HL Deb 30 May 1963 vol 250 cc984-1079

3.54 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clauses 70 and 71 agreed to.

Clause 72 [Borough architects]:

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH moved to leave out Clause 72. The noble Lord said: This clause provides that it shall be obligatory on every London borough to appoint an architect. Subsection (2) provides that: The architect aforesaid shall be appointed from among fit persons by, and hold office during the pleasure of, the borough council or Common Council and shall perform such duties as that council may direct, and shall be paid such reasonable remuneration as that council may determine. We had this type of question before us previously in connection with what was proposed in the Bill—namely, that the Greater London Council should be compelled by Statute to appoint a Director of Traffic. On that matter of the appointment of the Director of Traffic by the Greater London Council, to which we objected on grounds which are similar in this case, the Government agreed to our Amendment—I believe it was our Amendment—or agreed to bring in one substantially the same. Therefore, appointment of the Director of Traffic was left to the discretion of the local authority, not only as a man but as to his title as well. This clause does a similar wrong in requiring a London borough council to appoint an architect. I think I can understand the Government's reasons, and I shall try to state them as uncontroversially as I can.

When the White Paper proposed the breaking up of the London County Council, there was great criticism from the Royal Institute of British Architects and other architectural bodies, and from a great many people interested in amenities, town planning and so on. They said that this proposal was objectionable, because it would destroy the very fine team of architects which had been built up at London's County Hall. We were grateful to the Government when finally they took our view about the Director of Traffic. But the Government were subject to such criticism about the excellent team of architects at County Hall that I think they then tried to conciliate the architects by saying, "Well, we are sorry about this. We will do our best to see that it will not be broken up more than is necessary. But in any case, in order to see that there is adequate employment of architects in the Greater London area, we will require boroughs to appoint architects."

Here is a question of principle of local self-government. I can understand a local authority being required, especially in the earlier days, to appoint a medical officer of health, because of possible landlord influence on local authorities, and the medical officer was protected by its being laid down that he could not be dismissed without the permission of the then Minister of Health. That I follow. But when it comes to the general run of chief officers of local authorities, I do, as an old local government man, strongly object to the Statute fettering the choice of the local authorities as to the chief officers it should have, and insisting that one or more chief officers shall be appointed. I should be prepared to swallow the position concerning the clerk of the council and the treasurer; I do not think it is really necessary, but I do not mind that too much because there is tradition behind it. But this is bad.

As the Government were good enough to give way on the question of the Director of Traffic, I earnestly hope they will give way on this. I do not take the view that the London boroughs will not appoint an architect. I think it is highly probable that all of them, or nearly all of them, will do so; and I think they will probably be wise if they do so. But I object to their being fettered in their choice of chief officers by statutory direction, wherever it can be avoided. There is no more reason to pick out an architect than to pick out a borough engineer and surveyor. Indeed, I have had a letter from the borough surveyor and engineer of the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich, Mr. Gee—a very able man, as indeed the metropolitan borough surveyors and engineers generally are. He is writing, I think, on behalf of all the metropolitan surveyors and engineers. He said: "Would you kindly either move out the clause requiring the council to appoint an architect or add to the clause that they should be required to appoint also a borough surveyor and engineer?" Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lindgren himself put down an Amendment which I can quite understand, once this business begins—I do not condemn him for it, and, in any case, he has not moved it—whereby the council would be required to appoint a housing manager. There is also a case to be argued about that; but he has recognised that this should be a matter within the discretion of the local authority.

The borough engineers and surveyors, remember, are sometimes competitors with the architects. There can be argument as to what is within their sphere of influence and what is not. A "Who does what?" kind of argument within the municipality is not good. Some borough engineers and surveyors substantially do an architect's work for their local authority, especially in the smaller local authorities. This relates, of course, to bigger ones. A perfectly natural claim which the Minister will have to meet at some time will be from the borough engineers and surveyors. If you concede that the architect should be given a statutory basis, that he must be appointed by Statute, then you will have the borough surveyors and engineers after you. They are a powerful profession, too. Which one you will lose votes from and which one you will gain from, I do not know; but it ought not to be settled by who is going to gain or who is going to lose votes.

I had another letter, from the chief librarian of a metropolitan borough: a man with whom I have worked and for whom I have a great respect—a nice man and an able librarian. He wanted me to move an Amendment to lift the status of all the librarians of the new London boroughs so that they would have to be chief officers of their London borough. I wrote back and said, "I like you, and all that, but I am sorry I cannot do this, because I have argued that this is a matter which should be within the discretion of the local authority, and I am therefore unwilling to move it." I am sure he will be pleased to see that I have moved the deletion of this Clause 72, which will elevate the architect miles above the chief librarian of the London boroughs.

There is a matter of principle here. It does not come in the category of medical officers of health. I think it is reasonably certain that these boroughs will appoint an architect, but, in the interests of local self-government and the dignity and respect of these considerable local authorities which the Government are proposing to appoint and which I do not too much like, the Government having "buttered them up" so much, they ought not to go on and say, "We do not trust you and we are going legally to tie you up. We are going to pick the architect out from the other chief officers and compel you to appoint a borough architect." You will upset the London boroughs and the borough engineers, the librarians and possibly the town clerks as well. I really am acting the part of a Good Samaritan by trying to save the Government from making a grave mistake which might have political repercussions.

I like local self-government. I like the local authority to be able, so far as possible—it cannot by all means do so—to stand on its own feet. I would ask the Government, especially in view of their kindness in accepting our views about the director of traffic, to accept our views about this proposition, also. I admit they may have unwisely committed themselves a little about the architects, but the Minister can refer the architects to my speech and say that the Government found it so persuading that they really had not a leg to stand on, and they gave way. I earnestly hope that the Government will not persist in what is a rather insulting and flagrant interference with the self-governing rights of important local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 72.—(Lord Morrison of Lambeth.)

LORD WOLVERTON

I agree up to a point that local authorities should have the freedom of choice of their officers, but the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has just told us that it is in the Statute that all local authorities must appoint a medical officer of health. I think they also have to appoint a chief officer of education, or a director of education of some kind by Statute, and also a county treasurer. Of course, an architect is a very senior officer.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

May I interrupt the noble Lord? In the case of the director of education, it has to be remembered that the counties and county boroughs were the successors of the old school boards; and, because the education committee is required to meet in public because it is the successor of an old body which did meet in public, that was no doubt the reason why, in order that the Government should be sure of it, they had an education officer. How they could have done without one, however. I do not know.

LORD WOLVERTON

I was going on to say that it is a very great responsibility now for all boroughs. The outer boroughs are going to take over the education responsibility, which naturally leads to the architects. The inner boroughs jointly are also taking over the education services on joint committees; and they are also taking over the important health services for old people, children's homes and so on. I should have thought it was of great importance that all these boroughs should have a qualified architect—no doubt they will all have one—because it is hardly the job of an engineer and surveyor, however eminent he is, to design a new building. It is a different profession. I know they do in some cases, but it is not all done under the Chief Engineer and Borough Surveyor's department. The architect's profession is a different profession, and I think we ought to consider the matter very carefully. I should like to hear what the Government have to say about it. The director of transport is, of course, a new creation. These traffic problems generally come under the county surveyor Now that the tackling of these traffic problems is a new idea, we ought to have a director of traffic.

LORD LINDGREN

May I support my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth?—not that he needs support. This is really an old argument. Under the 1933 Act (I think it was Section 106, but I am not certain), there is a requirement upon local authorities to supply certain persons like the clerk, the treasurer, the sanitary inspector, the medical officer of health and so on. Now there has been a conflict in local government because of the development of our work. In the old days, the work was done by the engineer and surveyor, and the engineer and surveyor wanted to keep things under his control. When the development of direct responsibility for buildings, like schools and other things, started then, of course, there was an architect on the staff of the city engineer, the county engineer or the county surveyor, whatever they called him, There then came this clash, the architect saying, "You may be damned good on bridges and culverts, roads and all the rest of it, but what you know about buildings would not cover a postage stamp ". There was this professional pride.

I think that in local government we have overcome the difficulty. Even the engineers and surveyors have now got over it. My general experience is—although I would not be tied to this—that in the main local authorities are employing an architect's department under the supervision of an architect rather than under the supervision of a civil engineer or a surveyor. In view of that, I think this Amendment is well worthy of support, because it does not stir up what has been an old trouble, and which now, to-day, has settled itself down by goodwill on both sides.

LORD ILFORD

I do not like this clause. I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has pointed out, these new London boroughs will all employ architects, as indeed most of the metropolitan boroughs to-day (not, I think, quite all of them, but most of the metropolitan boroughs today) employ architects. That is not really the point at issue. What seems to me to be wrong is that Parliament should determine for the local authorities a matter which they ought essentially to determine for themselves. The appointment of the chief officers and the allocation of functions between the chief officers is an essential part of the administrative structure of the local authority. It really is not right that they should be told by Parliament how their administrative responsibilities should be discharged.

I have no doubt that the noble Lord who is going to reply to this Amendment will point out that there is already a statutory obligation to appoint certain chief officers. That is the case. In the case of the education officer, the reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has pointed out, are really historical. In the case of the treasurer the reasons are a little different. The treasurer is always deemed to owe a duty not only to the council, but, over the heads of the council, to the ratepayers. There is no special reason why that process should go further than it has, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that in this case the local authorities will be left free to determine for themselves what chief officers they require.

Perhaps I might just add this. I am sure the new London boroughs would be well advised to appoint architects, but we have to recognise that some of the most successful officers in charge of municipal building work in fact have not been architects. Indeed, some of the most successful officers in municipal housing have not been architects. At the end of the war the London County Council themselves appointed a chief officer who was responsible for housing and who was not an architect, but he was most successful in producing a very large number of houses, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Latham, will bear me out.

I hope that the noble Lord will take the course which he took on the earlier occasion and will leave this matter to the local authorities. It is an infringement of the principle of local independent administration, and I hope that the Government are not going to persist in this. If they do, I shall not find myself able to support them.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I feel in some difficulty about this particular Amendment because I belong to a federation of housing associations which has pressed me strongly to support the Amendment which was to have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, but which has now been withdrawn. They attach the greatest importance to the appointment of housing managers. I have no reason to suppose that London boroughs will not appoint housing managers; nevertheless as a local government representative I should have thought that if the importance of certain appointments is stressed—for example, that of the architect—it seems to indicate that Parliament does not attach quite so much importance to other officers. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but I hope my noble friend Lord Hastings will bear that in mind.

LORD HASTINGS

Of course, noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this Amendment rest their case on principle. I am certainly not going to deny that there is a principle; of course there is the guiding principle that the Government do not specify which chief officers a local authority should appoint except in special circumstances. The Government agree with that principle, and in fact I said so earlier in this Committee when we moved to remove "director of traffic" from the statutory appointments on the Greater London Council.

If I had been replying to the previous Amendment which was not moved, I should have pointed out that the housing managers are already well-known appointments in borough councils. They are not going to be involved in any new functions. They are invariably appointed, and there is really no special case for making their appointment a statutory obligation or for laying down that they should be officers of chief status, because then one would be on the slippery slope of dealing with the whole series of appointments of other officers—valuers, estate officers, and so on. It might be endless. In this case, however, the Government feel that there are special circumstances which justify departing from the general principle. In the first place, the London boroughs are having substantial additional functions conferred upon them, in particular in respect of planning and development control, and it is most important that they should be properly equipped technically to deal with these new responsibilities.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, expressed the hope that all boroughs would appoint architects. He thought they would, and he did not say in what particular capacity or on what grade; but the fact is that I think there are many people who consider that to have an architect with chief officer status and a department of his own is not good organisation.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The noble Lord does not say in this Bill that he must have chief officer status or even a department of his own.

LORD HASTINGS

No, but I think a statutory appointment implies that.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Oh, no.

LORD HASTINGS

And it is believed that authorities should not have architects on their staff necessarily of that status but that they should be employed in a subordinate capacity in, say, the surveyor's department. The noble Lord raised a point here on behalf of the surveyors, but my firm understanding is that so far as local authorities are concerned the borough surveyor is already a statutory appointment. The noble Lord led me to believe that that is not so, but I am sure it is.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Give me the reference to the Statute. As my noble friend Lord Lindgren has reminded me, the sanitary officer is a compulsory appointment. That was to protect against the landlord on the local council; but the sanitary officer is not a chief officer.

LORD LINDGREN

The medical officer of health.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The medical officer is compulsory, but he is usually a chief officer. I am sorry, but the noble Lord has been rather unfortunately briefed, I am afraid.

LORD HASTINGS

I think I am quite right in saying that the borough surveyor is a statutory appointment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Under what Statute?

LORD HASTINGS

I am afraid I cannot quote that, but I thought that was generally known.

LORD SHEPHERD

No.

LORD HASTINGS

I am pretty certain that it is a statutory appointment.

LORD LINDGREN

It is Section 106 of the Local Government Act, 1933. That section requires that a local authority shall appoint a clerk, a treasurer, a surveyor, a sanitary inspector, and a medical officer of health. I am almost certain that it is Section 106.

LORD HASTINGS

In Section 100 of the Local Government Act, 1933, these people are listed, including the surveyor.

LORD LINDGREN

I am only six out.

LORD HASTINGS

Yes, but the point I want to make is that there is no question of the surveyor being outdone by the architect in this capacity at all.

To return to the main argument, that is really the importance of this job. There will be vital new functions, in connection with housing, redevelopment, and urban renewal, of a calibre and scope which amply justify giving the architect a department of his own and the status to speak direct to the appropriate committees of the council. As my right honourable friend said in another place, the Government are anxious to leave the decision to the new bodies to set up their own organisations, but in this one case we felt, on reflection, that it was our duty to increase the statutory list of officers which the London borough will have to appoint. I think the noble Lord referred to the boroughs which have architects now. In point of fact, at the present time, only 13 of the existing boroughs and urban district councils concerned in the Greater London area have architects' departments, with an architect as chief officer.

There is no question here of the Government succumbing, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has suggested, to pressure from the Architect's Department of the London County Council or from the "architects' lobby". We came to the conclusion that this matter was of such importance—it is not a matter of finding jobs for architects—that we wanted to make quite sure that these new functions, which are very much wider than anything the authorities have had before, should be carried out in the best possible manner.

LORD SHEPHERD

Will the noble Lord say why, in the case of the Greater London Council this statutory appointment is not being made?

LORD HASTINGS

Because the Greater London Council is the overall planning authority and it is quite clear that it is likely—and this has been said before—to take over the L.C.C's Architect's Department. But the borough councils do not all now appoint architects; and in view of their very wide responsibilities and tremendously important functions in dealing with the re-development of the whole of London, it is essential they should have these architects. I should have thought, in view of the arguments from all quarters that have been heard in this House in respect of amenities, high buildings, town planning and development in general, and of the great anxieties expressed in these important respects, that your Lordships would have been overwhelmingly in favour of making this an exceptional case and accepting a statutory appointment for architects.

We have this special problem in London boroughs. It is not to be taken as having any bearing on the organisation of local authorities outside London. That I can assure the Committee. It is due to the special problems and the new functions; and we feel that the Government are right, in this case, to depart from a principle which otherwise they completely endorse. Therefore, I hope very much that the Committee will feel that the Government have made a case. We are not out to placate anybody; we believe it necessary and highly desirable for the fulfilling of the new functions of the new London boroughs.

LORD LATHAM

I rise to support the Amendment, and I must say, with infinite respect, that the so-called defence of the Government policy in this connection made by the Minister was a masterly exercise in equivocations. Is it the case that the London boroughs cannot be relied upon properly to discharge their functions?—because they will have important functions as regards housing, planning, traffic, and things of that kind. In Birmingham, I apprehend that they will be facing the same difficulties and the same problems. Yet it is not proposed to put any obligations upon any other local authorities. Why should London again be singled out for unfair treatment? Why is it to be assumed that Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow can properly and honourably discharge their functions, but not the intended London boroughs, who are the creatures of the Government? Why is it that London is to be snubbed and treated in this way? It is idle for the Minister to say that it is not snubbed. Letters received by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, show that other chief officers are disturbed

CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Lawson, L. Shackleton, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Lindgren, L. Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Listowel, E. Sinha, L.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Summerskill, B.
Crook, L. Meston, L. Walston, L.
Fraser of North Cape, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williams, L.
Henderson, L. Rea, L. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Ilford, L. St. Davids, V. Wise, L.
Latham, L. Saye and Sele, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Falmouth, V. Mills, V.
Albemarle, E. Ferrers, E. Milverton, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Forster of Harraby, L. Ormonde, M.
Atholl, D. Fortescue, E. Powis, E.
Beauchamp, E. Fraser of Lonsdale, L. Remnant, L.
Bossom, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] St. Oswald, L.
Boston, L. Gosford, E. Sandys, L.
Braye, L. Hanworth, V. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Cawley, L. Hastings, L. Somers, L.
Chesham, L. Hawke, L. Soulbury, V.
Clitheroe, L. Hereford, V. Strathcarron, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Home, E. Strathclyde, L.
Colyton, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Suffield, L.
Conesford, L. Jellicoe, E. Swinton, E.
Cottesloe, L. Jessel, L. Teynham, L.
Craigmyle, L. Long, V. Todd, L.
Craigton, L. Lothian, M. [Teller.] Tollemache, L.
Cromartie, E. Mabane, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) McCorquodale of Newton, L. Twining, L.
Dudley, L. Margesson, V. Wellington, D.
Effingham, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V. Wigram, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Merrivale, L. Wolverton, L.
Exeter, M. Mersey, V.

