Lords Sitting of 19 October 1972

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

VIETNAM: INTERNATIONAL CONTROL COMMISSION
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use their good offices as Chairman of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China to resolve the dispute between the International Control Commission for Vietnam and the Saigon Administration which has led the Commission to transfer its headquarters to Hanoi.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, neither Her Majesty's Government nor the international Control Commission consider that there has been any dispute between the Commission and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam. The dispute to which the noble Lord is referring is no doubt that between the Government of India and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam. This arose following a decision of the Government of India in January, 1972, to raise the status of its representation in Hanoi to that of an Embassy.
The International Control Commission has made the internal administrative change of moving its headquarters to Hanoi. But the International Control Commission continues to be represented in both Saigon and Hanoi. We have not intervened in this bilateral dispute since neither the juridical basis nor the practical effectiveness of the International Control Commission's work are affected by the move.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that very full reply, may I ask him whether he would agree that the International Commission
2004
in its earlier years did very effective work but later was ignored—even boycotted? Is it not the case that, despite what he has said, the change from Saigon to Hanoi has been the result of the Saigon Government's refusal to extend the visas of the Indian delegation on the Commission which has compelled them to leave.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that may well be so; but the dispute, as I say, is between the Government of India and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam in this matter. I quite agree with what the noble Lord says that the Control Commission in its early days was more effective than it is now, but we still hope it has a useful part to play.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would the noble Marquess, after that full Answer, endeavour to have placed in our Library a complete, bound volume of all the reports of the International Control Commission because, without prejudice, just to read it would make some people come to conclusions different from those they have reached already. I should not like to prejudice my question, but I believe that it would be worth while doing that.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly look into the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek.

OXFORD LISTED BUILDING ALTERATION
3.9 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Oxford City Council consulted the Ancient Monuments Society and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, as they are required to do by statutory regulation, before permitting the partial demolition of 126 Oxford High Street, a Grade 1 listed building; and if not, whether the Secretary of State for the Environment will refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, as this proposal was dealt with as an alteration of a listed building, the direction requiring notification of national amenity societies did not apply.
LORD KENNET: But, my Lords, since in fact the greater part of the building was demolished, was it not an indefensible way of dealing with it on the part of the Oxford City Council that they should have called it an alteration?
LORD SANDFORD: That is a matter of opinion, my Lords. The question of whether an operation is an "alteration" or a "demolition" is a matter in the first case for the judgment of the local planning authority and, in the last resort, of the courts. It is not for me to pass judgment on it.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is there not a point where destruction or partial destruction of a building ends and irreparable damage is started, so that the building can no longer be restored to its previous condition? Are there any rules on this subject?
LORD SANDFORD: Indeed, my Lords, whether it is an alteration or a demolition my Department has to be informed, and they were in this case. The proposal has to be advertised, and it was in this case. A site notice has to be placed on the building, and it was in this case.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it not the case that the whole building was demolished except the facade? If the Church authorities were to put in for permission to alter St. Paul's and were to demolish the whole thing except for the West front, would the Government act in that case?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in a case like that the issue would be clear enough. In this particular case it is certainly not true that the whole of the
2006
building behind the facade was altered. The back portion of it has been altered.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, did the City Council have authority to demolish any of the building?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. As I explained in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, just now, no authority can demolish a listed building—and this is a Grade I building—without due authority, without notifying my Department, without adveristing their proposal in the Press, and without putting a site notice on the building. All those three things were done.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord describe the advertising in the Press? Would one small paragraph in very small print on one day be sufficient?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should need notice to be able to answer that question accurately. I do not have the full information on the precise size of the advertisement as it appeared, but I can look into that and let the noble Baroness know.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I apologise if I missed it during the ensuing discussion, but did the noble Lord answer the last part of my Question: will the Government refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. Furthermore, even if the point that I made in my original Answer did not apply, I am advised that a failure to comply with a direction under this legislation does not constitute a criminal offence.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the Society for Ancient Monuments and, to give its full title, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, keeping its eye on the Houses of Parliament and the bumping and thumping that is now shaking the foundations here?

AIR FARES AND I.A.T.A. MEETING
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress was made at the recent annual meeting of IATA held in London on the desirability of providing individual excursion fares for air travellers in view of the statement by the Prime Minister that it was for IATA to make sure that the benefits of travel were made available to as many people as possible and as cheaply as possible; and if they will make a Statement.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the IATA annual general meeting left no doubt about Her Majesty's Government's view on the desirability of simple and inexpensive air transport on international routes. This annual general meeting was a comparatively short meeting at which no detailed fare discussions took place. Discussions on fares are at present taking place among the airlines at Torremolinos. As the noble Baroness knows, the Civil Aviation Authority are responsible for the consideration and approval of air fares. I understand that they are keeping in touch with the discussions, and would, I am sure, be glad to give the noble Baroness any information they can.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. While finding no indication in the Prime Minister's speech that his suggestions should be limited to the North Atlantic routes, could the Minister say whether the IATA discussions in Torremolinos, adjourned, I believe, until November 8, will include the matter of part charters in Europe?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, these matters are under consideration. As the noble Baroness will know, arrangements of this sort require the agreement not only of the airlines but of the Gov
2008
ernments at both ends of the route. Initially the invitation to apply for licences concerned the North Atlantic and Caribbean, but it is to be hoped that it will be extended at a later date to other routes as well.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, and taking it that he said that part charters in Europe will be discussed at Torremolinos, may I ask him whether he realises that what is required is an advance booking scheme by which individual members of the public, prepared to book, say, three months in advance, may be able to reserve seats on scheduled flights anywhere? And would the Government emphasise to IATA the words of the Prime Minister:
"If scheduled carriers do not provide simple and inexpensive transport, these passengers wilt look elsewhere and no-one could blame them."
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I think the emphasis to IATA was given by the Prime Minister himself. This statement received a great deal of publicity and undoubtedly would have been carefully noted. The question of seats on scheduled services is of course quite a different one, but the noble Baroness will know that there are many facilities currently available. I would mention "Early bird" fares to Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Caribbean, already in existence, Apex advanced purchase excursion fares available to points in Scandinavia, and the Ipex scheme which is available to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. There are many facilities of this sort currently available on scheduled airlines.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the British air operators are to be congratulated on taking the lead in this matter among world operators, and could every encouragement be given to apply the same treatment elsewhere?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Earl convey to his noble colleague, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the steps he has taken to clear up the mess of the affinity groups are wholly welcome; but would he also bear in mind that there is much to be done if the

2009
Prime Minister's admirable objective in regard to individual fare-paying passengers is to be achieved? And as the Prime Minister made such an excellent speech on this matter recently, would he advise his right honourable friend in future to confine his speeches to this sphere?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, dealing with the first part of the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, yes, I will certainly ensure that the attention of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is drawn to this point.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would advise his colleague, the Prime Minister, to make a similar speech to British Rail?

