Clause
13
Short
title, commencement and
extent
Mr.
Woolas:
I beg to move amendment No. 37, in
clause 13, page 6, line 36, leave
out
‘Subject
to subsections (3) and (4)
below’.
The
Chairman:
With this we will discuss the
following Government amendments: No. 38, in clause
13, page 6, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and
(4).
No. 39, in
clause 13, page 7, line 1, leave
out subsection (5) and
insert—
‘(5) This Act comes
into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order
made by statutory
instrument.
(6) An order under
this section—
(a) may
appoint different days for different
purposes;
(b) may include
transitional, saving or transitory
provision.’.
2.15
pm
Mr.
Woolas:
We have shown that with discussion and
consideration we can move from clause 6 to 13 in a matter of seconds,
whereas it took a matter of months, if not years, to get to clause
5.
In the spirit of
devolution, Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38 relate to the remit of
the Bill in Scotland and Northern Ireland. To be fair, ours is a
devolutionary Government, although, in respect of Scotland, we might be
regretting that; in respect of Wales, that is yet to be the case. I
suspect that in the long run we will be the beneficiaries, but I shall
not go there, Mr. Cummings, because you will not let
me.
Government
amendment No. 39 relates to the commencement date, on which there is a
disagreement between the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, whose Bill
this is and who wants to get it into legislation straight away, and the
Government, who want to have time to ensure that we do it
properly.For the benefit of hon. Members who might
readour deliberations in Hansard, I shall explain the
amendments.
Government amendments Nos. 37
and 38 are, of course, related. Amendment No. 38 would leave out clause
13(3), which would extend the provisions to Scotland, as well as clause
13(4), which would extend
them to Northern Ireland. Government amendment No. 37 is consequential
on clause 13(2), from which will be deleted cross-references to
subsections (3) and (4), which will remove Scotland and Northern
Ireland from the Bill. As evidenced by the hon. Gentleman’s
amendments to leave out clauses 9 and 10, there seems to be a general
agreement that the Bill ought to apply to England only. Straying from my speaking
notes, I would like to add, however, that that does not mean that we
think that the intention of the Bill should not apply to Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not want people there to think that
the UK Parliament believes that they should not be involved, consulted
and informed on decisions, that there should not be appropriate methods
for influencing policy and decisions, or that there should not be
locally based decisions in those nations and regions. However, it is
not for us to say how they should do that—it is a matter for
them. I wanted to make that clear. I am hoping that the transcriber
from Local Works, whose publicity extends to those nations and regions,
has noted that point, which I have made very clearly. Given the tartan
margin in Scotland, I am confident that Her Majesty’s loyal
Opposition and the Liberal Democrats would want to make that clear as
well. I see nods of assent, and so make that point on their
behalf—although, the fact that I said it first might give me a
slight
advantage.
Amendment
No. 39 would replace the provision for the Bill to come into force on
the day on which it is passed. This is a very difficult argument for
any Minister to pursue because the proposition that a Bill should come
into force when the Secretary of State deems so sounds, to the cynical,
if not the sceptical, like weasel words. I can reassure the Committee
that the statement has been normal practice for legislation across
Governments through the ages. There are good reasons for that, and I
hope to use them to persuade the Committee.
Mr.
Letwin
indicated
dissent.
Mr.
Woolas:
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has done his
arithmetic and knows that he is in a strong position. However, that
does not invalidate my
argument—
Mr.
Letwin:
The argument is wrong
anyway.
Mr.
Woolas:
It is not. It is backed up by a powerful
argument.
Under
amendment No. 39, commencement would take place through commencement
orders made by the Secretary of State. The justification for that is
simply that the Secretary of State has duties under the Bill, including
duties to consult. These come under new clause 1 in particular, which I
would imagine is likely to be accepted in some form. It is important
that the Secretary of State is not placed under duties that he cannot
meet, to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Falmouth and
Camborne. If provisions could be commenced by way of commencement
order, that would ensure that that did not occur, since the Secretary
of State will not commence a provision until
she can comply with it. Commencing provisions by way of a commencement
order is in no way unusual and it is usual in situations where the
Secretary of State has duties such as those that the Bill would impose
on her, or on him or her in the future. I hope that my argument is
finding agreement on amendments Nos. 37 and 38. On amendment No. 39, I ask the
Committee to consider seriously that we should not have a commencement
date if that date renders it likely—probable, in my
view—that the Secretary of State would not be able to comply
with the duties. One further point, which is more than a debating
point, is that if the Bill is to succeed it will rely on its ability to
strengthen the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
The commencement date of the latter Bill is not known, because it is
subject to debate in the House and the other place, and so
Iask the Committee not to push the issue of a commencement
date and to trust the Government in their good intent. Parliament has
many powers to ensure that commencement takes place at a date that is
agreeable to it, should the Secretary of State be unable to comply with
the duties.
