LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

HL Deb 01 July 1963 vol 251 cc543-638

4.0 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, as I am bound to say I always do when she addresses your Lordships. I was particularly impressed by the ingenuity with which she made some quite sizeable bricks with very little straw, but I still really do not understand the deep hostility on the part of noble Lords opposite to this proposal in the Bill. I would also say to the noble Baroness that she should not draw any deductions from the presence of subsections (6) and (7) in this clause about my private opinion as to the probable colour of the next Administration.

The noble Baroness said that provision for this review would create uncertainty, and she talked about the noxious character of uncertainty and said that some of my noble friends had used this argument in resisting Amendments to other parts of the Bill. That is perfectly true; they have, and so have I, and I am greatly surprised that the noble Baroness did not quote an extract from speeches I have made. The point is that all unnecessary uncer- tainty is to be avoided if possible, but unhappily one cannot always avoid it. Therefore, one should create as little uncertainty as one possibly can.

The noble Baroness said that she doubted whether I should have any new arguments to advance in favour of these two subsections in the Bill. I do not honestly think I have. There is little more to say about this on either side. It is a very simple matter. The reason for the provision in the Bill for a review is that the Inner London Education Authority, when it is set up, will be without parallel in the education service. For that reason the Government consider that it is only prudent to provide for an opportunity to review its working.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? In his earlier speech on the previous Amendment he stoutly defended maintaining the existing London education area as it is under the London County Council, and gave no hint that it was temporary at all. He firmly blessed it. All the way through his speech I waited for him to make a reservation, which I thought he would be bound to have, but he had no reservation. He said it was the right thing to do, and that there had always been one education authority. Now he is beginning to wobble and wants the right to play about with it in 1970.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, with great respect, I do not think that is the right construction to put upon the last speech I made, and when the noble Lord reads it to-morrow I believe he will agree. I was careful not to say that the setting up of the I.L.E.A. as proposed in the Bill would always be the right answer. I will not repeat what I said in my speech, but if the noble Lord will read it to-morrow he will see that his was not the correct construction to put upon what I said.

The purpose of the review, when it is held, will be to give the Government an opportunity to consider whether the boroughs who will be responsible for all the other personal services in inner London can be more closely associated with the education service. That is the reason for this provision in the Bill. Of course, it has been made clear time and again in the other place and by me in your Lordships' House that the Minister of Education will not be under any obligation to make changes as a result of the review; and he has said he will not do so unless he is satisfied that to do so will be in the interest of the education service.

The noble Baroness said that the sort of argument which I have advanced is one of the arguments which the Government are using to justify the provision of a review, but that is not so at all. The only reason why I have said this, and said it before, and why it has been said in another place, is that the Government have done their best to try to discourage noble Lords opposite and the Party opposite from believing that there is some fearful, sinister plot behind this provision. That is the object of saying so often that the Minister will not be under any obligation to make any changes. That is really all I have to say. I have done my best, as I did my best in Committee, to persuade your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that it is not a deeply laid plot to dismantle the education service of inner London. If he is not prepared to believe me, I am very sorry. If I have not convinced him by now that it is not a deeply laid plot, I do not believe I ever shall.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I do not want to say much on this subject. The noble Lord is doing his best for his side, but he cannot be convincing in the light of the facts. The support for the views expressed by my noble friends on this side of the House from time to time from local education authorities shows clearly that the Government are not doing what the education authorities want; and it shows clearly that they have no mandate at all for the measure. When one comes to consider, in the present circumstances of the Government, their action in laying this down, what does one find? First, one finds that we must go into conference at Chequers to discover what we shall have to do in the 1970's; and, secondly, one finds that we shall have to look to see whether the plot in this Bill to dismantle London to such an extent that the power of the worker in London will be broken politically has succeeded; and we can have another go at it in 1970 and see whether it can be put right. That is my conviction, and I think that it is borne out by all the debates which have taken place.

The noble Lord, Lord Newton, knows perfectly well that the Government have not an ounce of authority from the electorate to do this. There has been no reference to the country, and both municipal elections in the past two years and by-elections have voted against the Government in this issue. The Government want another review in 1970 to see whether their purpose in introducing the Bill to break the power of Labour in London has succeeded and, if it has not succeeded enough, what further Amendments can be introduced to make it possible for Toryism to be über alles instead of its being in the present position. I despise the Government's attitude on this matter.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has not given any reason for the doubts that exist in the Government's mind as to the necessity for a review. Whatever may be said by myself and my colleagues about the intentions behind the London Government Bill, it is a fact that this part, in regard to London's education, is perhaps the easiest to work administratively. All that happens is that the administration which has previously been within the London County Council is now to work on its own on behalf of education. The difficulty is that it will not have the advantage of joint use of the Architect's Department and the other services within the County Council. That operates at the moment; and there has not been any suggestion from any part of the House that that operation has not been highly successful. The education department will, in fact, continue in the same sphere very largely over the same area, with very largely the same policy, carried on by the same sets of officials, teachers, and the rest. Therefore, it seems to me extremely hard to understand why, having conceded that because of its efficiency it should be maintained and not broken up, the Government consider that an extra five years of operation is likely to alter the position which the educational system within the London County Council area is in at the moment. This is a strong point which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, did not deal with.

My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger referred to the possibility of a reorganisation of education, on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, with perhaps one education autority over the whole of the Greater London area. That is not possible within this Bill. It seems to me that this is a one-way traffic. It is a review of existing arrangements within that area, and I have heard no arguments put forward to justify the doubts the Government have and which they advance as the reasons for subsections (6) and (7).

4.12 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his reply to my noble friend, makes the case for the review, not on the question of whether the new education authority which the Government are setting up is satisfactory and doing the job, but on whether the boroughs themselves have been so constructed as to be able to take over the job. The Government have said right through that they are creating these boroughs so that they will be capable of taking over all the services. The outer boroughs will become the education authorities. The Government originally wished the inner boroughs to be the education authorities, but they saw the great difficulty, the great problem, that would be involved in making those boroughs the education authorities at this stage.

Instead of adopting what I think would have been the most obvious method, having accepted that a central authority was necessary for inner London, and instead of passing over responsibility to the Greater London Council, which in many cases is taking over the powers and authority of the London County Council, the Government have set up this very peculiar organisation. I have not heard anybody, in this House or outside, who has any interest in education who can find a good word for this type of authority. But this authority has been set up and the Government are responsible for it. I should have thought that the Government would see that this authority had at least a reasonable time in which to perform its task and to prove to the people of London and to the Government that it was capable of carrying on and providing the right sort of service.

The point of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger which most struck me was in regard to the future. How can you really expect an authority which is being set up for five years to take a forward look, not only at the question of recruitment of staff, which is a very important factor, but also at the proper provision of schools and, particularly, at the type of education that the area needs? The noble Lord, Lord Newton, knows well enough that the type of education and the approach to education vary from year to year. There are new thoughts, there are new ideas. The forward-looking education authority, like the London County Council and some of the bigger boroughs, is always changing its approach to education. Can you really believe that an authority which has only five years of life is going to look to the future? Indeed, what future have they to look forward to? I anticipate that, if this Amendment is not accepted, we shall have a sort of status quo, a stalemate, in central London. Perhaps, my Lords, that is what the Government wish to prove.

I think, and I am supported here by the statements made by various education authorities which have some connection with, and some interest in, this Bill, that the Government's proposals are not to the advantage of the children of London and, particularly in this case, of central London. You will have the uncertainty of the teachers, you will have the uncertainty of the parents, and I believe you will have a period of stagnation for school development, school building and the like. I do not believe that this is what this House would wish to see in this Bill, and I hope that there will be noble Lords on the other side of the House who will have an interest in the children and will support this Amendment.

4.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 118) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents 27; Not-Contents 61.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Latham, L.	Samuel, V.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lawson, L.	Shepherd, L.
Archibald, L.	Lindgren, L.	Sinha, L.
Attlee, E.	Listowel, E.	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Longford, E.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Walston, L.
Chorley, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Williams, L.
Crook, L.	Rathcreedan, L.	Wise, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Rusholme, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Grantchester, L.	Milverton, L.
Albemarle, E.	Grenfell, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Ampthill, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Monsell, V.
Cawley, L.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Moyne, L.
Chesham, L.	Hanworth, V.	Newton, L.
Clwyd, L.	Hastings, L.	Ormonde, M.
Colgrain, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Colville of Culross, V.	Howe, E.	St. Just, L.
Colyton, L.	Jellicoe, E.	St. Oswald, L.
Conesford, L.	Jessel, L.	Salisbury, M.
Craigton, L.	Long, V.	Salter, L.
Cromartie, E.	Lothian, M.	Sandys, L.
Denham, L.	Mabane, L.	Soulbury, V.
Devonshire, D.	MacAndrew, L.	Spens, L.
Dudley, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Malmesbury, E.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Ferrers, E.	Margesson, V.	Swinton, E.
Forster of Harraby, L.	Mersey, V.	Teynham, L.
Fortescue, E.	Meston, L.	Twining, L.
Glentanar, L.	Mills, V.	Waleran, L.
Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.26 p.m.

BARONUSS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

moved, in subsection (6), to leave out the first "shall" and insert "may". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there are moments when I feel rather sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Newton. He receives no support from his own side, and, on his own admission, he has no new arguments. All he has been able to do in relation to this proposed review is to make soothing noises to suggest that it is not part of a deep-laid plot. I myself have never suggested that this review is part of a deep-laid plot. I tried to suggest to the noble Lord that it is very silly, and that it is particularly silly in an obligatory form. I tried to suggest some practical difficulties that might arise if this review is foisted upon a Government who do not want it. We were given no answer about those practical difficulties. We know only that the noble Lord does not like uncertainty, but that when he has the opportunity to accept an Amendment which would remove uncertainty he does not take it.

The Amendment which I am to move will, I think, commend itself very much more to him—and I hope that on this occasion my sympathy for the noble Lord will not need to be engaged again. I shall not argue the case at length. This Amendment is quite simple: it proposes to make the review of education, to which the noble Lord attaches so much importance, permissive and not mandatory, so that the Government of the day may consider whether, in all the circumstances, it is worth while spending time and money in conducting such a review. If they think that it is worth while, then opportunity will be open; if they think that the review would be farcical and a waste of time and money, then they would be under no obligation to conduct it.

It is perfectly clear that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will welcome this Amendment. I tried to take down the words that he used in his speech on the preceding Amendment. What he said was that the purpose of the clauses was to give the Government the opportunity to consider whether the educational services could be more closely associated with the other personal services.

LORD NEWTON

I think that what I actually said was: "to decide whether the boroughs could be more closely associated with the educational services."

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

To give the Government the opportunity to decide whether the boroughs could be more closely associated with the educational services—I accept the correction. I took the words down rather hastily. Now that is exactly what the present Amendment does. It gives the Government of the day the opportunity to consider whether the boroughs should be more closely associated with the education services; because the present Amendment says that a review with that object—and no other—may be conducted by the Minister provided that it is completed before 1970. Personally, I still regret that the terms are restrictive: that the review will not also include the important question of whether, perhaps, the Greater London Council should not be more closely associated with the education services. But that point is now disposed of. All that is before your Lordships at the moment is an Amendment to the effect that the Government shall have the opportunity, without further legislation, to conduct such a review if, at the time, it seems appropriate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 25, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I have tried to explain this afternoon, as I tried to explain in Committee, why the Government think that the provision for this review should be written into this Bill. We are quite certain that there ought to be a review and, that being so, we believe that provision for it should be mandatory and not, as the noble Baroness wants, permissive. By our making it mandatory, everybody concerned will know that there is going to be a review and they will know where they are. If we make it permissive, what shall we be doing? We shall be creating uncertainty where uncertainty does not exist as the Bill is drafted. I would call it noxious uncertainty, because it would be unnecessary uncertainty; and I am sure, in view of the noble Baroness's views on uncertainty, that she will agree with me about this. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

The noble Lord will surely appreciate that we shall be making it uncertain whether there will be uncertainty.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not feel that he has met the points raised. He is usually so careful to meet the actual arguments presented. Surely this time he has not answered the points at all. He says that there would be uncertainty as to whether there was to be a review; but it might equally be said that there is uncertainty about all sorts of reviews. A review might be started in all sorts of branches. People are not upset at that thought. This review is hanging over people's heads; and we cannot help that. Does he think that somebody will be more worried if to-morrow it is announced that it is not quite certain there will be a review?

There is another point. Suppose a Government who are not of the noble Lord's persuasion come into office. Does he want that Government to continue a review that they think is a waste of time? Does he say they must? I know that Mr. Macmillan has said that he intends to be Prime Minister in 1970—or words to that effect; at any rate, he has made it plain that he intends to be there for many years to come. But suppose the gods decided otherwise. Does the noble Lord solemnly say that the other Government must go on with a review which they consider unnecessary. Is he determined that this should happen, even if everyone is convinced that it is a waste of time and money? Perhaps he can answer that point. I know that he cannot speak again.

LORD MOYNE

My Lords, may I say—

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

With the greatest respect, the noble Lord must not be shielded by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne.

LORD NEWTON

I am not allowed to speak again but I will reply to the question: I will do it as an interruption to the noble Earl. The answer is quite simple. If it is written into the Bill that there shall be a review, then a review there will have to be, whatever the Government in power, unless an Amendment is made in another Act.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

Even if at the time it seems to everybody, including some of the noble Lord's friends, that it is a waste of money? I think the noble Lord has answered the question and given an answer which he will feel, on reflection, makes a laughing stock of the Government. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, wants to assist the Minister and I had better give way.

LORD MOYNE

I was merely going to make an elementary point. It is open to the Government, surely, to hold a review at any time. To put it in that they "may" do so is entirely unnecessary.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, this really is a fantastic situation. I do not want to labour the point, because it has been so clearly put by so many noble Lords and by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. But I was not quite sure of the nature of Lord Moyne's interjection.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

He intended merely to be helpful.

LORD WALSTON

I am quite sure that he meant to be helpful, but I am not quite sure to whom. If he is saying "Why bother to put in the Bill that there will or may be a review", because the Government or the Greater London authority are always free to have an inquiry, I am entirely on his side. It would be far better to leave it out entirely.

LORD MOYNE

I should like it to be in mandatory form, in order that everybody shall know the plan. In the optional form there is no point.

LORD WALSTON

At least the noble Lord has explained the position. I think he is now trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in this respect; and to support the fact that there should be a mandatory review. But which is the more sensible course hardly seems to be arguable in this case. No doubt it is reasonable, if the Government are sufficiently unsure of the good sense of their present proposals in education—if they think that in five years time they may turn out to be wrong—for them to say "Let us look at this again and have a review." I should have been very much happier if they had put forward such proposals as gave them, as well as ourselves, confidence that they were likely to be right. Had they done that, this uncertainty would not have existed, and those responsible for the plans for education of millions of young people would have been able to go forward, in full confidence that the plans had been well laid and well thought out, and were unlikely to be changed for a good many years to come.

The Government have, quite frankly, stated that that is not so; that their plans will probably turn out to be wrong; and they think the chances are that they will have to be altered within a certain number of years. Perhaps it will be five years before they will have to start looking at them; or perhaps only four years—because if you are to have a review by 1970 you must start at least a year or eighteen months beforehand. They have admitted, therefore, that they have no confidence in their own plan; so by all means let them put in the fact that there can be a review if it is desired. But for them to go on record as saying, "We are so certain that our own plans are wrong that we, and our successors, must have a review, come what may, because we know there will be need for change," seems to me to be going out of their way to spread alarm, despondency and uncertainty among the people whose need is for certainty. Any doubts they may have about this would have been amply covered by the Amendment of my noble friend. And if by remote chance, it turns out that they have, by luck, stumbled on a plan for education in this area which has, in fact, worked reasonably well, they and their successors will not be forced to go to this expensive and laborious and extremely unsettling act of having a review of the whole thing.

As the Bill stands there will be no possibility whatsoever, when 1968 or 1969 comes of the then Government and the then Greater London Council saying: "We are satisfied with the way education is going. Now we can go ahead and plan in certainty for the future." What people will be forced by this clause to say is: "Although we are reasonably satisfied we must set in motion this cumbersome review, which must be laid before Parliament." So until 1970, there is bound to be eighteen months or two years of uncertainty—and all that for no positive safeguards—they are in no stronger posi tion than by accepting this Amendment—but simply because they have written it down, and from what they have written down they will not budge. It seems an unfortunate way of conducting legislation in this country.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

My Lords, I do not propose to attempt to answer the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for two reasons. The first is that he does not produce any arguments, and the second is that he merely makes a statement that the Government think the review ought to be mandatory and that is why it is in the Bill. He relies entirely upon authority. And in reply to my noble friend Lord Longford he says simply that, if there is a mandatory review, then it will have to happen—which is certainly not in dispute.