BRITISH AIRWAYS WEST LONDON TERMINAL
3.18 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if it meets the convenience of your Lordships, and in view of the undertaking which my noble friend the Leader of the House gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, at Question Time yesterday, I should like to make a further Statement on the West London Air Terminal.
In order to clarify their position B.E.A. have to-day issued a statement, and with your Lordships' permission I will read it. The statement is as follows:
"B.E.A. are co-operating with the Metra Consulting Group on a study being made at Heathrow Airport. The Corporation wish to make it clear that they have made no decision to withdraw check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal and furthermore that no decision will be taken until after the Metra Report has been completed. The Report is expected about the end of this year."
My Lords, that is the end of B.E.A.'s statement.
The House will recall that on August 4 last I gave the noble Baroness an assurance that B.E.A.'s decision to close the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal would be delayed until after the Metra Consulting Group's Report was made. The statement which has been issued by B.E.A. to-day makes it clear that the assurance which I gave to this House on August 4 stands.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister and the Leader of the House for obtaining this statement. May I say that I welcome the co-operation being shown between B.E.A. and the Metra Group. May I ask the Minister whether this corrected statement will be published by B.E.A. in a forthcoming edition of their B.E.A. News, because in the edition of October 12 some three pages were given to the erroneous statement that was made last week?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am aware of what was written in that newspaper, and it is in order to clarify the position that B.E.A. have made this statement to-day. I am quite certain that it would be improper for me to conjecture as to what would be put in the next issue of B.E.A.'s newspaper, but I am sure they have every desire to see that their reports are as accurate as possible.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we admire the use of the word "clarify" here, but may one ask the noble Earl whether "controvert" would not be a better word to use?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if it had been a better word, I would have used it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Earl trying to deny that it would be a more accurate word?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords, I was trying to clarify the position.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us how members of the public can get in touch with the Metra Consulting Group, assuming that they do not have the good fortune to be questioned by the Group at Heathrow?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Metra Consulting Group are undertaking a certain project which has been laid on by my right honourable friend, and they have had to determine how best to get in touch with members of the public. As I told my noble friend on a previous occasion, some 1,200 people have been consulted.
LORD TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords; but is it possible to write to the Group?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if my noble friend has any point which he wishes to draw to their attention, if he would be kind enough to let me have it I will see that it is passed on to the Group concerned.

PEERS' RECEPTION FOR STAFF
3.22 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the Icelandic fisheries dispute at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
As many of your Lordships will know, there is to be a party for the staff of the House to-night as a sign of our appreciation of their work during what has been an exceptionally gruelling Session. In order that as many of the staff as possible may attend this party, I hope that the House may be able to adjourn by 6 o'clock, when the party starts. Secondly, I am sure that your Lordships will agree to the Peers' Guest Room and the Bishops' Bar being closed at 6 o'clock in order that the staff who have looked after us so well so far as liquid refreshment is concerned may also get to the Party.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would it not be possible to try to discover sonic different nomenclature than that which is now applied to "the Bishops' Bar"? Is it not a fact that the use of this term creates an entirely erroneous impression among people outside as to the habits of the right reverend Prelates?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, may I ask why the noble Lord opposite should think that it gives an erroneous impression?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in view of the comment of the right reverend Prelate, I really do not feel that any further remarks from me are necessary.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I hope he will not alter the name, because the Bishops' Bar is the only place here where one can get a drink on sanctified ground?

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ADMISSION CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
3.24 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHANI OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I now have to call Amendment No. 1, but perhaps I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the three Amendments on the Marshalled List, Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 16, cannot be read except in connection with the Bill as amended on Report, and the printed copy of the Bill which is before your Lordships is the Bill as it was amended on Committee. Therefore, I propose, in calling Amendment No. 1, to point out to your Lordships that the text of the Bill as amended on Report on page 6, line 45 should be:
"of metropolitan district councillors are held, and …"
I call Amendment No. 1.
Clause 8 [Constitution and membership of Greater London Council and London borough councils]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 45 (as amended on Report by Amendment 31), after ("of") leave out ("metropolitan") and insert ("non-metropolitan").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 8 deals with the constitution and membership of the Greater London Council and the London borough councils. The Amendment I move is to what was line 45 of page 6 of the Bill as it was before Report. It is to leave out "metropolitan" and insert"non-metropolitan "after" of". The word "metropolitan" was inserted at Report stage. I said then that it was a matter of regret that the Amendment had not been introduced at the Committee stage, since this would have permitted a freer discussion of its merits. I asked that some further thought might be given to the points of criticism I had made, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that he would be glad to look at it again. He repeated a little later, at column 1687 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for October 17:
"I will certainly look at it again."
I indicated that it might be necessary to table an Amendment at Third Reading. This matter was dealt with only on Report, on Tuesday, and because of the time factor, and in the absence of any indication as to whether or what thought had been given to the matter, I had no alternative but to table this Amendment last evening, since manuscript Amendments are not allowed on Third Reading.
May I say that I have no criticism to make of the noble Viscount? This Bill has placed on Ministers in this House a very heavy burden. It has been, not only for them but I think for everybody taking an active part in it, a somewhat gruelling experience. Whatever blame there is must be attached, I think, not to Ministers who have been responsible for this Bill, but to the very unsatisfactory arrangement of the Government's legislative programme in this and the other place. Further, I fully understand that the noble Viscount has many other responsibilities ranging over a very wide field, and that he has been considerably stretched. May I say that this week I have admired the
2014
manner in which he has endeavoured to discharge the variety of responsibilities that have been placed on him.
I asked him on Report whether there has been, or whether it is intended that there shall be, any consultations with the London Boroughs Association. I should certainly like an answer on that point, because I think that, as the clause is now worded, the London boroughs will be committed to annual elections. When the noble Viscount was speaking on Tuesday he said, and I refer to column 1687:
"… there was a firm undertaking given earlier that no order would be made under this subsection (2) against the wishes of the London boroughs."
May I now quote what was said by Mr. Graham Page when the matter was before the other place? On July 17 at columns 116 and 117 he said:
"On the issue of annual or quadrennial elections, we have taken powers to proceed by order, after consultation with all those concerned. The last thing I wanted to do was to rush it into the Bill. That is why we have taken those powers for the Secretary of State. In using the phrase `taking powers' I am repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said. We are taking those powers for the benefit of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs to enable us to do what they want us to do. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Secretary of State ordering something which is not wanted by those local authorities."
The position of the metropolitan districts—and it is what is proposed in the Bill for metropolitan districts that will apply in London as the clause now stands—is set out on page 4 of the Bill at Clause 6(1)(b), which states:
"every metropolitan district shall be divided into wards, each returning a number of councillors which is divisible by three".
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): It is Clause 6(2)(b).
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Then, my Lords, if I may quote Clause 7—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Clause 7(2).
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the Minister has the point, so I need not weary the House by reading it. But it certainly lays down that one-third of the council will retire every year. In case there is any doubt about that, may I