4.34 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?

by the proposal to differentiate them from their colleagues in other aspects, and in other avenues, of local government. Really, the Minister has made no case against the Amendment.

4.25 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 251Z) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 68.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 20.

Hawke, L. Merrivale, L. Soulbury, V.
Hereford, V. Mersey, V. Strathclyde, L.
Home, E. Mills, V. Suffield, L.
Howard of Glossop, L. Milverton, L. Swinton, E.
Jellcoe, E. Ormonde, M. Teynham, L.
Jessel, L. Powis, E. Todd, L.
Long, V. Remnant, L. Tollemache, L.
Lothian, M. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] Tweedsmuir, L.
Mabane, L. St. Oswald, L. Twining, L.
McCorquodale of Newton, L. Sandys, L. Wellington, D.
Margesson, V. Sinclair of Cleeve, L. Wigram, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Somers, L. Wolverton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Latham, L. Shackleton, L.
Archibald, L. Lawson, L. Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Lindgren, L. Sinha, L.
Champion, L. Listowel, E. Summerskill, B.
Crook, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Walston, L.
Henderson, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williams, L.
Ilford, L. St. Davids, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 72 agreed to accordingly.

LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 72 to insert the following new clause:

Compensation for injury to or death of officers

".—(1) Any of the following councils, that is to say, the Greater London Council, the London borough councils and the Common Council, may pay compensation—

  1. (a) to any of their officers who sustains injury in the course of his employment; or
  2. (b) to the widow or widower or child of any of their officers who, in the course of his employment, dies or sustains an injury resulting in death.

(2) Any compensation payable under this section may be paid either—

  1. (a) by way of a lump sum; or
  2. (b) by way of periodical payments of such amounts and payable at such times and for such periods as the council in question may from time to time determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(3) The payment of compensation under this section shall not affect any right or claim to damages or compensation which an officer of any of the councils aforesaid or his widow or widower or child may have against any person other than that council or, except so far as may be agreed when the compensation is granted against that council."

The noble Lord said: I hope this Amendment will be more agreeable to noble Lords opposite, and I have a certain amount of confidence that it will be. Under Section 92 of the London Government Act, 1939, the L.C.C. have power to pay compensation to an officer of the Council who sustains injury in the course of his employment, or to the widow or family in the case of an officer who is killed. The power was extended by Section 12 of the L.C.C. (General Powers) Act, 1960, to permit the Council to vary part awards, other than lump sum awards, so that compensation payable by periodic payments could be varied either upwards or downwards. An Amendment was tabled in another place by the Party of noble Lords opposite to extend the same power to all local authorities in the country. It was agreed that provisions applying to the L.C.C. should certainly apply throughout Greater London, and there is a clear case for extending this provision to the London boroughs, as otherwise any L.C.C. employee transferred to a London borough might be in a worse position than he is now should he later be injured in the course of his duties. On the other hand, it was stated by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in another place that this Bill would probably not be the right vehicle to extend such a provision to all local authorities throughout the country, and further consideration confirms this view. Therefore, we accept that it should be extended to the Greater London area.

It will be necessary, of course, to provide that the Greater London Council take over the liability to continue payments under awards made by the L.C.C. This will be done by orders under Clause 81 of the Bill. The same orders will retain the safeguard for officers to whom awards were made before the passing of the L.C.C. (General Powers) Act, 1960. If here I may perhaps somewhat anticipate the Amendment to this Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, I can give him an express assurance that the safeguards and rights given to staff under the 1960 Act will be retained. That Act provided for the possibility of L.C.C. awards being reviewed where these are payable by periodic instalments. It also said that awards made before the Act was passed should not be reduced or discontinued save in accordance with any terms or conditions attached to the award. These provisions will be retained, and I can give an absolute assurance on this point.

The only matter where perhaps there is a small difference of opinion is that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, wants to extend this safeguard to all awards up to 1965. We feel, however, that we are doing our duty in transferring the rights of the L.C.C. to the G.L.C. and there is no real justification for increasing those rights from 1960 to 1965. We feel that there is no reason to suppose that the G.L.C., who, after all, will be a highly responsible authority, will contemplate reducing compensation awards in circumstances in which the L.C.C. had not done so and would not do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 72 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Hastings.)

4.50 p.m.

LORD CROOK had given Notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) The powers of the Councils under paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subparagraph shall include a power to increase from time to time if they think fit (but not to reduce or discontinue) any compensation payable by them by way of instalments or periodical payments in pursuance of an award made by the London County Council before 1st April 1965 under section 92 of the London Government Act 1939 or under the corresponding provisions of any enactment repealed by the said Act of 1939: Provided that nothing in this sub-paragraph shall be construed as derogating from any power of the Council to reduce or discontinue an award so made in accordance with any term of or condition attached to that award.

The noble Lord said: In view of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, obviously I am in difficulty in moving this Amendment. I knew that it was a little broader in its terms than the Government liked. I was not happy when I came here, and I am still not happy about the complete application of the terms of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1960. But since the noble Lord has given me an assurance that we shall have an opportunity of looking at the matter again between now and the Report stage, I think the obvious thing for me to do at this moment is not to move this Amendment, but to thank the noble Lord and say that we shall look at it again.

LORD BURDEN

May I say—

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The Amendment has not been moved. Could it be decided whether the Amendment is to be moved?

LORD CROOK

I should not like to stop my noble friend from speaking, and I will formally move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— After subsection (2) insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Crook.)

LORD BURDEN

This new clause carries out a promise which was made at an early stage of the Bill. It has been considered by the people who are responsible for the organisation of staffs in general. They find it quite satisfactory, and I am asked to express my appreciation of the clause.

LORD CROOK

May I now ask permission to withdraw the Amendment?

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74 [Application of Local Government Superannuation Acts]:

LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out Clause 74 and insert:

Application of Local Government Superannuation Acts

" 74.—(1) In the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937—

  1. (a) in section 1 (which relates to the local authorities who are required to maintain superannuation funds under Part I of that Act), in subsection (1)(a), for the words "metropolitan borough" there shall as from 1st April, 1965, be substituted the words "London borough and the Greater London Council";
  2. (b) in section 40(1), in the definition of "local authority", after the word "district" there shall be inserted the words "the council of a London borough, the Greater London Council";
  3. (c) in Part I of Schedule 1 (which relates to the local authorities whose whole-time officers are to be compulsorily superannuable), after the paragraph beginning "The 1001 council" there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

(2) For the purpose of the making before 1st April, 1965, under section 2 of the said Act of 1937 of a combination scheme to come into force on or after that date, the Greater London Council or a London borough council shall be deemed to be an administering authority notwithstanding that they are not for the time being required to maintain a superannuation fund under Part I of that Act.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in section 4 of the said Act of 1937 (which relates to the funds to which contributions are payable) if in the case of any contributory employee or class of contributory employees of the Greater London Council or a London borough council it appears to the Minister expedient so to do, the Minister may by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, provide that for the purposes of that Act the appropriate superannuation fund in relation to that employee or class shall be such fund as may be specified in or determined under the order; and any such order may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as may appear to the Minister to be necessary or proper for the purposes or in consequence of the order and for giving full effect thereto."

The noble Lord said: I have no doubt that it will be convenient if we take this Amendment with Amendment No. 252.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I help the noble Lord? We do not propose to move Amendment No. 252.

LORD HASTINGS

I thank the noble Lord. The main purpose of this Amendment is to give to the Greater London Council and to each of the London borough councils the choice whether they should maintain their own superannuation funds under Part I of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or combine with each other or with authorities outside Greater London to maintain a joint fund or funds under that Act. This is in substitution for the provision in subsection (2) of the clause which requires the Minister by order to determine the authority or authorities which are to maintain funds. The Local Government Superannuation Acts, 1937–1953, apply to the existing local authorities in Greater London and their employees except in the cases of the L.C.C., the Common Council and the four metropolitan borough councils who operate superannuation schemes under Local Act powers. The Local Act schemes will be brought to an end (subject to the protection of the rights of existing employees under Clause 82) and the general scheme of the Acts of 1937 to 1953 will be applied to the new councils and their employees.

Subsection (1)(a) of this Amendment deals with the maintenance of funds and contains the crux of it. Most of the existing authorities maintain their own superannuation funds, but some of them participate in superannuation funds administered by joint committees set up under Part I of the Act of 1937, and one authority participates in a county council fund. The suggestion was made—I am not referring now to the noble Lord's Amendment which was to have followed, but it has been made in the past—that a single fund for the whole area might be advantageous, and the subsection was drafted with this possibility in mind. However consultation with the associations of local authorities and the county councils directly concerned has now shown that while there is limited support for a single fund—

LORD SHEPHERD

Could the noble Lord say whether there was consultation with those associations representing the employees?

LORD HASTINGS

I am coming to that in a moment—there is a substantial body of opinion that each authority should be free to choose whether to maintain their own fund or to combine with other authorities. A copy of the material on which the associations and county councils were consulted was also sent to the staff bodies for information, and it is my understanding that the National and Local Government Officers' Association were strongly opposed to the idea of a single fund. I think that can be confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Burden. Although it would have certain attractions and advantages, to provide for a single fund would amount to a departure, for London only, from the principles of local government superannuation law, and a withholding from the London borough councils of a right to hold their own fund which is freely enjoyed elsewhere by much smaller authorities. The rights of transferred employees which, under Clause 82, have to be protected by provisions in orders under Clause 81, will be unaffected by the Amendment, and the necessary actuarial adjustments between funds will not present insuperable difficulties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 85, line 40, leave out Clause 74 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD SHEPHERD

I rise with some difficulty, as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, would rather support the Government in their Amendment. However, there is another side to it, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, would agree. It has been represented that there is some objection—in fact, considerable objection—to the Government Amendment. There is a good deal of preference for the original clause which is now in the Bill. As I understand it, it would be possible for the Minister, in his judgment and after consultation with the various bodies, either employer or employee, to order that there be a single fund or a fund to represent a number of authorities. I can see that in some cases the boroughs, and particularly the borough treasurers, would wish to keep their individual superannuation schemes separate. It gives them the power and, I suppose, in some cases, the joy of making wise investments and seeing the success of it, although, of course, on occasions it may be said that it is otherwise. There is an undoubted advantage in having one scheme or, perhaps, retaining within the London County Council area and within the staff of the London County Council or the G.L.C. this one fund. There is undoubted benefit in regard to investment; there is a wider choice of investment to cover the various risks that are involved in investment.

I would ask the noble Lord whether he can give us some information in regard to the position of the officers and staff of the London County Council. They are at present under the Local Act Scheme, 1892. They are all well covered and, as I understand it, when the London County Council staff are absorbed—some of them may be absorbed into the Greater London Council, but others will be absorbed into the boroughs—their rights under that particular scheme will be transferred to the boroughs. Can the noble Lord say whether he is satisfied, taking into account the rather peculiar organisation that has grown up within the London County Council and its pension scheme, that there will be officers in the boroughs cognisant of the rules and regulations and of the advantages that will be gained by the L.C.C. officer?—because, as I understand it, the officer will retain all his rights under the existing scheme when he is transferred to a borough, but there is a good deal involved in its general administration.

To me, the attraction of having a central scheme, apart from investment, is that there must be a considerable reduction in administrative costs. You have only to see, as a company director, the advantages there are in having your company pension scheme with a large company that is able, because of the size of its operation, to keep its overheads competitive: for all this is, in the end, of course, attractive to the investor. I should have thought that in the long run, taking this London area in which it is so intertwined—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, would agree—there may well also be a considerable transfer of staff between boroughs as the time goes on. One does not see these boroughs sitting indefinitely in isolation, so far as staff is concerned. There will be movement of staff, and it would be a good deal easier to administrate and to see that an employee's rights are safeguarded if there were this one scheme and staff could be transferred without having all the problems that will be involved in dealing with the transfer rights and the question of moving the fund to cover the man's particular liability.

Therefore, in spite of my noble friend Lord Burden, I still believe that there is a great advantage in having this one scheme. As the noble Lord will appreciate, I would certainly not advocate that there should compulsorily be one scheme, and it was for that reason, on reflection, that we decided not to move Amendment No. 252; but we still feel that it would have been far better in the Bill to keep this flexibility, in the sense that if a Minister at some time or another should decide that an overall scheme would be beneficial we should then have the power to be able to do it. I do not propose to oppose the Government Amendment at this stage. We shall look at it further, but I think the position is that, apart from my noble friend Lord Burden, and maybe one or two others who may share his view, there are other views of considerable importance among the employees who, frankly, would prefer an overall scheme.

LORD CROOK

I want to rise to support my noble friend, not to indicate any desire to divide the. House, but to ask that the Government will look at this matter again, not with the view to very large-scale amendments, but enough to give that flexibility to which my noble friend Lord Shepherd referred. Obviously I am not in a position to contradict statements made by my noble friend as to the representations that have been made by organisations to the Government. But I was surprised to learn from him that it was suggested that some of the county authorities themselves now had views which lined up with this Amendment. As I understood it, before this Bill was even published to the other place there had been set up by the Ministry a working party, members of which, having met together to discuss the common problems of the counties and so on, had reached the conclusion that immense difficulties were likely to arise if there were an attempt to break up some of the existing funds and existing arrangements.

I can understand their worries. I myself am chairman of a company representing a public service, which some of your Lordships know, where a pension is, in fact, provided. I know the needs for transfer-value arrangements on the schemes for the civil servants and various Government Departments separately, the Coal Board and the like; and I know how worried I am at the moment, for I have been waiting nine years for the Home Office to agree with us transfer values for one officer alone of our own scheme. If it is possible for a great Government Department to take nine years, without an apology, what is going to happen when we face a situation in which hundreds, indeed thousands, of people are transferred from the L.C.C., the Surrey County Council, the Middlesex County Council, a few from Kent, some from Essex and the other parts all mixed up? The transfer values will have to be worked out and that, I am sure, will cause a considerable amount of work and difficulty.

My noble friends referred to administrative costs, and they also come into the matter. However, I am hopeful, if the noble Lord cannot deal with the points that I am making now—and I cannot expect the impossible—that he will be able to let us hear some more on Report stage. In particular, I should like to refer to the investment values, about which I know one or two county councils, at least, are worried but as to which, in my own view, there is a quite simple solution if the thing is done properly. I understand, for instance, that the Middlesex County Council, like all bodies who are trying to fix up a properly balanced superannuation scheme over a period of years, have embarked, as we all try to embark, upon a scheme balancing first between gilt-edged and equities and then getting dated and undated stocks providing stocks coming out over a long period of years, enabling purchase to be made at the cheapest possible price and to secure the best possible accretion of interests to the benefit of the fund.

I understand that the Middlesex County Council at the moment hold stock valued at £7,500,000, and that its purchase price was such that, if they were made to sell out in the next few months, they would lose £100,000; and if they were made to sell out now, instead of at the different maturing dates, there would be a loss of £450,000. I cannot think that any Government would want to cause the selling out that they fear, and, while I am not asking the noble Lord to give any pledge or undertaking now, but merely to be good enough to take the matter away and come back at Report stage, I should like just to add one comment on that subject. Surely it should be possible for the Government, if they go ahead with their scheme, to arrange for different boroughs to run their own superannuation schemes, and to see not only that transferred values are worked out, but that appropriate, balanced methods of transferring the investments, or even holding some against account and so on, are worked out by some joint committee or other. Again, I indicate that there is not the slightest desire to oppose the Government Amendment at this stage but we are trying merely to secure more information.

