Clause 87
Local Transport Bill [ Lords ]
1:10 pm
Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley, Labour)
I tabled a similar amendment, which would have the effect of replacing an affirmative order with a regulatory reform order or the super-affirmative process. That is a more appropriate way of dealing with a medium-sized local government reorganisation.
Why is that way better? The Government are proposing—after local consultations which may or may not be controversial—to make an affirmative order and local government will be reorganised, so electors will lose their power to elect people who will directly implement certain highways and transport functions. That is a major change in local government.
Is an affirmative order, even after thorough and good local consultation, the right way to do that? Even if there is an hour and half’s debate, it will be whipped. It is just an opportunity, if the ruling party has a majority, for people who disagree to make their case and lose a whipped vote. That does not seem a proper way of dealing with local government reorganisation.
The alternative, which I do not think would be appropriate either, would be to have a Bill, go through the full legislative process and change the primary legislation. There could be two or three such measures a year, perhaps more in some years, which would take a huge amount of parliamentary time.
However, the regulatory reform order answers the question by pointing out the Government’s proposals and the obvious alternative of primary legislation, because regulatory reform orders are a different parliamentary pathway for altering primary legislation. I think that is what we are doing. The Government have taken powers. One way of looking at the Bill is that it is one whopping Henry VIII clause that gives the Secretary of State a lot of power to make orders. That does not seem a sensible way to deal with local government reorganisation.
Many hon. Members will not be familiar with the super-affirmative process or regulatory reform order. The process is similar to making an order, but a Committee sits and it is possible for individuals to petition and make representations to alter the order. The Committee is able to call the Secretary of State or the Minister responsible and to ask for changes, so it is a very thorough process in both Houses. When it has been used—I think the process was introduced in 1992—it has almost inevitably led to better legislation. It is a recognised parliamentary process for changing primary legislation, rather than just giving the power to the Secretary of State. That seems to me a more appropriate way of proceeding than just a straightforward affirmative resolution.
My hon. Friends, and especially the Minister, need a long perspective when they are taking Henry VIII powers. It is easy when one party is in control to think “This is good; this will get things done more easily”, but the Labour party will not be in control for ever. People may think that I am referring to last week’s elections, but if Opposition Members look at similar debates in Committees on regional assemblies and various other debates in which I have been involved, they will see that I have made that point repeatedly. It is better to have proper procedures that do not merely pay lip service but are part of the democratic process and use the full parliamentary process properly rather than trying to take short cuts. Everybody benefits, whether one is in opposition or government.
It is certainly worth the Minister considering the amendment. It proposes a thorough parliamentary process which addresses, as I have said previously, the fact that the Bill is unbalanced, not in its desire to improve transport but in the way that it treats the local democratic process. The amendment is one way of re-establishing some of the balance. We talked about other ways, such as referendums, vetoes for councils and direct elections earlier this morning. The proposed parliamentary process would re-balance that part of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look seriously at a well-established parliamentary procedure for dealing with changes in primary legislation, rather than taking the power to herself or to the Secretary of State.