| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): As everyone is aware, it is a short Bill. During the debate I suddenly recognised that it was seasonal and was turning into a Christmas tree. When a plea was attached to it for proportional representation I thought that we had reached the pits. To use the phrase of the hon. Member for Durham, North-East (Ms Armstrong)--
Ms Armstrong: Durham, North-West.
Sir Paul Beresford: Retaliation has struck home early. I have in mind the hon. Lady's phrase "the bits of Brent".
I was intrigued by the points made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). If we followed his suggested procedure, the auditor would be a policy maker.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) made a spectacular range of accusations. I hope and anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was notified of the accusations and the fact that his name would be mentioned. I assume that that is the position.
Mr. Livingstone:
I overlooked that and I apologise to the House. I was dealing with the letter that was read out.
Sir Paul Beresford:
I shall leave my right hon. Friend to respond to that. It is sad that the usual courtesies were overlooked in the light of the comments that have been made.
Much has been said about quality. It forms part of the drive of local authorities and the auditor and it is reflected in the various restrictions and pressures that are applied by Government upon local authorities. I was intrigued when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked in one breath about quality and then about differences in costs for various services between Camden and Westminster.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. If he checks them--I have yet to make a check--I suspect that he will find that there is a difference between collection on one side and collection and disposal on the other. If he examines quality of service, he will learn how often bin service and street cleaning goes round Westminster, especially some areas of it, compared with those services in Camden. It is a matter of paying appropriately for quality.
Mr. Dobson:
The figures that I quoted were from the indicators of performance published by the Audit Commission. The Minister should not question them. If he has other figures, they cannot be right, or else the Audit Commission is wrong.
Sir Paul Beresford:
The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows a lack of understanding. There is a difference between collection and collection and disposal.
Some constructive points have been made. Two of them were introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and reiterated by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West. They were related to the distribution of a newspaper. There is a reference in the Bill to "all reasonable steps". That is one of the provisions that we may have to consider in Committee.
The district auditor system, which is an attachment, as it were, that provides rations to the Audit Commission, the police, the fraud squad and the monitoring officer, has had considerable success in reducing corruption, improving quality and bringing some of the malcontents or difficult people who have broken the law before the courts.
Perhaps the most obvious example would be Preston, which is a fairly well-known Labour authority where there was marked corruption by a combination of officers and Labour members. The proper forces took action. People were fined and others went to gaol. I understand that one gentleman is still being sought. He is in India. The authorities there are looking after him because he has been involved in drugs and drug importation.
I shall be succinct, bearing in mind the time that we have been discussing the Bill. Three measures were outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. First, the Audit Commission should have powers to work alongside the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health. I think that everybody understands that. There is an independence of that inspectorate that has not been recognised to date by Opposition Members. I think that the power to work alongside will be generally welcomed.
Secondly, there is the change in the financial year. I think that that change is a correct one and is understood. An awkward question was asked, to which there was a response.
Thirdly, local authorities, as they have asked, will have greater freedom to publish annual information in the form of statistics in alternative free newspapers. We shall certainly reflect on what has been said about that.
In conclusion--
Mr. Boateng:
Will the Minister give way?
Sir Paul Beresford:
No, I shall not give way. The Bill is not a Christmas tree.
Mr. Livingstone:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you intervene to inform the Minister that many of the issues raised during the debate are worthy of consideration and that he should respond to them?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches.
Mr. Boateng:
On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I hope that it is a different point of order.
Mr. Boateng:
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the usual customs and courtesies of the House, of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are the sole arbiter.
We have been debating the Bill for about two-and-a-half hours. Important and detailed questions have been asked about specific clauses. I raised a question in relation to clause 1 about the independence of the Audit Commission and its right in publishing the figures that it produced recently on the funding of education in boroughs--
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point of order.
Mr. Boateng:
I raised a specific point in relation to the Bill, arising from the Minister's opening speech and from other matters that were raised during the two and a half hour debate. Is it in accordance with the usual customs and courtesies of the House, with which the Minister must surely be acquainted by now, to ignore completely those points in summing up, and to proceed willy-nilly without any reference to the debate that has taken place? Is not that treating the proceedings of the House with contempt, and should not that be deplored?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
That is the same point of order as before, because the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the Bill receives its Second Reading there will be ample opportunity in Committee to deal with more detailed points.