2015
refer to page 238, paragraph 4, which certainly lays that down. If the Minister will look at paragraph 4, towards the bottom of the page, I think he will see that I am accurate in what I have said. Therefore, this will mean annual elections for London, except in the year of county elections. London has always had triennial elections; it is traditional. The requirement to have three member wards, or multiples of three, will cause a tremendous upheaval in London which, again by tradition, has a varying number of councillors for wards, some having one, some having two, some having three or four or even more. London was reorganised some ten years ago, with consequent upheaval. Ward boundaries were completely redrawn, and I am informed that some of the reorganisation of wards was not completed until this year. If the Minister is to require three member wards, the whole system will have to be upset again. The effect of my Amendment would be to keep options open and to allow unfettered consultations to take place.
Clause 7(4) reads as follows:
"Subject to subsection (5) below, a non-metropolitan district council may in pursuance of the requisite resolution request the Secretary of State to provide—

(a) for a system of whole council elections, that is to say, the holding of the ordinary elections of all the councillors of the district simultaneously; or

(b) for a system of elections by thirds, that is to say, the election of one-third, as nearly as may be, of the councillors of the district at the ordinary elections of such councillors in any year".

That would appear to me to be in line with what I understood the Minister to mean when he dealt with the position in July. I hope that I have clearly understood the position under the Bill, because my motive in putting this Amendment forward this afternoon is to be as helpful as I possibly can be to ensure that in the case of London they have the choice, that consultations—when they take place—will be unfettered, and that it will be possible for the London boroughs themselves to decide which is to their advantage and to their liking. The Amendment also confers on them the same degree of choice, the same element of freedom, in regard to this matter as non-metropolitan districts have throughout the
2016
rest of the country. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I first very sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his kind words about me? I am sorry that I was half-witted about this matter the other day, but it is a very difficult point of drafting and the noble Lord need make no apology whatever for coming back to it. The Bill in the present form is, I promise him, right. His Amendment would add uncertainty and possibly lack of powers to make the choice that he and I both want. May I try to explain to him why? It is the most subtle point that I have come across for a long time, and it has taken me practically all morning to understand it myself.
The situation is this. Under the Bill, the metropolitan district councils will get elected, as the noble Lord said—I am not taking into account at all the transitional provisions; I am talking about when the system gets properly under way—as to one-third in the first year, another third in the second year, a third third in the third year and in the fourth year there will be a rest. That is the year of county elections. There will be no elections for the metropolitan districts in that year. That is the invariable position under the Bill for metropolitan districts. For non-metropolitan districts, the prima facie position, the normal position, unless they do something about it, is that all the councillors will get elected every fourth year being a year about half-way between the county council elections. But they have a choice, if they want it, to have an order made, district council by district council, by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to go over to the metropolitan district council system so that they, too, will have a third of the council elected in the first three years of the cycle and then a fallow year in the fourth. Therefore, when this system gets fully into operation, some non-metropolitan district councils will be on the four-yearly election basis for the whole council, and some may choose to go on to the other system which the metropolitan districts will all have.
What we want to do is to ensure that the London boroughs have the fullest possible choice open to them—because

2017
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that my right honourable friend in another place made the statement which the noble Lord read out—and we do not wish in any way to circumscribe the area of consultation which will take place before any change occurs. Therefore, we have the situation that we want to get the Bill right so that the orders can be made in the widest number of forms possible. There are three possibilities. The London borough councils might want to stay as they are and have all council elections every three years, all members coming up and standing together every three years. That is the present system. They might want to go over to a system, which is the normal system for non-metropolitan councils, whereby they all get elected every fourth year instead of every third year. Or they might want to go over to a system whereby they are brought into line with the metropolitan districts and have elections of a third, a third and a third in the first three years, and then a fallow year in the fourth. We want to make perfectly certain that we can bring about all three of those situations.
As to the first, it is perfectly plain that that will be achieved if no order at all is made. Therefore, if that was what was wanted there would be no need to use the powers under Clause 8(2)(b) and (c) at all. What we want to make sure is that we can carry out the other two options under the powers in the Bill. Now we can and I will tell the noble Lord how. If they want to go over to a system of electing all their members not once every three years but once every four years then one looks very carefully indeed at Clause 8(2)(b). The wording here is crucial because the order can secure that the ordinary elections of London borough councillors are held in years in which ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors are held—not in the same years, but in years. All one has to do, therefore, is to choose a year or a series of years at four-yearly intervals (I have done the mathematics, and it works) when the metropolitan district councils will be having one of their three phases of election, and then one turns over the London borough councils, so that they have the full council election in any one
2018
of those three years. By that method they can change over from a three-yearly to a four-yearly cycle using the words in Clause 8(2)(b) alone. I have done the mathematics on the number of years that are required, and it will work. There will be a four-yearly cycle which coincides with there being an election for one of the one-thirds of the metropolitan districts in that year.
The other choice—that is to say, if they want to go over fully to the metropolitan district council system of having four-yearly cycles but with elections of one-third of the members in all of the first three—requires an order under Clause 8(2)(b) and Clause 8(2)(c), because, first of all, under Clause 8(2)(b) you say that there will be three elections of a third each (that is, again, years in which the ordinary elections of metropolitan districts are held, so the order covers that) and then, under Clause 8(2)(c), you secure that for the fourth year the councillors so elected do not have to retire as they do under the present law, but can continue to stay for the fourth year without there being any retirement. That is the way it would work. I agree that it is exceedingly complicated, but that is the way it would work.
My Lords, I do not want to take this too fast because I know that it is extremely complicated. May I just mention the point about three-member wards? If the London boroughs wish to remain on a triennial cycle of elections for the whole council, there is no necessity for them to alter the number of members per ward. If they want to go over to a four-yearly cycle of the whole council, there is no necessity for them to alter the number of members in a ward. Only if they wish to adopt the metropolitan district council system and have one-third of their councillors retiring for the first of each of the three years of the four-year cycle do they require to go over to a three-member ward system. Therefore, there are two choices left to them whereby they do not have to do it, and one whereby they can. My Lords, I have explained the system. The drafting of the Bill allows all those three options to be open to the London boroughs, for them to consult about it to their hearts' content with my right honourable friend.

