LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

HL Deb 02 July 1963 vol 251 cc681-878

4.27 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, we now return to the London Government Bill, and to Amendment No. 151, moved by the noble Lady, Baroness Summerskill. May I deal with two points of detail? The first one was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who asked what is likely to be the position of the voluntary clubs at present in London for mentally disordered persons. I have no reason to suppose that these clubs and the organisation responsible for them will not be able to have the same relationship with the London boroughs as they have with the London County Council now. On the second point, also a matter of the emergency services, I see no reason to suppose that the London boroughs should not be able to provide all-round-the-clock service by having a rota of mental welfare officers to deal with emergency cases, some of which may involve admission to hospital.

LORD STONHAM

I would ask the noble Lord if, when he is speaking of voluntary clubs enjoying the same arrangements as before, he would include grant aid.

LORD NEWTON

There is no reason to see why they should not, but I should like to look at that. This Amendment was debated in committee and it is an Amendment which affects the principles of the Bill. There is no question of this Amendment improving the detailed administration of any services, because what it seeks to do is to divorce the community services for the care and aftercare of mentally disordered people from the other personal health services. This would be something quite new.

In a speech to-day, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has accused the Government, as he did on Committee, of treating mentally handicapped children, who, he said, cannot speak for themselves, and never will be able to, as guinea pigs. He went on to say that what we are proposing in this Bill is an experiment on these children. That is not so. It is precisely the Amendment of the noble Baroness which is proposing an experiment, to which these children and other mentally disordered persons will be subjected, because it proposes that their care and after-care should be divorced from other personal health services of the local authority. That is something which we are not prepared to accept. The reason why we take that view is that mentally subnormal children and adults, and the mentally ill who are not in hospital, need and receive help from almost every part of a local authority's health and welfare services, and many of the most important are not provided under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, the only section of the Act with which this Amendment is concerned. For example, as part of the services for mothers and young children, which are provided under Section 22 of the Act, children brought to child welfare clinics may be identified as mentally handicapped. Others may be identified by the general practitioners and the health visitors who visit mothers and young children in their homes; and the health visitors come under Section 24.

Advice to the parents on how to deal with the problems of a handicapped child may be given at the child welfare clinics or by the health visitors and general practitioners visiting the home. The child's progress during the first five years of his life can continue to be watched at the child welfare clinic. Signs of emotional disturbance either in a child or in the mother can also be seen and dealt with through these clinics or (in the case of the mother) through the ante-natal services. All of this—apart from the general practitioner service—is provided under Section 22 or 24 of the Act. Again, families in which there is a severely subnormal child or adult, or a mentally infirm old person, often need a home-help. Home-helps are provided under Section 29 of the Act.

Elderly people with a degree of mental infirmity which does not require admission to hospital and elderly patients who have been discharged after psychiatric treatment in hospital may need accommodation in a local authority old persons' home. Most local authorities, including the London County Council, provide such accommodation under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act. Mental disorder is one of the forms of handicap which makes a person eligible for welfare services under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act.

If the Amendments were written into the Bill, the Greater London Council could, I agree, provide most o the services I have mentioned under Section 28, but this would mean withdrawing all interest in mental health from the general maternity and child health services and from the general services for the elderly and the handicapped, which, under the Bill, will be the responsibility of the boroughs. It would be a reversion to the segregation of mental health services from other health services which existed in practice until 1948, under the old Lunacy Acts and Mental Deficiency Acts, which Parliament, in its wisdom, has repealed as outmoded and obsolete. I cannot imagine that anyone interested in the advance of the treatment of mental disorder would wish a return to those days when mental illness was treated as somethig quite different from other forms of illness.

Apart from that, I believe that, if I were to invite your Lordships to accept these Amendments and if they were written into the Bill, there would be administrative chaos. I know as well as anybody that doctors, nurses and social workers are pretty good at managing to provide a reasonably efficient service, even under an administrative system which puts difficulties in their way, but I believe that if these Amendments were incorporated in the Bill they would produce a situation with which these people could not cope. Let me explain why I say that.

Social workers visiting the homes of families where there is a mentally ill or mentally subnormal person to advise on the problems arising from the presence of that person in the family would be working in administrative isolation from other social workers and nurses visiting the home to deal with other aspects of the same family's problems—and, indeed, with other aspects of that mentally disordered person's own problems, because a mentally disordered person is not a person who has no problems other than his mental disability. In respect of his physical health a subnormal child needs the same services that all children need. A mentally disordered old person has all the physical problems of old age, as well as the special problems of some degree of mental illness, infirmity or subnormality. These physical needs would have to continue to be met, if these Amendments were accepted, by the new London boroughs and their staff, while the Greater London Council and their staff would deal, in whole or in part, with those needs of the same people which were attributed to their mental disorder. Surely that would be an absurd situation. It really puts an enormous burden on those charged with the responsibility of the administration of these services. I would say to the House, as I did in Committee, that these Amendments are unacceptable.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I must say that on this occasion the noble Lord has used rather reckless language. I never thought that I should sit here and hear any noble Lord charge me with wanting to put mental health back before 1948. The noble Lord knows that I was in charge of the new Mental Health Act, and I am proud of it. In my opening speech, I said that we must reorientate and welcome into the community those suffering from mental disorders and must no longer institutionalise them. For the noble Lord, in order to make a point, and in an attempt to persuade his noble friends to vote against me, to charge me with harbouring such a thought, absolutely astonishes me. I think that every Conservative Member of your Lordships' House knows me well enough not to think that I would try to persuade him to accept such a retrograde measure as described by the noble Lord. That is incredible.

Under the National Health Service, a child or old person can be treated administratively so as to have the use of all personal health services. Of course, these services can be combined. Does the noble Lord realise that what I am talking about here is administration? Does he appreciate that the national insurance service and the mother and child welfare service can be used and integrated with any of the mental health services? What I am suggesting is that, now that we have the new Mental Health Act, we must do everything in our power to see that we do not destroy the service which has already been established by the L.C.C. That is all I am appealing for. In his answer, the noble Lord emphasised that the officials would be upset. But the people we have to consider first here are the patients—the mentally defective, the psychopaths and all those suffering from some mental disability. They are our primary concern, and if we risk upsetting officials—well, they must put up with that.

The other thing I want to say is this—and I must confess that I was so astonished that I shall ask my noble friends to divide. How does the noble Lord propose to solve the need for an emergency service? The noble Lord looks

at his brief and says that he will ask the mental welfare officers to form a rota, and they can serve during the weekend and at nights. Does he realise that that is a retrograde step? For instance, the idea of doctors working at nights is a curious and old-fashioned arrangement, and although it is still accepted, the doctors are murmuring against it. A mental welfare officer is subjected to great strain, because he is dealing with people who are unbalanced, and who, among other things, use reckless language to him to which in no circumstances can he ever respond in the same manner.

Here are special workers in our community, subjected to great strain; and the noble Lord, in answer to my inquiry as to how the emergency calls will be dealt with if we do not have a central authority, says: "We will put them on night work; they can work in the holidays and at weekends". This is a category of workers who should be defended. The noble Lord should say that in no circumstances will these men be exposed to greater strain. This is the solution of the problem! I must ask my noble friends—and I would ask noble Lords on the opposite side, too—having heard what the noble Lord has had to say, to come into the Division Lobby with us and vote for my Amendment.

4.43 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 151) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 68.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Latham, L.	Rusholme, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lawson, L.	Shackleton, L.
Amwell, L.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Arran, E.	Listowel, E.	Sinha, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Longford, E.	Stonham, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Meston, L.	Swanborough, B.
Chorley, L.	Middleton, L.	Walston, L.
Clwyd, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Williams, L.
Crook, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Williamson, L.
Henderson, L.	Ogmore, L.	Wise, L.
Killearn, L.	Rea, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Carrington, L.	Denham, L. [Teller.]
Ailwyn, L.	Colville of Culross, V.	Derwent, L.
Albemarle, E.	Colyton, L.	Devonshire, D.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Conesford, L.	Dudley, L.
Ampthill, L.	Craigton, L.	Dundee, E.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Cromartie, E.	Ebbisham, L.
Bridgeman, V.	De La Warr, E.	Eccles, L.
Ferrers, E. [Teller.]	Jessel, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Forster of Harraby, L.	Limerick, E.	St. Oswald, L.
Fortescue, E.	Long, V.	Salisbury, M.
Freyberg, L.	Lothian, M.	Salter, L.
Gage, V.	MacAndrew, L.	Sandford, L.
Glentanar, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Sandys, L.
Goschen, V.	Mancroft, L.	Somers, L.
Grenfell, L.	Margesson, V.	Soulbury, V.
Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Strathclyde, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Mersey, V.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Hanworth, V.	Milverton, L.	Suffield, L.
Hastings, L.	Molson, L.	Swinton, E.
Home, E.	Monsell, V.	Teynharn, L.
Howard of Glossop, L.	Newton, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Poulett, E.	Twining, L.
Jellicoe, E.	Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 46 [Accommodation and welfare of disabled and old persons, etc.]:

LORD WALSTON moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert: Subject to subsection (4) of this section".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak also to Amendment 155, for which this Amendment, No. 152, is a paving Amendment. When this point was raised in Committee there was general agreement on the importance of this particular problem of the homeless in London. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating in any detail the arguments which were brought forward at that time. My noble friend Lord Longford has already told us that repetition is inclined to dull the wits, and I certainly would not want to be in any way party to dulling the wits of noble Lords on either side of the House. For all that, I should like to emphasise the very human problem that arises from this question of the London homeless.

There are various causes which lead to it. There are those who, for some reason or another, find themselves suddenly without a house; there are those who have had disagreement with their landlords, who are unable to pay the rent and have been evicted—those who cannot be dealt with immediately by the normal channels—and there are those who find themselves in London and cannot find accommodation. There are those who, by reason of a sudden emergency, such as fire or flood, find themselves without a house of any kind. And, of course, there are from time to time those who are discharged from prison and, for one reason or another, are not looked after by the bodies al- ready in existence for that sort of thing; and those who come out of hospital, particularly alcoholics discharged from hospital treatment, who may find themselves homeless. There are many other causes.

The point that must be borne in mind is that, in spite of the very real human problems which exist in these circumstances, they are not on a sufficiently large scale to make it possible for any individual local authority to have an adequate organisation to cope with them. In order to cope adequately, it must be done on a much wider scale, as has been done up to now by the London County Council. To expect that each of the new proposed local authorities would be able to set up an organisation to deal with these rather special but, none the less, important cases of individual hardship, would be to place too great a burden on them.

I do not think I am misrepresenting the Government when I say that, in the debate of May 27, it was agreed by the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government that this was an important problem and an essential service which had to be provided. But the noble Lord who spoke for the Government on that occasion advised your Lordships—and I am sorry to say your Lordships listened to his advice—to reject the Amendment on two grounds. The first ground was that there should be no division of responsibility in this question of providing temporary housing accommodation as between the sudden or emergency need for it and the rather more foreseeable need. The second ground arose from the fact that under the proposed Amendments, if adopted, there would be differences of treatment as between the inner and outer London boroughs. The fresh Amendments to which I am now speaking seek to dispose of the first major criticism that the Government put forward, and I hope that this will be taken as an earnest of our desire on this side not simply to push at a door which has already been slammed and bolted but to listen to the arguments the Government have put forward, even if they do not listen to ours, and do our best to meet them by a fresh form of Amendment.

These two Amendments meet the criticisms of the Government—namely, that one authority should deal with all three groups of homeless, as was specified then: that is, those who were faced with sudden emergency, such as fire or flood; those who were homeless because of their peculiar family problems, the inadequacy of the family provisions; and those families who had to leave their houses, being evicted by landlords because of failure to pay rent. This Amendment copes with that, and brings all these three reasons under the one method of dealing with the problem through one inner London authority, thereby still achieving what we on this side consider to be essential—that this particular problem should be dealt with on a larger basis than that of a pure local borough council, for the reasons which I have already given and which I shall not repeat to your Lordships—but, at the same time, meeting the criticism of the Government that it would be a mistake to deal with one of these three reasons for homelessness separately from the other two.

The other point is, perhaps, from the Government's point of view, not quite so adequately dealt with, though I hope they will agree it is dealt with adequately enough. I am quite certain in any case that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will be able to accept the fact that this Amendment deals with the first of his criticisms. Therefore, I hope that he will be able to announce his acceptance of this in principle. The second point—namely, that there would then be a difference between the inner London boroughs, including the City, and the outer London boroughs, is possibly not answered in quite such a clear manner, because, frankly, this Amendment does not deal with that in any way at all. The reason for that is twofold. In the first place, we maintain that this problem of homelessness of this particular type is one which is found almost entirely in the centre of London in the inner London boroughs and is, to all intents and purposes, non-existent in the outer London boroughs. Therefore, there is no great need to strive after uniformity as between inner and outer London simply for the sake of achieving uniformity and nothing else.

The second reason is, as I understand it, that uniformity could be achieved, if the authority was so willing, under the provisions of Clause 21(5), under which, until the Minister orders otherwise—and there is no reason why he should so order—the Greater London Council is empowered to exercise the housing powers of the local authority referred to in Clause 21(1) of the Bill in any circumstance in which the London County Council might have exercised them. So, in fact, if this argument about uniformity is considered to be serious and the Government feel it is essential that there should be uniformity as between the inner London group and the outer London group, even in a case of this sort where we feel it is not of the greatest importance, then the powers already exist, as I understand it, under Clause 21 to ensure that such uniformity does take place.

As I say, I will not weary your Lordships with repeating the reasons why we consider that this is a highly important Amendment, but I ask you to cast your minds back once more to the arguments put forward when this was debated in Committee and to realise the very real amount of human suffering which takes place even now but which would be much greater if the plight of these unfortunate homeless people were not dealt with as efficiently as possible. I ask you also to remember that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on that occasion admitted that under the proposed regulations in the unamended Bill, in his own words, "there would be a certain amount of 'buck passing'"; and that, I think, is the greatest argument in favour of these Amendments: that they abolish the danger of "buck passing" which all of us know, although it is something we can joke about from time to time, is very far from a joke if you are the person or the family which is being affected by the passing of the buck. Therefore I ask your Lordships and the Government, in view of our attempt to meet their objections in this case by putting forward amended Amendments, to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 37, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Walston.)

5.2 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, the noble Lord in the earlier part of his speech instanced the various kinds of people who may find themselves temporarily homeless. I think it is fair to say that there are really two aspects of the services for providing temporary accommodation under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act, and that those aspects embrace all the kinds of people with whom the noble Lord is concerned. The first aspect is the need to provide temporary accommodation, effective rehabilitation, and, ultimately, rehousing for those who are usually called the "inadequate" or "problem" families; that is to say, those families who lose their existing accommodation because they fail to pay their rent or because their living standards are very low. Here, the key word is "rehabilitation". The second aspect is the need to rehouse from temporary accommodation, as quickly as possible, those ordinary families (if I may so describe them) who have had to leave their houses for whatever reason before they have been able to find other accommodation within their means. Here, the key word is "rehoused'. Throughout most of the country the need for temporary accommodation arises from the first aspect; that is to say, the aspect of the inadequate or problem family. But in London, and I would say the whole of London and would not just restrict it to inner London as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, did—

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord will agree that, mainly, the problem is in inner London?

LORD NEWTON

I think I would say that in London as a whole and in a few other large centres of population the main need arises from the second aspect, which I called the ordinary family. This was emphasised in the report of the research team to the committee of inquiry appointed by the London County Council to study the underlying causes of the increase of homelessness in the county. As a result, the London County Council decided to transfer the management of short-stay accommodation for the homeless to their Housing Department, though responsibility for its provision still remains with the Welfare Committee. This seems to me to illustrate the "one-ness", if I may so put it, of welfare and housing and proves the point which I tried to make at Committee stage that it is right, as proposed by the Government, to convey both functions to the same authority—in other words, to the London borough councils.

For both my two groups of people who need temporary accommodation under Section 21, what is needed more than anything else is the closest possible co-operation between the personal health and welfare services, together with housing services and often with child care as well. The process must be a continuous one from the point where the family is admitted to temporary accommodation to the point where they can ultimately be re-housed permanently, or more or less permanently. For those who need rehabilitation, all the range of services will be required from temporary accommodation, which is a welfare service; social workers (health, welfare or child care workers); specially trained home helps, which is a health service; intermediate housing and, finally, rehousing, which are housing services and not welfare services. Those who do not need rehabilitation may still require some form of help to begin with, and perhaps later, from the health, welfare and child care services; but what they will need most is help from the housing services, since their paramount need is for somewhere to live.

Experience has shown that the most effective way of bringing all these services to the families who need them is to place responsibility for them on one managing authority. The responsible authority must be equipped to analyse the needs of the families found homeless in their areas, to provide effective rehabilitation for those who need it, and to ensure that housing is forthcoming at the time when it is needed. In the reorganisation of local government in London this, in the view of the Government, is clearly a job for the London boroughs, not the Greater London Council, for it is the borough councils which are to be given responsibility for personal health, welfare and child care services, and are also, and most important of all, to be the primary housing authorities.

As your Lordships know very well, the housing powers of the Greater London Council are supplementary to those of the borough councils and if a borough council is in difficulty in providing the amount of housing required, this should be regarded by them as part of their general housing problem for which supplementary help is to be expected from the Greater London Council. So, I seriously wish to suggest to your Lordships that it would be a backward step for the development of services in inner London to take away responsibility for providing temporary accommodation from the authority primarily responsible for health, welfare, child care and housing. That authority at present is the London County Council; but under the reorganisation proposed it will be the new London borough councils. What we are trying to do in this Bill is to maintain this link and, in so doing, we are acting upon the cardinal paint which was made by the Royal Commission, and that is clearly why I do not feel able to advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walston.

5.10 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I think I can express the feeling of this side of the House as one of very considerable disappointment. The noble Lord, if I understood him aright, based his rejection on the two aspects to which he referred; those persons who are homeless because they are in need of rehabilitation, and secondly those who are homeless because of the question of rents and the like, which all contribute to the difficulties of persons finding homes in which to live. The noble Lord must be aware that there is another type of homeless family, unfortunately growing, because of the migration into London and South-East England of hundreds of men and women who come to London seeking employment. Some are able to find employment but are unable to find a home in which they can live. There are others who do not find the employment, and therefore have hardly any possibility of obtaining even a room to rent. This was a particular aspect that we considered on Committee. It has not been referred to this evening, but I am quite sure the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, from the Home Office, must be aware, from the police statistics, of the difficulties within the London area of this migration; and certainly they show this to be a growing problem.

We said on Committee that at the present time this particular burden is shared by the London County Council; it is shared in the sense that the whole of the London County Council area contributes to the cost of providing this particular and necessary service. But under the Government proposal this burden will fall directly upon the shoulders of one borough, or perhaps three particular boroughs—those located around the main railway termini. I sincerely ask your Lordships: do you believe that these particular boroughs, with their own housing problems, their own shortage of accommodation and shortage of space, will be able to hold empty the facilities in order to cope with the unexpected incomings and approach of these homeless persons looking for accommodation for the night, and perhaps for the weeks and months that lie ahead? If a borough was able to do it, I would say that it would be wrong for the one borough, or the three boroughs, to be singled out to provide this service, because this is not merely a borough problem and a borough responsibility: these persons have come to London as a whole looking for employment. In fact a very large number of the persons who are homeless to-day are not Londoners, as we know them.

I turn to the other point which the noble Lord made, in regard to the fact (and it sounds attractive as an argument) that the borough, because it is the housing authority, should be the right instrument—perhaps the perfect instrument according to the Government—for finding accommodation for those who are homeless, not because they are in need of rehabilitation but merely because they are newcomers and have obtained employment within the area. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, will agree that the vast majority in that category will have no residential qualification at all. They cannot say that they come from Lambeth, or from Westminster. They may have come from another part of London, but the noble Lord must know that boroughs, because of the tremendous demand for housing within their areas, have been bound to look for accommodation in the first instance, for the persons who have been on their own waiting lists.

As I said before, there is not a borough in the central part of London which has not a waiting list of over ten years. Do your Lordships really believe that the inner borough, with all its problems of slum clearance, the problem of finding homes for all those on its waiting list, would be able or even willing to give priority in the provision of homes to people who have no residential qualification? I frankly do not believe there is one local authority that would reject a case of extreme hardship, but as a matter of principle they could not give this privilege, this special right, to a homeless person over their own residents, over families where perhaps the daughter is married and is living with her parents. I cannot believe that they could as a matter of principle continually make that a practice. Therefore I do not believe that the boroughs, with all the good will in the world, will be able themselves to tackle this problem.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, when he says that all boroughs over the whole London area have the same type of problem, the same burden. I am quite sure that statistics would show that the problem of the homeless—the permanent homeless, in the sense of those permanently looking for accommodation, and the temporary homeless, those who have just come into the neighbourhood—will be found where populations are mainly concentrated, mainly around the main railway termini. These are, therefore, the inner boroughs. In the past the London County Council have provided what one might call a unified service to this end; they have provided this for the inner London area. We believe that this service should be continued.

It is true that we do not request it so far as the outer boroughs are concerned, but I do not believe that the temporary homeless, in particular, are nearly such a formidable problem there as in the inner London area. It is true that the outer areas have many people on waiting lists, many who do not have residential qualifications at all—people who wish to move outwards. But the outer boroughs are obviously in a better position to deal with this problem. The inner London boroughs are not only faced with the problem of finance; they are concerned mainly with the problem of space and building. If you have one authority, as we have at present in the London County Council, you have a degree of flexibility. Certainly there will be no question of "buck-passing". I think it is a terrible thing to contemplate, perhaps on a winter's night, some homeless people coming to a main railway station seeking shelter, and having to go from one borough to another seeking accommodation for the night. But that is what will follow if the Bill goes forward as the Government now propose.

At least to-day the homeless can, within a short space of time, be put in touch with the central authority, who will know what accommodation is available, and will be able to see that the person is given comfort as quickly as possible. None of that will be possible under the Bill as it stands—unless, of course, the Government feel that the boroughs themselves will get together to set up another Joint Committee. I do not believe that even that would work, because more and more would the problem be placed upon those boroughs who are willing to undertake the task. There will be dispute as to whether the burden is being shared properly. This is not a problem of London; it is a national problem, although London has become the focus. In my judgment, it is wrong that we should put the responsibility on a number of inner boroughs—because that is, in fact, what the Bill will be doing. I think that London, as our capital, should treat this as a national problem, and that London should try to bear the burden of these unfortunate people. I would support my noble friend if he decides to press this Amendment.

5.22 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, briefly to answer one point, and one point only, made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, he said that the key words were "rehabilitation" and "re-housing". With respect, that is no more than one of those comfortable clichés which sounds so well when you are sitting in an office or in front of a desk. But it is no use saying to a family, or to an individual, on one particular night, whether it is wet or dry, warm or cold, "We are interested in rehabilitating you. We are interested in re-housing you. That is our motive." The important thing for those people is that they should have shelter for that night. Of course, eventually they must be re-housed on a permanent basis. Eventually, if there is need for it, they must be rehabilitated—and it would be wrong to forget that. But the immediate need (and this is what we are dealing with to-day) is not this comfortable generalisation, but the actual method by which these individual people on that specific night can have a roof over their heads.

It will not be done by leaving it to the individual boroughs. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said, how can the individual boroughs of St. Pancras, of Marylebone, or wherever it may be, be expected to take on responsibility for all the people who come, not only to their boroughs but to the whole of London? They cannot do that, and it would be unreasonable for each borough to have

a suitable place to take whatever group of people may arrive, but which on many occasions will be standing completely empty. Manifestly, this is something which can be coped with by only two or three houses—Newington Lodge, and one or two others of that kind. That is sufficient. There is no need for every borough to have one. If we are simply to have two or three places provided, will it be the responsibility of the two or three boroughs in which the houses happen to be to look after these people, and the responsibility of the other boroughs to hunt around and find suitable places? Of course that is not the right way of doing it. Of course the logical, efficient, sensible way for anybody who is not wedded in a doctrinaire manner to every line, every dotted "i" and crossed "t" of this Bill as it stands, is to accept this Amendment. So I ask your Lordships to come with us into the Division Lobby, in the interests of those people who otherwise are going to be homeless on these unhappy occasions.

5.27 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 152) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24: Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Iddesleigh, E.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Shackleton, L.
Amwell, L.	Lawson, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lindgren, L.	Stonham, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Listowel, E.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Longford, E.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Williams, L.
Henderson, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.	Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Ferrers, E.	Mills, V.
Ailwyn, L.	Forster of Harraby, L.	Milverton, L.
Albemarle, E.	Fortescue, E.	Napier and Ettrick, L.
Aldington, L.	Gage, V.	Newton, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Ogmore, L.
Allerton, L.	Grenfell, L.	Poulett, E.
Amulree, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Hanworth, V.	St. Oswald, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Hastings, L.	Salisbury, M.
Carrington, L.	Hawke, L.	Salter, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Sandys, L.
Colyton, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Sinha, L.
Conesford, L.	Jessel, L.	Somers, L.
Craigton, L.	Long, V.	Soulbury, V.
Denham, L.	Lothian, M.	Strathclyde, L.
Derwent, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Devonshire, D.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Swinton, E.
Dudley, E.	Margesson, V.	Teynham, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Eccles, L.	Mersey, V.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from the beginning down to and including the word "City" and to insert: (1) Subject to subsection (8) of this section, the Greater London Council as respects the area of the inner London boroughs and the City, and the council of each outer London borough as respects the area of the outer London boroughs, shall—

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, and with your Lordships' agreement would speak to it and also to Amendments 154, 156, 157, 158 and 159, the latter really being the main Amendment of the series. It is an Amendment which aims at a five-year period for what we term the ordinary delegation of the individual welfare services. There is no particular merit in the period of five years. It appears to us merely to be a reasonable, sensible period, and ever since it became clear that, whether we liked it or not, the Government intended to press on regardless with the provisions in this Bill to which we object, we, for our part, tried our best to see whether we could ease the position in respect of services which the Government are proposing to break up or disintegrate. In other words, if we cannot stop the things which we think are wrong coming to pass, we want to try to secure that the Government's actions are subject to a reasonable period, designed to provide a more orderly and sensible transition than is proposed in the Bill. So here we desire to secure that the responsibilities of the L C.C. which the Government propose to give to the new authorities shall be delegated to them in this sensible fashion.

We are proposing that the Greater London Council shall have responsibility for these vital services for a five-year period and during that five-year period they may gradually be delegated in this orderly fashion to the boroughs, and the transfer will be completed by the end of the period. If the Bill is left as it is, it seems to us to be quite inevitable that the problems caused by the transfer will take even longer, because in the situation which will arise the pressure on members of the authority and on the staff of the authority will divert their energies to the detriment of the service.

May I invite your Lordships to look for a minute at the task of the new authorities under the Bill as now drafted; their need to determine and have ready for working a whole pattern of standing orders, committees, departmental and establishment structures. They will either have to retain existing staff or recruit new, and they will have to do that without any benefit of a central allocation and training arrangement on which the organisation depends to-day. They will have to prepare their estimate for the first year of active existence. If the timetable of the Bill as it is now submitted to your Lordships is carried out in the way envisaged it is our clear view that there must be a grave risk of breakdown in the welfare services of the entire London area. We shall hope to hear from the noble Lord what the justification is, because we did not hear it in Committee, but it is in fact far beyond our comprehension why the Government want to go ahead in this way. By doing so they are ignoring all the knowledge and experience of those at the L.C.C. who have dealt with these problems in the past. They have had practical experience in the complexity and difficulty of the transfer of functions, of which they had two experiences in 1948 when the problems were very simple compared with those facing the new Council of to-day.

What was then involved was integration and not fragmentation, for a start, and then the transfers that were being carried out were not transfers to new authorities just being created but to an already well-established authority, so we on this side of the House give this warning to the Government, based on the valuable experience of our friends of the L.C.C. It is that a balanced and coherent evaluation of these services of the county-wide welfare department of these thirteen new, separate authorities simply cannot be achieved by the 31st March, 1965, without serious detriment to the services involved. That, my Lords, would mean unjustified hardship to the old, to the homeless, to the handicapped and to all those others for whom the Council is at present under a statutory duty to provide.

During the last fourteen years, that is to say since the passage of the Assistance Act, 1948, the welfare services have been developed in relation to a county-wide need in the London area. To us, and I should hope to your Lordships on the other side of the House, it is manifest that these services cannot be recast in an effective way in the short space of a year or so envisaged in the Bill as it now stands, and moreover, my Lords, recast to meet an entirely different set of circumstances.

So far I have not sought to say anything to your Lordships of the nature of the welfare services because I am sure most of your Lordships, by your attendance here and your knowledge of the task in general, will know the details, so I will not keep you unduly by describing them. To sum up, they are these. The single effective service of the London County Council, stemming almost entirely from the National Assistance Act, 1948, to which I referred, is to be broken up. Two new inner London boroughs and the City of London will be responsible for those services in their own area, and the fragmentation will result in the deterioration in the quality and extent of the services for years to come. We feel that our five years would smooth out the difficulties and give some help to avoid what the Government propose.

If the clause as now presented to your Lordships becomes law, there will, in our view, be a number of fundamental problems. That, we believe, will be true even if we assume two vital things. The first is that there is willing co-operation between the proposed new authorities, whether it is by an agency or by a joint arrangement. The second is that the Minister will be prepared during that four-year period to direct them, when necessary, to have regard to the overall London position rather than to their own local problems. Your Lordships all know of the valuable work which the L.C.C. has been doing for these people: the arrangements for residential accommodation for old people which we think may now be in jeopardy under these proposals; temporary accommodation for homeless families, which we were discussing a few moments ago; and specialised services for handicapped people under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, which we see likely to suffer deterioration under the Bill as it now stands.

Then there are the difficulties which we think will arise in the home visiting and community care arrangements which are now so well done. Further, there is the problem of the break-up of the London scheme for the rehabilitation of the blind, the problem of the work of the Court of Protection (and I would remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Longford addressed your Lordships on that matter during Committee stage), and the provision of adequate transport for handicapped people, as to which one of my noble friends will be moving further Amendments shortly. We are not prepared to see any of these services die, nor are we prepared to see them reduced in quality or quantity from the level the people of London have come to expect and upon which they have been able to rely from the London County Council. We look for a continuation of them, and, in a desire to secure what we believe to be the orderly devolution of these functions, I beg to move this series of Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Crook.)

5.43 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 153 and the others which great reasonableness and sincerity, but I do not imagine he expects that on this occasion I shall be able to advise your Lordships to accept them. We debated exactly similar Amendments in Committee; earlier this afternoon we debated again similar Amendments which would delay transfer of the personal health services to the boroughs and provide for what the Amendment calls orderly delegation, in just the same way as these Amendments provide for delaying the transfer of the welfare services to the boroughs. We also debated in Committee a similar Amendment dealing with the personal health services.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the Report stage should be abolished? Does he not recall that the purpose of Report stage is to see whether we agree with what we have done in Committee?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I am not suggesting anything of the sort: far be it from me that I should. What I was going on to say was that, for that reason, the House clearly must be well aware by now of the general reasons why proposals of this kind are not acceptable to the Government. That is all. That is what I am saying, and I do not want to weary the House by repeating at great length exactly the same arguments as those which I advanced when we were debating the first Amendment this afternoon.

I could understand it if the purpose of these Amendments were to secure that the welfare services in inner London were never to be transferred to the boroughs, but that would not be the effect. The effect of these Amendments would be merely to delay this transfer for anything up to five years. So the question that has to be decided is whether or not delay of something which is going to happen anyhow is a good or bad thing. What I have been concerned to argue this afternoon, as I argued in Committee, is that it would be a bad thing. It would add to the uncertainty already felt by staffs about their future. There would have to be, for this period of up to five years, duplication of staffs run by the Greater London Council and by the boroughs doing the same work in looking after the welfare services. And the day would eventually come, under these Amendments, when the headquarters staff of the greater London Council would find themselves in a position when they no longer had any work to do. No doubt if this Amendment were accepted that thought would be exercising these people for anything up to a period of five years.

Moreover, it seems to me that the lengthy negotiations entailed in the process of delegation would almost certainly lead to friction between the authorities—something which nobody would consider a good thing, but which, if it occurred, would prevent the development of the services, which is something we all want to see. We firmly believe—and I have said this often enough—that there would be full time before April 1, 1965, for all the necessary staff appointments and administrative arrangements to be made. If noble Lords opposite do not agree about that, then it must remain one of the issues of contention between us. There is very little more that I can say on the subject which might convince them, but I do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, believes, that the clause as drafted will entail serious detriment to the services. Those, I think, were the words he used. Those are the reasons why I am unable to-day, as I was unable in Committee, to accept these Amendments.

Before I sit down I should like to say something about the Court of Protection and receiverships to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred at Committee stage. There does not seem to the Government to be any reason why the great majority, if not all, of the existing receiverships should not be transferred to an officer of the appropriate new authority with effect from April, 1965. Should this not be possible in all cases, it would nevertheless be possible for the appropriate Minister (probably my right honourable friend the Minister of Health) to make an order under Clause 83 of the Bill providing for London boroughs to take over responsibility, under Section 49 of the National Assistance Act, for the expenses of any local authority officer acting as receiver for a person resident in their area, with a view to one of their officers taking over the actual receivership in due course. The volume of work involved should be little more than that necessary on the normal retirement of an officer holding a receivership. It will be up to the Court to ensure that the costs of the transfer do not fall on the patient's estate. That is all rather complicated, but I hope that when the noble Lord has had a chance to read what I have said he will find it satisfactory. But in general, I must again advise your Lordships that the Amendments are not acceptable.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, if I intervened it was because I am getting a little weary of the repeated statements of Ministers on that Front Bench, that we ought not to bring these things up on Report because they are the same things as we brought up in Committee.

LORD NEWTON

I did not say that, and I have never said that.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That was the implication. There was a sort of irritation on the part of the noble Lord which I agree he keeps very well under control. But there was an indication of irritation, because we have brought up a somewhat similar Amendment to that which we brought up on Committee, and argued about on Committee, when the noble Lord said his piece, as duly instructed, which ought to be the end of it. That is complete contempt for Parliamentary procedure. I have often made a joke, when I have been lecturing on British Parliamentary democracy, that we have a Report stage on the Floor largely to see whether we agree with what the same people did on Committee stage, which may also have been on the Floor. There are two purposes of the Report stage. One is to reconsider the situation as it emerged from Committee and to put down similar Amendments; the other is to produce other Amendments which were forgotten on Committee, or which have arisen since the Committee stage. It is one of the guarantees against hasty legislation that we should have a Report stage and that it should be useful as well as the Committee stage.

The noble Lord is talking a little like some of our extreme Left-wingers who think that legislation ought to be pushed through like a sausage-machine, with great speed—a view which I have never accepted. It is quite wrong. I do not mind him moving to the Left, but do not let him move too far and irresponsibly to the foolish Left. That is not good. Therefore the Report stage means something. It means that we are examining what the Committee have done, and seeing whether we agree with what we did, even though we are the same people, and we can think of new things which ought to be done. Some of these Amendments which have been moved, although they are on the same subject, have been modified since the Committee stage.