However, I should like to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. The purpose of having a permissive review written into the Bill is this. Unless it is written into the Bill, the subsequent steps which subsection (6) makes possible as a result of the review could not be taken without further legislation. If it is written into the Bill, and if at the same time the Government decide that such a review should be held, should any changes be recommended on the lines specified in this clause then those changes could be carried out without further legislation. If the clause is deleted altogether while it is still true that the Government can review anything at any time, it would be necessary to have legislation in order to transfer any or all of the functions, if it were decided to do so, from the I.L.E.A. to the boroughs. I think that that is the purpose of the permissive view.

I regret very much that the Government have no arguments. It would have

been intriguing and surprising if they had. But the bankruptcy still seems to prevail, and indeed to be even more noticeable than before. They are determined to foist on a possibly willing, possibly unwilling, Government a review which has to come within a relatively short period. They do not seem to have contemplated even the possibility that the Government themselves might have changed their mind. This is something that has happened occasionally in the past—not always a change for the better, but we live in hope.

Should this Government still be in existence in the later 'sixties, perhaps they will have had some searing experiences between now and then to cause them to change their mind, and they may be very sorry to find themselves landed with the necessity to conduct a restricted review, which has been written into an earlier Statute before their conversion. They might very much wish that this clause provided, if for a review at all, then for a comprehensive one, which would make it possible to reorganise the whole system and perhaps give education to the Greater London Council or perhaps to reconstitute the G.L.C. But I suppose inhibitions of that sort are a little utopian. The Government are not likely to change their mind as much as that. But they may have changed their mind between now and the time of this review and may live, if they live at all, to be very sorry that they imposed these shackles upon themselves.

4.44 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 118A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L.
Airedale, L.	Lawson, L.	Sinha, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Listowel, E.	Stonham, L.
Amulree, L.	Longford, E.	Summerskill, B.
Attlee, E.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Walston, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Williams, L.
Champion, L.	Ogmore, L.	Wise, L.
Crook, L.	Rusholme, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Henderson, L.	Shackleton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Carrington, L.	Colgrain, L.
Airlie, E.	Chesham, L.	Colville of Culross, V.
Ampthill, L.	Clwyd, L.	Colyton, L.
Conesford, L.	Hanworth, V.	Mills, V.
Craighton, L.	Hastings, L.	Milverton, L.
Cromartie, E.	Hayter, L.	Moyne, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Howard of Glossop, L.	Newton, L.
Derwent, L.	Howe, E.	Ormonde, M.
Devonshire, D.	Jellicoe, E.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Dudley, L.	Jessel, L.	St. Just, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Long, V.	St. Oswald, L.
Ferrers, E.	Lothian, M.	Salter, L.
Forster of Harraby, L.	Mabane, L.	Sandys, L.
Fortescue, E.	MacAndrew, L.	Soulbury, V.
Glentanar, L.	Malmesbury, E.	Strathclyde, L.
Grenfell, L.	Mancroft, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Hailsham, V. (L. President)	Margesson, V.	Swinton, E.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Mersey, V.	Waleran, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on changes made during the Committee stage to Clause 84 dealing with transferring compensation of officers. This Amendment deletes the reference to the transfer of officers from Clause 30, as officers affected by any changes in the educational arrangements in inner London will be protected under the general provisions applying to all officers in Clauses 83 and 84. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 47, leave out ("officers and liabilities") and insert ("liabilities (but, without prejudice to sectons 83(1) and 84 of this Act, excluding provisions with respect to the transfer of officers)").—(Lord Hastings.)

Clause 31 [Primary, secondary and further education in Greater London]:

4.54 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this Amendment is to fulfil an undertaking I gave in Committee to the noble Lords, Lord Crook and Lord Shepherd. It makes it a statutory requirement for each of the new outer London boroughs to consult its neighbours when drawing up a development plan required by Clause 31(2) with a view to ensuring that the revised development plans have regard to the use made of their schools by children outside and vice versa. There is no need for any corresponding provision with regard to the schemes of further education, because the point is already covered by Section 42(4) of the Education Act, 1944. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 46, line 11, at end insert— ("(2A) Before preparing a revised development plan for their borough under subsection (2) of this section, the council of each outer London borough shall consult with any other local education authority whose area is contiguous with that borough with a view to ensuring that the revised plan has regard both to the use made of schools outside that borough by children resident therein and to the use of schools within that borough by children resident outside it.").—(Lord Newton.)

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment and the four following Amendments. In Committee we asked that we should have consideration of the two drafts that we particularly prepared with a view to making certain that if we did not get the major things dealt with in the first Division to-day we should, at least, get something left over from the wreck. I am delighted that the noble Lord has been able to give us at least this small amount, and I should like to thank him. We support the Amendment.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this Amendment and the next two Amendments on the Marshalled List are also in pursuance of an undertaking I gave in Committee to the noble Lords, Lord Crook and Lord Shepherd. The effect of the Amendment is to extend the scope of Clause 31(7) to movement into Greater London from the areas of adjoining local education authorities outside. People living in those areas are to have the same right of access to schools in Greater London as people living inside Greater London. It gives me great satisfaction to move this particular Amendment. I was glad when I saw the Amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, because it had already occurred to me when I began to study this Bill that something on these lines was desirable. I was, therefore, as I say, glad to see the Amendment down. Another reason why it gives me satisfaction is because this is an extension of the area of freedom of choice for parents to choose the schools to which their children should be able to go. I have not done any research on this subject, but I suspect that it may be the first extension of freedom of choice in this respect since the 1944 Act was passed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 1, leave out ("in") and insert ("if that area is within, or is contiguous with any part of,").—(Lord Newton.)

LORD CROOK

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord again, and say that I did not make a long speech in Committee because the noble Lord had been good enough to indicate in advance that he had seen the merit of the words of which I had given notice only that morning. We are glad to see that the Government have been able to provide this wandering over the borders and the choice to which he referred.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I should like to join in that expression of gratitude. It has been my duty, and I am afraid will be again, to be critical of the Government's measure and, indeed, of the noble Lord's arguments; but when he has taken such a personal initiative as he has, I think he deserves thanks from everybody, and particularly from myself.

LORD NEWTON

I am much obliged.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this is consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 4, leave out from ("London") to end of line 5 and insert (", or in some other local education authority's area which is contiguous with any part of Greater London, but belongs to the area of a local education authority other than the providing authority").—(Lord Newton.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this, also, is a consequential Amendment. Perhaps I ought to explain briefly to the House what this Amendment and the last one do. They alter that part of Clause 31(7) which deals with the recoupment to the education authority of the cost of further education provided for students outside its area so that it will fit in with the widening of the scope of Clause 31(7) by my first Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 11, leave out from first ("the") to end of line and insert ("authority to whose area the pupil belongs) shall apply notwithstanding that the last-mentioned").—(Lord Newton.)

Clause 32 [Co-ordination of school and other health services in inner London]:

4.59 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "respectively;" to insert: provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring any part of the premises of a school or Other educational institution maintained by the Inner London Education Authority to be made available to the local health authority".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I have on other occasions, as this Bill has progressed through the House, sought to focus the attention of your Lordships on certain principles involved in the transfer of these functions. Now I propose to move a series of Amendments, six in all, and I will try to do that as briefly as possible, in order that we can pinpoint—and surely not only noble Lords on this side of the House are interested in this, but noble Lords opposite as well—certain difficulties which must arise unless the position is clarified more fully. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, whether he would give me some answer to the detailed questions. He will recall that on other occasions when I have spoken on this Bill I have put a series of questions. When he has come to wind up—I am saying this more in sorrow than in anger, because I realise that the full weight of this Bill has fallen on the noble Lord's shoulders—he has failed to answer certain specific questions which I have put to him on matters which are of tremendous importance to Londoners. I always feel that a local authority's primary purpose is to serve the people, and the human functions with which a local authority are concerned surely call for an answer before this new form of administration is set up.

My first Amendment is concerned with Clause 32. This clause is framed to provide for the economical use of premises and equipment. From the wording of the clause it would appear that a London borough, as the health authority, could claim to use the medical room in a school for the local health service, distinct from the school health service. At first sight this seems a reasonable and a minor matter, but I would remind your Lordships that the medical room is an integral part of the school. It is not used only for school inspection, but for first-aid and all kinds of occasions. Even when a small boy or girl feels faint or sick, the child waits there for an ambulance or a doctor to arrive. If it is used for the local health service, then the general public must be admitted.

Perhaps noble Lords opposite are not as familiar with these services as some of us on these Benches. Suppose there were an epidemic and the Government decided that there should be widespread immunisation. That would mean that hundreds of people would have to be immunised. Suppose these local health authorities decided to use part of the premises of the educational service. Surely that would not be wise. It is certainly not wise to expose children to contact with a large number of people, and it is certainly not wise to use the rooms which they must use for this purpose. It is not practical, for all kinds of other reasons, to have these people wandering about the school premises. Of course, it is unlikely that the borough council would be unreasonable—I fully recognise that—but let us have the wording of the clause made clear. That is all I am asking for. As it stands, it could be argued that all premises used for the health service by either authority must be used for both. Let me emphasise that this Amendment would not preclude the use by the health authority, in agreement, of course, with the education authority, of a school or other premises if not required for educational purposes. I am asking the noble Lord to make this quite clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 40, after ("respectively;") insert the said proviso.—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to enable the Inner London Education Authority to withhold from the health authority the use of any school clinics if they were part of the premises of a school or educational institution—that is to say, on the same site. The purpose of Clause 32 is to provide for the joint use of premises, whichever authority owns them. I make that quite clear. I understand that there may be valid objections to the joint use of premises in particular cases. The noble Baroness mentioned a policy of carrying out widespread immunisation. I am not saying that that would necessarily be an instance in which there would be a valid objection, but it might well be. In cases like this where there are valid objections, these points can be considered when the two authorities come to draw up a scheme under Clause 32. But in our view it would be wrong to give one authority, the Inner London Education Authority, a general dispensation in advance, regardless of the circumstances of each case. I would add that these schemes have to be submitted to the Ministers of Health and Education for consideration and approval, and objections to the use of premises in certain instances would, of course, be questions which they would consider before giving their approval to any scheme. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel that it would not be right to put her Amendment into the Bill.

5.5 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord has missed the point of my noble friend's speech and Amendment. The case under the Bill as drafted is that it provides, in Clause 32(1)(a), that the London boroughs and the Inner London Education Authority must submit to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health for their approval a scheme with respect to—

• (a) the joint use of professional staff, premises and equipment for the purposes of the health services falling to be provided by the local education authority and the local health authority respectively …"

That postulates that there must be the joint use of premises, among other things. This is prima facie giving the boroughs an enforceable right to use the schools for joint health purposes with the Inner London Education Authority. I admit that it is subject to the approval of two Ministers. However, the principle is in the clause that it is contemplated that such joint use shall take place.

My noble friend referred in the course of her speech to the possibility of a sudden epidemic which might require immunisation. It may be that adults would be involved as well as children, and it would bring outside folk into the school, floating about. The noble Lord assumed that all this can be foreseen. It may be that the school would be approved by the Minister for the use of the health authority and the education authority. There is no provision for modification in case of emergency, so far as I have noticed. Therefore, although approval may have been given, unforeseen circumstances and crises may come along which may make it inappropriate. Is it not far better to say that the local authority cannot force the local education authority to use part of its premises? The schools are not the only places to which the health authority can go. There are many minor halls, not necessarily in municipal ownership, which are used for maternity, child welfare and other purposes.

My noble friend says that it should be subject to agreement between the two authorities. Surely that is reasonable.

When that is done, the education authority can more easily provide for some elasticity in the case of emergencies. Moreover, there will be some schools where some sort of joint arrangement would be suitable, and some where it would not. Unfortunately, this is part of the Government's bias against the central authority and for the boroughs, whereas they should be fair and impartial, as we are, and keep their eye on the public interest all the time. Therefore, I think my noble friend has made her case, and I hope that the Minister may be able to indicate that the Government will think about it between now and Third Reading, when, fortunately, in this House, Amendments can be moved.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, the more I think about it, the more strongly I feel about it, and I think the noble Lord has perhaps made a snap decision, let us say, that he will not accept it. He indicates "No", very firmly. I know the noble Lord's face very well now, and I see that he is not going to give way. Therefore, I must ask my noble friends to divide.

5.11 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 124) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Lawson, L.	Shackleton, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough. E,	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E.	Listowel, E.	Sinha, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Longford, E.	Stonham, L.
Champion, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Walston, L.
Henderson, L.	Ogmore, L.	Williams, L.
Latham, L.	Rusholme, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Fortescue, E.	Margesson, V.
Albemarle, E.	Glentanar, L.	Mersey, V.
Ampthill, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Mills, V.
Carrington, L.	Grenfell, L.	Milverton, L.
Chelmer, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Monk Bretton, L.
Chesham, L.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Monsell, V.
Cholmondeley, M.	Hanworth, V.	Newton, L.
Colgrain, L.	Hastings, L.	Ormonde, M.
Colville of Culross, V.	Hayter, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Colyton, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	St. Just, L.
Conesford, L.	Howe, E.	St. Oswald, L.
Craigton, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Salisbury, M.
Denham, L.	Jessel, L.	Salter, L.
Derwent, L.	Long, V.	Sandys, L.
Devonshire, D.	Lothian, M.	Strathclyde, L.
Eccles, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Ferrers, E.	Malmesbury, E.	Swinton, E.
Forster of Harraby, L.	Mancroft, L.	Waleran, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.20 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in subsection (1)(b), after "experience", to insert "conditions of service". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. Perhaps those who belong to the profession of medicine realise that the Bill has been badly drafted. I would remind the noble Lord that doctors are very well organised; not that I come here to speak for the organisation of the doctors—far be it from me to do such a thing! I never have done such a thing and I would not do it now. But I would point out to the noble Lord that if he does not accept this Amendment he will be in for a lot of trouble later on, and, as he knows, the Ministry of Health generally succumb when the medical profession bring collective pressure.

As the Bill stands, it is provided that with the intention of co-ordinating the school and other health services in inner London the Inner London Education Authority will employ a professional staff in the twelve London boroughs and the City of London. We have discussed this subject on previous occasions and I think that is accepted. Of course, it is not enough to have consultation between the boroughs and the Inner London Education Authority; it is necessary for all those professional people to know in detail the terms on which they will be employed, and especially the senior ones; I emphasise that because unhappily the juniors are not so well organised as the seniors and therefore not so capable of bringing pressure to bear in the right places.

I would remind the noble Lord that officers serving two authorities will be subject to two sets of standing orders. Here again, are the two authorities going to produce precisely the same standing order for this purpose? It is not clear whether it is intended that the appointment of officers serving two authorities will be jointly made by the two authorities. It is necessary to make all this clear, and that consultation on the scheme is not limited to matters referred to in Clause 32. We do not want the Minister of Health or the Minister of Education saying later on that consultation on other matters is excluded by the subsection. If the Bill is left in this form they may point to the subsection and say these matters are not included. I asked previously whether there was to be an arbitrary division between medical staff of special schools and boarding schools. I do not press the noble Lord for an answer at the moment, but I should like an answer. I do press him on the other matter, however, because in that field he will find that unless he accepts now the two Ministries will be compelled to accept later on. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 41, after ("experience") insert ("conditions of service").—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I think this Amendment is a useful improvement to the Bill, and I am happy to advise your Lordships to accept it. I do not need to be told, either by the noble Baroness or by anybody else, that doctors are well organised, but I should not like her to think that I am advising the House to accept this Amendment because I am frightened of the wrath she forecast would descent upon my head if I did not.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I was so overcome that the noble Lord had accepted something that it took me a little time to come to my senses and rise up. Whereas on the last occasion I said how firm and determined the noble Lord's mouth was, I can assure him that the nice smile becomes him much more than the expression he assumes when he refuses an Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.26 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to subsection (3): provided that no scheme made under paragraph (b) of this subsection shall vary or revoke a scheme under subsection (1) or paragraph (a) of this subsection, except with the agreement either of the said Authority or the said Council".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, subsections (3) and (5) make provision for the revocation and variation of schemes. Of course it is necessary that there should be a provision of this kind in the Bill. The original schemes are to be submitted either jointly by the Inner London Education Authority and the borough council concerned or, in default, by the Ministers of Education and Health jointly. There should, therefore, be provision for schemes made in either of those two ways to be varied or revoked. But surely—and the noble Lord will contradict me if I am wrong—as the subsection stands the two Ministers could vary or revoke schemes submitted jointly by the Authority and the borough council with which those bodies were quite content.