5.10 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

I make no complaint at all to my noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Crook for the way in which they have put the point of view involved in the Amendment. I gather from what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said that he does not propose to move the Amendment. It is true of course, as both noble Lords have said, that there is another side to the problem. The point of one fund was raised at Committee stage in another place, and the Minister then stated that the National and Local Government Officers' Association were firmly opposed to the idea of one fund for London. After all, every one of us will agree, I think, that while in this Bill we are providing the machinery for a new London structure, a new local government plan for London, it is only the machinery. The working of that machinery will depend on the men and women, administrative and others; all the officers who will be in the local government service. And we shall all agree that in this great transitional stage many of the officers will naturally be worried as to their future. If we add to those worries anxieties in regard to their superannuation, that is merely adding another trouble to the many difficulties which they have to face.

After all is said and done, speaking as one who has had some experience of local government and superannuation matters, I readily agree that 90-odd per cent. of superannuaion decisions are more or less routine. But there are 10 per cent. where the local authority, the finance committee, has to be consulted, because they may be borderline cases. I suggest that it is far better that an employing authority which knows all the circumstances surrounding an individual case should come to a decision in regard to that particular case, rather than have it left to a committee or officers of a fund who have no local knowledge, no particular personal knowledge of the case concerned. If there were one fund, the local authority employing the officer would have no say at all in regard to the decision of what would be termed the administering authority. That is confirmed by a legal decision which I need not go into at the present time. Therefore, while I readily agree that there is a case for the other side, my own view is that as this great London plan, new boroughs and a Greater London Council, develops, we may see changes; we may see another outlook. But for the time being, until things get into proper working order, I would urge on behalf of the staff concerned that we allow the present superannuation arrangements to continue.

LORD HASTINGS

I may be able to clear up one or two points. I would stress that there is power for the authorities to combine: they will not necessarily keep their own superannuation fund separated in each London borough. I will bear in mind what has been said about investment values and consult further on that matter.

Perhaps it might help if I draw attention to subsection (3), because that contains an enabling power for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make orders, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, concerning the funds in which the employees of the new councils shall participate. I think this has some bearing on what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was saying. The powers of the subsection could be used, for instance, if consultation with the authorities concerned revealed that there was a desire in any particular case for transferred staff to participate in a fund other than that in which the employees of the authority to which they are transferred normally participate. For instance, employees of the L.C.C. or the Middlesex County Council who are transferred to a London borough council could participate not in the fund of that borough council but in the fund maintained by the successor to their former employing authority, which would be, in this case, the Greater London Council fund. So there is great flexibility for arranging these matters to suit the various people having investments in these funds, from the point of view of both the council and the individual, and I think a lot will be possible under subsection (3) in this respect.

LORD LINDGREN

We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for his statement, but I must say, having had some responsibility in regard to superannuation within the transport industry, that I am rather sorry that we are not pressing our Amendment for the establishment of a Greater London fund. It is an undoubted fact with superannuation that the greater the spread of the risk, the greater the possibility of maintaining solvency; arid the great fear of everyone associated with superannuation, particularly in period s of inflation, is that a fund will become insolvent; that there will be either something to be made up by the employer, or something to be made up by the employee; or there will have to be a revision of rules, or the fund is going to carry a deficit.

In the breaking up of this fund, as I understand it, the employee himself is to have the option as to whether he goes into the fund of the new employing authority or maintains his membership in a fund already established in the Greater London Council, because of his membership with the L.C.C. or Middlesex County Council. If in fact you are to give the option of members to, maintain themselves in their old fund, why not create a new fund to cover the whole lot? These are funds which are completely under the control of the employing authority. The only protection the employee within local government has is representation through his trade union to the employing authority. It is not as if we were discussing the railways, where the members of the fund, through their own elected representatives, were participants in its management. Therefore, where membership excludes the man or woman from exercising a right of participation in management, surely there ought to be one large fund whereby the trade unions concerned could have a greater degree of knowledge and consultation and assurance that in fact there is stability within the fund.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

New Clause 74 agreed to.

Clause 75 agreed to.

Clause 76 [Registration of local land charges]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment. The Committee will see that Clause 76 deals with local land charges, and it concerns the new proper officer to act as local registrar under that section. The effect of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that orders can be made under Clause 81 for the transitional changes which will be necessary while the, register is being divided into different parts, and in some cases split up. As I say, this is a drafting Amendment, and with that explanation I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 87, line 16, at beginning insert (" Subject to any order under section 81 of this Act ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.

5.20 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 78 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; hut, 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 modification as the Minister thinks fit.

(2) The Minister shall not make any order under section 81 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: On behalf of my noble friends, I beg to move this Amendment. We are now dealing with what is classed as surplus property, land and buildings. Over the years the London County Council has acquired considerable property and land, in the main for the purpose of development, whether it be for roads or otherwise. We are, in fact, dealing in property to the value approximately of £40 million and an annual income of the order of £400,000. As I understand it, the Bill would have this property transferred to the borough in which the property is located. That may be a point. Noble Lords on a previous clause felt that the Minister should be the person to decide, and should make the transfer of the property by order. But in the case of parks we have, under Clause 58, a course adopted by the Government that the Minister would make a transfer after consultation with the Greater London Council. For practical purposes, on the vesting date this particular type of property, parks, would come within the ambit of the Greater London Council; and after consultation with the Minister, the Greater London Council would transfer those parks or open land which they felt should be passed to the borough, retaining the property which could be regarded as for the use of Greater London.

I mentioned earlier the amount of the value and income of the property. The property can he small property outside the central part of London, but in the main it will be large blocks of offices and commercial property in Central London, let on ground leases expiring in about forty years' time. Some of this property is to be found in Kingsway and Millbank. There are smaller blocks of offices, commercial and residential property in Central London, let either on a ground lease expiring within the next few years or where the ground lease has recently expired—for instance, Charing Cross Road, Shaftesbury Avenue, Coventry Street, Piccadilly Circus and Queen Victoria Street. Of course, there are other miscellaneous properties which would be hard to define.

My first point is this. If this property has been acquired by the County Council, it has been acquired out of the rates of the London County Council area. It has been acquired through the use of money contributed by the ratepayers of the County Council area. I would have thought it quite wrong, and not real justice if, having acquired this property through the general ratepayers of Central London, you were calmly to pass it over to one of the boroughs, the borough in which the property is situated, merely because it exists there. These boroughs—I think in particular of Westminster—are themselves already rich in rateable property. I would suggest that it would be much fairer, indeed it would be equitable, that property which has been acquired out of revenue from the rates of the London County Council area should in the first instance be retained by the Greater London Council. Certainly, they would enjoy a capital appreciation on the land should it eventually be sold. The income figure of £400,000 would certainly help to pay the general charges of the Greater London Council area.

No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will try, as he has done throughout this debate, to make another case. I should find it hard to make one. I cannot see why a borough which has played no, or only a minor, part in the acquisition of this property, should suddenly enjoy the full value of it, considering that the general ratepayers of the London County Council have contributed towards it. But there is one other point on which I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, whether he is going to reply—I am in some difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is going out.

LORD HASTINGS

I am listening.

LORD SHEPHERD

This is an important point, because we are now dealing with ministerial powers. As I understand it, under this Bill the Minister may transfer these surplus properties to the boroughs. Can the noble Lord say when he anticipates such orders to be made? Will they be made before the date on which the Greater London Council or the boroughs come into operation? I would suggest that it would be quite wrong for the Minister to make any order transferring over to the boroughs the properties which, in the first instance, will be vested in the Greater London Council, without the Greater London Council having been in existence at least sufficiently long not only for the officers of the authority to have discussions with the Minister, but also for the elected councillors themselves to consider the Minister's decision and perhaps be able to make counter suggestions.

I come back to my two points to emphasise the importance of this Amendment. In the first place, this property of considerable value has been acquired by the ratepayers of Central London. I cannot see why they should not continue to enjoy the fruits of their investment, whether it is by income or, later, by the sale of that property. Secondly, if the Minister is to make orders, we should ensure that no order is made until the Greater London Council is in being and in a position to consider the transfer proposals and to make representations to the Minister. I think this is right and just for the people for whom these properties have been acquired. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 78 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)

5.30 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord who moved this Amendment drew an analogy with the previous clause on parks and open spaces. I think the analogy is rather closer to the previous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, regarding the allocation and transfer of industrial sites. On the question of parks and open spaces, there are reasons for giving them to the Greater London Council. It is a matter of ad ministration, and it would take some time—and it would not matter that it would take some time—to decide who was going to carry on with these parks. On the other hand, here I think time is an important factor, and I shall come on to that in a moment.

To turn, first of all, to the noble Lord's argument on these valuable sites in central areas being transferred to the borough councils on a basis which would be giving a present, as it were, to the councils after the London County Council had paid for these on the county rate, the noble Lord realises that it is intended to make these transfers under Clause 81, and at that time, when it is decided what to do, there would be financial compensation. So the boroughs would not be acquiring this property free and for nothing. I think that sufficiently looks after the noble Lord's point.

LORD SHEPHERD

On what basis will the compensation be made: on the free value of the land if the London County Council had wished to sell it now, or on one that no doubt would be arbitrated and perhaps would not realise the same figure?

LORD HASTINGS

I can only say in reply to that that there would be full consultation, and my right honourable friend undertook in Committee in another place that there would be full consultation before orders were made in respect of these sites. That really answers the other point which the noble Lord brought up, that the transfers would not be made before the Greater London Council came into being. That would clearly be impossible, although I imagine consultations might start with the L.C.C. in advance; but there would be full consultation before an order is made on these sites.

If I may come to an argument which I think is more telling on my side of the case, it is that these lands will be required—or one assumes that that will be so—for redevelopment schemes. The Greater London Council will be carrying out some redevelopment and it would be a question as to whether any particular parcel of land is held for a scheme to be carried out by the Greater London Council because it is of a comprehensive nature or of such size and importance that it should be carried out by the Greater London Council, or whether it would be more appropriate for the borough council to do so. If it is appropriate for the borough council to carry out the redevelopment, surely it should get the site as soon as possible and not have to wait for five years, or even ten years, after the new authorities came into being at the desire, or, I might say, at the whim, of the Greater London Council.

I think this point has even more relevance in relation to the value which ownership of land gives to a planning authority in securing the right sort of development. For let us remember that the day-to-day control for development will rest on the boroughs and not on the Greater London Council. This is not to say that all the land will necessarily go to the boroughs. There are, however, reasons for keeping control with the Minister, so that both parties, the Greater London Council and the boroughs, will have an equal voice. I think the case that I have put to the noble Lord is a reasonable one. I hope that he will consider it, and feel that we are dealing in the right way with these matters under Clause 81. There will be financial compensation; there will be consultation before the transfers; and the whole matter will be carried through much more expeditiously than under the method suggested in the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Lord say to whom the compensation will be paid?

LORD HASTINGS

It will be balanced between the parties. There will be transfers of property, as we know, under Clause 81. Wherever property is transferred from one borough to the Greater London Council, or vice versa, there will be consultations and balancing items. It will be between those parties: it cannot be between anyone else.

LORD LATHAM

Who will receive the compensation? Who, for instance, will receive the compensation in respect of Kingsway, which belongs to the L.C.C. and is probably worth £3 million? Who is to receive the compensation for that, and how is it to be assessed?

LORD HASTINGS

I think it is a fair assumption that the transfer will be made either to the G.L.C., or to the borough in which Kingsway is situated.

LORD LATHAM

That is a pretty inequitable kind of a business, is it not?

LORD HASTINGS

Why?

LORD LATHAM

The fortuitous existence in a particular borough of a valuable piece of land like Kingsway means that the compensation goes to the London borough?

LORD HASTINGS

Not at all: I said with financial compensation. The money is not going to be spirited away. The land at the moment belongs to the L.C.C., the L.C.C. is disappearing and these properties are taken over by the G.L.C. or in some cases by the borough. This whole matter will be dealt with perfectly equitably after consultation under the orders. Nobody is going to be cheated.

LORD SHEPHERD

Where does the compensation go?

LORD LATHAM

To whom is the compensation to be paid—for the benefit of the ratepayers of the new borough which is to come into existence, which includes Kingsway?

LORD LINDGREN

This is a vital and fundamental point on which there ought to be a definite answer. After all, the Kingsway Improvement Scheme was started not by the Labour-controlled London County Council, but by the old Progressives back in the early 1900's. It was contributed to—and this includes the creation of the subway—by the whole of London's ratepayers. It was considered to be for the benefit of the development of London. We are asking who is now to get the benefit of that, the London ratepayers as a whole or a selection of the ratepayers—and the noble Lord cannot tell us.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It must depend on the particular circumstances of each case who will be the recipient of the compensation which will arise in particular cases. It is quite impossible to answer "off the cuff" the noble Lord's question about property in Kingsway. If the noble Lord really wants an answer to that specific question, we will certainly endeavour to give it to him, with notice. But the policy is quite clearly established—and indeed, for the reasons given my noble friend, is a right policy.

LORD LATHAM

The policy is that the property is to be transferred to the borough in which it is. Presumably when the compensation is to be paid it will be paid to the borough where the property is situated. That is manifestly unfair. For years the Kingsway improvement was not profitable. The London ratepayers bore a charge each year. It is now, of course, very profitable. Why should not those ratepayers receive the compensation? Why should it go fortuitiously to the intended new borough?

LORD SHEPHERD

Do we get any reply?—Disgraceful.

5.47 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 256) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents 22; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Latham, L. Shepherd, L.
Archibald, L. Lawson, L. Sinha, L.
Attlee, E. Lindgren, L. Summerskill, B.
Burton, L. [Teller.] Listowel, E. Walston, L.
Champion, L. Longford, E. Williams, L.
Chorley, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Williamson, L.
Crook, L. Shackleton, L. Wise, L.
Henderson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L. Ferrers, E. Mersey, V.
Ailwyn, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Mills, V.
Albemarle, E. Fortescue, E. Milverton, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Fraser of Lonsdale, L. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Atholl, D. Fraser of North Cape, L. Newton, L.
Auckland, L. Gage, V. Ormonde, M.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Perth, E.
Beauchamp, E. Grenfell, L. Powis, E.
Blackford, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Remnant, L.
Boston, L. Hastings, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Clitheroe, L. Hawke, L. St. Oswald, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hereford, V. Salisbury, M.
Conesford, L. Home, E. Sandys, L.
Craigmyle, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Craigton, L. Ilford, L. Somers, L.
De La Warr, E. Jellicoe, E. Soulbury, V.
Derwent, L. Lloyd, L. Swinton, E.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lothian, M. Tollemache, L.
Dudley, E. McCorquodale of Newton, L. Twining, L.
Ellenborough, L. Margesson, V. Wellington, D.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Massereene and Ferrard, V. Wigram, L.
Falmouth, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD SHEPHERD

Before we proceed, may I just make one point? We have been in some difficulties. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was helping the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, but he was the Minister in charge a ad we had made a number of important points and asked a number of important questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, was at the Box, he was outside the House, and it put us in extreme difficulty. I would hope that in future if he wants information, perhaps he could find a more usual channel for obtaining it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know why the noble Lord says that. I, in fact, am in charge of the Bill. My noble friend spoke to that Amendment, It is perfectly in order for him to go to the Box if he wishes to do so, while I am in here dealing with the matter, and for me to speak. But I do not know to what Amendment the noble Lord is now speaking.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am not speaking to an Amendment. I was only raising a point for the convenience of all parts of the Committee. My noble friends asked a number of questions. We did not have a reply because the reply could not be given. That is the only reason why I have risen on this occasion. I think it is quite wrong.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 78, to insert the following new clause:

Withholding or damaging property

" .—(1) If any person having the charge or possession of any property or thing vested in the Greater London Council or the council of a London borough (each of which is for the purposes of this section included in the expression "the council") fails on demand to deliver up that property or thing to the council, or to such person as the council may direct, he shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to pay to the council the value of the property or thing not given up.

(2) If any person wilfully damages any property vested in the council, he shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings and to pay to the council the expenses incurred by them in making good the damage.

(3) If any person accidentally or carelessly damages any property vested in the council, the council may recover from him summarily as a civil debt the expenses incurred by them in making good the damage."