LORD STONHAM

Some have been accepted.

LORD NEWTON

Not these.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I am not saying that they are. But, of course, that is a crime, from the point of view of the noble Lord, who says that we have no right on the Report stage to bring up the same Amendment and the same argument as we did on Committee. The trouble is that the noble Lord cannot think of a new argument. It is the same argument which the Government have duplicated, so that they have a copy available for the Report stage as well as for the Committee stage.

This is a sensible Amendment, as I think the other one was. It deals with a number of difficult, tricky social problems. Let us take the homeless, with whom the Tory Press were sympathising. There was a great outcry about the homeless in London, and it was right that there should be. I object to Tory reactionary newspapers suddenly trying to look progressive, especially if it will not cost them anything and there is a Labour L.C.C. But it was a tricky business. Largely as a consequence of the Rent Act of the present Home Secretary, who is a choice reactionary in this Government (I do not know who is the most reactionary, but he is a reactionary) a great number of people were pushed out of their homes, and some of that is still going on. There is a case in Bermondsey which is now being reported in the papers, in which my honourable friend Mr. Mellish is taking an active part. Property has been purchased by somebody else and things have got out of control, so the whole street has been given notice to quit and the poor things are worried to death. These things happen largely, though not entirely, because of the Tory Rent Act.

These homeless folks are a mixed lot. Some of them are tramps, or semi-tramps, who come along at night. But they are a most interesting lot of people. They believe in individualism. They are Tory anarchists. They do not want to live a regular, regulated life. I understand the point of view, though it does not appeal to me. They are one problem. Then there are these very respectable people who were pushed out of their homes by grasping, selfish Tory landlords, under a Tory Act of Parliament brought in by the present Home Secretary. Most of them were decent respectable people, and it greatly strained the resources of the L.C.C. to find them accommodation. They could not easily put them straight away into council houses, cottages or flats, because that would mean "jumping" the queue of people who had been waiting for a long time to get accommodation. But they did their best, being barked at the heels by the Tory Press, and by some so-called social workers, who love being condescending to the poor and at the same time having a side "dig" at the Labour majority on the London County Council.

But I assure the House, and the House should know, that it was a very difficult and complicated problem which strained the council's resources. And it is not as if responsibility under the Bill is being equally distributed over the county, let alone the Greater London Council. The noble Lord, Lard Newton, implied that he would prefer an Amendment to apply to the whole of Greater London—let the Greater London Council do the lot! I am inclined to think that he is right. If he will give me a promise that he will put such an Amendment down on Third Reading, we will consider it. It is not that we want to be difficult about that; we shall have plenty of other arguments on our hands. But it is so foolish. It seems to us that to put this task on to the boroughs will land them with a headache, especially if they get it all at once.

Then it is going to cost the boroughs a bit—and the boroughs it will cost most are the poorer boroughs of inner London. They will have to bear the bigger financial burden. The County Council have for some time been doing it pretty well—not perfectly, because it cannot be done perfectly, but pretty well. Therefore we have to face the fact that, before the date when the Act effectively comes into operation, or at the date when the Act comes into operation, these boroughs will have to take on this difficult complicated task, with all the financial burden involved. We do not think they ought to have to take it on at all, not because we are anti-borough, but because we want to have the right authority for the appropriate function.

My noble friend Lord Crook has come along with a modified compromise, which shows how reasonable we are. It shows how we are willing to modify and compromise if there is a method which we think would do it, not perfectly, but better than would otherwise be the case. Surely it would be wiser on this difficult business for there to be a transition period; what Sidney Webb preached to the Socialists about "the inevitability of gradualness." It is no good preaching that to these Tories. They are in favour of the inevitability of sudden revolution. They are a funny lot of Tories. It would be better if this were done gradually over a period of not more than five years, so that there could be steady consultation, and the functions could be transferred bit by bit, with the boroughs having plenty of time to get ready to take it on. That is really sensible.

My noble friend Lord Crook has a good sense of public administration; so good that he ought to be sitting on the Bench opposite—though not in the present Government—and they ought not to be sitting there. They have no sense at all of public administration. Somebody said that they would not trust us to run a whelk-stall. Well, after their exhibition on this Bill, I would not trust them to run a whelk-stall. This Amendment is a sensible compromise. It does not destroy the Government's fundamental wish, but it does say that there should be a transition so that this can be done gradually and better than would otherwise be the case.

I see the Minister of State, Home Office, giving all the indications that he is coming to the rescue of his noble friend. I do not mind that: I think it is desirable that one comrade should help another comrade out of his difficulties. But I hope he will meet the argument—not so much the argument of the fundamental point as the argument for a transitional period. The thing can be done in a more orderly and constructive way and the result, though imperfect, will be more perfect than will otherwise be the case. We shall be very glad to hear the the Minister of State, Home Office, say that, on reflection, and after consideration after having heard my noble friend's speech, and after having heard my own, he now sees the point and will accept the Amendment.

LORD MOLSON

My Lords, I propose to deal with only one point that has been made by the noble Lord in his discursive oration. He complained that some noble Lords on this side have suggested that it is undesirable that at the Report stage the arguments which have been heard in the Committee stage should be repeated. The noble Lord, whom I knew well in another place as one who had a great capacity for getting Government business through and often imposed the guillotine in 1945 to make certain that legislation was passed in time, should really bear in mind that the procedure in this House is very different from what it is in another place. I venture to say this to him because he has not been here very much longer than I have.

Now the case of a Report stage in another place differs from a Report stage here in three ways. In the first place, a large number of Committee stages are taken upstairs, and the Report stage is the only stage at which it is possible for the House as a whole to revise decisions which have been taken by a Standing Committee upstairs. In the second place, there can be a timetable in the other place which prevents unnecessary delay and repetition. In the third place, there is in the other place a power of selection by the Chair, and an Amendment which was merely repeating something which had been raised and fully dealt with during the Committee stage would not be likely to be selected. For all those reasons, and because this is a place where we try to impose restraint upon ourselves, because restraint cannot be imposed upon us by the Chair, I suggest that for anyone in this House to argue the same point again on Report stage as has been fully argued already upon Committee stage is, if not an abuse of the procedure of the House, at any rate a great burden upon the patience of noble Lords.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Before the noble Lord sits down—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

—I want to ask him a question. I think that is in order. May I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case that, if you have a guillotine in the other place, then that hampers the Report stage inevitably, and the Chair has to be more selective, as has the Opposition. Therefore, it is different, and not the same as it is here. As for guillotines—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

—this Government has practised much more guillotining than ever the Labour Government did, and particularly on this Bill.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, if nobody else has anything to say I can only thank both noble Lords on the other side who have spoken, as well as thanking my noble friend for supporting me on this side. I was not quite clear, when the noble Lord, Lord Molson, intervened, whether he was himself trying to take the line of advocating that there ought to be new Rules in this House. He seemed to be critical of the Rules which at present exist, but, of course, he can pursue that elsewhere.

LORD MOLSON

No; merely of the lack of self-restraint.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Order, order!

LORD CROOK

With regard to the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, gave, may I say that he had some doubt in his mind whether what he had to say about the receivership and the court was so put that it could be easily understood. May I thank him and say that it was so put that it was able to be followed, although I shall read it again, obviously, in the morning. I think I understand it enough to say that I found it about the only piece of his speech which was acceptable. So far as the remainder is concerned, I really feel that the noble Lord gave a reply which is related, not to the realities of the Amendment but to the realities of things which the Government themselves have been thinking all along. The noble Lord suggested that if the Amendments were accepted the problem to be faced was whether delay was good or bad, whether there would not be new uncertainty added to the position of staff, and then he went on to say that the day would eventually come when suddenly the central authority staffs would find themselves without work.

My Lords, we have never suggested anything of the sort in Amendment No. 159, as you will see if you read it again with care. Because I was trying to deploy new arguments and not to say the same thing here that was said in Committee, I did not go over the details of the Amendment, but I must remind the Government that what they suggest is, first of all, that there should be consultation by the G.L.C. with the council of each inner London borough and the Common Council. Then all that they do is prepare a scheme or schemes which they put up. The schemes are for orderly delegation, and "orderly delegation" does not mean that you say, "For five years you can carry on with that, but then the chopper comes down and it comes to an end". In case it did say that, subsection (9) goes on to say that the proposals as to the manner in which the delegation and transfer shall be effected shall go to the Minister who, after consultation with the Greater London Council and the council of any borough affected, will, by regulation, him

6.15 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 46, to insert the following new clause:

Transport service for handicapped people

".—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (6) of the last preceding section, it shall be the duty of the Greater London Council to make provision on and after 1st April 1965 for securing that adequate means of transport are available in Greater London for the conveyance of physically handicapped persons under the provisions of section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948; and accordingly so far as concerns the duty imposed on it by this subsection that Council shall be a local authority for the purposes of that Act.

self give effect to the scheme, either with or without modification. Now I do not find that a recognisable thing compared with what the noble Lord tried to suggest had been moved by us; and, in all the circumstances, I am bound to ask my noble friends to join me in the Division Lobby.

6.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 153) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lawson, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lindgren, L.	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Burton of Coventry, B.	Listowel, E.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Lucan, E.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Williams, L.
Henderson, L.	Sainsbury, L.	Williamson, L.
Latham, L.	Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Eccles, L.	Mills, V.
Albemarle, E.	Ferrers, E.	Molson, L.
Aldington, L.	Forster of Harraby, L.	Newton, L.
Allerton, L.	Fortescue, E.	Ogmore, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Gage, V.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Amulree, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	St. Oswald, L.
Astor, V.	Grenfell, L.	Salisbury, M.
Auckland, L.	Hacking, L.	Sandford, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Hailsham, V. (L. President)	Sandys, L.
Carrington, L.	Hanworth, V.	Sinha, L.
Chelmer, L.	Hastings, L.	Somers, L.
Chesham, L.	Hawke, L.	Soulbury, V.
Colville of Culross, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Conesford, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Strathclyde, L.
Craigton, L.	Jessel, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
De La Warr, E.	Lothian, M.	Swansea, L.
Denham, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Swinton, E.
Derwent, L.	Margesson, V.	Teynham, L.
Devonshire, D.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Middleton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

(2) On 1st April 1965 there shall vest in the Greater London Council all motor vehicles which immediately before that date were held by the London County Council for the purposes of their functions under the said section 29.

(3) The Greater London Council shall have power to make available for reward any vehicle used in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section.

Provided that for the purposes of Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1960 any vehicle so used shall not be treated as carrying passengers for hire or reward."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 160 and to draw to the attention of the Government the fact that there has been a change in the bowling. As they are now on a particularly sticky wicket we shall hope for better results from this Amendment. The first paragraph of the Amendment requires that it shall be the duty of the Greater London Council to secure that adequate means of transport are available in Greater London for the conveyance of physically-handicapped persons … It also requires that the Council shall be a local authority for the purposes of the National Assistance Act, 1948. If noble Lords will look at Clause 46(6), to which my Amendment refers, they will see that it lays down that: It shall be the duty of each London borough council and of the Common Council to continue to provide … services and facilities for disabled persons …". And at the end of subsection (6) is added: and any such schemes in force immediately before that date shall continue in force until revoked or modified by further schemes …".

At present the only scheme in force for the transport of disabled persons by a local authority in the County of London is that run by the L.C.C. This Amendment asks that the Greater London Council shall be treated as a local authority for this purpose and therefore that there shall be this right to continue the service which is in existence. I do not doubt that the noble Lord who is to reply will feel, even if he is much too polite to say so, that he has already heard and answered this argument with regard to a variety of services on a variety of Amendments. But there are particular reasons why this particular service should remain, as it were, in one piece. It is not a very large service. By March 31, 1965, the fleet that the London County Council will then have will total 26 special purpose vehicles; 19 of those will be special coaches with hydraulic lifts and 7 will be utility buses. Divide 26 by 12 and it works out at about 2 vehicles for each borough.

The noble Lord will be aware that it cannot possibly be economic or efficient in a completely built-up area such as the one we are considering—although it will consist of 12 boroughs—to split up what is purely, simply and solely a transport service for physically handicapped people into twelve different parts. If the noble Lord who is to reply disagrees with me I would ask him to say why he does so, because I think that this time these questions must be answered effectively if the Government are not going to accept this Amendment. The second point arising out of that is that the workshops, training centres and schools to where these physically handicapped people go from their homes are not evenly distributed throughout the County of London; these people will have to continue to be transported from their homes in the new boroughs to areas across the borough boundaries. There cannot possibly be any argument about this and, again, if the noble Lord disagrees I would ask him to say why.

It means that it is impossible to regard this transport service as one which is confined within any single borough. Inevitably it must continue to transport people over the whole of the greater part of London. Therefore, I would have thought it inevitable, even if we visualise splitting London up, stupidly and expensively, into twelve different units for this comparatively small number of people, that there will have to be co-operative arrangements between the twelve London boroughs for picking up people from one borough and taking them to a workshop or training centre in another. It seems to me to be common sense to say that the service which now exists and which does not call for all these elaborate co-operative arrangements, because it is already one service with one headquarters and one office, to which people can apply for help and with which doctors, social workers and hospital almoners can get in touch when they want a disabled person helped, should be continued. It is not only a question of the carriage of disabled people, but also of information about the service being available at one place.

With regard to the 26 vehicles which I mentioned, the L.C.C. drivers are provided from the Council's large pool of school vehicles. In this way, without a great increase of staff, they are able to cover evening and week-end work and sickness relief. I submit that such would be the incidence of mechanical breakdowns and staff sickness that if the whole fleet of 26 vehicles were divided among the twelve authorities there would be many occasions when the staff would not be large enough and the bus or coach would not arrive, entailing grievous disappointment and unhappiness to handicapped people and setting back the rehabilitation effort.

I submit that this is an exact parallel with the ambulance service. The clause I am now moving suggests the continued operation of this transport service almost exactly on the lines of the ambulance service, which is being continued by the Government in this Bill. Therefore, I would address this third question to the noble Lord. If he is not going to accept this Amendment, would he say what is the difference in principle between what is now in operation, which I am proposing to continue, and the ambulance service? Why should conveying people who are ill or suddenly injured by ambulances be so different from conveying people who have a permanent physical handicap by vehicles from a common pool? It seems impossible to me that it can be argued that there is a difference in principle between these two services.

Whatever justification the Government may put forward, it cannot have been thought out clearly. It seems to me unthinkable that an inner London borough which on April 1, 1965, will have no transport system in force for the conveyance of physically handicapped people, should be required to continue that situation while the L.C.C. transport unit is required by law to discontinue the service which is in existence but which they will no longer be allowed to provide. I would address my fourth question to the noble Lord. If he is not going to accept this Amendment, will he explain how, on April 1, 1965, there will be a service in being for the transport of these disabled people? I cannot see it happening. I challenge the noble Lord to dispute that, in the aggregate, it will be much more costly in vehicles and in men if every borough has to provide its own service.

The only other observation I have to make about this new clause is in regard to subsection (3), which would have the effect of exempting the Greater London Council from the need to arrange for a public service vehicle licence under Section 127 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, should it wish to loan one of its vehicles to a voluntary society and to recover from that society a part of the running costs. Under Section 118, subsections (4), (5) and (6) of the 1960 Act, vehicles used by a local education authority or under the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1957, which relates to the use of ambulances for hire or reward or for carrying agricultural workers to or from work, are exempted from the need to obtain a public service vehicle licence, although persons are carried on those vehicles for hire or reward. It is submitted that these vehicles used for carrying physically handicapped people should benefit from a similar exemption. Subsection (3) is of lesser importance but it has some force.

I feel that the clause as a whole is one which should certainly succeed on its merits. I hope, in any case, that the noble Lord will attempt to answer all the questions I have put to him, which arise directly out of the clause and the remarks I have made in support of it, and which have not yet been answered at any previous stage of the Bill either in this House or in another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 46, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)

6.30 p.m.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, in the course of my speech on this Amendment in Committee I made some observations about the alleged analogy with the ambulance service, and I think that what I said on that occasion is as relevant today as it was then. Also in my speech in Committee I said that we recognised that in some cases it may be suitable that joint arrangements should be made for what is a specialised transport service. We certainly accept that it is not likely to be suitable, and may not be economic, for every new London borough to attempt to provide its own specialised transport, and that some measure of sharing will be needed, at any rate when the Bill first comes into operation. On the other hand, sharing may not be necessary for every new borough. For example, East and West Ham, which will be combined in the new borough No. 17, may wish to continue to provide a self-contained service as at the present time; and similar considerations may apply in the case of new borough No. 20, which will include Croydon. That is one reason why I do not think we should literally lay down the law about these possible arrangements in the Bill.

In any case, I think it would be premature to make specific provision in the Bill for what the arrangements should be. This is one of the many subjects which needs detailed consideration, including a review of the present arrangements, not only in the L.C.C. area, but in the rest of Greater London. Without such detailed investigation, I cannot accept that the Greater London Council are necessarily the right authority to administer this transport service for the whole of the Greater London area. But, as I said in Committee, there is nothing in the Bill to stop them from providing this service over the whole area if that is what the boroughs would like and if agreement is reached about it. Sharing between groups of boroughs may well turn out to be the most suitable arrangement.

LORD STONHAM

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, since he will not be able to speak again. He says there is nothing in the Bill to stop them—

LORD NEWTON

Nothing in the Bill to stop the Greater London Council acting as an agent for all the London boroughs.

LORD STONHAM

Can the noble Lord say whether there is anything in the Bill that would permit them to act as an agent?

LORD NEWTON

If there is nothing to stop them doing it, there is no reason why they should not do it. That is one of the things left open in the Bill; it is a possibility. I think I made that clear when I was speaking in Committee. But, as I say, it may well be that sharing between groups of boroughs may be the most suitable arrangement; and I have already mentioned the possibility that East and West Ham may wish to have their own arrangement.

The extent to which the new boroughs will own and use vehicles for other purposes, apart from transporting physically handicapped people, is also a relevant consideration, from the point of view of having a pool of drivers and arrangements for servicing. In any case we feel that the legal responsibility for providing transport for the physically handicapped should be with the boroughs, as part of their responsibilities under Section 29, and that any sharing arrangements should, therefore, be on an agency basis, with each borough contributing its proper share of the cost in accordance with the extent of its use of the transport.

In the course of his speech in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested that the decision on what the arrangements should be ought not to be left to the choice of each new borough but should be written into the Bill, because he was afraid there might be disagreement and lengthy argument. Perhaps I could have the attention of the noble Lord: I was referring to one of his arguments in Committee. He was arguing that unless particular provisions were written into the Bill, there might be disagreement and lengthy argument, and that the services would not be provided. But the decision will not be left entirely to the new boroughs, though their views must be sought and taken into account.

The arrangements for the transfer of existing vehicles—that is to say, those owned by the London County Council and by the Middlesex County Council, and other existing counties and county boroughs involved in the reorganisation of Greater London—will need to be determined under an order made by the Minister under Clause 83 of the Bill. The Minister will have to be satisfied that the arrangements are both efficient and economical. This is one of the many administrative questions that will be considered and decided during the period of over a year and a half between the passing of the Bill and its coming into operation in April, 1965. I believe that arrangements of this kind, and, indeed, all the other arrangements, will be able to be made satisfactorily in the time. While I do not think there is any great difference between the noble Lord and myself on this matter, I suggest to him that it is premature to seek to determine in this Bill exactly what the arrangements should be, and that there ought to be discussion between the existing and future authorities before any sort of final decision can be taken.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for what I regard as a helpful reply, and one in which he attempted to answer all the questions I put to him. I am, however, still left very uneasy about the situation. It was at least helpful to have agreement that it is not likely to be economic for every borough to have its own transport service. There will be a need, he thought, to share, which seems to me to be agreeing with the unanswerable facts of the situation as it most certainly will be. But then, in opposing the Amendment, he seemed to place some reliance on the fact that the boroughs of East and West Ham might like to continue their existing service. That illustrates my point: that it will be so much better for the Greater London Council to continue the service which the London County Council is at present running—and for this reason.

The Borough of West Ham, as the noble Lord is doubtless aware, has its own workshops for the blind. In that it is singular among London boroughs. Therefore, it has its own transport service. It is as simple as that. If you go to other areas where there are workshops for the blind, the one in Salisbury Road, Kilburn, for example, is run by a charity; the one in Waterloo Road is run by a charity; that in South London is the Royal London Society for the Blind, and so on. They are not municipal workshops for the blind and, therefore, have not their own transport. So that the one example the noble Lord picked out, of East and West Ham, happens to be the one place where there are municipal workshops and, therefore, a municipal transport service for them and for other physically handicapped people. Of course we should be agreeable to those two boroughs, when they are joined in one, running this existing service, and there is absolutely nothing in my Amendment which would conflict with that or would prevent them from doing so.

The noble Lord will be aware that I have some knowledge of the needs of disabled people. I have worked for them all my adult life, and I would not be advocating what I am now saying from complete ignorance or without any knowledge at all, merely using a brief. These are the facts that are known to me, and that is why I am putting them forward and pressing them. The noble Lord said—and I interrupted him, hoping he would go a little further—that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the Greater London Council from running a service of this kind if the boroughs want it—or words to that effect.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, if I may interrupt, I went on to say that, because there was nothing to stop the G.L.C. acting as agent for all the boroughs, therefore it followed that they had power to do so, and in fact the power to do just that is in Clause 5(3).

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. What I am going to say is robbed of some of its effect by his interruption, but the first words of my proposed new clause are: Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (6) of the last preceding section, it shall be the duty of the Greater London Council to make provision … I should have thought that that made the position even more clear. The noble Lord said that the decision will not be left entirely to the boroughs; that arrangements for the eventual transfer will be determined under an order which the Minister will have to make under this Bill, and that he will have to be satisfied that the arrangements proposed are satisfactory. It is that kind of provision and that kind of assurance which fills us with considerable concern, because what will happen without this clause is that we should then be presented with a fait accompli. The Minister will consider this, and it means—I have to say it quite frankly—that the same people who are advising the noble Lord to resist this clause will be advising the Minister with regard to what is satisfactory or what is not with regard to the proposed arrangements. I am bound to say that that is not satisfactory to me or to my noble friends, who would prefer this clause included in the Bill. Grateful as I am to the noble Lord for his efforts in this matter, I am afraid that I must ask my noble friends to support me in the Lobby.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, say one thing? The noble Lord said that he objects to the Minister having an ultimate decision over certain things because it would be presenting a fait accompli. A fait accompli is exactly what the noble Lord is presenting in his Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

Except (if I may reply to that) the accomplished fact that what we have now is an efficient service adequate for the needs of the disabled; a service which is doing a job perfectly, and which one wants to ensure is not disrupted. That is something with which everybody is satisfied, and it is the purpose of this Amendment to see that it continues.

Clause 47 [Children authorities]:

6.52 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2), and to insert:

"(1) As from 1st April 1965, the functions of local authorities under the enactments to which this section applies shall be exercised—

1. (a) in relation to any outer London borough, by the council of that borough;
2. (b) in relation, to the remainder of Greater London (which remainder shall be known as the Inner London Children Area) by the Greater London Council acting by means of a special committee thereof constituted as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section

and the Greater London Council, when acting as aforesaid as the local children authority for the said area, shall, except for the purposes of any document of title, be known as the Inner London Children Authority, and any reference in this or any other Act to a member or officer of that Authority or, in relation to that Authority, to a member or officer of a local children authority shall be construed as a reference to a member or officer of the special committee aforesaid.

(2) The special committee aforesaid shall consist of—

1. (a) such of the Councillors of the Greater London Council as have been elected by

6.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 160) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lawson, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lindgren, L.	Somers, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Longford, E.	Stonham, L.
Champion, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Swanborough, B.
Henderson, L.	Sainsbury, L.	Walston, L.
Latham, L.	Shackleton, L.	Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Eccles, L.	Margesson, V.
Albemarle, E.	Ellenborough, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Allerton, L.	Ferrers, E.	Merrivale, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Forstar of Harraby, L.	Middleton, L.
Amulree, L.	Fortescue, E.	Molson, L.
Auckland, L.	Gage, V.	Newton, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Goschon, V, [Teller.]	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Bridgeman, V.	Grenfell, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Carrington, L.	Hacking, L.	Salisbury, M.
Chelmer, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President)	Sandford, L.
Chesham, L.	Hanworth, V,	Sandys, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Hastings, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Conesford, L.	Hawke, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Craigton, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Swansea, L.
De La Warr, E.	Jellicoe, E.	Swinton, L.
Denham, L.	Jessel, L.	Teynham, L.
Derwent, L.	Lothian, M.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Ebbisham, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Resolved in the Negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

local government electors for an inner London borough or the City;

(b) one representative of each inner London borough council appointed by that borough council from among the members thereof;

(c) one representative of the Common Council appointed by the Common Council from among the members thereof;

and any person appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection shall, unless re-appointed, retire on the fourteenth day after the ordinary day of retirement of London borough councillors falling next, after his appointment, but may resign his membership of the Inner London Children Authority at any time by notice in writing to the clerk of the council by whom he was appointed thereto.

(3) The Greater London Council shall not act by means of the special committee aforesaid for the purpose of issuing any precept or borrowing any money, but shall so act for the purpose of determining—

1. (a) the amount for which the Council are to precept upon rating authorities in the Inner London Children Area in respect of expenditure of the Inner London Children Authority; and
2. (b) what amount, if any, is to be borrowed by the Council in respect of such expenditure,

and for the purpose of any appointment falling to be made by the local children authority."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 161. I was very much struck by a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Longford on the Committee stage when (referring to the mentally handicapped) he spoke of the "silent people". I do not suppose that is a phrase that one could relate to children but, in some respects, of course, it is true. Children are extremely noisy, but they are unable, in some cases to express their preferences; and, of course, they have not reached an age when they can make their own choice. There are 9,000 children in London who have either been deserted by their parents or, perhaps because of the circumstances of their homes, have been removed from the custody of their parents. These children need a new guide line. This is provided for them by the child welfare officers, about whom one hears very little but who in fact take over the rôle of the parent. On the Committee stage my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger moved an Amendment in similar terms. She spoke with her usual eloquence and I think the Committee and any of those who heard her would have been struck by the sincerity of her words.

My Lords, we are dealing with a very tragic case. The Bill, under Clauses 47 and 92, will remove these 9,000 children from the custody and protection of an authority—by which I mean the officers of the authority, who, as I said earlier, are the alternative parents. The Landon County Council themselves have raised a series of objections to the Government proposal, but they are not the only authority that has done so. Perhaps one could write off the opinion of the London County Council, in that they are politically opposed to the Government: that they have been opposed throughout to all the provisions of this Bill. But other authorities, themselves intimately connected with children, have also rejected the Government provision. The Surrey County Council in their Blue Book, which perhaps most noble Lords have received, say on page 13: So far as the children's service is concerned, the difficulties are so pronounced as to call in question whether the service is really workable on the basis proposed by Her Majesty's Government.

I mentioned 9,000 children, which is the size of the problem in London. It is a problem which, regrettably, continues to increase. I will not go into the reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, speaking from the Cross-Benches on the Committee stage, I think, spoke in some way of criticism of the London County Council's record in what he referred to as "boarding out". He was referring to children in need of care who are boarded out with foster parents. We on this side of the House share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and other noble Lords opposite that, where it is possible, it is far better for a child who is in need of care, and who no longer has a parent upon whom to rely, to be placed in a foster home, where it can be brought up within the environment and with all the customs of a home.

The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, referred to the record in London where 23 per cent., of the children in care were in foster homes, as compared with the proportion of 46 per cent. in the rest of the country. That, in itself, when one quotes figures, would be one criticism. But I think it is right at this stage of the Bill to point out that in the case of London 12.2 per thousand of all children in the Greater London area are, in fact, in care, whereas the proportion in the rest of the country is only half that figure. The difference is due, of course, to the abnormal living conditions, the congestion, and many other factors. One could well say, when one considers the problem of finding foster homes, that the record of the London County Council in this respect, as well as the records of the Surrey and Essex County Councils, both of whom at present have areas within the metropolis, are very good indeed. In fact, I think it is surprising that they have been able to attain such a figure.

We reject the Government proposition on a number of points, and I wish once again (and I hope that I shall not be accused of repetition; because this is a stage of the Bill when we are dealing with a very human matter, and if what we believe is true then we must continue to say it) to make this point. The child care officers—the field officers, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe described them at the Committee stage—and the officers of the residential staff, those who run and organise the homes, are colleagues—and I would stress that word "colleagues". They are part of one service. They work to one end for the benefit of the children in their care. At present (I think my figures are correct), if the provisions go through, nine children out of ten will, in fact, be in establishments run by a different authority and possibly situated in a different area from that from which they originally came. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, at Committee stage stressed the importance of the field officer, and I think he was quite right. He is the person who looks into the problems of the family, keeps the connection—I think this is important—if it is possible, between the child in care and the parents, working in the end not only for the betterment of the child but also perhaps for a reconciliation, the final bringing together of the family.

In the area which we wish to see remain there are to-day nine separate offices staffed by field officers. The Government say that if we place these in the hands of the boroughs we shall extend the number of offices or authorities to twelve; therefore we are only dealing with a marginal increase in the sphere of operation. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will agree with me that in the case of the London County Council there is one service, one administration, one guiding principle, whereas in the case of the boroughs we may well see growing up—it is unfortunate but I believe it will happen—rather rigid and watertight areas and responsibilities. We may not see the same flexibility and the same approach that one is able to obtain by one particular service, and that is the first point I would ask the noble Earl to give his attention to.

I well recognise that when the initial transitional period is overcome there may well be some advantage in having the borough with its child welfare officer operating. Certainly he or she would know the particular district and the particular environment and particular problems of the area. But we must not forget that so far as the children are concerned this transitional period will last four, five or six years, years in which the characters of the present 9,000 children in care will be established; and perhaps if unfortunately they lose the contact and the confidence they have in the officer looking after them it may well affect their character. Therefore we must take into account that, because of the Government's proposals, for the transitional period we may have tragic consequences of that reshuffle.

I think this is a point which the Government cannot just ride over. It may be that the proposals appear to be tidy but, as I said earlier, we are dealing with a human factor—these 9,000 children. I would suggest—and I am sure there are many noble Lords opposite who will agree with me—that the officers of the present service have in fact established the right contact with the children and perhaps it would be disastrous to have a break, particularly when one takes account of the already broken family.

The third point I wish to make to the noble Earl is this. The new boroughs will have a restricted area and perhaps a lack of social balance. They may have difficulty in finding the right types of residential accommodation and, in particular, foster homes, and I should like to deal with this question separately. In Borough 5 (that is, Stepney and others) there are 1,100 children in care. In the case of Liverpool, which is no doubt a county borough that the noble Earl would quote, about the same number of children are in care. But I would ask your Lordships to consider the position of these two boroughs, if the Government ask us to compare like with like. In the case of Liverpool the area of the borough is eight times the area of Borough 5. From that it will be seen that Liverpool obviously has a greater area and perhaps a greater potential of housing for providing the foster homes or other accommodation, housing and space for the children who are to be kept in an institution.

Perhaps a factor of greater significance, if one contrasts these two boroughs, is that in the case of Liverpool once one gets beyond the built-up area one comes into the country districts, and I think the noble Earl will agree it is infinitely easier to find a foster parent in the country districts than it is in a built-up area. The answer is obvious, of course: in most houses in a built-up area the family is already congested, while in the country things are easier. Therefore, in the case of Liverpool they have these country districts upon which they can call for foster homes, and this is an advantage which would not be available to Borough 5.

The other point I would ask the noble Earl to consider is the fact that this new authority—and they are new, really; fourteen years, I think, is the age of the child service of the London County Council—have passed the stage of laying down their foundations. They are already planning for the future. They have in fact during this period of fourteen years created 120 new small homes, on which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, placed so much stress, with which I thoroughly agree. But, if the Government's suggestions go through, these plans will be set aside. I would ask the noble Earl this—and this is a point to which he must reply: is he satisfied, in particular, that the inner London boroughs, taking into account the already severe congestion, the severe problem of trying to provide residential accommodation, will be able to provide within their area the accommodation, the buildings and all the other types of services that are so essential if the children are to be brought up properly? I have taken advice, not from the London County Council alone but from other authorities. I am satisfied that the boroughs themselves, and in particular the inner boroughs, will not be able, not because they are unwilling but because of the circumstances of the borough, to match the type of progress that is already planned by the London County Council and also the other authorities outside.

The other point I wish to put to the noble Earl is this. Following the passing of responsibility to twelve boroughs we shall lose flexibility in regard to staff. At the present moment, because we have a big authority employing a wide range of experts and specialists in child matters, it is possible for us at very short notice to be able to move a person from one area to another to meet a crisis. I was told only this afternoon of the case of a remand home in the London County Council area where the superintendent fell sick suddenly. It was possible, because of this flexibility within the London County Council area, to move a specialist into that remand home to take charge, and there was no breakdown in the administration of that particular home. Can this House really believe that the resources of a borough authority would be sufficient to give that flexibility? In the case of the remand home you cannot substitute any person; you have to put in somebody who can provide discipline and who has an understanding of the particular inmates. When one is dealing with children who are handicapped, in the sense not that they are mentally ill but are deprived of some particular understanding, you cannot just put in anybody to run the home; you need to have a specialist available.

Another point which I should like to make to the noble Earl is this—I apologise for speaking at such length, but my noble friends and I take the view that this is one of the most important Amendments to the Bill. Because of its size, the Council have been able to develop a first-class training scheme. They have persons who are able to provide education and instruction, as a result of which one is able to obtain first-class staff. Again, because of their flexibility and numbers of officers they are able to release officers in order to take other types of training outside the London County Council area—they may perhaps go to the course that is run by the Home Office. Can we really believe that inner London boroughs, whose resources will normally be stretched to the maximum, will be able to give freely to these particular officers the time to carry out their course? Do your Lordships really believe that the boroughs themselves will be able to provide the same wide range of instruction? I would suggest that the consequence of the Government proposals will be that we may well have to fall back upon the Home Office to increase their opportunities of instruction. I think it would be a tragic circumstance if we lost all that the London County Council have been able to develop in the last fourteen years.

There is one other factor which my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger raised on the Committee stage, dealing with children who come within the ambit of the juvenile court. At the moment it is possible, because there is one centre, to obtain quickly full information on the background not only of the child but of its performance at school, and also the circumstances and the character of its parents. It is obvious that the magistrate will base on that type of information his decision as to what should happen. If there is more than one authority, we may well find that the magistrate will require various other boroughs to provide the same sort of information. This may well require the child to be kept longer in remand than is at present the case.