Mr.
Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): We all know that the
Government are about to change. Although none of us doubt the personal
integrity of the Minister, in a few weeks there is every likelihood
that he will not be in his post and we will be at the mercy of
officials, however well intentioned, who are not directly accountable
to the House. That is why, I suspect, most of the Committee would want
something from the Minister other than a vague assurance that it will
happen “some date in the future.” We would want it to be
more specific and on the face of the Bill either when it is passed or
at some specified date when other legislation will come into effect.
The Minister will probably not be able to answer our questions in two
months’ time.
Mr.
Woolas:
Mr. Cummings, if the hon. Gentleman has
intelligence or information to which I am not privy, I am more than
willing to buy him a glass of wine on the Terrace later. For my part, I
just carry on.
Mr.
Douglas Carswell (Harwich) (Con): With the
wine?
Mr.
Woolas:
If
necessary.
I pray in
aid my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who is
a more experienced Minister than I, who will testify—as will all
right hon. and hon. Members who have experience of bringing legislation
to the House—that that process is not unusual. Of course,
Parliament has sufficient powers to ensure that commencement dates are
implemented. The idea that Parliament would pass a Bill that the
Secretary of State would not wish to commence is unprecedented,
unlikely and impossible. Parliament would, rightly, insist on that. It
is important that the Secretary of State has the time to consult
organisations to ensure that she can fulfil the duties implied
bythe Bill.
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): I wonder whether
it might be possible to turn the
situation around, as we saw yesterday on home information packs. The
date was set down in legislation and was subsequently changed. If the
Minister feels that he may not be able to meet the deadline, could he
not simply do what happened yesterday and postpone the date rather than
not have one in the
Bill?
Mr.
Woolas:
I would be willing to do that if the hon. Lady
agreed not to issue press releases on the day that that might happen. I
suspect that she cannot give me that guarantee and so I cannot give her
the guarantee that she seeks.
Mr.
Letwin:
Is the Minister aware of the date of
implementation of the Easter Act
1928?
Mr.
Woolas:
The right hon. Gentleman—I am looking to
you, Mr Cummings, to protect me from his sorties—is going to
solicit a straightforward answer. No, I am not aware of it, but he may
wish to inform the Committee of
it.
Mr.
Letwin:
I think the Minister will agree that1928
is some while ago. The Act has never been
implemented.
Mr.
Woolas:
The right hon. Gentleman forgets the point that
the Easter Act 1928 was not trying to bring about a sustainable
community. He has made a good debating point, but, as ever, it is
better in rhetoric than content. My point is serious. I ask the
Committee to consider it seriously.
Mr.
Letwin:
In the spirit of trying to engage in a serious
discussion of the topic, rather than the amusements to which the
Minister has subjected us,the important point is the one made
by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. Of course the Opposition
accept—I imagine that the whole Committee accepts—that
the Minister feels that he needs a considerable period in which to
implement all the things that will be necessary to make the Bill
workable. That is not a problem, but he clearly cannot maintain that
this is the same as a Government Bill.
When a Government Bill is
introduced it is clear that the Government want to implement
it—[
Interruption.
] I make that generous
assumption. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that the Government
should ensure that they have all the time that they want to do so, but
that is not the case for this Bill. They will either accept it or not
in the long
run.
Nia
Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Does the right hon. Gentleman
not agree that a considerable amount of time and effort has been put in
on this and the work by the Department shows a tremendous
commitment?It would be most inappropriate to suggest that that
commitment does not exist. Would he not like to respond to that by
giving some sort of trust in return?
Mr.