2019
If we put in the noble Lord's "non-metropolitan districts" instead of metropolitan districts" as in the Bill, we get into the position that there will be two different forms of election going for non-metropolitan districts, one of them being the normal system of a full election every four years and the other, in some cases, being the metropolitan district pattern. In those circumstances, which, in law, are the years in which ordinary elections of non-metropolitan district councillors can be said to be held? There will be no general pattern; and there is doubt, I am advised—and I must say that I agree with this—whether there would be powers, under that wording, to make all the sorts of order that we both agree should be made. I assure the noble Lord that all the options are open under the wording "metropolitan". If we use the wording "non-metropolitan", there is certainly doubt, and there could be challenges in the courts about anything other than leaving the system as it is. I have studied this very carefully. I am sorry if I have given an obscure explanation, but it is the very best I can do after a good deal of study and discussion. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied that we have looked at this matter carefully, obscure though it is, and that the fullest range of options is open, and will remain open, to the London boroughs under this drafting.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, earlier this afternoon one of the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench said that he wished to clarify something. I think we are involved in a process of clarification once again, and I think I am capable of following everything that has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I simply want to clarify it a little further, and perhaps I can best do that by asking three questions. First, how will this consultation with the boroughs take place? Will each individual borough be consulted, or will the Association of London Boroughs be consulted? Secondly, will some of the boroughs be able to choose to have elections of one-third of their members every year; and, thirdly, if they do, will some
2020
others be able to choose to have the whole council retiring and being re-elected each three or four years?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if I may, with leave, answer the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, I think it is important that we should get as much clarity into this matter as possible. As I understand it, the preliminary internal thoughts among the London boroughs themselves are being put together by the London Boroughs Association, and it will probably be with them that the consultations are held, for the reason (and this is in answer to the noble Lord's second question) that they all have to go the same way. They cannot switch about, one doing one thing and one doing the other. They will therefore have to form either a common or, at any rate, a majority view as to what is to be done and this, I think, would be most satisfactorily achieved through the Association.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount for the very full explanation that he has given? It is indeed a very involved matter. I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that I have grasped'what he has been explaining to the House. The advantage of this debate is that it will probably, or at least possibly, alert somebody in the other place to the points that we have been considering, and it will give them an opportunity to study what the noble Viscount has said here this afternoon. I have very great respect for his legal knowledge and ability, and at the moment I certainly cannot challenge anything that he has said. But I think the Commons, since the introduction of the word "metropolitan" was itself an Amendment, will have an opportunity, if they see fit, further to amend the clause. In those circumstances, I trust that your Lordships will feel that this debate has been worthwhile. I certainly feel that I have been justified in raising the point, and with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Disqualifications for election and holding office as member of local authority.]:
3.48 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 56, line 28, at end insert—
("(6) In this section "joint committee" shall mean a joint committee appointed pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of this Act and "joint board" shall mean a joint board all the members of which are representatives of local authorities as provided by section 174(1)(e) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause deals with disqualifications for election and holding office as far as membership of a local authority is concerned. During the progress of this Bill I have tried at each stage to reduce the limitations that apply to some of those working in local government. I have been unsuccessful, and I wish to carry that fight no further on this Bill. I think that at least something has been gained by the discussions on Amendments that have been moved by myself or by my noble friends, since the position as to persons working for joint boards or joint committees has been somewhat clarified.
Subsection (1) of the clause reads:
"Subject to the provisions of Section 81 below a person shall be disqualified for being elected or being a member of a local authority if he—

(a) holds any paid office or employment (other than the office of chairman, vice-chairman or deputy-chairman) appointments to which are or may be made or confirmed by the local authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority or by a joint board or joint committee on which the authority are represented or by any person holding any such office or employment; or …".

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the definitions he gave as reported in col. 1733 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for October 17. I will spare your Lordships quoting what he said. It is there in the Record and for my purpose this afternoon that will suffice. I submit that what the Minister said is most helpful, except that what he said is not in the Bill, and when it becomes an Act it will matter little what he said. If a case arises and is taken before the courts there is going to be some considerable difficulty, and whoever hears the case will say, "It does not matter
2022
what the Minister said; I have to decide the issue on the words in the Act".
I suggest that if the definitions of joint boards and joint committees are written into the Bill along the lines of my Amendment the intention of Parliament will be clear. There is a great deal in Part VI about them. Clause 174 covers joint boards. I have tried to be helpful. It seems to me that defining here what is meant when the words "joint board" or "joint committee" are used would be extremely helpful and would avoid a great deal of trouble. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government and will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
3.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I ask the permission of the House to repeat the Statement which has been made in another place this afternoon by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is the Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to made a statement about the very regrettable and serious deterioration in the situation concerning our fishing vessels operating in the waters around Iceland.
"As a result of discussions held between my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Icelandic Foreign Minister in New York on September 28, we have been able to clarify the positions of the two sides on a possible interim arrangement. There is indeed a wide gap between us but we feel on the British side that it is still worth while holding further discussions in an attempt to bridge the gap. We informed the Icelandic Government accordingly on October 11.
"On October 16, before any reply had been received, Icelandic gunboats embarked on a course of systematic interference with British vessels. In one case they have fired warning shots and in one case a gunboat attempting to cut the trawl wires of a British vessel collided with it, tearing a hole in the side of the trawler and endangering