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Crook I beg to move this Amendment. The Bill proposes to repeal the whole of the London Government Act, 1939, including, of course, Section 181. I fully agree with the noble Lords opposite that there is no comparable provision in law throughout the country. This particular provision has been of very great use to the London County Council, and also to the boroughs. It enables the County Council to obtain compensation for damage to property caused accidentally or by carelessness. With the increase in traffic, this problem will undoubtedly continue to arise. The advice I have received is that the London County Council have found this power extremely useful. In some ways, it has been rather a deterrent. They have been able to obtain compensation for damage to their property, usually without the necessity of going to court. I said a moment ago that this provision does not exist outside the London area. But I am now reminded that there are a number of Corporation Acts—Ipswich, in particular, I believe, under the Ipswich Corporation Act, 1948; and there is also the Oldbury Corporation Act, 1949, and the Bootle Corporation Act, 1959—which in fact give powers similar to those which we suggest should be incorporated in this Bill. In other words, adoption of this Amendment would merely maintain in London the present position, which experience has shown to be beneficial to the authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 78, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This new clause, as the noble Lord as said, seeks to replace an existing statutory provision—namely, Section 181 of the London Government Act, 1939, which in turn derives from an Act of 1855. It is of considerable antiquity; and it is, in fact, anomalous that provisions of this sort should be contained in an up-to-date Statute—and I shall indicate the reason why I say that. Indeed. I understand that a clause on the lines of this provision was rejected not long ago when proposed for inclusion in another local Act. In rejecting this proposal, I should make it clear that we are not seeking in any way to inhibit the power of the Greater London Council or the council of a London borough to have proper care of its property. This particular clause deals with three specific items, and I will say a word or two, if I may, about each.

Subsection (1) makes it a criminal offence to fail to return on demand any property or thing which belongs to a borough council or to the Greater London Council. Really, that is quite inappropriate for a criminal offence. If one were legislating afresh, one would certainly not include that in the criminal code when all remedies for recovery of property in all other respects, apart from local authorities' particular provisions, are left to the civil law, which is very effective for securing that, and I think just as effective as this machinery. I can quite understand that the London County Council, having had this special, privileged position, and having been accustomed to it, find it useful; but it is anomalous; and certainly it is not a proper subject for a criminal offence.

Subsection (2) deals with wilful damage to property. As I say, this dates from a very old Act, an Act passed in 1855. Since 1861, however, wilful damage has been dealt with under the Malicious Damage Act of that year, or, if the damage does not exceed £20, under the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. Those are general statutory provisions applying all over the country, and there is no good reason, so far as I can see, why London authorities should continue to enjoy what one might call a privileged position whereby no limit is placed upon the damages they can be awarded upon summary conviction. It is, I think, undesirable in principle that, on summary conviction, the courts of summary jurisdiction should have no limit to the amount they award as damages. The right place for assessing damages, if they are substantial, is in the civil courts.

With regard to subsection (3), that again expresses existing law and provides: If any person accidentally or carelessly damages any property vested in the council, the council may recover from him summarily as a civil debt the expenses incurred by them in making good the damage. That provision has been the subject of criticism in the courts, in the case of Kensington Borough Council v. Walters, which was decided in 1959, because a person may be held liable to pay for the damage done when that damage has occurred through no fault of his at all. The scope of the section, as your Lordships will see, does cover accidental damage. For instance, 10 take one example that springs to my head, if there is a motor car collision and one car is knocked on to a bollard, although the car knocked on to the bollard may be the innocent car, under this provision it may still have to pay for the damage.

So far as the general law is concerned, Section 81 of the Public Health Act, 1961, will be available to the new London authorities, as it is to authorities elsewhere. This provides for damages of up to £20 to be recovered summarily as a civil debt in respect of damage to street furniture—I suppose that a bollard is called, "street furniture"—by negligence. I think that is a general provision, and a better provision. I am glad that the noble Lord has raised this question, because it gives me an opportunity of explaining why, after consideration, we thought that in this Bill it was better to leave it to the general law applicable all over the country and not to make special and, as I think, unnecessary provision for the local authorities concerned.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I am quite prepared to cross swords with him on political matters, but this is one field in which I am not prepared to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 79 agreed to.

Clause 80 [Other adaptations of enactments]:

5.58 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), after "passed before 1st April, 1965" to insert: not being an Act extending only to the whole or part of the existing county of London

The noble Lord said: This is the first of a group of Amendments which cannot very well be considered separately. They are this one; 272A to K inclusive; and 273A, B and C. This is a rather technical matter. First, the Amendments deal with the problem that some Acts confined to the administrative County of London are local Acts and some are Public General Acts. Secondly, they take account of the fact that, for sewerage and land drainage purposes, Greater London is a different area from the sum total of the London boroughs. To that extent, I think it will have some bearing on the very next Amendment, to be moved by noble Lords opposite. It would seem sensible now to provide only one procedure for reviewing and amending these Acts which apply solely within the Greater London area, whether they are listed as Public or local Acts.

The first object of this group of Amendments, therefore, is to remove these Public Acts of purely London application from the ambit of Clause 80, which deals with the adaptation of Public General Acts, and to put them within the scope of Clause 81 so that these Public General Acts limited to the London area can be reviewed as Local Acts, which is in practice what they are. The second purpose is to make sure that any Local Acts which deal with the Greater London sewerage area or with the area draining to the metropolitan streams can be reviewed under the provisions of Clause 84 notwithstanding that in each case these areas include some fringeland outside Greater London, as it is defined for all other purposes in the Bill. This part of our Amendment was prompted by seeing the next Amendment put down by the noble Lord. We then subsequently devised this one, so I think it probably meets the point of the next Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 91, line 37, after (" 1965 ") insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 81 [Supplementary and transitional provision]:

LORD HASTINGS

This is just a little more than drafting. The deletion of the word "and" and the insertion of the ward "or" separates the two requirements in that subsection and gives rather greater flexibility. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 92, line 24, leave out (" and ") and insert (" or ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Any order made under this section with respect to the transfer of rights and liabilities in connection with superannuation benefit shall include provision for the payment by such authority as may be prescribed by or determined under the order of any superannuation benefit which immediately before 1st April 1965 was payable by an existing authority and, in the case of any superannuation benefit which immediately before that date was payable by the London county council or the Middlesex county council, the authority so prescribed shall be the Greater London Council.

The noble Lord said: Clause 81 of this Bill deals, among other things, with the conferring of powers on the Minister to make orders. I think it is clear to everyone that in the implementation of this Bill there will be formidable staffing problems to be settled. The reorganisation necessitated under the provisions of the Bill will cause fragmentation of existing councils in some cases and in others the merging of councils. This will inevitably raise difficulties for those who have to make these alterations and adjustments, and certainly the whole thing is causing tremendous anxiety to the staffs employed by the various councils within the new Greater London area. Clearly, Parliament must take every responsible step to allay those anxieties and to safeguard the interests of the staff, for, after all, we, Parliament, are doing something which undoubtedly will create difficulties for the staff, and to the maximum possible extent we must try to allay their anxieties and to ensure that they certainly suffer no worsening of their conditions, whether related to superannuation pensions or any other matter.

As the Bill stands at the present moment it gives no adequate guarantee of superannuation rights to the staff, nor of continued payment of pensions to those who have retired. This is a matter which is giving great concern to the staffs concerned. The Amendments to Clause 81 that I am now moving seek to ensure that all pensions and similar payments payable by the London and Middlesex County Councils from March 21, 1965, shall be accepted as a liability by the Greater London Council as from April 1, 1965. The first Amendment is designed specifically to provide that the Minister, when making orders under this clause for transferring existing liabilities of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, shall provide, among the other matters mentioned, for ensuring the continuation of the payment of superannuation and the like. The second of the two Amendments that I am moving merely interprets the words "superannuation benefits". I regard this as a worthwhile Amendment and sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will find it possible to accept it and so at least remove some of the doubts which are in the minds of officials and others employed by the authorities within the whole of the Greater London area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)

LORD HASTINGS

It is certainly my intention to remove any doubts which may be lingering in the mind of the noble Lord opposite or in the minds of the staff concerned, although not necessarily by accepting his Amendment. I will explain what I mean. If I may, with all due humility, point out one or two matters that his Amendment does not include, I will do so at the beginning. First of all, I think these Amendments do not cover those sums which were not actually payable on 31st March, 1965, but which would have become payable at a later date; for example "frozen" benefits to which a person who ceased to be employed on or before 31st March, 1965, may become entitled at a later date; payments to widows or other eligible persons in respect of former employees who may die after 31st March, 1965, having ceased to be employed in pensionable employment within a period of twelve months preceding the date of death, and benefits or refunds of contributions which may become due on or after 31st March, 1965, to former employees who ceased to be employed before that date. Secondly, these Amendments fail to establish clearly that payments from 1st April, 1965, shall be subject to any terms or conditions regarding their variation, suspension or discontinuance which applied at 31st March, 1965.

Having said that, the Government feel that in fact these Amendments are not necessary and we need not include a specific provision of this sort in the Bill. It has always been the intention of the Minister to provide in orders made under the clause for the protection of the interests of former employees of the existing authorities, and of other persons entitled to payments in respect of them. In particular, it is intended that the Greater London Council will become responsible for the existing pensioners and other people of that nature of the two dissolved county councils.

Although the problems of transferring the superannuation and allied liabilities of the existing authorities in Greater London are admittedly bigger in scale than those which have arisen under previous reorganisations under the Local Government Acts of 1929 and 1933, and which may well arise in future under the Act of 1958, they are in principle the same whenever authorities which maintain superannuation funds or which pay gratuities, compensation or retiring allowances from their rate funds cease to exist. The Local Government Acts which I have quoted have not laid upon the Minister any specific requirement in this matter and we feel there is no sufficient reason why the present Bill should do so.

I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw these Amendments in view of the assurance that orders will include everything that is necessary to protect the position of pensioners. We feel that if we were to put a complicated provision of this nature into the Bill—and probably one can think of many more—it would be undesirable to clutter the Bill in that way when it is merely giving expression to a firm Government intention which has not been considered necessary in similar Acts in the past. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.

LORD CHAMPION

I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the deficiencies in the Amendment. I must admit that I make no pretence at being either a Parliamentary draftsman or having a knowledge of every little bit or piece which ought to be included in orders, if orders are to be made to cover them. But it seems to me that the noble Lord has really met our point by the assurance he has given; although I must admit that I am always a little worried about ministerial assurances for the simple reason that after something goes to Court it is always said, "What the Minister intends does not matter; what matters is what has found its way into the Act." That is how I understand many of the things I have heard in the past. However, having regard to the assurance that the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 82 [Transfer and compensation of officers]:

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment goes with Amendments 264B and 271A. Their total effect is to bring within the provisions of Clause 82 matters relating to the transfer and compensation of staff on an alteration of the boundary of Greater London, or of boundaries within Greater London. It is logical that all transfers made and all compensation payable in consequence of the Bill should be subject to the same provision. It is also to the advantage of staff in that Clause 82 will, if Government Amendments are accepted, contain additional safeguards on transfer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 42, leave out from beginning to (" 81") in line 43 and insert (" Any order under section 6 or ").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD LATHAM

This Amendment, while it is acceptable, is one of a number of Amendments which deal with superannuation and transfer and the like. It is a question of whether it is better to take the Amendments individually or altogether and speak upon the various matters which are dealt with—and they are different matters in some cases—in the Amendments. Meantime perhaps the Minister will indicate which procedure he will prefer.

LORD HASTINGS

I think if the noble Lord will allow it, it would be easier to take this small one by itself. We shall have plenty of opportunity for discussion on more substantial Amendments.

LORD LATHAM

Subject to that, and without prejudice to what I may say in respect to the matters dealt with in other Amendments, I would agree.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

I am not moving Amendment No. 261(Y). I understand that there is a drafting point which needs further consideration.

6.13 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "provision" and to insert: with respect to any person who on or after 1st April 1965 is transferred under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another such as to secure that—

  1. (a) so long as he continues in the employment of that other authority by virtue of the transfer and until he is served with a statement in writing of new terms and conditions of employment, he enjoys the same terms and conditions of employment as immediately before the date of transfer; and
  2. (b) the said new terms and conditions are such that—
    1. (i) so long as he is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged immediately before the date of transfer, the scale of his salary or remuneration, and
    2. (ii) the other terms and conditions of his employment,
are not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer.

The noble Lord said: This is probably one of the most important Amendments we shall be discussing to-day, as it deals with the subject of safeguarding staff who will be transferred to new jobs as a result of changes brought about by this Bill. Naturally we must consider them most carefully. It might be to the convenience of the Committee if I were to review some of the general considerations connected with this staff problem. We must do all we can to provide for a smooth transition to the new system, to relieve individual anxieties in the meantime and to safeguard the legitimate interests of local government employees. As part of the Government's earnest wish to achieve these ends they have brought into being the London Government Staff Commission whose functions and activities we shall be discussing in connection with later Amendments.

We should keep in mind the nature of London Government reorganisation. It is not being proposed in order to cut down staff. Its purpose is to create conditions in which local government can flourish more strongly and in which local services can be developed so as to provide greater, not fewer, opportunities. This basic fact distinguishes the reorganisation of London Government from the reorganisation of the railways, for instance, which is also being discussed, not here but elsewhere. The demand for the services offered by the railways has been declining; and the proposals put forward in the Beeching Report are designed drastically to reduce the operational apparatus in terms of both machines and men. But that is not the case with London government. There is no decline in the demand for the services which local authorities provide for the community. That demand is steadily increasing. Health, welfare, housing, education, highways—these are certainly not declining services: they are fields in which there is scope for continuing expansion and development. Moreover, as everyone knows, there is at the moment a big overall shortage of manpower in local government, and most local authorities have vacancies they are unable to fill. We are not creating a situation in which large numbers of employees are going to be redundant, either immediately or in the long term. Despite the scale of the operation, we do not think there is any real need to depart from the principles on which staff problems are normally tackled on the alteration of local government boundaries.

I will now turn to the question of compensation. The Government have never disguised the fact that it may happen in the transitional period that some officers will be declared, or may be declared, redundant or may have to accept jobs carrying a lower salary. For these—and we are confident they will be very few—the compensation provision will operate. Payment of compensation for loss of employment or reduction of salary on reorganisation is a well-established feature of local government changes and of reorganisation of services formerly carried out by local authorities—for instance on the establishment of the National Health Service. No one pretends that compensation is as good as retaining one's job; but it needs to be mentioned as it is a normal and accepted feature of local government in which the adjustment of boundaries and functions is a continuing process over the years.

I now come to safeguards for the transferred staff. I want to dwell for a moment on the way the Bill now stands. As is usual on the alteration of local government areas and functions, detailed provisions concerning the transfer of staff and property are left to be contained in orders. Such orders are always discussed in detail with the various bodies concerned, and they contain safeguards for staff interests. That would have been, and will still be, the case in respect of orders under this Bill. What we are trying to do in subsection (3) is to define certain minimum safeguards for transferred staff which will later be reflected in the orders which will have to be made.

As it stands, subsection (3) substantially repeats the corresponding provision in the local Government Act, 1929, which has frequently been incorporated in local government orders. It says that a local government officer shall, so long as he is engaged on similar duties as before the transfer, be entitled to receive no less salary than he received before, and, no matter what his job, he shall hold it by the same tenure and under the same conditions as he held his previous job. During the discussion in another place, the Minister was pressed to improve on these safeguards, and he promised to give the matter further consideration.

The main outstanding issue is this: ought the Bill to provide that a transferred officer should be entitled to draw his previous salary indefinitely or for a minimum period of several years, irrespective of the work he does after the transfer or even, as would happen in rare instances, for doing no work at all? The Minister has come to the conclusion that he cannot go so far as this, and cannot provide such a guarantee. We feel that it would not be right in principle to maintain local government employees at public expense indefinitely, or for long periods, at salaries which are fiat related to their duties. These are the instances in which well-established compensation provisions apply and the Government do not think that the circumstances justify departing from them now.

I will turn, if I may, to the effect of the Government Amendment. The improvements are these. First, the reference to transfer "on 1st April 1965" has been altered to "on or after 1st April 1965 ". This is to emphasise that these safeguards also apply to transfers which may take place under the Bill at later dates—for instance, on the review of arrangements in the inner London education area under Clause 30(6), which may have reference to further transfers. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has an Amendment to this Amendment referring to the question of dates, and on consideration, although we are extending the effect of the Bill after April 1, 1965, we have no objection to removing the dates so that it would apply before, as well as after, and I give notice to the noble Lord that we shall accept his Amendment to the Amendment in that respect.

Secondly, the Government's Amendment specifically contemplates an initial period during which each officer will be on the books of the authority to which he is being transferred, but his post will not have been officially settled or confirmed. During this period he will enjoy not only his previous salary (and this is an important point) but also his previous salary scale; that is to say, he will be entitled to receive any increments to which he would have been entitled under his pre-transfer employer. This follows from the reference to terms and conditions of service in paragraph (a) of the Amendment. Unless the expression "terms and conditions of service" is qualified in some way—and it is not here—it will include salary and salary scales. This interim protection, therefore, completely covers all employees no matter what their duties may be in this interim period.