A further point which I should bring to the attention of the noble Lord is that obviously the practices and policies will vary from one borough to another. We have discussed many times in regard to weights and measures and shops and offices the question of trying to get the same sort of standard. In the case of shops and offices, the Government agreed to set up a central inspectorate to obtain a uniform standard. But there is no such proposal in this Bill. Therefore we may well see various boroughs adopting different attitudes and different policies. What is going to be the consequence on the parents of a child where, in one particular borough, one attitude or decision, or even type of advice to be given, may be decided on, and it will be different in another borough? I think that is something which we should most carefully consider.

One other point I have to put to the noble Earl. I think that he, as the Minister who was responsible and who did so ably in your Lordships' House in regard to the Children and Young Persons Bill, would be one of the first to recognise the contribution that was made to this children's service by the London County Council. Because of their authority, their responsibility and their proven attitude to this duty, they were able to provide the Minister with such information and such advice that he played an important part in that particular Bill. We greatly regret the fact that the Government have decided—I hope they may change their minds this evening—to break up this wonderful children's service.

The noble Earl is one Minister who really does his homework. He not only does it at home, but he goes out and sees what is happening in the field. I think he will agree with me that in the children's service of the London County Council a wide field of specialist measures are provided for the children. On the one hand, you have the foster home. Then you have the family group home, to which the noble Earl paid so much attention. The London County Council have been able to go one stage further. They are able to provide special homes for children who, while not being subnormal, require a little more attention than other children. In this way they are able to be segregated.

Apart from what the authority do, they seek the support of the voluntary bodies who provide homes for the children. I think the House would agree with me that we should pay tribute to those various bodies. At the present stage in the London area the London County Council are able to make one contract, one agreement, with a particular body, whether it is the Salvation Army or some other body. There is one contract, one agreement, one understanding. With twelve boroughs it means that there will be twelve different agreements, twelve sets of negotiations and perhaps there may well be a little competition between one authority and another to find a home. Perhaps the worst aspect of this is that there may be twelve different children's officers representing the boroughs, visiting every home in order to see twelve children from different boroughs. Is it fair to the authority running the school or home? Is it fair, having regard to the background of the children in the home? I cannot believe that it is.

I can well see that the Government wished to create a new structure of government in London. I concede that in some aspects their policy decision may be right, particularly in regard to traffic. Some of us believe that the Government are in fact playing at Party politics. I would not myself put it in those words. I should not wish this particular debate to be decided on Party politics. We are dealing with children who are handicapped in the sense that, for various reasons, they are denied the protection and guidance of their parents. The 9,000 children in London to-day have adopted parents in their officers in the local authority. I should not wish to break the tie between those children and those officers, who themselves are carrying out this work and in whom the children have placed a trust. The Government must make an overwhelming case for any improvement before they themselves can break this tie, and I think the House must be satisfied that an overwhelming case has been made out before they agree to the break. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 67 and insert the new subseotions.—(Lord Shepherd.)

7.21 p.m.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the need for an overwhelming case if the proposal of the Government is to be accepted. Although the noble Lord was too modest to say it, I think he himself has made out an overwhelming case against the proposal. I wonder whether I might adopt a reflective mood for a moment. I realise we shall break for supper soon, therefore I shall not speak for long. I wonder why it is that the Government, so far as one can judge, are more sensitive to criticism on this particular point than on any other.

Without wishing to go behind the scenes, one is aware, because representations were made at an early stage by various colleagues of ours, that grave defects were recognised by the Government in their own proposal. We were told that the Home Office were anything but happy at this development. Certainly I have not come, across any body of individual opinion in favour of the Government's plan. As so often in the Bill, we run into the theory, either for traffic reasons or some special view about the boroughs, that the services must put up with whatever treatment comes their way. I think it is as true to say of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as it is of anyone in this House that he is immensely serious in his studies in this field, and I challenge him to say that these proposals of the Government will be in the interests of the children. In my opinion the best he can say is that they will not do any harm. I defy him to say that these revolutionary proposals will actually help the children. Everybody knows they will not.

If I were asked how much I am confident, whether it is not just one politician's view against another, or the view of one group of politicians against another, I would take one lot of evidence out of many. We might turn to the magistrates; their evidence would be very much on our side; but let me refer to the Association of Child Care Officers. I am not referring only to the officers in London, of whom it perhaps might be said that they are biased, although I do not see why they should be, because they are interested only in the children. If we take the National Association of Child Care Officers, what conceivable vested interest would they have in the status quo? Would not the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, at least agree that they are probably best qualified to know what kind of arrangement is in the best interest of the children?

They would certainly be better qualified than the Royal Commission. If we are asked why we are so contemptuous of the Royal Commission's finding in this matter the answer is plain. They made an elementary howler. It is a long time since a really good howler was made by a Royal Commission and it shows that neither the Royal Commission nor those helping them to write the Report knew much about local government in this particular field. Is it surprising that they did not know much about the children's services? I am not relying now on secret information but on what should be properly published knowledge.

When the London County Council gave evidence to the Royal Commission I believe the evidence took three days, but the health and welfare and children's services were tucked into the last part of one of the days and the children's services got practically no hearing at all, so it was not altogether surprising that the Royal Commission made complete fools of themselves when they tried to describe the present children's services, let alone the proposals. There it is. The Royal Commission have put themselves out of court in this matter and yet the Government cling to these proposals.

At an earlier stage in a very full and immensely effective speech the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not, I think, underline the point that for the first time in this country we are separating the children's services from the education services. This is a cardinal point. It is regarded as essential in all other parts of the country to keep these together. When the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replies, can he give us any possible justification for the separation? In my humble submission he will be able to find no conceivable justification, except that we must set up the boroughs and give them something to play with. There is no justification in sociological studies for that theory.

There has been no attempt to prove that local government has been unsatisfactory in the boroughs. No; the boroughs must be provided with services, and we say that while the boroughs are excellent entities—and I have been a borough councillor for a short time as well as being a county borough councillor—and while no one has any prejudice against the boroughs, it is a misuse of Governmental power to destroy a children's service and damage the prospects of some of the most helpless children in our country in order to give effect to a theory for which there is no fact or foundation in any case. I suppose the only real consolation is that the Government are not likely to be in power very much longer, so it is extremely doubtful, to say the least, whether this horrible proposal will ever see the light of day.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, in view of the time I was wondering whether we might adjourn now, because I understand there is some problem in the refreshment room and there may be other noble Lords who would wish to speak on this important Amendment.

7.29 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, I had anticipated that there might be this possible difficulty, and that is why I approached the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, before we embarked upon this Amendment, and I was given to understand that he thought we should be able to get through quite easily. It was my understanding that he felt we could and should be able to deal with it before we adjourned for supper. On this matter I am very much in the hands of your Lordships. My own feeling is that, since we have embarked on this discussion, we should not break the continuity of our thought but should go forward with it.

LORD SHEPHERD

Very well.

EARL JELLICOE

I do not wish to press this unless it is generally agreeable to your Lordships, but I had taken the precaution of consulting the noble Lord. Let me say straight away to the noble Lord that I would agree there is a certain amount in what he said. I would agree as to the importance of this subject; I would agree that it has its tragic aspects in regard to this whole question of the 9,000 children in care. I would agree with what he said about the sincerity with which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, argued this case in Committee. I would also be the first to agree that the noble Lord himself has argued this matter with deep sincerity. I would agree that this matter should not be judged by the yardstick of Party politics; and finally I would agree that this is a question which should be judged on its merits. I hope that the noble Lord, for his part, will agree that I shall be arguing the case against this Amendment with equal sincerity. I also wish to show that, on its merits, the case for the Bill as it stands is a good one.

The Government's fundamental case is simply this. Given that the system of local government in London is to be changed, what is the best arrangement for the children's service within that new framework? We have believed from the outset, and we firmly adhere to that belief, that this service should be given to the boroughs, along with the personal health and welfare services and housing, as is the case with the county boroughs up and down the country. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that there is no foundation in theory or in practice for this case. Well, there is one foundation, and that is that up and down the country county boroughs discharge this duty effectively. Even the Amendment accepts this view as right for the outer boroughs. I am glad to see this measure of agreement, at least in principle, that the children's service is one that properly belongs to the boroughs.

As I understand it, where we differ is on the question whether or not to depart from this broad principle when we come to the inner boroughs. I freely admit—and, as I informed your Lordships during Committee, my right honourable friend has asked me to take a special interest in this matter—that this Amendment would offer a temptingly easy way out. We should simply have the London County Council service transferred intact to a new authority, and we should not have to concern ourselves with any of the transitional problems which the noble Lord has mentioned, such as the reallocation of staff or property. But, for a number of reasons, I claim that to be a mistaken, and indeed short-sighted, approach.

First, the children's service would be divorced from health, welfare and housing. I do not think anyone would argue that it would be a good thing in itself so to divide these personal services. I think we should all agree that they are better looked at as an integrated whole. It is true that the Amendment would offer some compensating advantage by bringing the children's service and education under the same roof. However (and this is the answer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford) given that a choice has to be made—and the choice does have to be made—between health, welfare and housing on the one hand and education on the other, we believe that it is right to associate the children's service with the former group. I would concede that in the best of all possible worlds it would be pleasant not to have to make the choice. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances we believe that if the choice has to be made—and, as I say, it does have to be made here—the choice that we are making is the right one.

We will, of course, pay close attention to the practical working arrangements whereby child care and education will be linked under the new set-up, and we think that a satisfactory arrangement can, and indeed should, be made. We think it would be more difficult for an inner London children's authority, as is proposed in this Amendment, to devise a close working relationship with the boroughs over health, welfare and housing. Where we can achieve such an association we feel that we should not lightly forgo it, not least when we bear in mind the vitally important preventive work with which children's authorities are to be charged under the Children and Young Persons Bill as soon as it becomes law.

My Lords, the noble Baroness in Committee referred a little scathingly to the significance I had attached to Clause 1 of that proposed Bill. I was very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took, as I took, a rather different view. He referred to this tragic figure of 12.2 children per thousand who come into care, and who are in care, in London to-day. The mere fact of that figure shows how much Clause 1 of the proposed Bill is needed. I believe that that work can far better be discharged when there is close co-ordination of the children's service, child care, welfare, health and, above all, housing grouped together. Parenthetically, the noble Lord asked me to acknowledge—and I would be the first to acknowledge—the pioneering work done by the L.C.C. As is the case with other local authorities throughout the country—not all, but some—the contribution it has made to the preparation of that particular Bill has indeed been a useful one.

Another reason why the proposal contained in the Amendment is, in our view, both mistaken and shortsighted is that by its acceptance we should lose the opportunity of bringing the children's service in London down to a more personal level. We should be perpetuating a service of vast size with a big administrative organisation and overheads. It is no criticism of the L.C.C. to say that 9,000 children in care—a seventh of the total for England and Wales—is in theory, and indeed I think in practice, far above any desirable number for any single authority. I would be the first to acknowledge, as I did in Committee, what the L.C.C., the members of the Children's Committee and the officers who serve it have done, and how much effort, enthusiasm and skill they have put into their work. But I suggest that most of what has been achieved has been achieved in spite of, not because of, the vastness of the organisation.

The L.C.C. have themselves recognised the need for the service to be broken down into more manageable units—the nine areas to which Lord Shepherd referred, locally based and headed by senior officers with wide powers on day-to-day matters. But, necessary though such units have proved to be, in our view they cannot hope to have the same degree of local connections as would the twelve borough units, each with its own committee and staff headed by a children's officer and integrated with the remainder of the borough local government structure. I feel that in arguing the case for their Amendment noble Lords opposite have to some extent allowed themselves to be overawed, mesmerised, by this matter of size. I would claim that great size is not in itself a virtue—certainly not in relation to a personal service belonging to local authorities. I should have thought it would be far better to opt, where we can, for the smaller unit.

We heard in Committee, and have heard again on Report, about the wide range and variety of the problems raised by children in inner London. We have heard that the many combinations of age, sex and category can be catered for only by a wide range of specialised residential establishments. I think the argument is that each of the boroughs will have to do that with a much narrower range of accommodation and that the children will suffer. I am inclined to question this great emphasis on residential accommodation. It tends to suggest that institutional care is the desirable norm and that the boroughs will carry on, under more difficult conditions, where the L.C.C. is forced by this ruthless and heartless Government to leave off.

I agree completely with what my noble friend Lord Ilford said in Committee; that care in an institution is a second best. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. But I also feel that there is every chance that the new boroughs should be able to reduce that number in care, and should also be able, and will have every incentive so to do, to accelerate the trend away from these large gaunt institutions—"gaunt" is not fair; but, at any rate, from these large institutions to the much smaller purpose-built family homes about which I talked in Committee.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will make this plain. He is not suggesting, is he, that the London County Council themselves have put a restriction on the number of children that they board out? My understanding is that they would wish to board out as many children as they possibly could, according to the child and its surroundings. But it is the fundamental problem of a built-up area like London which puts the curb on finding foster homes.

EARL JELLICOE

I think I was suggesting two things. One was that adoption of the structure which we suggest should be adopted will accelerate the trend away from the large institution towards the smaller home. Secondly, we think that this will encourage the trend towards boarding out.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that point? I know that he withdrew the word "gaunt", and I do not want to return to that. But he is, of course, aware, is he not, that the so-called large homes of the L.C.C. are in some cases a collection of cottage homes?

EARL JELLICOE

I am of course aware of that, and I am also aware that the L.C.C. are anxious to close them down as soon as possible. But what I am arguing is that with this service more personalised, more localised, that trend will be accelerated. But I wonder whether I may come back to the point on boarding out, which I was just about to attempt to answer. That was—and I should be the first to agree—that the conditions in London are not the same as conditions elsewhere. There are special problems and special difficulties. That I should be the first to grant.

I think one can exaggerate the differences between the conurbations, but I believe that the difficulties are probably greater and more intense in London than in any other conurbation. But what I would argue is that I do not think the differences are as great as is the disparity in the figures. I will just cite them. The national average, excluding the L.C.C. area, for boarding out is 56 per cent.; the L.C.C. average is 26 per cent.; the average in Liverpool—a large conurbation—is 52 per cent.; Manchester is 51 per cent. and Sheffield is 70 per cent. I do not think that the differences, although there are differences, are as great as that disparity in the rate of boarding out; and I would suggest that the more this service is localised, the more likely it is that it will be possible to increase this very desirable proportion of boarding out.

My Lords, I should now like to turn to the question of the specialist accommodation. I think that here again this vast range of specialist accommodation which is provided by the L.C.C. has tended a little to be exaggerated. In fact, it consists of four reception centres, containing, I think, 223 children, and four homes for specially difficult children containing a total of 60 children. We are not dealing here with a vast problem, and I see no reason at all why, so far as residential accommodation generally is concerned, each borough should not be brought very close to self-sufficiency. There is no reason why these inner boroughs should not be allocated, according to the proportion of children in care, their proportion of small and medium sized L.C.C. properties. They could be allocated a share of the larger properties.

So far as specialist accommodation is concerned, they would have three choices open to them. They could share properties on the normal common user basis; or they could convert some of their existing properties, which they will be acquiring, into specialist homes; or finally, they could bring new homes into existence to cater for specially difficult children. None of this presents, as I see it, any vast problem. It is true that, given the unequal distribution of property within the inner London area, much of that accommodation, at least initially, will be outside the borough's area, but there is no difference from the position already existing within the L.C.C. A great many of the L.C.C. children's homes are outside the L.C.C. area. Moreover, in so far as the residential accommodation will be concentrated in fewer places, visiting will become easier—and this, I think, is a really important consideration. And I should hardly have thought that the boroughs responsible for this service would wish to perpetuate a situation, which was referred to with some pride by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, at our Committee stage, in which a borough with 800 children in care has those children distributed over 130 different establishments. That, I believe, is a bad thing and not a good thing, as she was claiming. I believe that our scheme will mean far more accommodation, and that the children will be closer to the boroughs, more easily visited, both by parents, where the parents are able to visit, and, above all, by the staff.

I am sorry that I have been some little time over this, but I should like to answer four questions which the noble Lord put to me. He asked me, in the first place, about the juvenile courts. We went into that point at some length at the Committee stage, and there I was at some pains to point out that I thought the noble Baroness's fears, that each juvenile court would have something like 13 different children's officers attached to it, were quite unfounded. We see no reason at all why in the juvenile courts there should be more than one officer, who could be either an officer of the court or a member of the child care staff. It is of course possible that, with a child outside the area of a particular borough's jurisdiction, the court may wish to see the child care officer from that particular borough. That, of course, could be arranged; in fact, such an arrangement already obtains at present, when a child outside the L.C.C. area comes before a court in a difficult case.

Secondly, the noble Lord raised the question of staff: he asked if there would be the same flexibility in the posting of staff. I think the answer here—and I should like to put it quite frankly—is that I do not think there could possibly be the same flexibility. One of the advantages of a larger authority is that when you have staff difficulties you can switch staff. I should be the first to grant this. But I would argue that there are many compensating advantages for the smaller authority. On this point I would again remind the noble Lord that in the county boroughs up and down the country which we have been talking about, when staff fall ill, for example, their arrangements for their children in care do not break down. They make perfectly satisfactory alternative arrangements; and the London boroughs equally will be able to do that.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, the noble Lord has referred more than once to the county boroughs, and said that they are a model and a success. But in the county borough the work must be done by the county borough: there is nobody else to do it; that is an all-purpose authority. But in London there will be a two-tier system of local government, and the real question before the House is: which authority is the best for a given function? That is what we are arguing about. The county borough argument has nothing whatever to do with it. It partly depends on the size of the county borough.

EARL JELLICOE

I agree; but we are dealing with one unit and the possibility of switching over within the confines of that unit.

The third point which the noble Lord put to me was on the training question: will the same facilities for training be available? Here again I should like to pay credit to what the L.C.C. have done in providing training facilities. As regards the Central Council, for example, I think there are something like 200 students at present undergoing that type of training. Some 34 are L.C.C. students. It is quite possible, when the new boroughs are set up and become responsible for this service, that in the immediate transitional stage they may not be able to spare those staff. But I see absolutely no reason at all why, as soon as they get into their stride, they should not be able to allocate staff in this way for training purposes and, indeed, make their own training contributions—as, again, large boroughs do, throughout the country.

The noble Lord also asked me about uniformity—should we not have extraordinarily uneven standards throughout the London boroughs?—and he has referred to the fact that there is no provision for any inspectorate built into the Bill. The reason why there is no provision in the Bill for an inspectorate is that there is absolutely no need for one. There is a perfectly good and extremely well qualified Home Office inspectorate who are perfectly capable of ensuring that there is a reasonable unformity of standards in the administration of this new service by the new boroughs. Finally, there is one point that I do not think the noble Lord made but which should just like to touch on, and that is that some people feel that there is a danger that there is going to be some general post of children in the homes, or worse, on the appointed day. I should like to make it absolutely clear that they will stay in the same places, and there is no reason why staff in charge of them should change, as I think the noble Lord feared.

LORD SHEPHERD

The field officers will change, surely.

EARL JELLICOE

I should have thought there was every chance in the world that in many cases the field officers would be taken over by the boroughs. I think it is utterly misleading—I am inclined to pick a stronger adjective, but I will refrain—to talk in terms of an upheaval among these children, and to conjure up a vision of a general post. I would assure noble Lords that that is not going to happen. We have never hidden our feelings that, for a time, at least, during the transitional stage, and possibly for a teething period thereafter, there are bound to be many problems to be sorted out here. We have never sought to minimise the difficulties of the transitional period, to ride away from them, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested; but we are sure—I assured noble Lords of this in Committee, and I repeat the assurance now—that these difficulties can be overcome, and that there is no reason at all why, during this transitional period, the children at present in care in London need suffer.

We are equally sure that, in the longer term, the new structure will enable the boroughs to create a new and integrated pattern of child care which will benefit those children in our city who most need our help and our guidance. We believe that under this Bill we shall be able to create conditions which, if properly exploited by the new boroughs—and we believe that these responsible authorities will properly exploit them—will in fact advance the interests of the children in care in London. That is my reply to the challenge which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, submitted to me. Because I believe this—and I believe this with as much sincerity as that with which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moved his Amendment—I believe that we should resist this Amendment and should proceed with the transfer of the children's services to the boroughs, in inner London as in outer London.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I think we must appreciate the approach of the noble Earl to this particular Amendment. No matter, perhaps, the size, he always gives it his full attention. We do not take the same view as the noble Earl. We have not the same confidence. In these circumstances, there is only one course open to us. At the beginning of his speech the noble Earl used what were, to me, significant words. He said, "Given change of local government, how best can we deal with the children?". My Lords, we are not satisfied that the noble Earl can assure us that the children will be better off. He cannot give us that assurance. We on this side of the House, from the advice that we have received, much of it from quarters closely connected with children, believe that these proposals are detrimental to their interests. My Lords, in

[The sitting was then suspended at three minutes after eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to the clause: (4) The Greater London Council may make contributions to any voluntary organisation—

1. (a) whose object or primary object is to promote the welfare of children; or
2. (b) who are providing advice, guidance and assistance such as to promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care under the Children Act 1948 or the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or to bring children before a juvenile court."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before your Lordships refreshed yourselves with the excellent dinner in the Refreshment Department, the House had decided that the boroughs throughout the Greater London area should remain the local authorities to deal with children's all sincerity, we have no alternative, therefore, but to divide the House and ask the support of your Lordships.

8.0 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 161) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lawson, L.	Stonham, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Lindgren, L.	Strang, L.
Champion, L.	Longford, E.	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Walston, L.
Henderson, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Williams, L.
	Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Ebbisham, L.	Margesson, V.
Albemarle, E.	Ellenborough, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Allerton, L.	Ferrers, E.	Merrivale, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Fortescue, E.	Molson, L.
Auckland, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Monck, V.
Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Grenfell, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Bridgeman, V.	Hanworth, V.	St. Oswald, L.
Chelmer, L.	Hastings, L.	Salisbury, M.
Colville of Culross, V.	Hawke, L.	Sandford, L.
Conesford, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Sandys, L.
Craigton, L.	Iddesleigh, E.	Somers, L.
De La Warr, E.	Jellicoe, E.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Denham, L.	Lothian, M.	Swansea, L.
Derwent, L.	Mabane, L.	Swinton, E.
Dundee, E.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

matters. Consequently, the relevant clause in the Bill, which is Clause 47(3), gives them, among other things, power to contribute, under the Children's Act, 1948, to voluntary organisations whose primary object is to promote the welfare of children. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe, in the course of his speech just before the adjournment, referred to the Children and Young Persons Bill, which is at present in another place and which I hope will come to your Lordships' House unchanged so far as this matter is concerned. Clause 1 of the Bill places a duty upon an authority which deals with children to make available such advice, guidance and assistance as may promote the welfare of children, by diminishing the need to put them in care or bring them before a juvenile court—in other words, preventive work. These local authorities are also going to be allowed, if the Bill becomes law, to contribute to voluntary organisations to help them in their tasks.

In two other clauses in the London Government Bill the Government have accepted the idea that the G.L.C., although it s not the authority primarily concerned with children, nevertheless can make contributions to voluntary bodies which are to assist it in its tasks and your Lordships will see, in Clauses 45(4) and 46(3), that the G.L.C. is to have powers to make these contributions. Therefore, although the G.L.C. is not going to be the children's authority in the Greater London area, it seems to me logical and also desirable that that Council should have the wider powers to make voluntary contributions in this field under Clause 47 as well. My Amendment therefore provides that the G.L.C. may make these contributions, and I hope that it may be acceptable to your Lordships. Of course, this is not in any way going to detract from the work the borough councils would do for children, but would give to the G.L.C. the power to do what a reasonable local authority would want to do—that is, to assist in cases where it thinks it proper a good voluntary organisation doing a job, which in this case is probably not expressly confined to the area of any particular borough.

I must say that I personally have in mind a charity which I consider to be a very good one, of which I am president, the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child. This seems to me to be just the sort of body covered by my Amendment; it is not connected with any other body but is recognised as having a certain value in the children's world. It might be that the G.L.C. would think fit to help such a body by way of voluntary contributions. Of course, I am in no way suggesting that, if my Amendment is accepted, there should be a contribution either to this or to any other particular body. But I consider they ought to have the power to do so if they think fit. I hope that, such being the case, your Lordships would feel it right to bring their powers into line with those in the two earlier clauses on welfare and health matters, and perhaps to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I do not think that we on these Benches will be moved to oppose this Amendment, but it really is a little Gilbertian. We have the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, steadily supporting the taking away from the Greater London Council of powers that we have sought to give them, and then he comes along with an Amendment to give the Greater London Council power to make contributions. That seems to me to be almost a contradiction in terms. It is a pity that the support of the noble Viscount for the Greater London Council did not manifest itself earlier in more important respects. However, with those few comments on the situation, as I have said, we shall not oppose this Amendment.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, many people, including myself, will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for moving this Amendment, and will be extremely grateful to the Government if it can be accepted. I know of the admirable work of the Society of which the noble Viscount is the distinguished President; and there are many other societies. I am wholly with him in thinking that these societies are much better assisted by a large organisation like the Greater London Council than by the smaller and less important organisations of the borough councils.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, this is a relatively small but, I hope, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, noncontroversial Amendment. I must confess that I am personally a little predisposed towards it, because the noble Viscount mentioned the organisation of which he is the distinguished President, the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child, with which I happen to have, as he knows (and I hope your Lordships will not misinterpret what I am saying here) a certainly family connection. But, as I see it, and as my noble friend explained it, this will give the Greater London Council a power similar to the powers which they obtained on an Amendment moved in another place to make contributions to voluntary organisations in the health and welfare field. That being so, without going into the merits or demerits of this or any other area of the Bill, it seems logical and right that they should obtain a similar power here, more especially as it will be left, as I read the Amendment, to the Greater London Council to decide whether or not to make discretionary contributions to particular organisations. I am happy, speaking both personally and impersonally, to say that, from the Government's point of view, we are very willing to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49 [Civil defence]:

9.10 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (b) and substitute: (b) if relating to the making and carrying out of plans for—

1. (i) the dispersal of members of the civil population or for their maintenance and temporary accommodation when dispersed;
2. (ii) accommodating in their areas persons who are made homeless or leave their homes or are refugees or persons repatriated from abroad;
3. (iii) feeding members of the civil population who are made homeless or leave their homes or are unable to cook meals therein or are refugees or persons repatriated from abroad;
4. (iv) dealing with damaged or unsafe buildings and rescue of persons trapped therein; or
5. (v) the training of persons in duties to be performed in circumstances arising out of hostile action or a threat of hostile action;

be exercisable as respects a London borough or the City by the Greater London Council as well as by the Council of the borough or the Common Council, as the case may be;".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move this Amendment. We have had some lengthy discussions on services which are already in daily operation and which we wish to improve. We now come to a service which, while it is of vital importance that it should be there and should be highly efficient, every Member of this House hopes will never be used. Whilst it is a change of subject to that extent, there is not really a change of principle in the Amendment to many of the Amendments that have already been moved.

Under the Bill, the Civil Defence function of the Greater London Council is strictly limited, and my colleagues and I feel that it is highly desirable that, for the effective working and co-ordination of the Civil Defence services, the sphere in which the Greater London Council can and should act concurrently with the boroughs should be substantially increased. Nuclear attack—or, conventional attack, for that matter—is no respecter of borough boundaries. We have to accept the fact that in the unhappy event of there being a conflict, London is a major target and is bound to be the object of an attack from an enemy. That being so, the structure of London means that bombs and destruction will not be confined to any single borough. Its ramifications will be extended over a wide area.

Here we have a curious situation. We have the Greater London Council with the overall responsibility for the fire and ambulance services. These are mobile services, and will operate over the whole area. The rescue service ought to operate equally on a wide area. It is no good fetching an ambulance for a fellow who is trapped until you can get him out from the building and render first aid. We have to face the fact that, with an attack on London, the services within the confines of the borough will at least be rendered impotent. It is obvious that a service, ready for operation, will have to be mobile and operated from the perimeter of the Greater London area.

I am surprised at the Home Office, because the fallacy of having borough-based rescue services was shown in the last war. At the start we had separate rescue and first-aid services and then, because people had to be rescued before they could be given first aid, we had combined rescue and first-aid services, in which members of both services could participate. But because we could not operate them on a borough or a town basis, we had to set up mobile columns on a regional basis, ready to move into any situation in which they were needed. I go so far as to say that that type of organisation must be the one which operates for any area which will have concentrated attacks, such as London is bound to have. Therefore, this division of the rescue service from the fire and ambulance services and its operational training, is, to my mind, quite foolish. The rescue service ought to be under the general supervision and planning of the Greater London Council.

Then we come to other services, such as the emergency feeding service, which quite rightly is built around the school meals service. There we have the equipment and the buildings and the staff who are trained in the normal provision of meals and who can be easily trained for the extended service of emergency feeding in time of war. That school meals service for inner London, at any rate, is under the Greater London Council, yet the responsibility for the provision of the emergency feeding service is under the boroughs. I suggest that, if you are going to have in peace time the development and continuation of satisfactory training for a war-time activity of emergency feeding services, it ought to be with the Greater London Council. One turns again to the ancillary service of the care of the homeless. Here again we have the question of emergency feeding and the rest centres. They go hand in hand, and there should be this co-ordination of the service with the Greater London Council; and, at the moment, it is not there.

I said right at the start that we hope that this service of Civil Defence will never have to be used here because of a war-time emergency. That being so, there are a tremendous number of good, patriotic people in this country, not only in London but all over the country, who in the time of an emergency would flock to the recruiting centres wanting to take part, but while we are in a static position, as we are now, going on year after year with the cold war and the rest of it, we have really got only the dedicated, self-sacrificing folk who have come into the Civil Defence service during the period since the war. This group of enthusiasts are encouraged by training so that they can be ready to expand their service, to take on responsibility and the training of new recruits who come in.

I will agree that basic or standard training is to a degree a local matter and can be carried on locally, but the standard of training is going to have a very big effect as to whether the expansion of service can take place when an emergency arises and on the effectiveness of those within the service to make the expanded service operationally satisfac- tory. Therefore, the standard of training has to be really high; for the officers to have advance training; for the instructors who are carrying on the training locally; and for the large-scale combined exercises. You cannot do that satisfactorily on a borough basis.

Take London, for instance. For combined exercises there are only three outdoor training grounds. So there has to be an organisation or some arrangement for an organisation in order that those training grounds can be used by the existing boroughs. I would suggest that the organisation of training, and the planning and provision of the facilities for it, is a very desirable service to be undertaken by the Greater London Council. The provision and training of the service and the co-ordination of services, as I have said, must be over a much wider area than a borough, and the only area that can undertake it is the Greater London Council—unless of course it is to be undertaken by a body associated with the Home Office.

We have the London Civil Defence Regional Headquarters, and it is true that if that headquarters were expanded they could carry out the co-ordination within the boroughs. They could perhaps carry on the organisation of training within the London boroughs. Perhaps it is a bias for local government, but I think that that would be undesirable. I should like to see Civil Defence kept as near a local government service as it is possible for it to be kept. Equally, of course, we want the Home Office to pay as much of the money as it is possible for us to get out of them. But basically it is a local government service, and the function of the Home Office, as I see it—and it is carried out very effectively in many directions—is that of the advice and supervision of the authorities carrying out the general provisions of the Civil Defence Acts.

We must recognise that as time goes by the tactical appreciation of potential war-time situations changes, and these changes in appreciation are reflected in the training, development, planning, and organisation of the Civil Defence Service. That is the function so far as the Home Office is concerned, but the general organisation and giving effect to the Home Office direction is, I suggest, a local government function. And it is the view of my colleagues that that function should be given to the Greater London Council in order that they can carry on the general organisation which the London County Council, and the Middlesex County Council, of course, for its area, have so effectively carried out over a period of years. Here perhaps is an appropriate opportunity to appreciate the voluntary work that has been put in by the Civil Defence volunteers, in both London and Middlesex, to bring their standard of efficiency to the present high pitch, appreciating that they are doing it as a very small nucleus of a service which, if ever the tragedy of war came, would have to be expanded very quickly indeed. I move the Amendment appreciating that the noble Earl who will reply has already shown his enthusiasm for Civil Defence and his understanding of the difficulties involved. I look forward to his giving us the encouragement of accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lindgren. I should like to say parenthetically that during the proceedings on Committee stage and on Report stage I have been greatly impressed by the self-endowed omniscience practised by the members of the Government who are defending this Bill and its, in some respects, tortuous provisions. Nothing we can suggest is acceptable apparently to Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding that, if I may say so with respect, there is upon these Benches an accumulated experience of local government which is certainly more informed and more closely associated with actual facts than are the Government Department responsible for this Bill.

The Amendment cites the various services which should, in our opinion, be provided by the Greater London Council. I should have thought that if there was a service at all claiming to be organised and run on a fairly wide basis, it is the provision for Civil Defence. Some of us on this side are not without actual experience of running Civil Defence during the last war. My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was Chairman of the Civil Defence Committee of the London County Council until he became a member of the Government. I was the Deputy Chairman of that Committee, and on his leaving I became Chairman. The powers set out in this Amendment are almost those which were operated, I submit successfully, by the London County Council during the last war. For instance, there is in the Amendment the question of the dispersal of members of a civil population or for their maintenance and temporary accommodation when dispersed. That was evacuation. The London County Council was responsible for the evacuation, first, of the children, and then of the adults in so far as they wished to go out, having been bombed or disturbed by the bombing.

The next power concerns accommodation in their areas of persons who are made homeless—the rest centres. The rest centres were provided by the London County Council. It happened, of course, that in some boroughs there was insufficient accommodation. Even when the schools were taken over, there was insufficient accommodation to house all the persons who had been rendered homeless by bombing. Therefore the London County Council could transfer or send those people to premises and accommodation outside the particular borough in which they previously resided. Had it been a borough function that could not have happened. It did happen because the authority was the London County Council. Then there was the question of feeding the members of the civil population. That started with the London County Council as a meal service, on a cash-and-carry basis. It became a meals service generally for quite a large portion of the people of the Provinces, and ultimately it finished up by becoming British Restaurants. Then there is set out in the Amendment the words: dealing with damaged or unsafe buildings and the rescue of persons trapped therein. That was the rescue service which was run by the London County Council.

Now it is proposed, as regards all those services, to hand them over either straight away, or as regards the meals service in war time, to the London boroughs. The rescue service was, of course, based largely upon the district surveyors, and they were employees of the London County Council. But can one exaggerate the stupidity of proposing that the meals service should be performed by the London County Council during peace time, but in war time it is transferred to the boroughs? It would be a much extended service in war time because of the demands which are made upon it. It seems to me that ineptitude could not go further than this proposal to hand over to the boroughs the Civil Defence services set out in the Amendment.

As my noble friend Lord Lindgren said, not only was it necessary to organise on a wide basis during the last war, but it was necessary to organise on a regional basis, whereas the proposals of this Bill are that it should be mainly upon a borough basis. Really, this is one of the most absurd proposals of this absurd Bill.