2023
the lives of the crew. We shall be claiming compensation.
"I summoned the Icelandic Ambassador yesterday and formally protested at the Icelandic Government's action. I expressed to him the Government's sense of outrage, and that of Parliamentary and public opinion, at this resumption of Icelandic harassment. I made it clear that we reserve the right in the event of further interference to take, without further notice, such measures as we may consider appropriate to protect our vessels. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Reykjavik has spoken in similar terms to the Icelandic Foreign Minister.
"We still believe that it is in the interest of both Governments that discussions should continue and we have had the full support throughout of the trawler owners, skippers and crews in this. But I must make it plain that British vessels must be free from harassment.
"I would emphasise that throughout this unhappy dispute we for our part have acted entirely in accordance with international law and we shall continue to do so.
"In August we obtained an interim order from the International Court under which, and pending the final determination of the proceedings, we are required to observe certain restrictions on our catch in the waters in dispute, while the Government of Iceland are required to refrain from enforcing their regulations against British vessels and from interfering or threatening to interfere with them. The same order calls upon both Governments to avoid action capable of aggravating or extending the dispute. British vessels are fishing around Iceland in accordance with that order and the Government will continue to maintain their right to do so.
"The British Government and the British industry have behaved with great restraint during this dispute. That restraint is still being exercised. There is, I believe, still the opportunity for an early and amicable negotiated arrangement which will be satisfactory to both parties, pending a definite settlement. I must warn the Icelandic
2024
Government that we expect them to show the same restraint."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is a Statement I am certain that neither House will have liked to hear, because it is a very serious one indeed and I am certain that the Government will do whatever they can to avoid another cod war.
May I ask one or two questions about the Statement? The Minister says:
"… we have been able to clarify the position of the two sides on a possible interim arrangement."
While there is a wide gap on a definitive statement, can the noble Marquess tell us how wide the gap is between the two Governments on what might be the possible arrangement in the intervening period? This is important. I suppose that it would be asking a little too much to ask what is the "interim arrangement" that has been suggested by the Government, but in any case we should like to know just what differences there may be. The Statement also says:
"we informed the Icelandic Government accordingly on October 11".
We know the action that they took on October 16. Are we to understand that even since that date they have still not replied to the letter from the British Government? While we note that the Government intend to take action I shall press to know what kind of action it is. When one thinks of the great reserve shown in this matter by the British industry it is good to know that the Government intend to protect British vessels, but we should all like to know what measures are proposed. I am sure that everything will be done to protect the lives of British fishermen.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his remarks and entirely endorse the last statement he made, about protecting the lives of British fishermen—indeed, this is Her Majesty's Government's prime responsibility. The noble Lord will realise that I cannot give him any details about the negotiations which are proceeding at the present time except to say that, as I am sure he knows, a delegation has been in Iceland very re

2025
cently indeed and talks were progressing in a reasonably satisfactory manner. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that at the present time.
I think it is true to say that there has still been no reply from the Icelandic Government to the letter of October 11, although if I find that I am wrong I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am very sorry that the Icelandic Government should have embarked on this course of harassment because I feel that it must damage any case they may have. I do not know whether under international law they have a case. While accepting everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has said about protecting the fishing industry and our fishermen, I feel that it ought to be said that many people nevertheless have some sympathy towards a small country like Iceland, with such very limited means of making their own livelihood.
THE MARQESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think the answer to that is that this is one of the reasons why we want to come to an arrangement with the Icelandic Government which is agreeable to both sides.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, in the light of what happened some years ago in the cod war, and since the International Court found in our favour, do not the Government think that we ought to stop being pushed about and that our Navy should be sent in to protect our trawlers outside the 12-mile limit?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I have given the Government's undertaking that they will certainly take whatever measures are necessary to protect our fishing vessels in this respect.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, my noble friend, when repeating the Statement which was made in another place, said that we had observed our obligations under international law. I wonder whether he could define those in this respect. Have we the right under international law to protect our fishing vessels who are fishing outside the legal limit of 12 miles? If we have that right, are we exercising it?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, I am no
2026
lawyer; but I think that I should be right in saying that under the interim injunction that we have obtained from the International Court we have the right that he is asking about.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is it not the case that on a previous occasion when this dispute was before the International Court and the decision went in favour of Iceland, Iceland was very grateful for the decision and we accepted it? Are we not now simply asking that Iceland should accept a decision from the same Court? While I do not want to widen this particular question, is it not the fact that talk of the limited economic possibilities for Iceland is rather exaggerated and that Iceland and her people at the present time—and we do not complain about it—enjoy just about the highest standard of living inside Europe?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is true. Nevertheless, I am sure that the House will wish to see this unhappy dispute satisfactorily concluded.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, is it not a fact that a very large number of our own people—on the Humber, in Scotland, at Fleetwood and at other fishing ports—depend upon the fishing industry for their livelihood? Should not that be our first consideration?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Certainly, my Lords.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
4.4 p.m.
Debate continued on Amendment No. 2.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, as the Statement has intervened in the consideration of Amendment No. 2, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat the purpose and effect of Lord Garnsworthy's Amendment which he has explained. As I understand it, the noble Lord's intention is to clarify the principal disqualification provision where it disqualifies a person who is holding an office or employment appointment which is made or confirmed by the local authority or a joint

2027
board or a joint committee on which the authority are represented. The effect of the Amendment is that it would declare that a joint committee means a committee appointed under Clause 101(1)(b) and a joint board would mean a board all the members of which are local authority representatives.
So far as joint committees are concerned, I think that we ought to realise that Clause 100(9) contains a long list of excepted enactments relating to education, police, social services and others. In these fields, any joint committee formed has to be formed under the excepted enactment; in other words, under Clause 109 as printed and not under Clause 101(1)(b) to which the Amendment refers. What would happen is that the Opposition Amendment would fail to include officers appointed by any joint committees of education, social services, police and so on. From what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, I know that this was not his intention, in that he would be making the disqualification more restrictive and, as I made clear on a previous stage, it would not be the intention of the Government. So far as the joint boards are concerned, here again the Amendment would be restrictive in that it refers to all the members. I think that it is desirable in this context to cater for the possibility of an appointment being made or confirmed by a body which does not consist entirely of local authority representatives and could perhaps include Ministerial appointments or co-opted appointments. It may be that the noble Lord does not agree with me: but if he does, it is again making Clause 80 more restrictive.
My Lords, I tried to give a definition of joint committee and joint board at column 1733 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for October 17. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy (at column 1740), was good enough to say that the explanation was of some help; and he has kindly repeated that to-day. What I hope emerged from that debate was that the apprehensions previously expressed about this matter of joint committees and joint boards are groundless. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said: that what he wants to see is a definition of these two bodies printed in the Bill. For the Record, there7 fore, may I repeat in abbreviated form
2028
what I said at column 1733. It was that a joint board is a board constituted under Section 6 of the Public Health Act 1936 or similar provision for the performance of functions which would otherwise fall on the constituent authority. Joint committees are committees of local authorities for the performance of local authority functions.
My Lords, this is a local government Bill, and I can assure the House that that is the way that joint boards and joint committees are understood in the local authority world. I appreciate the concern of noble Lords opposite about this disqualification clause; but unless it is the intention of the noble Lord to make the clause more restrictive then, with respect, I do not think that this Amendment will do. I hope on the other hand that perhaps my explanation will have been of some further help.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I am sure that he appreciates that the last thing I want to do is to make the clause more restrictive. I think it would have been helpful if we had had some definition included within the clause. The House will appreciate that there has not been much time for those of us who are laymen in this field to draft Amendments or to secure help in drafting them. I still think that the point I have been striving to make is a valid one and that it deserves more attention. The pity of it is that no Amendment has been carried on this clause so that the other place will not be able to come back to it. That I very much regret. On the other hand, I would in no way wish to be responsible for adding to the number of those already disqualified since I think far too many are unnecessarily disqualified under the Bill at the present time.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience. He, too, has had a gruelling week. Nevertheless, what he has said this afternoon may be helpful to those whose business it is to take care of this matter when the Bill becomes an Act. I appreciate the trouble that he has taken and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I apologise to the House. The noble Lord