Noble Lords opposite have two small Amendments, Nos. 261ZC and 261ZD, which contemplate the possiblity of an improvement in the terms and conditions immediately on transfer. If I read them aright that is the effect they are designed to have. Whereas our Amendment makes sure that the salary scales of former employment will be maintained, there is no objection if any individual employee is able to improve his position at the outset. Therefore, we are willing to accept these two Amendments.

Thirdly, the initial period will be brought to an end, in the vast majority of cases, by the officer's being confirmed in the job he was doing before, or in one very similar to it. Where the officer continues in, and is confirmed in, a job which is "reasonably comparable" (and here we are using an expression already used in regulations dealing with compensation, and one that is more flexible than "similar duties" in the present version of Clause 82(3)), again he will be entitled to the previous salary scale which he enjoyed before transfer, or to one not less favourable. In a very few cases, this initial period will be terminated either by the officer's being declared redundant (and this possibility is covered by the expression in the Amendment "so long as he continues in the employment of that other authority") or by his being established in a job which brings him a lower salary than his previous one. In either case, compensation will be payable.

I have had to explain this Amendment at some length, and I hope that it will have the acceptance of noble Lords opposite. I have indicated acceptance of three of their Amendments to the Amendment, and I think that I clearly indicated that we should not be able to accept 261ZB, which would mean that an employee was confirmed in his present salary indefinitely, and I gave my reasons for not being able to accede to that request. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 15, leave out from (" provision ") to end of line 22 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD LATHAM

This Amendment to the Amendment has been accepted, and I should like to express my gratitude of the staff for the reasonable and sympathetic way the Government are dealing with this question of transfer. I should like to include, if I may, notwithstanding that on occasions I have been modestly critical of the noble Lord, my thanks to him for his sympathetic approach to these matters, which are of great importance to the staff. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 1, leave out "on or after 1st April 1965 ".—(Lord Latham.)

On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.

6.29 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert: so long as he continues in the employment of that other authority by virtue of the transfer he enjoys terms and conditions of employment, including scale of salary or remuneration, not less favourable than those which he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer; and In paragraph (a), after (" terms and conditions of employment ") insert (" being terms and conditions of employment which have been settled by agreement or award ").

The noble Lord said: The case for this Amendment is of a wide and important order. Local government officers have chosen their employment in the belief that it is characterised by a high measure of security, and that its monetary rewards are lower for that reason. If Parliament destroys or lessens that security, they should be given protection against the ensuing loss. An extension of complete protection for all transferred officers would not, in current economic circumstances, be a major risk to the public purse. I think that that would be generally agreed. The public services are expanding and, as the noble Lord himself has said, the risk of redundancy is small, so that very little expenditure, if any, would ensue.

The third objection arises from the difficulty of defining "reasonably comparable duties" in the assessment of the relative value of jobs. There is so large a subjective element that, as I am sure we should all agree, the process is very chancy. If an officer is transferred to a post with non-comparable duties, he would, as the Bill stands, qualify for some compensation. But this would not make good his total loss. The compensation would be only a fraction, varying according to years of service and other factors. A fall in salary is a particular disadvantage to those about to retire on grounds of age, because the amount of pension is related to average salary in the last three years of service. So a reduction in income means a corresponding reduction in pension. This is particularly serious for officers with many years' service who have calculated their retirement prospects with care, and who would thus, as a result of legislation, find that they had built on a somewhat false foundation. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will be willing to ask his right honourable friend to reconsider those points in relation to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD HASTINGS

I referred to this matter when I was moving the main Amendment. I admitted that there was this outstanding issue, and I asked the question whether the Bill ought to provide that a transferred officer should be entitled to draw his previous salary indefinitely or for a minimum period of several years irrespective of the work he does after the transfer, and I gave it as the Government's conclusion that it would not be right in principle to employ local government employees at public expense indefinitely on that basis. I think noble Lords opposite will admit that this Amendment goes a long way to meet the points that they wish to be met on behalf of the staff, and my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion definitely that he could not guarantee this particular point. I will consider what the noble Lord has said, but I am afraid I could not hold our any hope that he is likely to get a different answer on the Report stage.

LORD LATHAM

I am bound to admit that the Government have gone a long way. I am hoping, having regard to the minimal character of the liability in present economic circumstances, that the Government, in order to fit in with their sympathetic consideration of these human problems, would be willing to go the rest of the way. In the hope that this may be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LATHAM

This Amendment has been accepted and, in the circumstances, I beg to move formally.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 7, leave out (" the same ").—(Lord Latham.)

On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.

LORD LATHAM

This Amendment also has been accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 8, leave out ("as ") and insert (" not less favourable than those he enjoyed ").—(Lord Latham.)

On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.

LORD LATHAM

The object of this Amendment 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. This accords with the practice of all enlightened authorities, as I am sure we all agree, and is, in fact, embodied in other legislation—for instance, the Statutory orders made from time to time under the National Health Service Act. Whitleyism is a common form, and it could be, with advantage both to employers and to employees, written into this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved—— In paragraph (a), after (" terms and conditions of employment ") insert (" being terms and conditions of employment which have been settled by agreement or award ").—(Lord Latham.)

LORD BURDEN

I hope the noble Lord will continue the good work and accept this Amendment or something similar to it. I would point out to the noble Lord that, as the clause stands, it will be possible for the new authority, whether it be the Greater London Council or a new borough, a week or a day after a man or an officer is transferred, to give him notice of new conditions of employment. That would break down the system of Whitleyism, which has been a success in the local government service. All that we are asking for is that the new conditions, which we agree must come in the future, should not be unilaterally imposed on the staff, but that there should be free negotiation and agreement in regard to those new conditions of service. If the noble Lord does not accept this, then he is making a breach into long established practice in the local government service. This Amendment is pressed strongly on behalf of the staff concerned.

LORD HASTINGS

Of course, the Government Amendment on the Marshalled List which we are discussing, and to which this is an Amendment, applies to all transferred officers and all the new authorities. Therefore, I am not quite sure if it is appreciated what would be involved if this Amendment were accepted. It would evidently require all the 32 London boroughs to negotiate separately about pay and conditions of service.

LORD BURDEN

Before the noble Lord continues to develop that point, does he contemplate that 32 boroughs will have different conditions of service, salaries and so on, and that they will depart from the national salaries and conditions already agreed to?

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord is making my point for me. I said that if we accepted his Amendment, which applies to all the authorities in the boroughs, it would mean that all 32 London boroughs would have to negotiate separately about pay and conditions of service. One assumes that they would possibly, or perhaps I might say probably, adopt the national scales, as have all the present authorities in Greater London, in which case separate negotiation would not then be necessary. But the Amendment as it is would apply over the whole field.

If it is to apply to the Greater London Council only—and I understand that is really what lies behind this Amendment, because it would be a completely newly created authority in the way that the boroughs are not because they are existing authorities to be amalgamated—I think 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, and that there is no statutory provision applying to local authorities requiring them to act in accordance with what is the well-established and normal practice. One rather questions whether there is any really sufficient reason to assume that the Greater London Council will need to be specially restrained or directed in this way. It will be the largest local authority in the country, and I should have thought we could assume that the sense of responsibility to its staff will be no less than that of the London County Council.

I should like to have the noble Lord's comment on that, but it seems to the Government that we should be departing from a normal practice which has worked well throughout all other local authorities without any statutory provision. Presumably the normal practice and the status of the national associations would be quite sufficient to ensure what noble Lords wish to see come about.

LORD BURDEN

I may not have made myself clear in regard to this. So far as my support of the Amendment is concerned, it is in no way confined to the service conditions which will arise so far as the Greater London Council is concerned. I am also concerned with the 32 boroughs. We have national negotiations settling the national scales. The point in regard to national scales is the application of the grading and so on of them. What I am suggesting to the Minister is that a man may go to another authority on a higher grade and, according to the terms of the Government Amendment—I do not say the local authority would do it—they can put in writing to the person concerned that on and from a certain date, instead of Grade 1, he may go down to Grade 2 or 3 or vice versa. What I am suggesting is that that ought to be negotiated—there is machinery for doing it even so far as individuals are concerned—and not be dealt with on a national scale.

LORD HASTINGS

I realise the point the noble Lord is making. It might be covered in our Amendment already, but I would not like to argue about it. Noble Lords have made their point strongly, and although I do not think we can accept their Amendment as it stands, I should like to have a further thought about it and to discuss the matter to see whether we can do something to meet noble Lords in this respect. But I should have to do so without commitment, as I do not know what the results of our consideration would be.

LORD LATHAM

On that understanding, and having regard to the sympathetic approach to these problems on the part of the Government, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, to which we shall return later.

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think there is a difficulty here in that this Amendment, and several Amendments following, appear to refer to words of the clause which have already been omitted by the acceptance of Amendment No. 261Z.

LORD BURDEN

I rise to ask a question in regard to my next Amendment, No. 261A. Am I to take it from what the Minister has said that in the case of an officer going over to another authority, until the new conditions of employment are agreed for the individual, the normal increments which would have flowed if he had remained in his old authority will flow to the new authority to which he is transferred? Will those increments be made in due course?

LORD HASTINGS

I understand that that is so.

LORD BURDEN

Then I do not move the Amendment.

6.48 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (3): and (b) in relation to any such person as aforesaid whose duties are wholly or mainly administrative, professional, technical or clerical the conditions of service, the method of grading his office and the scale of salary or remuneration and emoluments applicable in relation to his case immediately before his transfer shall continue to apply until such time as other conditions, methods and scales, either in relation to him or as being of general application in relation to persons engaged in similar duties in employment of the authority to whom he is transferred, are settled by agreement or award and come into force.

The noble Lord said: The need for this Amendment stems from the proceedings in your Lordships' House on May 14, when I moved an Amendment to insert in Schedule 2 words intended to preserve for persons employed in the Greater London Council the service conditions, grading of offices and salary scales applicable to them immediately before transfer. This preservation was to be operative until such time as other terms of conditions were settled by agreement or award and came into force. Towards the end of the debate the noble Lord promised that the Government would bring forward further Amendments, and I thereupon withdrew my Amendment. The Amendment now proposed covers ground outside that of any other, and is designed to meet the objectives which I will briefly describe.

Clause 83(3) of the Bill would ensure the preservation of a transferred officer's existing salary, subject to certain conditions. Amendments are contemplated to make those conditions more favourable. The proposed Amendment is aimed at preserving the other conditions of employment set out in its terms. In contradistinction to my Amendment of May 14, this present Amendment would not be limited to persons employed by the Greater London Council, but would apply to all local government officers transferred by virtue of the Bill to an authority other than their present employer. In any hierarchical field of employment an officer is concerned not only with his present rate of pay and increments within his existing grade, but also with the grades above his own and their respective salaries: the prospects and advantages of promotion are characteristics of his employment which have their value. If they are diminished or lost, his total circumstances are worsened. The Amendment would lessen or remove this risk, and the new London local authorities would be free to negotiate conditions of employment in concert with staff representatives. This may be a complex and lengthy operation, however, and the Amendment seeks to prescribe interim conditions to operate before the permanent ones come into force.

It is estimated that about 80 per cent.—that is, 12,500—of the administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff of the Greater London Council will be former London County Council staff, whose conditions, gradings and salary structures are particular to the London County Council. The next largest group will be 1,500 coming from the Metropolitan Water Board, whose conditions are again different; and 10 per cent. will come from local authorities other than the London County Council and will be on conditions, gradings et cetera laid down by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities, Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services—quite a "brief" description. Only a very small number of civil servants, if any, are likely to come from the Ministry of Transport.

At this stage there is no certainty about what the service conditions of the Greater London Council will be. It may prove difficult to negotiate them before that body comes into existence, or even in the earlier stages of its life. It is accordingly possible that the existing staffs of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Water Board could suffer a worsening of standards on which they are employed at present. This possibility derives from the different staffing structures of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Water Board. Service conditions on which the London County Council staff are employed are, in general, superior and reflect the higher educational standards of entry which are demanded. For example, the intake of the London County Council basic administrative grade ranges between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. from Honours graduates, whereas the intake of graduates to the London services elsewhere is minimal.

It is not the purpose of the Amendment to substitute ministerial powers for the normal negotiating procedures once these have been established, which is, I think, apposite to what has passed this evening. All this Amendment proposes is that the present vacuum shall be filled by a statutory prescription that the service conditions, gradings and salary structures of the various groups of staff shall continue until such time as the authorities and staff organisations have got together and reached agreement. It will make clear to staff likely to be transferred that the interim arrangements which will apply to them will be those operative under their existing conditions. It will thus help to remove some of the uncertainty in the minds of staff liable to transfer, help to dispel the apprehension that they may suffer a worsening in their standards of pay and prospects, and assist them in reaching their personal decision as to where their future lies.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD HASTINGS

It is quite correct, of course, that the noble Lord moved an Amendment of this nature previously on Committee stage and he accepted my suggestion that we should put off discussion until we saw the Government Amendments, which we have now done and discussed and they have been accepted. But it is also quite correct to say that this Amendment lies outside the scope of those Government Amendments. If I am right, I think that the effect intended is that where the L.C.C. employee is transferred to the Greater London Council, then the post he fills will be graded and remunerated according to L.C.C. conditions of service until final arrangements are settled. If that particular employee then left or is transferred, the post itself will still attract the same L.C.C. conditions of service which resulted in its being filled initially by a former member of the L.C.C. staff. I think that is correct, is it not?

LORD LATHAM

Generally speaking.

LORD HASTINGS

Similarly, a former employee of the Middlesex County Council would take with him the Middlesex terms and conditions to any post he initially filled; or a former civil servant from the Ministry of Transport would take his Civil Service conditions, which would remain with the post he occupied, if any of these three types of employee—not necessarily types, but coming from three different sources—were to leave his job, then the next employee, whatever his condition before, would step into that category of service, as it were, in the interim period.

The Government, I must say, do not like this very much, because they think there is a principle of some importance here—and one which was upheld after discussion in another place—that so far as possible local authority staffing matters should be left to be settled within the local government field, without any form of intervention from the Government or by Parliament. This is particularly important in a matter on which, as we know, there is considerable discussion in the background whether or not the Greater London Council should eventually adopt the L.C.C. staff gradings and conditions of service or whether it may, alternatively, adopt those which have been nationally agreed for all other local authorities. The Government are anxious to ensure that the interests of individual employees are protected; and that, as I think is admitted generally in all quarters of the House, we have done very effectively, with one or two quite small exceptions which noble Lords have brought to my attention.

Our Amendments were drafted with that in view, to make sure of the protection of the individual employees; and that we think we have done. But we do not want to appear in any way to take sides as to which staff gradings will be accepted, the national or the L.C.C. ones, and we feel that the acceptance of this Amendment would tend very much to prejudice, or at least prejudge, the discussions which I believe are going on now in the background, or certainly will be going on soon. Therefore, as we feel that the individuals are sufficiently protected, it is not necessary and is certainly undesirable to drag in this protection of categories in the interim period. It would be better to leave it to the normal negotiations. Therefore I am afraid I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

I am sorry to hear that, and I am sure the staff will also be sorry. What they are asking for is not very much: they are asking far a guarantee of a non-worsening of their conditions.

LORD HASTINGS

We have given them that individually.

LORD LATHAM

Individually? The worsening would be individual, which no doubt would apply by categories or by grades. It would be the case that you would have a staff where some would be remunerated on the basis of the London County Council and some on the basis of the Middlesex County Council, but that is unavoidable, and it seems to me that that ought not to operate to the disadvantage of the staff by their having their conditions worsened in order to secure standardisation or uniformity. I hope that the Government will have another look at this matter. It would be better not, I will net say to deface, but to lessen in some way the very happy picture of relationships which up to the present exists and which everybody hopes may continue to exist. In the circumstances, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move the next Amendment, No. 264B, which is consequential on No. 261X.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 23, leave out from beginning to (" the ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LINDGREN

I beg to move Amendment No. 265. We have agreed, or it is agreed under the Bill and with improvements that have been made, that all staff are in the initial stages guaranteed a job. They go to the boroughs or to the Greater London Council, but when they get there and things begin to sort themselves out it is still possible for a person to be declared redundant either by a borough or by the Greater London Council. Under the new set-up it may be found there is not a job for him. In those circumstances there is the arrangement under the Bill for the payment of compensation.

