Lords Sitting of 22 September 1972

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock : The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

SANDFORD MANOR PRESERVATION
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 are able to make an announcement about the preservation and restoration of Sandford Manor, in the Borough of Hammersmith.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, listed building consent has been granted for the demolition of the later additions to the building and I understand that the Hammersmith London Borough Council are negotiating with the new owners of the building about the future of the historically important part.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply and ask him whether he is aware that his Answer that this fine old Manor House, the reputed home of Nell Gwynne, is to be saved will give great satisfaction? As is has been allowed to fall into such a very bad state, would he, or his Department, use their ever good offices to ensure that repairs are carried through as quickly as possible, as the building may not survive another winter?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, the Department stands ready to give any help or advice that we can, especially through our Historic Buildings Bureau, if the question of a new owner is involved. But I cannot comment further than that because some of the statutory procedures which could arise, such as the refusal of a
1404
further listed building consent, or compulsory acquisition, would involve my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Manor bears a certain name, and in order that this may not be misrepresented or misunderstood in the Press, would the noble Lord assure the House once again that this Manor has nothing to do with him? Furthermore, as we have heard that this was once the home of Nell Gwynne, if a plaque is at some time installed on the building saying, "Nell Gwynne slept here", will it it also say with whom?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord will perhaps recall that I did this on a previous occasion. But I am glad to reassure noble Lords that my family has no connection, either with the building or with the lady in question.

NORTHERN IRELAND CONFERENCE AND ARMY PRESENCE
11.10 a.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: 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, in the forthcoming Conference on Northern Ireland, they will have in mind the possibility of withdrawing the Army and leaving the people of that country to settle their problems in their own way.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CuLRoss): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are prepared at this conference to listen to any views which those attending wish to express ; but if any delegation were to propose, as part of their plan for the future of Northern Ireland, that the Army should be withdrawn, they would be expected to explain how this might be achieved without thereby precipitating further bloodshed and human tragedy in the province.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us what section of the Irish public in Northern Ireland, or the Southern Irish Republic, still desire

1405
the continued presence of the Army? Is it the Catholics, who throw stones at them, or the Protestants, who throw stones at them? Is it the Southern Irish, who would like to take over the North, or the Ulster volunteers, who would like to be responsible for their own law and order?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the section of the population in Northern Ireland who would like to see the Army stay is the enormous preponderance of the population of 1·5 million who are not engaged, and who do not wish to be engaged, whether they are of Catholic, Protestant or of any other persuasion, in the dreadful acts of terrorism that are going on.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, is the noble Viscount convinced that there has been more law and order in Northern Ireland since the presence of the Army there than there was in the say, fifty preceding years of Stormont rule?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords, I do not suppose that is so. But I am not sure that I understand the connection between that conclusion and the presence of the Army.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, can the noble Viscount indicate the precise circumstances which prompted the decision to send troops to Northern Ireland? How far, and to what extent, has that situation changed, or the circumstances and problems accelerated?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it will be appreciated that my noble friend Lord Windlesham is the Minister in this House who knows the details of this matter ; but in August 1969 there were 3,500 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the situation had become so severe that it was thought that they could no longer on their own maintain the law and order to which the population of the Province were entitled. It was for that reason that the British Army came in to assist them in their duties.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, once the Army was put in and the situation had developed to the point at which it has now reached, if we attempted to withdraw the Army it would result in a massacre. It is the only force that can
1406
hope to maintain anything like a situation which we would regard as being desirable. It is true that much has still to be done and will be done. Eventually we shall have to withdraw the forces. But for the present I would not dream of suggesting it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the sombre facts are precisely those that the noble Lord has set forh, and I am very glad to have his confirmation.

PUGWASH CONFERENCE AND SCIENTISTS' RIGHTS
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 have considered the conclusions of the Pugwash Conference of scientists, particularly the recommendation that protection should be given to scientists, historians and artists who challenge the views of Governments.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I assume the noble Lord has in mind the references in the Statement after this Conference to the alleged mistreatment of scientists, including the passage deploring restrictions on their movements. Her Majesty's Government believe that all men and women should be free to hold and express their own views with the least possible interference. The right to leave any country, including one's own, and return to one's own country should not be withheld on account of personal views.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that statement, may I ask the Minister this? Have the Government noted the significance of the strong and influential delegation from the Soviet Union, which included many leading members of the Academy of Science, and even the son-in-law of Mr. Kosygin, Dr. Gvishiani? Is not this issue of personal liberty now an international issues concerning not only the Soviet Union, but Czechoslovakia, Spain, Portugal and Southern African? Would the Government be prepared to use their influence to widen the scope of United Nations' involvement, so that in time it will become actively concerned not only with war,

1407
racialism and the freedom of peoples, but with individual freedom, which is basic to all other freedoms and the condition of progress?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to pass on to my noble friend what the noble Lord has said. Indeed, we noted the composition of the Soviet delegation. As I think the noble Lord is aware, this Conference terminated only a few days ago and the Statement has been in our hands for only a matter of a day or two, so we are still looking at it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that my noble friend has a very important point here because it would help the democratic countries to advertise their freedoms, which from my experience at the United Nations they are very slow to do, particularly with regard to the freedom of entry and leaving one's own country? Surely we should advertise this freedom as often as members of the United Nations speak about colonialism.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am glad to be able to agree with the noble Baroness on that point.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess say why this recommendation was not also extended to include the protection of politicians who challenge the views of Governments?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords. I was not present at this Conference and I am afraid that I cannot say why that was the case.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, will my noble friend state (even if I am the only ignorant Member of your Lordships' House) where or what is "Pugwash"?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, Pugwash—and I am afraid I cannot inform the noble Viscount ; I have been trying to find out myself how it got its name—is a conference of international scientists which is held every two or three years, and has been held, I think, for about the last twenty years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, perhaps my noble friend Lord Lothian will remind my other noble
1408
friend that Pugwash is a humble hamlet in Canada where the first conference was held.

ARAB NATIONALS AND UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY RIGHTS
11.17 a.m.
LORD SEGAL: 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 which Arab States are still allowed right of entry for their nationals into this country without the requirement of a visa.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the nationals of Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Kuwait, Behrain and Qatar do not require visas to enter the United Kingdom.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the recent attempted assassination of the Jordanian Ambassador in London was carried out by a national of Algeria? Is it not high time that this obvious loophole for terrorist activities was effectively sealed down before further outrages are committed?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the position is, as the noble Lord is probably aware, that the West German Government have made the suggestion that the visa restrictions should apply to all Arab countries : and I understand that a meeting is taking place today in The Hague among officials of the Ten European countries, with a view to making recommendations on this matter which I hope will be considered early next week.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess able to say, without further notice, how many nationals from such Arab States have sought to enter this country, say, since January 1, 1971 : and how many of them have been refused admission as being undesirable?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords ; I am afraid I cannot say that without notice, but if the noble Lord wishes to put down a specific Question on the point I will try to obtain the information.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, quite apart from the question of terrorism, may I ask why this privilege has been extended to the nationals of these countries?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understand what the noble Baroness means about "this privilege".
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, why can they enter this country without a visa? I could not enter Canada from the United States of America some years ago without a passport.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:My Lords, with four of the countries we have informal arrangements concerning entry, but as I have said the circumstances are such now that the whole position must obviously be looked at again ; and this is what we are doing.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's first reply, can he give the House any information with regard to any impediment imposed by any Arab States on emigration from their country, as is imposed on certain sections in Russia and East Germany? Secondly, can the noble Marquess give any indication as to what these applications are, in view of the fact that the migrations from Arab countries to Israel in the last few years were of the order of 700,000? Is it to be understood that there is now any impediment?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:My Lords, my noble friend has widened the subject to some extent and, if he will allow me, I shall have to look up the figures for which he has asked. I am afraid that I do not have them with me at the moment.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, can the noble Marquess say what is, broadly speaking, the reason for the apparent discrimination applied in the matter of visas as between the nationals of various Arab States?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:My Lords, I think this is something which for a very long time has been based on custom. As I have said, we are not happy with the situation and we are looking at it again.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Marquess agree that it is far more important that the screening of Arab terrorist agents should be carried out before they leave their country of origin? Would not this have the added advantage of relieving the strain imposed on our immigration officials at the various points of entry?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in that respect, but I think one must also point out that no system of visa control is absolutely foolproof.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, could not simple directives be given to British officials in those countries that visas should be required of these nationals before they are allowed to enter this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:
My Lords, I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said. I imagine that this is very much the sort of problem which is being discussed to-day.

UGANDA:SAFETY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
11.25 a.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I were now to make a Statement on the position in Uganda. The latest reports which we have received from Kampala this morning indicate that all is now quiet, at least outwardly. The alarm that blew up suddenly yesterday was short-lived, but the present calm is clearly precarious. We are therefore keeping under urgent and continuing review the steps that would have to be taken to ensure the safety of British subjects in Uganda if the situation was to deteriorate seriously. Our High Commissioner is under instructions to keep in close touch with the Ugandan authorities, who have accepted responsibility for our people's safety.
The protection of British subjects is of course the Government's prime concern.. We have regular advice from people on the spot and I can assure your Lordships. that we are watching the situation very closely indeed. I am glad to be able to' inform your Lordships that the British

1411
expatriates who were detained in recent days have been released. Nevertheless we deplore the way in which these people have been treated, which was outrageous. I am sure the House will agree that this particularly applies to the detention of women and children.
We have been watching with deep concern the growing tension between Uganda and Tanzania. The attempt by the Libyan Government to send military assistance to Uganda clearly has grave implications that inevitably increase the tension. We understand that certain African leaders are bringing moderating influences to bear.
We are continuing to get encouraging responses to the appeals we have made to other Governments to take Asian United Kingdom passport holders for settlement. The Indian Government have been most helpful and co-operative in our recent negotiations. We particularly welcome the recent generous offer by the West German Government to accept up to 1,000 Asians, and we are hopeful that other countries in Western Europe and Latin America will follow suit. In this context we raised yesterday the Ugandan question at the meeting of the E.E.C. political directors at The Hague. Altogether fifteen countries have now made firm offers to admit Asians, or have indicated that they expect to be able to do so. Some of these countries can, of course, only takes small numbers. In the United Nations the Secretary-General is continuing his bilateral dealings with President Amin and my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be discussing the situation with him as soon as he arrives in New York.
My Lords, that is the end of my Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for making that Statement, and it goes without saying that the Government have the full support of all Parties in the action that they may see fit to take. Dealing briefly with the latter part of the Statement, it may be that some noble Lords will wish to ask further questions on the re-settlement side of the matter and it is encouraging that there has been this response from other countries. I notice that the
1412
noble Earl used the words "British subjects", meaning both expatriates and Asians, and all our thoughts at the moment are for their safety. The remarkable stories in the Press, and the even more remarkable tape recording which the B.B.C. correspondent managed to get while he was actually in gaol, were very disturbing. I wonder whether the noble Earl could tell the House specifically whether any British expatriates or British Asians have actually been killed or injured or seriously molested. Obviously a number have had extremely unpleasant and frightening experiences, and in view of the statement that the Uganda Government still accepts responsibility for their safety it would be helpful if there is any reassuring information that the noble Earl can give because, as he has said, we are confronted with a precarious situation. For those reasons I do not wish to press the Government on further contingency plans, which are always present anyway, but if he can say anything further it would be helpful.
The noble Earl referred to the United Nations and spoke of bilateral negotiations. I wonder whether there is anything further that he can tell the House about how these negotiations are going and the extent to which the Government are keeping in touch with the Secretary General of the U.N., and indeed of other Governments. I think we were encouraged to hear that a number of Governments have offered assistance, and we have noted the action of the Sudanese Government, who have been on the side of moderation in this matter. Clearly the important thing is that we may need to get everybody out, and there should be no more argument about bringing out British Asians, especially in view of the success the Government have had in getting the co-operation of other countries. The Government seem to be dealing with the matter with great urgency, and if they continue to do so they will have the continued support of everybody in this country.
Obviously, in certain circumstances Parliament may have to be recalled, though remembering when we were recalled for the Czech crisis there is not very much that we can do about the matter, and we all look to the Government to use every effort and brains and initiative. Our thoughts go out to our

1413
people, and of course very much once again to our diplomatic and High Commission staff who are having to deal with this situation.
11.30 a.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Earl for his Statement. As he is aware, there has been a good deal of discussion in this country as to whether the Uganda Asians should be accepted and, if accepted, what kind of welcome they should receive. It would now seem to be not a question whether they should come here but how to get them out, and to do so on humanitarian grounds quite apart from any legal question. It seems to be becoming desperately urgent both for British whites and for Asians with United Kingdom passports. I of course welcome the agreement of a number of countries to help in taking those holding United Kingdom passports. While I appreciate that this is a very delicate matter, and while one does not want to make the situation any worse for those who are there, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any prospect of all those countries which agreed to accept these unfortunate people cooperating in an emergency air lift, and at the same time bringing pressure to bear on General Amin to allow something to happen which he himself has demanded?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to the Statement I have made. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about our regard for our diplomatic staff in Uganda, about the respect we have for the work they are doing in very difficult circumstances, and our concern for them and indeed for the British subjects who are at risk in this situation. I can confirm, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the reports I have indicate that no British subjects, whether expatriates or Asians holding British passports, have been seriously molested. As for arrangements of a contingency nature, I can assure your Lordships that in this kind of situation we keep under very close review arrangements of that sort, and that is naturally the case in this instance. So far as the United Nations is concerned, I referred to the position
1414
there in my original Statement, but I can assure the noble Lord that we are in close and indeed constant touch with the Secretary General and his staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked about the arrangements which might be concerted for airlifting those affected out of Uganda in co-operation with those countries which have agreed to settle, if they wish to go there, United Kingdom Asian passport holders. The position is that arrangements for extra flights have been made, but during the present week only one of those extra flights has in fact taken place because they were not filled. There have been two main reasons for this—first, because the flights were inevitably arranged at short notice and with somewhat inadequate publicity and, second, because some people have been afraid to use the road from Kampala to Entebbe, especially after dark. As your Lordships know, there are a number of road blocks and several incidents have been reported. I will of course bear in mind the noble Lord's suggestion, but it is not at present lack of airlift capacity which is the main problem.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to say whether any steps have been taken to bring back to Entebbe British expatriates who may be working or living out in the country, so that they may be evacuated if the situation becomes urgent?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I prefer not to be drawn too far into giving off-the-cuff replies in what is a very difficult, dangerous and indeed tense situation. I would, however, like to assure my noble friend that the High Commissioner in Kampala will be in a position to give the right advice at the right moment to all British nationals.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, will the noble Earl say what explanation the Ugandans gave to our High Commissioner for imprisoning two small children in a filthy prison?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not aware that any explanation has yet been given, but I made it clear in my original Statement that we regard the treatment which appears to have been meted out to these small children, and there may be other women and children, as quite outrageous.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that even those of us who are sometimes critical of the Government unreservedly applaud the action of the Government in accepting the British Asians? I think he is aware that some of us have taken the view from the beginning that the most hopeful intervention could be by African Governments, and we hope that Her Majesty's Government, while not prejudicing mediation by official declarations, will give all facilities possible to the African leaders who are now seeking to mediate. There is some feeling that the British Government are now not speeding the return of British Asians because of the situation in Uganda. May I ask the Minister to dismiss that thought and to bear in mind that the confused situation which is arising in Uganda may make the position of British Asians more dangerous than it is at present?
Supplementing what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said with a view to speeding the coming of British Asians, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government will consider taking them to Nairobi or Mombasa by train, as the Indian Government are doing, to avoid the hold-up at Entebbe airport? Would the noble Earl also consider that members of families, dependants, should be allowed to come with their parents even if they do not hold British passports? What is to happen to the so-called stateless who have now legally returned to their position as protected persons and British subjects?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will deal first with the last question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. The position of Asians who have been made stateless is that they are now an international responsibility and, as I think the noble Lord knows, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has accepted them as his responsibility. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general response to my Statement and I assure him that many of the considerations which he advanced are in the mind of the Government. I would remind him that the Secretary General sent as his emissary to Uganda Dr. Robert Gardiner who is a citizen of an African State. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that we are in close touch with the other African Governments who are deeply concerned
1416
over this matter and who may be able to play a useful mediating role. I have made it clear that the Government are fully conscious of the dangers to which British subjects in Uganda are exposed at the present time, be they British Asians or British expatriates. I am very willing to bear the noble Lord's specific suggestions in mind, but I think, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I have made clear the reasons for the hold-up at the moment in the departure of British Asians from Uganda.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, while welcoming very much the way in which the Government are dealing with this matter and particularly the way in which they are getting help from the African Governments, whether they are also in touch with the Organisation of African Unity itself? May I ask one more question which will have occurred to a great many Members of your Lordships' House? Is there any news of Chief Justice Kiwanuka? Many noble Lords know him as an extremely distinguished fair-minded man. We now know him to have been extremely brave in his stand over the Stewart case, and is it perhaps rather sinister that he is not only a Bugandan but a Catholic? I wonder whether the noble Earl has any information.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to the second question of the noble Baroness, I am afraid that I have no information to give your Lordships about the detention of the Chief Justice, but I should like to make it clear that the Government deplore this act. In answer to the first question, I need to check on this point, but I would be very surprised if we are not in close touch with the Organisation, which has been already used.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us whether, so far as is known at this moment, all British expatriates have been released?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the Government consider taking more positive action which might act as a deterrent to the Uganda Government, by offering, out of funds already allocated

1417
by us to Uganda, compensation to those British subjects for the relief of the indignities and horrors which they have had to endure while being detained in Ugandan prisons?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I am not quite certain what the implications behind the noble Lord's suggestions are, but I take note of what he has said.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords. may I ask my noble friend whether he can tell us what the position is with regard to imprisoned British subjects? Chief Justice Kiwanuka, whom many of us know and respect highly, recently gave a writ of habeas corpus in respect of one of them. Is he still in gaol or are we hoping to get him out?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. he is not only out of gaol but he is back in this country.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, could my noble friend say how many British nationals—I use the word advisedly because I am not sure of the definition of the word "expatriates"—have been deported from Uganda in the last few days, and whether they were deported with or without trial ; and if it was done without trial, what was the reason for their deportation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I can give my noble friend the precise information he requires without notice. I will write to him as soon as possible and let him have the latest information at my disposal.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, all Members of this House will appreciate the decision of the West German Government to accept 1,000 of the British Asians. I would appreciate it if the noble Earl could give us some information as to the precise nature of the offer made by the West German Government. Is it that the British Asians will be offered German citizenship or alternatively, will they have but temporary residence in West Germany and later have the opportunity of coming over to Britain?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the details have still to be worked out
1418
We are in touch with all the Governments who have made offers, and indeed with a great many other Governments on this point. It would be a mistake for me, not having the precise information, to speculate here, but my understanding is that the offer of the West German Government, which we warmly welcome, was in the nature of permanent settlement should those who would take up the offer so desire.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think we should prolong matters, but since this is the last opportunity we shall have of having a Statement on this question, may I ask the noble Earl—he may not feel he can give an assurance now, but I did raise the point as to whether or not Parliament should be recalled—that at any rate the Government will keep closely in touch with the Leaders of the Opposition? It would be helpful and reassuring to feel that there will be this continuous information on whatever terms the Government feel right.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. He did indeed touch on this in his initial response to my Statement. There are, of course, normal and understood conventions for keeping the Opposition Parties in touch with this type of situation and for consultation between them regarding the possible recall of Parliament. I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance he has asked for.