2029
is quite right: when I said "more restrictive", which I said about three or four times, I should, of course, have said, "less restrictive".
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am in a quandary. I have been taken unawares and I should have liked an opportunity of appreciating exactly what is meant. But I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, wishes to be helpful and I think that I had better let the matter rest.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Counties and metropolitan districts in England.]:
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 219, line 34, column 2, after ("Bramhall") insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. It is in the name of my noble friend Lord Peddie, who apologises for the fact that he has had to leave the House. I can assure your Lordships that this is purely a drafting Amendment consequent on the decision of the House on Monday last to move Wilmslow from Greater Manchester into Cheshire.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I confirm that this Amendment to the previous Amendment is acceptable to the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDYS LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 224 column 2, leave out lines 28 and 29 (as amended on Report by Amendments 6A and 7) and insert—
("the rural district of Warmley;
the rural district of Sodbury, except the parish of Alderley")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for the fact that he is unavoidably absent this afternoon, and I beg to move this Amendment. It is purely a drafting Amendment and I can assure your Lordships that these words, as printed, follow as a direct consequence of our discussions on Monday. The Bill as amended on Report read, page 224, column 2, lines 28 and 29:
"The rural district of Sodbury except the parishes of Alderley and Warmley."
This was an error. The whole of the rural district of Warmley was then going to be excluded from Avon and placed inside Gloucestershire, which was not the intention of the Amendment. So the Amendment on the Marshalled List, as it reads now, is correct. We have to thank my noble friend Lord Bathurst who spotted this drafting error in column 133 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Monday, October 16. I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandys has explained the reason for the Amendment and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, with your permission I should like to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 5 to 13:
Page 226, line 28, leave out ("the parish of Hum and") and insert ("the parishes of Hurn and St. Leonards and St. Ives").
Line 29, leave out ("south-west") and insert ("west").
Line 31, at end insert ("and so much of the parish of Sopley as lies west of the boundary referred to in paragraph 9A of Part III of this Schedule").
Page 230, line 42, leave out paragraph 8.
Page 231, line 1, leave out from ("line") to end of line 2 and insert ("from the neighbourhood of Barrett's Copse to the River Mude in the neighbourhood of Waterhouse Farm and thence along that river downstream to the parish boundary.
9A. The boundary dividing the parish of Sopley referred to in Part II of this Schedule shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order determine on or near the general line of the River Avon.").
Line 34, at end insert—
(" (kk) the part of the existing parish of Christchurch East in Hampshire").
Page 232, line 2, at end insert—
("(tt) the part of the existing parish of Sopley in Hampshire").
Leave out lines 14 and 15. Line 25, at end insert—
(" (8A) The part of the existing parish of Sopley in Dorset shall be added to the parish of Hurn.").
On Tuesday last I explained the reasons why the Government had withdrawn a number of Amendments relating to the Hampshire/Dorset boundary and the Government came in for a good deal of praise on this account. However, not everybody was yet satisfied, and the noble

2031
Lord the Leader of the Opposition suggested that if we took further consultations with some noble Lords who were interested in this matter we might be able to arrive at some new agreed Amendments. This in fact is what has happened. There have been consultations and I understand that all the different interests involved in this boundary have now agreed on the Amendments which are before your Lordships this afternoon.
In brief, the effect of them is to transfer the parish of St. Leonards and St. Ives to Dorset; to divide the parish of Sopley, after an. Order made by the Secretary of State, on or near the general line of the River Avon, and to divide the parish of Christchurch East so that the eastern end is in Hampshire while the western half is in the new Dorset. This increases the buffer zone we have been trying to establish in Hampshire around the western fringe of the New Forest. These are the implications of the Amendments, but I might just say a word about the position of Christchurch. One of the considerations which we have had in mind throughout the history of this difficult boundary has been the natural wish of Christchurch not to be absorbed with their larger and more powerful neighbours. In the discussion with noble Lords yesterday about the new boundary it was clear that that concern was shared generally. But the Boundary Commission has been set up as an authoritative and, above all, an independent advisory body and they will shortly be advising us on the district pattern for England. I understood that they were about to consider the implications for their district proposals of your Lordships' decision on Report, and in the circumstances I felt it right to acquaint them with the views expressed by noble Lords on this matter. This I did, and I think we must now await their considered recommendations.
My Lords, I should like to say a word of thanks to all those noble Lords who have been so helpful and co-operative at all stages in this difficult matter. The "Hampshire Lobby" have been particularly active—a Monck and a Montagu, a Duke and a King and a gentleman who was described in Hansard as" the Chief Verger of the New Forest."Was it perhaps significant that no right reverend Prelate came in on behalf of this" unholy
2032
alliance"? I should like also to say a word of thanks to those who have been representing the viewpoint of the Dorset County Council. I think that the County Council have shown themselves most statesmanlike and helpful in the whole matter; and it gives me special pleasure to be able to thank my noble cousin and friend, Lord Digby, for the part he has played in putting the Dorset viewpoint in this House. I should also like to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who has been very helpful all through on this difficult matter. He has unrivalled experience of local government and I am most grateful to him.
Finally, may I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition who has taken such a very active part. I am not sure that he always understood exactly the import of some of the Amendments we were discussing, but in any difficulty he was always ready to fling in a Manuscript Amendment which at least made sure that we discussed the Amendment that he wanted us to discuss. But I am grateful to the noble Lord; he has played a leading part in bringing everybody together on what I hope are now agreed Amendments.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I only wish that I were the "Deputy Verger" to reply on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has been so grateful to everyone that I do not think I should add any more gratitude. I must admit that I owe a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, because he was the first person to get across not only to me but, I think, also to most noble Lords in the House, what we were talking about. That is no reflection on the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I may say, but the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, did clarify our minds. I should say that those of us who were concerned on behalf of the position of Lymington and the New Forest were certainly not unmindful of the needs of Dorset. Since I now happen to live just over the boundary of Dorset, having lived for many years in the New Forest, I am only sorry that the advice which we gave at an early stage about how to solve this problem was not taken at once. That is the arrangement which has now been adopted, on the lines of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.