The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that such action will not be taken against the wishes of the Authority and the borough council. Are we to deprive those two authorities of their powers? Surely two local authorities of this magnitude should be respected by the Ministers, and the Ministers should not be allowed to come in and revoke these schemes if the authorities agree to them. I would remind the noble Lord that if he accepted this Amendment, as I hope he will, it would still enable the Ministers to act if either the Authority or the council were dissatisfied with the scheme. Therefore I should have thought full protection has been established. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to prevent the Ministers of Health and Education from varying or revoking a scheme made under Clause 32 and substituting a new scheme without the agreement of the Inner London Education Authority or the council concerned. The clause as it is drafted at present requires the Ministers to consult the Inner London Education Authority and the council concerned, but does not require them to secure their agreement. The Ministers are empowered by subsection (2) of Clause 32 to make the schemes themselves initially, if necessary. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships that it is only consistent to enable them to vary or revoke the schemes if they discover defects or if the schemes become out of date. Your Lordships may rest completely assured that Ministers would make every effort to carry both authorities with them in any alteration they proposed. But I hope the noble Baroness will, on reflection, agree that it would be inadvisable to leave Ministers powerless to act however necessary the alteration might be, merely because the authorities do not agree. I hope, therefore, the noble Baroness may feel that it is not necessary for her to press the Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, am Ito understand from the noble Lord—he can say briefly whether he agrees with me or not—that the two Ministers are in fact taking what are called reserve powers? I take it the noble Lord, Lord Newton, contemplates the Ministers acting only in the last extreme, when the two authorities have failed. May I therefore suggest to him that he considers Clause 9? Here is a case where the Minister of Transport is taking concurrent powers. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is here, because no doubt he can give advice to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. In the case of the Minister of Transport, it was made clear that the powers he was taking were to be reserve powers. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Newton, could consider between now and the next stage a certain drafting Amendment by which he could make it more clear that the powers that the two Ministers are taking to revoke or vary are clearly reserve powers and would be used only in the last resort. I should have thought that would be an attractive proposition to your Lordships' House.

I think it has now been agreed that we should try as far as possible to reduce Ministerial, central interference with local authorities when they are in fact doing their job properly. That does not necessarily mean that the Minister would agree always with the way in which a local authority carried out its task, the way it approached it or the way in fact it administered it. But if you believe in local authority, and if you believe that the essence and the life of local authorities is their ability and knowledge that they must act on their own, that they should be as free from Ministerial interference as possible—I believe that is the view of noble Lords opposite—then I think it is quite wrong for us to let words go through in regard to which it is quite clear that the two Ministers can as they may wish, vary or revoke right against the wishes of the local authorities.

If the noble Lord, Lord Newton, really believes that these powers are in fact reserve powers and would be used only where there has been a complete failure of, or breakdown by, the local authority, I would suggest that he consults with his noble friend Lord Chesham, who has had to defend such a case and on this particular point has acceded to the wishes of the House, and has made it quite clear that the powers of the Minister of Transport are reserve and will be used only in the last possible resort. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that the Bill ought to be redrafted to meet this particular point so far as these two Ministers are concerned.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, Amendment No. 126A and the following Amendment go together. They improve the wording of the last part of subsection (4) of the clause, which is at present narrower—in referring only to the "appointment" of staff—than subsection (1)(a), which refers to "joint use" of staff. The Amendments introduce the term "employed" into subsection (4), in addition to "appointed", and thus make the wording accord more appropriately with that of subsection (1). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 22, leave out ("appointment of").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 126B.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 23, leave out ("made") and insert ("appointed or employed").—(Lord Newton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.34 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to subsection (4): and the professional staff so appointed shall subject to the provisions of section 121 of the Local Government Act 1933 hold office during the joint pleasure of the said Authority and the council concerned".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I will confess that I am not going to press the noble Lord to give me a promise in this matter. The Amendment is more of a probing nature, and therefore I would ask him to give it his consideration.

As the clause is drafted, care is taken to see that professional staff are appointed in accordance with whatever scheme has been approved jointly by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education. The noble Lord will recollect that an earlier Amendment sought to see that there would be consultation about conditions of service, and it is to be presumed that this consultation would be on the basis that the professional staff appointed were the joint employees of the Inner London Education Authority and the council concerned. If the Government envisage that some staff will be in the employ of the Education Authority and others in the service of the local health authority, and that arrangements will be made for all of them to work partly for one authority and partly for the other, surely it should be made clear. It does not seem to me to be clear as the Bill is drafted. It seems that this clause has been drafted without sufficient thought being given to its practical application, and I think the noble Lord would agree that perhaps at this stage of the Bill, when we have been defeated time after time on questions of principle, we should now all apply our minds to the practical application of it. That is what we are trying to do here in a most constructive way, because in my opinion insufficient thought has been given to this aspect in drafting this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Baroness Summerskill.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, the noble Baroness said that this is mainly a probing Amendment. I am obliged to her for introducing this matter. Since it is rather complicated I hope that I may be forgiven if I give a rather longer answer than I might otherwise have done. Naturally, the Government agree that whenever an officer is working both in the school health service and in the borough health service it is essential that he should give satisfaction to both the Inner London Education Authority and the borough concerned; and that if he loses the confidence of either, the two authorities should consult and agree what is to be done. In the case of all junior staff this process will be greatly simplified if the senior professional officer advising each authority as medical officer of health of the borough and principal school medical officer of the I.L.E.A. for the area of that borough is one and the same person.

Consultation and agreement on the employment of any officer working for both authorities will be expected, whatever sort of contract or contracts the officer holds, and whatever the arrangements are for the joint use of his services between the two authorities. But the words used in the Amendment, that the officers shall hold office during "the joint pleasure" of the two authorities, would be appropriate only if the officer concerned had a single contract with the I.L.E.A. and a London borough acting as joint employers. Its effect would then be that the joint employers would have to act jointly if they wished to terminate the appointment—subject to any period of notice agreed in accordance with Section 121 of the Local Government Act, 1933. But a joint contract in any event would be likely to provide for such joint termination, and so, even in this context, I would suggest that this Amendment is unnecessary.

But in fact it is not expected that the joint use of staff will necessarily take the form of a joint appointment under the single contract. It is probable that in most cases it will be more convenient for the officer to hold separate contracts of appointment with his two employing authorities. This is a common arrangement now when a medical officer of a county council is appointed also as medical officer of health of an existing borough or district council. It is likely to be appropriate under the new arrangements in London for both senior and junior medical officers.

For example, a junior medical officer on the staff of a borough may be selected to act also as a junior school medical officer on the staff of the Inner London Education Authority. In his career with the borough he may well serve at other times in other posts in which he will not be concerned at all with the school health service, and it is only during the period in which he is so concerned that he will be employed also by the Inner London Education Authority. It would therefore be convenient that during that period he should have a separate contract with the Inner London Education Authority, to give an agreed portion of his time to school health work, which would be terminated when he moved later in his career to a different post under the borough health service only. His appointment then on the staff of the borough would continue without interruption. If, during the period when he is working both for the I.L.E.A. and the borough, the I.L.E.A. become dissatisfied with his service for any reason, it may be necessary to move him from his school health work and replace him by another of the borough's medical staff who is more acceptable to the I.L.E.A.; but it does not necessarily follow that he is unsuitable for some other post in the borough's wide range of health services. Therefore, the borough may wish his contract with them to remain in force.

In some other cases it may be convenient for an officer of a borough to hold a contract with the borough only, arrangements being made for him to give an agreed part of his time to the service of the I.L.E.A., with reimbursement of part of his salary by the I.L.E.A. Here again, his service in the dual capacity should continue only so long as he gives satisfaction to both authorities, but termination of these arrangements should not necessarily lead to complete termination of his appointment with the borough. These arrangements are thought likely to be suitable for some nursing and professional officers as well as doctors.

There are special considerations which apply to the top posts of medical officer of health of any new London borough and principal school medical officer of the I.L.E.A. for the area of that borough, and of chief dental officer and principal school dental officer. If the two medical posts and the two dental posts were each held by one person in each borough area, and either of these officers lost the confidence of either if his two employers, a serious situation would arise and it would be necessary for the two authorities to consult and agree as to whether his employment should continue. In these cases there would be no possibility of movement to a different post under one authority only, and the officer would either have to stay in both posts or leave both.

But even for these posts, the terms of the noble Baroness's Amendment are not entirely appropriate. The medical officer of health of each borough will be subject to the special provisions of Section 110 of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which is applied to London boroughs by paragraph 16 of Schedule 4 of the Bill) under which his appointment can be terminated by the borough council only with the consent of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health or directly by my right honourable friend. This will apply whether he holds separate contracts of employment with the borough and the I.L.E.A., or a single contract with the two jointly. The Amendment makes no reference to Section 110—I am not complaining about that, but am just pointing out that it does not do so—and because it does not do so it is not appropriate to the appointment of a medical officer of health.

My Lords, I apologise for this long and complicated explanation. What it amounts to is that, in our view, the Amendment is in some aspects too restrictive in its effect and in others is not appropriate. Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to read to-morrow what I have said, as it is rather complicated. I hope she will then see that what I have said is not unreasonable and that, for the moment at any rate, she will be prepared to let the Amendment go.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Summerskill will no doubt have to reflect on what the noble Lord has said, because she must decide—and I have no doubt she will decide wisely—whether or not to press this Amendment. She cannot very well wait until to-morrow morning to read Hansard.

What worries me is this. The more I think about this arrangement in regard to school medical services, the more clumsy, complicated and risky it appears to me to be. The probability is that the medical officer of health of the borough will be the school medical officer of the education authority for that borough. I understand that to be accepted. The tendency is going to be that in the case of the education authority's not being satisfied with the work of the borough medical officer, and the borough council, on the other hand, being satisfied with his services (and, on the whole, local authorities have a tendency to be satisfied with their chief officer's services, perhaps sometimes a little too much), the borough council will be likely to resist the suggestion of the Inner London Education Authority that the medical officer of the borough, who is also the school medical officer of the education authority, should be gently moved out of his job. First of all the Minister has to give consent, but, apart from that, first of all they have to get the agreement of the borough. The borough will have an instinct to stand by their own medical officer of health. Therefore I think that these joint appointments are a clumsy arrangement altogether.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, may I clear up one point? The Minister of Health has power of his own initiative to terminate the appointment, without the agreement of the borough.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Yes, I appreciate that. I thought I had covered that in what I said. It is true that the Minister of Health has power to remove the medical officer. It is also true that if the borough want to remove him the Minister has to consent. I do not complain about that, because that was to protect the medical officer against slum landlords who might have been members of the borough council. But this business of joint appointments for a job is all wrong; and the principal school medical officer should have been, as we urged, an officer of the education authority, and so should the chief dental officer. However, we have heard the debate; it is a point that is arguable; but I feel that in principle we are right. It is for my noble friend who moved the Amendment to decide whether or not it is worth pressing.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, the noble Lord has taken a great deal of trouble in examining this question, and I will read it to-morrow morning. Therefore I propose to give the noble Lord the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.49 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this Amendment fulfils the purpose of Amendment No. 128 which has been put down by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords. It defines "professional staff" for the purpose of Clause 32. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that my Amendment is a slight improvement on that put down by the noble Baroness. It seemed to me preferable to put down my Amendment rather than say that I would accept the noble Baroness's Amendment in principle and then come back at a later stage with my own version. Professional staff are defined as medical officers, dental officers, nurses and health visitors, and the possibility is left open of adding other specialist staff later on. I am not able to say what other specialist staff might be jointly used by the school health service and the rest of the health services; this is, after all, a detail which must be left for consideration at a later stage.

Amendment No. 128, the noble Baroness's Amendment, makes no provision for resolving possible differences of view between the Inner London Education Authority and the council concerned as to what specialist staff should be brought under the scheme. My Amendment enables the two Ministers concerned to resolve this difference in the same way as other problems which may arise in working out joint arrangements under Clause 32. That is why I suggest to your Lordships that my Amendment is preferable to that of the noble Baroness. But, in general, it does the same thing, and I hope that it will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 49, line 29, at end insert— ("(5A) In this section the expression 'professional staff' in relation to any scheme there-under means medical officers, dental officers, nurses, health visitors and such other specialist staff as may be specified in that scheme").—(Lord Newton.)

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I must admit that this is a most curious situation, and I feel that, having accepted one of my Amendments, the noble Lord was advised, in case he appeared subsequently to be vulnerable, to anticipate my next Amendment. I thank him for defining this. I think he will agree with me that this is a very curious situation in a Bill of this size. In my Parliamentary career I have helped to debate very large measures, and generally at the end in some Schedule there is a definition. I was very surprised to find that in this big Bill there was this quite serious omission of a definition of a most important category of workers. The noble Lord has recognised that that is an omission, and has anticipated my Amendment and introduced one of his own which he feels meets all the points.

I was not quite clear about what he said finally. Do the Government agree that the Inner London Education Authority must have the power to settle its own school health service establishment, its being understood, of course, that the establishment will be made up of officers working part-time in each of the authorities? It is a very curious position, as the noble Lord will realise. There are thirteen authorities concerned. Is he leaving it to the Inner London Education Authority to settle the establishment? The position is quite unprecedented: never before has such a situation arisen. As the noble Lord has anticipated my Amendment, I will not press him to give me an answer, but perhaps he could write to me on that point.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I would just ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Newton, could respond in this way. There is a difference between the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and Amendment No. 128, because Amendment No. 127A specifies such other specialist staff as may be specified in that scheme". From that, of course, one could say that the position adopted by the Government will not be quite as flexible as that in Amendment No. 128, because the scheme would have been approved and it would seem to preclude the inclusion of a particular type of specialist who might be required but was not provided for in the scheme.

May I take it that, if that is the case and inclusion cannot take place because of the limitation of the scheme, the Minister will use his power to amend the scheme in such a way that a specialist who does not appear in the original scheme can later be included if either of the authorities wish that that shall be done? I do not know whether the noble Lord quite appreciates the limitation that is imposed by the Government. I do not think they really intend that there should be this limitation. Could the noble Lord say that the Minister of Health could vary the scheme in such a way that a new specialist who was not included in the scheme could be included later?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, may I say that I think the noble Lord is right in his suggestion as to what could be done in the circumstances which he mentioned. I think that is the answer, but if I am wrong I will let him know.

LORD SHEPHERD

Would the noble Lord just look into it and consider it?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, after subsection (6), to insert: (7) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section or any scheme approved there-under shall derogate from the power of the Inner London Education Authority to appoint—

1. (a) a principal school medical officer in general charge of the school health service and responsible to the Authority for the efficient conduct of the service in the interests of the health and welfare of pupils; and
2. (b) a principal school dental officer in charge of the school dental service and responsible to the principal school medical officer for its efficient operation."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that he has in effect accepted two of the five Amendments which I have already moved, which I think has proved to him that the Government can be fallible. They have in these technical matters made two mistakes, and the Amendment I am going to move now proves again that they have overlooked the most important aspect of the work of this particular social service, the health service of London.

The Bill proposes to break up the school health service as at present constituted in inner London into thirteen independent boroughs, and I ask noble Lords to forgive my having had to repeat this time after time on other stages of the Bill. The specialist school health service staff of the Inner London Education Authority will therefore find themselves responsible to thirteen different school medical officers with different ideas and different standards. This will mean that the committees of the Inner London Education Authority will have to be advised by those thirteen different medical officers. Doctors are individualists and they approach matters of health, of public health and of administration in different ways, and they are never afraid of expressing their views. Each of them believes that he is right, and in this case the service will be subject to the advice, views and criticism of thirteen different medical men and women.

I want to emphasise this point. The committees may receive conflicting views, and nobody in the world of medical science, and in this particular field of administration, can say that one of those thirteen medical officers is right or wrong. Of course there will be nobody to resolve these problems. There will not be a speaker among those thirteen. They are peers in their own field, and there will not be one of them who will be able to accept the opinions of some and to reject the opinions of others.

These difficulties will arise particularly with regard to the special schools, both day and boarding. In my opinion, it is necessary to have one co-ordinating school medical officer. I do not believe that you have to have special knowledge of this matter to realise that there should be one person who will say, "This is how these institutions should be administered". I would remind noble Lords that these special schools will, of course, be serving very large areas. For the sake of tidy administration, there should be one person who can say, "This is the right way to administer these schools". I have raised this matter before, and I raised it on Committee stage. I asked the noble Lord many questions then, and he did not answer one of them. I now want to know precisely how the Government feel after having had some time to think about it. The question I want to ask is: how will the Inner London Education Authority receive advice on policy and give instructions to its school medical personnel without appointing a chief medical officer?

I do hope now that the noble Lord will come to the House and say once more that he agrees with me. I am sure he will not regret it. He will avoid confusion; he will avoid all kinds of difficulties. I do not quite repeat what I said on the first Amendment, which he accepted, but when these doctors find that they are unable to do their work properly, and when they find that their views are rejected in a rather arbitrary manner by people they feel know no better than themselves and whose position is precisely the same as their own, then they will feel, I think, that they should make representations in the right quarter, and the right quarter generally is the Ministry. I do ask the noble Lord to think about this again, and to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Summerskill.)

6.2 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I think that this Amendment strikes at the very heart of the principle of local government. I believe the Minister will agree that this Amendment is in fact permissive. It lays upon the education authority the onus and responsibility of whether a principal school medical officer should be appointed—and the position is the same in the case of a dental officer. The Government have set up a special local authority to deal with education. Is it right that the Government should take the view at this stage that this authority, with all its responsibilities, should not be able to decide how they will in fact administer those responsibilities? I cannot believe there is any educational authority in the country that could possibly operate without having a chief medical officer. I will appeal to noble Lords opposite: if they were serving on an authority—no matter what its responsibility—would they not wish to have the power to appoint such officers as they felt were necessary to advise them and to carry out any instructions that that particular authority had decided?