9.30 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, we discussed this matter, as you will recall, at some length during our Committee stage. I personally was very glad that we did so because it is an important matter and it was not covered at all during discussions in another place. I feel your Lordships will not wish me to go over all the ground again, ardent civil defender though I am, and in claiming that I am claiming no more than other noble Lords opposite are entitled to claim, including the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, who is sitting on the Cross Benches at this moment.

However I feel I should briefly recapitulate the background as I see it. In the first place, we believe that there should be, generally speaking, a close connection between the normal peace-time functions of a local authority and their Civil Defence responsibilities. I myself feel that that is right. I am confirmed in my belief by some words of wisdom which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, when we were discussion this at our Committee stage. He then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250 (No. 90), col 694]: Broadly speaking, a good guide was that we should let the local authority which normally discharged a function continue to discharge that function in civil defence. I think that is a good guide, and that of course is the reason why the Civil Defence responsibilities of the boroughs and of the Greater London Council respectively are grouped as they are in the Bill as it stands.

The result of that is that the Greater London Council's responsibilities in the Bill are limited. They are limited to the ambulance service, to the first-aid service which goes with it, fire—because there will be the fire authority—and certain responsibilities to be defined later in regulations for dispersal planning in conjunction with the boroughs; but, although limited, those responsibilities will be very clear and, indeed, very important. They will however have no operational rôle. I explained the reasons for that at our Committee stage, and I will not repeat them, but the same applies to the L.C.C. at present. We believe, however, that the Greater London Council will have responsibilities, important responsibilities, in operational planning, and I explained how we thought those might develop.

Once more, I do not wish to go over that ground again, but to clear up one point here I should like to make it clear that the Greater London Council will be at liberty to appoint whatever Civil Defence staff they consider necessary in order to discharge their statutory functions, and to give that staff whatever title they think fit. It will therefore be within the ambit of the Greater London Council to appoint a Civil Defence officer.

LORD LATHAM

And it would then leave the staff with nothing to do?

EARL JELLICOE

Either the noble Lord was not listening to what I was saying, or he thought that what I was saying was incorrect. What I was saying was that, although their responsibilities would be limited, they would be very clear and very important. I thought that I used those precise words only a minute or two ago—I can almost hear myself saying them. So much for the background here.

How does this affect our approach to the point of view which Lord Lindgren was putting to us, that there should be certain concurrent powers here exercised jointly by the Greater London Council and by the London boroughs? I should like to say straight away that, save in the defined field of planning for the dispersal of the London population, we are in general against concurrent powers being held in this particular field. In the first place, we do not think there would be any need for such powers. These boroughs are going to be big and important boroughs. We feel that in this matter of the local services of Civil Defence they should be perfectly able to stand on their own feet and to plan for themselves. Secondly, concurrent powers are not exercised elsewhere, not even where the conurbations are. Take the South Lancashire conurbation or the West Midland conurbation, in which the Civil Defence functions are laid fairly and squarely upon the big county boroughs. There is no supervising or co-ordinating local authority superimposed over and above or alongside them—and it has not been found necessary, at least up to now. We may be right or we may be wrong there, but that is the pattern elsewhere in the country.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, in regard to the West Midland conurbation, we had to set up three regional columns. It was considered by the Home Office that the danger of the combined services within the boroughs being wiped out was such that the regional columns should be brought in.

EARL JELLICOE

We should be a little chary of harping too much—although we can learn a lot of useful experience from the last war—upon conditions which might be very dissimilar; and the mobility which I suspect would be possible after a nuclear attack would be much less than was possible after attacks of the last war.

If co-ordination is required on a regional basis—and I would certainly grant that in some respects co-ordination may be required—we have in the Home Office the Civil Defence regional organisation set-up. There would be what we consider to be the correct co-ordinating body there in situ. In general—and this is my fourth point in this respect—to set up powers with con current responsibilities here is merely to blur responsibilities. If ever there was a field where one wants to have responsibilities clearly defined, I would suggest that it is in this field of Civil Defence and that it should be laid fairly and squarely upon one local authority at a time. That is my general reply to the points which have been moderately and reasonably advanced by noble Lords opposite in speaking to their Amendment.

I should like now to turn to the particular Civil Defence services. Lord Lindgren singled out the rescue service where he thought concurrent powers should operate. He argued that rescue demands mobility and that there would be an advantage in adapting the largest possible area, the Greater London area, for the organisation of a mobile service. To that I would only say—and we must look at this realistically—that in post-nuclear attack conditions I very much doubt whether that degree of mobility would in fact obtain. I think that to that extent the noble Lord's argument falls. But he will then reply to me, and say, "Oh, well! The ambulance service operates over the whole." But the reason why the ambulance service is designed to operate over the whole, is merely that it reflects our belief that the peace-time functions and the Civil Defence responsibilities of a local authority should, wherever possible, match.

The second service with which noble Lords dealt was the emergency feeding service. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Latham, reminded us that the school meals service plays an important part here. But, of course, it is only one part of a local authority's emergency feeding facilities. As I understand it, when planning their emergency feeding services local authorities are expected to take account of all the catering facilities in their area—not only the schools service, but the Lyons's in their area, the industrial canteens and so on. The London boroughs, as emergency feeding authorities, would therefore in their planning be able, and would be required, to take account not only of the resources of the school meals services, but also of other catering facilities in their area.

There is a problem here, and I should like to mention how we propose to tackle it. It is true that, under the Bill as drafted, neither the Greater London Council nor the inner London boroughs would have power to train the school meals service staff of the Inner London Education Authority in emergency feeding. I think that that is a defect, and to meet this point the Government propose amending the Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) Regulations, 1951, in such a way that the inner London boroughs would be able to train these people. I believe that in that way we shall get round the admitted defect in our arrangements as they stand at the present time. Perhaps I laid myself open to attack there, by admitting a defect which noble Lords opposite have not pointed out, but I wanted to take this opportunity of saying what we had in mind here.

The third point with which noble Lords dealt was the question of the homeless, where they felt that concurrent powers should operate. In my view, there are three good reasons why concurrent powers should not operate here, and why planning for the care of the homeless should be laid at the door of the boroughs, and only at that door. These are my three reasons. In the first place, the authorities normally responsible for welfare matters are those best equipped for making and carrying out plans for caring for the homeless in the event of war. Secondly, we believe that planning for the care of the homeless is essentially a local matter. Thirdly, these plans for the care of the homeless must be co-ordinated—and this is quite essential—with other Civil Defence planning, and responsibility for that other Civil Defence planning is to be placed upon the London boroughs under the Bill. Finally, there was the question of training, on which noble Lords touched; and here again they felt there should be concurrent powers. On this I would merely reply that to have these would again blur the responsibilities—something which I think it is important we should not do. Where we wish to obtain uniformity in training, I would suggest that this is essentially a matter where the regional director and his staff should come in, and in fact do come in.

Those are my reasons for believing that, in the four specific fields which noble Lords singled out, we should not be right to opt for concurrent powers; and, where co-ordination is required, that we should rely upon the regional organisation of the Home Office Civil Defence establishment to be the necessary co-ordinating factor. Noble Lords have suggested that in so doing we are perhaps bringing in the Home Office and pushing out the local authorities. I do not think that that is so, because in that respect the London regional director and his organisation would stand in no different relationship to the local authorities in London than other Civil Defence regional instructors stand in relation to their local authorities.

I should like to assure your Lordships that in looking at this problem and replying to this Amendment I have not done so in any doctrinaire way at all. I have done so conscious of my responsibilities as a Home Office Minister in Civil Defence. It is entirely in that light that I have regarded this Amendment, and it is entirely in the light of those considerations that I suggest that your Lordships would be unwise to accept it. I would recall that, in speaking to a similar Amendment (in fact, I think it was precisely the same Amendment) at our Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I think it was, said in reply that I had made out quite a good case. In fact, I then made out just the same case as I have just made out now, and if it was good then it is equally good now. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords opposite will take the same course now as they did on Committee.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I cannot quite agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd if he did say that the noble Earl had made out a good case. In some ways there is a case, I agree, but the basic thing is training. I am much more concerned with standards of training at the present time, and with the provision of facilities for training, than perhaps with some of the other things. But the fact is, of course, that, unless the power goes to the Greater London Council, that can be done only by a considerably increased function within the present London Civil Defence regional organisation. I should prefer that power to be with the Greater London Council, as it is at the moment with the London County Council.

It is a matter of opinion but, quite frankly, the holding up of the rescue service as a local service is just "bolony", because, although I referred to the last war and to the use of regional columns, one fact is plain. During the last war we had the opportunity of mobility even in such devastated areas as those brought about by the Coventry blitz. If ever such a tragedy comes, you will not have mobility in London for many miles. What is the use of putting your fire brigade, your ambulance and your first-aid units out on the perimeter, ready to move in, as you allow, when you cannot rescue the people in the buildings which are not affected by fire or treat them with first-aid and put them in an ambulance? The whole organisation from that point of view will have to be revised.

Equally, on the question of the homeless, boroughs just cannot deal with the problems. If there were such a tragedy as the dropping of a nuclear bomb, whether on South London or on North London, the whole of the area would be devastated, and the problem of dealing with the homeless who come from it will have to be tackled by the areas outside. The noble Earl says, "Let the Home Office Regional Director do it". But in the normal local government area or county—Middlesex, Hertfordshire and the rest of it—this is a function of the local government organisation, supervised, too, by the Regional Director, with his own sources available, if called upon by the Regional Director, for supporting the services of any other area which happens to be fully stretched or which has perhaps been made immobile. So there must be this co-ordinating function operated by somebody. The boroughs just cannot do it.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord here, but I think he is possibly confusing something which I said. He is now talking of what would happen in an actual emergency, or in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. I dealt with that at great length in Committee, when I pointed out that in such a case responsibility would be transferred to the regions outside London and that the Regional Commissioner would be exercising the co-ordinating function.

LORD LINDGREN

But the Regional Commissioner depends upon the local authority. He does not operate the services: he directs the services. If you are going to have in that respect an operation different from that with regard to training, then I think that is foolish. It would be a far better way to train and to exercise as near as you can to the conditions which will operate in war time. Of course, nobody works then to the last letter of the law, but the drill is more likely to be effective in operation if you used the same basis for training. But I know the enthusiasm that the noble Earl has for Civil Defence, and on this occasion I am not prepared to advise my colleagues to divide. I think the matter will have to be revised, and I shall then have the pleasure of saying, "I told you so". At least, I hope I live to say it. I will not withdraw my Amendment; I prefer it to be negatived.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 51 [Amendments to Shops Act, 1950]:

9.51 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert: .—(1) The Greater London Council shall be the local authority for Greater London for the purposes of the Young Persons (Employment) Act 1938 and the Shops Act 1950.

(2) In accordance with the foregoing sub-section—

1. (a) for section 6(1)(a) of the Young Persons (Employment) Act 1938 there shall be substituted:—
• '(a) as respects Greater London, the Greater London Council;'
• (b) in section 73(1) of the Shops Act. 1950, for the words 'as respects the City of London, the Common Council;' there shall be substituted 'as respects Greater London the Greater London Council;'".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 163, and I hope it will be convenient to your Lordships if I discuss with it Amendments Nos. 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168. That, in itself, should suffice to predispose the noble Earl in favour of what I am now going to say. Certainly if he accepted these Amendments it would mean major alterations to Clause 51, and I therefore thought it might be helpful if I read out Clause 51 as it would read if the Amendments were accepted. It would read: No order shall be made under section 54 of the Shops Act 1950 other than an order revoking, either generally or as respects a specified area, a previous order under that section: and the power of making such order under that section shall be exercisable by the Greater London Council and references to subsections (2) to (4) of that section and in any order made thereunder to the London county council shall be construed as references to the Common Council of the City of London and the Greater London Council". To me, that recital possesses a symmetry which I hope will commend it to the noble Earl. But I appreciate that symmetry is not enough and I want to support it with argument.

The purpose of these Amendments in total is to ensure that the administration of the Shops Act, 1950, throughout Greater London, including the City of London, is transferred to the Greater London Council and not, as under Clause 4 in the Bill, to the London boroughs; and, in addition, that the administration of the Young Persons Employment Act, 1938, which contains provisions relating to hours of employment of young persons in certain occupations, and which is conveniently administered under the Shops Act, 1950, is in the same way transferred to the Greater London Council. The Shops Act deals with the closing of shops on early closing days, in the evenings and on Sundays; and it also contains provisions relating to shop assistants' weekly half-holidays and meal times, employment on Sundays and compensatory holidays.

At present in the County of London the Act is administered by the London County Council except for the provisions of Section 38 regarding sanitary and other arrangements which are administered by the sanitary authorities, and except also in the City of London where it is administered by the Common Council of the City. The Act empowers a local authority to make various orders: for example, to fix days for early closing, to prescribe, within limits, evening closing hours, and to fix late days, for example in the West End of London exempting certain trades from the early closing day provisions. In past years the L.C.C. have made a number of orders under these powers, some of which apply to defined areas and some throughout the whole county, in which, by the way, there are some 65,000 shops. To do this work the Council have appointed twelve inspectors, each of whom, therefore, is responsible for about 5,000 shops.

In detecting infringements of the law, it is an advantage, when an inspector becomes too well known to the offending or recalcitrant shopkeeper, if he can put a colleague not known to the good gentleman to watch his "goings on". If the inner London boroughs become Shops Act authorities, each one of them will have just sufficient work for one inspector. Is the noble Earl satisfied that this work, which is now being done by twelve inspectors under one authority, can be done by twelve inspectors operating under twelve different authorities? My own view—one which I am certain he must subscribe to—is that it will be quite impossible, with holidays, sickness and other consequences, to do this without having two inspectors, which will approximately double the cost right away, without in any way increasing efficiency. In fact, as I shall show, it will decrease the efficiency of the present service.

The powers given to local authorities under the Shops Act to make orders relating to early closing day and evening closing naturally cause difficulties where local authority boundaries cut across or through shopping centres. There are a number of places on the present boundaries of the county of London where a shopkeeper on one side of a shopping centre, with the early closing order of one authority, has to close on one day and a shopkeeper on the other side of the same street, with a differing early closing order, has to close on another day. This is unavoidable. But the point about the Act as it now stands is that this Bill will be virtually certain to increase its anomalies twelvefold, because instead of one authority within the perimeter of the county we shall have twelve, each with different predilections about early closing day. In fact, this may actually depend on the idea of a councillor who is a leading shopkeeper about what day should be his weekly day off.

The cost will be increased under the Government's proposal, the efficiency of the service will decrease and the annoyances which arise will increase. On the other hand, the advantages which would result from the retention of the larger areas of administration throughout the county of London as it now exists would be, first, that it would remove these equalities of treatment between the numerous boroughs, of which, apart from shopkeepers, the public will quite rightly complain; and secondly, will remove the necessity for complicated ad hoc administrative arrangements between the boroughs, which will be a great help.

I know that the noble Earl is going to say that the boroughs will make arrangements between themselves. This is the familiar pattern that we have had: destroy the unity and the efficient administration that exists, and substitute for it an ad hoc getting together which may do the job almost as well as it is now being done. How on earth you can see an advantage in taking something which is co-ordinated and, as it were, administered under one roof, and destroy it, and then say "Ah; but we shall co-ordinate together again and assemble the pieces", is something which I cannot fathom, and it can only be beauty in the most academic mind. Then the retention of the specialist staff will be an advantage which, as I have already pointed out, it will be uneconomic for the boroughs to maintain, or, if they maintain it, will cost a lot more. Further, it will mean the removal of differences of interpretation and the standards of enforcement which are bound to arise and cause resentment.

I am aware that Amendments similar to the one I am now moving were moved in another place and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department then said: This is another case in which one has to take a decision on balance, with no completely decisive consideration one way or the other". It is a practice in your Lordships' House, and certainly in another place, that when there is a tie the Chairman decides not to disturb the existing arrangement. Since we have the Minister admitting that there is nothing much in it either way, I should have thought that was a precedent we ought to follow. Equally, it would seem to me logical that since Greater London is virtually one built-up area it would be in the interests of economy and efficiency that there should be a unified administration for the Shops Act under the Greater London Council.

In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in rejecting similar Amendments which were then moved, conceded that there was substance in the arguments which we put forward, and particularly those relating to staffing problems, which indeed are undeniable. But even he, agreeing with his colleague in another place, said that, on balance, the Shops Act was essentially a local matter, to be locally administered, and ought therefore to be a borough responsibility. This Bill is dealing with local government, and "local" in this sense, I would submit, is the Greater London Council. In my submission, the noble Earl's suggestion that this raises a borough matter is not borne out by practical experience, and it is not supported by the interests of efficiency and economic administration, which I regard as of paramount importance, and which, indeed, should be so regarded.

If you are going to break something up that is working well, then it should be only for some positive advantage. I feel that when the noble Earl comes to reply he should show us what positive advantages will flow from spending more money to do the job less well than it is being done now. That. I think, is the case he has to answer. By these Amendments we seek to unify, under the Greater London Council, the administration of the Shops Act and the Young Persons (Employment) Act throughout Greater London, including the City, except for the provisions as to sanitation and other arrangements. I believe there is a strong case for these Amendments, and unless the noble Earl can answer the case, particularly on the three points I have put forward, then I feel that I shall have to invite your Lordships to support us in the Lobby. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 36, after ("51") add the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)

10.5 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, we discussed this matter at Committee, and noble Lords opposite pushed their argument to the point of a Division. I said then, and I repeat now, that, like my colleague in another place, I felt that there was a certain balance of argument here. I was quite prepared to concede that there was a case for this Amendment, and I have always found that the argument of the faceless inspector to be quite an appealing one—an inspector whom the shopkeeper does not know. I also made it clear—and I think I can also confirm this—that I did not think this was a matter which need necessarily awaken our deepest political passions. But I hoped I had said enough to convince your Lordships that my approach to this particular Amendment was not that of somebody with a closed mind.

In confirmation of that, I would remind your Lordships that at Committee I myself moved an Amendment transferring one of these public control functions, that for petroleum licensing, from the boroughs to the Greater London Council. Nevertheless, I said at Committee—and I have no hesitation in repeating this now—that, on the whole, in our view the balance of advantage here undoubtedly lies in keeping these control functions for the Shops Act and Young Persons (Employment) Act with the boroughs. So far as I can make out, the noble Lord opposite has advanced no new argument for this Amendment, and by the same token I find myself relying on fairly familiar arguments in resisting his Amendment. In the first place—I think I can say this with less trepidation than if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, were in your Lordships' House at this precise moment—I should like to remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission considered this matter closely, and clearly recommended that the enforcement of the Shops Act should vest with the boroughs. They pointed out that boroughs of the size which they had in mind should be able to eliminate the sort of problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred—the problem of varying shop hours at the centre of London. I would merely remind your Lordships that the boroughs we are now discussing which we have written into the Bill will be a good deal larger than those which the Royal Commission had in mind.

The noble Lord has tried to spike my guns in advance by saying that of course the noble Earl in reply will fall back upon the threadbare argument that where there is difficulty the boroughs will be able to make perfectly sensible arrangements, so that there will not be anomalies wherever boundaries come together, possibly in a shopping area. Spiked though my guns may be, according to his likes, I will in fact repeat that argument, which seems to me a perfectly sensible one if one is dealing with perfectly sensible boroughs. I cannot understand this assumption which noble Lords make that we are dealing with parochial boroughs, with unco-operative or unsensible boroughs, and boroughs which will dance to the tune of one particular shopkeeping councillor. I really think they are overstraining the argument here, and I would claim that where there is need for co-operation boroughs will be able to make the necessary co-operative arrangements.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that in the case of the Shops and Offices Act, which this House dealt with some time ago, the Minister then felt that it was necessary to have a central inspector in to ensure that all the different authorities provided a uniform standard? He felt it was necessary, but obviously the noble Earl does not.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think we are dealing with different functions. The noble Lord asked me if I remembered that. I do not, because I was not in that particular discussion. In the second place, I wish to remind your Lordships that these functions outside the administrative County of London are exercised, not by county councils, but by boroughs and urban district councils, sometimes with a population of no more than 20,000. I will admit that the criteria which apply in cases of urban district councils in an isolated area may be rather different, indeed, very different, from those which apply in a large conurbation like London. Nevertheless, I would maintain that the cases are not so different as to mean that functions which elsewhere can be discharged for populations of only 20,000 need, in London, a catchment area of 8½ million; because in this catchment area of 8½ million it is not only the L.C.C. area which is caught by the noble Lord's Amendment, but an area 450 times the size of the catchment area which works perfectly adequately elsewhere in this country. Again, I would remind noble Lords that even in London the L.C.C. have delegated all their Shops Act functions, save those which concern hours of business, to the metropolitan boroughs. I think a certain amount of proof of the pudding is in the shopping there. As regards shopping hours, the L.C.C. have found it necessary to make different orders for different parts of the county.

A further and important reason why I believe these functions should be properly entrusted to boroughs is that we have already decided under this Bill to transfer many other public control functions to them. The boroughs will therefore inevitably have to set up the public control department, and this department will be fully able to handle the functions which we are now discussing. I should have thought that if they are going to set up a public control department for all the other 16, 17 or 18 Acts which have public control obligations attached to them, it is only sensible to put this other public control function to them, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary. That is where I can meet the noble Lord's argument, or at least I think I can, about the inspectors. It will not be necessary for each of the London boroughs to have a separate or special inspector in order that the borough may be able to discharge its obligations under this particular function. They will be discharging this obligation by calling upon their public control department as a whole, as, indeed, do existing county boroughs within London, like Croydon.

Again, it seems to me logical that this Act should be administered under the same umbrella as weights and measures and food and drugs. Here, again, I would remind your Lordships that these, too, are going to the boroughs. Having said this about the public control department, I should not wish to argue that an administrative convenience is more important that the convenience of the public. However, I maintain that if a large number of public control functions are going to the boroughs, it is much more convenient and much less confusing to the man in the street if, generally speaking, all public control functions go to the boroughs, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary which the man in the street knows.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, the noble Earl took me somewhat to task for suggesting that we were dealing with unto-operative boroughs, and thought there would be no difficulty about their coming together. The fact is we are now dealing with an area which it is proposed to break up, in which some parts close early on Wednesday, some on Thursday and some on Saturday. There is no legislative or administrative dividing line. At the moment it is all one area. Now we are to take that area and divide it up into 12, and the noble Earl tells your Lordships that, when that is done and the new local pride begins to assert itself, the part which closes now on Wednesday afternoon, the part which closes on Thursday afternoon and that which closes on Saturday afternoon will have no difficulty whatsoever in coming together and coming to an agreement. I must say to the noble Earl that whoever gave him that piece of advice has not the slightest clue whatsoever about local government and the people who vote for and compose our local councils. It really is not worthy of the noble Earl, who on almost everything speaks not only with a great deal of sense and sincerity but with considerable wisdom. It is quite unworthy of him, because he knows that this is absolutely impractical and absurd. Of course there will be difficulties and troubles, and we shall have these dividing lines. The local councils will not give way on these matters—indeed, if they have been closing on different days for the last 20 or 30 years why should they?

EARL JELLICOE

May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He said that I knew the argument I was advancing was impractical and absurd. The noble Lord may agree or disagree with the argument, but he is not entitled to suggest that I knew I was advancing an argument which was impractical and absurd. That argues an insincerity on my part to which I do not lay claim.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I entirely withdraw that, because I would never accuse the noble Earl of insincerity. But I am left unfortunately on the other leg; I have to accuse him of ignorance. I do neither with any kind of ill-will, as I am sure he realises.

The noble Earl then tried to blind your Lordships with science. He did not quite succeed in blinding me. But, however hard he tried, I would submit that he was unable to disprove that the Government's way of doing things in this Bill is bound to cost a lot more; it will do the job far less efficiently and it will cause far greater annoyance and inconvenience to the public. As in so many things, noble Lords opposite seem resolutely and absolutely determined to dig their own politi

cal graves, and who am I to try to deter them from such a noble enterprise? I shall therefore invite your Lordships to go into the Lobby with me in support of this Amendment.

10.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 163) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Henderson, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Archibald, L.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Longford, E.	Stonham, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Middleton, L.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Dundee, E.	Merrivale, L.
Albemarle, E.	Eccles, L.	Mersey, V.
Allerton, L.	Effingham, E.	Mills, V.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Ellenborough, L.	Molson, L.
Auckland, L.	Ferrers, E.	Monk Bretton, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Fortescue, E.	Monsell, V.
Brecon, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Poulett, E.
Bridgeman, V.	Grenfell, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Carrington, L.	Hanworth, V.	St. Just, L.
Chelmer, L.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Sandford, L.
Conesford, L.	Iddesleigh, E.	Sandys, L.
Craigton, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Cranbrook, E.	Jessel, L.	Swinton, E.
De La Warr, E.	Lothian, M.	Tenby, V.
Denham, L.	Mabane, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Derwent, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Waleran, L.
Devonshire, D.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 52 [Licensing of theatres, public entertainments, etc.]:

10.28 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, this is really only a drafting Amendment. The licensing of certain forms of public entertainment, public music, boxing, wrestling and dancing in the counties which are to be included in the whole or part of Greater London is at present conducted under the umbrella of a number of local Acts. We have thought it right to bring these together under the system at present in force in Middlesex. Certain small Amendments have been made here and in another place, and therefore it is no longer right to call this the "Middlesex system". That is the purpose of the Amendment which I now beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 70, line 24, leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 28.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Food, drugs, markets and animals]:

LORD WALSTON moved, in subsection (3), after "1950" to insert: and the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925— The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to what I think your Lordships will agree is one of the more important Amendments to this Bill, dealing with the diseases of animals and performing animals. Some of your Lordships have expressed surprise to me that there are any performing animals which come within the ambit of this Bill—outside the Palace of Westminster, which I believe is exempt from its provisions; but there are undoubtedly some, though probably not so many as there used to be.

It is a well-known fact that in this country we have always considered animals to be of at least equal importance, if not of superior importance to children. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded several years prior to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and I think that alone is sufficient reason for us to look at these Amendments with a good deal of seriousness. I must admit that the importance of animals in London to-day is not so great as it used to be. In the old days the Port of London was the major port for the importation of livestock into this country, some of it coming from other parts of the British Isles, some of it from overseas. That trade has somewhat declined at the present time, but there are still a good many matters concerning animals which come within the purview of the present City of London and the present London County Council.

In general, matters concerning animals, particularly the diseases of animals—and with them go the regulations concerning performing animals—are dealt with mainly by the Ministry of Agriculture, but a certain number of their functions are delegated to the local authorities. In particular, there are various diseases such as foot-and-mouth, anthrax, and so on, which from time to time do considerable harm and present a considerable danger to the population. In order to deal with those at the moment there are two full-time inspectors employed by the London County Council. It is a somewhat specialised job. The normal public health inspector and other veterinary inspectors who have responsibility for these matters do not often have the opportunity of seeing such diseases or recognising them, and it is clearly unreasonable to expect that each of the newly constituted borough councils would have the expertise necessary among their inspectors to be able to cope with these matters.

It is therefore quite reasonable to say that the future administration of these regulations should remain in the hands of the relatively small number—two, three, four, whatever it may be—of highly specialised experts who know how to deal with these things, to recognise them and to follow up any traces that may come their way. It would not only be unreasonable to expect that each of the new borough councils should have experts of this particular kind; it would also be unreasonable to expect that, having got on to the track, as it were, of anthrax, when they reached the borough boundary they would then have to cease following up the clue, return to their office and telephone to their colleague in the next local authority. That is not a very efficient way of dealing with the matter.

Therefore, if we accept that the problem is whether we shall continue to have these two inspectors who are now employed by one central authority continuing to do their job most efficiently in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, or whether we shall make them the employees of a whole series of newly constituted smaller local authorities, clearly it is far more efficient for these people to continue to be employed and administered, as they have been in the past, most effectively, by one central authority, rather than that they should have a whole bevy of new masters collectively to employ them—that, instead of having one master, they should have a multiplicity of them. It is purely for this reason that we are moving this Amendment. We believe that it is going to make the administration of the various regulations easier; that it should be done, as in the past, by one central authority, rather than that this system should be split up and then once more reconstituted. I hope that the logic and objectivity of our arguments will convince the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that this is a correct Amendment, and that he will now be able to signify his acceptance of it.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Walston.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has moved Amendment No. 170, but of course it is connected with various other Amendments, as he will recognise, and these Amendments have been considered previously in Committee. The noble Lord did not himself take part, I remember. Their effect would be to give the Greater London Council, rather than the London boroughs and the City, the functions concerning animals which are mentioned in the respective Acts. The matter has been considered very carefully in the light of previous discussions in this House and in another place, and the conclusion has been reached that the best arrangement is to give the London boroughs this responsibility. The day-to-day work in connection with the Acts is not complicated and does not call for a high degree of technical skill. I do not know whether the noble Lord disagrees with me on that point—I think he suggested that he did—but the experience we have at hand to study does not suggest that it requires a high degree of technical skill.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, if I may interrupt, I would not suggest that the day-to-day working of these Acts requires a high degree of skill. But the occasional appearance of the rather rarer diseases, such as anthrax and foot and mouth disease, which are not very common within the confines of the Greater London Council, would require a considerable amount of specialisation.

LORD ST. OSWALD

Yes, but of course if any hint or suggestion of such an outbreak or such a case occurred, my own Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries vets would immediately be called in. I think that particular aspect is taken care of by my own Department. But what the noble Lord proposes would carry it much further. We think that, by giving the day-to-day responsibility to the boroughs, it would be possible to arrange for more intensive coverage of the work, with less travelling and with greater local knowledge. Already the boroughs in the outer London area have satisfactorily undertaken the work, and we think the new boroughs would undoubtedly continue to maintain those high standards as they exist.

The noble Lord mentioned specifically the future of the two lay inspectors employed by the London County Council. It has been found that their work is concentrated in the area of the two slaughterhouses in Islington and Woolwich, and the appropriate new London boroughs would find that the work in each case would keep an inspector fully employed in the two areas. In order to specify under the Bill one area will fall in the City of London and the other will fall in the area to be occupied by the amalgamated boroughs of Greenwich and Woolwich. So if it is thought suitable, as it well may be, one of those two inspectors may be assigned to and employed by each of these authorities. A limited amount of work could be undertaken in adjacent boroughs, but the task associated with slaughterhouses is likely to place a heavy demand on the time of the lay inspectors, and it will be an advantage to have the work in other boroughs done by separate, designated officers. I am referring now to the day-to-day work, and it will be part of the day-to-day work, as it always has been, to report to my Department any untoward, startling or disturbing occurrence in the context of animal health, and my Department will immediately despatch one of our Ministry vets, to study the question.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I must say I am not convinced by it. I think that it would be more satisfactory if these two inspectors, instead of being seconded to and employed by Woolwich and Greenwich and the City of London, were available to travel farther and wider, because it is perfectly possible that some disease will break out—and one has only to look at Harlow, with the typhoid outbreak which has occurred there, from, so far as one can see, imported meat in some form or another, or from processed meat. One can envisage a case of that kind, with possibly some other disease confined entirely to animals, such as anthrax, arising in one of those two main slaughterhouses but not showing any clinical symptoms and not being recognised until it goes to a borough further afield, where there will not be one of these two specialised inspectors. The delays involved in getting on to the noble Lord's Ministry, instead of its being all part of the same organisation, might be fairly serious.

What is more, it is not only a question of actually dealing with the disease once it has been recognised that is difficult: one of the most difficult things is, in fact, to recognise the disease in the earlier stages. So it may be that, through the lack of these specialised inspectors, the disease will not be recognised in time and reported to the noble Lord's Ministry quickly enough. So I am not convinced by his arguments, and I think it is unfortunate that he has not been convinced by mine. But I must freely admit that, although I regard this as an unfortunate attitude on the part of the Government, I do not think it is of such wide-reaching importance that it warrants my asking your Lordships to come into the Division Lobby, with all the necessary delays which are entailed in that. Therefore, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 [Smallholdings, allotments, etc.]:

10.42 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that the Greater London Council shall have all the duties, as well as the powers, of a smallholdings authority. As it stands, the clause, by making the Greater London Council a smallholdings authority, gives it the same powers under Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947, as a county council on whom the duty of providing smallholdings is imposed—that is to say, any county council other than the London County Council. But it does not impose that duty on the Greater London Council. This Amendment rectifies that omission, and at the same time makes clear that certain provisions of pre-1947 smallholdings legislation, which apply to other county councils, apply to the Greater London Council. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 73, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 28 and insert— ("(1) Part IV of the Agriculture Act 1947 (which relates to smallholdings) shall apply to the Greater London Council as it applies to a county council, and accordingly in section 47(1) of that Act (which makes it the duty of every county council other than the London county council to provide smallholdings) for the words 'other than the London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'and of the Greater London Council'. (2) The Greater London Council").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. It is necessary to ensure that the Greater London Council, which will inherit the smallholdings estate of the Middlesex County Council, can exercise all the functions now exercisable by Middlesex under pre-1947 legislation. As it stands, the clause covers only one particular function under that legislation. This Amendment extends it to all such functions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 31, leave out from ("under") to ("exercisable") in line 32 and insert ("the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts 1908 lo 1931 repealed by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1926 or saved by proviso (a) to section 67(2) of the Agriculture Act 1947 which by virtue of section 19(1) of the said Act of 1926 or the said section 67(2), were").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD moved to add to subsection (2): and in section 71(8)(c) of that Act which relates to the discharge of the functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees in the existing county of London) for the words 'the county of London' there shall be substituted the words Greater London'".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like your Lordships to take this Amendment together with Amendment No. 214, which is consequential upon it. They relate to Section 71(8)(c) of Agriculture Act, 1947. The establishment of county agricultural executive committees is provided in Section 71(1) of the Act, with which I have no doubt your Lordships are familiar. Section 71(8)(c) is related, and specifies that the responsibility for the County of London shall be treated as if any such part thereof as the Minister may direct were included in such adjoining administrative county as he may direct".