HORSERACE TOTALISATOR AND BETTING LEVY BOARDS BILL
11.49 a.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.-(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New corporate powers for Totalisator Board]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out line 5 and insert—
("1.—(1) The Horserace Totalisator Board (hereinafter referred to as the Totalisator Board) shall have power—")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we can discuss this and the other Amendment together as the point is exactly the same. Both the Boards are given their full description in the Long Title but I would have thought that good drafting required that when anything is mentioned in the clauses of a Bill it should be given its full description, at least on the first occasion on which it is mentioned in the actual clauses. This is what this Amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I know the noble Lord, Lord Airedale's predilection for good drafting, which I share. But there is a reason why the full title has not been set out. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 8(2) he will find that expressions in this Act which also appear in the Betting. Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 are to be given the same interpretation as in the 1963 Act. What one has to do is to look at Section 55 of the 1963 Act which defines both these Boards in terms. Of course there are difficulties, and we have criticised before those draftsmen who legislate by reference. But it would be very clumsy for the Bill to have to go into the full details of the definition of the two Boards, because what the noble Lord himself has put forward is not enough, as it stands. One would have to refer, as does Section 55, to the sections in the 1963 Act under which those Boards were set up, because, if one is going into minutiae, it would be possible, even with the noble Lord's Amendment, to have another body called the Horserace Totalisator Board set out in some other measure which would be different from the one to which we refer here. Therefore I am afraid that even that draft is defective. I do think, in fact, that in a Bill which has to be read so very closely with the 1963 Act it is proper and not unreasonable to attach the definitions in the way I have explained and there is no technical fault in doing so.
LORD AIREDALE: After that reply, I suppose the two Boards are lucky to have their full description given even in the Long Title of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: On Second Reading last week I raised one or two points in connection with Clause 1, and since then I have received a very detailed letter from the Minister of State dealing with the points that I raised. It was extremely good of him because I appreciate that during this last week he has had other things to think about besides horseracing and betting. I have only one misgiving left, and it arises from Clause 1(1)(b). This paragraph gives the Totalisator Board for the first time power to operate as a bookmaker, either in addition to running pools or instead of running pools. I suppose that in consequence of this we may expect that the Totalisator Board may gradually phase out the pools on some of the smaller racecourses which they are finding unprofitable to run, and the question will then be whether anybody else will be able to run pools on those race meetings, including, for instance, the management of the race meeting. If the management want to run pools which the Tote have said they do not propose to run themselves, they will have to come to the Board for permission and the Board, by refusing permission, will be able to prevent any pools from being run at these race meetings.
The slight fear I have is that the Board may be tempted to take a somewhat grandmotherly attitude about this and say to themselves, "Well, if we ourselves, with all our experience, think that we should not make a financial success of continuing to run pools at this or that race meeting, we should really be doing a kindness to the applicant if we were to refuse his application because we should thereby be protecting him from what we consider very likely financial loss." If the Totalisator Board did take that attitude it would be wrong. There is always room for more than one opinion about the financial prospects of any particular venture, and I should like to think that the Board would be concerned with nothing more than the integrity and

1421
good faith of an applicant and, provided they were satisfied that they were dealing with a responsible person, would put out of their minds any question of whether the venture was going to be a business success or not and would almost automatically grant permission. If the Minister of State were to express views roughly corresponding with what I have said, I should feel rather better about Clause 1(1)(b).
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If there is one thing that I think I can confidently say, it is that no Member of this Committee would look upon my noble friend Lord Mancroft as an old woman or someone with a "grandmotherly attitude.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? That is a most offensive remark, and he must know that it is the kind of thing we hear from people who have a very low I.Q. Would he mind defining that? I am very glad that Lord Mancroft is not an old woman.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is terrible the way I get into trouble with the noble Baroness, and perhaps I had better withdraw my feeble and doubtless wicked joke.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is far from Parliamentary.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Very well.
To resume, the primary duty of the Tote Board, as it is in the existing legislation and will continue to be under this Bill, is to run pools. The commercial judgment of the Board must be a matter for it, subject to that prime duty, which it recognises, and the best safeguard is to appoint a strong Board who are able to carry out their duties, not only responsibly but also successfully. I do not know what Lord Mancroft and his colleagues would wish to do about withdrawing or not taking part in the pool betting on some of the smaller racecourses or at some of the smaller race meetings, but I do not think the situation is as alarming as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, perhaps thinks. Although it is true that on horseracing the Tote Board has a monopoly of pool betting, and it
1422
is right that anybody else who wished to run a pool on one of those meetings or races, or anything to do with it, should have to get the Board's permission, there has always been power for the management of a racecourse—and this would include those who run point-to-point meetings—to go to the Tote Board and ask if they may, if the Tote is not interested, run the pool instead. If they do that, under the law as it exists they are entitled only to deduct their expenses, and I believe I am right in saying that most of them think that in those circumstances it is not worth while doing it.
The reason why the Tote does not wish to run the pool, or may not wish to run the pool, is because it would involve very large overhead expenditure. It has to be cross-related to all the other outlets in the country and it sometimes involves a very expensive and uneconomic operation. But it does not in the least follow that this would be so. If the management of the racecourse wanted to run their own pool they might not wish to have a cross-relationship with other outlets and it could be convenient and profitable for them to make applications of this sort. What we are doing in the Bill—it is in fact Clause 4—is to ensure that in future the Tote Board can not only allow the racecourse management to deduct the expenses of running the pool but also allow them to retain a negotiated profit, up to the maximum of the deduction that the Tote itself is allowed to take from the total of the pool. This therefore would actually encourage managements to step in and organise a pool if the Tote Board itself did not wish to do so.
I do not know in what circumstances that would happen, because betting is a fluctuating business and new forms arise. It is not necessarily true that something that happens to-day will continue to happen to-morrow. But I should be very surprised (and my noble friend Lord Mancroft is listening to this) if the exercise of permission to allow others to run pools were dependent on whether or not the Tote Board thought the operator was going to run at a loss. It would not matter to the Tote because if there is a loss the Board does not pay. It would no doubt be very interested in the successful running of a pool because it would then participate in the profits which, as the Committee knows, are handed on for the

1423
benefit of racing. But I cannot believe that this is the criterion on which the Board would decide whether to accept or refuse the application of the racecourse management to run a pool. The most important thing the Board has to do is to ensure that pools are in responsible hands, run responsibly, run for the social benefits of racing and for the community as a whole. That, after all, is the underlying reason for the existence of the Tote Board.
Although I believe that, strangely enough, it has never happened, there is every year an opportunity for Parliament to consider the wisdom of the decisions, not only of this Board but of the Levy Board as well, on the occasion when the annual report is published. So if, in future, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, scrutinising the decisions of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and his Board, considers that they are not acting with full wisdom, he has an opportunity to raise the matter here, and I suppose that I should be the one who would have to answer. I hope that I have done something to allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
LORD AIREDALE: I am much reassured by what the noble Viscount has said I take the point he made that up till now racecourse managements have not wanted to run pools. Perhaps this is because they did not get much incentive but there is the point that having a Tote on the racecourse might attract more patrons. Some patrons are frightened of the bookmakers and are more incluined to go there if they know that their bet will be put on a Tote. Subject to that, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount has said.
12.2 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: May I ask the noble Viscount a rather technical question? It is that if the Tote allows some other body like the racecourse management committee to run a pool, would the independent Tote offices in London and elsewhere have to pay out according to the racecourse returns, or would they refuse to take bets on the Tote which are in the hands of the management and not of the Tote? If the Tote offices throughout England have to accept bets, it leaves rather a serious pos. sibility that the Tote prices might be
1424
rigged on the racecourses, not by the management but by money, and then a flood of money would be going through the offices all over the country and a totally false return would be made. I hope that I have expressed myself clearly.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, has got into areas of almost unbelievable complexity. I shall try to answer this off the cuff and quickly. First, the Tote itself no longer runs its own off-course offices.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: Under this Bill is it not to have off-course offices?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords. This is the content of Clause 3, under the commencement order procedure. So far as I know, the arrangement is to continue with the City Tote, whereby the joint company operates and whereby the punter can go into the City Tote offices and into the Tote pool. That is not the only way in which it is done, because in some offices bookmakers are able to do this by payment of a fee to offer odds at Tote price prices, but they do not actually go into the pool. They are nevertheless reliant on the Board giving them the results of Tote prices. That is why they pay a fee. This is good business, I think, for the Tote Board and it should not be discouraged. I think that some of the fears which the noble Lord has expressed are not very substantial, because where there is a race meeting and the Tote considers that it would not be economic to go there, suspect that it would be an occasion when practically all the money would be put on on the racecourse itself. This would be the essence of the meeting, a very small meeting. I cannot see large national bookmakers going to great trouble to do this at a small point to point in North Yorkshire. Therefore, in practice I doubt whether the matter would arise.
If a bookmaker did wish to offer odds, which would not be at Tote prices but at pool prices, on a pool run by the management committee of a racecourse under licence, as it were, from the Tote Board, I am not certain, but I should suspect, subject to correction, that the bookmaker concerned would then have to pay a similar fee to the management committee of the racecourse. I should not be

1425
surprised if that were to go into the calculations of what the management committee then paid to the Tote for permission to run the pool on the race itself or on the race meeting. This is something which I do not think I have seen actually dealt with anywhere because, of course, so far it has never arisen. I think that in view of the size it would be likely not to be entered into by the Tote. I believe that any widescale abuse is most improbable, but I shall look into this matter to see whether we have the necessary powers or whether the Tote Board have the necessary powers to see that it does not happen.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment ; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of yesterday):
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Viscount Colville of Culross).
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I raise my quiet little voice in protest against this House of Parliament having to forgo its holidays and having to have much of its other Business dislocated to deal with a petty little Bill of this kind, particularly at a time when there are nearly a million people unemployed, when industry is in a state of chaos, when the Stock Market is tumbling and when grave problems are confronting us throughout the whole world? I think it a scandal that Parliament's normal routine should be dislocated to deal with a Bill of this kind.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I cannot agree that Parliament's routine is being dislocated. This Bill was introduced a long time ago in another place and was extensively and exhaustively discussed and quite substantially amended there. Eventually it was passed by that House and it came to this House. Noble Lords opposite have been saying that this House has a duty to consider legislation, and this is something which we should consider
1426
seriously. I spent considerable time last Friday dealing with this Bill in Committee. I have tried, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, kindly gave me credit for, to answer questions by letter. The Bill has been dealt with expeditiously, to the best of my ability, and I do not think we have taken very much time on it. This is a Bill which we consider necessary to rescue the Tote from grave difficulties which it had got into and which are expected in the future. The Tote is something which affects the whole of the betting and gambling industry and it is important to have social control over it. I do not consider this a nugatory matter. I think it was worth while spending 20 minutes on the Bill this morning.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
12.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In doing so, perhaps this might be a convenient opportunity to say a quick word about the printing of the Bill for the Report stage. As your Lordships are well aware, the Bill has been very heavily amended and there will need to be a great many changes to not only the wording but also very many sectional references and so on. If we are to have an accurate Bill to consider on Report, it will take some little time to produce an accurate copy, but I anticipate that this will be available not later than Tuesday, October 3. In the meantime, of course, your Lordships are perfectly free to table Amendments for the Report stage, but until copies of the Bill as amended in Committee are available such Amendments will have to refer to the present print of the Bill. I would suggest, therefore, that, although the Public Bill Office will receive any Amendments that may be put down between now and October 3, they will not be circulated until that day, when they will refer to the Bill as amended in Committee.
Moved, That the House do again resolved itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I quite understand the printing difficulties having regard to the magnitude and the number of Amendments passed in Committee, or by the Committee that will be sitting shortly, which will have to be dealt with by the printers. On the point the noble Lord made about our being able to put down Amendments immediately, this is something that I have done in the past, and I have always had the utmost courtesy and assistance from the Clerks in the Public Bill Office in this connection :, so that no difficulties, it seems to me, will arise there. The difficulty might arise in reading the Bill, because if one tries to read the Bill to-day and insert all the Amendments that have been made it is an almost impossible task, but we will make the best of that. The greater difficulty I foresee is the fact that we look like squeezing up Report stage and Third Reading on this Bill. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to find reasonable time in the short period after we return to ensure that the Report stage, the Third Reading and Passing of the Bill stages are not squeezed up too much to prevent us doing what might be necessary, namely, put down Amendments on Third Reading. But on this I think perhaps the noble Lord and myself had better discuss this when we see the Amendments that are put down on Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 209 [Adaptation of law relating to old counties]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 125K:
Page 166, line 41, leave out ("and 211") and insert ("211 and section (Sheriffs and under-sheriffs)").
The noble and learned Lord said: As I seem to have left my spectacles behind, I will speak unseen, but I think I am able to do it without much difficulty. This is a very highly technical, and, I am afraid, an extremely boring, subject. The Amendment I now rise to move and the immediately following Amendment are, of course, paving Amendments to the new clause which stands in my name a little later, and, if I may, I will deal
1428
with all three together. The object of the new clause and of the Amendments, as your Lordships will see, is to omit the final paragraphs of Clause 211 of the Bill and to substitute the new clause which relates to sheriffs.
Most of the subsections of the new clause really reproduce with very little change the existing subsections of Clause 211 which it is the purpose of the Amendments to replace by the new clause. One new paragraph, that which relates to Section 34 of an old Act is simply Statute law revision ; it is to pave the way for a repeal in Schedule 30 of a spent provision in the Statute law, or rather a provision in the Statute law which will be spent if this Bill becomes law. But the remainder contain a small point of policy which I ought to explain, and it relates to under-sheriffs' bailiwicks. If the Bill remains unamended the under-sheriffs' bailiwicks will follow the new counties under the new sheriffs. For a reason which I will give, this would cause the entire operation of execution in the High Court to be thrown onto some confusion. The Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts does in fact suggest that the functions of the under-sheriffs in relation to High Court execution should be taken away from the under-sheriffs. That is a recommendation of the Payne Committee as to which the Government have not yet reached a conclusion, although I think it is highly likely that they may reach a conclusion later to that effect. The effect would be, therefore, that if we left the Bill unamended the under-sheriffs offices all over the country, the main function of which is to enforce a High Court execution, would be thrown into confusion to no purpose if we were to accept at a later stage the Payne Committee Report.
The subsections—(4), (5) and (6) I think they are—of the new clause deal with this in the following way. It is proposed to detach the bailiwicks of the under-sheriffs from the new counties and allow the Lord Chancellor to define their areas. In fact he will define them in such a way as to retain the status quo for the time being. That raises the question as to who appoints the under-sheriffs in future, as, of course, their bailiwicks will now extend in many cases into more than one county where new sheriffs are appointed under the Bill. The answer to

1429
that is that the sheriff of that county which has the largest slice of the bailiwick will appoint the under-sheriff, and that will be dealt with under the succeeding subsection of the new clause. That raises the question as to what happens when the slices are approximately equal, which may take place in Lancashire ; and the answer to that is that the Lord Chancellor will decide which is the largest.
The rest of the new clause and Amendments is pure machinery, drafting, and I do not propose, unless I am pressed, to deal with it at any length. No question of principle is raised by all this ; it is purely a question of administration, and I am satisfied that this is the best way of doing it. I beg to move.
12.20 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is aware that we had some slight discussion on sheriffs at an earlier point in this Bill in relation to their duties as returning officers. I have not put down an Amendment to this clause, although it was suggested to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that I might. I may still do so at a later stage. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could enlighten us on one point. If one assumed that the Payne Committee recommendations were to be accepted by the Government, what would there be left for either sheriffs or under-sheriffs to do? In other words, what is the justification for these officers? Is there a really serious place left for them in our judicial system, or are they, as I suggested in an earlier debate, such an anachronism that we might consider that they have really fulfilled all the useful functions that they had to serve?
I see the difficulty if the Government have not made up their mind about the recommendation for the one serious function, so far as I understand, that they still have to perform. We are in this legislation continuing the procedure for the appointment of sheriffs. We say in the Bill as amended, as I understand it, that this procedure of having three persons named, and one of them to be picked as the proposed sheriff for the county, is to continue. I am really ask-
1430
ing what justification there is for continuing this procedure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is wholly outside the ambit of the rather modest Amendment that I am proposing, and I do not think that I could initiate a debate on the continued justification of sheriffs within the ambit of this Amendment at all. Incidentally, except for the purpose which I will disclose, and to some extent have disclosed, I am not responsible for sheriffs, who come under the jurisdiction of the Lord President of the Council. However, I did have to deal with them when I was Lord President some years ago, and I can give the noble Baroness the information that she wants.
Judicially speaking, now that we have taken away the duty of summoning of juries from sheriffs and therefore from under-sheriffs, if we took away the High Court execution from sheriffs, and therefore from under-sheriffs, there would not be anything of any great substance left from the point of view of the administration of justice, which is where my Department comes in. I believe that there would be one or two vestigial functions, but there would be nothing left for them to do in the administration of justice that would cause me a moments anxiety in the course of a year. Of course for many years the main functions of the sheriffs have lain quite outside the administration of justice. They are Royal Officers inside the counties. They attend the judges ; they are a focal point of county life. Whether they serve a useful purpose as such is basically for the counties and for persons other than myself, and perhaps other than for the Government, to decide. My own view is that they serve a very useful purpose, and I should be very sorry to see them go.
The purposes which they serve are purposes connected with the active life of the county. They can help a very great deal. For instance, they used to give these enormous breakfasts for the grand juries. When I was a young man, just before I joined the Bar, I used to be a judge's marshal], and I used to swear in the grand juries. In practice, this was a very important gathering for the magistrates of the county. I would hope very much that the sheriffs would continue to act as a focal point, within which the magistrates and other county officers can discuss their

1431
business, and continue to act in the way that they do.
However, this is outside my function as Lord Chancellor. I can only answer the noble Baroness—and this is the only thing which is germane to the Amendment—that, from the point of view of the administration of justice, if the Payne Committee recommendation was carried into effect there would not be very much left for the under-sheriffs to do in the administration of justice. I know it is their view—and I think I share it—that so long as you have high sheriffs, the high sheriff will require an adjutant of some kind to carry out whatever functions high sheriffs will carry out, and that it would be convenient to call that adjutant an "under-sheriff" But quoad the administration of justice, which is really all I am fitted to answer about to-day, and all that this Amendment is concerned with, the answer is that the main functions of the under-sheriffs (apart from very minor functions indeed which I cannot rehearse) will disappear if the Payne Committee recommendations are carried out.
BARONESS WHITE: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having advised us in this sense. I think I was entitled to raise it because his own Amendment, as well as the Bill, says that the Lord Lieutenant shall, as soon as may be, nominate three persons. In other words, the duty is conferred on the Lord Lieutenant that he shall do this. I am far from satisfied that we ought to continue this office at all. As I do not have a substantive motion on the Marshalled List, I have no intention at this stage—although I reserve my position—to quarrel with the Amendment put down by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which really, as he rightly said, is concerned with the bailiwicks of the under-sheriffs, and to that we would take no objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 209, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 210 agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Amendments of enactments relating to justices]:
12.28 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 125DD:
Page 353, line 30, at end insert the following new paragraph—
1432
(" . The words after consultation with the council or councils concerned" in section 26(1) shall be deleted.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, and in doing so I should like to explain it and the two following Amendments. They are connected in that they are both concerned with the composition and the functions of magistrates' courts committees. Perhaps I might say a few words of introduction on all three Amendments in order to put the matter in its context. I am glad to say that I shall be moving only the first two, and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has kindly undertaken to move the third. I am very relieved at that because, after the rout that I was put to yesterday on the Criminal Justice Bill at the hands of the noble and learned Lord, it is refreshing and comforting to have him on this occasion on my side.
The form of local government structure which is covered in this Bill involves a variety of changes in the organisation of the magistrates' courts, and that matter is dealt with in the Bill in Clauses 209 and 210. Those changes, in their turn, involve amendments of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 and various other enactments. They are contained in Schedule 27, and particularly in the first Part of that Schedule, which deals with the amendments to the Justices of the Peace Act 1949. As I say, our three Amendments are all concerned with the functions and the composition of magistrates' courts committees. I would add at this stage, that I am authorised to say here that the Amendments that we have put down are sponsored in the first place by the Justices' Clerks' Society, and are fully supported by the Magistrates' Association.
In general terms, the effect of the Bill is this. The present situation is that in the existing counties there is a single magistrates' courts committee which administers the affairs of the various courts operating in the county—the various petty sessional divisions—but each county borough or city has its own magistrates' courts committee. It is proposed under the Bill that in a non-metropolitan county there will be a single committee for the whole of the new county, and the effect of that will be that the former county boroughs, which now

1433
become districts, will lose their own committees and will come under the aegis and control of the county magistrates' courts cmmittee. It is only in the metropolitan counties that the magistrates' courts committee will be retained for the districts. It appears that these alterations which are now being made are inspired, not by the thought that they will lead to any better administration of the magistrates' courts or of the law, but by the decision to fit the magistrates' courts into the new local government structure.
May I now turn to the first of these Amendments, which is concerned with the independence and autonomy of magistrates' courts committees? What is the present relationship between magistrates' courts committees and the councils to which they are attached? If I may try to summarise them, the present statutory provisions are these. They are contained in Sections 25 and 26 and in Schedule 4 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949. Section 25 provides that:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the council of each county and of each borough having a separate commission of the peace shall provide the petty sessional court houses and other accommodation and the furniture. books and other things, proper for the due transaction of the business".
Subsection (2) goes on to state:
"The council of each county and of each borough … shall pay—

(a) any expenses of the magistrates' courts committee …

(b) the sums payable … on account of a person's salary … as justices' clerk"

or as a member of the staff ; and, thirdly, all other costs.
In Section 26, one finds the functions which are to be performed by the magistrates' courts committee. They are, first, to decide upon the court house and to take all the decisions about accommodation, furniture and the like ; secondly, to settle the salary of the justices' clerk and the staff ; and, thirdly, to decide
"the nature and amount of the expenses which a magistrates' courts committee may incur".
So that those functions were given to the magistrates' court committee. But then, when one reads on, one finds that subsection (1) states that those decisions:
"shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the magistrates' courts committee after consultation with the council … concerned."
1434
Then, in subsection (3), it is provided that if a council is aggrieved by a determination of a magistrates' court committee upon any matter contained in subsection (1), they may then appeal against that determination to the Secretary of State.
What is the resultant position? First of all, under Section 26 the magistrates' courts committee are given the right to determine what their needs are and how they should be met. Section 25 states that the council shall pay for those requirements although, in point of fact, the council pay only 20 per cent. because the rest is a grant from the central Exchequer. Then, as a safeguard, in subsection (3) of Section 26 it is provided that if a council is aggrieved by any demands that may be made upon it for money or anything else by the magistrates' courts committee it can appeal to the Secretary of State. If it stopped there, I should have thought it was a perfectly reasonable arrangement, but what is difficult to understand is that under Section 26(1) the magistrates' courts committee cannot make a determination about anything unless they have previously consulted the council concerned. It seems to me that the result is this. In the conduct of their affairs, before this supposedly autonomous body, which is given power to make these determinations about their own needs, can come to any conclusion upon anything at any meeting, they must first ensure that suitable consultations have taken place with the local authority.
There appear to me to be three objections to that. The first is that matters of accommodation and staffing of magistrates' courts are already under the overall supervision and control of the Home Office. Therefore there is this sort of double brake upon the activities of the magistrates' courts committee. Not only must they comply with requirements coming from above but, at the same time, before they can come to any decision, they must make a sideways approach to the council in order to comply with the consultative requirement. I am informed that that cumbersome and rather curious procedure has led to delays in undertaking projects and has, in particular, led to delays in the provision of adequate and satisfactory accommodation for magistrates' courts. Furthermore, it

1435
does not seem that that double requirement, of submitting to control from above and being obliged to consult with the local authority, serves any useful purpose.
The second reason why I think that this procedure is objectionable, is that the word "consultation" is clearly ambiguous—if anything can be clearly ambiguous. Does it mean that the magistrates' courts committee must simply go through the formula of consulting, merely telling the council what they are intending to do but saying, in effect, that if they do not like it they can lump it ; or does it mean that they really must get the agreement of the council to whatever they intend to do? Within those two extremes one could take up a variety of positions. The result might be that the more conscientious committee, the one which felt that it ought to carry out its statutory duty of consulting with the council, would be the committee which was most frustrated, because it would regard itself as being obliged to confer with the council upon every matter, however trivial. The third reason why I suggest that this procedure is unsatisfactory is that I am advised that it leads to a great waste of time and that the working-out of the details of consultation is often very time-consuming and unnecessary business.
I am advised, for example, that when consultations of this kind have taken place in the city of Plymouth it has been customary for there to be present two magistrates, two councillors, the town clerk and the justices' clerk. One of the matters which these people have had to consider was whether a person who was coming to give a lecture should be paid a fee of £9 or £10. Actually, the contribution of the local authority to that fee of £10 worked out at 20p. That is something which happened this year. Another example of the type of thing they have to consult the council about is whether they are going to give a typist a rise of 50p ; and another is whether the court needs another usher. Is it not really rather ludicrous that, in the year 1972, we should have that apparatus of consultation when we already have the complete safeguard, from the point of view of the council concerned, that if the magistrates' courts committee come to a
1436
conclusion and make a requirement which they think is wrong and they feel aggrieved, then they have the remedy of being able to go to the Secretary of State and say, "Is this right?" Therefore, the substance of this Amendment is that we should strike out from the appropriate place the words that require consultation with the council concerned. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I am rather surprised at this Amendment, because throughout the discussions on the Bill many noble Lords have stressed the desirability of consultation between local authorities and other public bodies, and yet here we have an Amendment which seems to be positively discouraging such consultations. I am diffident, with my association with the county councils, to stress the advantages and gains which follow from drawing on the sagacity of members of our councils ; and, anyway, I have no authority or standing whatever to speak on behalf of the new county councils which are going to arise as a result of this Bill. But consultation does not predicate agreement, far less dominance. I detect an element of fear running behind this Amendment, which fear, I believe, is entirely unjustified. I should have thought that the advice of county councils, from their wide experience of administration, in particular, and of staff, personnel and financial problems, might have been useful to the magistrates' courts' committees. What form that consultation would take obviously requires consideration and, I should have thought, could have been decided at local level.
After all, the county councils are going to be the paying authorities, and I should have thought that courtesy alone suggested the desirability of consultation in a case like this. But this Amendment seems to conflict, on the face of it anyhow, with one of the main aims of the Bill, which is to encourage the maximum co-operation between local bodies of all kinds, whether between those within the local government system or between local authority bodies and other public bodies. I should have thought that the arguments lay against the acceptance of this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MONCK: I should first of all declare an interest, as I have been a magistrate for over 28 years. Having

1437
said that, all I want to add is that I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Amory has said, and I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: I have no objection at all to magistrates' courts being completely independent, under the Crown. That being so, I have no objection to their independence provided the Crown pays. But it would be entirely wrong and entirely different from any principle we have ever had established that any particular body should be called upon to pay any sum of money, no matter how small, unless there has been a degree of consultation in regard to the payment of that money. My own experience with regard to magistrates' courts—and I had some experience of this in Middlesex when Middlesex was a county—was precisely opposite to that which the noble Lord has quoted ; that is, trivial instances, and so on. We provided the magistrates' courts with the clerk of the peace who was the clerk of the magistrates' courts ; and they had the advantages of all the county council's services, such as the arehitect, the surveyor, the engineering staff and so on. It was all very easy for them to get their work done and keep their courts in good order. All this was done by the county council, and there was no trouble at all with regard to these particular problems.
We used to see their budget. We did not have direct control over their expenditure ; but so long as they kept within the budget—it was our job to see that they did that ; after all, we were providing some of the money—it did not matter how they spent their money provided they spent it under the appropriate headings. I must say that in the early days, when the county took over the courts, we found considerable difficulties in the handling of money in the local courts ; and we found certain things going on which certainly would not have been tolerated in the county. I am not suggesting that that sort of thing would go on or does go on, but we did find it going on ; and the establishment of an overall authority which we had in the county treasurer made a vast difference in the method of payment of monies into court—and out of court, too. So I can see no particular
1438
reason why this Amendment should be accepted at this point. If we want a discussion on the whole question of the structure of the machinery of justice, I can see a case, perhaps, for taking magistrates' courts without consultation with the county. After all, the county is in many cases the police authority, and there may be a very good argument for having a complete separation of all the functions of justice from the police, even though it is not a very large area where their functions are likely to conflict. In fact, they probably would not conflict at all. But I would insist on this as a matter of principle : that if they want complete removal from any consultation with the counties at all then the counties should not be called upon to provide any of the money. In those circumstances, and only in those circumstances, would I be prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind.
LORD CHAMPION: It seems to me that this is not a suitable Bill or occasion to make changes to the Justices of the Peace Act 1949. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, that the working of that Act, the division of responsibility for which that Act makes provision, has been such that there has been good consultation between the magistrates' courts' committees and the county councils, and I would say that that Act has worked satisfactorily. In any case, any change which would take the magistrates' courts' committees further away from local government would not appear to me to be a right thing to make, particularly having regard to the fact that the county councils are responsible for closely related services. The police, the social services, probation—they are all local authority functions ; and it would seem to me to be quite wrong to take the magistrates' courts' committees away from the county councils, which have the duty of looking after those services. I personally should not like to see what is suggested in these Amendments contained in a Bill of this character. If it is to be done at all, it ought to be a matter for very careful thought and, surely, very close consultation by the Government with the county councils concerned, and indeed the Magistrates' Association, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said about the views of the Magistrates' Association.

1439
The second Amendment I do not like, either. It would seem to me to place the officer concerned in a position of very great power vis-à-vis the magistrates' courts' committee. This would also appear to me to be quite wrong, and certainly ought not to be done in a Bill of this character. Finally, on the third Amendment—
LORD GARDINER: If my noble friend will excuse my interrupting, I am not sure what Amendment we are dealing with. I am proposing to move the third Amendment. It has not yet been moved. I find some difficulty in my noble friend answering a case which has not yet been made.
LORD CHAMPION: As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, moved his first Amendment but talked to all three. If he did not I am mistaken.
LORD FOOT: The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. I have not yet addressed any arguments to the Committee in support of either the second or the third Amendment. I merely tried in the introduction to set the context in which these three Amendments fall.
LORD CHAMPION: I can only say that I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought that he was talking about the three Amendments generally, and that I should be entitled to do the same. But I will leave that. I do not like the first Amendment. When it comes to the second and the third, to avoid repeating what I have just said perhaps wrongly and cut of order, I will merely say that I also do not like the second and third Amendments.
LORD ROYLE: Perhaps I may say one word on this Amendment. Some time ago, following the passing of the Courts Act, there were: suggestions from the Government—which I think have been partially put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter—that the administration of the courts should be taken out of the hands of the local authorities and made a national responsibility. The Magistrates' Association, and magistrates throughout the country, have agreed that that would have been the desirable thing to do. I submit to the Government that a problem like this would riot have arisen had they done what was partially promised by the
1440
Courts Act. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say what is in the mind of the Government in that respect so far as the future is concerned.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: I hope that the Committee will not be persuaded by the proposer of this Amendment. I cannot myself feel that the Amendment goes with the spirit of the Bill. I particularly do not like the suggestion that because there is a substantial grant (I think of 80 per cent.) from central funds, this means in effect that the Home Office control this part of the service, which is essentially a local government service. This is a most dangerous argument which could be applied to education, with disastrous results. So long as the magistrates' courts committee exists and there is this relationship I am surprised that Plymouth—and I have great admiration for the way in which they manage their affairs so far as I know—should offend against the elementary rules and practices of sensible committees and should waste time assembling distinguished people to discuss a 50p rise in typists' salaries or a 20 per cent. reduction in the fees of academics lecturers like myself. This surprises me very much. It certain does not happen in the city of which I was a city councillor years ago. In the future we shall not have this. Under the new scheme, all local authorities are going to delegate wisely and keep matters of principle only to be decided by the elected members. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, was right on that. Both on the ground that the councils of the future will be wiser in the time they spend on the important things, leaving less important matters to others ; and on the general principle of the responsibility of local government for anything for which it is in fact responsible—and here it is responsible for accommodation and for other aspects of the matter—I very much hope that the Government will stand firm.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: May I say a few words on this matter, as one who for over fifteen years was chairman of the magistrates' courts committee? Nearly two years ago this matter came up in the House on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Royle. The House did not accept the substance of that Motion which was not very different from the substance of the Amendment proposed to-day.
LORD ROYLE: The noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting, but on the occasion to which he refers the debate was not on the question that we are now discussing on this Amendment but on that raised by the following two Amendments,
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Very likely, but to my mind all of these are connected. I spoke against Lord Royle's Amendment last time, and nothing that I have seen since has convinced me that there is any reason to take a different view from that which the House took last time. For that reason I support everything that was said by those who are opposed to the first Amendment and I shall do the same, if I have the opportunity on the other two Amendments if they are moved.
12.56 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am one of those who have been thinking over the years that probably a complete overhaul of the magistrates system is overdue. But that overhaul has not been undertaken on a national basis, and we ought not to slip in this particular Amendment to that system as a sideline to a Bill which deals with entirely different matters ; namely, the reorganisation of local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned the word, "independent". Nobody is more jealous than I of the independence of the Judiciary—even down to the bottom level. But as one with experience of over a quarter of a century of county councils and magistrates' benches, and as chairman in both instances, I can honestly say that in connection with my duties as a magistrate I have never been subjected in any way, materially or spiritually, to any interference. When I say "materially" I am thinking of the provision of court furniture, of staff and so on, and when I say "spiritually" I mean that nobody on the county council has suggested to the bench how they should decide, whether guilty or not guilty, in a particular case. I do not know whether the example of Plymouth, which was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is typical of the way in which local government is conducted generally throughout the country, but it seems to me to be absolutely stupid to bring these important people together to decide such fantastically minute matters.
1442
There are two sides to this case. There is the magistrates' courts committee, which spends the money ; and there is the county council which finds the money. Do not let us again hear the argument that there is an 80 per cent. refund from Whitehall on what the county council is spending ; because, as the noble Lord said, that argument can be applied absolutely and almost exactly to the education service. The magistrates' courts committee is not an elected body ; it consists of J.P.s nominated by the various benches in the county area. The county council is an elected body, responsible for providing services and responsible for what is loosely called levying taxation. It is answerable to the ratepayers for the money it spends. Your Lordships may not have gathered it so far, but very big money is involved here. In my own county this year the magistrates' courts committee are going to spend £313,000. That is an increase of 50 per cent. over what they spent two years ago. So there is big money involved. From the fact that there is this 50 per cent. increase, it looks as though the county council has not been cheeseparing and minutely governing every small item of expenditure by the magistrates' committee. What is asked for here is that the county council shall be consulted, as is the case at the present moment. There is no absolute power of veto involved here. There is, in any case, a right of appeal to the Home Secretary if something goes wrong.
Let me give the example of the use of the £313,000 expenditure in my county by the magistrates' courts committee. The amount for staff is £166,000. Of course it is very necessary to ensure that the various grades of staff harmonise with or are in contrast to the grades of staff employed in local government generally : there must not be one man completely out of step so that consequential increases in the salaries of hundreds of other people are involved. Premises cost £35,000 ; supplies, stationery, £2,600 ; and establishment expenses £40,000. Other services rendered by the county council amounted to £49,000. There are many services rendered by the county council to the magistrates courts committee. The committee use our architects, our supplies department, our treasurer, our valuers (when they buy or

1443
sell a courthouse), and they also use the organisation and methods management department of the clerk of the council.
There could be extravagance by magistrates' courts committees. I am not saying that there is. But all of us who have been "chancellors of the exchequer" of local authorities know that when each committee puts forward its annual estimates it puts forward a figure far larger than could be justified if one is taking an overall view of the rate to be levied by the council ; and the expenditure which the magistrates' courts committee wants to undertake sometimes needs to be weighed against the expenditure being undertaken by other committees of the local authority. That does not mean that there will be cheeseparing of the magistrates' courts committee's estimates as a matter of normal course.
We have as one of the bases of our Constitution the old adage that there shall be no taxation without representation. But there is something like that even in the inverse sense if a county council is responsible for the levying of rates and has to justify the levying of them and if, on the other hand, the magistrates' courts committee can come forward and say, "We want £313,000 ; we are going to have it and we are not even going to talk to you about it." That would be the position if the Amendment were carried. I do not want to go into any more detail because I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is going to speak on this Amendment, but I feel that if magistrates' courts are to be overhauled, let it be done nationally as a piece of quite separate legislation, and do not let us push it in as a sideline in this other Bill, which is complicated enough already.
1.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If I may I will now send the dove of peace winging across the Chamber to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. I am now in the happy situation of being able to agree entirely with everything he said. May I just preface my remarks by saying that I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has shown superhuman self-control in not raising the subject that has been touched on, the much wider issue of national versus local control of the magistrates' courts local
1444
organisation. I think it would not be appropriate for us to go into that on this Amendment or on this Bill. It is something that your Lordships' House might wish to discuss on another occasion. I shall not pursue it to-day. The Government have made their position clear and if it is challenged, it had better be done other than on an Amendment on a Friday to Part X or Part XI of the Local Government Bill.
For the rest of it, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will need to hear very much more from me before being convinced that there are weighty reasons against the acceptance of his Amendment. I could just start off with his list by saying that formally, on behalf of the Home Office, I renounce any pretence to control the salaries of the typists in the magistrates' courts in Plymouth. Nor, on the whole, would I consider it to be the duty of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to decide whether visiting lecturers are paid £9 or £10. We do not do this from Whitehall and we do not wish to do it. Therefore, to the extent that the noble Lord suggested that we have control from Whitehall over this sort of thing, that is just not so, and we do not wish it to be so. What we are prepared to do is look at the proposals being put forward by the Justices Clerks' Society for some sort of system of annual budgeting ; only we should first have to discuss that extensively with the local authority associations. The matter has got no further than that. Always we are prepared to look at this sort of thing. That seems to me to be a much more constructive way to deal with the matter than going in for the sort of Amendment which is now before the Committee.
We have had the argument about representation and control. If the Home Office does not want to get involved in this sort of thing at this stage, I do not believe that the Committee is going to say that there should be no form of control over expenditure, particularly if it is of the size that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, talked about. If the Amendment were accepted, what form of control would be left? I will briefly tell the Committee. It would be that in order to be safe and to see that there was some ability in the county councils