2033
Perhaps I should say that we are well aware that the Government have had a difficult job, and since, if we had debated this subject, I was going to attack the Minister's handling of it, I would only say now that I shall not do so; but I did have a sentence to say that, despite all that, he is a nice man. He has been doing a most difficult job. I actually walked the boundaries with the Clerk of Dorset County Council, so I was not entirely under the influence of Hampshire. I think they have moved sensibly. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord is drawing the attention of the Boundary Commission to the views of your Lordships. That is perhaps the most important point that has come out of the statement. I believe it is essential to the balance of Dorset that Christchurch, with the population they will now have—although a little on the low side, still around 40,000—and which is likely to grow rapidly, should be an independent district. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, has drawn attention to the high rateable value there. But I do not think we want to delay this discussion any more. I just hope that this arrangement now remains undisturbed. We are much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD DIGBY: My Lords, I should like to welcome the statement made by my noble kinsman Lord Aberdare, and particularly the fact that he is to draw our views to the attention of the boundary Commission. In doing so, I should like to pay tribute to the Borough of Christchurch for their constructive attitude throughout all these problems. Starting with the Report of the Royal Commission, and at various stages of this Bill, the boundary between Dorset and Hampshire has been moved no fewer than five times. At each stage Christchurch has made constructive observations and has consistently held to one basic proposition; namely, that the boundary should be such as to enable the Boundary Commission to recommend a county district separate from Bournemouth. This view has been supported by the Dorset County Council as they feel that the success of the new system will depend on the balance of districts. I have no doubt that the boundary as in the Bill first tabled by the Government was the correct one. But much water has flowed down the Avon since then, and in the circum-
2034
stances I commend to your Lordships those Amendments, which will place in Dorset the areas West of the Avon, which undoubtedly look to Dorset, and restore to Hampshire the buffer of Christchurch East round the New Forest. I would say no more at this hour other than that I believe that these Amendments are generally acceptable to your Lordships, and I hope that they can now be accepted so that we can all get on with making the Bill work.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, there seems to be so much joy on the part of Hampshire and Dorset that I hesitate to raise a pernickety point. It concerns merely the phraseology of Amendment No. 9, where we say that the boundary shall be
"from the neighbourhood of Barrett's Copse to the River Mude in the neighbourhood of Waterhouse Farm…".
When we are prescribing boundaries, surely we ought to be as precise as possible. If the deeds of my house were to say that my property "extended from in the neighbourhood of the garage on the one side to in the neighbourhood of the greenhouse on the other side", then I should ask my solicitor to exercise a little more precision in delineating the boundaries. I am wondering whether the vagueness of the word "neighbourhood" may lead to trouble in the future. That is all. I am very glad that Dorset and Hampshire have settled their problems.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to noble Lords. If I may briefly reply to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, the fact of the matter is that this boundary will be defined by Order of the Secretary of State, and we are only giving an approximate description of where it will run.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Meetings and proceedings of local authorities]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 279, line 29, after ("other") insert ("suitable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. It was the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who drew our attention to the fact that the "suitable room" which was defined for parish

2035
meetings was only "a room" when it came to community meetings in Wales. This was an error, and this Amendment will mean that it will be a "suitable room" in both cases.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Functions under, and amendment and modification of, enactments relating to town and country planning]:
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is a purely drafting Amendment which s intended to make the Amendment which the House accepted yesterday, No. 138, fit grammatically into the existing provisions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 308, line 12, leave out ("and").—[Lord Molson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 16:
As an Amendment to Amendment No. 138 made on Report.
Line 2, after ("shall") insert ("before making any such determination").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes it clear that the consultations to which Amendment No. 138 on yesterday's Marshalled List refers shall take place before any determination is made to designate a conservation area. It is little more than a drafting Amendment, but it clearly gives expression to what I think was in the minds of us all yesterday: that naturally the consultations should take place before any decision is arrived at. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I confirm that both these Amendments are acceptable to the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.27 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In moving the Motion I should like to pay tribute to all noble Lords, on both sides of the House and on the Cross-Benches, who have contributed to the many debates that we have had during the long proceedings in Committee and on Report. Many of your Lordships have spoken from long experience of local government, and for that reason the consideration of the Bill
2036
has been notably constructive and well informed. We had the advantage of starting with two propositions on which there has been no fundamental difference of opinion: first, that the time is right for reorganisation and that it is right to press on without further delay; and. secondly, that the new structure proposed by the Government is generally supported in Parliament, in local government circles and throughout the country.
Within the framework proposed by the Bill your Lordships have made many significant changes and improvements. We have created a new county in the Isle of Wight. We have introduced important provisions relating to borough status and civic dignities which will help to retain the links between the old system and the new. We have modified the provisions relating to the admission of the public to meetings in the direction of more open government. We have made a number of important changes relating to the exercise of functions—and I have in mind the transitional machinery for agency arrangements and the exercise of functions in connection with refuse disposal and conservation. We have fixed a new and higher financial limit to the general power which enables local authorities to spend money for the benefit of their area and its inhabitants. We have completed a massive exercise in Statute Law revision by including provisions about the borrowing powers of local authorities, and thus consolidating the remaining vestiges of the Local Government Act 1933. In all, we have made some 650 Amendments to the Bill, and I think we can say with due modesty that we return an improved Bill to the other place.
The passing of this Bill is, however, only the first step. A vast amount of work still needs to be done to complete the preparations before the new authorities can be elected next year and can assume their full duties in April, 1974. This work is already placing a great strain on members and officers of existing authorities, and this is bound to continue until the new system is in full operation.
I should like to pay renewed tribute to the enormous amount of co-operation and help which the Government have received from the local authority associations, as well as from local authorities