The Government say that this education authority shall not have the power to appoint a chief medical officer. They have got to operate, without any choice, through thirteen different medical officers. Can any of us in this House, while saying that we support local authority and the responsibility, the decision, of local authority, also say that in this Bill we should preclude from them the power to appoint such officers as they may from time to time think fit to appoint? That is in fact what the Government will be doing by refusing to accept this Amendment, as they did on Committee stage. This Amendment is permissive. It permits the educational authority which this Government are setting up to decide how they shall first of all administer the school health service, and whether they should be able to appoint such an official as they may think fit at that time to give them advice in this matter.

As I said earlier, I think that this Amendment strikes at the very heart of good local government responsibility. I feel that the Government should be pressed to accept this important Amendment. I cannot believe that, in principle, there is anything to divide us on it, other than of course the Government's obstinacy at this present stage in meeting this important point. My Lords, the question rests: should a local authority have the right to choose its officers?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this is exactly the same Amendment as the noble Baroness moved in Committee. She has complained, for the second time this afternoon, that when we were debating this Amendment in Committee I did not reply to any of her questions. I have no recollection of not having replied to her questions, but, if I did not, I suppose the reason was that I thought that possibly the questions I ignored did not have a strict bearing on the Amendment which the noble Baroness was moving. I am trying to think why it happened that I failed to give any satisfaction to the noble Baroness.

I made a rather long speech about this in Committee, and explained why we are opposed to this Amendment as a matter of principle. I do not want to repeat myself, but I pointed out in my speech during the Committee stage that Clause 32 as drafted does not prevent the appointment by the I.L.E.A. of medical or dental officers of its own, not shared by the boroughs, at any professional level, provided that this is agreed after consultation between all the interested parties, including the I.L.E.A. itself, the boroughs and the responsible Ministers. I cannot see what objection the noble Baroness and her noble friends take to agreement to this provision. Her Amendment would allow the Inner London Education Authority to take a unilateral decision on this, irrespective of the views of the other parties.

The object of Clause 32 is to integrate the school medical service, which will be the responsibility of the I.L.E.A., in inner London, with the personal health service, which will be the responsibility of the boroughs. This is in accordance with general practice throughout the country. The health and education authorities, which are the same councils but which operate through different committees, share their professional staff, and the positions of medical officers of health and school officers are held by the same person. It was suggested in Committee, I believe by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that this arrangement in inner London would place an undue burden on the shoulders of medical officers of health, or words to that effect. I said I would look into that aspect. I have, and what I have learnt is that, elsewhere in the country, this dual rôle, if you like, has not been found to be an undue burden on the shoulders of medical officers of health. In any event, the authorities concerned will have to provide adequate supporting staff for the principal officers.

If the Inner London Education Authority had a principal school medical officer with general oversight over the borough medical officers of health—which is what the noble Baroness wants—in the discharge of their responsibility for the school health service within their boroughs, that would mean that the borough medical officer of health would not have full responsibility for the school health service in his own area. He would be subject to the instructions of the principal school medical officer. Of course he would be. That is the object of the Amendment. But the latter officer, the principal school medical officer, would cover only the school health service and would have no responsibility for the other health services with which it must be closely integrated.

Surely nobody can dispute that these services should be integrated. That he should be in a position to supervise the borough medical officers of health who would have this wider view of all health services, would, in our view, be most undesirable, because, apart from this inherent disadvantage in the Amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, the post of principal school medical officer would not be likely to attract people of the right quality, in view of the restricted activity, because he would be largely an administrator. The noble Baroness did not agree about that she thought it would be a post which would attract men and women of high quality. All I can say, with respect, is that I must disagree. The advice given to me is that such a post would not be likely to attract a really keen doctor.

On the question of how the Inner London Education Authority is to receive advice about the running of the school medical services I would recall that in Committee I suggested ways in which the Inner London Education Authority could get advice on general policy: it is set out, in black and white, in Hansard. The point is that details of this kind, of how they are to get the advice they want, could surely be worked out by those concerned and interested when they come to draw up the schemes required by Clause 32. There is nothing in the Bill which pre-judges the nature of this, and no decision can be reached on this until those concerned have formed their views and expressed them. So, at the risk of again being called obstinate by the noble Baroness, I must adhere to the line which I took in the Committee stage.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I am not sure that it would be altogether fair to accuse the noble Lord of obstinacy. I said last week about one noble Lord, I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that I had great sympathy with him. The noble Lord has his brief: he is ordered what to say, and he has said it, despite the fact that it is a hopeless case. He has said it to the best of his ability. I have some sympathy with Parliamentary Secretaries in this House whose Ministers are in another place, because they are—not gagged, but at any rate, ordered what to say, either by the Minister or, quite likely, by the higher civil servants in the Department. We have been getting on very well with the noble Lord this afternoon. In fact my noble friend Lady Summerskill almost got quite friendly with him because—very wisely—he accepted two Amendments from her, but now even her patience is getting exhausted, like that of another gentleman some years ago.

LORD NEWTON

Not a happy parallel.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I agree that it was not with a happy result.

LORD NEWTON

I said, "Not a happy parallel".

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

No, but it was not happy for him, in the end, so I should not advise the noble Lord to run that analogy too far. The Government have certain arguments on this matter, none of which succeeds, and the whole trouble arises from the fact that they want to split up as many London services as they can, so that London local government lacks stability, lacks vigour and is weak. I think they go to bed at night looking for machine guns trained on them from County Hall over the river, they are so anxious to break it up. The noble Lord brings up the argument of the county borough, where the school medical service and the local health service are supervised by the same medical officer of health. Of course they are. That is a silly argument to bring up. It is one council, the county borough council, and it is supreme over the committees of the council involved in these services. Here, the Government have deliberately separated the school medical service from the other health services, and the argument is that it is essential because there must be coherence between the two services. I can only say, looking at the London health service over many years, that this thing has worked.

Would the noble Lord, or somebody else (since he has perhaps exhausted his right to speak—though we should be glad to grant him permission to speak again, if he can meet this point) tell us how the London County Council school medical and dental service has suffered because it was not run by the metropolitan borough councils but was separate from them? He does not say—in fact he would not like to say—that the London County Council school medical service was bad. Even the Department which briefed him would not say that. It was good; and it worked. Moreover, until the National Health Service Act, 1948, was passed maternity and child welfare, for example, were under the metropolitan boroughs; and so were a number of other health services. Nevertheless, the school medical service worked very well indeed, and there was good feeling between the L.C.C. and the boroughs.

Of all the ways to create bad feeling between local authorities this is the way to do it. There is to be no principal school medical officer. "But", says the noble Lord, "they can appoint a school medical officer of their own"—though presumably not the principal one. They can appoint a dental officer; but again not a principal one. But the noble Lord says they can get advice from these officers—from the thirteen borough medical officers of health. It is an unlucky number anyway—but thirteen, my Lords! They also say that they can solve the problem of there being no principal officer by having a rotating chairman, every quarter or every year, who can speak for the boroughs. One borough medical officer cannot speak for the other twelve. Anybody experienced in local government will know that chief officers of local authorities often disagree. It is quite natural that they should—and sometimes they are pretty tenacious. But as to the school medical services the poor Inner London Education Authority is to be advised, according to the Government, by thirteen borough medical officers.

The Government have no sense of public administration. It is an example of the utter incompetence of the Government in the organisation of local government; and it arises from their separation of local authorities in order to destroy local government in London, so far as they can. Are these thirteen all going to be sitting around the committee table? If so, there will possibly be more medical officers than members. Then the Government say that they can have a chairman; and I suppose that the school medical officer and the dental officer will be there, and they, if necessary, can have a nice argument between themselves.

No, my Lords; the better way would have been to have a principal school medical officer and a principal school dental officer, and if they behave themselves, as they do, they can live at peace with the borough medical officers of health. But it will be much more difficult for thirteen borough medical officers of health to live at peace among themselves or with the Inner London Education Authority. I realise that the noble Lord cannot help it—he is "landed" with this baby. What sort of a baby it is he will find out in due course. I believe that there will be breakdowns in these services merely because the Government are obdurate and have a passion to split up London. I think they are quite unstable mentally in resisting the Amendment which my noble friend has moved.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

I should like to support very strongly the arguments which have been put forward by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, and by my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for a principal school medical officer and a principal school dental officer. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, is terrified—or the Government are terrified—of putting in this Amendment, because they feel that it would conflict with their intentions of different arrangements by which a principal school medical officer and a principal school dental officer are going to be appointed; and they intend to veto that in practice. Perhaps I can put a question to the noble Lord, the Minister. Supposing this Amendment does not go through—and we shall be voting on it in a moment—will it still be in the power of a future Government to authorise these appointments or will

Clause 34 [Youth employment service]:

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I should like the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as to what that be outside their power? It is a vital question.

LORD NEWTON

The answer is, as I made clear in my speech, that provided all those concerned—the borough education authority, the Inner London Education Authority and the two Ministers—agree, these appointments can be made.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, may I say the last word to the noble Lord? He has produced the same argument as on Committee. It is based on two assumptions. First, he says that our idea will not work; and, secondly, that nobody would apply for the posts. He has no evidence of this: the position is quite unprecedented. For this reason I cannot accept the Minister's argument and would ask my noble friends to divide.

6.22 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 129) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lawson, L.	Shackleton, L.
Amulree, L.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E.	Listowel, E.	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Longford, E.	Strang, L.
Champion, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Williams, L.
Henderson, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Latham, L.	Rathcreedan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Forster of Harraby, L.	Mancroft, L.
Albemarle, E.	Fortescue, E.	Margesson, V.
Aldington, L.	Glentanar, L.	Mersey, V.
Ampthill, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Mills, V.
Carrington, L.	Grenfell, L.	Milverton, L.
Cawley, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Monk Bretton, L.
Chelmer, L.	Hanworth, V.	Monsell, V.
Chesham, L.	Hastings, L.	Newton, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Hawke, L.	Ormonde, M.
Colgrain, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Perth, E.
Colville of Culross, V.	Howe, E.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Craigton, L.	Iddesleigh, E.	St. Oswald, L.
Denham, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Sandys, L.
Derwent, L.	Jessel, L.	Spens, L.
Devonshire, D.	Long, V.	Strathclyde, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Lothian, M.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Eccles, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Waldegrave, E.
Ferrers, E.	Malmesbury, E.	Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

is convenient. I could make a long speech in favour of our next Amendment, to omit subsection (4), but it may be that he could reduce the length of my speech by arguing the case against the Amendment. It might save a certain amount of time. Would he care to state his attitude to the Amendment?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I do not mind when I speak. I should speak only once. If the noble Earl wishes me to state my views now, I am perfectly willing to do so. If there is to be a review of the educational arrangements in ironer London, it is sensible and logical that there should also be a review of the arrangements for the youth employment service to be provided by the I.L.E.A., because a large part of its work will be with boys and girls leaving school, and it will be affected by the proposals for changing the functions of the I.L.E.A. Therefore, the two reviews stand and fall together and since your Lordships have decided that the first one should stand, I am bound to suggest that the only sensible thing to do is to provide that the second review of the youth employment service should also stand.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to use the expression that your Lordships' House is in favour of the review of the first kind. That is the view of the majority of the House and, therefore, I suppose I must accept the noble Lord's phraseology, although some of us regard it as utterly asinine.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)

My Lords, did the noble Earl move this Amendment? I am not quite sure. I did not put the Question.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I beg to move. I am extremely sorry if I failed to make my meaning sufficiently plain. I would like to inform the noble Lord that there is a good deal in what he said. Both of these reviews, equally foolish in our opinion, hang together. As he said, the majority favoured the one and the minority disliked it, and the majority may approve this second review and the minority may be against it. So, following his line of argument, I agree that those who dislike these reviews should vote against them, and that is what I suggest the House should do.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 22, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Longford.)

6.34 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 130) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lawson, L.	Shackleton, L.
Attlee, E.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Listowel, E.	Stonham, L.
Champion, L.	Longford, E.	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Williams, L.
Henderson, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Latham, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Fortescue, E.	Mersey, V.
Albemarle, E.	Glentanar, L.	Mills, V.
Aldington, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Milverton, L.
Ampthill, L.	Grenfell, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Chelmer, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Monsell, V.
Chesham, L.	Hanworth, V.	Newton, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Hastings, L.	Ormonde, M.
Colgrain, L.	Hawke, L.	Perth, E.
Colville of Culross, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Craigton, L.	Jellicoe, E.	St. Oswald, L.
Denham, L.	Jessel, L.	Sandys, L.
Derwent, L.	Kinnoull, E.	Spens, L.
Devonshire, D.	Long, V.	Strang, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Lothian, M.	Strathclyde, L.
Eccles, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Ferrers, E.	Malmesbury, E.	Waldegrave, E.
Forster of Harraby, L.	Margesson, V.	Waleran, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 35 [Sewers and sewage disposal works]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, Clause 35 requires the Greater London Council to make a survey of all sewers and sewage disposal works serving their sewerage area, and if they consider that any such sewer is, or should become, a main sewer, or that any sewage disposal works is necessary for their duties under the Bill, to take steps to vest the sewer or works in themselves. On reflecting on this matter further, we felt that it was not necessary or appropriate, in view of what I have just said, for London borough or district councils to have a power to request the Greater London Council to vest in themselves a borough or district council sewer, with a right of appeal to the Minister if the Greater London Council refuse. The provision might conceivably even have undesirable effects, since it would make it possible for a borough council to upset the Greater London Council's programme for vesting main sewers and disposal works by requiring them to take over a sewer before they were ready to do so. This Amendment, by removing the little figure (2), has the effect of relieving the London borough and district councils of that power. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 21, leave out ("(2)").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CROOK

My Lords, we on this side of the House are satisfied.

On Question, Amendment agred to.

Clause 36 [Expenditure on sewerage]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of Clause 36 do not prevent the borough or district council from using the powers in Clause 66 so as to charge a single unified rate for sewerage over the whole of their area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 54, line 24, at end insert— ("(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect subject to section 66 of this Act.").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CROOK

My Lords, again we are quite happy about this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Supplementary provisions relating to sewerage]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment and the next one go together. Without them the Minister could be called upon to settle disputes between any two sewerage authorities anywhere in the country. The purpose of the Amendments is to limit the scope of the provision to the Greater London Council. That is what the Amendments do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 20, after ("sewer") insert ("primarily serving the sewerage area of the Greater London Council").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD CROOK

My Lords, we are satisfied that this clarifies the meaning of subsection (5).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 21, leave out from ("whether") to ("area") in line 22 and insert ("or not a sewer or sewage disposal works primarily serves a part of that area or a part of Greater London not forming part of that").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 [General application of Public Health Acts]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 38, at end insert ("sanitary").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44 [Cemeteries and crematoria]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment is a precursor of Amendment No. 133C. The purpose of the Amendment is to maintain the present position in Greater London. A parish may have its burial ground in another parish. If such a burial ground is compulsorily closed the section quoted in Amendment 133C enables a chapel belonging to that burial ground to be handed over to nominees of the church authorities in the parish where it is situated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 17, after ("and") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is a clarifying Amendment. It ensures that an Order in Council can be made to discontinue burials in a cemetary in Greater London whether or not the cemetary was provided for an area in Greater London. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 22, after ("provided") insert ("in or").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I explained this Amendment when I moved No. 133A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 24, at end insert ("and (b) section 51 of the Burial Act 1852 shall apply to cemeteries in which burials are discontinued by virtue of this subsection as it applies to burial grounds in which interments are discontinued under that Act.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Modification and re-enactment as from 1st April 1965 of enactments relating to sewerage and drainage]:

6.47 p.m.

LORD CROOK moved, after paragraph 2, to insert: 3. Nothing in this Act, or in any other enactment, shall be deemed to render unlawful the continuation by the Greater London Council of a discharge from a sewer, pumping station or sewage disposal works vested in them by virtue of section 35 of this Act in any case where that discharge was lawfully being made prior to 1st April 1965 by a county council, Authority or Board referred to in subsection (1) of the said section 35.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. This is a matter about which there was some considerable controversy in the Committee stage, and the Amendment moved then was in exactly the same terms as that I am now moving. I am afraid, therefore, that, in order that the House should know what we desire, it is inevitable that I shall repeat some of the things that we said from this side on that occasion. The fact that we have to give your Lordships this repetition is, in our view, not our fault. We think that we ought not even to have needed to move the Amendment on the Committee stage, and we certainly do not think we should have been forced into this position again. We had expected a Government Amendment to be on the Marshalled List on the occasion of the Committee stage. We had reason to expect that, because in the other place the Minister of Housing and Local Government agreed to look into the legal aspects of the point that was raised there in a similar Amendment, and he said that he would put down an Amendment, if necessary.

No Amendment was forthcoming, either in the other place or in this House, and accordingly we moved in Committee the Amendment the terms of which were exactly similar to the Amendment I am now moving. The reply which we received did not satisfy us at all in the light of the memoranda that we had had from the London County Council, based on legal advice which that Council had received. Finally, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250 (No. 89), col. 462]: If there is really serious ground for thinking the law is as the noble Lord has been advised, I should certainly like to see our intentions made clearer, because I do not think the position ought to remain that a great authority such as the Greater London Council is going to be, should be faced with any such choice. In the light of that statement we withdrew the Amendment, instead of dividing. But as we are advised at the moment, we shall not be so lightly persuaded to-day.

We see no Amendment from the Government, but we have had renewed advice from the same legal advisers of the London County Council, and I must abide by their advice. I am not a lawyer myself. That advice indicates, to use the Lord Chancellor's words when he spoke on May 23, that "there is really serious ground" for thinking that the law is as we stated. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that the Government must face up to facts. They cannot go on as they have done, in our view on this matter, in this half-and-half fashion. I refer to a "half-and-half fashion", because the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack said on May 23 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250 (No. 89), col. 461]: … one obviously does not want to set an example of law-breaking by the London County Council … That is what we have been trying to avoid throughout. We are not satisfied with the whole approach of the Government on this matter; nor do we quite understand why the Government are being so awkward about the matter.

When my noble friend put a straight question—and I am now quoting from column 457—to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, opposite in these terms: As I understand it, under this Bill it will become unlawful … for the Council to permit any sewage to enter the River Thames. Am I or am I not right that it is unlawful? he received the reply: It could be considered unlawful. When challenged that his phrase was a quibble, the noble Lord replying for the Government could only say: As in the rest of the country. We are not prepared to see this Bill leave this House, if we can avoid it, with this double outlook. If, as we say, and as the Government admit, there is grave legal doubt, then we must put that matter beyond peradventure.

May I tell your Lordships to-night what was, and what is, in fact in question? I will try to be brief and clear though the noble Lord speaking for the Government said that this was (col. 455): … a rather complicated and technical subect. This refers to the Public Health Act, 1936, and in particular to a special provision of it, in Section 30, which says: Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise a local authority to construct or use any public or other sewer, or any drain or outfall, for the purpose of conveying foul water into any natural or artificial stream … until the water has been so treated as not to affect prejudicially the purity and quality … The noble Lord, speaking for the Government, said: Of course, under the general law, there is always an absolute prohibition against causing a nuisance in the exercise of sewerage powers to which the London County Council itself is subject, as are all other authorities throughout the country. Later in his speech the noble Lord went on to say [col. 456]: … it is better to bring the Greater London Council into conformity with the rest of the country in respect of storm water outflows …

That is the first point of the problem. The Government do not seem to us to be sure about the matter and, if I may, I will repeat the two quotations, because they make it clear: … the London County Council itself is subject, as are all other authorities throughout the country. The second quotation is: …it is better to bring the Greater London Council into conformity with the rest of the country …". What the Government face in this matter is the choice of either allowing the Greater London Council to discharge sewage into the Thames when it is unavoidable during a storm, or, alternatively, to allow large areas of London to run the risk of being flooded, filling basements, homes and 'offices, and with disaster and disease coming in the wake of these floods. There is another section of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, which the Government remain adamant in their desire to repeal in this Bill. I am referring to Section 28(1)(a). The repeal of that section takes away any protection of the Council, for thereunder they are merely required to prevent sewage passing into the Thames as far as practicable. With that repeal, the restriction of Section 30 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which I have read to your Lordships, would in fact apply.

As was pointed out during Committee stage, the sewers in the County of London are combined sewers: that is, they receive storm water as well as sewage. It would be quite impracticable to have sewers of such a size that the huge volume of flow in times of storm can be carried to the outfall works at Barking and Erith. In order to prevent flooding, the sewers are, and must be, relieved of flow in excess of their capacity by means of gravity outfalls, or by pumping, to the River Thames. It would also be out of the range of practicability to construct a new series of separate foul and storm water sewers in London. The 60 separate storm flows to the river in the present L.C.C. area must of necessity contain sewage, even if in all the circumstances it is diluted, and it follows that the right to discharge that sewage must continue.

If the powers are not there, what is to happen in a storm? The water can build up to thirty times its ordinary flow, or even more, as my noble friend pointed out on the last occasion. The sewers are constructed to take only six times the normal dry weather flow. When there are conditions such as those we have seen in quite recent days, some relief is essential. What we do not understand is why the power for this relief is denied. Why must the Greater London Council have to face the prospect of causing preventable floods or, in the alternative, of breaking the law?

We do not feel that it is reasonable for the new Council to be asked to rely upon a statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that if they proceed to break the law, the chances of any legal proceedings ensuring are extremely remote. Nor should they be asked to rely upon the statement of the noble Lord replying for the Government [column 455]: … there is no risk that the Attorney General would, in practice, institute proceedings in respect of a storm water discharge by the Greater London Council which was clearly accidental and not due to their negligence in carrying out their duties".— I invite your Lordships to note carefully the remainder of the Government statement as I continue my quotation— since it is fully recognised that sewers cannot be constructed large enough to take any overflow as a result of the storm. The quotation ends: That is, in fact, what the storm water overflows are for, so that the sewers need not be of an unnecessary size.

Very well, my Lords. If that is so, let this be clear in this Bill, and let the Greater London Council start with the clear knowledge of what its powers are. I am not a lawyer, but I had always thought, from what little I did know, that it was no defence in law to say that there was reproduced in Hansard what a Minister had promised, or what a Government intended when they introduced a measure. I thought the courts construed the law in the terms in which it existed. Similarly, I thought that no Minister could promise—as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did—as to some future Attorney General in a future Administration (and I repeat the quotation): There is no risk … that he would institute proceedings. We ask that the Greater London Council shall start with powers, and not promises. Unless the Government can give us much better evidence than was given in Committee, we shall desire to press the Amendment. We are not prepared to agree even to a risk of homes and offices in London being flooded. For that reason, I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 168, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Crook.)

7.0 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, it might be to your Lordships' convenience if I reply to this Amendment forthwith. I was a little astonished about the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, that no Amendment had been put down as yet, because I gave an undertaking, in the light of the discussions which I heard on the Committee stage, that I would examine the whole legal position and there was no commitment to put down an Amendment. Indeed, I hope to satisfy your Lordships that no Amendment is necessary, and, even further, that an Amendment is undesirable.

The argument was put forward that, in consequence of this Bill's attracting the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, the Greater London Council would not have the power it is said that the London County Council have of discharging untreated sewage through storm water sewers. I think I have summarised the argument correctly. I undertook to examine the position, and I have done so. I do not, as a result of my researches, think that there is really any substance at all in this argument. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a long legal argument, but there are one or two arguments which have been put forward on law in support of this Amendment both in the Committee stage and again today with which I feel your Lordships would like me to deal.

The argument was put forward in the Committee Stage—and the noble Lord put it forward again to-day—that under Section 28(1)(a) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, the L.C.C. have an implied power to discharge sewage into the Thames. I think that summarises the argument and I will deal with that. The noble Lord said that if this is taken away then the Greater London Council, if they have not got the benefit of that implied power, will not have the power that the L.C.C. now have of discharging it. The argument put forward on behalf of the L.C.C. is founded on that, although my information is that in recent discussions they abandoned that argument as completely untenable, as in fact it is, because if one looks at Section 28(1)(a) one see that it imposes a duty on the L.C.C. to construct such sewers and works including works for deodorising sewage as they think necessary for securing effective sewerage and drainage, for improving the main drainage of the country and for preventing, so far as practicable, the sewerage of or within the county or any pant of that sewage from passing into the Thames in or near the county". So it is perfectly clear in its terms that the section imposes on them a duty to construct sewers which will, so far as possible, prevent sewage from passing into the Thames. That is not a section on which you can rely for saying that this gives the L.C.C. power to discharge into the Thames untreated sewage. It is a very unsound foundation for an argument that this statutory provision gives the L.C.C. the right, in certain circumstances, to discharge untreated sewage into the Thames. As I understand it that contention, which was originally put forward by the London County Council, has now been abandoned by them as untenable.

But, my Lords, the matter does not end there because, if the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will now turn and look at Section 31(4) of the Public Health (London) Act, he will see that the London County Council are under a positive duty in disposing of any sewage to act in such a manner as not to create a nuisance. That is their position. To dispose of untreated sewage by turning it into the Thames may or may not create the nuisance, but if it does create a nuisance they are, as the law now stands, liable to have proceedings brought against them. Contrast that, if you like, with the position under the Public Health Act, 1936, as attracted by this Bill. You will see that Section 31 of the Public Health Act, 1936, provides that a local authority shall so discharge their functions under that Act as not to create a nuisance. So, so far, the two Statutes overlap and go step by step. I tope I have made that clear to the noble Lord. So, in this respect, the L.C.C. are in the same position as all other local authorities.

However, it is of course quite wrong to suggest that all other local authorities have a dual system and do not have, on occasions, great difficulties owing to storm water sweeping sewage into streams unless steps are taken to prevent it. The L.C.C. and the other local authorities cannot lawfully discharge sewage so as to create a nuisance. Whether, in fact, it creates a nuisance will depend on the particular circumstances of each case. The point I want to make so far is that there is no change in the legal position of the Greater London Council through the Bill's attracting the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936. I think that is clear and really not arguable.

I now want to come to the section on which I think the noble Lord founded quite a lot of his argument in the course of the Committee stage, namely Section 30 of the Public Health Act, 1936—not the Public Health (London) Act. That section provides that nothing in that part of the Act shall authorise a local authority to construct or use any public or other sewer for the purpose of conveying foul water into a stream or watercourse until the water has been so treated as not to affect prejudicially the purity or quality of the water in the stream or watercourse. So, when this is passed, the Greater London Council cannot rely on the Public Health Act, 1936, as authorising them to discharge sewage into the Thames if it will prejudicially affect the quality of the water. This section has no counterpart in the Public Health (London) Act, 1936. So, as I understand it, it is argued that the Greater London Council will be restricted as to the discharge of sewage to a greater extent than in fact the London County Council are. I do not think that really is the case. I have already drawn your Lordships' attention to the relevant provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and there is nothing in that Act on which the L.C.C. can rely as authorising them to discharge sewage so as prejudicially to affect the purity or quality of the water.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I am sorry that I was a little late and missed part of what the Lord Chancellor has said. Does the argument of the Lord Chancellor mean that he is affirming that the London County Council or the Greater London Council, even in a state of emergency when there is storm water or flooding about, cannot let even impure liquid into the Thames although, by letting them do it, they would save from extensive flooding houses, offices and factories in London?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord, as he said, has not heard the whole of my argument as he has not been here all the time, and the point which he raises I have not yet reached. Certainly I am going to deal with that particular question, but I think it best that I should proceed by stages until we come to it. It is a technical matter, as the noble Lord himself said on a previous occasion, and I want to put it as clearly as I can to your Lordships in order to convince your Lordships, if I can, that there is no reason for alarm or apprehension about the position of the Greater London Council. I will come to the noble Lord's point, but there is no real dilemma there.

What I was saying—and I want to stress this point—is that the London County Council cannot rely on anything in the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, as entitling them to make a discharge which will prejudicially affect the quality and purity of the water into which the discharge is made. There is no statutory right of that kind given by that Act. So, my Lords, if in the future, and I think at the present time, the discharge of untreated sewage into the Thames prejudicially affects the purity and the quality of the river then that discharge would be unlawful, either as a nuisance or as that form of nuisance which consists of prejudicially affecting the quality or purity of water in a river.

I am on this point: the argument has been that under the Bill the Greater London Council will have less rights than the London County Council. In my submission, it is quite clear that their rights will be to all intents and purposes the same, not less and not greater. But, as I understand it from some of the arguments that your Lordships have advanced, particularly to-day, in saying the choice is between flooding a lot of places in London or of pouring out sewage into the Thames, I rather gather that your Lordships are really arguing that the Greater London Council should have what the London County Council has not got—a statutory right of discharging untreated sewage into the Thames, irrespective of what the effect might be. I could not agree with that. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, agrees with me.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

What about the other effect?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like to carry on with the argument. I do not quite know what the other effect is to which the noble Lord refers. The other effect is not an alternative. The water of the Thames to-day is of such a character that it would require a great volume of untreated sewage to make it any worse, and while that is the position there can be no chance of action by anyone. That is the simple factual approach and I think it is the correct one. Some may take the view, and I certainly do, that in the years to come the quality and purity of the River Thames may be gradually improved. We pass Acts here dealing with river pollution and things of that kind, and I think it is fairly well known that it is proposed to try to apply the River Pollution Act to the Thames in this part of Greater London, in which case authority will have to be given and consent given to the discharge of sewage into the Thames. But we are not dealing with that to-day. I am on the simple and narrow point which was put against this: that by attracting the 1936 Act and not the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, we were really prejudicing the position of the Greater London Council. I can be wrong—anyone can be wrong—but I have given this matter such consideration as I can, and, as I said at the Committee stage, if I felt there was any doubt I would certainly want to see that doubt cleared up. I do not think there is, and I do not think there is any need to put down any Amendment.

I should have liked, none the less, to go some way to meet the views of your Lordships, if I could, by putting down some saving provision, but the difficulty about that is that this Section 30 applies throughout the whole of the country, and if you introduce a particular saving provision applying only to the Greater London Council then you cast a great deal of doubt as to the meaning of Section 30 in relation to the local authorities over the rest of the country. For that reason I came to the conclusion that it really would not be right even to go as far as that. I hope I have not taken up too much of your Lordships' time, and hope I have made the point clear. There is no Party politics in this. There really is not, in my belief, the dilemma that noble Lords sought to put forward 'between breaking the law at times of heavy storm or flooding a lot of cellars and basements. I do not think that choice exists as a consequence of the passage of this Bill. It will be the same position as it has been for many years under the L.C.C.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack for the reply that he has given this afternoon. I rise with some diffidence; as I said on Committee stage, I am happy to cross swords with him on political matters but when it comes to a question of law, that is another matter. But the first point I would make to the noble Lord is this: he suggested that the case we put on Committee stage on behalf of the London County Council has now been withdrawn by the authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think I made one slight error. I have some advice on this. I think I said that the L.C.C. had conceded that Section 28(1)(a) gave them no power to discharge. I do not think I am quite right about that, but what they have conceded is that, irrespective of any power they may have, they are liable for nuisance, which I do not think they had conceded before.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am glad the noble Lord has made that point. When we talk about "power", as the noble Lord will know, there is some difficulty on our part, and this is a considerable legal point. As I said in Committee, if we used phraseology that was unfortunate I hoped we should be forgiven. I would ask the House to consider the point. The noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that this was not a question of alternative between the London County Council or the Greater London Council, which will be the main sewage authority, of either putting sewage into the Thames or pumping it into the streets.

This is a real alternative. This is a real factor. I would say to the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack that during an average year the London County Council has put through its 60 storm outlets approximately 100 hours of storm water through each outlet. In fact the most recent occasion when they were forced to do so, I understand, was at Whitsun, when we had the heavy rain in North London. The authority has no possibility, in fact, of complying with the Public Health Act, 1936. Clause 30 of that Act says: Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise a local authority to construct or use any public sewer or any drain or outfall for the purpose of conveying foul water into any natural or artificial stream. When a heavy storm hits London, because of the construction of London with so very little natural seepage and drainage such as fields and the like, there is a tremendous build up of water. There is no possibility of the authority, with the best will in the world, retaining that water over a period in order to deal with it and to reduce the sewage. One might say that when a heavy storm occurs, either in the North or the South of London, there is a moment of crisis; there is a moment when the build-up of water is such that it cannot be retained, it cannot be controlled; it must, in fact, be released. Therefore, because London is so constructed—and I imagine your Lordships can appreciate this problem when you look at the streets and houses with very litte natural drainage—there is this tremendous build-up of water and the problem of the particular authority

I am quite satisfied in my own mind, without being a lawyer, that the Greater London Council and the London County Council in fact cannot comply with the Public Health Act, 1936. I believe it is utterly impossible. From the advice I have received from the engineers and those responsible for the sewage in London, I believe they have no alternative but to put the sewage into the River Thames. The only alternative to that is to pump it into the streets.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Is the noble Lord suggesting that putting sewage into the Thames in the present state of the Thames water is an offence?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, it would be an offence under this particular section.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has, I gather, had second thoughts about the use of the words "foul water". Those words do not appear in the section.

LORD SHEPHERD

But foul water, surely, is in fact sewage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

You can put a certain quantity of sewage in. It depends what you put it into. If you put it into a trout stream the effect is obvious; but putting it into the River Thames may be permissible; it depends on the quantity. The test provided for in Section 30 is that it must not prejudicially affect the purity or quality of the river. There is no complete prohibition on the discharge of sewage.

LORD SHEPHERD

Am I to understand, therefore, whether it is the Thames or the main rivers in Glasgow, which are well known to be contaminated, that it would be lawful to put more contaminated material into the water and that that could be done without prosecution?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I can answer that question by saying, that if it does not prejudicially affect the quality and nature of the water the answer is "Yes". That section does not prohibit it. It does not follow that the addition of sewage will not of itself constitute a nuisance, in which case that might be dealt with as a nuisance, in regard to which special considerations apply.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could help us by defining what proportion this abnormal storm water bears to the normal sewage flow upon which it is superimposed.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am not quite sure whether I caught the question aright. My noble friend suggested that during a heavy storm the diameter of the sewers is such that pressure would be so great that they are forced to release the flow because it would be built up at the far end.