1445
to control what was being done by the magistrates' courts committees, they would have, within one month of every decision being taken by the magistrates' courts committee, to appeal to the Home Secretary, because that is their only method of proceeding under the law as it would stand if amended in accordance with Lord Foot's Amendment. This is patently absurd. First of all, why on earth should they be in the position of not knowing what are the decisions of the magistrates' courts committee? I cannot believe, as other noble Lords have said, that it is necessary to get so many people involved in so many minutia as appears to happen in Plymouth although no doubt there is a very good reason for it happening there ; I do not know.
Secondly, what on earth is the point of invoking the now very rare procedure of an appeal to my right honourable friend in the case of every single decision, simply in order to retain control by those who have to find the money? I should have thought the Committee would have considered this to be totally absurd, but that is what would have to happen. I hope and believe that, having heard the very weighty speeches setting out the objections to it, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will consider that his case cannot further be sustained and I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD FOOT: In view of the speeches which have been made, all of them adverse, it would be very foolish on my part to try to press the matter further. Therefore in just a moment I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But first I should like to say two things. I agree that the proposals that were made by the Justices' Clerks Society to the Government, and which were rejected by the Government, whereby the whole magistrates' courts organisation would have become centrally administered and would have been divorced from local authority control, was a very much better solution than the one which is involved in this Amendment. This has been put forward only as a faute de mieux and I agree that it is not the ideal solution. It may be that it raises more difficulties than it takes away.
I do not propose to argue the matter further, particularly because I do not want to imperil the third Amendment which will be moved by the noble and
1446
learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. Frankly, I regard this Amendment and the one we shall be discussing in a minute as being of far less importance than the third Amendment, and therefore I do not want to engage in controversy with noble Lords over this and the next Amendment and thereby possibly lose their goodwill in respect of the third Amendment. With the leave of the Committee, I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.9 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 125EE:
Page 353, line 30, at end insert the following new paragraph—
(" . In section 26(3) after the word "council" in every place where it occurs there shall be added the words "or justices' clerk".")
The noble Lord said: Here again, because already there has been some expression of opposition to this Amendment, I will be very brief. Under Section 26(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, as I have previously said, where the magistrates' courts committee make a motion about which the council are aggrieved they have the right of appeal within a month to the Secretary of State. The intention of this Amendment is simply not to take away anything from the rights and powers of the county councils which they now enjoy but simply to give a similar right of appeal to an aggrieved justices' clerk. The matters which I think have to be borne in mind here are these. First the new magistrates' courts committees for the new counties will cover a large number of petty sessional divisions, and unless the next Amendment is carried—the one which would provide that the clerk of a magistrates' courts committee should always himself by a justices' clerk—on these new magistrates' courts committees the justices' clerks will be wholly unrepresented. Even if our third Amendment is carried, there will only be one justices' clerk and that will be the clerk to the authority, sitting on the committee.
The third factor which I suggest has to be borne in mind in justice to justices' clerks is that the Police Commission make decisions affecting the administration of all the petty sessional divisions and petty sessional courts throughout the country and affecting the clerks of those courts, and sometimes those decisions have a

1447
special import and special implication for a particular area and for a particular clerk. The fact is that under the new procedure, in those circumstances, any decision can be made affecting a particular area or a particular justices' clerk, perhaps without his knowing anything about it until after it has been made: and once the decision has been made there is no way in which he can require it to be reviewed. Even if he knows something about it beforehand, he has no part, and nobody on his behalf has any part, in the decision. The committee which makes the decision may make it under a misapprehension, or because they have not had full representations made to them by the court or division or by the justices' clerk concerned. If such a mistaken decision is made, then it is something against which the clerk has no appeal.
So the purpose of this Amendment is simply to allow a justices' clerk—or, if it were preferred, the justices of a particular division in place of the justices' clerk—if he is aggrieved by a decision of the magistrates' courts committee, in the same way as a council is to-day to take his grievance to the Secretary of State and ask him to resolve it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Other noble Lords have already indicated in advance that they see difficulties in this proposal, and I am bound to say that I do, too. What we are really doing here is putting the justices' clerks in respect of appeals in relation to decisions on expenditure by the magistrates' courts committee into the same class and privileged position as the county council. There is certainly, as I have attempted to explain, and as other noble Lords have explained better than I did, very good reasons why county councils should have, as a long-stop, a formal right of appeal to my right honourable friend on questions of expenditure ; but is it really sensible or appropriate for the justices' clerks to be put in the same independent position, and turn them into, as it were, a separate authority in their own right with this sort of appeal. After all, they are appointed and hold office under the aegis of the magistrates' courts committee. In actual fact, there is a provision in the 1949 Act that an individual justices' clerk shall be consulted before any of his
1448
staff are engaged or dismissed, unless he does it himself on behalf of the magistrates' court. And there are other provisions which safeguard the position of justices' clerks.
I should have thought that this promotion of the justices' clerk into, as it were, a statutory authority for this purpose was wholly disproportionate. Rather, would it not be more harmonious in the workings of the local magistracy, their clerks and other officers (and this of course is freely open, both under the existing law and under the Bill, because there is no Amendment which in any way affects this) if this sort of thing could be taken up informally? There is no difficulty about taking it up informally. I should have thought that it was much more likely that disputes or disagreements could be resolved in that way without too many feathers being ruffled, rather than if one went through the whole rigmarole of a formal appeal to my right honourable friend with all the formalities that that would entail. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to consider whether he is not here taking a sledgehammer to crack not only the very small nut, but in the process something which is going to drop on to his own toe, and on to the toes of a lot of people in this particular world, with very painful results.
LORD CHORLEY: I have rather more sympathy for the noble Lord in his moving of this Amendment than I had with him on the earlier one ; but I do not think I should be prepared to go into the Division Lobby with him even on this occasion. However, I should like to put to the noble Viscount the question which was put to him earlier, as to a real survey of the whole position of magistrates and their work. It is now, I suppose, quite a quarter of a century since the Royal Commission—and, incidentally, I was a member for about a fortnight of that Royal Commission—produced a Report on which the 1949 Act, which is continually being referred to in these discussions, was passed. From time to time in the intervening years the need for a further survey of the situation, and for some really quite radical reforms, had been adumbrated in your Lordships' House.
All these questions which arise in connection with these three Amendments are

1449
really very much tied up with this one, and it would be to some of us, at any rate, a great help—indeed, I think it would be the magistracy as a whole—to know whether the Government have in mind a Royal Commission, or some other means of looking carefully at the situation, and, if so, whether it is likely to take place at a reasonably early date.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If we must go into this question, perhaps I may be forgiven for doing it fairly briefly, because I do not think it arises out of the Local Government Bill. Perhaps I can remind the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, of the Answer that my right honourable friend the Member for Barnet gave in another place on February 24 of this year, when he was Home Secretary. These are the terms of his Answer:
"After careful study of the views of the organisations which were consulted the Government have decided that there should be no fundamental change in the present form of administration."—
that is, of magistrates' courts.
"Improvements in administration of the magistrates' courts will be made by provisions in the Local Government Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, both of which are now before the House."
I am afraid that I cannot possibly go further than that to-day.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for reminding me of that. However, I still think it is an unsatisfactory situation.
LORD FOOT: I am afraid that I am not so impressed by the arguments the noble Viscount has addressed to us on this Amendment as I was on the previous Amendment. He uses, as I understand it, two arguments. He says, first of all, that if we were to give an aggrieved justices' clerk a right of appeal to the Secretary of State we should be raising him, as it were, to the status of a statutory authority. It is only because it happens that the other party, the people who have the present right of appeal, are the council. All you would be doing would be conferring upon a justices' clerk who is aggrieved, as an individual and as the holder of that office, the same rights as those conferred on the local authority under the present Act as it stands. Then the noble Viscount says that surely a much more sensible way of dealing with the matter, if something is done about
1450
which the justices' clerk is aggrieved, would be to approach the matter informally and make representations with a view to having the decision reversed and amended. I am quite certain that in the vast majority of cases that is what would happen. That is the procedure which the justices' clerk would follow. But if you do not give him an actual right of appeal in the last resort, you are not really giving him anything enforceable at all. When you say that he can make informal representations you are purporting to give him something, but in the last resort, if the magistrates' courts committee are unwilling to reverse their decision, in fact he has no form of redress, however unreasonable the thing may be that has been done.
In my submission, the need for this right of appeal for an aggrieved justices' clerk will be greater when this Bill comes into force than it is at present, because the present position in the county boroughs and cities is that there is only one magistrates' court committee for that county borough and the clerk of the court is automatically the clerk of the magistrates. In those circumstances it is very difficult to foresee that the magistrates' clerk could be aggrieved by a decision of the committee of which he is the clerk—the situation would not arise. But when that county borough ceases to be a county borough and becomes a district of a non-metropolitan county under this Bill, the situation then is that that separate magistrates' courts committee which formerly functioned in the borough ceases to exist, and of course the clerk ceases to be the clerk to that committee. The functions are then moved to the county centre and are performed by the county magistrates' courts committee.
On that committee the situation is entirely different. If you have a justices' clerk in one of the outlying areas who is aggrieved by something which is done by the magistrates' courts committee sitting at the county centre, of which he may have heard nothing before it is actually done, or against which decision he may not have been able to make any representations, or any that were listened to, then if that happens he is confronted with a decision which he has been powerless to influence. In those circumstances, is there not a case for his being given some right of redress if he cannot get

1451
redress through infomal discussions and representations which the noble Viscount has suggested?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Would the noble Lord give way for one moment? There is one factor in this which perhaps I should have mentioned in the argument. If the noble Lord will refer to paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 27 he will see that we are taking powers to make regulations about who shall be able to attend the meetings of magistrates' courts committees. One of the objects in this is to make sure that there is somebody there—a justices' clerk or somebody who can represent the interests of justices' clerks—and so the remoteness or the inability to influence a decision (though I appreciate it will not be the same as it is in a county borough now) is not quite so serious. There is not quite such a gap in communications as perhaps the noble Lord may have thought.
LORD FOOT: My attention had already been drawn to the implications of that paragraph. I agree that if the Secretary of State makes an order providing that one person representing the justices' clerks throughout the whole council can attend—not as a member but simply to be in attendance at magistrates' courts committee meetings—of course I agree that goes a little way. But whichever justices' clerk it may be—and I do not know, for instance, how many petty sessional divisions there will be in the County of Devon—that man will be one out of a number of justices' clerks and may not have any particular knowledge about a problem arising in another petty sessional division of which he is not the clerk. Therefore I would suggest that while that goes a little way towards meeting the point, as the noble Viscount has conceded it does not really restore the situation to what it is at the present moment in the county boroughs and cities. I think I ought to divide the Committee on this matter and therefore I wish to uphold my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
1.28 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 125FF:
Page 354, line 32, at end insert the following new subparagraph—
1452
(" ( ) in paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule after the word "appoint" when it secondly appears add the words "a justices' clerk as".")
The noble and learned Lord said: I should be deterred from moving this Amendment in this very thin Committee so largely composed of very distinguished county councillors if I did not believe that it was important to the administration of justice. May I first withdraw something which I said a little time ago in this House and which I regret to find was completely wrong. I could perhaps defend myself by saying that it was not a statement but a question ; but of course a question can imply an answer, and naturally I should not have asked a question implying an answer if I did not think it was true. It related to the disastrous decision of the Government not to bring the magistrates' courts into the unified courts system of the country. But I agree with the noble Viscount that that is not a matter to be discussed to-day. I never in the field of justice entertained any clearer opinion than this: it is a decision which will have to be changed. I very much hope that this Government will change it. I have observed that the Government are not afraid to change their minds. I regard this as a sign of strength and not of weakness. I hope very much that this will be done by this Government but, if not, it will have to be done by the next one.
I asked a Starred Question, and where I went wrong was in putting a wholly unpremeditated supplementary question. The Starred Question I had asked was designed to bring out the fact that this disastrous decision was taken against the advice of the Magistrates' Association, of the Bar Council, of the Justices' Clerks' Society, of the Law Society, of the police authorities and of the Greater London Council, and so on. In his reply, the noble Viscount referred to the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. I asked whether it was not a fact that the Central Council was well known to the appointee of local authorities. The noble Viscount said that he would inquire. I have to say that I was completely wrong. The Central Council, like all the magistrates' courts committees, is elected by and composed of magistrates. I regret having said something so wholly wrong: but the only thing I can say in extenuation is that there is a very general impression that whereas in the towns the

1453
magistrates' courts committees are vigorous and independent bodies, in the counties they are the creatures of the county council, and some people even believe that they are appointed by the county council.
I suppose that there is no Member of your Lordships' House who has more experience in this field than my noble friend Lord Pargiter, for many years an ex officio justice of the peace, three times mayor, chairman of Middlesex County Council, and chairman of the executive committee of the County Councils Association. In December, 1970, my noble friend Lord Royle put down an Amendment at Report stage of the Courts Bill on very much this point. I did not support him because I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was right in saying that it was really outside that Bill, that being a Bill to deal with courts of assize and quarter sessions, not magistrates. But then my noble friend Lord Pargiter spoke—and I told him that I was going to refer to this matter and indeed I discussed it with him—and he said:
"In my own experience—and I became a member of the magistrates' courts committee at its inception—I found that there was no objection to magistrates. Indeed, most of the members of the magistrates' courts committee appointed by the council were magistrates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/12/70, col. 1592.]
It will be observed that this is also completely wrong ; they are not appointed by the council, nor are any of the members.
The question is: why is there this general impression about? The point is put in this way in a memorandum to the Home Office by the Justices' Clerks Society. They say:
"It is of the utmost constitutional importance that the judiciary should be independent of the executive. The dependence of magistrate's courts upon borough or county councils for financial support, and the provision of services, clearly offends this principle and, more seriously, encourages the belief among justices, members and officials of the local authorties, and members of the public that the local courts are influenced or controlled by the local authorities. In some county areas the magistrates courts committee is openly regarded as a committee of the county council, an impression which is encouraged by the knowledge that both bodies are served by the same executive officers."
1454
An article in The Justice of the Peace and Local Government Review of May 6 of this year puts the point in this way :
"Since the Act "—
the Justices of the Peace Act—
"came into force there has been continued criticism of its operation based mainly on the fact that the concept of a separate and independent committee of magistrates negotiating with the local authority whose money it spends has never really functioned in practice in the county areas. The reason for this lies primarily in the fact that the position of clerk of the county magistrates' courts committee has until recently been held almost universally by the clerk of the peace who in the county was also clerk of the county council. One and the same man therefore was expected to argue the interests of the magistrates against the county council and to represent the views of the council hack to the magistrates."
Experience has shown that this is how things work. In the towns that have more experienced magistrates' courts committees, where there are six, seven or eight courts sitting every day, five days a week, they administer their own affairs. Under the Act they are the only people who can decide what their accommodation is to be, what their staff is to be, what they are to be paid. The local authority cannot decide anything. There is this obligation to consult because they find a very small part of the money. The town magistrates' courts committees are quite capable of looking after themselves, and when there is a dispute with a local authority experience shows that more often than not the Home Secretary supports the magistrates' courts committee. In the counties the experience is quite different. Hardly any cases go to the Home Secretary, and the reason is the one indicated: that if there is a dispute who does the county council expect to draft their case, their appeal, and put it to the Home Secretary?-the clerk of the county council. Who have the magistrates got to put their case to the Home Secretary?-the clerk of the county council. How can this situation possibly be right? How did it ever come about that one and the same man is on both sides at the same time? Like much in our judicial history, it came about quite accidentally.
Of course, local government itself is pretty new. I speak with great hesitation on local government, but I think the first parish council was 1888. In our

1455
history the local government was really the justices in the quarter sessions. The parish was an ecclesiastical matter ; it was the justices in the quarter sessions who through the centuries were the local government. The King's justices were there to keep order and to conduct what local government there was, originally administering justice not in a court, but in their own parliaments. When these councils came along, the whole thing had to be married together, and it was not until the Act of 1949—after a Royal Commission had sat—that the marriage was complete. It was then for the central Government to get the thing moving: the election of the magistrates' courts committees, which consisted almost entirely of magistrates, though there was one ex officio member in the towns, the chairman of the local courts quarter sessions, and another in the counties, the Lord Lieutenant—or, more accurately, the Custodes Rotulorum. Naturally, central Government, wanting to get the thing moving, contacted in the towns the chairman of the bench, and in the counties the Lord Lieutenant. I think it is generally known that the chairman of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee is usually in the borough as chairman of the bench, and usually (though not by Statute) in the county the Lord Lieutenant.
When it came to finding a clerk or secretary of the magistrates' courts committee, it was laid down in the Act that in the boroughs he must be the clerk to the justices, but in the counties it was left to the magistrates to elect their own clerk. It was quite fortuitous that when the Lord Lieutenant said, "Whom shall I recommend to the magistrates' court committee to appoint as clerk'?" he chose the clerk of the peace. He did this I think for three reasons: first of all, by statute the clerk of the peace is also the clerk to the lieutenancy, so the Lord Lieutenant is used to dealing with the clerk of the peace for any secretarial work he wants done. Secondly, the clerk of the peace in the counties, like the justices' clerks in the towns, is usually the secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Committee. Thirdly, because the clerk of the peace, being a lawyer and being the clerk of quarter sessions, would know all about the problems of the courts.
1456
But nobody seemed to envisage what would happen if there was a conflict. This has caused all the trouble, because the clerk to the county council naturally tends to dominate the magistrates' courts committee in the county and, as I have said, a perfectly impossible position arises if the magistrates' courts committee want to be firm. The position now will be rather worse. In the Justice of the Peace and Local Government Review for July 29 there appeared these words:
"Under the Act as it is passing through Parliament it is open to county justices to appoint the clerk of the county council as secretary of their magistrates' courts committee, and I have no doubt at all that most of the clerks who serve in this capacity and wish to continue to do so, will be re-elected."
This was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor addressing a branch of the Magistrates' Association.
The Justices' Clerks Assistants, in a memorandum to the Home Office, said:
"The appointment of the clerk of the peace as clerk of the magistrates' courts committee where he held that office alone was not open to much criticism, but when held, as in the majority of cases, in conjunction with the office of the clerk of the council, experience has shown this to be undesirable. The office of clerk of the peace disappears in 1972. Future legislation should not permit a similar joint post being re-created."
I am told that in every county except two the clerk of the peace is also the clerk to the county council.
In a previous article in January, 1971, the Justice of the Peace said this:
"While most county council clerks are excellent, conscientious men who treat their magisterial duties very seriously, they are in this position being asked to do something which is seldom possible and never satisfactory ; that is, to wear two hats at the same time. Instead of being able to negotiate with the local authority at arm's length, many magistrates' courts committees, staffed and clerked by the officers of the county council, find themselves without any real independence from the authority on which they are financially dependent ; and this is reflected in many areas by the county treasurer and other officials sitting in on discussions of the magistrates' courts committee as a matter of course.
"This is not the only disadvantage. Unlike their colleagues in the boroughs, petty sessional division clerks are frequently not consulted over matters intimately concerning them by committee clerks who may never have seen the inside of a magistrates' court. In some counties the justices' clerks do not even have the privilege of a representative observer on the committee and local authority procedures and work study systems are applied to the

1457
magistrates' courts however inappropriate they may be. Many clerks to justices of petty sessional divisions have been left with the feeling that where their interests conflict with those of the local authority it is always the latter which will prevail. In these circumstances and without an independent clerk of its own, it is extremely difficult for a county magistrates' courts committee to take a line on any important issue at variance with the policy of the local authority. Indeed, it must seriously be doubted if many members of such committees are fully aware of their responsibilities and powers, in particular their legal relationship with the county council."
And in another issue of October 23 they refer to that article and say :
"It is that system which is now to be applied all over. Moreover, the fears expressed by many clerks to justices, that the principal officers of the new committee will continue to be drawn from local government rather than the court service, now appear to be well founded."
The position to-day is naturally worse in two respects : the first is that by the Courts Act the clerks of the peace have disappeared. It may be the case, of course, that for the time being the same men will be appointed clerk to county magistrates' courts committees. But the point is that there is no reason to think that in future the clerks to the new county councils will be lawyers. They will be a new race of very high-rating administrators, and they may never have been in a law court in their lives. That is the first effect.
Then there is the effect of this Bill. The Magistrates' Association's annual report came out last week and I see that on page 11 they say that they have been to the Home Office—
"We have been consulted on a number of points about the future administration under the new local authorities' set-up when magistrates' courts committees will be reduced from the present 154 to 78. On 22nd June, 1972, our principal honorary officers had a long discussion at the Home Office with Mr. Mark Carlisle, the Minister of State, and his advisers. Among many points raised our representatives stressed the need for the composition of magistrates' courts committees to represent petty sessional divisions fairly, having regard to population and other factors, and the importance of ensuring that their secretaries should not be on the staff of the county council."
Of course, what they there refer to is the second effect of this Bill : all the most experienced magistrates' courts in the country are disappearing. I do not know whether magistrates generally realise this. I think the figures are right: there are at present 154 magistrates' courts com
1458
mittees. The knowledge and experience of benches in the towns—the sort of places which, as I say, had six, seven, eight or nine courts sitting every day during a five-day week dealing with every possible variety of crime—is of course much greater than that of a bench in the country, which may sit once a week or twice a week or even once a month dealing mainly with traffic cases.
Apart from those in the metropolitan districts, about half the magistrates' courts committees in the country-78, I think, out of 154—are going to be swept away. That means, I should have thought, that the composition and working of the new county magistrates' courts committees was more important than even in the past. I would appeal to the Committee to agree that we really ought not to go on any longer with this entirely anomalous position in which the only body, virtually, that a magistrates' court committee can get involved in a dispute with is the local authority—though it could also, I suppose, be at variance with the police authority, but the secretary to the police authority is the secretary to the county council, anyway. It is quite wrong that this man should wear two hats and he on both sides of the fence at the same time. So, naturally, justices feel, "We have nobody to help us over this because our own clerk to our own committee, if we are going to have a dispute, is going to be the principal opponent on the other side." This really ought not to continue, and it ought to be laid down that the clerk to the county magistrates' courts committees should by Statute be, as they are by Statute in the case of the towns, a justices clerk. 'While it is easy to say, "It is being left to them", it always has been left to them and the result has been this dominant influence of the clerk of the county council, which in my submission ought not to be allowed to continue.
1.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to curtail discussion in this Committee, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has set out the case for this Amendment with great thoroughness and deployed, I should have thought, almost every argument it is possible to deploy. It might therefore be for the convenience of the Committee if I were now to tell the Committee the result of the consultations with the Home Office

1459
that he mentioned. It may then be easier for the Committee to make up their minds, rather than go over some ground again. It is true that we know the view of the Justices' Clerks Society that the clerk of the magistrates' courts committee should always be selected from justices' clerks ; I am not surprised at that and I do not suppose anybody else is, either. The Committee has now been told that the executive committee of the Magistrates' Association—though I think it represented a majority only, but never mind: 75 per cent., a little bird in my ear has whispered—took the view and represented to us that it was undesirable that a local authority official such as the county clerk should hold the position we are now discussing. The same view was represented to my honourable friend the other Minister of State by the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees, whose position is now entirely clear as a result of what the noble and learned Lord has said.
They came in July to discuss these matters. They advanced the same argument—not so much about justice being seen to be done, but rather on the financial control side ; that since the county council is, as we now know, responsible for the financial side, any officer like the clerk could be thought to be unduly biased in favour of the county council, with the result, true or merely thought to be true, that the noble and learned Lord has been talking about. We also have been told forcefully about the result of the disappearance of the position of clerk of the peace, which again has now been explained. My honourable friend said that this matter would be considered, and we have been considering it. Our view is now this. We agree that the position regarding the administration of magistrates' courts has changed substantially since the Justices of the Peace Act came into force in 1953. There are a number of examples of this, but probably I need hardly go into the changes, since the noble and learned Lord has dealt with them already. There is a good deal of increasing complexity, apart from anything else, in the sort of business that they have to do, and there are good reasons for reconsidering, within the framework of the present locally-based system that we have
1460
decided to preserve (and I am not going into that) the various administrative matters, such as the choice of the clerk to the new magistrates' courts committees. Everybody will have to do this as a result of this Bill because, as the noble and learned Lord rightly reminded us, there will be a reduction from 154 to 78 of these committees, so it has to be thought out again.
On the whole we think it is not right to direct the magistrates' courts committees by Statute that they must appoint a justices' clerk. There may be exceptional cases where they do not want to, and we should not wish to fetter their discretion completely in the way that this particular Amendment would do. But what we should like to do is to remind the magistrates, when they are deciding on the appointment of a new clerk for the new magistrates' courts committees, of the point of view that has been put forward and their freedom of choice. At the same time, the magistrates' associations will no doubt be dealing with this matter and reminding their members of the views that have already been expressed, and so, one would think, would the Central Council of the magistrates' courts committees, which hold the same views as the noble and learned Lord opposite. They are in a much stronger position than are we at the Home Office to advise the magistrates' courts committees whom to select, and to put the points of view which have been expressed in this short debate.
There are slightly different views on this subject, but I think the way it has been expressed so far is very much along the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord. In these circumstances, and with the sort of sympathy that I have been able to express for this point of view, the very solid foundation of fact upon which the representations have been made and the strength of feeling inside the associations of magistrates, who will in fact be advising their members, I wonder whether the committee would think that we have now reached a stage where the change may in practice come about. At the same time would it be right actually to provide that the appointment must in every case be of a justices' clerk? There may be an exceptional case where someone who is in no way connected with local government has a very

1461
good claim to be selected and he would be the person whom the magistrates' courts committee would choose. We think this is possible and we do not like the idea of completely fettering the discretion of the magistrates' courts committees.
I think I have made plain what the view of my Department is on this matter and I wonder, therefore, whether the Committee will think that the situation has been substantially improved as a result of representations that have been made, that we do not actually need this Amendment and that the effects that the noble and learned Lord wants are likely to be carried out in any event.
LORD GARDINER: I am not quite sure why it is necessarily wrong to provide by Statute that the clerk to a magistrates' courts committee in a county should be a given person when it is right to do so in a town ; but in view of what the noble Viscount has said I should be reluctant to press this matter further, although it is actually a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
LORD FOOT: Is the noble and learned Lord asking me a question? I am afraid I did not hear what he said.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:I think the noble and learned Lord was saying that as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, also has his name to this Amendment it would be a matter of civility to ask him for his views.
LORD FOOT: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, and I think it would be quite wrong to press this to a Division. I am grateful for the assurance that we have had from the noble Viscount and the report upon the decisions of the Home Office investigation.
LORD GARDINER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 27 agreed to.
Clause 211 [Lieutenants and Sheriffs]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 125L:
Amendment moved—
Page 169, leave out lines 11 to 26.-(Viscount Colville or Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 211, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to move Amendment No. 125M:
Amendment moved—
After clause 211 insert the following new clause:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

  SHERIFFS AND UNDER-SHERIFFS
  ".—(1) Sheriffs appointed for a county or Greater London shall be known as high sheriffs, and any reference in any enactment or instrument to a sheriff shall be construed accordingly in relation to sheriffs for a county or Greater London.
  (2) No persons shall be nominated in 1973 in pursuance of section 6(1) of the Sheriffs Act 1887 as persons fit to serve as high sheriff, but the lord-lieutenant of a new county or Greater London shall, as soon as may be after he has been appointed under section 211(1) above or has been specified in an Order in Council under section 211(4) above, nominate three persons as being fit to serve as high sheriff of that county or Greater London, as the case may be, and they shall be treated as having been nominated under the said section 6(1).
  (3) The rights of Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster in relation to the appointment of high sheriffs shall apply throughout the whole of the counties of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire ; and subsection (2) above shall not apply to those counties or to the county of Cornwall.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor may by order prescribe the area for which each under-sheriff is to act.
  (5) Where the area for which an under-sheriff acts is situated in two or more counties, the duty imposed by section 23 of the Sheriffs Act 1887 of appointing the under-sheriff for that area shall be discharged by the high sheriff of the county containing the greater part of that area, after consulting any other high sheriff concerned, and if any question arises as to which county contains the greater part of an under-sheriff's area, it shall be determined by the Lord Chancellor.
  References in this subsection to a county include references both to Greater London and to the City (including the Temples).
  (6) An under-sheriff shall as respects the area for which he acts be treated as the high sheriff's deputy for the purpose of all the high sheriff's functions, except his functions as returning officer at parliamentary elections.
  (7) No privileges or duties of a sheriff shall be exercisable under section 34 of the Sheriffs Act 1887 or otherwise by the bailiff of a franchise.
  (8) In this section "Greater London" does not include the City or the Temples."—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 212 and 213 agreed to.
  Schedule 28 agreed to.
  Clause 214 [Power of local authorities to prosecute or defend legal proceedings]:
  LORD SANDFORD: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment 100G to Clause 134. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 171, line :23, at end insert—
  (" (2) In this section "local authority" includes the Common Council.").-(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 214, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 215 [Appearance of local authorities in legal proceedings]:
  LORD SANDFORD: This Amendment is also consequential on Amendment 100G. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 171, line 32, leave out from ("section") to ("and") in line 36 and insert ("local authority includes the Common Council.")—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 215, as amended agreed to.
  Clause 216 [Arrangements by principal councils for custody of records, etc.]:
  1.59 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 125GG :
  Page 171, line 43, at end insert—
  (" (2) Such proper arrangements shall include the preparation by the Council of a code of practice, which shall govern the exercise by persons authorised by the Council of the powers to destroy documents conferred on the Council by any enactment including the retention of certain documents or classes or examples of documents on the grounds of the value which the documents have, or may reasonably he expected to have in the future for administrative or historical purposes, or for the purpose of sociological or other research.")
  The noble Lord said: "I beg to move Amendment No. 125GG on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and myself. My noble friend is unfortunately unable to be here, owing to a longstanding engagement. This Amendment needs only a little explanation. The actual wording of it has been lifted out
  1464
  of the East Suffolk County Council Bill and has the backing of the Society of Archivists. It has also been used in more or less the same way in the Monmouthshire County Council Bill and the Surrey County Council Bill.
  Clause 217 of the Bill states that a parish or community council shall make proper arrangements with respect to any document in its possession or custody. "Proper arrangements" is an imprecise phrase, which may mean many things to all men but is rather difficult to define. Despite the remarks in Standing Committee D of the other place on March 9 of this year by Mr. Heseltine, then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Society feels most strongly that any precision that can be added to the Bill in regard to this matter would be highly desirable.
  Some three years ago the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government informed the Secretary of the Society that there was some doubt as to the exact nature of the powers of local authorities to destroy documents, implied from Section 279 of the Local Government Act 1933. As Clause 217 of this Bill effectively replaces that Section 279 there would seem to be every reason to ensure that the opportunity be now taken to remove any possible doubts and also to ensure that local authorities have undoubted powers to destroy documents that are not of lasting significance and to do so on a well-founded common pattern. By the enactment of a provision such as this Amendment proposes local authorities will be both empowered and implicitly encouraged to deal with their record problems in an ordinary, regular, professional and economical manner, thus ensuring that records of permanent value are permanently preserved and that records of no enduring long-term administrative or research value are destroyed once their usefulness for administrative and legal purposes is at an end. I can give your Lordships an example. In the last nine months there came to light a case about some records of a personal nature being found on a rubbish dump. This find caused undue harm.
  This brings me to the next point I wish to put before the House, which is the code of practice which this Amendment is about. The elaboration of a code of practice which would, it is anticipated,

  1465
  be the outcome of deliberations between all interested parties and would provide a common basis and pattern of action, would represent a proper recognition of the archivist's place in the matter of records management which is now a major element in a properly constituted archive service. The enactment of provisions giving local authorities the undoubted power to operate records management programmes would place local government on the same footing in this matter as central Government by virtue of the Public Records Act 1958.
  It seems strange that central Government should have the necessary statutory sanction and framework for the operation of a highly efficient and effective records management operation while local government still has no such sanction or framework. Because in many areas the records of central and local government are complementary, it would seem sensible to take the chance to put them on the same footing. The provision of a code of practice would provide yardsticks for action with positive bite in them—this is so far lacking—and would ensure continuity in practice and preservation which would otherwise be lacking. I appreciate that I have put these details before your Lordships with considerable haste. I hope nevertheless that due consideration will be given to the Amendment. I beg to move.
  LORD SANDFORD: I can certainly give my noble friend the assurance that this matter has been considered, though I fear that at the end of the day I shall be unable to recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is proposed to circulate to the local authority associations and other interested bodies, such as the Society of Archivists and the British Records Association, a consultation paper about the principles which should govern the transfer of records and documents. In our view, such a paper—and a circular subsequent to it if one should prove desirable—would be a better way to draw the attention of the new local authorities to matters such as those my noble friend has raised.
  This is a Bill primarily about local government reorganisation and on many points, several of which have been mentioned, we have had to resist an attempt
  1466
  to introduce entirely new material. I last did this on the suggestion that we should have a large number of clauses dealing with district heating. We are reluctant to make local authorities conform to a rigid set of rules such as is proposed in the Amendment. I hope that with that explanation and assurance that the matter is receiving attention, though in a rather different way, my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.
  LORD TEVIOT: I am not absolutely clear on one point, though I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him to tell me why what he referred to as a rigid set of proposals could be agreed by central Government but not by local government when, as I explained, they are both similar? My noble friend did not seem to explain this point.
  LORD SANDFORD: The Amendment seeks to spell out in statutory form that a code of practice should be prepared by the council. We do not think this is necessarily the right way of doing it and we are proposing to set about it in the manner I have indicated.
  LORD TEVIOT: On the assurance that the Government are looking into this matter and that consultation is taking place—I suppose that if it is proved necessary, as a result of those consultations, a small Bill could be introduced to cover this point—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 216 agreed to.
  Clause 217 agreed to.
  Clause 218 [Custody of parish or community documents]:
  2.7 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 125HH.
  Page 172, line 35, at end insert ("and all documents and resters in the custody of the incumbent and churchwardens and which he and they have the responsiblity to make and keep").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is completely different from the previous one I moved. This has the approval of the College of Arms and the Institute of Genealogical and Heraldic Research. I am seeking here that all

  1467
  parish records, which at the moment are in the custody of the encumbent of the parish or his church wardens—which is virtually the encumbent himself—should come under the supervision of the county council. I will not detain your Lordships for long on this matter because I had an interesting debate on the subject of parish registers a year ago last April. I must however again explain, if only briefly, what these records comprise. They are mainly the parish registers, which in some cases date back to 1538, recording all baptisms, marriages and burials. They are priceless and unique records and should therefore be guarded and looked after. The situation as it stands is based on the Parish Church Council Measure of 1929 which orders these records to be kept in the custody of the encumbent and to be locked up in the safe of the church, or they can be deposited in a local county records office under the custodianship of the county archivist. If the bishop considers that the registers are not being kept in proper conditions, he can order the documents to be deposited.
  Adequate machinery for their preservation is in force whenever it is put into effect, but I suggest that it is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, many church safes are inadequate and are kept in vestries where the temperature is low, whereas these documents need to be kept in very much the right temperature. The registers and records are open to damp, rot, fire, flood and theft—theft in the sense that people probably do not go to pinch the register but the plate, though they take the whole contents, and many months later one probably finds the register in a marsh and completely illegible. Secondly, parish priests are nowadays of a very different kind. I trust that your Lordships will not get me wrong over this. They are very different from their Victorian counterparts. The Victorian priest was generally a scholar with a love of history and antiquity. Perhaps he was not so busy because there were more churches and the populations were smaller, or in very busy churches there were vestry clerks to look after the records properly. Now the priest is a different type. In many ways one can say that he has changed for the better ; perhaps he is more in touch, more alive and more down
  1468
  to earth. He does not have time to look after his records. I am of course speaking to a Minister who is himself a priest. The parish priest of to-day does not always have time to look after these records or be bothered with people who want to come to look at them. I appreciate the inconvenience to which he can be put, and for reasons best known to himself he keeps them in the church and does not deposit them.
  Archdeacons and bishops are also very busy men and have little time to supervise their upkeep properly—and why should they? Every county and every diocese has record offices manned by expert staffs, archivists who have had a long and detailed training and whose main function is to preserve records. This Amendment is only seeking to have the supervision of county councils, and does not wish to take away the records from the custody of the parish priest if the parish so wishes it. One can understand the feelings of people wishing to keep their records, but they would be much more accessible in county council record offices. I am not in any way trying to perpetrate a war between Church and State, but I feel most strongly that these treasures must be kept in the best possible way and accessible for people to see, for they are the heritage of our country, are much admired by the world and indeed contribute to our invisible exports for people from all over the New World wishing to trace their ancestry. Therefore I hope that this Amendment will be given the fullest consideration.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not want to stand between your Lordships and the next clause for more than one minute. There may be very good arguments against this Amendment. A few years ago, my son started tracking down the family history of the Leatherlands and made the marvellous discovery that one of my ancestors was supposed to be a monk—but I said that that could not possibly be true. In the course of these inquiries my son had reason to go to the Northamptonshire County Record Office and found there a mine of information. There is probably something to be said for moving these records from the parishes into the county record offices.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I thought that the responsibility for the keeping of

  1469
  records such as births, deaths and marriages was basically at Somerset House. I wonder whether it should in fact be the responsibility of county councils—I ask this as a question, because I know that in Scotland almost all our parish records are now being kept at Register House in Edinburgh. I think they are in the right place where they are properly looked after and open for inspection by anyone interested. They have a marvellous staff there to help people to get any information they wish.
  LORD TEVIOT: I must interrupt at this point to explain to my noble friend that we are talking of baptisms, marriages and burials. Since 1837 we have had to deal with births and deaths and that is done in the General Registration Act. In Scotland it is very different, because all parish registers prior to 1837 have been deposited and can all be seen in St. Andrew's House.
  LORD PLATT: I am not sure whether the wording of this Amendment is the proper wording because I am not competent to judge, but your Lordships should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing up these important matters about records. I have lately been concerned in two genealogical researches—I will not bore your Lordships with any details of them—and I know how terribly difficult it can be to get access to records before the Somerset House period and how important it is in this country, with traditions going back hundreds of years, to preserve these records. I cannot accept, if we are going to have a reply that some general instruction of good intent to county councils would fulfil the same purpose, that that is the same as something written into the law of the land, and subject to any possible difference of opinion as to the wording of the Amendment I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, very strongly.
  2.15 p.m.
  LORD SANDFORD: I will not follow my noble friend into the fascinating business of the character of priests, ancient and modern, but I am glad that he has proposed this Amendment because the matter, as every speaker has said, is important. But I must say that in reading
  1470
  the noble Lord's Amendment I thought that what he was seeking to do was, broadly speaking, to preserve the arrangements that were first put on the Statute Book in the Local Government Act 1894 and continued in the Local Government Act 1933 which, as it were, divided up the relative responsibilities of the ecclesiastical parish bodies and civil parish bodies in respect of records. If that is what he was seeking to do, apart from some faulty drafting, his Amendment would certainly be acceptable in principle.
  However, from the tone of what he has said in support of his Amendment I am afraid that he is going considerably further, and I suggest that it is indeed necessary to tread delicately in this field of Church and State. However, I should like to give the Committee an assurance that if the noble Lord will not press his Amendment now we will look at the matter he has raised and make quite sure that at any rate the safety and safe keeping of these records is not in any way jeopardised by the transitional arrangements that local government reform will bring about. How much further it will be proper to go without consultation I shall need time to consider. But I hope that what I have said will be sufficient for the noble Lord to be assured to the extent of not needing to press his Amendment now.
  LORD PLATT: May I ask a question of the noble Lord? When he speaks of "further consultation" does he mean immediately among colleagues in his department, or does he mean in due course, a year or two after the Act has been passed?
  LORD SANDFORD: There are two aspects here. One is to make sure that this process of local government reform, with which the Bill is chiefly concerned, does not bring about any worsening in the situation of these records, their safe keeping and so on. That is the thing on which Ministers need to have immediate consultation, with a view to producing possibly a Government Amendment at the next stage. If it is my noble friend's wish and the view of the Committee that we should go further into it than carrying forward the arrangements for the division of responsibility between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, that is a matter for wider consultation and will take longer.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The noble Lord will remember that some months ago we had a fascinating debate on this question and it was brought to the notice of the House that many of these valuable records are being lost. Depending on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, I think the Government are approaching this matter constructively. I wanted to add my voice only because many of us are fascinated by and interested in the preservation of these old documents, and I want to impress (if that is not too pompous) upon the Government that I think it is an important area of local and British history, one that it is well worth having a second look at to preserve, and even to subsidise a little to keep the documents fresh and alive.
  LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful for that point. My noble friend Lord Teviot will know the action that my noble friend Lord Aberdare took as a result of our earlier debate and of the progress made in that respect. But at the moment I would suggest that we must keep our eye on the ball, which is local government reform.
  LORD TEVIOT: In thanking noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment, may I say that I entirely agree with my noble friend, who has gone much further than I thought he would. I shall greatly welcome the Amendment the Government will draft because at this stage I agree that I do not wish to go very far with this matter between Church and State. I wanted an Amendment which was within the terms of this Bill and which I thought was entirely proper. But I must make one comment here: I do not know whether my noble friend is representing his other hat, but the Bishops' Bench is completely empty. I should have thought they could well have been represented. Be that as it may, I look forward to what my noble friend has in store and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 218 agreed to.
  Clauses 219 and 220 agreed to.
  Clause 221 [Photographic copies of documents]:
  2.21 p.m.
  LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 125Q and 125R:
  Page 174, line 20, at end insert—
  (" (3A) In legal proceedings a photographic copy of a document in the custody of a local authority, or of a document which has been destroyed while in the custody of a local authority, or of any part of any such document, shall, subject to subsection (3C) below, be admissible in evidence to the like extent as the original.
  (3B) A certificate purporting to be signed by the proper officer of the local authority concerned that a document is such a photographic copy as is mentioned in subsection (3A) above, shall, subject to subsection (4) below, be evidence to that effect.
  (3C) The court before which a photographic copy is tendered in evidence in pursuance of subsection (3A) above may, if the original is in existence, require its production and thereupon that subsection shall not apply to the copy.")line 25, at end add—
  (" (5) In this section "court" and "legal proceedings" have the same meanings as in the Civil Evidence Act 1968.")
  The noble Lord said : I beg to move Amendment No. 125Q which is to do with photographic records. I think I can do this quite shortly and I will couple this Amendment with Amendment No. 125R. Amendment No. 125Q enables the local authority documents to be simply proved in legal proceedings by means of properly authenticated photographic copies. Amendment No. 125R defines the terms "court" and "legal proceedings" which appear in the preceding Amendment by attracting definitions contained in Section 18(2) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 221, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 222 to 233 agreed to.
  Clause 234 [Freemen]:
  LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move that we omit Clause 234 from the Bill. This would pave the way to the substitution of a new clause on the same subject of freemen. That is Amendment No. 125VV, which will be found at the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11 of the latest Marshalled list. Other linked Amendments with that one are Amendments Nos. 125MM and 131J, but

  1473
  the substantive one is Amendment No. 125VV. This might be a convenient moment to discuss the whole matter.
  The new clause is to be included somewhat later in the Bill as the draftsman has taken the opportunity to group together a series of new and existing clauses all dealing with ancient historical and ceremonial aspects of local government—and that is the subject to which we now come. The group as a whole will consist of: new Clause 125RR on the status of certain districts; new Clause 125TT on the preservation of powers and privileges of existing cities and boroughs; new Clause 125UU on ceremonial bearings; 125VV which is, as I said, on freemen and the inhabitants of existing boroughs; and the existing Clause 235 on honorary aldermen and freemen which will be transposed by Amendment No. 125QQ. The main Amendment on the subject of freemen is Amendment No. 125VV. This deals with "real" freemen, the successors to the original members of the ancient municipal corporations, and is not to be confused with honorary freemen who are dealt with separately in the Bill and upon whom freedom is conferred as a type of local honour.
  The three traditional qualifications for freedom of a town which still survive are: birth, being the son a freeman; servitude, by being appointed to a freeman; or marriage to a daughter or widow of a freeman. Freemen's roles and the official admission of freemen are maintained in about 50 towns. In these places the ancient institution is regarded with considerable pride and although freedom nowadays carries no local government significance it may carry property rights. It had always been the Government's intention to preserve the institution and the rights of freemen in these places. The present clause, Clause 234, permits orders to be made for this purpose but at the urgent wish of the nationwide body known as the "Freemen of England" the Government now propose that these matters should be dealt with in the Bill itself instead of by subsequent order. The new clause moved in by Amendment 125VV and supplemented by Amendments 125MM and 131J achieves that. There is more to be said on the subject if the Committee wish me to do so but I think the Committee may feel it will be content with that. I beg to move.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps I should declare an interest as a freeman with no rights or privileges whatever.
  BARONESS WHITE: May I ask does that extend to Wales? Do we have the freemen of Wales as well? The noble Lord referred only to the freemen of England.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: In Wales they are not free; that is one of their grievances. Mine is a very short interjection. We are allowed to confer upon prominent citizens in our boroughs and cities the title of "Freeman". We are not allowed to do that in the case of counties, although there may be people who have served their county very well indeed over a long period of years and it has always struck me as being a gap in these nice, pretty honorary decorations that we give to people from time to time. I know it will be suggested in a later clause in the Bill that we are going to make it possible for people to become honorary aldermen of a county, but I can see that particular decoration being conferred merely upon people who have served the county council itself. That would leave out of consideration quite a large number of people who may have served the county in a less prominent and ornamental manner. It is obviously too late to do anything substantive here, but will the Minister think about the possibility of creating Freemen of counties?
  LORD SANDFORD: Yes, certainly. In answer to the noble Baroness, it is the freemen of England who have been instrumental in getting this Amendment into the Bill in place of the arrangement that we had proposed before; but so far as I can see at the moment the provision extends to Wales, though if the noble Baroness were to ask me in which town in Wales it would apply I should be at a loss.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 235 [Honorary aldermen and freemen]:
  LORD SANDFORD: I propose that we discuss with Amendment No. 125JJ, Amendments Nos. 125KK and 125LL. These are all paving Amendments to the

  1475
  new clauses after Clause 238 which we agreed we should discuss when we reached that point.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 183, line 4, after first ("a") insert ("city, borough or royal")
  line 7, after ("the") insert ("city, borough or royal")
  line 9, after ("the") insert ("city, borough or royal").—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question., Amendments agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD: We have just referred to Amendment No. 125MM in connection with Amendments No. 125W, Amendments 125NN and 125PP pave the way, and Amendment No. 125QQ is associated with the one referring to freemen. If the Committee agree, I suggest that we might deal with these together as they deal with the same subject.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 183, line 9, at end insert ("but the admission of a person to be an honorary freeman shall not confer on him any such rights as are referred to in section (Freemen and inhabitants of existing boroughs) (4) below.")
  line 11, after first ("a") insert ("city, borough or royal")
  line 15, after ("the") insert ("city, borough or royal").
  Transpose Clause 235 to after new clause (Freemen and inhabitants of existing boroughs).—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 235, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 236 agreed to.
  Clause 237 [Provision as to Sundays, etc.]:
  LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 125S.
  Page 183, line 22, leave out clause 237 and insert the following new clause—
  ("237.—(1) Where the day or the last day on which anything is required or permitted to be done by or by virtue of any provision to which this subsection applies is a Sunday, day of Christmas break, of the Easter break or of a hank holiday break or a day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning, the requirement or permission shall be deemed to relate to the first day thereafter which is not one of the days specified above.
  (2) Subsection (1) above applies to any provision of this Act or of an instrument under this Act, except a provision in Part IX or X or a provision of rules under section 42 above or paragraph 14 or 28 of Schedule 12 to this Act.
  1476
  (3) Where under subsection (1) above the day of election or the day of a poll consequent on a parish or community meeeting is postponed, the day to which it is postponed shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the day of election or of the poll, as the case may be.
  (4) In computing any period of time for the purpose of any rules mentioned in subsection (2) above or for the purposes of section 44(1) or 89(1) above any day specified in subsection (1) above shall be disregarded, but where between the giving of a notice of election or of the poll and the completion of the poll a day is declared to be a bank holiday or day of public thanksgiving or mourning the foregoing provision, so far as it relates to any such rules, shall not operate to invalidate any act which would have been valid apart from that provision.
  (5) Subsection (4) above, so far as it relates to any such rules, shall have effect subject to the provisions of those rules.")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, is consequential on Amendment No. 88HH to Clause 44.
  On Question Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 238 agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 125RR:
  Insert the following new clause—

  STATUS OF CERTAIN DISTRICTS, PARISHES AND COMMUNITIES
  (".—(1) If, on a petition presented to Her Majesty by the council of a district praying for the grant of a charter under this subsection, Her Majesty by the advice of Her Privy Council thinks fit so to do, She may by the charter confer on that district the status of a borough, and thereupon—

  (a) the council of the district shall bear the name of the council of the borough;

  (b) the chairman and vice-chairman of the council shall respectively be entitled to the style of mayor and deputy mayor of the borough.

  (2) A petition for a charter under subsection (1) above shall not be presented except on a resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the members voting thereon at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose with notice of the object.
  (3) No charter under subsection (1) above shall take effect before 1st April 1974.
  (4) Where a petition is presented to Her Majesty before 1st April 1974 by the council of a district praying for the grant of a charter under subsection (1) above and it is signified on behalf of Her Majesty before that date that She proposes to accede to the petition and that She approves—

  (a) the use for the district of any style previously belonging to an existing borough

  1477
  which on that date will become wholly or partly comprised in the district; and

  (b) the use for the chairman and vice-chairman of the council of the district of any style previously belonging to the mayor or deputy mayor of that borough;

  those styles may be so used as from 1st April 1974.
  (5) A district which has the status of a borough, or for which the style of borough may be used, by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section and the council of any such district shall not be treated as a borough or the council of a borough for the purposes of any Act passed before 1st April 1974.
  (6) The council of a parish or community which is not grouped with any other parish or community may resolve that the parish or community shall have the status of a town and thereupon—

  (a) the council of the parish or community shall hear the name of the council of the town;

  (b) the chairman and vice-chairman of the council shall he respectively entitled to the style of town mayor and deputy town mayor;

  (c) the parish meeting or a community meeting shall have the style of town meeting.

  (7) A resolution under subsection (6) above shall cease to have effect if the parish or community to which it relates ceases to exist.
  (8) If a parish or community council which has passed a resolution under subsection (6) is dissolved without the parish or community ceasing to exist, the dissolution shall not affect the shwas of the parish or community or the application to it of paragraph (c) of that subsection and in England the parish trustees shall have the style of town trustees.
  (9) A parish or community council by whom a resolution has been passed or, if the council has been dissolved, the parish meeting in England or a community meeting in Wales may resolve that the parish or community shall cease to have the status of a town and thereupon subsection (6)(a) to (c) above and subsection (8) above shall cease to apply to the parish or community.
  (10) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect subject to any provision made by a grant under Her Majesty's prerogative and, in particular, to any such provision granting the status of a city or royal borough or conferring the style of lord mayor, deputy lord mayor or right honourable.")
  The noble Lord said: Now we come to the business of dignities, which was first raised when I moved to delete Clause 3 from the Bill. At that time were were dealing with Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, suggested that we
  1478
  should leave the debate until this point, which we have done.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I interrupt my noble friend for a moment and suggest that within the ambit of this debate we might usefully discuss the following Amendments, Nos. 125SS and 125ZZ, in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who unfortunately is not present? I could then move them formally later.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I shall be calling only the first of those two Amendments as an Amendment to this Amendment.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My suggestion was that within the ambit of the debate we might include the substance of that Amendment, if that is to the convenience of the Committee.
  LORD SANDFORD: I think that would be very helpful and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee.
  Noble Lords will now have had the opportunity to study not only this Amendment but also the supporting note which has been provided and has been available in the Royal Gallery for some days. I take advantage of that fact to speak rather more briefly than I otherwise would have done; nevertheless the subject is such that it will require a fairly substantial explanation. There are three elements in the Government's new and wider proposals in this field. First of all, we are dealing with the status of areas, and particularly the matter of borough status granted by Royal Charter as it has been in the past and will continue to be in the future. Secondly, there is the right of a chief citizen to use the title "Mayor", and many representations have been made in this House and in the other place stressing the desirability of retaining that right. Thirdly, there is a great range of highly treasured rights and privileges contained in charters too numerous and various to be related. They range from practical matters, such as the ownership of corporate land, to the appointment of local officers who hold positions carrying dignity rather than duties and involve ceremonial and social responsibilities rather than statutory powers.

  1479
  The basic provision in the Government's proposals is contained in subsection (1) of the new clause on the preservation of powers, privileges and rights of existing citizens and boroughs; that is, Amendment No. 125TT. Your Lordships will have seen that it is a general saving of privileges and rights belonging to the citizens or burgesses of an existing city or borough immediately prior to the date when the reorganisation will take effect; that is to say, April 1, 1974. Subject to what is contained in a new Roy al Charter or any provision in the Bill or the Order made under the Bill, existing rights and privileges will continue in the areas where they now apply. I need to make two points on this matter. This general saving does not preserve borough status for any particular area, nor certain powers granted under the Royal prerogative. It does not, for instance, preserve the right of a town to the style "royal borough". It does not of itself preserve the title "Lord Mayor". These are prerogative titles and will need to be specifically regranted.
  Perhaps I might refer back to last night's debate and confirm that the Motion to do with the Royal prerogative has not been overlooked, but because it is involved here it will not be moved until a later stage of the Bill. The powers of Her Majesty in this respect are specifically referred to in subsection (10) of the new clause on status, Amendment No. 125RR.
  The matter of status and prerogative titles and mayorality are of such importance that I should like to give some examples of how the new provision might affect particular places. As regards borough status, the Government hold the view which they have expressed from the beginning: (1) that the right of an area to be called a borough should apply only at district level, and, (2), this right should be granted by Royal Charter as hitherto has been the practice and not by Statute, as would seem to be the intention of the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
  The right to apply for a Royal Charter is open to all the new districts, whether or not they contain or comprise boroughs at present. The special provisions already in the Bill relating to the continuity of borough status and other digni-
  1480
  ties are repeated in subsection (4) of the new clause, Amendment No. 125RR. This provision applies where a new district petitions before April 1, 1974, for grant of borough status and continuation of any dignity or style which already exists, such as "city" or "mayor". That I think meets another point which was of concern to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. If Her Majesty indicates that she consents to the retention of these dignities they will continue without a break, whether or not the formal instrument has been issued when the reorganisation comes into effect. I give the examples of existing boroughs and cities which I should have thought would obviously be likely to petition for renewal of their ancient dignities. Purely by way of illustration, and not in any sense speaking for them, Southampton, Portsmouth, York, Nottingham, Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Plymouth, Worcester and Gloucester are among those which suggest themselves to me.
  While dealing with these new authorities at district level, I refer to the paving Amendments to Clauses 4 and 23, which accord precedence to chairmen of district councils throughout a district. They will have this effect irrespective of whether the district has been a borough in the past or will be in the future; irrespective of whether the chairman has been mayor in the past or will be in the future. This, then, is the translation into contemporary terms of a provision which has long applied to boroughs and is in fact included in Section 18(5) of the Local Government Act 1933 giving precedence to the mayor within his borough. We see no reason under the new arrangements why the chairmen of district councils should be subject to different provisions depending upon whether or not the district has applied for borough status. For this reason we are extending the provision generally to all authorities at the district level.
  So much for the larger towns and cities which will be the undoubted nucleus of the districts to which they belong. But some existing boroughs will be grouped with other authorities to form new districts, and in many cases they will not necessarily be the dominant element in the new district. So may we look now to see how things will work out in their cases, looking first at the very small

  1481
  boroughs. These will in many instances retain their councils as successor parishes. We were discussing that under Part V to Schedule 1. The Boundary Commission, acting within guidelines to be discussed with the local authority associations, will consult the existing boroughs and urban districts and will recommend which of them should retain their councils at parish level as from April 1974.
  Following on from what I said about borough status being confined to the new authorities at district level, we are not able to continue borough status at parish level also. But we are acting upon a suggestion made during the consultations by those who very reasonably said that many boroughs would not feel the title of "parish" entirely suited to their circumstances or their history. We are therefore proposing that former boroughs who retain their council at parish or community level should be entitled to adopt the status of "town". The council will become the "town council" and the chairman of the town council will become the "town mayor", and by the general saving for privileges and dignities, other charter provisions will be preserved, too. Some of the smaller boroughs which I would expect to see in this category would for example—and here again I am just giving my own opinion by way of 'llustralion—include ancient towns like Appleby, Woodstock, Malmesbury, Arundel, Rye, Buckingham, Marlborough, Wallingford, Glastonbury and places of that kind. We do not think this power to adopt the status of "town" should be confined to former boroughs, so we are extending the possibility to all councils at parish or community level. It will therefore be enjoyed in future by any town not of the largest with a council of its own, whether it was formerly a borough, an urban district, or a parish.
  But some boroughs are too big to be likely candidates for parish government and they will not retain a separate successor parish, but at the same time they may constitute only a minority proportion of the new district, and these require separate consideration. In such cases the position will depend on whether or not the new district itself becomes a borough. If it does acquire borough status, and if the existing borough does not retain its successor parish council,
  1482
  then we are faced with a situation which has frequently arisen in the past, the inclusion of an existing borough in a new and larger borough. The style and privileges of the existing unit then become the joint inheritance of the new larger borough which has been newly created. This has happened many times in local government history. Stoke-on-Trent, for instance, was an amalgamation of six former authorities, including the county borough and three boroughs. The present city of Plymouth was formed by the amalgamation of two previous county boroughs. And most of the London boroughs created in 1963 were amalgamations of two or more existing boroughs.
  We are also faced with the situation that would arise if the new district decides not to apply for borough status for itself. The situation then arises for which we need to make and have made entirely new provision. We propose to retain the identity of an existing borough in these circumstances in two ways: First, there is the general arrangement for the preservation of charter provisions in those areas where they now apply. Secondly, we propose a new concept of charter trustees. These trustees would be the district councillors elected for the area of the former borough who would constitute a separate body corporate, able to hold corporate land and able to elect one of their number to be the town mayor for the area of the former borough. In this way we would keep alive the corporate life of towns and cities which, although not always among the largest, are certainly often among the most ancient of our boroughs. Here I do not propose to offer any possible examples because that would involve forecasting in public which particular districts will or will not decide to petition for borough status. In this case the charter rights and privileges of the mayor are preserved to the places where they have always belonged, but all the statutory powers and functions are merged with those of the larger district.
  I apologise for speaking at such length but this is a rather complex and novel situation. May I try to sum up these proposals. First, we propose that borough status should continue to be enjoyed by Royal Charter and should be

  1483
  granted only to the principal statutory authorities at district level. Secondly, there will be machinery for the continuity of existing dignities such as the status of "city" or title of "Royal borough", or lord mayor. Thirdly, we propose that unless some other provision is made in a Royal Charter or in the Bill or by Order, all existing rights and privileges enjoyed in a present borough will continue to apply within the same area as at present. Fourthly, we propose that in all areas which have mayors at present there can be a mayor in the future, either because the district itself becomes a borough or because the successor council has elected a town mayor or because the charter trustees have elected a mayor.
  That brings me to the end of my perhaps not so brief outline of the Government's proposal. All I need to do is to refer to two further associated matters. One is the need to ensure that town mayors at parish level will be able to support the civic duties which are an important part of that office. As the Bill stands at present there is no power for the chairman of a parish or community council to be given an allowance. We are, therefore, providing such a power in the Government's Amendments to Clauses 15 and 34. This power will also permit an allowance to be made to a town mayor elected by charter trustees.
  I hope that my noble friend Lord Nugent, who has taken up the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Brooke, will agree with me that the Government Amendments meet the points which they seem to have in mind for the retention of existing styles and dignities. I dare say noble Lords are now bound to be wondering how all this will work out in their own particular home towns. I hope they will not invite me to comment on particular cases, because the Committee will realise that the final outcome is the result of a number of imponderable decisions by local people, and it would be hazardous and rash of me to attempt any answers of that kind off the cuff. But if, having read what I have said in Hansard and having read the Amendments and notes we have provided, any noble Lord would want to pursue the matter with me in writing, I will certainly give it consideration and get in touch with him.
  2.50 p.m.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 125RR.
  In Subsection (1), line 6, of the proposed new clause, leave out from C' shall ") to the end of line 7 and insert—

  ("(i) in the case of a district being a city the chairman of the council of which is entitled to bear the title of lord mayor, bear the name of the lord mayor and citizens of the city;

  (ii) in the case of any other district being a city, bear the name of the mayor and citizens of the city; and

  (iii) in the case of any other district, bear the name of the mayor and burgesses of the borough; ").