2037
and individual members and officers, often from authorities or individuals who themselves have little to gain by the changes now proposed. I am sure we shall be able to continue to count on their co-operation and constructive work in the future.
In order to assist the new authorities in establishing their new organisations, the Government and the local authority associations, as your Lordships know, initiated a management structures study. This report, containing invaluable advice and practical guidance, was published in August. It will be fully studied between now and the time when the new authorities are elected next spring and summer.
I hope your Lordships will recognise that we have demonstrated the importance we attach to the safeguarding of staff interests during the transitional period by bringing the Staff Commissions for England and Wales into formal existence many months ago, soon after the Bill was introduced into Parliament. These bodies are already hard at work in their consultations and in the formulation of the advice they will give. We are very conscious of the need to treat the staff right, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and I differed, I think, on only one point of principle in the course of the discussions we had on these important points during the passage of the Bill.
My Lords, I believe that in this Bill we are laying the foundations for a stronger system of local government. Through the local authorities to be established on reorganisation, the services to be provided by local government will be able to expand into new fields in the future, just as local services have expanded in the past; and stronger authorities with wider powers must mean stronger units of democratic government. This is the ultimate objective of our work on this Bill.
I should like once again to offer to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, my personal thanks for the kindness and co-operation he and his Front Bench colleagues have shown to us during the course of the Bill. I should also like to say how grateful we have been throughout the Bill to have the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, whose knowledge of this matter since his chairmanship of the
2038
Royal Commission has been so deep and so valuable to us. Finally, I should like just to say a word of thanks again to the staff of this House on whom we have laid many burdens in the course of some late night Sittings while the Bill was passing through all its stages.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Aberdare.)
4.34 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about the Opposition Front Bench and various other Members of this House. It is not merely as a matter of reciprocating those kind thoughts that I feel I must myself pay a tribute to the Ministerial team headed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the way in which they have conducted the proceedings. I have experienced nothing but co-operation from them in what has been a very considerable and trying task for all concerned. Our consideration of the Bill was made very much easier by the explanatory material made available to us by the Government and, as I said at the end of the Committee stage, I hope it sets a precedent for Bills of any magnitude. It certainly has been extremely helpful to be able to pick up this material, which normally is available only to Ministers of the Crown. But for myself, my Lords, I hope not to have the duty of "looking after", as it is called, so complicated and difficult a measure for a very long time to come.
We have now reached the stage of considering the Motion, "That the Bill do now pass", after two days on Second Reading, eight days in Committee, three days on Report and the Third Reading to-day—and I should not like to tell the House how many other days I spent in between in trying to understand the Bill. The noble Lord said that in those 14 days we have made 650 Amendments, which are now being sent to the other place. The 650 Amendments made take no account of the totality of Amendments which in fact we considered. Unfortunately, some of them, which were really first-class Amendments, were rejected by the Government—but I must not say too much about that at this stage. We managed to do this in the time, and the fact that we did so is due to Ministers and to the House in general. It is also

2039
due very largely to the very great restraint that I have imposed on my own verbosity and to my restraining influence on my Front Bench colleagues—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION:—whose powers of exposition are so much greater than mine. The House will notice that I differentiate between using the word "verbosity" for myself and the term"expository powers" in the case of my colleagues. I may—who knows?—just possibly find myself working with them again on another major Bill. I hope, my Lords, it will not be thought amiss if I pay tribute, which I do most sincerely, to my noble colleagues, Lady Serota and Lady White, and Lord Garnsworthy, for their efforts and for their kindly co-operation with me throughout the whole of the period. Upon them I have put much of the work necessitated by a searching examination of a major Bill, and I am grateful to them.
My Lords, the House, freed from too much Party restraint, exerted its will; and that this should happen occasionally is good for the health of the House itself and not too catastrophic for the Government of the day. Altogether, I think we have brought nothing but credit on this House as an essential part of the Parliamentary institution. The job we have done in fact is precisely that.
Our gratitude to the staff, expressed again by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will I am sure be suitably expressed in a function to be held this evening, for the inspiration for which we have to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, very sincerely.
Just a word about the Bill which, though not perhaps as drastic a reforming measure as some would have wished, will bring about the reorganisation of local government which I trust will result in a system of local government that will continue to serve the country well for many years to come. I wish well to all those facing the immediate tasks of the transitional stage, and subsequently in their operation of this measure. Knowing so many of them, meeting them in various places, I do riot doubt their capacity to surmount all the difficulties and bring credit upon themselves and upon the
2040
country generally. My Lords, I am happy to see this Bill passed.
4.38 p.m.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, as a humble new boy and Cross-Bencher, I should like to add my tribute to what has been so ably said by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on behalf of the Opposition. I should like first to pay my tribute to the Government team—lucid always, indefatigable and courteous. I would also pay my tribute to the staff of the Department of the Environment and of the other Departments concerned. Those of us who have served in Whitehall can guess how much work they have necessarily put in to enable Ministers to perform their tasks for us all.
May I also pay my tribute to those who now form Her Majesty's Opposition for what they did for local government reform when they formed the Government of the country. Their courage in February 1970 in publishing the White Paper and committing themselves to very drastic reforms and to a programme of rapid legislation thereon, I think helped to maintain the momentum which had been generated during the previous half-dozen years. Without that, I doubt very much whether we would now, even under the present Government, be in a position to be sending a Bill of this magnitude to the other place.
The Government have always been modest in referring—not perhaps consistently, but very often—to this Bill as a reorganisation of local government. At some moments they have used the word "reform"—for instance, in their own White Paper in February, 1971. I am prepared to prophesy that the students and historians of the future will most emphatically refer to this Bill as local government reform. I believe quite seriously that you must go back to the great Statute of Queen Elizabeth I in 1601 to find any measure as comprehensive and as important—that was the first Poor Law Act. You can perhaps think of the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act as being worth mentioning, and of course the 1888 Act which created the county councils and county boroughs. But I believe that the 1972 Act (if such it becomes) will rank as the first major systematic and comprehensive measure

2041
which Parliament has placed on the Statute Book in the field of local democracy in this country.
I most warmly congratulate the Government on having reached the stage that they have reached to-day. It is only a framework, and we all know that. It removes many obstacles to good local government and opens the door to progress. The House has been very patient in what must have seemed my too frequent interventions, and what has sometimes been described as pontification on my part. I will curtail what I might be tempted to say about the ways in which I see this framework as opening the way to great improvements, both in democratic government in this country and in the making of our social services and our whole method of behaving more humane as well as more efficient. If there is one point to pick out it is that at last we shall be rid of this patchwork which has divided us into counties and county boroughs and has been the seedbed of so much inevitable hostility between two great parts of our local government system.
The opportunity remains to be taken but, please God! it will be taken, and the new counties will really be new counties and will be the instruments whereby the community of interdependent neighbours in town and country may of course serve their own interests, but also serve each other's interests, and in this way make progress over the years to come in the control and enrichment of our environment, in coming to terms with the motor car, the lorry, the public transport system, and in our educational and social services. Please God! too, there will be that collaboration, because without it we shall not have the improved social services that we all want between those new counties and the new districts.
These new authorities, because they are new, must start determined to do better than those out of which they have sprung. But the future value of local government to the country depends on the humanity and efficiency of the people who will work in it—both the councillors and their staff. Most of all the mutual awareness and understanding between the local governor
2042
and the citizen must be developed and maintained in years to come, with the great help that the new structure will give—a structure such as we have not had in the history of local government before.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.