This Amendment seeks to make it quite clear that the authority who is to pay the compensation is the authority to which the man is transferred and with which he is declared redundant. It is possible for a person to be moved from the L.C.C. to one of the new London boroughs and when he gets to the new London borough he will be declared redundant at a later date. The compensation will become payable. There ought not to be an argument as to whether it is payable by the Greater London Council or the London borough in which the man is then employed. Therefore this is a very important point, because it is satisfactory to the employee to know that if he is declared redundant the people who declare him redundant are the people to pay the compensation, not the people who employed him before the amalgamation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 25, leave out (" such authority ") and insert (" the Greater London Council, the Common Council or the council of any such London borough ").—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has made quite plain the purpose of this Amendment, so I need not repeat it. It is the intention that, in relation to local government employees transferred to the service of the Greater London Council, the Common Council or the council of a London borough, those authorities shall be the compensating authorities. But I think we have to remember that some local government employees who are not so transferred and some persons other than employees of local authorities may be affected, and in their cases it would not be appropriate for any of the authorities mentioned in the Amendment to be the compensating authorities. For example, the officers of the county councils of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey who are not transferred to the new authorities may suffer some diminution of emoluments or even loss of employment. That is one example.

LORD LINDGREN

I do not want to spoil the noble Lord's line of thought. But if we in Hertfordshire declare a person redundant, or if his job finishes, and he is not transferred to the other authority but remains in Hertfordshire, his compensation remains payable by Hertfordshire. We are arguing about people affected by reorganisation. They lose their existing job; they are either attached to a borough or to the Greater London Council. Then the authority who declares them redundant should be the one to pay the compensation. We are not concerned with the outer London areas—or, rather, we are concerned about them, but not in this Amendment. The staff in Hertfordshire or Essex who become entitled to compensation will still get their compensation through the Hertfordshire County Council or the Essex County Council. Those councils will still be the employing authority.

LORD HASTINGS

I know what the noble Lord is getting at, and I think I shall be able to give him the necessary assurance. It may be, if one read the subsection more closely, that the drafting would be found to be not right. But I think we are dealing with general compensation for everybody affected by the Bill. I would not be certain, but I think that is so. In any case, we feel that this is a matter for negotiation and settlement under the provisions of Clause 81, and the compensating authority in a particular case or class of cases must be left to be prescribed in the regulations themselves.

If, however, the primary concern of the noble Lord is—and I think it is—to secure that the Greater London Council, the Common Council and the London boroughs shall be the compensating authorities in relation purely to staff transferred to their employment, then I can give an assurance that this is the intention and will be carried out under orders of Clause 81. This matter was discussed in another place when a similar Amendment was moved among others at the same time of a slightly different nature. My right honourable friend promised further consideration of certain other matters related to this, but it did expressly exclude this Amendment which has now been repeated by the noble Lord. We are ready, however, to give an assurance that those authorities mentioned in the noble Lord's Amendment will be made the compensating authorities in relation to any employee transferred to them. I can give that assurance.

LORD LINDGREN

On the understanding that what is asked for will be given, that is, that the employing authorities become the compensating authorities, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment secures that the regulations shall also provide for compensating any persons who would have been employed at the material time but for the fact that they were then engaged on some other form of service—it could still be, in view of the dates concerned, National Service—and who suffer such loss or diminution, or who are not employed by one of the new authorities or who are employed but with reduced pay. That brings them in for the compensation as well. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 28, after (" are") insert (" or who but for any such service by them as may be so prescribed would be ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "which is attributable to" and to insert: or superannuation rights, or whose position is worsened in consequence of".

The noble Lord said: We have got on very well just recently, and I hope we can do so with this Amendment. We have agreed already that there is compensation for loss of salary, loss of emoluments, and this Amendment tries to secure, and I hope will secure, compensation for loss of superannuation rights. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has resisted—and I am not going to argue whether he was right or wrong; the provision is passed and in the Bill—attempts to secure that a person can maintain his existing salary.

LORD HASTINGS

Indefinitely.

LORD LINDGREN

Indefinitely. We hope it may not happen, but it is possible to have a reduction in numbers of employees because there are not enough jobs. It sometimes does happen, particularly in regard to highly placed persons, perhaps town clerks or deputy town clerks. A person who had superannuation rights at his existing salary and who still had ten, fifteen or twenty years' service to do would anticipate having, at the end of his career, superannuation based on the salary for the job he was doing. As my noble friend Lord Burden said—or it may have been Lord Latham—those who go into local government do so on a basis of security, and they do so taking into account the conditions of service within the job when they take it. Through no fault of their own, so far as this group of people are concerned, an Ac.: of Parliament, not their employing authority, is to disturb their existing conditions and their future anticipation in so far as their service is concerned. What this Amendment really says is that the loss of superannuation rights is also to included within the compensation. The words that we ask to have included by this Amendment are taken from Section 81(1) of the Transport Act, 1962. The Government have never been generous to those of us who were employed in transport. I cannot believe that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are likely to be less generous to local government employees than the Ministry of Transport were towards those engaged on the railways. I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 30, leave out (" which is attributable to ") ant insert the said new words.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

It is fully intended that the regulations to be made under this clause shall include provision for payments in respect of loss of pension rights associated with loss of employment or with loss for diminution of emoluments. I can give an assurance to this effect. Regulations under the similar provisions of Section 60(2) of the Local Government Act, 1958, have been under discussion for some time with the local authority associations, including the London County Council, and staff bodies, who know that the regulations are to provide compensation in respect of superannuation benefit which, but for reorganisation, a person would have enjoyed. Similar provision will be made in regulations under this subsection, and therefore no Amendment is necessary for the purpose.

I think in respect of some other Amendments previously moved by noble Lords opposite I gave other assurances and pointed out that if we wrote everything in, the Bill would be cluttered up a great deal. This is another assurance which I gladly give. As for the question of the words "worsening of position", I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is referring to that might not be covered by the Bill as amended, because in respect of people who lose their jobs or whose pay is reduced as a result of the reorganisation, Clause 82(4) provides for regulations to be made covering compensation for them; and in all past statutory reorganisation affecting local authorities the compensation provisions have related to loss of jobs or reduction in emoluments, and these arrangements have proved to be satisfactory in practice. Taking into account the protection afforded by the Bill as amended this afternoon, and to be afforded under the orders under it, and in view of the assurance I have given, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

I thank the noble Lord for his full statement. That full statement, being on the Record, will be of great help. Of course, we are not aware of negotiations that have been taking place—there is no complaint about that, because we have no right to be aware of them. I should hesitate to butt in when negotiations are taking place with the appropriate staff organisations. On the assurance that the noble Lord has given, that where in fact it does arise compensation is due for loss of emoluments and salary, and that loss of compensation rights are also under consideration, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. Again, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the statement he has made, which is now on the Record. As I have said, it will be most helpful to those who are carrying on the negotiations.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

LORD LINDGREN

I do not move Amendment No. 267. It is covered by Amendments which are coming on later.

7.15 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (5)(a) to leave out from "considering" to "affected", and to insert: and keeping under review the arrangements for the recruitment of staff by the Greater London Council and the London borough councils and for the transfer in consequence of the provisions of this Act or any instrument made thereunder of staff employed by other local authorities affected by Part I of this Act; (b) considering such staffing problems arising in consequence of, and such other matters relating to staff employed by any body ".

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to indicate rather more precisely than the Bill does at present what the main task of the staff commission will be—namely, to consider and keep under review all the arrangements for recruiting staff to the new authorities, and for transferring staff in consequence of the changes made by the Bill. There is no dispute about this, either among local authorities or the staff organisations; but there would, we thought, be advantage in spelling it out in rather more specific terms than the hitherto quite general phraseology in the Bill, without, however, going into all that tremendous detail which is embraced in Amendment No. 271. I am not quite clear whether, in not moving the previous Amendment, which I think goes with No. 271, the noble Lord does not intend to move Amendment No. 271.

LORD LINDGREN

I do.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord does. I hope he will not mind discussing it at this time because this Amendment deals entirely with the staff commission. Is that convenient to the noble Lord?

LORD LINDGREN

It is convenient. My point in not moving the other Amendment was that I thought that the essential point that we were trying to make in Amendment No. 267 is really covered by Amendments Nos. 267A and 269A. I did not move Amendment No. 267 as a paving Amendment. I was looking at Amendment No. 271.

LORD HASTINGS

I hope the noble Lord does not mind my speaking to Amendment No. 271, with which this deals. We wanted to spell out the job of the staff commission in rather more detail than we do so far in the Bill, to make quite clear what it has to deal with. The words in the Bill were quite general and vague, but this makes quite clear what they are reviewing. I was saying that the local authorities and staff organisations realise this, and, so far as I can make out, they are not worried about it. We have spelled it out in these rather more specific terms; but I feel it is unwise and undesirable to go so far into detail as does Amendment No. 271.

This Amendment does not in any way preclude the Minister from elaborating the commission's duties, for example in the way that the Opposition Amendment does, or from referring to them any other matter relating to staffing problems arising from the reorganisation of London government. This Amendment has been discussed with the staff commission themselves and they welcome it. I ought, perhaps, to refer to the words at the end of the Amendment—namely," any body ". They permit the Minister to extend the commission's activities (should this be necessary) to bodies other than the main local authorities—for example, to joint boards in Greater London, or to executive councils in the field of health. I think, therefore, that this Amendment covers things pretty well, and, although I will listen to the noble Lord if he wishes to argue for more detailed arrangements in his Amendment, I should then feel under the necessity of making a further but quite short reply.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 45, leave out from (" considering "), to (" affected ") in line 47 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment consequential on 267A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 4, leave out (" officers ") and insert (" staff ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment is put down in response to representations made by the Party of the noble Lords opposite during Report stage in another place. It is to the effect that the staff commission may not be able to obtain sufficient, or the right kind of, information from local authorities to do their work properly. To make quite sure that that is so, although we feel there will be no trouble in that respect, we are putting in this Amendment which enables the Minister to give directions to a local authority in the unlikely event of such a power being needed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 7, after (" to ") insert (" the furnishing of any information requested and "). (Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LINDGREN moved, after subsection (5) to insert: (6) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of 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 he 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 83 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: I can now express my appreciation for the Amendments 267A, 268A and 269A, which I agree with the noble Lord materially strengthen the clause. They have made it unnecessary for us to move the group of Amendments which have been answered "Not moved" by myself. However, I still move Amendment No. 271 because, desirable though the Amendments are that we have just passed and the improvements that they make, we still desire the Committee to consider this Amendment to which we attach considerable importance. We desire this not only from the point of view of safeguarding the staff and of giving the staff commission "teeth" with which to do the job which they have been given to do—and we all wish them the best of luck in a very difficult task—but also from the point of view of maintaining the standards of the services which are to be transferred to the various new authorities.

Much as I, together with others who are responsible as local government administrators, feel that the policy we determine as elected representatives is important, the staff's function in giving effect to our policy is really governed by the staff structure of the service and the training for the job they have to do. This is bound up with having a healthy, happy staff who see range in the service and opportunities for promotion in return for good service, and who, to this end, can take advantage of the training schemes offered by the local authority. I must say that the Middlesex County Council, and particularly the London County Council, have had first-class training schemes and opportunities for staff, and this has enabled the general structure of their staffing to be good.

What I am concerned about in the break-up of the services is the lowering of standards. I do not accuse the Government of trying to create that situation, but having regard to the fact that they are now going to have 32 bodies doing what two bodies did before there is a material risk that the services—and we will take, for example, the services associated with old persons—will vary among the 32 different authorities. They could at the moment vary only as between Middlesex and the London County Council, but now there are going to be 32 possible variations. There ought to be some central body to supervise training schemes and staff structures in the services within those 32 authorities and to ensure that, through opportunities provided by staff training, and so on, there is a proper staff and properly arranged establishment, so that the services shall be maintained up to their present standards. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that under the Bill as now amended the advice and recommendations of the staff commission can be given binding effect by direction of the Minister. So we maintain that the Bill contains machinery under which all these suggestions in the noble Lord's Amendment could be achieved. The Amendment is in permissive terms: it says the commission "may give directions". The detailed points in the Amendment therefore amount to nothing more than advice indicating how the commission might go about their work. It is really a question of whether it is necessary or desirable to write all this into the Bill. The Government feel that it is not, having regard to the terms of our own Amendment and the fact that the Minister can give directions and make the terms and recommendations binding.

We envisage that the commission will not be working through directives, but much more through persuasion. Local authorities are reasonable and responsible people, and one of their chief concerns must he to make sure that their staffs are fairly treated. We expect that, with the guidance and help of the commission, principles can be worked out which could be freely accepted and followed during the transitional stage.

There is one point dealt with in paragraph (f) of the noble Lord's Amendment referring to the priority given to the people in Greater London already affected by this Bill. That has already been dealt with informally by the Minister's circular to local authorities giving that very advice and making that very suggestion. Altogether I think that we can rely upon the commission's doing their work properly and having cordial relations with the local authorities, and upon the Minister's taking into consideration all the points the noble Lord has brought up, which I am sure the commission will take into consideration, and making them the subject of agreements and orders as necessary. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

I hesitate to be difficult after the noble Lord has been so helpful in previous Amendments, but this is a very important Amendment, and even the noble Lord on this occasion speaks with two voices. He says in one voice that the Minister can give directions; and in the next voice he says that local government is a permissive organisation and that so much can be done by persuasion in regard to this, that and the other. Therefore, though he can give binding effect to the direction of the commission—he did not say he would be loath to do it, but that was the impression left with me—it could also be permissive. I do not think it is a point on which we ought to continue discussion for a considerable time, particularly in view of the time and the work remaining to be done on the Bill. Therefore, I think we had better divide.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is exactly half-past seven. If the noble Lord wants to divide now that will take perhaps another ten minutes, or we can divide after the Committee resumes.

LORD LINDGREN

To show how accommodating we are, we will suit your convenience.

7.30 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 271) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS
Addison, V. Latham, L. Shackleton, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Lawson, L. Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E. Lindgren, L. Summerskill, B.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Longford, E. Walston, L.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Williams, L.
Henderson, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williamson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abiniger, L. Ellenborough, L. Milverton, L.
Ailwyn, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Newton, L.
Albemarle, E. Falmouth, V. Ormonde, M.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Fortescue, E. Perth, E.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Powis, E.
Beauchamp, E. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Remnant, L.
Boston, L. Hacking, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Chesham, L. Hastings, L. St. Oswald, L.
Clitheroe, L. Hawke, L. Sandys, L.
Conesford, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Somers, L.
Craigton, L. Ilford, L. Stonehaven, V.
Crathorne, L. Jellicoe, E. Tenby, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Lothian, M. Wellington, D.
Derwent, L. McCorquodale of Newton, L. Wigram, L.
Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[The Sitting wad suspended at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.]

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 261X. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 11, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.

8.41 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

moved, after Clause 82 to insert the following new clause:

Transfer of building programmes

The Minister shall, in consultation with the councils of those counties, county boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and county districts referred to in section 3(1)(b) of this Act, carry out before 1st April, 1965, a survey of all building programmes which will fall to be undertaken by the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the Common Council within the period ending 31st December, 1971, and direct that the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the Common Council shall set up such establishments at or before such time as the building programmes are transferred to them, as will enable them properly to continue and complete the said programmes.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment refers again to the transitional provisions of this Bill. I hoped that it would be suitable if I put down a matter which concerned objects of a motion nature, such as buildings, after what is perhaps the more important side, the staff side, of the transitional provisions, which your Lordships have already been discussing for some time this evening. But I must confess that I should very much welcome it (and I think that possibly some people outside your Lordships' House would do so as well) if whichever noble Lord is going to reply to this Amendment could clear up some of the problems which seem to me likely to arise, and which I think also worry such other bodies as the Royal Institute of British Architects: what will happen to programmes of work—buildings, houses and schools, and such like—during the transitional period, while the Greater London Council and the London boroughs are taking over from the existing authorities.

The Committee will recall that the new borough councils and the Greater London Council are all to be elected during the course of the early summer of next year, but they will not take over the functions from the old authorities until 1965. I have no doubt that during the year between the time when they are elected and the time when they actually take over their functions they will be collecting ideas, and probably staff, and planning how they are to carry out their new functions when the time comes. From the staff point of view, this will be the period, I have no doubt, when the people who are employed as officials by such authorities as the Middlesex County Council, the existing boroughs, the L.C.C. and so on, will be looking around and seeking to get the excellent jobs which will be open to them, or to some of them, in the new authorities. I should think that the new authorities will welcome the idea that during the course of this year they should be able to recruit some officials to help them, in advance, with their plans.

As I understand it, the officials who will be doing this and helping the new embryo authorities are likely to be the same officials who have been working with the old authorities, and no doubt there will be plenty of good opportunities for people like the architects in the Middlesex County Council to find very useful and important posts in the new boroughs—and I think it is right that they should be allowed to have them. The problem that worries me is what will happen to the jobs which they have been doing in the old authorities, such as the Middlesex County Council. For those jobs will have to continue until the actual transfer of functions in 1965, but quite probably without the aid of any of the officials who were formerly with the old authority but have now gone to the new.

I do not place any great weight upon the actual way in which I have drafted this Amendment. In fact, I hope it will not be criticised on that score because I did it myself, and I really only wish to use it as a peg upon which to hang this argument. I think we have heard singularly little from the Government about how these most important things are to be carried on during the interregnum—and they are important because some of these building programmes for schools and such like are under way now, have been planned for a long time and will cost a lot of money, and they must be supervised during the course of construction. If there is nobody there to do it, a great deal of money might be lost or misspent, or the programmes might just cease altogether and get up to a year behind schedule.

I have no idea what the answer to this problem is, but I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government have thought about it, because it is so obvious a problem. However, I have not so far heard what the proposals are to bridge this gap. Probably the best thing would be for the work to move with the staff, if possible; but if that could not be done, perhaps the staff would be holding two jobs at the same time. If so, I should like to know how that is expected to work, who will be responsible for paying them, and so on. Otherwise I can think of no good way of getting round this difficulty. I believe Middlesex will be the most difficult problem, because in the London County Council and probably the counties of Surrey, Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire the problem will be less. Middlesex, of course, is going altogether. It has a large body of competent officials who would be just the people who could go to the new boroughs or to the Greater London Council, and it is their jobs during the one year 1964–1965 that I am worried about.

Amendment moved— After Clause 82, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD CONESFORD

I rise not to repeat but very strongly to support the arguments used by my noble friend. As I think the Government are aware, this is one of the problems that most worry the Royal Institute of British Architects and many other bodies. I feel quite certain it is a problem which my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government must carefully have considered, but, in common with my noble friend who has just addressed us, I do not know what the solution is to which the Minister has come. What is certainly desirable is that the work in course of being done by the authorities which are being abolished shall continue without delay or any impairment of efficiency. For these reasons it is highly desirable that the work and the staff should move as far as possible together. Therefore I strongly support the Amendment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I must confess that I am very doubtful about this Amendment, although I see the motives which have activated the two noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it. It is true that there will be problems of transition, about which we have warned the Government all the time, because this is a very big upset. It is not a mere transfer of powers from one set of dying authorities to another existing authority; it is putting things in the melting pot and then somehow bringing them together again. I do not mind asking the local authorities to make a survey, but this Amendment is trying to make a building programme. I think it is the reverse of local government when the Amendment goes on to say: by the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the Common Council within the period ending 31st December. 1971, and direct that the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the Common Council shall set up such establishments at or before such time as the building programmes are transferred to Them, as will enable them properly to continue and complete the said programmes.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

May I just interrupt the noble Lord? I do not in the least insist upon any direction from the Government to the local authorities. I was simply trying to think of some way in which to phrase this Amendment so that I could bring to the forefront the nature of this problem.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

But the noble Viscount will agree that it is clear. This is the central point of my argument. I must know from the noble Viscount just what he has in mind. Surely it is true that under this Amendment the Minister can direct. Am I not right?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Yes, this is right; but I have every intention of withdrawing if I get a satisfactory answer from my noble friend.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The next time the noble Viscount moves an Amendment he had better say he does not mean it; he is only moving it in order to get a friendly, conciliatory observation from his noble friends. In the light of my own experiences I think he will get friendly observations, but I doubt if he will get the substance. But I am all in favour of his getting friendly words, by all means. Some of the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite could learn something about friendly words. It is good for Parliamentary business. My objection to this is that first the effect must be ascertained. The Minister can direct the local authorities, all of them, how to do their work. The noble Viscount said he does not mean that. It comforts me. All I would say to the noble Lord who will reply is that I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I think the Minister has quite enough power of legislating and de-legislating, directing and so on. We do not want to put local authorities into the hands of the Minister, as if they were puppets of Whitehall. I thought the idea was to emancipate the local authorities from Whitehall. It is not happening, but that was the original idea.

LORD CONESFORD

I do not think that the Amendment even as drafted says that the Minister is to say exactly how it has to be done; but that it is to be set up so as to be capable of performing the work.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Tell me what it says.

LORD CONESFORD

That is how I read it.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That is another way of putting it; it comes to the same thing. The Minister has to be satisfied. Therefore, if he has to be satisfied, he can direct local authorities. That is the purpose of the Amendment. We have been arguing about transition all the time. That was part of the argument concerning 1964 and 1965. We did not then get any support from noble Lords opposite when we said that there was not time for all this new organisation to shape itself—not a word. All they did was to go into the Lobby like obedient Lobby fodder. But the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, cannot be included entirely because I believe that twice he has been with us, and for that I am grateful. I do not want to upset an old friend. But, at the same time, we argued that the Government are rushing this Bill so much they might be faced with some administrative chaos. Now the noble Viscount himself, who has not been helpful to our side of the Committee on this Bill—I have forgotten whether he ever voted with us—has become frightened of this Bill which he is supporting.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

No, I cannot have this. It does not make the slightest difference whether this changeover takes place in 1964–65 or 1974–75. There will be a year's transition. I hope the noble Lord will not go on trying to mislead the Committee on a point I did not put.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The last thing I would do would be to mislead the Committee. That is a lesson that might be learned by the present Home Secretary in another place. I never believe in deceiving Parliament. I believe in being frank and honest. The point is that we argued that in this period until 1964 and 1965 these great changes could not be ready for smooth operation. When we argued on that we had no support from the noble Viscount. Now the noble Viscount is apprehensive and nervous. He is worried about the chaos he has so steadfastly supported throughout the course of this Bill.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Nonsense!

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

That is a good sign: if he is getting cross, then I am right. I am all in favour of noble gentlemen opposite getting cross—I should have said noble Lords. Shall I get the House of Commons out of my blood sooner or later? But the truth is that this is an ill-considered measure. The Government are in such a hurry, for political motives, to destroy the Labour majority on the London County Council that it comes up with dates much too early. But I will not attack the noble Viscount too much, because I think he is beginning to see the light, and I must encourage him to continue in that way, so that on the Report stage he will perhaps see more light.

LORD CONESFORD

May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that if he will read the Amendment on the Order Paper he will see that the important words of the Amendment are the words: at or before such time as building programmes are transferred to them. Neither my noble friend nor I have the least doubt that the new authorities will set up proper staffs. What we are anxious to secure is that they have those staffs in time to deal with the programme that is transferred to them. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, may be so much opposed to this Bill that he wants it to be as bad as possible when it becomes law, but my noble friend and I want it to be as good as possible. I do not think that this is a perfect measure, but I desire to improve it rather than to retain its faults.

EARL JELLICOE

I was in some perplexity about this Amendment as I came down. First, I was in some perplexity about whether I was going to be here in time. Secondly, I was in some perplexity about precisely what it meant, and my perplexity has, if anything, been deepened by the discussion across the Chamber. Thirdly, I was in some perplexity about how to answer it. I think that my task has been made somewhat easier for me. What my noble friend is worried about is whether the impetus of the whole building programme will be maintained throughout Greater London during the transitional period. I do not think that in the inner London boroughs he need have any particular fear. There are going to be the special powers conferred on the Greater London Council which are inherent in the L.C.C. Also, the Inner London Education Authority will be taking over the existing big L.C.C. schools building programme and will be able to deploy the full resources of the G.L.C.'s Architect's Department thereon. I do not think that there is any great difficulty here. Indeed, I hope that the arrangements we have written into the Bill will enable them not only to maintain but also to increase the impetus of the building programmes in the inner London boroughs.

As for housing in the outer London boroughs, again I see no reason for my noble friend to have qualms, because the units which will form part of the new outer borough groupings have all been housing authorities in their own right up to now and it will be no great problem for them to co-ordinate their programmes within the new groupings and maintain the impetus of housing there. I grant that the schools programme in Middlesex is a more difficult Problem, but I do not think that it is in any way insuperable. I think that it needs particular attention, and I should like to have a chance of looking at the remarks which my noble friend has made in that particular respect. But that is the only respect in which his Amendment really bites and has validity.

But that said, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has said: that this Amendment embodies a degree of ministerial supervision over, an interference with, local authorities which is, I think, almost without precedent. In general, we are confident that these new London borough groupings should be able to paddle their own canoes, and it would be wrong to have the Minister being brought in in the rôle of fairy godmother or interfering grandmother in the way in which this Amendment, as I read it, would certainly bring him.

On an earlier Amendment, we were discussing whether or not there should be borough architects prescribed by Statute. That seems to me to be a little mouse of ministerial interference, compared with the mountain in this Amendment. But I should like the chance of looking at this point regarding the Middlesex educational programme which my noble friend has brought to our attention.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, particularly for the way in which he has cut his path through the political fury raised by the noble Lord opposite, right on to the point which my noble friend Lord Conesford and I were making. I welcome his offer to look at this matter again so far as it concerns Middlesex and their educational building. I do not knew whether he would suggest that I return to this subject on another stage of the Bill, because I think it is something upon which your Lordships would like to have a clear answer from the Government before this measure becomes law. Perhaps, therefore, I may at this point ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and suggest that I return to it on Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 83 [Joint committees of existing councils for consideration of certain matters]:

LORD HASTINGS

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 18, after (" borough's ") insert (" charter or ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 84 [Local Acts and instruments in and around Greater London]:

LORD HASTINGS

Amendments Nos. 272A to 272K inclusive are all consequential on the same Amendment, No. 257A, which I moved earlier and which was accepted without a Division. If it is for the convenience of the Committee, I will move them en bloc. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 96, line 18, after (" district ") insert (" or any part thereof ")

Page 97, line 1, leave out (" Greater London ") and insert (" the relevant area ")

Page 97, line 5, leave out (" Greater London ") and insert (" the relevant area ")

Page 97, line 8, leave out (" Greater London ") and insert (" the relevant area ")

Page 97, line 11, leave out from (" of ") to second (" or ") in line 12 and insert (" the relevant area, or in the relevant area ")

Page 97, line 14, leave out from (" with ") to (" by ") in line 17 and insert (" such of the appropriate councils as appear to the Minister to be interested ")

Page 97, line 24, at end insert— (" The appropriate councils for the purposes of this subsection are—

  1. (a) in relation to sewerage and sewage disposal so far as they concern the sewerage area of the Greater London Council, the Common Council and the councils of the London boroughs and county districts wholly or partly within that area;
  2. (b) in relation to land drainage, flood prevention and the like matters so far as they concern the London excluded area within the meaning of Schedule (Functions with respect to land drainage, flood prevention etc.) to this Act, the Common Council and the councils of the London boroughs and county districts wholly or partly within that area;
  3. (c) in relation to any matters not falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection, the Common Council and the councils of the London boroughs;
and also, in relation to any matter with respect to which the Greater London Council have functions, that Council.")

Page 98, line 17, after (" not ") insert (" expressly ")

Page 98, line 19, leave out (" Greater London ") and insert (" the relevant area ")

Page 98, line 20, leave out (" Greater London ") and insert (" the relevant area ")

Page 98, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert— (" (9) In this section— the relevant area" means Greater London except that—

  1. (a) in relation to sewerage and sewage disposal, it includes so much of any county district as is in the sewerage area of the Greater London Council;
  2. (b) in relation to land drainage, flood prevention and the like matters, it includes so much of any county district as in the London excluded area within the meaning of Schedule (Functions with respect to land drainage, flood prevention etc.) to this Act—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 85 agreed to.

Clause 86 [Interpretation]:

LORD HASTINGS

Amendments Nos. 273A, 273B aand 273C are also consequential in exactly the same way as the previous Amendments on Amendment No. 257A. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 99, line 38, leave out from beginning to (" Act ") and insert (" or a provision of a public general Act extending only to the whole or part of the existing county of London or a provision of an instrument made under any such local or public general ").

Page 99, line 40, leave out (" a public general ") and insert (" any other ")

Page 100, line 15, at end insert (""sewerage area of the Greater London Council" has the meaning assigned to it by section 39 of this Act").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 87 and 88 agreed to.

Clause 89 [Repeals and savings]:

9.4 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after subsection (1) to insert: (1A) Without prejudice to section 38(1) of the Interpretation Act 1889, where this Act repeals any enactment which makes provision with respect to a particular matter or particular matters and either makes, or applies some other enactment making, corresponding or different provision with respect to that matter or those matters, then, unless the contrary intention appears and, in particular, subject to any order under section 79, 80, 81. 82 or 84 of this Act, references in any enactment other than this Act, or in any instrument made under any enactment other than this Act, to the repealed enactment shall be construed as references to the enactment contained in or applied by this Act which makes the corresponding or different provision.

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hastings. This Amendment is aimed at the same problem as that raised by the Amendment No. 274 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his noble friends—the problem of construing Public and Local Acts or instruments referred to which are based on other Acts repealed by the Bill. The effect of this Amendment is that where the Bill repeals a London enactment as a consequence either of making provision on the same point or of applying the provincial code, references in other, and unrepealed, enactments are to be construed as references to the corresponding provisions made in the Bill. I hope that is very clear to your Lordships.

This method is similar, but amounts to a slight extension, as my noble friend Lord Conesford will recognise, of Section 38(1) of the Interpretation Act, which says that where a code on any subject is re-written, references in other Acts to the old code are to be construed as references to the new one. In the London Government Bill some of the provisions are, of course, different from the previous ones which are being repealed, and instances will occur when unrepealed enactments will not fit neatly into the new circumstances. Any such orders under the various clauses referred to in the Amendment will make such further detailed adaptations as are needed. We think this is a more appropriate way of dealing with the particular points of the same kind raised in Amendment No. 274. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 101, line 2, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I do not understand this either, but presumably the Lord Chancellor does. I thought he got through, with the aid of some rather full notes, explaining this legal tangle—and it is a legal tangle—with considerable ability and lucidity. I could not do it. It may be because he was so lucid that I could not follow the argument. On the whole, despite the fact that he and I do not see eye to eye on a number of things, I am prepared to chance my arm and take his word for it that it is all right.

What I am mystified about is that he got through all these legal complications, and yet when I asked him this afternoon what the word "require" meant—when a local authority was "required" to do something—he shock his head. He was not going to give an answer. He did not know.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord should realise that I am too old a fish now to rise at every fly.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here partly because he is learned. Who knows? He may at some time understand the House of Lords as well as I do. I have not been here long, but I understand it better than he does. If he now says to me that he could have told me what the word "require" meant, but that he was not going to, although he is here partly because of his learned legal knowledge, I say it s utterly discourteous and it is treating the Committee with contempt. It is refusing to give the Committee—and I mean this—some reasonable legal explanation of a simple word such as "require". He says now that he could have done it; before, he said that he could not. He nodded his head in the negative. Now he says he could have done it, but is not going to do it, merely because I asked him to. As one comrade to another, I must say that is not a good thing.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

During the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend promised to try to find words to allay the anxieties of conservators of commons that the powers to amend local Acts might be used to alter or jeopardise the present way in which certain commons are administered. I gather that the Wimbledon and Putney Conservators were particularly concerned. This Amendment has been shown to and agreed by the Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons, but it will, however, apply generally, in all cases where commons are under the control of Conservators. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 101, line 5, at end insert: (" (2A) Nothing contained in, or done by virtue of, any provision of this Act other than section 81(2)(b) or paragraph 35 of Schedule 4 shall affect the functions of the conservators of any common.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 90 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

On Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD CROOK

I regret having to divide the Committee on the last clause of the Bill, but I feel bound to do so, in view of the fact that during the eleven days we have had this Bill in Committee we have never had any satisfactory explanation on rating and valuation. We were not given one on Part VIII, on Clause 61, and now I find that the only opportunity of trying to secure any statement from the Government is to raise the issue here, because under the third subsection of Clause 90 there is applied the necessary Schedule enactments to deal with this matter. The preparations for making a rate are not the simple thing they so often appear to be when people read their local newspapers. Preparations to make the rate to be levied in 1965 and 1966 will need to commence in the autumn of 1964. They start with the collection of estimates, and the rate has to be made, presumably, before the end of March, 1965. The boroughs are to be elected in May, 1964, but will not come into being, so far as this Bill has run at the moment, as rating authorities until April 1, 1965.