Unless Amendments were made to this section the Minister would not have any power to apportion the area of Greater London between C.A.E.C.s of adjoining administrative counties. The Amendment proposed will enable the Minister to have the same power in relation to the area of the new authority as he has now in relation to the County of London.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58 [Parks and open spaces]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment arises from an Opposition Amendment discussed in Committee. As the Bill stands at present the Greater London Council may provide new parks only where the proposal is approved by the Minister as being for the benefit of Greater London as a whole". Noble Lords opposite thought this was too restrictive. The new formula substitutes some words which it is hoped will find favour while at the same time indicating that, in the Government's view, the Greater London Council should not set out to provide new parks inside Greater London unless they are going to be for the benefit of at least a considerable part of the area. The task of providing local parks should be undertaken by the boroughs. In reference to the later Amendment which follows, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I would say that we feel this formula is not quite strong enough to indicate that any new parks provided by the Greater London Council have to serve a very wide area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 23, leave out ("Greater London as a whole") an insert ("an area of Greater London substantially larger than the London boroughs in or near which the park or open space is proposed to be provided").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, we on this side give this Amendment a cool welcome; but feel it does not go quite as far as we should like. However, in the circumstances, we suggest that the House supports the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it impossible for both this clause and the clause on the Green Belt introduced in the Committee stage to apply to the same piece of land. If any Green Belt land, in the sense of the new clause, is at the same time land vested in the L.C.C. or the Middlesex County Council and used as a park or open space", the more specific provisions of Clause 59 will prevail. The Greater London Council will not be under obligation, in other words, to propose a scheme by 1970 for distributing Green Belt land among the boroughs. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 30, after ("57(2)") insert ("or 59(1)")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.49 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree, this is a very complicated issue, and perhaps he will therefore forgive me if I keep closely to my notes. The subsection to which this Amendment refers was added to the clause by the Government in another place during the Committee stage. It provides that until the distribution of parks and open spaces, as between the Greater London Council and the new boroughs, is finalised, the Greater London Council's expenditure on these parks and open spaces inherited by it from the London County Council shall be treated as expenditure for special London purposes and chargeable only to the inner London boroughs, the City and the Temples. This expenditure for special London purposes is likely to amount to approximately only a penny rate in inner London; and on purely practical grounds that would not seem to justify the additional accounting complexities its imposition would create.

This also seems wrong in principle, because the effect of the subsection, as it stands, in inner London would bring not only a penny rate, but also its rateable share of the remaining penny rate in respect of the former London County Council parts and also in respect of any Middlesex part inherited by the G.L.C. Financially, the Bill seems to be weighted somewhat against the inner London area by the provisions of this subsection and Clause 23(6), which also was added by the Government on Report stage in another place. It provides that the inner London area is to meet the housing revenue account deficiencies of the G.L.C. for a transitional period and under subsection (3) of Clause 69 inner London must bear its rateable share for the transitional assistance to the severed counties, although at the present time that arrangement will not be necessary and although it might be that such a system would put a charge on only outer London boroughs.

It provides protection also against the fact that inner London, by reason of its high rateable value, will bear a relatively greater proportion than the outer London boroughs of the expenditure of the G.L.C. It seems wrong in principle, on a major reorganisation which the Government have undertaken, to make special financial arrangements for particular services. It will surely be preferable on all accounts to make a fresh start and treat the whole arrangement as one from the beginning. The case for doing so in respect of parks and open spaces is particularly strong, because nearly 30 per cent. of the area of the L.C.C. parks and open spaces is outside the area of the inner London boroughs. On the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, the noble Earl resisted this Amendment on the ground that the outer London boroughs pay for their own parks, and until a general plan for the distribution of London parks was made they should not also have to pay towards the local parks of inner London.

In our view, this does not alter the argument that it is illogical to draw these distinctions, all of which ignore the benefit which the outer London boroughs themselves are deriving from those areas within the inner part of Greater London. This is a complicated matter. We are raising it now in order to obtain, if we can, further information from the Minister, and perhaps, having had an opportunity to consider the position of the inner London boroughs, the outer London boroughs and the spaces within the inner area which the whole community enjoy, the noble Lord can give us some measure of comfort. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 22, leave out subsection (3).— (Lord Shepherd.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this Amendment was inserted in the Bill at Recommittal stage in another place, but I would point out that on that occasion, when its purpose was explained by my right honourable friend, the subsection was accepted without further discussion and it did not seem to arouse any anxiety then. I am not sure, even now, why noble Lords opposite should think that it is unfair to suggest that half the special charge should be a precept on the inner London boroughs only. This refers only to L.C.C. parks and open spaces, which at the moment are paid for by the L.C.C. and also by a small precept upon the inner boroughs. I pointed out, and I must do so again, that the outer London boroughs constituted from parts of Essex, Kent, Surrey and so on, pay for their own local parks, and they will be paying in part for the local parks of inner London, as well. They will be sharing among them the other half. We propose to relieve them of half the total for the inner London parks. Had it been practicable, it would have been better from the outset to give the boroughs the administrative and financial responsibility for parks serving local needs, and that will be done by the year 1970, when the Greater London Council have made their plans for devolving these parks to the ownership of the individual London boroughs. But as that is not possible, it was thought that this transitional arrangement was the fairest.

The noble Lord brought in the question of Middlesex, and thought the inner London boroughs would also be paying for the parks and open spaces inherited from Middlesex. In point of fact, the position there is that they are not included in this subsection because the local parks are already in the care of the Middlesex county districts, and the Middlesex County precept for parks is only of the order of ½d., while the local rates for this purpose vary from 6d. to 1s. I think the noble Lord will agree that there is nothing in that point. We do not see why there should be any particular objection to this. It seems to me rather that the inner London boroughs are asking to eat their cake and have it. The parks are mainly for their benefit, and most of them will in due course be transferred to them, and those which are not will be precepted on by the Greater London Council for all the boroughs. Therefore, we consider it reasonable that this half of these special charges in the transitional stage should be borne only by the inner London boroughs and the other half distributed through the whole area.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, naturally we regret that the Government cannot respond a little more in this matter. I think the noble Lord will agree that many of these parks in London are enjoyed and shared by the inhabitants, or are available to the inhabitants, of the Greater London area. It is rather late, and this is obviously not a matter on which we should wish to fight. Having explored the position, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59 [The Green Belt]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is a clarifying Amendment. Its purpose is to prevent possible overlapping between the new Clause 80, which refers to charities in Greater London, and its legal effect is to let charity prevail: charity land will continue to vest "for the like purposes", to quote subsection (1) of Clause 80. Its practical effect is not likely to be substantial, since under either clause the land would go to the Greater London Council. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 33, after ("land") insert ("not being land to which section 80(1) of this Act applies").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:

Functions under Town Development Act 1952

".—(1) As respects participation in town development within the meaning of the Town Development Act 1952, and as respects the power to contribute towards expenses of such development conferred by sections 4 and 10(3) of that Act on the council of a county borough, the Greater London Council shall be in the same position under that Act as the council of a county borough, and accordingly references in that Act to the council of a county borough as an authority participating or eligible to participate and the references to the council of a county borough in sections 4, 10(3) and 12(1) of that Act shall include references to the Greater London Council; and, for the purposes of any such development in respect of which the Greater London Council have power under the said section 4 to make a contribution to the council of any receiving district within the meaning of that Act, they shall also have power to make available to that council the services of any of their officers or servants.

(2) In section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1952, for sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) there shall be substituted the following—

1. '(ii) Greater London; or
2. (iii) a county district in an area of continuous urban development adjacent to any big centre of population other than Greater London; or'.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Greater London Council

1. (a) to implement, or complete the implementation of, any undertaking given before 783 1st April 1965 with the approval of the Minister—
1. (i) under section 4, 10(3) or 19(3) of the said Act of 1952 (including the said section 4 as extended by section 34(2) of the Housing Act 1961) by any council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies; or
2. (ii) under the said section 4 (as extended as aforesaid) by the Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent or Surrey county council in a case where the undertaking was in respect of development relieving congestion in any area falling within Greater London;
2. (b) to take or complete any action which was agreed to be taken by any council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies in pursuance of an agreement made before 1st April 1965, being an agreement made with the authority of the Minister under section 8(1) of the said Act of 1952 or an agreement such as is referred to in section 8(2) of that Act;

and the Greater London Council shall have the like rights under any agreement to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies as the council whose liabilities thereunder they assume by virtue of that paragraph.

(4) References in subsection (3) of this section to an undertaking given or action agreed to be taken by any council shall be construed as including references to any undertaking or action which, having regard to the established practice of that council, should properly be deemed to have been so given or to have been so agreed to be taken; and any dispute as to the existence or extent of any duty, right or liability of the Greater London Council by virtue of the said subsection (3) or as to whether or not any particular undertaking or action should properly be deemed as aforesaid shall be referred to and determined by the Minister.

(5) Any action authorised by an order under section 9 of the said Act of 1952 to be taken by any council to whom section 3(1)(b) of this Act applies may be taken by the Greater London Council; and that Council shall have the like liabilities and rights in connection with any obligation with respect to that action imposed by the order as the council originally authorised by the order to take that action.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause fulfils an undertaking given in another place during Committee on the basis of which a Member of the Opposition withdrew a clause having a similar intention. Its terms have been agreed with the officials of the London County Council, and its purpose is to make clear the arrangements for the transfer of responsibilities in the field of town development. If noble Lords wish it, before sitting down I can go through some sections and explain the position in detail, but if they are content to take what I have said as the gospel truth, I will now merely beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 60, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61 [Miscellaneous local authority functions]:

11.1 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (4) and to insert: (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment passed before or during the same session as this Act, the authority by whom there shall be exercised on and after 1st April, 1965, any function conferred on local authorities by the enactments relating to weights and measures shall, as respects Greater London be the Greater London Council.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, which would have the effect of deleting the present subsection (4) and substituting for it the subsection on the Marshalled List, which sets out that, notwithstanding anything that we may do in the Weights and Measures Bill, any authority conferred on a local authority by the Weights and Measures Bill should, so far as Greater London is concerned, be exercised by the Greater London Council. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is now on the Government Front Bench, and doubtless he will reply to this Amendment. He may be thinking, as I am, that to-morrow we shall both be busily engaged on the Weights and Measures Bill. The same thought may have crossed his mind with regard to this present Bill as occurred to me: the first line of the burial of Sir John Moore at Corunna: They buried him darkly at dead of night". I will "skip" the next line, out of deference to the noble Lord's feelings, but I would remind him that then came the line: They bitterly thought of the morrow. Since he and I may be engaged on this Bill until to-morrow, we shall approach the Weights and Measures Bill with less feelings of eager anticipation. For this reason, I shall be commendably brief in my remarks on the present occasion.

The purpose of this Amendment, which is quite clear, is to persuade the Government that weights and measures functions in Greater London should be exercised by the Greater London Council, and the reasons for that are to my mind, although I hope to state them very briefly, as convincing as any reasons can be. First of all, it must be better and more efficient for one authority which is already doing the job to continue to do it rather than, as I understand it, the 32 separate weights and measures authorities who are likely to be created by order of the President of the Board of Trade when the Weights and Measures Bill becomes an Act.

There is a shortage of weights and measures inspectors. It is impossible to deny that the job, when performed by 32 different authorities, must require a larger inspectorate and, therefore, a more expensive inspectorate. It is impossible to deny that the inspectors, operating in comparatively confined areas, will be handicapped in their work. They will not be able to stop a fraudulent coal lorry driver who skips across the boundary of a borough and goes off scot-Free. They will be handicapped in their work, particularly with regard to chain stores and supermarkets. When at present they detect an error in a weight in one shop—and it may be one which is probably quite an innocent mistake but one which, nevertheless, affects the housewife or the consumer—it probably applies to the whole chain. At present, this matter can be dealt with conveniently and quickly within the present inspectorate, whereas it could not possibly be dealt with in the same way when there are 32 separate authorities, however well-meaning.

It will also be a handicap, particularly with regard to imported articles, which can be so quickly distributed throughout London and the areas of the 32 different authorities and which will be impossible to check. We shall lose the great advantage of the central office for reference purposes, which is now so extremely useful. We shall lose the advantage of inspectors who are already known by their faces in one area and where there are a number of defaulters or fraudulent persons being able easily to call on a colleague who is not so well known in the area to make his checks and, as it were, do his detective work, because in many of these London boroughs there will really be work for only one full-time inspector, and it will be quite farcical to have only one. There will have to be more; but even if you have two, three or four they will be quickly well known in the area, particularly to the kind of person (the minority, fortunately, among shopkeepers and traders) whom it is their business to keep up to scratch.

They are all highly specialised people and, indeed, the Government have already agreed, for example with regard to the petroleum inspectors in London, that they shall be centrally administered as now, because they are highly specialised people and because their duties at present quite properly take them all over London. It is the same job and it has the great advantage that these expert people who have spent their lives in the job will continue under the same roof and under the same umbrella and will carry on the same job. In exactly the same way, the weights and measures staff are highly specialised, although not numerous, and it will be very much better if they were to remain under single direction.

Then, in the question of decisions, the chain of organisation of the staff, as at present through County Hall, ensures unity of operation. It is sometimes my duty as president of a trade federation of employers to have matters referred to me by Customs and Excise, and I find that over the country, not merely in London, one often finds a local inspector giving a different interpretation of, say, purchase tax or the right classification of a group of a particular kind of goods, and the members of my organisation write to me for an opinion. I settle the matter with Customs and Excise at Kings Beam House and, invariably, the local inspector is found to be wrong. This is the kind of thing which can be put right amicably when there is a central organisation to appeal to; but when there are 32 different organisations in the county of London, each adjudicating on this, in some ways, quite complicated Weights and Measures Act, as it will be, there are sure to be differences of interpretation. There is no central body to appeal to, and, therefore, there is bound to be dissatisfaction.

There are other points I could mention; the unnecessary provision of the extra sets of local and working standards, which are quite expensive, whereas now we need to have only one set in the county of London instead of 32; the extra buildings that will be required when we multiply these local offices by 32; and the less control over what, in my brief, are called peripatetic traders, which really means "smart Alecs" in a motor vehicle who can get away fast after they have committed some offence. I am fairly certain that however long and however sensibly I talk on this particular subject it will not make the case any better; that is impossible. And it may be equally impossible to soften the noble Lord's obdurate heart. I will therefore be content with being absolutely in the right. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)

THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT)

My Lords, there are two reasons why I am going to resist this Amendment. One is on the question of dealing with this matter on this Bill, and the other, which I had hoped to avoid arguing again, but I see that I must now argue again, is that we want the London boroughs, or some combination of the London boroughs, to be weights and measures authorities in due course.

The first point is this: we believe very strongly that the proper Bill in which to settle who should be weights and measures authorities throughout the country is the Weights and Measures Bill now before your Lordships; and it is being done by that Bill. We think that the re-allocation which is going on throughout the country should be done under that Bill, and of course under that Bill the Board of Trade have the power to appoint the weights and measures authorities. The only reason why this Clause 61(4) comes into the matter is that in the very unlikely event of the Weights and Measures Bill not becoming law, unless this clause was in this Bill we should not have any power to appoint under either Bill the weights and measures authorities. I am not talking about the Amendment; I am talking about the position under the Bill.

In effect, as soon as the Weights and Measures Bill becomes law this Clause 61(4) ceases to have effect, and the appointments of weights and measures authorities will come under the Weights and Measures Act. For that reason we resist this Amendment. We do not think the appointment should be made under this Bill at all, and this clause is in the Bill only as a stopgap in case of accidents. We cannot imagine it is ever going to be used, because the other Bill will become an Act at the same time as this, or possibly before.

The reason why we wish to make the London boroughs, or a combination of the London boroughs, if they so wish, weights and measures authorities is this. The present weights and measures authorities under the existing weights and measures enactments are county and county borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London. As we have stated repeatedly, both in debate on the London Government Bill and on the Weights and Measures Bill, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to make the London boroughs weights and measures authorities, provided that these boroughs remain broadly as proposed in the London Government Bill. If we do it this way, it is consistent with the provisions in the Weights and Measures Bill for the allocation of the weights and measures function to local authorities in the rest of the country. In fact under the Weights and Measures Bill the reallocation would be done in the same way for London and the rest of the country.

Outside the London area the Bill provides that counties and county boroughs and non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations of 60,000 or over shall be weights and measures authorities. When it comes to the question of size (which was the other argument the noble Lord put forward: that the size is too small, and that it would be better to have a larger area), although in the rest of the country 60,000 is the figure above which they are entitled to be a weights and measures authority, in the Greater London area the new London boroughs proposed by this Bill will have populations ranging from about three to five times this figure of 60,000. In the Government's view, it is consistent with the general structure of weights and measures authorities in the Weights and Measures Bill that these London boroughs should become weights and measures authorities. This, I might add, was also a recommendation of the Royal Commission on London Government. That is a second reason why we do not like this Amendment. May I repeat that we think—in fact, we feel certain—that the appointment of weights and measures authorities should, if possible, be made under the Weights and Measures Bill when it becomes an Act.

11.15 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, it is perfectly clear that the Government or some political organisation has given a directive or instruction to Government Departments, to the effect: "Wherever there is the slightest question, do not consider the merits or who can best administer the service, but give it to the boroughs in order to go as far as you can to destroy the composite character of London." This one really is preposterous; it is absurd. You will not have as good a service, because the authorities, although they are substantial in population, are not big enough to carry a proper service; indeed, some of them will mix up weights and measures with other functions. Moreover, you will have one authority doing it on one side of the road, and another lot on the other.

This is preposterous. It ought to be a Greater London service for the reasons that my noble friend has mentioned, but which I will not pursue. It is plain that the Government have left off thinking. In fact, they left off thinking when the Bill first came in. It is merely their prejudice, their dogma all the way along, first of all to destroy the London County Council legislatively because they cannot win a majority on it by the consent of the people, because they do not trust the people; secondly, administratively or by set-up, the Government say, "We must have a Greater London authority; but give it as little power as possible. Never mind about the merits; keep the power away from it. Give it to the darlings of the Tory Party, the boroughs"—where they hope to do well.

It is a bad thing and unreasonable. It just shows that the Government are not thinking at all about what is the right thing to do; they are thinking only of a dogma. So every State Department has been told this by somebody, whether the Prime Minister or, more likely, the Leader of the House of Commons, who is the Chairman of the Tory Party organisation, paid for out of public funds, and he ought not to be. It is a scandal, but it is a typical political scandal such as we are getting accustomed to from this Government. It ought not to be. Somebody has given a directive to the State Departments that the line is to be "Anti-London County Council; therefore, anti-Greater London Council. Try everything you can to split up the capital city because the Socialists are on top of it." The Tories have an underlying fear that the Socialists may even win the Greater London Council, which they do not want to happen. They have done their best to prevent it. That is their hope. So the dogma has run on, and we are not getting Government Departments, even the Home Office, thinking on the merits of these things. The Home Office—

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Has he thought on the merits: that the first point Lord Derwent made was whether this should be discussed to-morrow under the Weights and Measures Bill or to-night?

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That is a totally irrelevant point. This is before the House.

LORD JESSEL

Has the noble Lord considered this? He was talking about clear thinking. I ask him that question.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

You have asked it all right.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, if I had stood up for as long as the noble Lord, they would be shouting at me "Order, order!", even though I put a perfectly legitimate point, as the saying is, "Before the noble Lord sits down". The noble Lord has fallen right into it. The handling of this problem in two Bills of Parliament in the same Session is, in itself, a condemnation of the legislative incompetence of the Government. They brought the provisions into this Bill and they brought them into the Weights and Measures Bill, and having brought them into the latter they are not going to let Parliament settle it. It is going to be settled by the President of the Board of Trade, and he will probably get his instructions from the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation, Mr. Macleod.

Moreover, we have had the Weights and Measures Bill here before, and wasted our time on it. Therefore I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, barged in, but if he is still the supporter of the London Municipal Society, as his distinguished father was, as President, I do not wonder that he has got himself in a muddle. I have done my best to get him out of it. The truth is the point he has raised shows the legislative incompetence of Her Majesty's Government. They have it in two Bills and then finally they say to Parliament, "We are not going to let you settle it at all. We are going to settle it according to what is politically convenient to us." That Front Bench ought to resign en bloc. This is not a Government, it is a political machine, and the State Departments are not allowed to think on the merits of any questions that come before them. The Home Office knows that it has been wrong on a number of things. I know the Home Office very well. I used to have a great respect for it, but it is now doing its best to make me lose that respect, which is sad. The other Departments are not allowed to think. They have their directives: Destroy the London County Council; give as few powers as possible to the Greater London Council; do anything you can to split London; divide it up, fragment it so that there is no capital city of our great

country left. And these are the patriots who hate the capital city because it is being governed by an enlightened, competent, first-class Labour majority on the London County Council. It is all very well for you to laugh, but we have held it since 1934.

LORD LINDGREN

And without scandals.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

And without doing the capitalist interest for secret money to help us in the Elections. The Progressives held it from 1899 to 1907, the Tories from 1907 to 1934, and we have had the longest stretch of the lot, ever since 1934. That is not an indication of an incompetent Council. It has won the increasing confidence of the people of London. The people of London are not fools. Therefore, my Lords, I am disgusted with the President of the Board of Trade and his representative in this House. They are not saying what they ought to say; they are not carrying out the policies of the Department as they know they ought to be carried out. They are doing what they are told by the evil capitalists and reactionary interests that make this Government tick.

11.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 182) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Iddesleigh, E.	Sainsbury, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lindgren, L.	Stonham, L.
Champion, L.	Longford, E.	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Walston, L.
Henderson, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	De La Warr, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Albemarle, E.	Denham, L.	Jellicoe, E.
Allerton, L.	Derwent, L.	Jessel, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Devonshire, D.	Lothian, M.
Auckland, L.	Dulverton, L.	Mabane, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Eccles, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Brecon, L.	Ellenborough, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Bridgeman, V.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Merrivale, L.
Carrington, L.	Ferrers, E.	Mersey, V.
Chelmer, L.	Fortescue, E.	Middleton, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Mills, V.
Conesford, L.	Grenfell, L.	Molson, L.
Craigton, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Monk Bretton, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Hastings, L.	Perth, E.
St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]	Sandford, L.	Tenby, V.
St. Just, L.	Sandys, L.	Teynham, L.
St. Oswald, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Salisbury, M.	Swinton, E.	Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

11.30 p.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved, after subsection (4), to insert: () Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, the Greater London Council shall be—

1. (a) the licensing authority for the purposes of Part III of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921 (which provides for the licensing of employment agencies), and the said Part III shall extend to the whole of Greater London and accordingly, so far as they relate to the said Part III—
1. (i) in section 4 of the said Act of 1921 the expression 'the county' shall mean Greater London, and the expression 'licensing authority' shall mean the Greater London Council;
2. (ii) in section 4C of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1926, the expression licensing authority' shall mean the Greater London Council;
2. (b) a registration authority for the put.. poses of the Theatrical Employers Registration Acts 1925 and 1928, and accordingly in section 13 of the said Act of 1925 for the words 'As respects the City of London, the common council' there shall be substituted the words 'as respects Greater London, the Greater London Council';
3. (c) a licensing authority for the purposes of the Nurses Agencies Act 1957, and accordingly, in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1957 for the words in relation to the City of London, the Common Council, 'in relation to the remainder of the administrative County of London, the London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'in relation to Greater London, the Greater London Council'."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has been First Lord of the Admiralty and Minister of Defence, seeing a number of strange faces on the other side, including the Chairman of the Consumer Council, tells me that the Government have called up their Territorial Army reserves. This Amendment is in principle similar to the last one, but is not on weights and measures. There are real moral issues involved in this Amendment. It deals with the licensing of employment agencies, including theatrical employment agencies and agencies for nurses. Again, the question is whether the Government will be good enough to listen to argument about it, instead of retreating behind their dogma that this must be done by the boroughs and not by the Greater London Council. That, I think, was the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on the Committee stage. I am speaking from memory, but I do not think that that way was specifically provided in the text of the Bill but it could be settled by order or regulation by the Minister under other clauses of the Bill. We understood last time from the Minister of State at the Home Office that it was the intention of the Minister to see that this was a service run by the London borough councils.

The importance of all this is as follows. To take theatrical employment agencies, they are not only dealing with British girls; they are dealing with girls, and men of course, from overseas. They may be dealing with people who come from the United States. It is consequently an international business, as indeed the theatrical business is in many respects international—people in it go abroad and come from abroad. It is therefore of the utmost importance morally to protect people from being exploited or misled by improper people in the business—of whom there may not be many but there can be some—which might have the gravest consequences for people seeking employment through theatrical agencies, particularly in the case of girls and young women. I beg noble Lords on both sides to consider it from this moral aspect of securing adequate and proper protection of those who are seeking a livelihood in this important and interesting field.

I do not wish to imply that the whole theatrical world is wicked, bad and immoral—not at all. I say only that the agencies could deteriorate into something which could be dangerous to the moral welfare of the people concerned. Therefore, we want to put this provision into the Bill; otherwise, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as the Minister concerned in this case, might act under Clauses 82 and 86 whereby the Part III powers of the Act of 1921, which is a local Act, pass to the London boroughs. The original powers concerned here were obtained by the London County Council a good many years ago, most of them by Private Bill legislation promoted, if my memory serves me rightly, in 1921. The 1921 Act was a local Act. It was promoted by a Conservative London County Council, and I give them all due credit for it. I think they were right to promote it and to bring it under the control of the Council. So its origins are respectable, even from the point of view of noble Lords opposite—and I think that is a point in our favour, as against any prejudice they may have. It provided that the London County Council should be the authority with the exception of the square mile of the City, and there they gave the powers to the Corporation. The reasons for that I understood: they were politically very close to each other, and there was a sentimental feeling about the Corporation—but it really was a silly thing to confer powers on the Corporation for a square mile.

My Lords, there are about 1,330 licensed employment agencies in the County of London. A good many of them, particularly those in the theatrical employment agency field, are in the new borough which will be Wesminster, St. Marylebone and Paddington combined, where there are 716 agencies. I think it was argued on Committee stage that it was right that Westminstee should have the theatrical employment agencies under their supervision because theatre-land is there. I have two answers to that. I do not think it is too desirable that the local authority where the theatres are should have the local control. I think it needs to be further away than that, so that it is living at a certain distance from the industry itself. The other contention was that these are local institutions; they serve a local field, and have a local population. But, my Lords, that is not true.

I was talking the other day to a gentleman who has now prospered still more in the world and got on. He was a theatrical agent. I put to him impartially this consideration which arises out of the Bill. I said, "From your experience, would you regard it as desirable that the body should be local because the people concerned, the people who use the agencies, the seekers of employment, are local, or would you think it should be under the Greater London Council?" He did not hesitate. He said, "I have been a theatrical agent. These people live all over the place. You cannot localise it so far as the places where the people live are concerned. It obviously should be done by the bigger local authority". He was not a politician. I do not know what his politics are. I doubt whether he has often voted Labour, if at all; but that was his unhesitating answer.

Another argument the Government bring up against it is the fact that, in general, in Greater London this is a function discharged by county councils and county borough councils which has been quite common in local government legislation during the present century by Conservative as well as other Governments. But, says the Home Office spokesman, in Essex the power has been delegated to certain non-county borough councils; that is to say, county districts. This is true; but they have hardly any employment agencies in their local government area at all. Therefore it is not a material point. But generally the function is discharged by county and county borough councils. This leads one logically to the point that, as it is now run by the London County Council, under legislation promoted by a Conservative Council, it is logical and sensible that it should be done by the Greater London Council.

Moreover, in a certain number of cases the agencies turn out to be unreliable, fraudulent or wicked. The gathering of witnesses is a pretty skilled job; the hearing of the parties is a quasi-judicial function which is well done at County Hall. I have served on a borough council and have been a mayor, and I have always had rather a judicial mind in these matters and dealt with evidence objectively as a court of law should and ought to do. But it is not every borough council that has enough people of a judicial mind. I would not say that everybody on the L.C.C. has it. When I was Leader of the L.C.C. I did my best to ensure that we had such people on the committee dealing with these semi-judicial matters; and that, of course, should be done generally.

There may be a number of local councils where this is not easy; they can get into legal trouble. The parties are heard and they have to be given a fair opportunity to state their defence. The procedure must be very fair and adequate. They can be represented by counsel or solicitors and they must be treated properly. The councils who prosecute must do so with restraint, objectively and with a fair mind. It is not everybody's "cup of tea" to be able to conduct this in the spirit of a court of law. But you are much more likely to get it done properly on a large authority, with competent solicitors to advise their chief officers. The L.C.C. deals with people from all over London and the United Kingdom and, sometimes, from any part of the world; and for good moral reasons it is important that this should be done well.

The distribution of agencies among boroughs is, of course, exceedingly unequal, as the figures I have mentioned indicate. Where a borough has not many agencies the quality of its officers for this job will be difficult to maintain. The London County Council have a small number of officers dealing with this; but they can spread them out, and they are not always known to the same people; and this is good. They do it well and economically because they have a small, good-quality staff. Some of the boroughs will have to use shops inspectors or weights and measures inspectors to do this thing which is rather out of their line; yet it may affect the future of many people.

In addition there are other employment agencies. There are employment agencies for nurses. I should doubt whether hospitals would engage nurses through employment agencies; they are probably for nursing in private houses. This situation can represent moral dangers to young women. This can easily put them into great difficulties, and the spirit and integrity with which employment agencies carry on their work are important. I could go on for a longer time about this, but the last thing I want to do is to keep your Lordships up unduly. This needs thinking about with the greatest care and sense of responsibility, because moral difficulties and possible betrayals can happen to young people, especially women and girls. I beg the Government to be sympathetic about this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

11.45 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, this Amendment would make the G.L.C. responsible for the discharge of three public control functions. I do not think that the same considerations apply, at least in the same degree, to all three. Without detaining your Lordships unduly, I should like to deal with them separately. Before doing so, however, perhaps I may say (and I hope the noble Lord will not feel that this is in any way patronising) how much I appreciate the terms in which he moved this Amendment.

First, let me deal with the licensing of nursing agencies. From my point of view, this is the easiest of the three cases to argue, and I shall be arguing against the Amendment. The Nursing Regulations, 1961, apply to the licensing of these agencies. Their purpose is to make certain that the persons supplied by agencies are qualified and that their qualifications are suitable to the patients, usually private individuals, with whom they will be dealing. For this reason, supervision by an authority which has medical, nursing and midwifery staff, which can advise on these matters, is obviously a good thing. In Croydon and Surrey, agencies are supervised by members of the nursing staffs of these authorities. It seems to me that the control of licensing in this case should be the responsibility of the boroughs, because they will be the local health authorities and in possession of the requisite staff with the requisite expertise. I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to amputate the nursing limb from the Amendment.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves nurses, there is another side to the work of these agencies. I appreciate the point about supervision by doctors and nurses, but what is really needed is an experienced officer who knows about where the nurses are going, the habits of the house and the visitors. These agencies have the whole moral future of nurses in their hands; that is a point with which the noble Earl did not deal.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I thought that I covered it, at least by implication. If the noble Earl wants detailed knowledge of personal circumstances to be obtained, this is best entrusted to the local authorities, who have recourse to all the persons who are in control of the personal services of the authority, particularly those most directly concerned with nurses.

The second limb of the Amendment is the part that affects the theatrical employers. It is my understanding, despite what the noble Lord has said, that the work of the registration authority here is very much a routine affair. No expert knowledge is required, and there appears to be, and to have been, little infringement of the requirements. Up and down the country—not only in London—prosecutions have been exceptionally rare. The control over the theatrical employers is one which I feel the London boroughs could take in their stride. Nevertheless, by far the majority of the theatrical employers are situated in London. This could not be described as a local service. I would, therefore, concede that the registration work in this instance could be carried out equally well by the Greater London Council. However—and this is my main point here—since the theatrical employers are often employing agents as well, it is clearly convenient that the work should be carried out by the authority responsible for the licensing of employment agencies.

That brings me logically to the third limb of the Amendment dealing with employment agencies.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

What are you going to do about the theatrical agencies?

EARL JELLICOE

I think the decision there depends on the decision we take about the employment agencies, because the theatrical agents are often employers as well and, therefore, would be caught under whatever we do with the employment agencies. Therefore, I think the one will follow the other. I think, therefore, the most difficult decision which your Lordships have to take to-night is whether the G.L.C. or the boroughs should be responsible for controlling the licensing of employment agencies.

I will not weary your Lordships by deploying the case which I and my noble friends have deployed in support of the view that, generally speaking, these public control functions are usually best dealt with by the boroughs. But I would dwell for a moment on the point that there is a further advantage in these matters being handled by the boroughs—namely, that if they are they can be easily and conveniently combined with the other varied and numerous public control responsibilities which we have already decided to entrust to the boroughs. Unless there are strong and exceptional reasons to the contrary, therefore, I have already argued, and I would argue again now, that it would be right, not only for the boroughs, but also for the man in the street, if these public control functions are entrusted to the boroughs.

The noble Lord has sought to show that in this instance of the employment agencies there are, in his view, strong and exceptional reasons why we should not go to the boroughs, but to the wider authority. I wonder whether I could first deal with the argument on which his noble friend on the Committee stage based his main case, and which the noble Lord has also touched on, and that is the argument that the L.C.C. staff dealing with the employment agencies is a small but highly specialised one: because it has been maintained that if these functions were exercised by the London boroughs, the special experience of the L.C.C. would be lost and an increase in staff would be necessary.

I assure the noble Lord that, whatever he may now feel about the Home Office, I have looked into this particular aspect with a good deal of care since the Committee stage and I feel that this particular argument, which was advanced in Committee and on which he has touched, is open to question. The L.C.C. at the moment have six administrators and four inspectors. I suggest that these could easily be allocated among the London boroughs, and I think this particular inspectorate would almost certainly go to the central boroughs where the majority of the agencies are situated. Therefore, the special experience of these London County Council inspectors will not be lost at the centre, perhaps at the very point where it is most needed. It is true that the outer London boroughs might have to recruit staff to deal with the small number of agencies in their area, but this, I think, would not be a problem, and would not lead to extravagance by an increase in staff, because there the work could easily be combined with other public control functions, as is the case in Croydon, where this matter of the control of employment agencies is discharged, and discharged, so far as I know, perfectly well by the borough.

I would grant that the matter would be different if there were special qualities of expertise required by the inspectors here, but I am assured that although in this field, as in many others, experience tells, apart from that there are no special qualifications required here. I also think it is the case—and this is a point which I put to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition a moment or so ago—that an authority with a small number of agencies is likely to get to know those agencies better than the remoter authority with a larger area to cover.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Maybe too well.

EARL JELLICOE

There is the question of the agencies whose scope is not particularly local. I think that with most of the secretarial agencies in the outer boroughs their catchment area is a pretty local one. I agree that as you come into the centre the agencies are serving a wider area, and in many of them their catchment area goes outside our country. As I have already said, it is probable that the great majority of the present London County Council staff will be taken on by those boroughs in which those agencies are situated, and their experience will be available to deal with it. I myself see no reason why the boroughs at the centre should not be able to investigate complaints which may have a moral implication—I would grant that—against particular agencies, just as effectively as the London County Council have been able to do. I should like to add that the complaints from abroad, from foreign employers, are often made, not direct to the local authority concerned, but via the Foreign Office or the Home Office, who then forward the complaints to the local authority.

The noble Lord has laid great emphasis on the moral implications here. I do not think these moral implications arise in the case of many of the possible infringements which are dealt with under these three Acts. I agree that there may be infringements which have a moral implication, but I suggest that in those cases the boroughs concerned will be no less responsible, no less able and willing, to assess these moral considerations than would be the wider authorities. I said just now that I did not believe that unless there were special exceptional reasons we should depart from our normal principle and make this a G.L.C. rather than a borough responsibility. I do not see that there are special or exceptional reasons here.

Let me add this final word. Frankly, I thought at the Committee stage that the Opposition had made quite a case in speaking to this particular Amendment. It was the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who moved it, if I recall aright. Accordingly, though I did not formally offer to reconsider this point, I have gone into it with a good deal of care since then. Having done so, and having listened to the noble Lord, I must still say that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept his Amendment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, the Minister of State is a very persuasive speaker, so persuasive that at times—I do not say on this occasion—he persuades himself against his better judgment as his speech smoothly marches on from one argument to another. I must say, however, that he has not convinced me. I think he is wrong, and I think he is dangerously wrong. I really think he is on the edge of committing a moral danger here to important sections of the community. What is needed is not so much knowledge of the nursing profession in a nursing agency; it is knowledge of the nursing agency and the kind of people they are. This is equally so, if not more so, with a theatrical agency, in which there are grave moral dangers involved, and we want the most enlightened, judicial organisation to deal with that and to see that they keep in order.

The noble Earl says that there have been few prosecutions and scandals. The most likely place for them to happen, of course, would be London, where these bodies function in greater numbers and with a greater number of people involved than in any other part of the country; and perhaps a reasonable explanation of the fact that there have been few prosecutions and scandals is the good administration of the London County Council, not only when my people have been in a majority but while the Conservatives before them were in a majority. They may have prevented a lot of evil things from happening. Therefore, I do not think that is an effective argument either.

The noble Earl may seek to show that he has approached this matter with an open mind and without prejudice; nevertheless, he comes to the same arguments and the same conclusions as other Ministers have when dealing with this business of whether it should be the Greater London Council or the boroughs. I am genuinely worried about this matter. I have appealed to the Government but, up to now, the Government have not moved. If any

Schedule 12 [Licensing of public entertainments in Greater London on and after 1st April, 1965]:

EARL JELLICOE moved, in paragraph (1) to leave out "place" and insert "premises". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendments 183B to 183K are linked, and I hope your Lordships will agree that it may be convenient to consider them

hope had been held out, we might have considered whether we should go to a Division or not, but I think we must go to a Division. Responsibility is individually on every noble Lord, on both sides of the House; and if something goes wrong with this business, if moral danger emerges to young people, especially young women, I hope that noble Lords will be able to look back on the vote they have given to-night with a clear conscience and no sense of shame. But this is eminently a matter where noble Lords on all sides should exercise their individual judgment.

12.5 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 183) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Latham, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lindgren, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Longford, E.	Stonham, L.
Champion, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Summerskill, B.
Crook, L.	Middleton, L.	Walston, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Eccles, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Ailwyn, L.	Ellenborough, L.	Merrivale, L.
Allerton, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Mersey, V.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Ferrers, E.	Mills, V.
Auckland, L.	Fortescue, E.	Molson, L.
Brecon, L.	Glentanar, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Perth, E.
Carrington, L.	Grenfell, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Chelmer, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	St. Just, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Conesford, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Sandford, L.
Craigton, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Sandys, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Jessel, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Denham, L.	Lothian, M.	Tenby, V.
Derwent, L.	Mabane, L.	Teynham, L.
Devonshire, D.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Dulverton, L.	Mancroft, L.	Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

together. Like Amendment No. 184 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, they deal mainly with a matter raised by him and other noble Lords on Committee—namely, the adequacy of our present powers to control strip-tease and other establishments in London. In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, my noble friend who sits on the Woolsack undertook to see whether the provisions of Schedule 12 could be strengthened to provide a more effective deterrent, and suggested that a possible way might be to increase the penalties. This is the principal object of this series of Government Amendments. May I say how much I regret that my noble and learned friend, who I am quite certain would have wished to have spoken to this Amendment, is indisposed to-day.

The substantive Amendment is No. 183H and the others are purely technical and all deal with one rather minor point. At the moment, throughout the Schedule one finds the term "premises" used in one part and "place" in another. This has no significance, and therefore in order to remove this inconsistency the Amendment substitutes the term "premises" throughout. The interpretation paragraph to be added by Amendment 184A defines this expression as "includes any place". This means that outdoor entertainment will be brought within the scope of this Schedule, although perhaps that is not entirely necessary in the special circumstances with which we are dealing here.

Your Lordships will see that the main Amendment substitutes three new subparagraphs for the old sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10. They do three things. First, the class of persons who will be liable to a penalty is re-defined so as to cover virtually anyone who has clear responsibility for putting on an unauthorised unlicensed entertainment; secondly, the maximum penalty is increased so as to include imprisonment without the option of a fine; thirdly, the maximum penalty for breach of the conditions of the licence is similarly increased. The persons who are to be liable to a penalty if a public entertainment is given without a licence are re-defined in sub-paragraph (1) and I think your Lordships will agree that the new formula is in fact a broad and comprehensive one.

The increase of penalties is made by sub-paragraph (3). As the Bill stands the maximum penalty at present is £200. The new sub-paragraph provides as an alternative or an addition a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. This, I think, is similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, suggests in his immediately following Amendment. I think that we are now providing the Bill with sharp teeth in this respect. I should like to point out that the increase of penalties also applies to a breach of condition of licence. Unless this were done it would be possible for a promoter who had been deterred by the increased penalties from defying the need to take out a licence, instead to take one out and defy the conditions of the licence itself forbidding improper activities. The maximum penalty for this in the Bill at present is a fine of £20, and the Amendment raises this to a fine of £200 or imprisonment for three months or both. The noble Lord in his Amendment has provided for a similar increase in the maximum penalty.

I would claim that here we should put our money on the Government Amendment for two reasons. First, the disqualification procedure which the noble Lord envisages involves two stages. Upon the first conviction of a person for using premises for an unlicensed entertainment the court would have the discretion to disqualify him from holding a licence for a period, or to disqualify the premises in which the offence is committed. The increased penalty would become available only if the person was convicted for the second time or there was a second conviction in respect of a different person using the same premises. The behind-the-scenes promoters of this sort of "joint" employ different people as "front" men. As soon as one place is closed down, another "front" man brings it to life, either in the same place or in another place. I think it was this point that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was worried about at Committee stage, and it would not be covered by the noble Lord's Amendment. We therefore suggest that a substantial sanction should be available on first conviction, and this is what the Government Amendment provides.

Secondly, the noble Lord's Amendment does not provide more stringent penalties for a breach of condition of a licence. I am sure the breach of a licence should be able to attract these tougher penalties if we wish to close what would otherwise be an obvious loophole. I would therefore claim, regarding the so-called clubs within London which are not bona fide clubs and yet which provide public entertainment—striptease or what-you-will— within this area, that these Amendments do everything which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth would do by his Amendment, and in fact do it more effectively. The area is relatively circumscribed. The Government Amendments would not affect bona fide clubs, nor indeed would the noble Lord's Amendment.

As I said on Committee stage the Metropolitan Police are in fact satisfied that they have sufficient powers under the law as it stands successfully to prosecute bona fide clubs which put on indecent entertainment. Neither the Government Amendments nor the noble Lord's Amendment would do anything to deal with "clip joints" or near-beer clubs. My noble and learned friend in his reply indicated that, so far as the latter were concerned, the Government could not undertake to deal with these particular devices for extracting money from foolish people. An entirely different form of control would need to be devised for these near beer establishments.

In one respect of course the noble Lord's Amendment does go wider than ours. It would increase the penalty for giving a public film show without a licence under the Cinematograph Acts of 1909 and 1952, and there is some evidence that a few such shows of undesirable films are being given, as the noble Lord mentioned at Committee stage. We have not put down an Amendment covering this, because the Cinematograph Acts are general ones covering the whole of the country and it would be outside the scope of the Bill to provide for an increased penalty in relation to Greater London alone.

As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said at our Committee stage, there are no politics in this part of the Bill at least. I think we all have the good name of London at heart. Since the Committee stage we have considered this matter closely and in the light of observations then made. Although I realise that in one respect possibly his Amendment would go wider than the Government's Amendments, I trust that both he and other noble Lords will feel that these Amendments which I am now moving achieve, especially in relation to the scope of the Bill, the broad purpose which they had in mind.

12.20 a.m.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, this, of course, is a relatively new matter for the reason that the Bill as introduced had nothing of this substance in its provisions at all, nor indeed did it have these provisions or anything like them when it left the House of Commons. In fact, I am not sure that the matter was raised at all in another place. I thought this out and initiated this Amendment and the discussion on the Committee stage, and I was glad that the Lord Chancellor gave it a not wholly unsympathetic reception. With the noble Earl opposite, I regret the Lord Chancellor's absence owing to indisposition tonight, and I hope very much that he will soon be totally recovered.

I agree that the Government have gone a long way to meet the point we raised on Committee stage. In some respects they went a bit further; in other respects I think not quite far enough. In this case, at any rate, although they could argue that these centres are largely locally placed geographically, they have achieved the miraculous result of agreeing that the supervision shall be by the Greater London Council instead of by the London boroughs. We welcome that degree of advance on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

The point is that we must get these places under control of some sort. They are in danger of becoming a disgrace to London—not that I wish to throw any large-scale slur upon Soho, in which there live mostly honourable and decent people. It is a very interesting district and I have a warm affection for it. However, things have developed there which really are "over the line" and outside reasonable standards, with the result that our country has become somewhat looked down upon by visitors from the Commonwealth and foreign countries, and even by people from the English provinces, and from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is not good. One does not like to feel they are beginning to say that London, or parts of it, are among the most wicked places to be found in the world. It was for these reasons, for the good name of London, that I brought this forward hoping that the Government would respond, and I am grateful that they have done so.

There are one or two points about which I am disappointed. The first is the absence of something effective being done about landlords of premises which I should like to see "de-licensed", so to speak. I gather that there are difficulties about this, and the Government feel that they have got the owner of the premises by other means if he requires to be punished. Let us hope that is so. There are two other points which I am sorry about. One is that the cinemas for unlicensed exhibitions are not caught. One of the risks of the situation obtaining now is that as these people who have gone out of line are put out of business, they may look round for some other mischief to get up to in order to make money. As they have a clear field if they run it as a club for film exhibitions, there might be an increase in very bad films which are not licensed. That would be a pity, and it might increase that class of enterprise in ways which are thoroughly undesirable. On that I ought to declare my interest as President of the British Board of Film Censors. If it developed too far it would be unfair to the licensed exhibitor, and would be calculated to give a bad name to London and our country.

The other places I am concerned about are the "clip joints". The Lord Chancellor did not say there was need to do anything, because it was people's own fault if they went there. One noble Duke—I thought he was "trying it on" himself, but he was referring to somebody else who got into one of these shows—found them very dull and unintelligent. He did not think they were worth going into at all; and he may well have been right. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he deserved to lose his money, with which I sympathised. But that was not to say that nothing should be done about them, and I wish something could be done about them, as well as about the other so-called clubs which are not really clubs at all but places opened for questionable purposes.

However, the Government answer, through the Minister of State, that they cannot very well deal with the cinematograph exhibitions because that would require the amendment of a Public General Act in respect of a particular geographical area. I understand that that is the Government's difficulty, though I have noticed from a study of the Bill that there are plenty of amendments to Public General Acts incorporated in this Bill. But there may be another case for them. If that be so, I should like the Government to consider in due course, without prejudice to carrying this through, as it is urgent and important, separate national legislation in order to modernise the law in these ways. I can only say that, on balance, we have got substantially—not altogether—what we wanted within the field of what is apparently legislatively practicable. I should like to thank the Minister of State and the Home Office for having, if not entirely at least very largely, met us on a point which was of urgent importance for the good name of London, and for the good name of our country. In the circumstances I do not propose to move the Amendment which is down in my name.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I make two points to the noble Earl? May I join, first of all, in thanking him and his Ministry for the effort they have put into producing this particular Amendment. I feel that we should express a very special word of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who I think can claim to be the originator of this thought, at least so far as this Bill is concerned. I can speak from my own experience in the early stages of the Bill. There was hardly a day when we met, when my noble friend did not say to me, "Have you done something about the vice clause?" He felt very strongly about it and I am glad to see the result of his labour now before us.

The two points that I wish to make to the noble Earl are these. We have increased the penalties, and we have widened the scope of these particular provisions as regards London. I presume that special legislation would be needed for these provisions to cover other cities in this country. Whilst, in the main, these sordid places exist in London, they have spread quite considerably into places like Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. I should have thought it was right that the Government should take note of this growth and, that, having accepted that this type of legislation is necessary for London, they should as soon as possible produce legislation to cover these other areas. I cannot help feeling that further inquiry into this type of entertainment is necessary.

I do not wish to speak too much of the rather sordid case that is before a magistrate's court in London at the moment; but one factor which struck me as quite extraordinary—and I wonder whether the Government have appreciated it—was that two witnesses gave evidence to the effect that they were employed in a club at the age of 16. We have legislation governing the age at which a youth can work in a bar serving drinks, but it seems to me extraordinary that we have not legislation which limits the age at which a person, particularly a young girl, can work in that type of premises which employs her to use her particular charms to persuade customers to come, and perhaps to drink more than they should. It would seem to me that the Government, with the evidence that is now coming forward, and also bearing in mind the fact that these practices seem to be spreading, should take a look at the legislation that we have to see whether it should not be improved. I think they would readily agree that improvement could be made. I should hope that the Government, in line with some of their other provisions—for example, the Children and Young Persons Act, to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, accepted Amendments in regard to the employment of children on the stage—could come to this House, where they would receive full support in bringing forward measures to reduce the possible moral corruption of young people. I think it must be quite clear to us all that something needs to be done in this particular field. It would be beyond the scope of a Private Member's Bill. It would be far too difficult, I think, for a private Member to produce the legislation. I think it now rests upon the noble Earl's Ministry to make a full inquiry into the position, and then to produce legislation as soon as possible.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome which noble Lords opposite have given to these Amendments. On the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, mentioned, I think I dealt with the unlicensed cinema shows. We do not see how they can be brought within the scope of the Bill as it now stands. But I certainly would not preclude our taking a further look at what might be done about this matter in a wider context. On the question of the "near-beer" establishments or "clip-joints", or whatever they are called, here again, as I mentioned, even though the noble Lord was anxious to cover this point, he was not able, I think, in his Amendment, to find a formula which would embrace these particular establishments—and I think it is difficult, because not being places of public entertainment, they would need a different form of control. But, here again, I am quite prepared, in the light of the remarks made, to give further thought to this matter as well.

On the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned, I may tell him that we have made special inquiries about the general position in three of the large provincial cities—Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. There have, I gather, been a few cases of undesirable entertainment over the last few years, but these have been dealt with satisfactorily by prosecutions under the Common Law, and substantial penalties were imposed. In none of these places, I gather, is there anything comparable to the position which obtains in Soho at present. Here again, I am very willing to look further into the position, but that is my understanding of the position at present.

On the other point—the question of the very young girls employed as hostesses in clubs—all I would say is that I think the noble Lord quite accurately stated the law as it stands at present. It is possible for any girl over school age to be legitimately employed as a hostess in a night club or any other form of establishment. That is the law as it stands—and, of course, it will need legislation to amend that law. All I would say there is that, of course, we dealt only a few months ago with the question of the employment of children when we were discussing the Children and Young Persons Bill. Perhaps it is a pity, since the noble Lord feels so strongly about this matter that he did not raise it with us then.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, it did not come to our notice.

EARL JELLICOE

It is, I think, very wide of the subject matter covered by this particular Bill. However, although I would not promise legislation, I can promise to look further into this matter in the light of the noble Lord's observations. The Children and Young Persons Bill is still before another place and if anyone was going to move an Amendment it would have to be done speedily.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, would the noble Earl, if there is time, consult with his colleagues and his Minister to see whether an Amendment to that Bill could still be possible in another place? —because I think it would receive the support of this House if it were returned here.

EARL JELLICOE

I am not quite certain. I know that the Bill is very advanced. But I will undertake to present the observations of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend's attention to-morrow.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 183B formally.

Amendment moved— Page 194, line 30, leave out ("place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move formally Amendment No. 183C.

Amendment moved— Page 195, line 31, leave out ("a place as is") and insert ("premises as are").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 195, line 35, leave out ("a place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 195, line 40, leave out ("a place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I also move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 195, line 44, leave out ("that place") and insert ("those premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 196, line 17, leave out ("in") and insert ("at").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved—

Page 198, line 2, leave out from beginning to second ("of") in line 22 and insert— ("10.—(1) If at any premises any entertainment in respect of which a licence is required under paragraph 1 or 4 of this Schedule is provided without such a licence being held in respect thereof, then—

1. (a) any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment; and
2. (b) any other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that such an entertainment would be so provided at those premises—
1. (i) allowed the premises to be used for the provision of that entertainment; or
2. (ii) let the premises, or otherwise made the premises available, to any person by whom an offence in connection with the entertainment has been committed,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) If any premises in respect of which a licence under the said paragraph I or 4 is in force are used for any entertainment otherwise than in accordance with the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which the licence is held, then, subject to paragraph 11 of this Schedule—

1. (a) the holder of the licence; and
2. (b) any other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that the premises would be so used—
1. (i) allowed the premises to be so used; or
2. (ii) let the premises, or otherwise made the premises available, to any person by whom an offence in connection with that use of the premises has been committed,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Any person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

(4) If the holder of a licence under the said paragraph 1 or 4 is convicted by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 198, line 24, leave out ("place") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 198, line 28, leave out from ("no") to ("being") in line 29 and insert ("person shall be guilty of an offence under paragraph 10(2) of this Schedule by reason only of those premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 198, line 36, leave out second ("in") and insert ("at").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 201, line 16, at end insert—

"Interpretation

20. In this Schedule, the expression 'premises' includes any place".—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 14 [Functions as front 1st April 1965 with respect to land drainage, flood prevention, etc.]:

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, there are a number of Amendments to Schedule 14. None of them make any substantive changes to the Bill. They bring the Bill into line with other legislation. I do not propose to speak to them all at the same time, but I will attempt to link as many of them together as I can for the convenience of your Lordships. I should like to speak, first of all, to Nos. 186A and 186P. These Amendments are necessary because it is possible that the abolition of river boards and the repeal of the River Boards Act, 1948, proposed by the Water Resources Bill, will not take effect before April 1, 1965, when Schedule 14 is to come into operation. As drafted, paragraph 6 and 13(3) refer to any river authority or river authority area and the Amendments introduce references to any river board or river board area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 203, line 5, leave out from first ("river") to ("the") in line 7 and insert ("board area or river authority area a provision of the Act of 1930 which is excluded by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the River Boards Act 1948, or any corresponding provision of").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, we have no objection to these Amendments.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, this Amendment makes it clear that the provisions of paragraph 7, dealing with Local Act powers, will be subject to the savings for the property and functions of the Port of London Authority contained in paragraph 14. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 203, line 8, after ("Subject") insert ("to the provisions of paragraph 14 of this Schedule and").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, some concern has been felt at this Amendment and at the inclusion of paragraph 14 at the end of the Schedule. The L.C.C. are responsible for flood protection throughout their area. They are responsible for the banks of the main river and other watercourses, not only here in Westminster but also in the London Docks. That this responsibility is a serious one will be obvious to everyone who remembers the flood disaster about 35 years ago, when people were drowned within a few hundred yards of this place through the Thames overflowing its banks. Many noble Lords will be surprised to know that even in London Docks the responsibility for flood protection rests not on the Port of London Authority but on the L.C.C.

The Council feel that, since the G.L.C. are inheriting these powers, they will be intimately concerned with how they are to carry out their responsibilities and how they will satisfy themselves, through their engineers, that the position is satisfactory. If there is a sort of blanket exemption given to the P.L.A., as is done by paragraph 14, it seems that there is a considerable weakening of the powers of the G.L.C. to carry out their task. I am told that there have been conversations since the Bill was introduced and that various proposals and counter-proposals have been made. I believe there was a hope at one time—perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether there is still a hope—that, an Amendment may be moved before the final stages of the Bill which will modify the effect of paragraph 14. We should like to hear something to reassure us and to remove these doubts.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right. The precise terms of the saving to the Port of London Authority are still under discussion, and it is possible that an Amendment of paragraph 14 may be necessary. We realise that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 186J, and perhaps I may take these two together. If I may mention for convenience No. 186J first, this Amendment substitutes a simpler definition of the watercourses to which certain local enactments are to apply. There is no substantive change to the Bill. The simplification is partly brought about by the use of the definition of "London excluded area" at page 205, line 35. Amendment No. 186C is a drafting Amendment consequential on the introduction of a new definition of the Tidal Thames. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 203, line 21, leave out ("accordingly") and insert ("as references to the London excluded area").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, the noble Lord gave us a very soothing explanation of the Amendments. So far as I have been able to see, they are by no means easy to understand. Amendment No. 186J is in much simpler terms than were in the original, and that we can understand. But we are in some doubt about what is the meaning of "London excluded area". We know how it is defined; that we can read on page 205, line 35. But what does it define? In rather surprising terms it speaks of so much of the River Thames as lies in the Thames catchment area or the Lee catchment area or the area of any river authority. It would seem that, if the term "catchment area" means what it is normally accepted to mean, the whole of London must lie within that area. That needs some elucidation. This is an excluded area. What area is it excluded from?

Further to that, there seems to be some discrepancy between Amendment No. 186C, which is to delete the word "accordingly", and the terms of the new paragraph 8, which are brought into the Bill by Amendment No. 186D. The point is that the definition of the London excluded area at page 205 does not include any part of the Lee catchment area. Yet the new paragraph 8 specifies that the Lee catchment area is included in the area for which the Greater London Council will be responsible. That seems to be the difficulty. In fact, there are three difficulties in this Amendment: the question of the catchment areas and whether London is outside the catchment area of the Thames; secondly, the question of the meaning of "excluded"; and, finally, the inconsistency between this paragraph and the other one in this Schedule.

12.52 a.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, with regard to the first two questions, it was possible to have that explained to me with the help of a map, which is a facility which I am not permitted in your Lordships' House. I think I can explain it to the noble Earl by saying that the term "catchment area" is used only in relation to the Thames and the Lee, and it corresponds to a river board area in other parts of the country. Therefore, it is more or less synonymous with a river board area in other parts of the country. The excluded area is the area into which no river board area, and neither of the two catchment areas, the Lee Conservancy catchment area and the Thames catchment area, in fact enter. There is an area bounded by the borders of the surrounding river board and catchment areas, leaving in the centre an excluded space. It is a curious form of English to describe it, but I am assured that no better form can be found. I can also assure the noble Earl that it would be somewhat easier to understand if he had a map before his eyes. As to the discrepancy which he describes, I tried hard to follow the noble Earl, but I am afraid I have not been able to follow exactly what puzzles him about it. Has it in fact been covered by my very poor definition of what the excluded area is?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attempt to explain the excluded area. I take it that the term "catchment area", as used here, is as defined in legislation about the river boards.

LORD ST. OSWALD

That is right.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

And does not bear the meaning which one usually associates with it?

LORD ST. OSWALD

It is not in layman's language. The noble Earl is quite correct.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Then the discrepancy. We read in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 7: … in those enactments references to … the county of London shall be construed and instead of the word "accordingly" we are to read as references to the London excluded area. That is clearly referring to the next page and excludes the River Lee Catchment area. Yet the next Amendment, No. 186D, brings in a new paragraph 8 which is going to read, as it seems to me, that the area includes the Lee Catchment area, for the paragraph includes the words: … for the protection of land from flooding by such of the river's associated watercourses as lie within the flow and re-flow of its tides in the Lee Catchment area. There does seem to be an inconsistency there.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I do not believe that there is an inconsistency. What the new paragraph 8 does is to preserve the effect of local Acts which give the London County Council certain powers over the Lee in the Lee Conservancy Catchment area, and not in the excluded area. I should like to think that this evening, from Dispatch Box to Dispatch Box, we should be able to sort this out, but, as I say, without a map in front of one's eyes it is very difficult; but I do not think from listening to the noble Earl that there is any inconsistency. If he will allow me to study his words afterwards and to see whether I am right or he is right, then there is still time to correct any inconsistency. At the moment I may not be following him properly, which is very possible, and he may not be following me very well, which is even more understandable; but I do not at the moment think that there is any inconsistency. If there is, I shall certainly look into it and perhaps we can have a word about it and do our best to correct it.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, may I sum up our doubts by saying that what we question is whether it is correct to amend paragraph 7(b) so as to provide that references in the local enactments of the County of London should be construed as references to the London excluded area, which, as we have seen, does not include the Lee.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD moved to leave out paragraph 8 and to insert: 8. Subject to the provisions of section 21 of the Metropolis Management (Thames River Prevention of Floods) Amendment Act 1879 and to any provision made by an order under section 83 or 86 of this Act, the power of the Greater London Council under the said Act of 1879 and the other enactments relating to the tidal Thames to approve, require the execution of and execute flood works for the protection of land from flooding by the river Thames in the London excluded area shall be exercisable by them for the protection of land from flooding by such of the river's associated watercourses as lie within the flow and re-flow of its tides in the Lee Catchment area. 9. The River Boards Act 1948 shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

1. (a) until the repeal of that Act by the Water Resources Act 1963 takes effect, any reference to a county borough, whether as such or as a local authority, shall be construed as including a reference to a London borough council and the Common Council;
2. (b) in section 9(5) (so far as applicable by virtue of section 9(10) to the Conservators of the River Thames and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Area), the reference to local authorities shall, without prejudice to the foregoing sub-paragraph, be construed as including a reference to the Greater London Council, London borough councils and the Common Council."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask the House to consider Amendments 186D and 1860 together. The new paragraph 8 transfers to the Greater London Council the powers of the L.C.C. over certain tidal watercourses in the Lee Catchment area. The new provision preserves the status quo pending a full review of the local legislation to be undertaken under Clauses 83 and 86. The new paragraph 9(a) applies to the River Boards Act, 1948, in Greater London until such time as the Water Resources Bill comes into operation. This will enable the Kent and Essex River Boards to precept on the part of the London boroughs in the river board areas if the new river authorities have not taken over by April 1, 1965.

The new paragraph 9(b) is a redrafting of the previous paragraph 8. Under Section 9(5) of the River Boards Act, 1948, river boards and also, by virtue of Section 9(10), catchment boards, are required to afford to local authorities access to records of rainfall and river levels. After river boards have been abolished it will be necessary to preserve this power in relation to the Thames and Lee Catchment Boards because they will not be abolished. The Amendment makes it clear that only the catchment boards are involved. The power to secure access to records is also made available to the Common Council in addition to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 203, line 29, leave out paragraph 8 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I would ask the House to take 186E and 186F together. These two Amendments constitute a redrafting of the previous paragraph 9 which dealt piecemeal with the application of the Water Resources Bill in greater London. The first Amendment is a blanket provision which will ensure that under the Water Resources Bill and any order made thereunder the new London boroughs and the Common Council will have all the powers of county boroughs and that references to local authorities will include the Greater London Council, the borough councils and the Common Council. The Second Amendment sets out more fully than before the various classes of orders affecting river authority or catchment board areas which might entail modification of the drainage arrangements in Greater London. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 203, leave out lines 35 to 43 and insert ("subject to any provision made by an order under section 83 of this Act—

1. (a) references to a county borough and the council thereof shall be construed as including references respectively to a London borough and the council thereof and the City and the Common Council;
822
2. (b) without prejudice to the foregoing subparagraph, references to local authorities shall be construed as including references to the Greater London Council, London borough councils and the Common Council").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I beg to move—

Amendment moved— Page 203, line 45, leave out from ("under") to ("shall") in line 46 and insert ("that Act altering the area of a river authority, or designating a new area and establishing a new river authority therefor, or conferring function; on the Conservators of the river Thames or the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board (being an order affecting Greater London or any part thereof)").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD moved in paragraph 12 (a) to the first "for" in subparagraph (b) and insert "any payments made by the council of that borough". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to take 186G and 186H together. The object of these Amendments is to give a London borough discretion to decide what parts of the borough should be charged with precepts received in respect of drainage work carried out by various authorities—that is, a river or catchment board or the Greater London Council. Under the original draft of the Schedule a London borough would have charged a river board precept on the part of the borough within the river board area and the G.L.C. precept on the excluded area. The Amendments will enable a borough to charge the precepts either over the whole of their area or over such part as they consider just and equitable.

The first Amendment is purely introductory. The second Amendment is in two parts. The first part amends paragraph 12 of the Schedule. Read in conjunction with the existing paragraphs 10 and 11 the effect is that drainage precepts are to be levied as rates for special London purposes on those parts of the borough to which they relate, unless the council exercise their discretion under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. This section enables a council to determine that a precept shall be defrayed in one of three ways—first, out of the general rate fund; secondly, out of an additional item on the general rate for part of the borough; or thirdly, out of several additional items on the general rate at different levels for different parts of the borough. In making their determination the council must have regard to the benefit, if any, derived by the various areas. The second part of the Amendment introduces a new paragraph 13. Its effect is to make the provisions of paragraphs 10 to 12 subject to Clause 66 of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 204, line 13, leave out from beginning to first ("for") in line 16 and insert ("any payments made by the council of that borough").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 204, line 20, at end insert ("or such part thereof as the council of that borough shall determine under section 23 of the Act of 1930 (whether as originally enacted or as applied by any other enactment).

13. Paragraphs 10 to 12 of this Schedule shall have effect subject to section 66 of this Act").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I should like to take Nos. 186I and 186K together. The first makes it clear that it is only rivers actually mentioned by name in the Table and the tidal Thames that are to be main metropolitan watercourses. The others, described by the term "associated watercourses" but not mentioned by name, will be metropolitan watercourses. The second Amendment, by setting out the names of the Ravens-bourne tributaries, secures that these rivers are main metropolitan watercourses without the reference to the Ravensbourne Act in lines 27–8 of page 204. The Amendment is designed simply to clarify the position. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 204, line 26, leave out from ("watercourses") to end of line 28 and insert ("mentioned by name in paragraphs 2 to 4 of that Table").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

1.5 a.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, the noble Lord tells us that the watercourses not mentioned by name here are classed as metropolitan watercourses as distinct from main watercourses. Can he say whether there are, in fact, any watercourses flowing into the River Ravensbourne other than the Chaffinch Brook, the Beck River, the Pool River, the Quaggy River, the Kid Brook, the Kyd Brook, and the Lower Kid Brook? Are there any other rivers in Kent which flow from the Kentish Hills and are watercourses? There are other quite well-known London rivers that used to be genuine watercourses—the Fleet River, the Effra, the Westbourne and the Tyburn, and a few others. What about them? Can the noble Lord tell us about them?

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I believe that there are no rivers other than those which the noble Earl has already recited flowing into the Ravens-bourne; but all other rivers are in fact covered by the terms of the Bill as it stands. I should like him to take my word for that. I should not wish to recite them all, but they are in fact all covered by the terms of the Bill as now drafted.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether that covers the Wandle?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The Wandle is mentioned by name.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 204, line 35, column 1, leave out paragraph 1 and insert— ("1. So much of the river Thames as lies within the London excluded area, including all its associated watercourses within the flow and re-flow of its tides in that area.")—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 205, column 1, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("the Chaffinch Brook, the Beck River, the Pool River, the Quaggy River, the Kid Brook, the Kyd Brook, the Lower Kid Brook").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, under the River Boards Act, 1948, the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the definition of statutory main river in river board areas, both urban and rural. He is similarly responsible for the definition of "main" river in the two catchment board areas. Between them, the catchment boards and the river boards cover the whole of England and Wales except the London excluded area. Thus, although there are differences between statutory main river under the River Boards Act and metropolitan and main metropolitan watercourses under the Bill, it is appropriate that the same Minister should be responsible for what is broadly the same function in relation to the excluded area on the one hand and the rest of the country on the other. I beg to move this Amendment, No. 186L.

Amendment moved— Page 205, line 21, after ("Minister") insert ("of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 186M and 186N together. Their effect is to give the Minister power to schedule metropolitan watercourses. I think that what has been said already explains why we think that necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 205, line 23, at end insert— ("(a) the whole or any part of a watercourse within the London excluded area shall become a metropolitan watercourse; or").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 205, line 25, at end insert ("or").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 205, line 34, at end insert— ("'flood works', in relation to the tidal Thames, has the same meaning as in the local enactments relating thereto").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 205, line 38, after ("any") insert ("river board or").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [Rating and valuation]:

1.12 a.m.

LORD CROOK moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that nothing in this Act or in the said enactments shall—

1. (i) authorise the Greater London Council to issue any precept for the levying of rates, or a London borough council to make or levy any rate; or
2. (ii) prejudice the power of any existing authority to issue any precept for the levying of rates, or to make or levy any rate;

in respect of any period before 1st April 1965.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a completely new Amendment which was not moved in the Committee stage. I would remind those of your Lordships who were present at the Committee stage that, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I spoke on the Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill? I did so broadly for the reasons which have now led us to put down this Amendment. I then pointed out that the proceedings on the Bill had completely failed to give us at any time any explanation adequate accounting for what we regarded as the failure to provide for the issue of precepts and the making and levying of rates.

The Government did not think it was very like cricket for me to raise the issue on the last clause in the last hour of the discussion, but the explanation then given by the Lord Chancellor was quite unacceptable to my noble friends on these Benches and we then proceeded to a Division. I said then, and I repeat now, that it was not my fault that the matter was raised so late. It was entirely due to the fact that the Government had never dealt with the subject. I addressed myself to a valid point—and I think it was made clear by the Lord Chancellor—that the Government recognised there was some merit in it when he promised to study the points I had advanced. He suggested it was the intention of the Government, once this Bill had become effective with its full effect from April 1, 1965, to use powers under Clause 81 to issue an order which would provide for the issuing of precepts and the making and levying of rates during the twelve months before that date.

During that discussion the Lord Chancellor promised that after he had carefully considered what I had said he would communicate with me. That was a month ago. I have heard nothing and I have had no alternative but to put down the Amendment now before your Lordships. In our view, this is a vital problem. It became more vital owing to the way in which it was handled by the Government. In the first place, the Bill failed to deal with the matter, and then when I raised it on Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand Part of the Bill? I was told of the action of the Government in waiting until the Bill was passed and then, after Parliament had disposed of the matter, issuing their own directive.

Let me briefly explain to your Lordships, so as not to keep you at this early hour, what are the main points involved. The county and borough authorities referred to in the Bill would need to make a rate to be levied in 1965 and 1966, and in order to levy the rate they must start preparations in 1964. The first commencement of the job is the collection of estimates, and to secure the proper rate payments the rate must be made before the end of March, 1965; that is, before the operative date included in this Bill. My Lords, although the boroughs are to be elected in May 1964, under this Bill they do not come into effect as rating authorities until April 1, 1965.

So the question put to the Government, at the conclusion of the Committee stage on Clause 90, was how were the practical difficulties to be overcome so as to solve the problem of making the rate for the first year. Then I went on to point out that a similar timetable was necessary if the Greater London Council, for their part, were able to issue this precept before the boroughs could make their rate for 1965–66. Many of your Lordships connected with local authorities will know that the power for a county like the G.L.C. to issue precepts can be only by special provision in law. In this case it is in paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to this Bill. The machinery for the issue is presented by Section 9 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Your Lordships will have noticed that this section of the Act is applied to the G.L.C. by paragraph 5 of Schedule 14 to this Bill only as from April 1, 1965.

Doubts arose on the matter, particularly in the absence of Government statements. The first was the absence of the 1d. rate product. Section 9(2)(d) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, requires every rating authority, before February 1 in each year, to send to the county an estimate of the amount to be produced in the next financial year by a rate of 1d. in the pound levied in the rating area. It is obvious that that information is essential for fixing the amount in the pound which is to be levied by way of any precept which may be issued. I therefore asked the Government on Committee stage for an explanation as to the situation that the G.L.C. must have these estimates before February 1, 1965, since the Council would come into existence only on April 1, 1965, some two months afterwards.

The second doubt which I put to the Government was whether the Council must issue the precept within the time limit required by Section 9(2)(e) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which is not less than 21 days before the beginning of the financial year? I then suggested what we thought was the simplest way out: that the relevant enactments should be applied to the G.L.C. and to the London boroughs from the time the authorities came into being, with a provision to be put in the Bill that enactments would not authorise these councils to issue any rate in respect of any period before the date of their formal appointment on April 1, 1965. We thought that we had put our finger on an important administrative weakness. We did not exactly get a bouquet or note of thanks from the Government, but we thought we might be told that our last-minute intervention had avoided a bad situation. In fact, we were told three things. First, that we had raised the matter very late; second, that we should have a communication from the Lord Chancellor after he had studied the matter; third, that, anyway, once the Bill was passed, at the effective date of April 1, 1965, the Government proposed to use Clause 81 to issue an order which would do all these things, notwithstanding that Parliament had never had an opportunity for proper consideration of the matter.

As to the first point, the matter was raised in the other place months ago. As to the second, we have had no communication from the Lord Chancellor. As to the third, we remain convinced—whether or not our Amendment is accurate or the best in phraseology—that what is not in accordance with practice or precedent is that an Act should contain a deferred date for its application, but that after Royal Assent the Government of the day should issue an order—which they have indicated in advance they will do—to bring in some part of the Act at an early date. In the clear belief that this matter should be dealt with in the Act, we have put down this, as we hope, carefully drafted Amendment for the consideration of your Lordships this morning.

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Crook.)

1.21 a.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, would qualify the immediate operation of Clause 62, so that the Greater London Council could issue no precept and the London borough councils could make no rates in respect of any period before the 1st April, 1965, while the power of existing authorities to issue precepts and make rates for such periods would be preserved.

The noble Lord I am afraid, seems to be, if I may say so, slightly resentful that the Government have made no statement on this during the Committee stage. He also seems to be under the impression that he has been not quite fairly treated, because, having brought up this matter then, and having had a promise from the Lord Chancellor that he would be informed about this matter and what we intended to do, he has heard nothing further. I must remind the noble Lord that I myself signed a letter to him of June 21 on this very subject, and that he has in fact received a letter on this point. He will remember that I wrote to him two letters, one of which was dealing with another subject about investment values referring to another Amendment, on which I believe he expressed himself satisfied, and the other one was this letter, and I understood that he had received it. I say, in my own defence, that we have not neglected this matter at all, although I was given to understand that the letter was not entirely to the liking of the noble Lord and his advisers, and that this Amendment would probably be moved.

But now I am afraid I have not very much to add to the argument that was put forward in that letter. This is largely the gist of it: that we believe that the method pursued in the Bill as now standing is the better manner of providing for a transitional period, and that this is really a question of practicability. In the Government's view it would be impracticable to deal with all the transitional and supplementary provisions without making the Bill a quite unmanageable document. Even if it were practicable, it did not seem desirable to clutter the Statute Book with provisions dealing with matters of administration, which are really once-and-for-all interim problems, and which, once dealt with, would have no further part in the Bill and would be finished. Therefore the Government's conclusion was that the present method of dealing with transitional supplementary provisions through regulations would be better in the rating and valuation field, as well as in the other fields to which Clause 83 will apply. It was in fact Clause 81 at the time of the Committee stage, but it is now Clause 83.

There are some pitfalls in adopting the noble Lord's alternative suggestion put down in this Amendment. I think I should point out that, under Schedule 15, paragraph 19, of this Bill, the Greater London Council would become responsible for appointing members of local valuation panels in the administrative county of London. Now one half of the members of these panels are due to retire on April 1, 1964, and, under the Bill as drafted, members will be nominated and vacancies filled by the London County Council. But there will be no Greater London Council at that date, and thus under the noble Lord's Amendment, if carried, there would be a hiatus at the very time when the panels will be under their highest pressure, because this Clause 62 would come into operation before April, 1965—and that refers to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 204B. That is one of the difficulties. There will be other matters of this nature, I think—a variety of other statutory provisions. If a thorough search were made, they could be identified and dealt with by Amendments to the Bill, but only at the cost of excessive length, in order to deal with a problem which, I will emphasise again, is entirely transitional in character.

The alternative, of course, would be to accept an Amendment of this kind and then to deal by way of orders, again under Clause 83, with the transitional arrangements which will be necessary to continue in force the present enactments—because others are involved besides rating—in their application to the metropolitan boroughs and the L.C.C. until April 1, 1965. One has to do it one way or the other, and we believe that by far the simplest way is not to clutter up the Bill with all these matters but to deal with them by orders; not to interfere at the moment with the metropolitan boroughs and the L.C.C., but to deal with it as a transitional arrangement in respect of the Greater London Council. I hope that the noble Lord will now believe that there are sound reasons for adopting this method, and that, whichever method was adopted, there would be complications.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, first of all, may I express my regret to the noble Lord for a complete injustice to him in saying that I had not heard. I am afraid that, at this kind of hour, after the 15 to 16 hours that some of us have been at work, it is a little difficult to remember.

LORD HASTINGS

I do not blame the noble Lord for mislaying correspondence: I have done quite a bit of it myself.

LORD CROOK

I withdraw any criticism that I had not heard. As to the comments he has made on the terms of the Amendment moved, I think the best thing for us to do is for noble Lords on this side to have a look to-morrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT at what has been said in reply, so that we may consider it. This Amendment has not been put down casually by myself, as might have been thought. It is the result of careful thought by those who are concerned with county and borough administration in the L.C.C. and in certain boroughs who have themselves taken part in its drafting. I should certainly like to consult with them. I take the point that the noble Lord has made about the large number of transitional arrangements to be made. I think the one thing we should like to feel a little more happy about—I think I do know, but I should like to be assured about it—is whether the orders for these transitional arrangements will come before the House in due course for approval. I do not know if the noble Lord could let me know.

LORD HASTINGS

Whether they are to come before the House?

LORD CROOK

Whether these orders are to come before the House for approval.

LORD HASTINGS

I am not quite sure: I do no think so. Some are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and others are not.

LORD SHEPHERD

Would the noble Lord look at this point?—because surely it is important. The noble Lord made a plea that he did not wish to clutter up the Bill, and said he thought it would be more expedient for the sake of simplicity to proceed by order. I would have thought that if it is a subject which should be within the Bill but in respect of which an order is used for simplicity, then the particular order should come before both Houses of Parliament.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66 [Chargeability of part of rating area with expenses incurred for another part thereof]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is a drafting and consequential Amendment similar to an earlier one in Schedule 4, No. 66.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 34, leave out from ("Council") to ("or") in line 35.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 69 [Transitional assistance to certain counties]:

1.31 a.m.

LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "fivepence" and insert "twopence". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to speak again so soon; but this is another important financial Amendment, the main effect of which is to help the population of counties like my own, Surrey, and others. I think it is true to say that when we get the following complementary Amendment, to be moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, we shall get a complete picture. What is clear about my own county is that it will have perpetual damage to it of the order of a 1s. 3d. rate, on the old figure, or 5d. on the new; and that the Minister's reduction from 6d. to 5d., which was supposed to be a great concession to counties like Surrey, is completely academic where that county is concerned. The second concession of the Minister also becomes academic because if the county receives nothing, it does not matter whether it receives nothing for five years or for eight years. It is calculated that the remainder of Surrey left, after amputation has taken place, will cost Surrey approximately £925,000.

At the risk of boring your Lordships by repeating figures that some have already heard, I would recall that Surrey loses 48,311 acres, which is something under 8 per cent. of its present acreage; but on that acreage it loses 674,840 population, which is 40 per cent. So, on 8 per cent. of the acreage of the county that goes, it loses 40 per cent. of its population. And, to develop that figure, it will lose in rateable value £38 million, which is 43 per cent. of its total. The build-up figures are that 8 per cent. of acreage wall go, taking 40 per cent. of the population and 43 per cent. of the rateable value.

An examination of the rateable value per head of the population undertaken by the council shows that it is now £52 10s. 0d. It will be £49 17s. 0d., and the rateable value of the part going to the Greater London Council will be £56 13s. 0d. per head. The calculations of the county treasurer which have been made available to the noble Lord who will reply—and I have no reason to believe the Government disagree with this kind of figure—shows that there will be an immediate increase of 11d. in rates, due to the lesser rating resources. In addition, there will be the very heavy cost of highways that will now fall on the county, as one can imagine, if one realises that 8 per cent. of the acreage (very little of it highways) is going to be taken away. There is nothing that Surrey can do about that. It is a permanent cost.

Then there is the question of the administrative costs. What is the position about this? The county treasurer's estimate was that it means 4d. on the old figure, 1¼d. on the new, again a permanent costing, so far as can be seen, for this reason: that, although reduced in size so that only three-fifths of the population are left in the county, it will not be possible for the county in its new form to shed two-fifths of its staff or of its services. What the ratepayers of counties like Surrey are saying is that they have to find 1s. 3d., or 5d. on the new rate, to help the Government to carry out its plan to do away with the L.C.C., but they are not doing anything for Surrey at all.

I could go on to refer to education costs and how they will arise, and to the difficulties that there will be in general, but other Members of your Lordships' House who live in Surrey are likely to follow me and I will not develop that. Reforms, even if they are good, ought not to be carried out without consultation, and one of the great complaints of the County of Surrey, and I have no doubt of other counties, is that this Bill has been presented with no consultation having taken place at all. It is no good saying, as I imagine the noble Lord will try to say in his reply, that Surrey had a chance of making their case to the Royal Commission—in fact, they did give evidence—because the complaint that the counties and boroughs have is that under an ordinary reorganisation of boundaries under the Local Government Act, 1958, every local authority would have been able to consider the proposals and, if objection was made by them, automatically there would have been a local inquiry under Section 23 of the Act. Only after that inquiry and the opportunity for the locality to be heard would it be possible for the Minister to lay his order.

All that was cut out by the procedure adopted here, of imposing this Bill without an opportunity for Surrey citizens to express their views. The Bill brings about a complete revolution of boundaries, staff and organisation, and, in our view, the Government should pay for what they are doing. In this Amendment we are trying to reduce the figure, and in the next Amendment which my noble friend is moving, to provide that the money is to be found, not by the L.C.C. or the G.L.C., but by the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 34, leave out ("fivepence") and insert ("twopence").—(Lord Crook.)

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. On Committee stage we had a full discussion of this Amendment, which was then ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and at this late hour I do not propose to go into a great many figures. The new Surrey comprises an area approximately 92.33 per cent. of the old but the rateable value will be only 57.43 per cent., so that there will be a great loss, and services such as education will suffer. On Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Hastings said [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOI. 250 (No. 91), col. 834]: The Government do not feel that they should aggravate the difficulties of those ratepayers by asking them to pay too much to the truncated counties. It is the Government's desire to hold the balance between the two groups of authorities and they feel that the present figure of 5d. is about right. I know that when boundaries are changed between counties obviously problems of this kind cannot always be gone into with complete deliberation. But this is a very big Bill, and the boundary changes here are in many ways much greater, and will have a greater impact, than normal boundary changes which take place in the course of time.

I think the Government should give consideration to the kind of people in Surrey who will be affected by these changes. They are mostly (I apologise to your Lordships for repeating this, but it is important) people living on fixed incomes, or young people who have to travel to London or elsewhere to their normal jobs, and have possibly great expenses on mortagages, season tickets and so on. They are going to be faced, as has been said, with approximately a 10 per cent. rate increase over and above the last revaluation. Even if the Government find the figure of 2d. too drastic, I must confess that I am disappointed that they have not come forward with some proposal. I know they can refer to Clause 83, but this is a complicated clause and extremely difficult to understand. I should have thought that at least some kind of review could be suggested because these figures are going to hit people hard. They are not mythical figures, but have been gone into carefully by the Surrey County Council, who have gone to great trouble to brief noble Lords as to what the implications are. I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer, but I would urge the Government to give further thought to this and, even if they cannot accept the figure which has been put down in the Amendment, which I submit is a reasonable figure, to come forward with some more concrete proposal on the next stage of the Bill.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Auckland said, we had a long debate on this in Committee. Noble Lords have abbreviated their remarks, and I do not intend to deploy all the arguments that I put forward on the last occasion, which are to be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would remind noble Lords, however, that I said then that local government reorganisation is something which goes on from time to time. It is supposed to be in the interests of local government, and as a general principle these reorganisations should not be accompanied by assistance from one authority to another. Therefore, the clause is not intended to provide compensation for loss of territory or rate resources. Its sole purpose is to cushion any sudden and substantial increase in the rate.

We have to consider outer London, and we know that their representatives are opposed to the clause as a whole. The severed counties, of course—especially Essex and Surrey—consider that the clause does not go far enough, so obviously we have to strike a balance; there has to be a compromise. In deciding that level of the increase which justifies a cushion, we must realise that some of the new London boroughs in outer London will themselves, as a result of the reorganisation, be facing rate increases, and that is because boroughs will be amalgamated, some poor boroughs with some rich boroughs, and so on.

Because of those increases, there is in the Bill, in Clause 83(2), which was amended in another place, paragraph (d) to make it clear that, where an area having heavy losses is merged with an area which is gaining, the losses and gains can be introduced gradually. So there has to be a special provision to alleviate pressure on rates in some of the outer London boroughs, and some of them may—I do not want to commit myself, or name any names—well be facing rate increases of the order of 5d., which is the figure now estimated that Surrey itself will be facing. Therefore, we are faced with this double situation.

Another point which I must put forward—and I am not sure that I did so on the last occasion—is this. We cannot tell, of course, how successful the severed counties will be in adapting their expenditure to the new circumstances. The loss is to be determined in terms of 1964–65, and the transitional assistance through the whole period of eight years will be based on that original figure, and will not be valid whatever happens to their expenditure or income in the future. It will be based on the 1964–65 estimates. Without a threshold, it is possible that these counties may adapt themselves so successfully that the speed with which they adjust their administration might outstrip the rate at which the transitional assistance shall run down, thus enabling them, at the expense of ratepayers in Greater London, to show a lower rate in the pound than they would have done apart from this reorganisation if we were to set the threshold too low.

I admit that the 5d. limit is an arbitrary figure, and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, suggested that we could perhaps suggest another figure, even if we cannot accept the suggestion of 2d. in the Amendment, or that we could have a review, or something of that kind. I considered very carefully afterwards whether we might lower this by another 1d., and the matter was gone into. I think this will probably be confirmed by noble Lords supporting this Amendment. We felt that the lowering by another 1d. would be regarded as derisory by the two counties concerned, and not worth while. The Surrey estimate of 5d. is only an estimate and on the whole we believe, if anything, it might be a little bit less rather than a little bit more than that. Therefore, they might not benefit in the least even if we lowered this figure to 4d. When we are considering Essex, although its original estimate was an increase in the rates of 1s. 2d. that has now been reduced to, I think, 8½d. I do not think that even 1d. there would be greeted with open arms, if I may put it like that. On the other hand, any further reduction, even by 1d., would very much increase the indignation, I am afraid, of the Greater London authorities. I do not think, on the one hand, we should get any thanks from Surrey and Essex, and, on the other, we certainly should not get any good will from the Greater London authorities. So, unless we are going right down to 2d., as suggested, this figure of 5d. might just as well remain as it is.

There is the other consideration—although I told my noble friend Lord Gage at Committee stage that, of course, this was not to be considered a precedent—that when it comes to local boundary commissions' recommendations and reorganisations of the provincial local authorities, in those few cases where there may be a real need for some compensating financial adjustment, the figure we set here is I think bound to be at the back of people's minds. Here again, I do not think we want to encourage too much of this sort of thing in the Provinces and we do not want a general climbing on to the band-waggon, which might occur if the threshold in regard to Greater London were set too low.

The noble Lord, Lord Crook, said there had been no consultation. That is true in so far as there has been no possibility of a public inquiry, but of course there has been a very considerable exchange of information of a financial nature in respect of the estimates and expected rate increases and, therefore, we are not operating in the dark. My Lords, I cannot really take this matter any further and I am afraid that the Government do not see their way to changing the figure of 5d. as set in the Bill.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and my noble friend Lord Crook were speaking for Surrey, just as in another place Members of Parliament on the side of the noble Lords opposite, as well as on my own, also spoke for Surrey. But the noble Lord mentioned the question of Essex and I am glad he did because, while Surrey may be complaining bitterly of the way the Government are treating them, Essex have more to complain about. The permanent damage to Essex will be greater than the permanent damage to Surrey.

The noble Lord suggested that, if the rate of 5d. were reduced to 2d., or a figure somewhere between them, it might be possible for the county councils to increase their expenditure in such a way that they would be able to obtain sums from the ratepayers of the Greater London area. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree with me to the extent that this matter has not been dealt with merely across the Floors of both Houses of Parliament. There have been detailed discussions between the treasurers, the financial officers, of the two county councils, and the Minister's representatives, and I think I am right in saying that, broadly, the figures we have dealt with at Committee and Report are figures which the Ministry have agreed are acceptable.

The figures that we have, which I will not quote to-night, indicate that in the case of Surrey there will in the first year be a loss, or an extra burden on the ratepayers, of nearly £1 million and, in the case of Essex, it will be in the region of £1½ million. Therefore, if we take all the county councils concerned, the truncated county councils, we have perhaps a global figure of £2½ million. In the case of Surrey this will represent 5d. on the new rateable values. How would that apply for the ratepayers in the Greater London area, which the Government have decided should make a contribution if a contribution was necessary? Instead of 5d. in the pound it would be approximately 1d. in the pound.

The whole burden of the Government case is that this Bill is for the improvement of local government in London. It is going to be carried forward for the benefit of the Londoner at the expense of the ratepayers of Surrey, the ratepayers of Essex. I should not think it unfair to say that some compensation should be paid to those counties for the permanent damage. I hope that the new counties will continue with their development programmes, but I believe that some of the counties may well have to consider some of their forward planning and their possible expenditure in view of the new burdens of rates that are being put upon the householders. This is a problem which county councils will have to face.

I do not believe that the Government are prepared to move in this matter. I am sorry that that is so. I suspect that they put the figure at 5d. with a reasonable knowledge that there would be only a small amount for the Greater London area to pay out; it was set

deliberately at that figure, not on any question of equity or justice to the counties concerned, but so that it would look all right in the Bill. That is how I imagine this transitional arrangement was made. I hope that the House will feel that the counties have made their case. Perhaps we, who have been speaking for them, speak inadequately, but the case has been made to the Minister and outside. This is not a Party matter; it is not only a Surrey matter; it is an Essex matter and a Kent matter, according to degree. I ask the House to support my noble friend, should he feel that he should press this Amendment to a Division.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I think there is very little for me to reply to. I am bound to say that the more one hears about this Bill the more one is staggered that it was ever presented in this way. It is a little difficult to understand. Surrey is to lose a 5d. rate and some of the people supposed to be getting the benefit of the reorganisation in London, the noble Lord admits, may themselves face an increase of as much as 5d. It is very difficult to know why. This great spending spree is going on to achieve this end. I would remind the House that the Royal Commission said in this regard: Changes we propose are of such magnitude and represent a surgical operation of such an unusual kind that special treatment seems to be justifiable. They went on to suggest transitional arrangements for relief of the burden of rates. In view of the Government failure to meet us on this final opportunity, I invite your Lordships to join me in the Division Lobby.

2.0 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 187A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Ellenborough, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Kinnoull, E.	Shepherd, L.
Auckland, L.	Latham, L.	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lindgren, L.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Longford, E.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Eccles, L.	Merthyr, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Mills, V.
Brecon, L.	Ferrers, E.	Molson, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Glentanar, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Carrington, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Perth, E.
Chesham, L.	Grenfell, L.	St. Aldwyn. E. [Teller.]
Colville of Culross, V.	Hailsham, V. (L. President)	St. Just, L.
Conesford, L.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Craigton, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Sandford, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Jellicoe, E.	Sandys, L.
Denham, L.	Jessel, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Derwent, L.	Lothian, M.	Tenby, V.
Devonshire, D.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Teynham, L.
Dulverton, L.	Merrivale, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Dundee, E.	Mersey, V.	Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.5 a.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out words after "for the year 1965–66" down to and including "county purposes", and insert: the Minister of Housing and Local Government shall pay out of moneys provided by Parliament—". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, upon which Amendments 189 and 190 depend, deals not with the measure of the compensation to be paid to the severed counties but with the question as to who shall pay the compensation. I thought that my noble friend Lord Crook made a convincing case that the compensation proposed under the scale set out in the Bill was utterly and totally inadequate, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in any way refuted by noble friend's submissions.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, again referred, as he did at the Committee stage, to an assumed parallel between the transfer of territory or the extension of boundaries which normally takes place, and this proposal for wantonly ravishing the country adjacent to the county of London. The analogy is by no means complete; nor is it convincing. The question, however, is: who should pay this compensation? Who is responsible for the compensation being necessary? It is the Government; not the ratepayers of the intended Greater London Council and the severed counties. And if the Government are responsible for the situation which will arise as a result of the truncation of these counties the Government should pay, not the ratepayers. They are not the authors of this Bill and they do not approve its dismantling provisions. They did not ask for it. It has been imposed on them and on the intended severed counties.

No one wants this Bill except the Tory Party and the London Municipal Society. No one, except the purblind embittered Tory Party, wants this Bill. The Government should pay for their handiwork; they should pay for their misdeeds, and not give the burden to the Greater London ratepayers, who in any case will have to pay a higher rate as a result of the increased expenditure which will inevitably ensue from the dislocation that will follow the operation of the provisions of this Bill. The services, if maintained, will certainly for a number of years cost more under the dismantling proposals contained in the Bill. The severed counties will suffer also. They have to bear up to the additional burden of a 5d. rate before they get any compensation. Therefore, we say that the compensation should be paid by the Government, and not by the ratepayers of Greater London. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 84, line 21, leave out from ("1965–66,") to the end of line 24 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has repeated, or summarised, the case he made during Committee, and I can do no more and no less than summarise the case I made on that occasion. It is, of course, that Greater London is being reorganised for the benefit of the people who live in it, and that there is no reason why the general taxpayer at large throughout the country should be asked to pay for this reorganisation. It is perfectly reasonable that the people who live in Greater London should pay towards any form of compensation that is to be given to the severed counties. That is what we propose they should do. They are not going to be asked to pay more than they can reasonably stand.

On the other hand, it would be quite wrong if noble Lords got the idea that the Exchequer would not be paying anything. The fact is that the Exchequer will be paying to Essex a higher rate-deficiency grant, in the sum of £610,000, and to Kent an additional £680,000; so that they will be making a contribution of £1,300,000 to these counties, in addition to the amount they will receive from the outer London boroughs.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, the deficiency grants are payable under existing legislation.

LORD HASTINGS

Yes, I know.

LORD LATHAM

Do not make a virtue of it.

LORD HASTINGS

This is additional to the present situation. But I do not think I can agree, and I do not think noble Lords on this side of the House can agree, with the idea put forward, that whatever the Government do in respect of local legislation the taxpayer and the country as a whole should pay for that particular enactment.

LORD LATHAM

Yes, but this is unique for its iniquity.

LORD HASTINGS

That is a matter of opinion. The noble Lord thinks it is, and we do not think it is iniquitous at all. It is unique, because we have the courage of our convictions to do something that badly needs doing. In that respect it is unique, and no doubt this Government will be recognised in later years for having taken on this task at a time when it needed taking on, and it will be seen in later years that great benefit will accrue to London as a result.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, here again the noble Lord says that my noble friend Lord Latham has said much the same as he said in Committee. I do not expect that he has. I expect he has put it differently and even more persuasively. But one of the purposes of having a Committee and a Report stage is so that the Govern- ment can consider fairly and objectively the arguments that have been put to them in Committee. They will therefore have a chance of modifying their opinions and changing their minds. Again we see they have a grievance against this Report stage altogether. There is nothing in this—

LORD HASTINGS

I did not say that I had a grievance at all. I was merely saying that the noble Lord had repeated his case and I had to repeat mine. We made a lot of changes in this between the Committee and Report stages.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

You made some—not on this point. The noble Lord then proceeded to excuse himself by saying there was nothing he could do but to repeat what he had said at each stage. I do not complain about that, except that that makes it clear that the Government have not considered the arguments in Committee on this point.

Then the noble Lord said that the Government would be paying a figure of about £600,000 to the surviving truncated county of Essex, and so with the others. But that, as my noble friend Lord Latham said, is surely under existing legislation. If the action of the Government results in a decrease in the rateable value of a county, and, therefore, a decrease in the product of a 1d. rate, then automatically under the Exchequer contribution arrangements the Government grant goes up. The Government are not putting their hand in their pocket and saying to poor old Essex, Surrey and Kent, "Look, boys. We are very sorry, so we will hand out this additional money which otherwise you would not have got, and we are only doing it because of new legislation that enables us to do it." They have no need to expect any thanks for this, because the truncated counties automatically get the increased grant as the Government have taken away a substantial part of their rateable value.

This is one of the most wicked pieces of bluff, and almost thievery, that I have ever come across. It is going to be put in cold black and white legislation, or black and green legislation. What does it mean? They first of all start by saying that they want to enlarge the London County Council area, to increase the population of the new area from the existing 3¼ million to about 8½ million, and still call it local government. They do that for a political motive, in the hope that they will get a majority on the Greater London Council which, owing to their unpopularity among the people of London, they cannot get by popular consent. So they are going to legislate it out of existence at the behest of the incompetent, antiquated London Municipal Society, supported by the Leader of the House of Commons.

Having done that and enlarged the new Greater London area by truncating these surrounding counties, they then find, owing to Labour speeches and the efforts of Surrey and others, this opposition. Kent and Essex have been a bit soft about it, but Surrey has put up a fight. That is why we backed Surrey: and, my noble friend Lord Crook having backed Surrey in conjunction with Lord Auckland—they joined forces on the argument—Lord Crook goes into the Lobby, Lord Auckland stays. Lord Auckland has been boasting in the local paper, the Surrey Comet, that he is going to fight this to the bitter end, as a bold Baron. I hope my noble friend Lord Crook will expose in the Surrey Comet the weak, runaway, sit-on-the-fence tactics of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. I am sick of the sight of him, the way he comes into the field and then runs away.

Now, having enlarged the area of Greater London and cut into the surrounding counties—the Government have done this; not London, but the Government—they then come to this House and say, "We have done it. We have committed the murder. We have committed the theft. Now let the compensation be paid by the citizens of Greater London as a whole"—those people who never asked for it to be done; indeed, who opposed its being done. Of all the brazen, dishonest impudence that I have ever met in the whole of my Parliamentary life, this is about the limit! They

initiate the foul deed; they do the foul deed. They go into these respectable Conservative counties, tear them limb from limb, steal half their population, or getting on for that, and perhaps more than half their rateable value; and then, instead of producing the money to compensate these truncated counties, they say, "London can pay it". That's a nice thing! Why should I, as a ratepayer of London, pay for the sins of Her Majesty's Government? It almost tempts one to sit down in Parliament Square—which I assure your Lordships is the last thing I am going to do; I have too much sympathy with the police. But that is what they are doing.

This is an utterly dishonest financial transaction, worthy of the late Horatio Bottomley in his most exciting financial days. This is a tricky, dishonest Government—I nearly called them corrupt, but I am not sure that that would be in order. It is a terrible Government: and we have to pay for it. We are also paying to some extent because we have to share the richer rateable value of the City of London, the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and, I think, Marylebone, which we had in the county of London and which were very useful to the London County Council in its expenditure, with a wider area. So we lose all that. Then the Government come along, having committed this foul deed, and say, "You Londoners can pay for it", while they could pay for it out of the Exchequer's pocket. The Government are mean, the Treasury are mean—and, thank heaven! the Government will go out at the next Election, which is why they are holding on as long as they can.

2.28 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 188) shall be agreed to?

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

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Kinnoull, E.	Shepherd, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Latham, L.	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lindgren, L.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Longford, E.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Bridgeman, V.	Chesham, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Carrington, L.	Colville of Culross, V.
Brecon, L.	Chelmer, L.	Conesford, L.
Craigton, L.	Grenfell, L.	Molson, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Monk Brettan, L.
Denham, L.	Hastings, L.	Perth, E.
Derwent, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Devonshire, D.	Jellicoe, E.	St. Just, L.
Dulverton, L.	Jessel, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Dundee, E.	Lothian, M.	Sandford, L.
Eccles, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Sandys, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Merrivale, L.	Tenby, V.
Ferrers, E.	Mersey, V.	Teynham, L.
Glentanar, L.	Merthyr, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Mills, V.	Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.32 a.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 80, to insert the following new clause:

Surplus lands, etc.

".—(1) Any land which immediately before 1st April 1965 belonged to the London county council or the Middlesex county council and was not required for the purpose for which it had been acquired, or had been subsequently appropriated, including any land so belonging which had been laid out and developed under section 12 (Power to develop lands &c.) of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944, section 33 (Development of land by Council) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1955, or section 31 (Acquisition and development of derelict land) of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1956, shall on that date vest in the Greater London Council; but, not later than 31st March 1970 or such later date before 1st April 1975 as the Minister may direct, the Greater London Council shall, after consultation with the London borough councils, prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme with respect to that land—

1. (a) containing proposals as to what part, if any, of that land it is, in the opinion of the Greater London Council, necessary or desirable to transfer to the councils of specified London boroughs for use for or in connection with the exercise of the functions of those councils, and giving their grounds for that opinion;
2. (b) in the case of any of that land proposed to be transferred, indicating any necessary modifications of any local Act or other instrument with respect to the land in question;

and the Minister, after consultation with the Greater London Council and any London borough council concerned, may by order give effect to the scheme either without modification or with such modifications as the Minister thinks fit.

(2) The Minister shall not make any order under section 83 of this Act in relation to any land to which this section applies except for the purpose of giving effect (either with or without modifications) to a scheme submitted to him under this section."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which deals with the surplus land and properties which the L.C.C. have acquired over a number of years, in the main for redevelopment and road building. The figure which I gave on Committee of the value of this property was in the region of £40 million. I have no reason to retract that statement. This property is bringing to the L.C.C. an annual income in the region of £400,000. I understand that the Government propose that this property, which will be surplus to the L.C.C., should be transferred by ministerial order, under Clause 83, to the boroughs in which the property exists. In the main, this property is located in boroughs which are wealthy. It has been acquired out of the money of the ratepayers of the whole of the L.C.C. area and, if there is to be any transfer, in some way that value should go to the benefit of the ratepayers of the Greater London area.

I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to say on Committee that there was no question of a free transfer of this property from the L.C.C. to the boroughs and that some method would be adopted by which the value of the property would be transferred to some authority, which he did not name. He did not say that the value of the property would in fact go to the Greater London Council. We should like to know to-night from the Government what they propose to do to ensure that the value of this property which has been acquired from the ratepayers of London, should be disposed of in such a way that the ratepayers of the Greater London area should benefit. I hope the Government can give us a reply; they were unable to do so on the Committee stage. With those few words, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 80, insert the said next clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I accept the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, of £40 million, and also the annual income of about £400,000 derived from this capital asset. In addition, I can add the information that this property is let by the London County Council on ground leases due to expire at varying times from the present to about 40 or so years hence. In the first place, it was bought against future needs, and some of it may now be ripe for development. We admit all that.

The difference between the Government and noble Lords opposite is essentially over the method of transferring these properties to the new authorities. But I think lying behind this Amendment is the fear of noble Lords that property paid for by the London County Council and the ratepayers of the London County Council area in respect of which that whole area is now benefiting might be given more or less en bloc to particular boroughs. On the Committee stage the noble Lord mentioned particularly the Borough of Westminster, pointing out that it is already the richest one. On the other hand, it seems clear from what the noble Lord has said that he has no objection to these assets of the London County Council being handed over en bloc to the Greater London Council, although that would mean that different ratepayers from the present would be benefiting from the transfer, because it would then be spread over the ratepayers of the whole of the area of Greater London, which is more than twice the area. So there is no question of keeping this property for the benefit of the same ratepayers, as now.

The Government's intention is that transfers to the new authorities should be accomplished by order under Clause 83, with provision as required for the transfer also of rights and liabilities. This would be done only after the fullest consultation with the authorities concerned, which will include the Greater London Council after it is set up. The Government believe that the permanent disposition of most, if not all, of the properties can be settled by April 1, 1965, when the new authorities assume their functions. There is no reason why this should not be so. If, in the event, it seems desirable to defer the final decision in respect of these particular properties, there is nothing to prevent an order under Clause 83 from transferring them to (let us say) the Greater London Council until the final disposition is made by subsequent order.

Orders under Clause 83 will, by virtue of subsection (4) of that clause, attract the provisions of Section 151 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which deals with financial adjustments upon alterations of areas or the creation of new authorities. The section enables authorities to make agreements for the purpose of adjusting property, income, debts, liabilities and expenses. Such agreements may, for example, provide for joint use of properties and for payment by either party to the agreement in respect of property, debts, functions and liabilities.

There should be no difficulty in most cases in determining who should be the appropriate new authority to take over a property from an existing authority and, in all probability, the rights and liabilities going with the property. But there is no reason why, for example, an order under Clause 83 could not provide for an agreement or an adjustment in accordance with Section 151 of the 1933 Act between two of the new authorities: the one to whom the property is transferred and the other who might be held to have an inherited interest in it; that is to say, the Greater London Council. The point of that is, of course, that the noble Lord is thinking of profits that might be made owing to the appreciation in value, and in the case of large properties it might well be that, although that property was transferred for redevelopment to a borough, the Greater London Council have a share in that redevelopment, and agreements to that effect can be made. On the other hand, there would be no doubt quite small properties ripe for redevelopment which obviously would be on a local borough basis, and it would be suitable to make that over direct to the borough.

The noble Lord is quite wrong—and I am sorry if I gave him this impression at Committee stage—in thinking that it is the Government's intention automatically to transfer to local boroughs. It is not. I have outlined what may well happen. There can be a sharing between more than one borough, or it can belong entirely to the Greater London Council, or there can be a sharing between the borough and the Greater London Council. These matters will be worked out after full consultation. On any two stage operation of vesting in the Greater London Council pending a final determination, that determination could similarly bring in its train adjustments between the Greater London Council and the authority in which the property is vested.

I am afraid that in Committee stage, not being an economist, I became rather involved in talking about compensation, and noble Lords, perhaps also not being economists, followed me up the garden path on that one. It was a question not of compensation but the transfer of assets and liabilities. I hope that on this occasion I have explained the matter more fully so that noble Lords can understand it and will be satisfied that this matter can be looked after more expeditiously under Clause 85, with justice to everybody concerned.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, may I intervene for the purpose of making a personal statement? It is only honourable that I should do so. I was told that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, had not voted in the

Clause 83 [Supplementary and transitional provision]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, paragraph (b) of Clause 83(2) provides that

Division about Surrey. I now find that he did vote. I think he was rather quick through the Lobby before we saw him. Nevertheless, he did vote, I went for him, as I was entitled to do if he had not voted. I am now advised that he did vote, and I wish to tender my apologies to the noble Lord and thus set the record straight.

EARL. ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I have listened to the explanation on the Amendment—

LORD MOLSON

The noble Earl was talking all the time. He did not listen at all.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I heard a great deal of what may well happen. It may be all right. We will read it in the morning, but we will divide just to make certain.

2.43 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 192) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L.
Aldington, L.	Lindgren, L.	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Longford, E.	Summerskill, B.
Champion, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Eccles, L.	Merrivale, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Mersey, V.
Brecon, L.	Ferrers, E.	Mills, V.
Bridgeman, V.	Glentanar, L.	Molson, L.
Carrington, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Monk Bretton, L.
Chelmer, L.	Grenfell, L.	Perth, E.
Chesham, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Colville of Culross, V.	Hastings, L.	St. Just, L.
Conesford, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Craigton, L.	Jellicoe, E.	Sandford, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Jessel, L.	Sandys, L.
Denham, L.	Kinnoull, E.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Derwent, L.	Lothian, M.	Teynham, L.
Devonshire, D.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Dulverton, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Waleran, L.
Dundee, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

orders dealing with transitional provisions may make the necessary substitution where any authority affected by reorganisation is represented on or appoints members to some other body. In the case of the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board the membership is set out in their Local Act of 1950. The majority of members are appointed by local authorities, but four are elected by groups of local authorities in accordance with special procedure, and some of the local authorities are inside and some outside the Greater London area. This Amendment will enable the necessary substitution to be made in the case of elected members as well as appointed members. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 95, line 38, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 40 and insert ("elected by, or appointed by or on the nomination of—

1. (i) any council affected by Part I of this Act; or
2. (ii) any two or more bodies who include such a council;").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should like to move Amendments 193 and 194 together. No. 193 is intended to pave the way for 194, and the purpose of 194 is to enable Territorial Army and Air Force associations to continue unchanged for the time being, despite the changes made in the Bill to the areas of counties—London, Middlesex and the peripheral counties. Your Lordships know that recently there has been a major reorganisation of the Territorial Army as a whole, and we thought it wrong that there should be within a year or two a reorganisation of Territorial Army associations in Greater London. The purpose of the Amendment is to obviate the need for any such reorganisation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 96, line 7, leave out from ("in") to second ("of") in line 10 and insert ("section 148(1)(a) to (h) and (2)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 96, line 20, at end insert:— ("(2A) The provision which may be made by virtue of paragraph (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall include the making, in relation to any association mentioned in section 2 of the Auxiliary Forces Act 1953, of the like provision as may be made in relation to a public body under section 148(1)(a) to (h) of the Local Government Act 1933, including provision for continuing in existence any such association and the area for which it is established or authorising the establishment of any such association under the said Act of 1953 for the whole or any part of Greater London and in either case for the appointment of a president and vice-president of any such association.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 84 [Transfer and compensation of officers]:

2.55 a.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 195, 196 and 197 together. They are all linked with previous Amendments, and their purpose is to ensure that when any agreement is made between the Greater London Council and a borough council under Clause 24(7), any local government officers who are transferred as a result of such an agreement will be entitled to the general protection of the provisions contained in Clause 84. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 15, leave out ("shall include") and insert ("or by section 24(7) of this Act shall include such").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 16, after ("Act") insert ("or, as the case may be, in pursuance of any agreement under the said section 24(7)").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 17, leave out ("such.)—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection 3(a), to leave out the words after "the transfer" down to and including "new terms and conditions of employment". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Amendment No. 197C depends upon Amendment No. 197A. Both Amendments are concerned with the conditions of transfer of the various staffs of the bodies to be transferred, and the staff are naturally anxious as to what their position may be. The first Amendment seeks to improve the limited measure of protection which the Bill affords to transferred officers in respect of their existing terms and conditions of employment. It would ensure, for instance, that any officer engaged on duties which were not reasonably comparable to those on which he was engaged immediately before the transfer, through no fault of his own but as a consequence of the Bill, does not suffer a worsening in his pay and conditions. It is, of course, the doctrine of non-worsening.

There are several grounds on which this Amendment No. 197A is justified. It was put forward, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will recall, during the Committee stage, and although the noble Lord gave an answer to some of the arguments which were then used, there were certain of the arguments which were unanswered, and it is hoped that the noble Lord will be able to answer them this evening. There is the general point of real importance, that local government officers have chosen their employment in the belief that it is characterised by a high measure of security, and they have accepted (I think this is generally agreed to be the case) a lower monetary reward for that reason. If Parliament destroys or lessens that security, it should give full protection against the ensuing loss. I think perhaps one could say that that is no more than fair.

The total loss which officers could suffer in this major upheaval may well affect more officers than is usually the case, and it is likely in any case to be more substantial than is normal. A fall in salary is a particular disadvantage for those who are about to retire on ground of age. The amount of the pension is determined by the average salary in the last three years of service, and so a reduction in income means a corresponding reduction in pension. This is particularly serious for those officers who have many years of service and who are approaching retirement. In this connection, the Minister in another place on April 1 said this—I quote from the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 675 (No. 89), col. 67: I give a firm undertaking that pensions rights are protected and will be protected by order. That was said on recommittal in another place on April 1. It is difficult to see how the Minister proposes to protect the pension rights of officers who suffer loss in salary in the circumstances to which this Amendment refers, unless this Amendment is accepted.

A fourth objection arises from the difficulty of defining "comparable duties". This problem is difficult enough in the ordinary way, but in an operation of the size and complexity involved by the Bill, necessitating a transfer of officers between authorities, with different staffing structures, different conditions of service and different sizes of service, the difficulty of defining "comparable duties" will be most acute and may give rise to much dispute. The Parliamentary Secretary did not, I think, meet this point. Perhaps he would seek to do so this morning.

Then there is the point that protection is sought in the amendment which is being incorporated in orders made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the Water Acts of 1945 and 1948, which provided for the amalgamation of water undertakings. I understand that orders are currently being made which protect the pay of staff and water undertakings being transferred without any regard to reasonable comparability between their former and new posts.

My Lords, this is particularly relevant to this issue since it is the declared intention of the Government to transfer the functions and staff of the Metropolitan Water Board to the Greater London Council by a later Bill. It would be even more anomalous for the staffs of local authorities in Greater London and of the Metropolitan Water Board to be treated differently. The extension of a complete protection to all transferred local government officers in Greater London would not, it is thought, in economic circumstances be a major risk to the public purse. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, devoted some of his remarks at the Committee stage to the question of the measure and burden of compensation in this connection. So far as I can estimate, it would not seem that the Government need be apprehensive that there would be a large liability arising from acting on the basis of the Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 19, leave out from ("transfer") in line 19 to ("he") in line 21.—(Lord Latham)

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend. The first Amendment deals with the same question that I raised in the Committee stage, and I understood then that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, would consider the case which I submitted. I am sure it is realised that this Bill, when it becomes law, will profoundly affect the livelihood and the future prospects of thousands of local government officers. Obviously, therefore, the provisions of the Bill dealing with the position of officers have been most carefully examined, and while I admit that the Government have included in the Bill some protection for the staff, which is good as far as it goes, serious apprehension is still felt by the officers at the inclusion of the words in this clause which this first Amendment seeks to delete.

Broadly speaking, as the clause now stands the salary and other conditions of employment of an officer may be adversely changed without any prior consultation or negotiation of any kind with the officer's trade union—usually, of course, the National and Local Government Officers' Association. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I can assure him that there is grave apprehension among the staff at the possible effects of the clause if it remains with the words which we seek to be deleted included in the clause. I am asked to make the most urgent plea to the Government to accept the Amendment.

I feel certain, too, that everyone appreciates the very heavy responsibilities which this Bill imposes on the local government staffs if the provisions of the Bill are to work smoothly, efficiently and successfully. I therefore plead with the Minister, or Ministers, not to retain in this clause a phrase which can seriously undermine the whole structure of Whitleyism which has made such a contribution to local government. I earnestly ask the Minister to accept the first Amendment which was moved so well by my noble friend Lord Latham.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I said during our discussion on Committee stage that, although the Government of the day moved many Amendments which noble Lords opposite welcomed, I would consider the further re marks made by the noble Lords, Lords Latham and Burden, but I did not hold out very much hope that I should be able to produce a different answer at Report stage. The Government have considered this matter further, and I am afraid that in respect of this Amendment noble Lords will be disappointed. On the other hand, I shall reply at some length, because the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has put a number of questions to me and I propose to answer them.

First of all, I would remind noble Lords—some of whom may not have been here when we were discussing this subject before—of what the Government did during Committee stage. We put down Amendments which went a long way to meet the views put forward on behalf of local government staffs. The changes then made assumed that for transferred officers there would probably be an initial period during which they would be employed by their new council, but their final post and terms and conditions of service would not have been settled. During that interim period all officers would be ensured not only their previous salary but also their salary scale which would include any increments to which they would have been entitled under their previous employer.

Then we provide that, when an officer's post had been settled and recorded in black and white, then, if that post was "reasonably comparable" to his pre-transfer job—as in the vast majority of cases it would be—again his pre-transfer salary scale was assured, so that that officer would go to the maximum to which he was entitled under his previous employer. Regarding the definition of "reasonably comparable", I might as well here answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and remind him that the expression previously in the Bill was "similar duties". We changed that in the then existing Clause 84, and "reasonably comparable duties" is an expression borrowed from the compensation regulations. These regulations have been in force for many years, and there is an established way of settling disputes through tribunals set up by the Minister of Labour. I think that those words are a great improvement on "similar duties", and there should be no difficulty in interpreting them reasonably.

I ought to point out, too, that the officers likely to be affected are very few indeed. After all, we are not proposing to reduce the opportunities for local government service. On the contrary, there are likely to be more opportunities, in addition to which there are already many vacancies existing in a number of grades of local government. One is led perfectly reasonably, I think, to the conclusion that very few officers indeed are likely to be declared redundant, or to suffer any diminution of salary, and for them, as we know, the well-established compensation arrangements will be available.

It has been asked before—it was in the Committee stage, and I think it was asked again or pointed out later—why, if there would be only comparatively few officers affected, could not the Government give an absolute guarantee that even these few would not suffer at all, because the public expense involved would be small? Really, my Lords—and I emphasised this previously—there is an important question of principle at stake; and that is whether it is right that local government employees, whose salaries are met from taxation, should receive payment which is not necessarily related to their duties. This is a principle with a much wider application than the comparatively few instances which we expect will occur as a result of the reorganisation of London government. That is the main reason for rejecting the Amendment, which would be giving a blank cheque, as it were, to all local government employees who would be affected by this Bill.

To come to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Latham: first of all there is the one relating to security, suggesting that local government officers accept lower salaries in return for greater security. I am not sure that that is a good argument nowadays. Probably before the war that was so, but now there is surely a wide range of jobs just as secure as local government or the Civil Service, and with full rights of superannuation benefit, compensation, pension and all matters of that sort. I do not think there is a very strong argument that local government officers are obliged to receive a smaller salary on the ground that there may possibly be greater security. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, it is precisely those persons who enlisted in the local government service between the wars who are concerned and anxious about their situation—precisely those; and then those conditions did apply.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord also referred to the possibility of a fall in salary which would have repercussions on the pension, and he mentioned that my right honourable friend gave a firm undertaking that pension rights will be protected. Of course, the compensation provisions cover the repercussions on pensions. The compensation is also payable for a reduction of pension rights; and my right honourable friend's undertaking will, of course, be honoured by orders under Clause 83. The general provisions to which I am referring are, of course, in Clause 84(4).

I have dealt with the point of similar duties, and there remains, finally, the point about water undertakings. I think the noble Lord said that they had a better measure of protection when there was amalgamation of water undertakings. But that is a much more limited thing; and, although it is true that the normal provision in an order is that the particular employee shall not receive a lower salary than he enjoyed before the protection, it is not absolute, in the sense that there is no guarantee of continued employment. A water undertaker would therefore not be prevented from discharging a transferred employee either as completely redundant, or even in order to re-engage him at a lower salary. The possibility that this could happen is illustrated by the comparable provisions of compensation which are contained in the Water Acts. I think that is the answer to the noble Lord. So they really are not any better off than the people covered by the proposals in this Bill. I think that answers all the points. As I say, I am afraid that on a matter of principle I cannot accept this Amendment; and we believe we have gone a very long way to reassure all local government officers.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for dealing with the various questions which I raised. Of course, it is one thing to preserve pension rights, but, as I stated in my opening remarks, the pension can be seriously affected if there is a loss of salary, because the pension is based upon the last three years of service. It is idle, if I may say so, to seek to answer that question merely by saying that pension rights are guaranteed. Pension rights must be guaranteed, otherwise there are no rights. But, as I have said, the pension depends on the salary.

Then, on the other point which the noble Lord made, with regard to water undertakings, I should hesitate to think that that ought to be regarded as a white elephant. After all, water undertakings are at present mainly—increasingly so, at all events—public undertakings, and they do not dismiss staff in the free and easy way in which staff in other avocations may be dismissed. I should not have thought that that was really an adequate answer. However, I should like to raise a point which is the basis of this first Amendment, and that is the fact that in Clause 84(3)(a) the following words occur: until he is served with a statement in writing of new terms and conditions of employment". It is a little cavalier, is it not, that a person can, as it were, the day after the conditions of employment have been settled on the basis of the transfer, receive a letter terminating his employment? Could the noble Lord enlighten us on that? Is that the intended purpose of the words?

LORD HASTINGS

I think the noble Lord has misinterpreted it.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to apply his mind to that phrase which we wish deleted from this clause? I need hardly say that long practice in local government service has led to salaries and other conditions of employment being determined by negotiation and agreement or award, and we want that practice to continue. I am not asking for all salaries and conditions of employment to remain the same for all time while these people are in the service, but I am pleading that this system of negotiation should continue before there is any alteration or variation in the conditions of employment or salaries of any person or officer transferred. That is the clear issue I have asked the Minister to consider because, as this clause now stands, any of the new local authorities could, by a stroke of the pen or by a letter to the individual, adversely affect the conditions of his employment or lessen his salary.

I think noble Lords will agree that this case is not adequately met by saying there are compensation arrangements in the Bill. That does not meet the case that any variation should by long-established practice be by negotiation as between the employee, the trade unions and the employing authority. That is the simple case I am putting to the Government. Nothing that has been said up to now has dealt with that very substantial point.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I do not think I can answer at length. That, of course, is the intention of the Government and the purpose of it. If these words were left out there would be a blank cheque and permanent employment on present terms and conditions. Of course, they presuppose proper negotiations.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

3.24 a.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (3)(a), after "employment", where that word last occurs, to insert: being terms and conditions of employment which have been settled by agreement or award".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which, was withdrawn by me during the Committee stage on the undertaking of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to have further thought about it and to discuss the matter to see whether anything could be done to meet the submission of noble Lords in this respect. Since no alternative Amendment has been put down, we have put this one down again. Its object is to ensure that any new terms and conditions shall not be imposed unilaterally by the employing authorities but shall be settled by agreement or award, as has been common practice in the public service for a long time.

When the Amendment was considered at Committee stage in this House the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250 (No. 93), col. 1035]: … one has to take into consideration that local authorities' salaries and conditions of service are normally the subject of negotiation and, if necessary, of arbitration, … Moreover, an Amendment on the subject, which had been tabled at Report stage in another place and which described the terms and conditions of service as those which were settled by agreement or award, was ruled out of order by the Speaker. However, the Minister later indicated his assent to the acceptance of the Amendment, and I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons of April 2, col. 342. It is difficult to understand why the Minister is now unwilling to accept an Amendment which accords with the existing practice and to which he indicated that he assented. I hope that the Minister has not changed his mind and that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say that the indication made by the Minister will be implemented and that his assent to this Amendment will be given. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 21, after ("employment") insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, since Committee stage we have given a great deal of thought to this question and to whether it would be desirable to include an Amendment on this point in the Bill, assuming that a suitable one could be devised. Unfortunately, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible, and again I will try to explain why to the noble Lord. Local authority salaries and conditions of service are normally negotiated through the well-established method of the Whitley Councils, to which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, referred, which rest not on statutory powers but on the support which both employers and employees give to the principle of negotiated agreement. The Government are extremely reluctant to intervene or to take any action which would affect the present basis on which these arrangements rest by writing into this Bill, and for the London authorities alone, a statutory requirement on this point. We do not believe that either the borough councils or the G.L.C. will behave inconsiderately or irresponsibly when arrangements have to be made for safeguarding the interests of staffs which will be transferred to them, nor do we believe that there is really any danger of the fears which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, now and on the previous occasion. Naturally, there will be consultation with the Whitley Council and the L.C.C. Staff Association, which I am told is most vigorous and effective.

The noble Lord raised the point about my right honourable friend's agreeing to an Amendment in another place, and quoted col. 342. In point of fact, that was in the Standing Committee. There were two Amendments on the Marshalled List, and when an honourable Member suggested that my right honourable friend should agree to one of them, he merely nodded. The Amendments were never discussed, because the Committee never got to them, and one cannot say to which my right honourable friend precisely nodded. In any case, I think that that is a rather flimsy argument, because my right honourable friend produced other Amendments which superseded those which were going to be discussed on that occasion, Amendments which were moved into the Bill on Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I am afraid, therefore, that we shall not be able to do anything about this matter. I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords, but I hope that they will accept my reason as a perfectly legitimate one.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I agree that the position is somewhat difficult. I understand the noble Lord's point that, while the Government are firmly behind the position that the Whitley negotiation and agreement should be maintained in the new set-up, they are reluctant to write that into the Bill. The trade unions of the officers are extremely anxious that that position should continue in the future, and I am sure the last thing the Government want is that it should be broken down. But should any of the new local authorities be reluctant to continue what has been the established practice for local authorities generally, what measure of help or encouragement can the Minister give us? It is not unknown in local government to find a council which tries to break down established practice, and the trade union concerned has to use all endeavours to get that council into line. May we take it that, should any incident of that kind arise in the future, bearing in mind the discussion that we have had here on the matter, we can count on the good will of the Minister or the Ministry to see that any recalcitrant authority is gently persuaded to come into line with other local authorities in the country?

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, it is a little unusual, I should have thought, for the statement made by the Minister in another place during the Committee stage to be regarded as being a weak basis upon which to found a reasonable claim of this kind.

LORD HASTINGS

There was no statement.

LORD LATHAM

A statement by the Minister that he intended to accept the Amendment as then put. However, I do not want to press that point too far this morning, having regard to the fact that the noble Lord said that he and his advisers had searched for an Amendment and found it difficult, if not impossible, to frame one dealing with the various aspects of this question. In the hope that the matter can be approached, as I hope it will be, in the spirit that led to the considerations of whether an Amendment could be drafted, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

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

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 41, leave out ("or of any instrument") and insert ("this Act or of any instrument (including any agreement under section 24(7))").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.35 a.m.

LORD CROOK moved to add to the clause: (6) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, the staff commission referred to in that subsection may give directions to the Greater London Council or a London borough council requiring them to submit to the commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, at such date before 1st October 1964 as the commission may specify, such details as may be prescribed in the directions of their proposed establishments of staff, together with a statement as to the places, situations or employments which they propose should be filled by persons to be transferred from existing local authorities in Greater London or should be made open to holders of any place, situation or employment in Greater London, or generally; (b) any person affected by the provisions of any details or statement submitted under the foregoing paragraph, or any body representative of persons who are so affected, may appeal to the commission against any such provisions within twenty-one days from the date of such submission, and the Minister shall make regulations governing the manner in which such appeal shall be made and the procedure on such an appeal; (c) within two months after the receipt of any details and statement submitted as aforesaid, the commission shall notify the Minister and the submitting authority of any objections which the commission may have to such details and statement and of any recommendations they may wish to propose to remedy the matter; (d) except with the approval of the Minister or the commission, the Greater London Council or a London borough council shall not advertise for, or appoint, any person as a member of their staff until two months after their submission to the commission of the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection; (e) any scheme in respect of the transfer of staff prepared by a joint committee of existing authorities appointed under section 85 of this Act may if submitted to the staff commission and to such bodies representative of staff employed by local authorities as the commission may specify, before 1st October 1964, be accepted by the commission as a discharge in whole or in part of any obligation of the Greater London Council or a London borough council to submit the details and statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection; (f) in carrying out their functions under this section, the commission and the Minister shall use their best endeavours to ensure that the Greater London Council and any London borough council, in making appointments to specific places, situations or employments, shall, so far as possible, fill such places, situations or employments from among persons who are holders of places, situations or employments which are affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment. I am sorry to detain your Lordships from your breakfasts after thirteen hours, but we feel that it would be quite wrong to let you go away without considering the rather important subject of the Staff Commission which is set up by this clause, which we suggest must be made into an effective safeguard for the staff by making its functions more specific. We think they should be defined in the Bill on certain lines, which I will try to give very shortly.

The first is that the new authorities shall, by October 1, 1964, submit to the Staff Commission their proposed establishments, together with a statement of what posts will be filled by staff to be transferred from existing local authorities in Greater London and, secondly, what posts will be made open to competition among existing staff of local authorities in Greater London and, thirdly, by open advertisement. Secondly, within some specified time after that the Staff Commission shall be able to object, thus enabling a Ministerial direction to be given under the clause. That in turn will allow individuals affected to be able to appeal to the Staff Commission.

The third suggestion is that no new authority shall advertise or appoint any staff before submitting the proposals to which I have referred for the approval of the Staff Commission or the Minister. The fourth is as to the tentative schemes for the transfer of staff to new authorities which have been prepared by the joint committees of existing authorities. These, we think, should be capable of submission to the Staff Commission for approval in anticipation of the setting up of the new authorities. We desire, further, to secure that the Staff Commission and the Minister shall ensure that the new authorities, in making their appointments to specified posts shall, so far as possible, fill them from staff already employed in comparable posts by the existing local authorities in Greater London.

In short, we think it is important that the Staff Commission shall be given teeth with which to safeguard their staff. It seems important to us that they should play their part in helping to maintain the standard of the local authority services to be transferred. The London authorities obviously must have suitable structures—structures which will enable them to organise their services, to provide for inspection and staff control, and to provide those opportunities for promotion which the staff of the London County Council in particular know of, and regard as one of the attractions of the service to which they belong.

In our view, it is important, therefore, that the Staff Commission should be able to consider their staffing pattern and to take into account the special characteristics and the needs of each borough. Knowledge of the establishments proposed by the new authorities will facilitate the arrangements for fitting into them the staffs from the existing local authorities. I have tried to keep clear and short the kind of proposal which is contained in our Amendment, which I move in the hope that the Government will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 98, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Crook.)

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I would remind noble Lords that when this clause dealing with the transfer and compensation of officers was considered in Committee stage, I moved into it the new subsection (5) as a new Amendment to set out more clearly what the main tasks of the Staff Commission will be. They were in very general terms, and now they are considerably more detailed. Principally, the Staff Commission will be considering and keeping under review the arrangements for the staff transfers which will result from the changes proposed by the Bill, and also the way in which the new authorities recruit staff. They will also consider any other staffing problems arising out of the Bill which are referred to them by the Minister. Their conclusions and advice may be given binding force, so far as local authorities are concerned, by direction of the Minister.

Through the local authority and staff organisations the Commission will be made fully aware of the views, hopes, anxieties and apprehensions felt by the people affected by reorganisation. If they come to the conclusion that the best way in which they can help is by taking steps such as those suggested by the Amendment, the Commission will be able to do so, asking the Minister to give any mandatory directions which may be needed.

I think really that answers the point brought up on the previous Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, as to the powers and intentions of the Minister in this general matter of staff transfers and, of course, this will be done as the result of the setting up of the staff Commission. Certain things might be envisaged, and they are going to consider the way in which senior posts in the boroughs will be filled, especially the posts in those services which will be transferred to the borough councils from the county councils; and also the extent to which posts in Greater London should or should not be open to local government officers now working in other parts of the country. So far as possible, it is the intention that London staff should be given preference. I think the final point I can mention is that they will probably be setting up some appellate machinery for the hearing of individual appeals.

I think I should tell your Lordships here that it is our belief that the Commission's work will go on after 1965, and it will probably have to remain in existence for two or three years afterwards to deal with consequential readjustments, but no precise time-limit can be given at the moment. I hope that I have been able to assuage anxieties of the noble Lord and that he will feel that the Commission will do the job as desired by noble Lords opposite.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his statement, but, really, the feelings that need assuaging are not so much mine as those of the staff concerned. I am sure they will read the reply which the Minister has given to the shortened statement I have made, and I hope they will read it with some satisfaction. I will read it carefully myself tomorrow.

Straight away, I must say that I am glad to learn that the Commission will take account of all the representations and worries, and that the Minister will not hesitate, if necessary, to make quite firm decisions. I was glad, too, to learn about the filling of senior posts, and particularly to learn of the intention of the Government, which will make staffs very much more happy, that they will see to it that in the main the London staff get the first look in. I was glad also to hear the noble Lord say that appellate machinery would be established. That will give some satisfaction. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord for letting us know what I do not think any of us quite appreciated before, that the Commission not only will go on after 1965, which we thought was possible, but are going to do so for as long as two or three years. Having said that and got this matter on record, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 [Local Acts and instruments in and around Greater London]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the next Amendment, No. 200, is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 100, line 35, leave out ("Greater London") and insert ("the relevant area").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 87 [General provision as to inquiries]:

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I could explain this to your Lordships but as it is extraordinarily complicated I am sure you would not wish me to do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 103, line 3, leave out from ("to") to ("were") in line 5 and insert ("any local inquiry caused to be held for the purposes of this Act by any Minister as if that Minister").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 90, to insert the following new clause:

Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957

".—(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) In Part II of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, after the entry relating to the South of Scotland Electricity Board there shall be inserted the words 'The Staff Commission established under section 84 (5) of the London Government Act 1963'.

(3) In Part III of Schedule 1, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers—

1. (a) after the words 'England and Wales' where they first occur there shall be inserted the words 'of the Greater London Council';
2. (b) the words 'of a metropolitan borough' shall cease to have effect; and
3. (c) the words 'outside London' shall cease to have effect:

Provided that the repeal made by paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not take effect until 1st April 1965."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the first of a batch of Amendments on the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957. Amendments Nos. 202 and 203, which for some reason, come after 204 on the printed list, go with it, and also 207, 209 and 216. The only new element introduced is a provision contained in subsection (7) of the proposed new Clause which disqualifies members of the Staff Commission from sitting in the House of Commons. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 90 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 105, line 36, leave out from ("4(4)") to ("the") in line 38, and insert ("and section (Amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957) of this Act and the repeals made by this Act in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 105, line 45, leave out from first ("the") to ("not") in line 46 and insert ("said section (Amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957) and the said repeals, the provisions of this Act other than this subsection shall").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 17 [Miscellaneous modifications of enactments as from 1st April 1965]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1892, before a licensee of the Postmaster General can, with the authority of the Postmaster General, exercise the powers conferred on the Postmaster General by the Telegraph Act he must obtain the consent of the appropriate local authority. This Amendment makes it clear that the appropriate local authority in Greater London is the Greater London Council. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 212, line 21, at end insert— ("2A. In the Telegraph Act 1892, in section 5(2)—

1. (a) for the words 'London of the county council' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London of the Greater London Council';
2. (b) for the word 'London' in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London'; and
872
3. (c) after the words 'which the' there shall be inserted the words 'Greater London Council'.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, this Amendment can best be taken with No. 213. The purpose of the first Amendment is to modify the Civic Restaurants Act, 1947, so that the London boroughs and the City of London will be able to exercise the power given by the Act. The Act empowers certain local authorities to establish and carry on restaurants and supply meals. The second Amendment is consequential on the first. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 212, line 41, at end insert— ("7A. In the Civic Restaurants Act 1947—

1. (a) for section 1(1)(a) there shall be substituted—
• '(a) in Greater London, the council of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;'
• (b) in section 4(3), for the words 'metropolitan borough' there shall be substituted the words 'London borough'.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the changes provided in the Bill in the structure of local authorities in the Greater London area. Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949, provides that for the purposes of Part I the local authorities shall be the Common Council of the City of London and the councils of metropolitan boroughs, county boroughs and county districts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 212, line 41, at end insert— ("7B. In section 1(1) of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949—

1. (a) for the words 'metropolitan boroughs' there shall be substituted the words "London boroughs";
2. (b) in paragraph (b) of the proviso, after the word 'county' there shall be inserted the words 'or in the Greater London Council'.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 213, line 6, leave out paragraph 10.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 214, line 27, leave out paragraph 16.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, now that I have returned to your Lordships' House for the third time from where I have been, twice yesterday and once to-day, although that was three hours ago, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence while I explain the substance of this rather complicated Amendment. It is an Amendment which I accepted in substance at Committee when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, subject to being redrafted. This is the redraft. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 217, line 5, at end insert— ("(b) in section 87, any reference to the administrative county of London shall be construed as a reference to Greater London other than the outer London boroughs, and in subsection (1) thereof, except in relation to proposals submitted thereunder to the Minister before 1st April 1965, the reference to the London county council shall be construed as a reference to the Greater London Council;").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I felt I had to say this in order to get my name on the record at this very early hour of the proceedings. In any case I am very thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 18 [Repeals]:

3.50 a.m.

LORD HASTINGS

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

Amendment moved—

Page 219, line 42, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

In Part III of Schedule 1, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers, the words 'outside London'.")

—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment repeals for Greater London three additional sections of the Burial Act, 1852, the subject matter of which is adequately covered in later Acts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 220, line 16, leave out from first ("to") to ("so") in line 17 and insert ("40, 42 to 44, and 50").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord did tell us that the subject matter was adequately buried? Is that so? Was that in his brief?

LORD HASTINGS

I said "adequately covered".

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment extends the repeals in the Burial Act, and is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 220, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert— ("Sections 53 and 54. Schedules (A) and (B).").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to repeal Section 130 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, the powers of which have been incorporated in another measure some 160 years more up to date. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 220, line 32, leave out ("Section 120") and insert ("Sections 120 and 130").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

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

Amendment moved— Page 220, line 34, leave out from ("7") to ("so") in line 35 and insert ("and 9 to 17").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this is a most necessary adaptation of Section 18 of the Burial Act, 1855, to fit the circumstances to Greater London. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 220, line 36, at end insert— ("In section 18, so far as relating to Greater London, the words 'burial board or', in the second place where they occur, the words 'as the case may be', in the second place where they occur, and the words 'or burial ground', in the third place where they occur. Sections 19 and 20, so far as relating to Greater London.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment preserves, in its application to Greater London, Section 23 of the Burial Act, 1857, which contains a provision for Orders in Council requiring action to be taken to prevent vaults and places of burial becoming injurious to health. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 220, line 41, leave out ("24 and") and insert ("23 to").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, these Amendments to definitions in the Telegraph Act, 1892, are necessary to bring the Act into line with the new system of local government in London. I beg to Move.

Amendment moved—

Page 221, line 58, at end insert—

("55 & 56 Vict. c. 59.

The Telegraph Act 1892.

In section 9, in the definition of 'urban sanitary authority', the words from 'and a sanitary' to '1891', and the definition of London'.")

—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.55 a.m.

LORD HASTINGS

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

Amendment moved—

Page 233, line 55, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Geo. 6. c. 45.

The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act 1926.

Section 27(b).")

—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the general provisions of Schedule 14. It repeals in Greater London certain provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which were repealed for the rest of the country excluding the L.C.C. by the Local Government Act, 1933. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 224, line 24, leave out column 3 and insert— ("In section 32(2) the words from 'under those Acts' onwards. Section 53(2)(a) and (b). Section 69. In section 73, the words from 'or (b)' to 'boundary lines are altered'").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

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

Amendment moved— Page 226, line 23, at end insert ("Section 266(1)(ii)").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved—

Page 228, line 37, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 22.	The Civil Restaurants Act 1947.	In section 3(3), the words 'other than the administrative County of London'.
		Section 3(4).")

—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 228, column 3, leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert ("In section 71 (1), the words 'except the County of London'").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

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

Amendment moved— Page 232, line 30, leave out ("(4)").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ST. OSWALD

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

Amendment moved—

Page 234, line 28, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

In Part III of Schedule I, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers, the words 'of a metropolitan borough'.")

—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, would it help the House it I indicated that it is not our intention to move Amendments Nos. 217, 218, 219, 220 or the batch from 221–225?

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I support the noble Lord in his decision not to move these Amendments.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. Before I move it and before we totter away, I should like to thank my noble friends for their steadfast attendance. I am glad that the ranks of reform and righteousness have held so firm, and I should also like to thank them, if I may, for the support, both vocal and moral, they have given to me and to my noble friend. At the same time I think it would be quite wrong for me not to congratulate noble Lords opposite on the eloquence, sincerity and the brevity of the few, but pithy, observations which they have contributed in the course of our short discussion. Finally, I think it would be appropriate for me—and I am sure I carry my noble friends with me—to say a word of thanks to the staff of this House for their succour to us in our sore travail. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

("1963 c.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act 1963.

Section 15")

—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, we wish to be associated in particular with the words of thanks of the noble Earl to all the staff throughout this building who, through the long stages of Committee and of Report, have given us first-class service. I should like to thank my own friends for a fantastic effort in sustaining an attack and inquiry upon this Bill. Our task is not yet finished. We have still the Third Reading in front of us. There are some who have complained of repetition; there are some who have complained about the length of time we have taken on Committee and Report. But, my Lords, we have in fact altered this Bill very considerably. I think that the House will be surprised when it sees the number of Amendments that will have to go to another place. Whether this was through our persuasion I do not know; I believe that in some cases it was. At least we have given the Government time to consider many of their own ideas. Therefore we have performed a task.

I think we shall also wish to thank the noble Lords, the Ministers, for their care and attention in their replies. Not always has their case matched their own eloquence, but they have met their task with good humour, which I think was shared all round on Committee and Report. In spite of the strain of late nights, we have always kept our good temper and understanding. I think that what we have done is a great credit to this House. We will leave it at that, at this stage. There is still the Third Reading.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.