Sir Paul Beresford:
I was trying to keep to the Bill--
Mr. Boateng:
Then deal with clause 1, will you?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. No seated interventions. I know that the hon. Member for Brent, South is very keen to observe the courtesies and conventions of the House, and that is one of them.
Sir Paul Beresford:
There is no doubt about the independence of the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate, and its equivalent in Scotland. Its independence is quite clear, and I think that every hon. Member in the House sees and accepts that.
Local authorities need clarity in preparing the performance information for 1995-96. The Bill will help that. As I said, it looks as though it will become a Christmas tree, with extra additions, which should make its Committee stage somewhat more interesting than it might otherwise have been.
In general, I think that everyone in the House accepts that the clauses as outlined are for the betterment of the people of this country in relationship to the Audit Commission's role in producing a good quality service through local government.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Chemical Weapons Bill
Considered in Committee.
Clause 1 to 19 agreed to.
Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride):
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 14, line 29, leave out subsection (5), and insert--
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes):
With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 9, in clause 23, page 16, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert--
Mr. Ingram:
The amendments seek to change the powers vested in the Secretary of State to introduce regulations under clauses 20 and 23 by negative order and make them subject to the affirmative procedure.
We must be clear about the extensive powers that are given to the Secretary of State under the Bill. Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State substantial powers in the granting of licences to operate under the chemical weapons convention.
Clause 23 lays down the punishments, which include prison sentences, for those who fail to comply with the terms of the legislation.
The powers proposed in clauses 20 and 23, to which the amendments refer, were mentioned by a number of hon. Members on Second Reading. In response, the Minister said:
I think that all hon. Members who took part in the debate, and probably those who are prepared to take part tonight, would accept the underlying principles of the clauses, but on Second Reading they were described as "draconian". I do not think that I used that word, although I was accused of doing so. I do not think that I would use that word, but if I did I would not want to continue to use it. The word was used by at least one other hon. Member in the debate, and I can understand why, because quite extensive powers are vested in the Secretary of State to take action in relation to those who default on the legislation.
It is important that the powers should be open to proper scrutiny by the House, and that is the purpose of the amendments that we are considering. The best way to achieve that is by affirmative order. We do not say that simply for the sake of argument or to delay the House but
rather because the scientific community, which will be most affected by the clauses, is somewhat apprehensive about what will be produced in the regulations. It is calling for more transparency and more direct parliamentary scrutiny of all aspects of the Bill, and we shall deal with some of the concerns later.
It is in the day-to-day running of the UK national authority--the function that the DTI will perform on behalf of this country--that the effectiveness of the Bill will be measured. It is essential, therefore, that the regulations are effective if we are to keep to the spirit of the convention. Increased parliamentary scrutiny will lead to more thought and debate on the minute details of the regulations, and therefore ensure that they are more likely to be workable.
On Second Reading, the Minister gave certain assurances on appeal procedures, which will apply to licence applications under clause 20. His assurances are undoubtedly welcome, but why will he not accept the next logical step and allow them to be subject to the affirmative procedure?
Clause 23, to which amendment No. 9 refers, can be described only as being somewhat obtuse. Subsection (1) reads:
If anything is an all-singing, all-dancing clause, this must be it. As was stated on Second Reading, it is a wonderful piece of parliamentary draftsmanship, but its precise meaning and implementation cause concern within the scientific community.
Amendment No. 9 seeks merely to ensure that when the Secretary of State finally decides who will be covered by the clause his decision should be subject to the open scrutiny of the House. Again, I would argue that the best means of doing so is by affirmative order.
'(5) An order under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
'(6) The regulations shall be made by statutory instrument, and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
"if hon. Members are worried about it--
clause 23--
we shall listen to their concerns."--[Official Report, 23 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 846.]
"The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons of any description specified in the regulations to inform him that they are of such a description."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |