapham, Michael
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Coffey, Ms Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corston, Ms Jean
Cousins, Jim
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Darling, Alistair
Davidson, Ian
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Denham, John
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Dowd, Jim
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eastham, Ken
Enright, Derek
Etherington, William
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Fatchett, Derek
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fisher, Mark
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Foster, Donald (Bath)
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Gapes, Michael
Garrett, John
George, Bruce
Gerrard, Neil
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Godsiff, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Graham, Thomas
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
| Next Section
| Home Page |