  The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the Amendment (No. 125SS) standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke. It is of course an Amendment to the Amendment. I will, with your permission, my Lord Chairman, move Amendment No. 125ZZ separately, as it is a slightly different point.
  I have picked up the brief (I find that it is in fact the official brief of the Association of Municipal Corporations) which my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor passed over to me. He has asked me to say that, with much regret, he is unable to be with us this afternoon because he is now on his way flying to Canada. I should like to say first to my noble friend that I think he has provided both comprehensively and generously for this very important clause, about which many people feel very strongly. So far as my personal feelings go, I feel that he has certainly covered the points that I had in mind.
  With regard to the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations, they wish me to say that they welcome the general provision which my noble friend Lord Sandford is proposing in his new clause, but they feel that subsection (1)(a) of the new clause is not sufficiently comprehensive, and therefore they would like to see it extended in the form proposed in my Amendment No. 125SS. The brief is fairly lengthy, but I think that I can save noble Lords' time by not reading it all. There seem to be three parts that I should pick out of it which adequately describe the point that should be considered. In one matter the new clauses fall short of what is desirable, in that they provide for the incorporation

  1485
  of the council of the new district even when it becomes a borough and not for the incorporation of the community. This is the point that the A.M.C. are concerned about, and this is the point which the Amendment seeks to correct.
  The A.M.C. take the view that more important than the question of powers, however, has been the recognition by the granting of a charter of the existence of a recognisable local community with the lord mayor, or mayor, at its head. The incorporation of the city, or borough, in the form of a lord mayor or mayor, aldermen, citizens, or burgesses, as the case may be, clearly recognises the existence of the local community as an entity served by the council but including the whole membership of the local community. The object of the present Amendment is to secure that the community shall continue to be recognised as the body which is incorporated whenever the status of a city or borough is conferred upon a district. It is a relatively small point within the very broad ambit with which my noble friend dealt, but I hope that my noble friend may be willing to consider including this. I beg to
  move.
  2.54 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, apologised for the length of his explanation of this new clause after Clause 238. I must say that he did not, for my choice and taste, say a word too much. This is a matter which is of considerable interest in the country, if I am to judge by the correspondence that I have received on it, partly as a result of the Amendment which I moved to Clause 1, when we had a discussion on the whole principle. The new clause, together with Part V of Schedule 1, appears to me to provide a solution to the problem posed many times in Committee and on Report, and by many in this House previously in Committee. Most of my remarks will be directed to only one aspect of the clause.
  The clause ensures a reasonable status for those districts, and parts of districts, which seek to retain something of the dignity and status to which they are accustomed—always provided, of course, that some of them will be able to persuade the Boundary Commission to recommend the Secretary of State to
  1486
  secure their constitution as parishes under the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1. That, it seems to me, is the first hurdle they have to get over: to persuade the Boundary Commission to make such a recommendation. It seems to me that those districts which are covered by subsections (1) to (5) should have no difficulty, subject of course to the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative. But I should like to be absolutely certain that any parish constituted under Part V of Schedule I, as amended by Amendment No. 72, or any community created in Wales as a result of the review by the Welsh Commission, will be enabled, under subsection (6) of this clause, to resolve to adopt the name and status of a town and its council; that its council shall be called the town council, and that its chairman and deputy chairman shall be entitled to use the style of town mayor and deputy town mayor. I hope that I may have some assurance on this point.
  I remember that when we were discussing another matter, the possibility of doing certain things was confined to a comparatively short period. This is a matter I took up previously with the Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, replied. I cannot imagine that there is any doubt, or any possibility of this in the new clause. I cannot find it in the clause, but I must admit that I seek some assurance for those who are deeply interested in this. I am not going to make a very lengthy speech on this matter. I congratulate the Government on the ingenuity of this solution for cities and boroughs, and for successor parish councils to be enabled to preserve their present dignities and privileges it the district of which they form a part does not petition for borough status. There is, too, some ingenuity in the trustee status provision that is here included within the clauses.
  I am bound to say, so far as the Amendment moved and the subsequent Amendment which I take it the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will be moving, that I have no objection to these Amendments, though I tend to think that they are not necessary. It seems to me that the point is covered adequately in the clause itself. However, I shall listen with great interest to the

  1487
  reply from the noble Lord, Lord Sand-ford. I end as I began, by congratulating the Government and thanking them for what they have done in this connection, because I am sure this will be well received throughout the country by everyone interested in local dignity and all that goes with it.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Like the noble Lord, Lord Champion, my postbag has been fairly full of letters for some time urging me to do everything I could in this House to see that various ancient privileges were retained. Of course I wrote back to say that I would do my best, provided that they could be retained without doing violence to the structure of the scheme for local government contained in this Bill. Therefore when I read through this rather complicated set of Amendments and showed them to professional friends in my own county and asked for their advice, I was very glad to discover that both they and I felt that every reasonable request from everybody—the boroughs, the freemen, and all the other people—had been fairly met, and would leave people happy, provided that they took care to exercise the various options which are open to them in various clauses of this Bill. I should like to express thanks for that, because I feel that my friends at home will be able to get everything they fairly want by making use of the powers and opportunities contained in this Bill. Not only that, I feel also that these Amendments have been framed in such a way as not to do violence to the main structure of the Bill, and not to make exceptions which might otherwise prove rods for our own back.
  I wish I could think that every Amendment which the Government have put forward during this Committee stage was free from that trouble; but I rather doubt it. I do not think that some of the lambs which were sacrificed ought to have been sacrificed, and I hope that some of them may yet be rescued on Report stage. However, I shall not talk about those lambs now, because they are not the subject of this clause. But we have to try to balance democratic proceedings with the need to keep order and to create conditions under which you reduce the power to create rows between various
  1488
  types of local authority and everybody else to the very minimum. That has been done in this case and I am glad that it has, because although no one is more keen on democratic government by the people, every now and then I have a sneaking sympathy with a Frenchman called Talleyrand, who once said that he preferred injustice to disorder. So I congratulate the Government on this group of new Amendments.
  LORD REIGATE: I should like very briefly to support the Amendment in so far as I understand every word of it and, I suppose, in a sense, the Amendment to the Amendment which I do not think I do understand. But I congratulate my noble friend on having met the wishes of an enormous number of people throughout the country. These privileges, honours and dignities which have survived into the twentieth century should be preserved, because they are far more significant than perhaps some people realise. My only complaint against my noble friend is that when he was reciting the roll of ancient boroughs he got as far as Rye and did not add "gate", which I was hoping he would do. But he was quite correct, because the borough whose name I bear was actually incorporated in 1863, the same year, by coincidence, as it was disfranchised as a Parliamentary constituency for corruption, I am sorry to say. But, none the less, its privileges are very much appreciated and I am delighted to know that they will be able to continue.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: I want to ask a simple question, because although all of your Lordships fully understand this Bill from the first word to the end, a number of people outside this Chamber do not understand it. I do not want to mention individual towns such as Saffron Walden, so I put the question in a simple form like this. If we have an ancient borough the size of a tennis ball and it is incorporated into a new district the size of a football, what will the mayor be the mayor of? Will he be the mayor of the tennis ball or the mayor of the football? If the answer is that he will merely be the mayor of the tennis ball, will it be open to the other councils in the football circumference to say, "We want to be included in that mayoralty as well"?
  LORD SANDFORD: I should first like to express not only my thanks but the thanks of my right honourable friend, for the reception which this package has received. There has been a massive operation of consultation in order to produce these Amendments and I know that my right honourable friend and the officials, both in my own Department and in the local authorities and their associations, will be gratified to know that it finds favour with your Lordships. In fact, I think it successfully meets the great majority of the points that have been made.
  In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I would confirm that all successor parishes and communities will be entitled to adopt the titles "own", "town council" or "town mayor". Perhaps that also answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, because the football will have a mayor, the mayor of the whole district, and the tennis ball inside it will be entitled to adopt the style "town mayor". Where there is any danger of confusion, the word "town" must be used to precede the word "mayor". As I am so near to dealing with Amendment No. 125ZZ, I might go on and make the point that we think it is necessary to have this distinction available for use when required. But I should like to suggest, through my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that I would expect the same thing to happen in the use of the word " mayor " as I know from experience happens in the use of the word "admiral". There are grades of admirals. There are full admirals, vice-admirals and rear-admirals, and when it is important to make a distinction between them, such as in order to know who is in command and so on, the prefixes are used. But in ordinary conversation and correspondence it is quite common to drop the prefix, and I imagine that that is what would happen in this case. But I think it is necessary to preserve the distinction in the Statute.
  May I now turn to deal with the Amendment to my Amendment, the substantial point of which is that which concerns the Association of Municipal Corporations and the distinction which has hitherto existed between them and other authorities. It is a point which has frequently been made during the dis-
  1490
  cussions leading up to the preparation of this Bill, and the Government have already explained their view on more than one occasion. There is a constitutional difference between present boroughs and other local authorities, so far as the makeup of the legal corporation is concerned through which collective action is taken. In all authorities, except boroughs, the council is the corporate body, but in boroughs, all the inhabitants are incorporated and form part of the corporate body. In the case of cities they are of course referred to as citizens and in the case of boroughs they are referred to as burgesses. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Brooke seeks to retain this distinction. But quite apart from the drafting of the Amendment, there are grounds of substance which lead me to want to advise the Committee to resist on this point. In the first place the distinction between the incorporation of all the inhabitants and the incorporation of the council has no special significance from the local government point of view. It is a historical relic which is curious, but which has no particular advantages—rather the reverse: the distinction between boroughs and other local government corporations has on occasions led to legal complexities and problems which have a positive disadvantage.
  The second point I should like to make is that the Government are creating a new level of authorities which, for statutory purposes, will all be referred to as districts. Some of these districts will be entitled to use ceremonial dignities and privileges, and will enjoy the status of a borough or city. But the distinction, I submit, should stop there. In our view, it would be undesirable, after reorganisation, to perpetuate a constitutional distinction between one district and another, especially one which has no practical advantages and some potential disadvantages. It is for those reasons, and because we have made such full provision for all the other distinctions, rights and privileges—dignities which we do regard as important—that I hope my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before the Question is put, may I thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for the reply he has given to this Amendment which I have moved on behalf of the

  1491
  Association of Municipal Corporations. I think his point is a good one: that the significance in the past has not been so much substantial as presentational, and in the future it will have even less significance, but that there could well be an undesirable feature in making any distinction among the new district authorities. Although, naturally, I have had no opportunity to consult the A.M.C. on this matter, I will nevertheless, when the opportunity comes, beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I wish to move later the second Amendment in the name of my noble friend separately.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.10 p.m.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 125ZZ.
  Subsection (6). line 7, leave out ("town mayor and deputy mayor") and insert ("mayor and deputy mayor").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 125ZZ, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke. This, I should explain, is not an A.M.C. Amendment but is the brainchild of my noble friend. The new clause, as my noble friend Lord Sandford has explained to us, provides that a new parish council may, as in subsection (6) of the new clause, resolve to claim the status of a town, and then the chairman of the council will become a town mayor; and I can think of a small borough, near me. Godalming, which will undoubtedly do so. My noble friend's Amendment is directed to removing the title "town" and leaving the title "mayor", which is of course the common title in cities, boroughs and towns that we are all accustomed to, because my noble friend felt that it was undesirable to create a new kind of civic title—and I think that is a good argument. My noble friend Lord Sandford has already explained to us that, in the graphic metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, of the tennis ball inside the football, there might be some confusion if the heads of both the football and the tennis ball were officially, statutorily called "mayor", and that there is some advantage in one being called "mayor" officially and the other
  1492
  "town mayor". I am bound to acknowledge that this is a point which could have some significance.
  I think that my noble friend Lord Sandford has really met the point which I feel my noble friend Lord Brooke was after when he explained that, in practice, undoubtedly the town mayor will be called "the mayor", certainly inside his own town—and that is the oniy place where it will really matter; so there is not much danger of one having the announcement of the deputy town mayoress being about to open sonic particular show. So I should think that my noble friend Lord Brooke would be satisfied, this matter having been ventilated and already in advance answered so effectively by my noble friend, if I were now to move the Amendment to the Amendment formally in order to give it a little airing. I beg to move.
  LORD ROYLE: I was just a little disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, suggest that Lord Brooke would be satisfied with the change which is now being suggested. I do not agree here. I am in favour of this Amendment to the Amendment, and it will not take me many words to say why. Everything else in the new clause and in the whole of this hunch of Amendments concerns the question of preserving something which already exists, something in which people have a great pride and something which they would be very unhappy to see go. But in the matter of "town mayor" and "deputy town mayor" we are creating something quite new in this country. To me it seems to ring of the Continent rather than of Great Britain. This phrase "town mayor" does not seem to be something that we would want in this country: either he is mayor or he is not. I should prefer to leave out the word "town". I agree with this argument about the admirals. I know that we shall always call these people " the mayor" but the words are there in the Statute and that is what I object to. I do not think it sounds English in any sense.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: If we agree with Lord Royle and delete the word "town" how will the minutes of my little borough, the "tennis ball" borough, read when they have to refer to "His Worship"? Will they refer to the

  1493
  "mayor" or to the "town mayor"? Unless the word "town is left in I can see quite a lot of difficulties.
  LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: I do not want to detain the Committee but I personally feel that the Government have done extraordinarily well in this difficult area—in particular in rejecting some of the suggestions that I know have been aired, at least in Whitehall if not elsewhere, suggestions to which I shall not give further currency. I hope, even if this Amendment is not accepted, that nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will take back the feeling that we have not perhaps quite got the answer right in the words "town mayor". This "tennis ball inside the football, inside the soft ball, inside the cricket ball" analogy suggests that "town mayor" is quite wrong. In many cases, where it is a parish, it will be much more like a village mayor than a town mayor. In fact what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said is true: that "mayor" is the word that will be used. With respect, I do not believe that confusion will arise because the meetings will be taking place in a context which will make it perfectly clear which mayor is referred to. I do not think there will be much need to have the two words.
  I should be much happier if we did not have the words "town mayor" in the Bill; but, equally, in the absence of Lord Brooke and in the friendly mood in which Lord Nugent is prepared not to press the Amendment, I do not think that we should have any dispute about it. I do not feel that we should have done our job so well if we think we have settled it by the use of the words "town mayor" as if we were to leave it to the Government to think again.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, is probably not fully seized of all the circumstances of the situation. Let us assume that I am the mayor of this "tennis ball" town and that it is announced that Her Worship the Mayoress will open a flower show. What is going to happen if the other mayoress comes from the larger district? I think that we must keep in the word "town".
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: This has proved to be a much more
  1494
  interesting and wide-ranging discussion than I had anticipated. Despite the cogent arguments put up by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, I still feel that my noble friend Lord Sandford has got the balance about right and that the danger—I was going to say "of the old grey mare appearing"—of the sort that Lord Leatherland envisaged could arise and that it would be safer to keep to the suggestion with regard to the word "town". In practice, undoubtedly, the title of mayor will be used. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment 125RR agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD: Unless any other noble Lord has further points to raise, I beg to move Amendment 125TT formally.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 238 insert the following new clause:
  "Preservation of powers, privileges and rights of existing cities or boroughs.
  .—(1) Any privileges or rights belonging immediately before 1st April 1974 to the citizens or burgesses of an existing city or borough shall belong on and after that date to the inhabitants of the area of the existing city or borough.
  (2) A charter granted by Her Majesty under section (Status of certain districts, parishes and communities) above with respect to a district may—

  (a) provide that any powers to appoint local officers of dignity exercisable immediately before 1st April 1974 by the corporation of an existing city or borough, the area of which becomes wholly or partly comprised by virtue of Part I or II of this Act in the district, shall be exercisable on the coming into force of the charter by the council of the district in relation to the whole or any part of the district;

  (b) provide that any privileges or rights belonging immediately before 1st April 1974 to the citizens or burgesses of any such city or borough shall belong on the coming into force of the charter to the inhabitants of the whole or any part of the district;

  (c) contain such incidential, consequential or supplementary provision as may appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or proper in connection with the aforesaid matters.

  (3) Where by virtue of Part I or II of this Act, the area of an existing city or borough on 1st April 1974 becomes a parish in England or becomes a community in Wales having a separate community council, any powers to appoint local officers of dignity exercisable

  1495
  immediately before that date by the corporation of the city or borough shall be exercisable on and after that date by the parish or community council.
  (4) Where by virtue of Part I or II of this Act the area of any existing city or borough on 1st April 1974 becomes wholly comprised in a district not having the status, or entitled to the style, of a borough by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) of section (Status of certain districts, parishes and communities) above and that city or borough does not on that date become a parish in England or a community in Wales having a separate community council—

  (a) the district councillors for the wards wholly or partly comprising the area of the city or borough shall on that date constitute a body corporate by the name of " the Charter Trustees of the City "or" the Charter Trustees of the Town", as the case may be, with the addition of the name of the existing city or borough;

  (b) those councillors may in every year elect one of their number to be city or town mayor and another to be deputy city or town mayor; and

  (c) any powers to appoint local officers of dignity exercisable immediately before that date by the corporation of the city or borough shall be exercisable on and after that date by the Charter Trustees.