Letwin:
My short answer to that is no. I accept that the
Minister, his officials, his PPS and Labour Members of the Committee
have all engaged actively in this. This is a multi-party Bill. It is
not a partisan Bill. I accept that the Minister’s general trend
of thought
is sympathetic to it. I accept all of that. The truth is, however, that
it is not part of the Government’s legislative programme. There
is not any particular reason why we think that it will rise to the top
of the
in-tray.
Mr.
Letwin:
I have a personal experience of this. About eight
years ago I began a small, personal crusade to rearrange matters so
that builders skips, which currently have to be lighted with lights
that often get flat batteries and are hence a danger to the public,
should instead be allowed to have reflective or luminous markings. I
have exchanged rather morethan 200 pieces of correspondence
and numerous parliamentary questions with successive Ministers about
this. There is good will on the part of the Government who have gone to
the trouble—to take the hon. Lady’s point—of
involving the British Standards Institute and consulting on many
fronts.
2.30
pm
Considerable
progress has been made. Unfortunately, eight years later, the
Government have not quite managed to find the legislative time to
engage in what they now say are the appropriate actions to achieve a
result that they accept would be desirable. The reason is that there
are more pressing matters. I can understand that—I do not claim
that builders’ skips are the most important thing in the world.
More pressing matters every year seem to demand legislative time from
the committeesof Cabinet, and I fear that the same fate might
befall this Bill.
That
would be an easy matter to solve, as the Minister will have an idea,
from discussions within Government and with his officials, of how long
it could reasonably take. If he would like to add six months or a year
to his estimate of the time it would reasonably take to implement, so
that there was an estimate of one year, but a period of two years in
the Bill, I do not think that any of us would cry deeply about that. We
accept that the Minister needs time, but let it be a date certain, so
that we know where we
are.
Mr.
Hollobone:
I take my right hon. Friend’s point
absolutely, about a Government Bill perhaps having a different level of
importance in a Minister’s mind than a private Member’s
Bill. If the Minister were not minded to accept the Sustainable
Communities Bill as currently drafted, one way forward might be for it
to come into force on the same date as the Local Government and Public
Involvement in Health
Bill.
Mr.
Letwin:
What a splendidly constructive thought. In any
event, whether by that mechanism or by a date, let us find a route
through the process so that, rather than having to trust good
intentions, which I am sure exist, we can trust the Bill to achieve a
result that weall seek.
Mr.
Woolas:
The point made by the hon. Member for Kettering is
valid. The difficulty is that I have no
such date, because the House has not yet passed the Local Government and
Public Involvement in Health Bill—I hope that it will. Let me
reassure him that it is not a date that causes the problem; it is a
given period of three months, for example. I would be more than willing
to come back with a date; in fact I undertake to do so, should my
argument win the day here. My strategy involves the fact that 1 April
2008 is the day when the new regime for local government comes into
effect, and he may wish to consider
that.
My second point,
in a long intervention, is that the right hon. Gentleman says that this
is a private Member’s Bill, which it is, but let me again remind
and reassure him that I have Government authority to support the Bill.
There are problems with it, with regard to its remit, but I am acting
on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, not as a
freelancer.
Mr.
Letwin:
I am immensely reassured that the Minister is not
freelancing, from the point of view not, of course, of his immediate
further posting, but of his long-term career in Government. I have to
admit that I am not surprised, as I know that the Minister operates in
proper ways. We are all grateful for the assurance that the Government
back the Bill.
I
return to the point that if we, in this Committee, continue to insist
on the position written in the Bill, we do not do so with the intention
of continuing in that same spirit on Report. I hope that I speak for
the whole Committee in saying that, if the Minister wants to table a
considered version of amendment No. 39 before then, to set a date or a
mechanism for setting one with which he feels comfortable, we would
accept
that.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for
that, and I will do
so.
Mr.
Letwin:
And I am grateful to the
Minister.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Amendment
made: No. 38, in clause 13, page 6,line 38, leave out
subsections (3) and (4).—[Mr.
Woolas.]
The
Chairman:
Does the Minister wish to move amendment No.
39?
Mr.
Woolas:
In light of what I have just said, I
donot need to. If I did, I would be going back on my
commitment to the right hon.
Gentleman.
Clause
13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