LORD HAWKE

I think it is rather important, from the point of view of the sewage mixture in the Thames, to know what proportion this extra water bears to the normal flow which is all the time running through the sewers.

LORD SHEPHERD

It is not obviously sewage, but it is in fact contaminated water. The noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack has now said that we must take into account the state of the Thames. This is quite different from any advice that I have received. It seems to raise an important matter of principle. It is a great suprise to me, because I thought that one was prohibited from putting into a river any form of contaminated matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord put that as a general question. In my answer to him I am dealing merely with Section 30 of the Public Health Act, 1936. In that provision you cannot put into a river or watercourse or stream anything that would prejudicially affect the purity and quality of the water in the stream.

LORD SHEPHERD

Then I will accept that from the noble Lord. In the meantime, I will seek other legal advice; but I would not in any way dispute his interpretation. The London County Council are quite clear—and I think their point of view must be considered—in taking the view that under the 1936 Act (here I am in dispute) there is upon them a definite prohibition. Inadvertently, on the Committee stage in regard to Clause 28 I suggested that the London County Council had a right to put sewage in. I am sorry; that was not my intention. What I tried to imply was that the words of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, were so drafted that if the authority were forced to place sewage into the Thames in a moment of crisis they would not in fact be prosecuted for it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I can help the noble Lord on that. I do not want to interrupt him more than necessary. There is nothing that takes them out of the other section (I think it is Section 31) which says that they must not create a nuisance by the discharge of their sewage. Putting that sewage into the river at any particular time, if it materially affects the purity or quality of the water, may well constitute an offence.

LORD SHEPHERD

I agree with the noble Lord that there are these two factors, the creating of a nuisance and the actual putting in of diluted sewage. Presumably, in regard to a nuisance one would have to prove that a nuisance has been created, that there was a special occurrence causing a nuisance to an individual. But, as I understand it, the position under the Bill as it now stands is that the Greater London Council if they place sewage, no matter how diluted, into the River Thames, they will in fact be creating an offence. However, we have the assurance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—and surely there is nobody higher to give us the law—and no doubt our friends on the London County Council and the Greater London Council will be much at ease to know that they will be able to put in sewage, as they have been forced to do up till to-day, and there will be no prosecution by the Attorney General.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not making any promises about that. That is obviously undesirable. I did not go so far on the Committee stage as to make any promise.

LORD SHEPHERD

You said so to-day.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I did not make arty promise. I said—and I was expressing a personal opinion—that I thought there was no chance of that happening. But I hope that the noble Lord is not taking me as saying that sewage can be discharged with impunity into the Thames in all circumstances by the London County Council or by the Greater London Council. I am saying that if this Bill is passed in its present form there will be no material difference between the two authorities.

LORD SHEPHERD

We seem to be getting into difficulty. I am prepared to take the blame for it. I understood the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to say that under Section 30 of the Public Health Act, 1936, if the Greater London Council put storm water with sewage into the Thames they would not be creating an offence because of the character and quality of the River Thames. Am I right about that?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I did not put it that way, but the noble Lord is improving—he is getting it more nearly right. I said that you will contravene Section 30 only if what you put in prejudicially affects the quality and purity of the water that is already there. Some sewage that goes along with storm water may be a little bit purer than the Thames is in certain parts.

LORD SHEPHERD

I hope we are not playing with words. Obviously, if you put in sewage you in fact reduce the quality of the water, unless of course there is a greater flow of fresh water to help purify the Thames. But I will take this from the Lord Chancellor. This is important, and it is not a political matter. I am not trying to be clever about it; it is a matter of considerable importance. Can we take it, therefore, that the Greater London Council by this Bill will be in no worse position in the eyes of the law if they carry on the practice that they are forced to carry on to-day, of putting storm water with sewage into the Thames in moments of crisis? And that their position in regard to nuisance—because in their view the position has changed—again has been in no way affected?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly I will do my best to comfort the noble Lord. He will perhaps gain some comfort from the fact that, over all the years that the L.C.C. have done it, I think I am right in saying with comparative impunity, there have been some proceedings brought against them for nuisance in regard to the discharge of sewage into the Thames; but those have been particular cases. No doubt that will happen in the future. I can give no assurance that it will not. But I do not think the risk is any greater, so far as the Greater London Council is concerned, by the mere fact of Section 30 in the Public Health Act, 1936.

LORD SHEPHERD

So we have at least achieved this result: that the Greater London Council will, in fact, in the view of the Government, be in no worse position than the L.C.C. are to-day. If that is the case, I would advise my noble friends to consider this matter between now and Third Reading, when perhaps we shall have obtained some further advice.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I said when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, that I did not think there was any material difference between the present position of the London County Council and the position of the Greater London Council.

LORD SHEPHERD

We will look at the matter, which, as I say, is not a Party matter but one in which the authorities are very much concerned. On behalf of my noble friend I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The sitting was suspended at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half past eight o'clock.]

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 9 prohibits a local authority from "vesting in themselves a sewer or sewage disposal works" already vested in another authority. There seems to be no real reason why a London borough and county district councils should not have the same power as local authorities outside London, to vest in themselves sewers vested in another authority at the request of that authority. The effect of this Amendment is to give them that power except in relation to the Greater London Council. The Greater London Council's power for taking over sewers from other authorities outside their vested area continues to be wholly governed by Clause 35. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 169, line 4, leave out from ("exercisable") to end of line 5 and insert—

1. ("(a) by the Greater London Council as respects a sewer or sewage disposal works which is vested in the council of a London borough or county district;
2. (b) by the council of a London borough or county district as respects a sewer or sewage disposal works which is vested in the Greater London Council.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 135, as it is very much in line with Amendment No. 134, to which the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack replied. However, as in the case of that Amendment, I wish to take advice upon the position and reserve our position at the Third Reading.

8.32 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, after paragraph 18, to insert: 19. Section 330 shall not apply in the sewerage area of the Greater London Council. 20. Section 333 shall not apply—

1. (a) in so much of the sewerage area of the Greater London Council as is situate in an inner London borough, the City or the Temples; or
2. (b) in any other part of that area as respects works to which paragraph 4(1) of Part III of this Schedule applies."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved admirably and fully by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, on the Committee stage of the Bill, but I think it right to take some little time to explain what it is all about. Here I am discussing two Amendments, Nos. 136 and 137, together, because later on I shall ask the House to act as arbitrator, as it were, between the London County Council's point of view, on the one hand, and that of the statutory undertakers, on the other. The London County Council's powers for executing sewerage and drainage works are governed by the Public Health (London) Act, 1936. Section 29(2) of that Act prevents the council from executing any sewerage or drainage works on the banks, the bed or the shores of the Thames which may interfere—and I wish to underline that word "interfere"—with the navigation of the river, unless the Port of London Authority have given a certificate stating that they have approved the plans and that the works will not interfere with navigation. Section 78 of the same Act requires the London County Council or a metropolitan borough council, before executing any sewerage or drainage works which will interfere with a railway or canal, to serve a notice on the company concerned; and it also provides for arbitration in the case of any dispute.

The whole of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, is being repealed by this Bill and is being replaced by Section 333 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which will apply in its stead in relation to sewers. This will mean that, before the Greater London Council execute any work in, across, under or at a harbour basin, et cetera, or any land belonging to a dock undertaking, the Greater London Council will have to obtain the consent of the undertaking. Consent will also have to be obtained from a railway company before executing any works along, across or under a railway. Section 333 provides that consents are not to be unreasonably withheld, and provision is made for arbitration and for compensation payments.

Your Lordships may very well be asking yourselves: what is the difference between the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act and the general Public Health Act which will apply after the passing of the Bi11? The London Act, both in the case of the Port of London Authority and of a railway or canal, requires consent only if interference is likely to result from the projected works. The general Public Health Act requires consent whether there is interference or not. Consent has to be given even if the proposed sewer is, as so many London sewers are, 60 feet below the property owned by any of the undertakings that I have mentioned. This will place these statutory undertakings in a peculiar and exceptional position. For example, if a sewer is to run many miles underneath London, it might at one point pass 60 feet below some property owned by the Port of London Authority or a railway undertaking, and in those circumstances the Greater London Council will have to obtain consent from the Authority or from the undertaking concerned. Whether any particular work would or would not interfere with navigation or a railway might very well be open to technical argument, but in practice a certificate from the Port of London Authority has always been sought, and notice has always been given by the London County Council to any railway under or over which the London County Council have wished to carry a sewer.

Agreement on safety measures has never brought about any difficulty between the statutory undertakings and the London County Council. In every case, so far as I am aware, they have eventually reached agreement; but not always as to any payments that might be made, for the railways have from time to time (or so it seemed to the London County Council) made claims which could not be justified, and in some circumstances they have asked that a railway engineer should supervise the work being done by the experts of the London County Council. Indeed, there has been a fairly recent instance of this where, under a £1 million contract, the railway company concerned, under whose land, at some distance down, the sewer was to be carried for a short distance—some 15 feet or so, I believe it was—asked and tried to demand, I think quite unjustifiably, that the contractor doing the work should be approved by the railway company. That, it seems to me, is carrying their powers very much too far.

Very many sewers have been constructed in London under the present law, and one wonders why the powers of the Greater London Council should be more circumscribed than those of the London County Council, and why the powers of the docks undertakers and railway and canal boards should be increased. If there is a good reason for this I should like to hear it. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, comes to reply he will not rest his case on the desirability of uniformity with the rest of the country in this matter.

I am asserting here—and I think with some justification—that in the matter of sewerage London is in a unique situation. It is unique in the size and complexity of the undertaking and in the size of the built-up area which it serves. It is a fact that an alteration to a sewer in one place may affect the whole system, from the West End of London to the outfalls at Barking or Erith. In places some of these sewers are 60 feet down. The scope for altering existing sewers is restricted by the existence of the underground railway system. In no other city in this country do problems of this magnitude exist.

As the Bill now stands, it empowers railway authorities, drainage authorities and docks undertakers to alter sewers vested in a local authority by substitute sewers, and provides that any dispute may be referred to arbitration. Expert opinions on what is effective may differ, and it is wrong that expert and experienced officers, the sort of people who will be available to the Greater London Council, should not even have the right to approve any proposals for the alteration of those sewers by the Port of London Authority, the railway authorities or canal undertakers. As at present drafted the Bill permits the works to be carried out by the undertakers before the matter has gone to arbitration, even though the local authority may have objections to the works that are proposed.

Similar Amendments to those I am moving were withdrawn by my noble friend Lord Crook at the Committee stage, when the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, announced that a meeting had been arranged between the Ministers concerned, the London County Council and the affected undertakers. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has been good enough to write to my noble friend Lord Crook about that meeting, and my noble friend wishes me to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy and for the trouble he took over the matter. The letter is too long to read to the House so I shall (not unfairly I hope) refrain from referring to the arguments contained in it, except to say that no agreement was reached at that meeting. As I understand it from another source, the London County Council wished, understandably, to retain for the Greater London Council the powers of the London Act, whilst the undertakers wished, also understandably, to secure the greater controlling powers they would have under the provisions of the general Act.

The failure of that meeting to agree means that Parliament is being asked to act as an arbitrator. Surely in those circumstances we ought to lean very heavily in favour of the status quo. This is a Conservative House, with a capital "C", and also in this case, I hope, with a small "c". The provisions of the London Public Health Act have acted reasonably; they have acted well, and I think there has been no suggestion that in the past they have acted unfairly against the statutory undertakers. It seems to me that in those circumstances this Conservative House ought to come down heavily in favour of things that have worked well. That is surely part of our functions, in this connection at any rate. Finally, in recommending these Amendments to your Lordships, I would ask: "Why should we tip the scales in favour of the undertakers as against the London ratepayers?" I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 172, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Champion.)

8.46 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has made his usual painstakingly good job of explaining the Amendments, and he strained at his particular gnat to produce an argument to back up what he suggested we should accept. He squeezed every possible nuance of meaning he could out of this admittedly rather "mixed-opinion case" in favour of the arguments he put forward. When we discussed this in Committee, I referred to a meeting which was to take place on May 28 between all the parties affected and the Departments concerned. As the noble Lord said, I also wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Crook; although I, also, do not want to go into all the details of the letter which runs for very nearly three pages of foolscap. I think it was overstating the case a little to say boldly that no agreement was reached. I think that presents the position in a worse light than it is, because the differences the noble Lord described to us between what, perhaps, I could call two codes of practice, were discussed by all these people to see where lay the overall advantage.

There were only three points left over, as I understand it, on which there was no agreement; and it was agreed that these three points should be further investigated by the Government to see whether the point which the noble Lord has been putting forward could be or should be met. The first of those three is concerned with what the noble Lord correctly described as Section 330 of the Public Health Act, 1936, where four undertakers were given power to alter sewers providing that they substituted, at their own expense, something "equally effectual". In case of dispute there is provision for arbitration by the Institution of Civil Engineers. I would remind noble Lords in passing that this straight away, in the case of dispute, puts the matter in the hands of experts and not in the hands of affected parties. The present position, which I think I must make fully clear, is that in the L.C.C. area the undertaker cannot do anything that involves L.C.C. sewerage apparatus without the L.C.C.'s agreement; and there is no provision for arbitration. In the last resort, if it is not settled, the undertaker can only seek powers in a Private Bill.

The noble Lord has told us the arguments, based on the L.C.C.'s view of this matter; and, in particular, that arbitration would not be appropriate; and that, in practice, the use of arbitration, and the fact that a dispute could be taken to arbitration, might lead to arrangements not generally regarded as satisfactory. That is the gist of what the noble Lord said on this point.

LORD CHAMPION

Plus the fact that it seems, under the Bill as drafted, that the work could actually proceed; but no statutory—

LORD CHESHAM

I am coming to that point. It is no good the noble Lord's saying that he hopes I am not going to use a certain argument, and pouring a little scorn upon it in advance; because, if an argument seems good to me, I am certainly going to put it forward and will not be put off by having the argument discounted in a slightly pitying tone of voice by any noble Lord. There is no doubt whatever that uniformity in this matter has a good deal to commend it.

As things stand, there are no provisions for arbitration between undertakers and the L.C.C. in London; and it seems wrong that the undertakers in London should be deprived of a right which they have over the rest of the country. It is true, technically and legally, that Section 330, as worded, could allow undertakers to carry out work before arbitration provisions had been invoked. But what happened in discussion was that the undertakers made it plain that they would regard it as absurd to alter sewerage apparatus without consultation with the Greater London Council. It was agreed at the meeting by all concerned that it was unthinkable that a responsible authority would act first and arbitrate afterwards, either in London or outside it.

I do not think it can be claimed that there is a tremendous benefit to the undertakers at London's expense; and if it is so claimed, it is overstated, because the only benefit that I can see the undertakers can get in practice, under the application of Section 330, is the right to go to arbitration in the event of a failure to reach agreement with the Greater London Council as to what ought to be done.

The noble Lord and the L.C.C. at the meeting made the point strongly that conditions in London are such as to justify special treatment. On reflection, it does not seem to us that the conditions are so very different, or that the problems of a sewerage authority are so much greater in London as to justify special treatment. I think that it would be preferable to see a uniform application of the Public Health Act. In view of the fact that the undertakers have given what must be regarded as a firm undertaking not to misuse their powers under Section 330 in carrying out work without consultation, I should have thought the right course was to have uniformity rather than special treatment.

Now I come to the second point, which is contained in Section 333(1), paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Public Health Act, which concern the need for a sewerage authority to obtain the consent of a dock or canal undertaking for works which interfere with or go under their undertaking. Under Section 29 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936 the L.C.C. have to obtain the consent of the P.L.A. only for works that affect navigation. I had understood the position to be that the L.C.C. accepted that the definition is too narrow, and that it is reasonable for the undertaker's consent to be obtained for works that will affect the Thames in any way or "interfere with" any part of the undertaking. As I understand it, the only point at issue is whether it is reasonable to have to obtain the undertaker's consent for works that may merely go under part of the land they own. But, surely, in that case only the P.L.A. are in a position to judge whether works that will go under their land are likely to interfere in any way with future developments that they may have in mind. That area of dispute—if "area of dispute" is the right expression for it—between the sewerage authority and the P.L.A. is a small one. It does not seem to us that the London sewerage system presents such special problems as to justify special treatment in this rather small respect. Therefore, again I feel that we should stick to the Public Health Act. What is more, Section 333 protects the sewerage authority by saying, as the noble Lord told us, that the consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; and there is also provision for arbitration where they cannot agree without it.

The third point I come to is found in Section 333(1), which requires the sewerage authority to obtain the consent of the "railway company concerned to execute any work along across or under any railway". Currently, as the noble Lord said, the London code requires consent only for works which will "interfere with the railway". There are—and I do not think there is any disagreement between us about this—advantages and disadvantatges in either form of words. We have carefully considered substituting "interfere with" for "along across or under". Both the legal and the technical advice we have had on this would seem to show that whether we use the one form of words or the other will have little practical effect.