The first question therefore that I pose, for, as I say, the Government have made no explanation on this matter throughout the period of this Bill, is: how can the practical difficulties in making the rate for the first year be overcome? That is not the only problem, of course. The problem of the Greater London Council also presents itself to the noble Lords, I suggest, because a similar timetable is necessary if the G.L.C. is, for its part, to be able to issue its precept before the boroughs make their rate for 1965–66. Power to the G.L.C. to issue precepts is given in paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to this Bill, and the machinery for doing so, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will know, is prescribed by Section 9 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. That is applied to the Greater London Council from April 1, 1965 (and this is quite important to note) by paragraph 5 of Schedule 14.

The doubts which have arisen consequentially which I want to put to the representatives of the Government on the Front Bench to-night are these. Will the Greater London Council be entitled to estimates of the Id. rate product before the date of February 1, 1965? I put that question particularly to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack because Section 9(2)(d) of the Rating of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, requires that every rating authority shall, before February 1 in each year, send to the county—and in Greater London it is to the Greater London Council—an estimate of the amount which would be produced in the next financial year by a rating of Id. in the pound levied in that rating area. That information is essential for fixing the amount in the pound which is to be levied by way of any precept. That is the first doubt.

The second doubt I pose to noble Lords on the Frent Bench is whether they must issue the precept within the time limit presented by Section 9(2)(e) of the Act, not less than 21 days before the beginning of the financial year. This is not a new question posed to noble Lords on the Front Bench, because it was posed in some detail in Committee "F" of the other place as long ago as March 14, 1963. It is in print, to be read by your Lordships if you wish to read it: the seventeenth sitting of that Committee on the day I have referred to, and my references are columns 815 and 816 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day. The problem was put to the Minister then and not answered, and noble Lords sitting on this Bench have, in respect of clause after clause which either dealt with rating and valuation or which had some reference to it by indications of repeals or the like, waited to hear what reply representatives of the Government on the Front Bench of this place were going to make to the problem that was posed to them in the other place.

We are in no doubt here. Some of us think that the simplest solution is to apply the relevant enactments to the Greater London Council and to the London boroughs from the time that they come into being, but provide that those enactments shall not authorise them to issue any precept or levy any rate in respect of any period before April 1, 1965. That was the kind of thing we had expected noble Lords leading on this matter to put to us at some time during the passage of this Bill; and, that not being so when we reach the final stage and the second subsection of Clause 90, as we part with the main clauses of this Bill, I am bound to raise this issue and say I will not agree at this moment that Clause 90 shall stand part.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has raised these points at a very late stage.

LORD CROOK

It is not my fault.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not complaining. I am going on to say that I despair of giving him satisfaction with regard to all of them. I will, of course, consider them carefully and communicate with him upon them after I have had an opportunity of studying the detailed argument, which was as clear as that which I advanced on the last Amendment. The noble Lord will appreciate we have taken power in Clause 81 to make a wide variety of orders to cover supplementary and transitional provisions, and I am advised that the powers taken there will enable us to deal with the particular points that the noble Lord raised. The clause we are now considering standing part provides for the Short Title and commencement, and says, in subsection (2), when particular provisions shall come into force. We have given consideration to that, and the Government have come to the conclusion that that is the right time for that to happen. At the same time, we recognise that there will be certain transitional problems, and that is why Clause 81 is drafted in such wide terms to deal with incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions.

LORD CROOK

I am bound to say that, like other noble Lords on this side, I had read Clause 81 even before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor began to speak, and I am quite clear that Clause 81 would allow this kind of thing to be covered by orders made by the Minister. But I want to submit to your Lordships: is this not a strange procedure to put to your Lordships at the end of this Bill—it is not my fault it is the end—to specify applying enactments to new authorities from April 1, 1965, and then to make an order after you have passed the Bill to give the effect of applying the enactments as from an earlier date? This is legislation gone mad. If the noble Lord who normally sits upon the Woolsack is prepared to tell me this is not so, perhaps he would explain why we should pass a Bill which

CONTENTS
Abinger, L. Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Margesson, V.
Ailwyn, L. Dundee, E. Mersey, V.
Albemarle, E. Elliot of Harwood, B. Mills, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Falmouth, V. Newton, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Ferrers, E. Ormonde, M.
Beauchamp, E. Fortescue, E. Perth, E.
Blackford, L. Fraser of North Cape, L. Powis, E.
Boston, L. Furness, V. Remnant, L.
Chesham, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] St. Oswald, L.
Clitheroe, L. Grenfell, L. Sandys, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hastings, L. Stonehaven, V.
Conesford, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Teynham, L.
Craigton, L. Ilford, L. Waleran, L.
Crathorne, L. Jellicoe, E. Wellington, D.
Derwent, L. Lothian, M. [Teller.] Wigram, L.
Devonshire, D. McCorquodale of Newton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V. Lawson, L. Shackleton, L.
Archibald, L. Lindgren, L. Shepherd, L.
Attlee, E. Listowel, E. Strabolgi, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Longford, E. Summerskill, B.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Walston, L.
Crook, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Williamson, L.
Latham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 90 agreed to accordingly.

Sixteenth Schedule [Miscellaneous modifications of enactments as from April 1, 1965]:

LORD HASTINGS

The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the powers of the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act, 1951, will continue to be available throughout the whole of Greater London including the City. For noble Lards interested, the purpose of the Act is to ensure that filling materials used in upholstery and bedding are clean. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 201, line 4, at end insert— (" 7A. in the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951, in section 35, for the definition of local authority ' there shall be substituted the following— local authority" means the council of a borough or of art urban or rural district

comes into effect on a certain date and leave it to the Minister to pass an order to bring it into operation before the date of the Bill.

9.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 19.

or the Common Council of the City of London '.")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment removing an ambiguity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 201, line 13, leave out from (" (iii) ") to end of line 14 and insert (" for the words from ' the ' onwards there shall be substituted the words ' any big centre of population other than Greater London, or ' ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

The Amendment to the Town Development Act in paragraph 9(e)(i) of the Sixteenth Schedule is unnecessarily restrictive. It prevents the Greater London Council from contributing under an arrangement by which it participates in the development. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 201, leave out lines 21 and 22.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This is a drafting Amendment. As children authorities the London borough councils and the Common Council are in all other respects put in the same position as county borough councils by Clause 47. However, paragraph 2(5) of the Eighth Schedule to the 1958 Act has hitherto escaped the sharp eyes of the Parliamentary draftsmen. The Amendment rectifies this omission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 203, line 3, at end insert— (" (c) in paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 8, for the words 'or county borough council' there shall be substituted the words 'county borough or London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London '.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is little more than a drafting Amendment relating to Section 20 of the Rent Act, 1957, in which housing trusts are involved. The Amendment provides that if the local authority which promoted the construction of the houses, or paid improvement grants in respect of them, was in the past the L.C.C., or in the future the Greater London Council, then the Greater London Council and not the borough council will be the authority with whom the association or trust must agree the maximum rent. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 203, line 3, at end insert— ("16A. In section 20(4)(b) of the Rent Act 1957, the reference to the local authority shall, in the case of houses the construction of which was promoted either by the London county council or the Greater London Council or in respect of which improvement grants were made by either of those councils under the Housing Act 1949 or the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958, be construed as a reference to the Greater London Council.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.32 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph 23, after sub-paragraph (a) to insert: (b) in section 87 for the words 'London County Council' there shall be substituted the words 'Greater London Council' and for the words 'the administrative county of London' there shall be substituted the words any inner London borough' ".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is relatively simple, and I am quite sure that I shall have the support of the Committee this evening. The Committee may remember that last year on the Transport Act the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and my noble friend Lord Silkin spoke very forcibly on the dispersal and use of the land of the various Boards which, because of reorganisation, might become available in central London. The noble Lords felt that this land should be properly developed taking into account housing with industry. As a result of pressure, the Government accepted the proposition, and they themselves produced an Amendment which was debated in your Lordships' House on April 11, 1962.

It is true that this Amendment to the Transport Act was of a temporary nature, but I think it will be recognised that the reorganisation of the various Boards will take a number of years. Therefore, since the Greater London Council is being set up, it is right that the temporary provisions should be carried forward to ensure that, whatever railway property or the like may become available for development, the new development authority, the Greater London Council, should be consulted. That is the purpose of the Amendment and I urge the Government to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 204, line 42, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD CONESFORD

I strongly support this Amendment, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his vigilance. The effect of this Amendment is to preserve Section 87 of the Transport Act, 1962. That is a very precious section for me, because, as a direct consequence of an Amendment of my own, which I carried in this House just a year and one day ago, on May 29, 1962, when with the support of all Parties we defeated the Government by 59 to 39, this very important section of the Transport Act was inserted by the Government. We could not hold the whole of our victory, but this section was inserted by the Government to meet us. It is essential that we should preserve that section of the Transport Act, 1962, and I beg to support the Amendment.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment in principle, without any comment on what kind of colours are nailed to what kind of mast. I think the case put forward by the noble Lord is perfectly right in principle. I would merely ask him to accept from me, purely as a matter of duty and not of pleasure, that the drafting is not quite what it might be. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would consider withdrawing the Amendment today against an undertaking from the Government that they will redraft one and put it down on Report stage to meet exactly the point which the noble Lord wishes.

LORD SHEPHERD

That, from the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I will willingly accept. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.36 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a very minor and rather technical drafting Amendment designed to complete a small piece of tidying up started by Schedule 16, paragraph 6. It does no more than remove any possible doubt about the definition of the London Special Area where that occurs in the Bill, and makes sure that this definition is the one that is contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 204, line 44, leave out from (" from ") to ("section ") in line 45 and insert (" ' means ' onwards there shall be substituted the words ' has the meaning assigned by ' ").—Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 17 [Repeals]:

EARL JELLICOE

This is a minor, technical and drafting Amendment. Although it mentions the city, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that he has nothing to worry about. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 208, line 55, at end insert (" In section 70, the words from ' In the city ' to ' such city' ").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is consequential on the Amendment and the new Schedule dealing with land drainage and flood prevention. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 212, line 24, at end insert—

(" 20 & 21 Geo. 5.c. 44. The Land Drain age Act 1930. Section 53(2)(a) and (b).
Section 78.").
—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment and Amendment No. 286A are linked. The purpose of these two Amendments is to cure an inconsistency in the Bill—namely, that the L.C.C.'s power to impose certain minor safety requirements at the Royal Albert Hall has been preserved only when the Hall is used for public performances of boxing and wrestling. Since the Albert Hall is generally free of statutory control in relation to safety matters there appears to be little point in retaining particular powers relating to minor aspects of safety. Other provisions of Schedule 17 remove this statutory control when the Albert Hall is used for public music and dancing, and this Amendment, together with its linked Amendment, removes such control when it is used for boxing and wrestling. I hope, in view of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is not with us, the Committee can agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 212, line 30, leave out (" except section 22(2) ").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

We regard this as an important Amendment without any political flavour. On page 213, line 45, we are referred to the London Building (Amendment) Act, 1935. My advice is that this should be the London Building Act (Amendment) Act. Therefore, I move this for clarification and amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 213, line 45, after (" Building ") insert (" Act ").—(Lord Shepherd.)

EARL JELLICOE

If only with a view to preserving that harmony which has distinguished all our proceedings on this Bill, I am glad to inform your Lordships that I can accept this Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his co-operation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon 251C, dealing with Superannuation Acts. I beg to move. Page 214, column 3, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert (" In section 40(1), in the definition of local authority, the words metropolitan borough '. ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is consequential on the new clause on the Green Belt. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 215, line 8, at end insert—

"1 & 2 Geo. 6.c. xciii. The Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938. In section 17(5), the words from 'and section' to '1934'.
In section 35, the words from '(or in' to '1888)' and the words from 'and the' onwards.").
—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 215, line 9, column 3, to leave out from (" 5 ") to end of line 12.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

This really is a consequential Amendment because the Government have already accepted an Amendment that the naming and numbering of streets in Greater London shall be dealt with by the Greater London Council, and no doubt they will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 215, line 39, leave out (" Part II ").—(Lord Champion.)

EARL JELLICOE

I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that I can accept this Amendment, more especially since I see that my noble friend Lord Hastings has joined the ranks of the Quislings.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment is consequential upon Amendments 160, 187, and 191. They have already been approved by your Lordships' Committee, with the blessing of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 215, line 39, at end insert (" Section 38 (3)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

This Amendment deals with the repeal of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939. We seek to omit from the repeal paragraphs 8 to 11 inclusive. Briefly, these are the reasons. Paragraph 8 deals with the naming and numbering of streets and buildings and should therefore be retained. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 relate to those provisions of the London Buildings Act which will continue in force under Clause 43 of this Bill and it is thought that their inclusion here must be an error. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 215, line 49, leave out (" (viii) to (xi), ").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD HASTINGS

This is in fact consequential upon Amendments made to Clause 43. I see my name is joined with that of the noble Lords, Lord Lindgren, Lord Latham and Lord Crook, and Lord Champion who has moved it. I am delighted about this and am glad to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

These repeals are consequential upon the following provisions of the London Building Act, 1939. Section 155(1)(b) is a saving clause for the powers of local authorities to carry out street works. Section 155(2)(a) is a similar saving in connection with the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act which is repealed by this Bill. Section 156 deals with the defraying by the London County Council of their expenses under the London Buildings Acts. The Government Amendment 161A said that this section shall cease to have effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 215, line 56, at end insert (" In section 155, subsections (1)(b) and 2(a). Section 156.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment repeals the specific reference to the London County Council in the definition of "local highway authority" preserved in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, for the purposes of the New Towns Act, 1946. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 216, line 6, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 47. The Town and Country Planning Act 1944. In section 65(1) as applied by and for the purposes of the New Towns Act 1946, in the definition of local highway authority, the words from and ' onwards.").
—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment, consequential upon No. 276A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 220, column 3, leave out lines 31 to 33.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is consequential upon Amendment 278. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 222, line 29, at end insert—

("5 & 6 Eliz. 2. c. 25. The Rent Act 1957. In section 20(4)(b) the words from '(or the' to ' 1949) '.").
—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS: This is consequential on Amendment 151A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

SCHEDULE 17

Page 223, leave out lines 10 and 11.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

This is consequential on Amendment 279. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 224, line 23, column 3, leave out (" (including the County of London) ' and ").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment to delete a reference which is no longer required, because it is being repealed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 225, line 17, at end insert (" In section 150, the words and fourteen '.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is consequential upon Amendment 152B. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 228, leave out lines 17 and 18.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

Schedule 17 to this Bill proposes to repeal Section 68 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1961. This empowers metropolitan borough councils to tidy up existing war damage and other derelict sites at their own expense where they consider such action desirable on amenity grounds. That section is easier to operate and in many respects is more suitable than the alternative power in Section 34 of the Public Health Act, 1961. We see no reason to go back on a decision of Parliament, made as recently as 1961, that this special obligation in dealing with war damage in London should be carried out under the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1961. Since that Act is being repealed we should like to see this particular provision included in the Bill now before the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 228, leave out lines 19 to 21.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment gives me a last opportunity of making a lengthy speech during the Committee stage of this Bill, but I am glad to say to noble Lords opposite that we are sympathetic with the purpose of this Amendment and believe that it could be dealt with by being written into the Bill. I give the assurance that if the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment now, we will bring in a suitable Amendment on Report stage.

LORD SHEPHERD

I will not deny the fact that I take the noble Lord's reply with some disappointment. I had hoped that we could end this long Committee stage with a Division: that would have been an appropriate way of doing it. But obviously I must respond to the noble Lord's gesture. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I claim the last Amendment? Section 2 of the Nursing Homes Act repeals, with effect from May, 1964, the provisions in the Public Health Acts under which certain institutions not carried on for profit are exempted from registration. This section will be spent by April 1, 1965. It is therefore possible to repeal the whole section, and not merely the reference in it to Section 246 of the Public Health (London) Act.

This is the last Amendment on the Committee stage and I should like to express my thanks to my noble friends Lord Jellicoe, Lord Hastings, Lord Newton and Lord Chesham for the great work they have done, and for the satisfactory answers, and answers that ought to have been satisfactory, which they have given to the Amendments raised. At the same time, may I thank noble Lords opposite for the fact that, despite their moments of pepperiness, we have concluded the Committee stage to-day?

Amendment moved—

Page 228, line 57, at end insert:

("1963 c. 13. The Nursing Homes Act 1963. In section 1(1), the words ' and Part XI of the Public Health (London) Act 1936'.
In section 1(2), the words 'and under section 242 of the Public Health (London) Act'.
In section 1(5), the words 'or section 247 of the Public Health (London) Act 1936'.
Section 2.").
—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.