There are certain difficulties which are bound to occur in this matter. The first is that it does not seem logical to make that alteration in respect of sewerage works alone, because the Public Health Act, 1936, deals also with a considerable number of other functions, like water supply and the prevention of nuisance. To make a substitution, particularly when there is a good deal of controversy as to whether it is beneficial or not, apply also to these other functions, would involve a complicated Amendment to Schedule 11, as well as to Schedule 9. If this substitution were made, it would, for drafting purposes, have to apply throughout the sewerage area of Greater London, and could not be limited to the inner area—and that is what I think was in the noble Lord's mind. It might even, in the process, create some new problems.

I am afraid that I have had to speak for some time on this rather tricky and not very exciting subject to deal properly with the matters put forward by the noble Lord. Taken by and large, I can see no strong reason, such as I forecast would be necessary, to agree to

a change in this matter. I cannot see that strong reason to depart from an overall uniformity. I should have thought that the key to a satisfactory relationship between the sewerage authority and the undertakers would lie in that sensible co-operation between them which has always existed, and to which the noble Lord himself referred. I am glad to join with him in recognising that sensible co-operation. I should have thought that, since both are likely to have to carry out works affecting the work of the other, we could rely firmly on that sensible co-operation and, therefore, that our best course would be to leave things as it is suggested they should be in the Bill.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, it seemed to me that in suggesting that I was straining at a gnat, the noble Lord has swallowed the camel of quite unnecessarily changing the law as it stands in relation to London and its sewerage system. The noble Lord has made a number of points, and I must admit that I cannot pretend to reply to them. What I will do is to study them carefully between now and Third Reading. In the meantime, I think we ought to express our dissent from the general attitude of the Government on this matter, and for that reason I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment.

9.2 p.m.

On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 136) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Shackleton, L.
Archibald, L.	Longford, E.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Stonham, L.
Champion, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Henderson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Denham, L.	Iddesleigh, E.
Ailwyn, L.	Derwent, L.	Jellicoe, E.
Albemarle, E.	Devonshire, D.	Jessel, L.
Ampthill, L.	Ferrers, E.	Lothian, M.
Auckland, L.	Fortescue, E.	MacAndrew, L.
Chelmer, L.	Glentanar, L.	Margesson, V.
Chesham, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Merrivale, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Grenfell, L.	Mills, V.
Colgrain, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Milverton, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Hanworth, V.	Monk Bretton, L.
Conesford, L.	Hastings, L.	Monsell, V.
Craigmyle, L.	Hawke, L.	Newton, L.
Craigton, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Ormonde, M.
St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]	Soulbury, V.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
St. Oswald, L.	Strathcarron, L.	Waldegrave, E.
Sandys, L.	Strathclyde, L.	Waleran, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Modification and re-enactment from 1st April 1965 of provisions of Public Health Acts]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the paragraph mentioned in the Amendment is in the Public Health Act, 1875. It prohibits burial in any church built in an urban area after August 31, 1848. This Amendment leaves matters as they are in inner London; that is to say, burial in most churches is prohibited by Order in Council, but there are a few exceptions which will not be disturbed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 187, line 15, at end insert— ("4A. The paragraph in Part III of Schedule 5 relating to vaults and graves in churches and other places of public worship shall not apply to the inner London boroughs, the City or the Temples.")—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us why this Amendment relates to inner London and why it does not apply to Greater London as a whole? What is the distinction between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs in this respect?

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, perhaps I should explain that the Act of 1875 which I mentioned does not apply to the metropolis, and we do not want it to. There are the exceptions I mentioned, and the question of Westminster Cathedral where people are sometimes buried, and we want that to continue.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That was not my point. This Amendment says shall not apply to the inner London boroughs …". Presumably, therefore, it applies to the outer London boroughs. What I was asking was what was the reason for the distinction between the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs?

LORD HASTINGS

I do not know that this Amendment really refers at all to the outer London boroughs. We are simply making sure we are leaving matters as they are in inner London, and therefore it does not apply to the outer London boroughs.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, if it does not apply to the inner London boroughs, the City or the Temples to where does it apply?

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

There must be a reason why this distinction is made between the inner and the outer London boroughs. It may be a matter of importance or it may be that it does not matter. I see that the lifeline has been held out, and the noble Lord can now probably tell us the answer.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, outer London is not mentioned because it already applies to the outer London boroughs.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is essentially a drafting Amendment. Parts III, IV and V of the Public Health Act, 1925, are no longer in force; hence, the paragraph needs to be amended. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 187, line 32, leave out paragraphs 8 and 9 and insert— ("8. Notwithstanding anything in section 2(2) or 3, sections 14, 16 and 26 shall extend to Greater London without being adopted there and sections 17 to 19 shall not extend to, and may not be adopted in, Greater London, and accordingly the said sections 2(2) and 3 shall not apply to Greater London. 9. Section 76 shall not apply to Greater London.")—(Lord Hastings.)

9.16 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, after paragraph 16, to insert: 17. Section 82 shall not apply to an inner London borough, the City or the Temples.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 139, and I hope it will suit your Lordships' convenience if we consider with it Amendments No. 130 and No. 144, which is actually the substantive Amendment. No doubt at a somewhat earlier stage in the proceedings your Lordships, like myself, listened entranced to my noble friend Lord Shepherd drawing a distinction between what he called "pure sewage" and contaminated water. I shall not put forward to your Lordships any such esoteric or highly intellectual distinction, because these Amendments seek just to make the carriage of offensive and fæcal matter through the streets of inner London subject to uniform standards which are set out in Greater London Council by-laws, instead of subject to standards which, as the Bill stands at present, would be set out in thirteen different sets of by-laws made by the inner London boroughs and the City Corporation.

This seems to me to be a highly sensible Amendment, particularly as it would continue the excellent arrangements now made by the London County Council who at present regulate this matter. But I am compelled immediately to confess that the fact that this seems an eminently sensible arrangement does not necessarily mean that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, or whoever is to reply, is going to leap up and accept it. Such has been our experience in dealing with this Bill that, at least on first presentation of our case, the fact of its eminent common sense and virtual unanswerability does not necessarily encourage us to think that the Government will accept it. I am somewhat more encouraged on this occasion, because this is the second time that I have had the privilege of presenting this Amendment on behalf of the citizens of London. Therefore, as the Government have had time on this particular subject to get their breath and to consider the matter anew, I am hoping for a more favourable outcome.

We attach considerable importance to this Amendment because, unsavoury as this particular subject is, it nevertheless is one which is of great importance to the health and well-being of the millions of people who live in metropolitan London. It is the case that over the past twenty years negotiations have been going on between the London County Council and representatives of the metropolitan borough councils on this particular matter, and after twenty years they have now agreed new refuse and drainage by- laws for the whole of London, which are now awaiting formal approval by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. These by-laws have been made by the London County Council under the powers contained in Section 84(2) and Section 107(1) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and they contain requirements relating to the storage, removal and disposal of refuse, and to drainage.

The effect of the Amendment No. 144 is to add the words of the first subparagraph of the Amendment to the existing paragraph (3) now in the Bill so as to incorporate in the Bill the substance of as much of subsection (2) of Section 84 of the 1936 Act as it is considered necessary or desirable to re-enact. It seems to me that it is obviously desirable that standard times and constructional requirements in vehicles should continue to apply in connection with the carriage of refuse and other offensive matter by road in inner London. And, of course, this control is very important from the point of view of traffic management.

This kind of very necessary work goes on every night (or should I say, in the main, in the small hours of the morning?) every day of the week. And to a large extent it goes on without our knowledge, although if we pause to reflect we know that it must happen. The vehicles and the vessels carrying this matter which we create have to travel across London, and a great many of them, of course, have to travel in the same direction to the Thames or to some other disposal unit. It is perfectly obvious that the vehicles will travel from various of the new boroughs which are created across the territory of other boroughs, and that it could be very offensive to the people of London, as well as a matter of considerable inconvenience, if the co-ordination which at present exists in this matter, so that it is discreetly, efficiently and conveniently done, were interrupted.

At present in inner London—or what we are now learning to call "inner London" in connection with this Bill—this work is being done by the London County Council, and the effect of this Amendment would be to ensure that that kind of control continues, instead of the utterly idiotic idea now in the Bill that it should be left haphazardly to thirteen different London authorities. Anything more utterly stupid and unrelated to reality it is difficult to conceive. The noble Lord, when he comes to reply, may say: "Of course, all these twelve or thirteen authorities will get together, and will co-ordinate their arrangements, so that they approximate to something approaching the kind of efficiency which now exists". He obviously has not sat in on conferences of twelve or thirteen local authorities, all with their different offices, all with their different ideas of how this should be done.

Before we ever get back to the same kind of arrangement that we have now, another thirty years will have rolled on; and even then we shall still not have got it. Throughout that time inner London will continue to be affronted with the stupid kind of unpleasant mishap that occurs. We do not want to see these things, we do not want them to be unnecessarily, brutally, nauseously brought to the notice of our citizens, which will be the case unless we make the sensible kind of arrangement which I am now proposing.

When I raised this question on Committee stage the noble Lord said, in effect, that it was desired that London boroughs should have this kind of function. He said, as a sort of consolation to the case I then put forward, that these boroughs will presumably have regard to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's model by-law, and that the Minister could use his power as confirming authority to ensure that there was sufficient uniformity throughout the area to make the removal of refuse and nauseous matter through the streets of inner London a simple and inoffensive operation. My Lords, it might be thought that it is hardly a worthwhile function for the boroughs to possess, if they have to follow the model by-law, though the Bill does not say so, and then be subject to ministerial alterations to secure proper uniformity. Surely the sensible procedure is for these by-laws to be made by one authority, by the Greater London Council, as indeed they have been made by the London County Council in the past. This will save much unnecessary duplication of labour and greatly ease things for the operators of the vehicles concerned, who will have to consult only one set of by-laws instead of twelve.

It seems to me that the Government's attitude up till now has been just one more example of their failure to realise that whatever is done, even if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, London will still be London and will be an entity. In the matter of so many of these services and particularly this one, it will have to be and will remain London and must be dealt with as such. We are not the same here—and it is a point which my noble friend Lord Champion tried to make on the previous Amendment, which was discussed but not accepted—as any self-contained county borough in another part of the country. Your Lordships will, I am sure, listen with the utmost care to the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will make to what I have said. I would ask you to judge this issue on its merits and, if the Government are unable to accept the case we have put forward, to vote for it on its merits.

I would remind your Lordships that, humble and venial as this subject may appear to be, it is one which is essential to the health of the people of our capital city. I would remind you that we are asking for the continuance of arrangements which are working extremely well now, very efficiently, and without offence to anybody. We are asking in this Amendment for the implementation of agreements which have been reached by all the parties concerned after twenty years of discussion. I submit that it would be the height of folly for the Government to refuse this Amendment and disrupt the arrangements which have been successful, and which have been agreed to by people who are closer to the problem as the right arrangements. I think, therefore, that on this occasion, unless they can refute anything that I have said, they must accept these Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 190, line 4, at end insert— ("17. Section 82 shall not apply to an inner London borough, the City or the Temples.").—(Lord Stonham.)

9.30 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made a very strong, even impassioned speech.

LORD STONHAM

It is a strong subject.

LORD HASTINGS

But in order to convince himself he had to say repeatedly not only that his Amendment was sensible, but that it was eminently sensible and that it was obvious common sense. After he had said it three or four times I began to doubt whether he believed it himself. That is a matter of opinion, and opinion on this side of the House does not agree with the noble Lord. We are entitled to our opinions, and we feel that the arrangements we have made in this Bill are sensible, eminently sensible and common sense—and I am saying it only once.

Now in respect of two preliminary points which the noble Lord made, he mentioned Section 107(1) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936. The Greater London Council is, of course, continuing those powers. They refer to the London building, code; and it was made quite clear during the Committee stage that, although the Bill leaves matters as they are in that respect, there is later going to be a comprehensive review of building codes, and then something else will happen. In respect of Section 84, subsection (2), I think he mentioned that we have set down Amendment No. 144A, which is going to extend the L.C.C. powers under that section to the London boroughs—so that, at least, meets part of one of the noble Lord's points.

Coming now to the main argument, that it is the obvious thing that the Greater London Council should have these powers to arrange for by-laws and the general disposal of this offensive matter through the central London boroughs, one wonders, in the first place, why, if the noble Lord feels so passionately about this, he should confine it to only the inner London boroughs, apart from the fact that the L.C.C.'s powers are confined to those boroughs. Logically, he ought to extend it to the whole of Greater London, because once you have moved matter outside inner London you have still a very large area before you get to the outside of Greater London. So his case is not entirely logical. But, quite apart from that, his arguments really are, I suggest, more plausible than realistic, because there is no justification for departing from the general scheme of the Bill that the London boroughs should have these powers. They are, after all, the public health authorities, and they are the right people to make these by-laws. It will be a simple matter—and I do not apologise for repeating this argument, which I used on Committee stage—for the Ministry of Housing, as confirming authority, to ensure that there is sufficient uniformity throughout the area to make the removal of offensive matter a simple and inoffensive operation.

Suppose that the Greater London Council were to have these by-law-making powers. They would obviously have to consult and agree any proposals with the individual boroughs, and that could take equally as long as, and even longer than, the boroughs would in consulting directly with the Ministry of Housing. Really, the noble Lord's opinion of the London boroughs absolutely astonishes me. Does he really mean that they are so inefficient, so incompetent and so quarrelsome that they cannot arrange this matter; or have they been so long under the paternal dominance of the London County Council that they are reduced to complete inability to fend for themselves? Really, my Lords, I think that is carrying things a bit too far. I suggest that reason and common sense are on the side of the Government, and I would ask noble Lords to reject this Amendment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, let us suppose that the London boroughs have different by-laws; and suppose I am engaging in this business of transportation or traffic, or whatever you call it, and am moving matter from one borough to another. I know the by-laws of my own borough, but I do not know the by-laws of the other borough, or the next borough to that, through which I shall have to go. I may be committing an offence. Is everybody expected to know all the varying details of these by-laws?

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, may I reply, by leave of the House? I referred to our model by-laws in this matter; and moreover the Minister of Housing and Local Government has confirming authority. There should be no difficulty.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

But the by-laws are not obligatory and the 13 boroughs may make different by-laws.

LORD STONHAM

I notice the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said only once that the Government's proposals were eminently sensible. He mentioned that I said it three times. That may be the reason why he seemed to be so singularly unconvincing. He asked me why I should confine the Amendment to the inner London boroughs. It is for the very ordinary and simple reason that that is where it exists now. I want to preserve something which is in existence. Secondly, in regard to the outer London boroughs the disposal traffic of this nauseous matter in most cases does not come through inner London at the present time, so why on earth the noble Lord should think I want to make an Amendment to cart filth from 15 miles out of London which now goes by another route, so that it goes through inner London, I just do not know. I hope that is a satisfactory answer to the extraordinary question that he put to me: namely, why did I not make this Amendment wider. The Amendment deals with a situation as it exists at present, which I want to preserve because it is efficient. It has sought to preserve the agreement reached between the London County Council and the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee on this subject, which I emphasised took twenty years to reach this new agreement.

This is just a sample of the way the Government so often expose their lack of knowledge on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, says that surely these 12 Greater London boroughs which do not yet exist can come to an agreement on this matter. At present I think the 12 are 26, or something like that, and they will be contracted into 12. Every year the London County Council produces a General Powers Bill which is the result of discussions which have gone on throughout the twelve months preceding the introduction of the Bill with the 26 existing metropolitan boroughs or through the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee. I do not know whether it is news to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, but there is a very large field of disagreement between these boroughs. Eventually they may come to a majority agreement—a majority which, even when the Bill is introduced into Parliament, leads very often to quite strong differences of opinion which are expressed in another place or in your Lordships' House.

I myself recall a matter as simple as regulations for street traders, where there was a strong difference of opinion and where I was personally responsible for the London County Council's agreeing to delete something like three whole clauses, consisting of pages and pages of that proposed General Powers Bill. The noble Lord now asks—and I took his words down—why it is that I expect the boroughs to be so quarrelsome that they cannot come to an agreement, and he said "Really, my Lords!"—in a way that one does when one is expressing disapproval of something unreasonable. I say "Really, my Lords, it astounds me that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has so little knowledge of London government in this respect".

It is not a question of being quarrelsome. The people who come together in these discussions have real, active, live knowledge and concern for the areas in which they live, and they are not, and their requirements and needs are not, precisely the same. They are not quarrelsome about it but they express the needs of the citizens they represent to the best of their knowledge and belief and in the interests of the people they represent. Eventually they come to a compromise on the best solution. I am saying that, so far as metropolitan London—which we are beginning, unwillingly, to call inner London—is concerned, the best system of disposal of nauseous matter is the one which has been agreed and is now awaiting only the formal approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That is the system which, unless these three Amendments are accepted, will be entirely disrupted, and throw away the results of twenty years of negotiations and the experience of all these people. I would say—and we are not going to give way on this—that anyone with knowledge of this matter, anyone who has heard the arguments, cannot possibly vote against these Amendments. I hope they will be even more determined about this matter and that they will accompany my noble friends and myself into the Lobby to vote for the Amendment.

9.41 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 139) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L.
Archibald, L.	Longford, E.	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Henderson, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Devonshire, D.	Margesson, V.
Abinger, L.	Falmouth, V.	Merrivale, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Ferrers, E.	Mersey, V.
Albemarle, E.	Fortescue, E.	Mills, V.
Ampthill, L.	Glentanar, L.	Milverton, L.
Auckland, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Monk Bretton, L.
Chelmer, L.	Grenfell, L.	Newton, L.
Chesham, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Ormonde, M.
Cholmondeley, M.	Hanworth, V.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Colgrain, L.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Hawke, L.	Sandys, L.
Colyton, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Strathclyde, L.
Craigton, L.	Jessel, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Denham, L.	Lothian, M.	Waldegrave, E.
Derwent, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.50 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after paragraph 21, to insert: 22. Section 198 in its application to Greater London shall have effect as if any reference to a local authority were a reference to the Greater London Council and to no other authority. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 141 and, with permission, I would speak also to No. 141A. When this Bill was first introduced into another place, it provided that the authority for the provision of mortuaries and post-mortem rooms should be the Greater London Council. This position was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. He did not give us any reason for the change, except that a number of the outer boroughs that were being brought into the area which are at present public mortuary authorities prefer that the position should remain; and the Government then decided to omit those words from this provision. In other words, basically, we are now back to the present position in London, and I believe throughout the country, where the boroughs are the public mortuary authorities.

On the Committee stage, on the Question, "That Clause 40 stand part", I raised the unsatisfactory position of public mortuaries and post-mortem rooms in the London area. I pointed out that these public mortuaries provide two services. In the first instance, they provide the last resting place for a deceased person—and I think the Committee shared my view then that that type of facility should obviously have some dignity, considering the sad event. The public mortuaries also provide a further service in the interests of the community, and that is the provision of the proper facilities in the post-mortem rooms in which the pathologists and their staff have to work. This type of service is necessary. Perhaps the first thing that springs to one's mind is the detection of murder or suicide, or other forms of crime; but there are also the prevention and detection of disease. Therefore, I think the House will recognise that these post-mortem rooms constitute an important part of our general health and legal service.

We have a case in London whereby the coroner is appointed by the Home Secretary. He is, however, housed in a court and provided with staff by the London County Council; and I presume that once this Bill has passed this will be done by the Greater London Council. The coroner will order an autopsy and pay the pathologist's fee. Therefore we have the case of the coroner and the Greater London Council (or the London County Council, as it is now) being called upon to provide all the services connected with a post-mortem, with the exception of ensuring that the facilities, the standard of accommodation—and perhaps the instruments—are provided.

On the Committee stage I read a letter I had received from Dr. Francis Camps, one of the leading pathologists in the country. He referred to the present position in London as very unsatisfactory. He said that in many cases it was extravagant, in the sense that the boroughs were being called upon to provide services which if provided jointly, might be provided on a more economic basis. He also said that what is being provided is inefficient. He then referred to the working conditions of the employees of the authority, and he used these words: I would have thought these were intolerable". He then went on to refer to the question of pay.

I raised this point with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I suggested that one of the probems was that the boroughs themselves were of such a size that they found the provision onerous upon them. I believe that in many cases boroughs get together to provide a joint service, but there are others who do not do so for one reason or another. I put this position fairly and squarely to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and he agreed to consider it between the two stages of the Bill. I have had a letter in reply from the noble Lord, and I am grateful to him for it. I will not read it, but I am sure he will not mind if I state at least the basis of his letter.

The noble Lord agreed that the standards in most of the mortuaries and post-mortem rooms throughout the country—not just in London—were unsatisfactory. But, as the London boroughs were being made larger and were having this responsibility placed upon them, he saw no reason why they should not be in a position to provide this service. The noble Lord admitted in his letter that boroughs of comparable size to those in London were not providing a satisfactory service at the present time. Therefore, I question whether we can take much heart in the Government's suggestion that the size of London boroughs is sufficient to secure the standard of service which pathologists and, I think, the general public would expect to see in these rooms.

I have taken advice where one can receive it in this matter. There are some who feel that post-mortem rooms in particular, which are part of the legal service of this country, should be supplied and maintained by the Home Office as part of police detection. I do not think I would go quite so far as that, but there is some point to it in the sense that coroners use these rooms in most of the cases where postmortems take place. Therefore, there would be a case for bringing this facility under the control of the Home Secretary. No doubt we should then see the Home Office raise its standards. I feel that this is something which local authorities should provide, but from the advice and guidance that I have received it seems to me that this is something which should be provided by at least a county size authority, because they would have the need (shall I say?) for providing this facility for a wide area. I would not object.

I think there is some point in saying that a mortuary to which bodies of a borough pass for resting until final burial might well remain with a local borough. I think there is some case for that. But when one comes to the type of service—the lighting, water, instruments and many other things which are connected with post-mortem work—it seems to me that it would not be practical for a borough to provide that type of service which is not always being used every day or every week. It may not be. Therefore, it would seem to be far more efficient to see that that facility was provided to cover a fairly wide area. I cannot see any difficulty, because the coroner becomes the custodian of a body when he makes his order for a post-mortem. There would be no difficulty in transferring the body from one part of London to a central post-mortem room.

My Lords, I must reject the idea that the Home Office should be the authority for post-mortem rooms. Therefore, having equally found, I think, that the boroughs themselves are not in a position to provide this service—and, even if they were called upon to do so, it would be an extravagant way of proceeding—one then comes back to what is the next authority. Obviously, it is somewhere between the borough and the Central Government, which is the county council—or, in this particular area, the Greater London Council.

I hope that the Government will be able to respond to me in one way or another this evening. My first Amendment, No. 141, reverts to the position obtaining when the Bill was introduced into another place: that the Greater London Council should become the particular authority. But if the Government cannot go as far as that I should certainly need to press them in regard to the second Amendment. This would mean that where boroughs are now providing a post-mortem room and a mortuary, they could continue to do so. That would be their duty, and to their choice, but it would at least give power to the Greater London Council, if they thought fit, to set up perhaps one, two or three really first-rate post-mortem buildings and facilities. I think, from the information that has come to me that this would be very much welcomed by the pathologists in London. The work of pathologists is very exacting and detailed and they need the proper facilities in which to do it efficiently. I believe that perhaps two or three first-class buildings, with all the equipment and properly staffed, would, in fact, meet the wishes and the needs of the Greater London area. I suggest that these should be provided by the Greater London Council. The cost, of course, would be borne by all the boroughs, according to their share on the rate.

I therefore put the choice. I should like the Government to accept one of these two Amendments. At the present moment I myself prefer No. 141A, which would at least mean that the boroughs could retain their own public mortuaries and, if they so wished, retain their own post-mortem room, but it would then make it possible for the Greater London Council, no doubt with the advice and guidance of the Home Office, to provide the central facilities for this very valuable and important service. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 190, line 36, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)

10.4 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the proceedings on Committee stage when I revealed the fact that the Greater London Council had at one stage been considered as the appropriate authority in respect of mortuary services. I was looking up the reference (though unfortunately, I failed to find it) while the noble Lord was speaking, and I cannot remember actually giving the reason, as he said I had, that there had been objections from the outer London boroughs. Whether that was the case or not, it was, in fact, a mistake that the clause in that form found its way into the Bill in another place. It had previously been agreed, actually before the drafting of the Bill, that that should not be the situation, and therefore the clause was left out in another place, actually without any comment. That is how it happened. It was a misunderstanding.

This is a very difficult and highly technical subject, which we discussed at some length on the previous occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd said, I have written him a letter. After considering the matter very carefully, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, after consultation with the Home Office, felt that there had to be a very good reason indeed if these services were not to be handled by the boroughs. We could see no reason to suppose that, even if the Greater London Council were given these powers, they would necessarily be more successful in bringing up the standards. And we are not disagreeing on that particular point: that the standards are not in all cases what they should be. The fact is, of course, that many hundreds of local authorities all over the country have these powers, and it would be surprising if the quality of the facilities offered by some did not fall below the general average, or even below what is acceptable in some cases. But these shortcomings are not, of course, as I think we agreed on the previous occasion, confined to the Greater London area. We feel that it would not be the right answer to deprive the London boroughs of these powers, since they will be among the biggest boroughs in the country and better able to cope with this comparatively minor service than any other authority in the country which is and will continue to be entitled to provide mortuaries.

We have thought about this matter again since the noble Lord received his letter, and since he gave me to understand that he was not altogether satisfied with it. I think there is something which could be done about standards generally in the country as a whole. I think it would be a good thing if my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government (and naturally he has been consulted about this) were to arrange discussions with the local authority associations and the professional bodies concerned—including, naturally, the pathologists—with a view to seeing exactly where improvements are most needed and what guidance and advice can be given to local authorities generally, and not merely those in Greater London. Noble Lords opposite will remember that a working party was set up in the early 1950's to examine the planning of mortuaries and post-mortem rooms, and a memorandum of advice was issued to local authorities in 1956 and has unquestionably proved very useful. We feel that perhaps the time has come to reinforce that advice, and my right honourable friend is perfectly willing—and I am able to give this assurance—that these further consultations will be held, covering the country as a whole.

I hope that in view of that undertaking the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his Amendment. At this stage, and in the present uncertain position, we do not see our way to accept either of these Amendments. We are prepared to hold further discussions on this matter, even in the short time between now and Third Reading, but I cannot give any commitment or hold out any hope that I shall be able to bring back a better answer at Third Reading. But I can say that we will hold these consultations with the whole country in mind to see what can be done to arrive at the proper standards which should be aimed at, and we are considering how those standards can be achieved.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for his reply. I will respond and not at present put the Amendment to a Division I prefer to have it negatived. I think that this is a matter of very considerable importance, and not only for London. I think that later on in the Bill we shall find in what we are achieving for London that we may be making some headway so far as the rest of the country is concerned. If we find that this debate on this subject can do something to improve what is obviously an unsatisfactory position in the rest of the country, our time will not have been ill spent. I hope that the noble Lord will carefully consider this matter, particularly in connection with the pathologists who are the people who have to make use of these facilities. In those circumstances, I should prefer the Amendment to be negatived rather than withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, Part XI of the Public Health Act. 1936, deals with the cleansing of watercourses and gives borough and district councils power to deal with streams and culverts which become stagnant because they are choked with weeds, mud, rubbish, et cetera. The council may require the landowner to take the necessary action or may, alternatively, do any necessary work themselves. The purpose of this Amendment is, quite simply, to place the Greater London Council in the same position as other land drainage authorities on this particular point, so that London borough councils will be required to consult the Greater London Council before taking any action under Part XI of the Public Health Act, 1936, with regard to any of the metropolitan watercourses. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 190, line 37, leave out from ("(1)") to ("Greater") in line 38 and insert— ("(i) the references to a land drainage authority shall include references to the").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should like to suggest that we should consider together this Amendment and Amendment No. 226, the last Amendment on the Marshalled List, which is to Schedule No. 18. They flow from the decision which we took on Committee to make the Greater London Council responsible for the licensing of stores of petrol throughout Greater London. Section 73 of the Public Health Act, 1961, gives local authorities powers to require the occupier or owner of premises containing fixed tanks which have been, but are no longer, used for the storage of petrol, to take any steps reasonably necessary to prevent danger from those tanks. The present effect of Clause 40 and Schedule 11 under this Bill would confer the power under Section 73 on the London boroughs. This provision was also consistent with the original provision in the Bill to make the boroughs responsible as the petrol licensing authorities.

However, in view of the Amendment which we made on Committee, we now think it would be right and reasonable to give the Greater London Council rather than the boroughs power to deal with the disused petrol tanks. The petrol licensing authority, which will be the Greater London Council, is, we feel, in a better position to know of all the premises where tanks are installed and when any tanks cease to be used. This is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 192, line 22, at end insert— ("37A. In section 73, in its application to Greater London, any reference to a local authority shall be construed as a reference to the Greater London council alone.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, Amendment No. 142A, which stands in my name is not going to be moved, and I will explain why. It was to adapt Section 18 of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913. It now seems that this section can be completely repealed, and we propose to put down on Third Reading an Amendment to this effect.

10.16 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment, No. 143, should be taken together with No. 145. Schedule 18 of the Bill proposes the repeal of Section 68 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1961. This is actually in response to an Amendment put down on Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He proposed to retain Section 68, and withdrew his Amendment then on my undertaking that we would put the substance of that section into the Bill itself. This we are now doing. It fulfils the undertaking, and we claim that it improves on the Opposition's proposal, for, whereas Section 68 applies only to metropolitan boroughs, the powers contained in this Amendment and No. 145 will be available to all the London boroughs. I beg to move

Amendment moved—

Page 192, line 30, leave out ("PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) ACT 1936") and insert ("ENACTMENTS RELATING TO PUBLIC HEALTH IN LONDON").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I must respond to the noble Lord and thank him very much for this concession. Perhaps it is something to make up for the hours we have spent here. Perhaps, as we go along, we may be able to get a little bit more.

LORD HASTINGS

You have had quite a lot already!

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I mentioned this Amendment briefly when replying to a previous Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Under Section 84(2)(c) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, the London County Council have certain powers to make by-laws connected with refuse disposal. These powers are slightly wider than those exercisable by local authorities generally under the Public Health Act. The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that by-laws in the Greater London Area can, in future, cover all the aspects at present dealt with in by-laws made by the London County Council. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 193, line 48, at end insert:— ("5A. The council of any London borough and the Common Council may make byelaws with respect to the following operations, except when carried out by a local authority (including the Greater London Council) and except so far as byelaws with respect thereto may be made under section 72 or 82 of the Public Health Act 1936, that is to say—

1. (a) the removal of refuse from premises in the council's area;
2. (b) the conveyance of refuse by rail, road or water from loading points in that area;
3. (c) the deposit of refuse in premises in that area pending its removal or disposal").(Lord Hastings.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord mentioned that this Amendment goes some way towards the one I moved in Amendments 139, 140 and 144. We are at least grateful for that. Of course, it does not go nearly as far as I should like. As I understand it, this Amendment will mean that the by-law making powers on this subject which at present reside in the London County Council will be transferred to the Greater London Council. Is that the point?

LORD HASTINGS

No. The amendment reads: The council of any London borough and the Common Council may make byelaws with respect to these matters.

LORD STONHAM

So it means, therefore, that on this particular matter we are still in the position that we have 12, or in fact 13, authorities who can exercise by-law making powers in this respect, and not, as at present, where we have just the one authority, the London County Council. My noble friends will not, I think, oppose this particular Amendment, but I am bound to say that we regard it as representing a most unsatisfactory situation which does not anything like meet the position that we had hoped would arise; nor indeed does it meet the needs of the situation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was good enough to agree. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 194, line 12, at end insert— ("7A.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority, being the council of a London borough or the Common Council, that any land within the area of the authority is by reason of its derelict, neglected or unsightly condition detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, the authority may, after serving notice of their proposals on the owner and on the occupier of the land and subject to sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph, execute such works and do such other things as the council consider expedient for the purpose of restoring or improving and thereafter preserving the appearance of the land:

Provided that the works and other things which may be required to be executed or done under this paragraph shall not include the erection or maintenance of any building or the doing of anything in or upon any building, but may include the erection or maintenance of a hoarding or fence.

(2) Any person served with a notice under the foregoing sub-paragraph may, if aggrieved by the proposal specified in the notice, appeal to a magistrates' court within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the service of the notice.

(3) A local authority may proceed with the proposals specified in a notice under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph if but only if—

1. (a) none of the persons on whom the notice was served has, within the said period of twenty-eight days, taken steps to implement the proposals himself or instituted an appeal against the proposals to a magistrates' court; or
2. (b) any such steps begun to be taken by any such person within that period are not completed within a reasonable time; or
3. (c) any appeal instituted within that period has been dismissed or abandoned or failed for want of prosecution.

(4) Any expenses incurred by the local authority in removing any materials from any land in exercise of the powers conferred on them by this paragraph and the cost of selling any materials so removed may be deducted by the authority from the proceeds which they are required by section 276 of the Public Health Act 1936 to pay to the person to whom the materials belonged.

(5) The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall not be construed as prejudicing the powers exercisable by the Greater London Council under section 69 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939, or by the council of an outer London borough under section 27 of the Public Health Act 1961, or by the local planning authority under section 89 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I thought, since we had reached the end of the Schedule, that, subject to what the Government may think, this might be a convenient point to adjourn the Report stage until to-morrow.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am naturally anxious to respond to the noble Lord. I think this probably would be a natural break, although I must say that I am a little disappointed at the rather slow progress which we have made throughout a number of rather arduous hours to-day, and we have left ourselves quite a big chunk to bite off to-morrow. Nevertheless, I beg to move that the Report stage be now adjourned.

Moved, That the Report stage be now adjourned.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.