  (5) Where by virtue of Part I of this Act part of the area of an existing city or borough in England on 1st April 1974—

  (a) becomes a parish; or

  (b) becomes comprised in a district not having the status, or entitled to the style, of a borough by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) of section (Status of certain districts, parishes and communities) above and does not become a parish;

  the Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (3) or (4) above, as the case may be, shall apply to that part of that area, but if the order so provides with the substitution for the name of the existing city or borough in question of a name specified in the order.
  (6) Subsections (1), (3) and (4) above and any order under subsection (5) above shall have effect subject to any provision made by a grant under Her Majesty's prerogative or any provision of a charter granted by Her Majesty under section (Status of certain districts, parishes and communities) above and any other provision of this Act or an instrument thereunder, and a charter under subsection (2) above shall have effect subject to any provision made by any such grant or any other provision of this Act or an instrument there-under.
  (7) If a charter is granted under that section to the council of a district, any Charter Trustees constituted under subsection (4) above for an area comprised in that district shall be dissolved and paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection shall cease to apply to that area.
  (8) If an area or part of an area for which Charter Trustee, have been constituted under subsection (4) above becomes, or becomes
  1496
  comprised in, a parish or a separate community council is established for a community consisting of such an area, that subsection shall cease to apply to the area or part and accordingly the Charter Trustees shall cease to act there-for.
  (9) Where Charter Trustees have been constituted for an area which is altered by an order under Part IV of this Act and neither subsection (7) or subsection (8) above applies in relation to the alteration, the order may make such provisions with respect to the Charter Trustees as may appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
  (10) The sums required to meet the expenses of Charter Trustees shall be chargeable on, but only on, the area for which the Charter Trustees act, and for the purpose of obtaining those sums the Charter Trustees shall issue precepts to the council of the district in which that area is situated.
  (11) Every cheque or other order for the payment of money by Charter Trustees shall be signed by two of them.
  (12) Charter Trustees shall keep such accounts as may be prescribed of their receipts and payments.
  (13) Sections 15(4A) and 34(4A) above shall apply in relation to a city or town mayor holding office by virtue of this section as they apply to the chairman of a parish or community council.
  (14) Sections 151 to 164 above and section 220 above except subsection (5) shall apply in relation to Charter Trustees as they apply in relation to a parish or community council.
  (15) Sections 168 to 173 above shall apply in relation to Charter Trustees as they apply in relation to the members of a parish or corn-m unity council.—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.14 p.m.
  LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 125UU:
  After Clause 238 insert the following new clause:
  Transfer of armorial bearings from old to new authorities
  " .—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, Her Majesty may by Order in Council authorise any new local authority specified in the Order to bear and use any armorial bearings which may be so specified and which, immediately before 1st April 1974, were lawfully borne and used by an existing local authority which ceases to exist by virtue of section 1 or section 20 above.
  (2) An Order in Council under this section shall provide that before any armorial bearings of an existing local authority may be borne and used by a new local authority in accordance with the Order, they shall be exemplified according to the laws of arms and recorded in the College of Arms."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 125UU. This clause

  1497
  speaks for itself. It provides a simplified way of permitting the new authorities to inherit and continue in use the coats of arms of their predecessors. There is more that could be said, but unless noble Lords wish to press me further, I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 125VV. We discussed this Amendment with the substantive Amendment at the point where we decided to leave out Clause 234.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 138 insert the following new clause:

  FREEMEN AND INHABITANTS OF EXISTING BOROUGHS
  " .—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, nothing in this Act shall affect any person's status, or the right of any person to be admitted, as a freeman of a place which is an existing borough; and in this section any such place is referred to as a city or town.
  (2) On and after 1st April 1974 the roll of freemen of a city or town shall be kept by the proper officer of the relevant district council, that is to say, the council of the district which comprises the whole or the greater part of the city or town.
  (3) If at any time on or after 1st April 1974 any person claims to be admitted as a freeman of a city or town, his claim for admission shall be examined by the chairman of the relevant district council, as defined:;ia subsection (2) above and, if the person's claim is established, his name shall be entered on the roll of freemen of that city or town.
  (4) After 31st March 1974—

  (a) a freeman of a city or town,

  (b) any person who by marriage, descent employment or otherwise is or has been related to or associated with a freeman of a city or town, and

  (c) any person who is or has been related by marriage to the widow or a child of a freeman of a city or town,

  shall have and enjoy the same rights, whether in respect of property or otherwise, as were held and enjoyed on that date by a freeman of that city or town, by a person correspondingly related to or associated with such a freeman or, as the case may be, by a person correspondingly related by marriage to the widow or a child of such a freeman.
  (5) A person who is on 1st April 1974, or becomes thereafter, an inhabitant of a city or town shall, as such, have and enjoy the same rights, whether in respect of property or otherwise, as were held and enjoyed immediately before that date by an inhabitant of that city or town."—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 239 and 240 agreed to.
  Schedule 29 [Adaptation, modification and amendment of enactments]:
  THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 125T:
  Page 363, line 33, leave out from ("to") to end of line 36 and insert ("the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words " means the local weights and measures authority".")
  The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the Amendment which goes together with Amendment No. 137. These Amendments relate to that part of the Bill whose purpose is to amend the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1961 relating to the local authorities who enforce regulations made under that Act. Paragraph 18(2) of Schedule 29 and the connected repeals in Schedule 30, while amending provisions of the Consumer Protection Act mentioned, relating to enforcement authorities in England and Wales, also purport at present to amend provisions in the 1961 Act as related to such authorities in Scotland. As noble Lords will know, the Bill does not extend to Scotland, and therefore these Amendments negative the purported effect of the paragraph in relation to Scotland.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 125WW, 125XX and 125YY as being consequential to Amendment No. 102UU.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 364, line 8, leave out paragraph 21.
  Page 365, line 50, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 366.
  Page 366, line 13, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the New Towns Act 1965").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF COWRIE THE EARL OF COWRIE moved Amendment No. 125U:
  Page 367, line 34, after ("following") insert ("the")
  The noble Earl said: I am always given the most elegant things to say in this Committee. Amendment No. 125U has not anything to do with Amendments No. 125YY or 125XX. It is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph 37 of Part II of

  1499
  Schedule 29 is ambiguous as it stands, for it fails to take account of the fact that the words "certified copy" appear twice in Section 57(4) of the Marriage Act 1949.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Amendment No. 125V is consequential on Amendment No. 100K. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 369, leave out lines 5 to 10.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Amendment No. 125AAA is consequential on Amendment No. 102UU. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 369, leave out lines 15 to 29.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 243 [Consequential and supplementary provisions]:
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: Amendment No. 125W is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 186, line 25, leave out ("Part I or II of").—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Amendment No. 125X is a drafting Amendment, as is Amendment 125Y. With the leave of the Committee, I will move them together. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 186, line 36, leave out ("Part I or II of").
  Page 187, line 3, after ("by") insert ("any Act passed or by").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  On Question Amendments agreed to.
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 187, line 42, at end insert—
  ("( ) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (1) and (2) above, no part of the pavilion estate (as defined in the Brighton Corporation Act 1931) which immediately before 1st April 1974 was held by the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of
  1500
  Brighton by virtue of the Brighton Corporation Act 1931 shall be transferred to any Council other than the Council of the district comprising the existing county borough of Brighton.")
  The noble Lord said: During the course of the various debates to-day I have wondered whether I should go on with this Amendment or wait until Report stage. But I put the Amendment down immediately after Second Reading, and I want it to be aired and to express the hope that the Government will see fit to accept it. As we have moved on a little more rapidly than we appeared to be doing at one time, perhaps I may be allowed to move the Amendment, not in too lengthy a way but adequately, because this is a matter of vital importance to the council and inhabitants of the Borough of Brighton. I make no apologies for raising something which relates only to one town. Goodness knows! during the whole of the Committee stage of this Bill we have had a great deal of that, and in the early parts, when we were on the Corrigendum, we were talking a lot of "parish pump" stuff. Perhaps therefore I may be forgiven if I concentrate on an Amendment dealing with the anxieties of a particular town.
  In order to make things clear, and for the sake of the Record, I think I should quote the appropriate words from the clause referred to—Clause 243, subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) says:
  " The Secretary of State…may at any time…make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as may appear to him—

  (a) to be necessary or proper for the general or any particular purposes of this Act or in consequence of any of the provisions thereof or for giving full effect thereto; or

  (b) to be necessary or proper in consequence of the provisions of any other Act passed in the same session as this Act as apply to any area or authority affected by Part I or II of this Act."

  Then subsection (2), which is important, reads:
  " An order under this section may in particular include provision

  (a) with respect to the transfer and management or custody of property…and the transfer of rights and liabilities".

  My Amendment to follow subsection (2) would exempt the Brighton Pavilion Estate from those paragraphs in the clause.
  May I be a little historical? The Prince Regent, the Prince of Wales or George IV—whatever we like to call him—decided to build his Royal Palace on the coast at Brighton. This was in the period as your Lordships will know, from 1784 to 1820. Of course, the stories of his journeys between London and Brighton are manifold, but he did establish a building which was different from any other in the country: an extraordinary building which has tremendous interest not only for people in Britain but for visitors throughout the world. This palace was used by him a great deal. Eventually King William IV inherited the palace and also used it as a marine residence. He was "the Sailor King" and therefore he liked the palace. But when Queen Victoria came to the Throne she hated the place. She thought it was a monstrosity and ordered it to be dismantled. The local people were up in arms about this, and the Brighton Town Commissioners of the day asked the Queen if she would sell it to them. Eventually they bought it, and on incorporation in 1854 it was transferred from the Brighton Town Commissioners to the Brighton Town Council. And that has been the position ever since.
  The ownership of a Royal Palace by a local authority (I speak subject to correction, but I feel sure I am right) is unique in this country; and in Brighton not only the Town Council but the whole of the town's inhabitants cherish this place very much indeed, and they would resent its loss. It is part of the civic and social life of the town. Over the years the Council have taken great care of the building and have restored with loving care (I do not think that is an exaggerated term) and great pride parts that needed restoration.
  One of the events in which so many people participate is the annual Regency Exhibition, which is something very extraordinary indeed. Year by year Her Majesty the Queen lends wonderful pieces to that Exhibition. It is attended between May and October by many thousands of people. This building—and this is the point I want to emphasise—is known throughout the world as the Brighton Pavilion. It is not a lifeless museum at all, like some we could name. Apart from being a great museum in its own right, as a building within the peri-
  1502
  meter of the estate, it is used for dinners, balls, conferences and concerts; and, as I say, is well known to very many people. Within the perimeter of the estate are lawns, the great Pavilion itself, the stable Dome, which used to be the stables of George IV, and the Corn Exchange, which used to be the riding school. There is also a Pavilion Theatre and a Library. I want to talk for a moment or two now if I may about the library, because a lot may be said later, and this is important. It is understood (is it not?) that responsibility for libraries will go to the new county councils. Therefore there is a great problem here as to what should happen to the library which is within the perimeter of this estate.
  I am empowered to say that the Brighton Council agree that in the event of these words being put into the Bill, and that the Brighton Pavilion shall remain, possibly for ever, the property of the Brighton Corporation, they will allow the council to have the library rent free until such time as changes are necessary. In advance of that situation, the present Chairman of the East Sussex Council has indicated his view in the following letter:
  "Personally, I would not be in favour of a new county council taking on the responsibility for the Royal Pavilion, as I have been greatly impressed by the way in which the Brighton Corporation runs the Royal Pavilion."
  I had a letter this morning from the Town Clerk-designate of Brighton in which he says:
  "When we spoke on the telephone on Tuesday, I said it would be in order, if you thought fit, when moving the Amendment to give an assurance that if the Amendment were passed the county council as library authority would be permitted to use rent-free for library purposes so much of the pavilion estate as is being used for those purposes on the appointed day. I have today been asked by the Clerk to the East Sussex County Council if I can ensure that such an assurance would be given in Parliament, and I shall be grateful therefore if you will make a point of this when moving the Amendment. The county will not then seek to have the Amendment opposed."
  That assurance is at this moment being given, and the Brighton Corporation are prepared to allow the library within the estate to be used rent-free by the new authority.
  I hope that I have made that position clear. I recognise at once that this was one of the snags which existed when I

  1503
  put down the Amendment. As a resident in that area I know what a part the Pavilion plays in the civic and cultural life of the town. I feel—and I hope that others may agree with me—that it would be completely inapt to pass that place into the hands of another authority, in this case the new county council, based in Lewes, which is quite a distance away and does not have the same historical pride in this estate that the people of Brighton have. "The East Sussex Pavilion" does not sound right to me; it would change the whole meaning. I am quite sure that King George IV would turn over in his mausoleum if it turned out that it was no longer called the Brighton Pavilion but was re-named the East Sussex Pavilion.
  The Minister of Housing and Construction (who happens to be the Member of Parliament for the Pavilion Division of Brighton) sends rather an ambiguous letter. I should like to quote from it:
  "The Government has already indicated in its consultation paper the general lines which it intends to follow concerning the property transfer consequent upon reorganisation. But the paper clearly stated that the Government also recognises that special circumstances in particular areas may require that the transfer of a property be dealt with by ad hoc arrangements by order or by agreement between the authorities concerned. It is our view "—
  he is writing as a Minister—
  "that the pavilion estate is one of those properties. It is to be hoped that the authorities concerned will be able to come to an agreement between themselves."
  I have described that letter as ambiguous; but in addition to that it is a threat. It shows that under the terms of the clause as it stands, East Sussex could come in and take over the Brighton Pavilion Estate. It is that danger that I want to obviate, and I want it down in the Statute that that clause does not apply to the Brighton Pavilion Estate. I hope the noble Viscount will agree with me. I beg to move.
  3.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It surely was at this very fine building that one 18th century wit said, "St. Paul's has gone down to the seaside and pupped." I am sure that that was not meant to be derogatory. And certainly after this debate we shall have to call it the "Royle Pavilion. That remark,
  1504
  I confess, I have to attribute to my noble friend Lord Aberdare. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, is perfectly right in saying that it is a very important building and has to be considered carefully. The Committee will know that this Clause, No. 243, gives powers of transfer by order. It would be impracticable to go on the face of the Bill into a mass of detail, but the guiding principle the Government have already announced is that where property is held by an existing authority in connection with the exercise of a particular function—and I think "function" is pretty plain in this case; an integral part of the life of Brighton—it will be transferred to the new authority responsible in future for that function in the area. I am coming to libraries in a minute. That was the guiding principle in fact in London, and it worked quite well, but there may have to be special arrangements, and probably the Brighton Pavilion Estate is one of them.
  I was interested to hear what the noble Lord said about the library side because this is one of the problems. In the case of a split use like this, where we have a county function as well, the course taken is to transfer the property to one of the new authorities and provide that the other one should have continuing rights of accommodation; and I am delighted that the two authorities have already got so close together on this one. There are of course any number of different kinds of arrangements that can be made under Clause 100.
  The basic trouble about this Amendment is that if the noble Lord proceeds at this stage, or on Report—I do not know why this point seems to be one I always have to argue—we are going to have a Hybrid Bill, and that is the end of the Local Government Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head and I know he is a wise and experienced chairman of committees. I am only going on the advice I have been given. I explained this in relation to the Temples. It is never perfectly certain, but there is a very severe danger. If that is so, I think the noble Lord must concede that it would be inappropriate to jeopardise, as it would, the whole of this piece of legislation, simply for the sake of the Brighton Pavilion. I would suggest that, if the matter has not already been fought out—perhaps not fought out, but agreed

  1505
  amicably—between the East Sussex authority, as it now is, and the Brighton Corporation, there will in due course be the opportunity for consultation between the authorities and the Department of the Environment to see how the question of property of this kind should be dealt with by way of transfer order by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
  The noble Lord, Lord Royle, quoted only part of the letter from my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. What he went on to say is this: it is very difficult on the present information to foresee a case of sufficient strength being made for transferring any part of the estate out of Brighton's ownership. I do not know whether that was in the same letter or another letter; but that is what he is on record as saying. As the noble Lord has said, he is the Member for Brighton Pavilion, and so I should have thought he was almost inextricably involved in what has just been said. I am surprised that the noble Lord thinks that that is not a sufficient undertaking. There it is. I would have suggested to the Committee that the Government have, perhaps exceptionally, gone quite a long way on this matter already. There appears to be a good deal of amity between the local authorities concerned. We accept that this is a difficult case which may well need special treatment, and there are perfectly good powers in the Bill whereby it can be given special treatment.
  I am afraid I must insist that this Amendment, if it were in fact inserted in the Bill, would jeopardise the entire measure. Therefore I hope, with that assurance, so far as I have been able to give it in explanation to the noble Lord, that despite the local, the national and the international importance of this estate, he will agree that it would be a mistake actually to press this Amendment to a Division.
  LORD ROYLE: I should be ungracious if I did not thank the noble Viscount for what he has said. I agree that he has endeavoured to clear up the matter, but as to the question of interfering with the general spirit of the Bill, creating a special case for a town like Brighton, I do not think that there is a great deal in that point. I am making a case for Brighton, and other
  1506
  people would have been perfectly entitled to put down Amendments for the areas with which they are concerned. I do not think it would have been a bad thing if a number of Amendments of this kind had found their way to the Statute Book. It would make things very much clearer. I do not believe that consultation is quite good enough. One of my problems about consultation is that at this moment consultation is going on between the existing East Sussex County Council and the Brighton Council, but when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the County Council will be quite a different animal. It may well be that it will be fine, but the certainty is not there that they will give way and say, "Brighton must keep the Royal Pavilion". That is the danger. I want the certainty to be in the Statute and for it to be clearly laid down that this estate is to be the property of Brighton, and not of the County Council.
  So far as Mr. Amery is concerned, of course there are split loyalties here. There is his loyalty to his constituency and a loyalty to the Government of which he is a member. I know that it is difficult to wear two hats, and therefore, as a Minister, he comes down on the Ministerial side rather than on the constituency side, and I know that that has been a great disappointment to the Brighton Council. However, if the bells rang and somebody picked up those ivory rods, about ten more people might come into the Chamber, and the noble Viscount would have his majority against me. Therefore it would be foolish to occupy any more time by taking a Division on this issue, in spite of the fact that I feel extremely strongly about it. I am going to reserve the right—and I think the noble Viscount will expect me to—that after consultations and further thought I may raise the matter again on the Report stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, for the reasons which I have stated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ABERDARE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 126A.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 188, line 37, after ("II") insert ("section 207(1)(b)").—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ABERDARE: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move Amendment 126B.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 188, line 39, after (" Act ") insert (" or to section 207(1)(b) of this Act or to any provision of ")—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am at fault in not having put, before I called the Amendments to Clause 243, that Clause 241 and Clause 242 shall stand part of the Bill, and with your Lordships' permission I will do so now.
  Clauses 241 and 242 agreed to.
  Clause 243, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 244 [Transfer of officers]:
  3.50 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 126C.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 189, line 7, after ("192") insert ("(Power to confer on district councils in Wales certain functions relating to agriculture)")—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question., Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 127:
  Page 189, line 30, leave out from ("transfer") to ("he") in line 33.
  The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee and perhaps speed matters up if at the same time I spoke to Amendments Nos. 128 and 129. It is beyond question that the staffs of local authorities are in no way responsible for the changes that reorganisation involves. Those who are or will be adversely affected by those changes are indeed innocent victims. We live in times of takeovers and mergers, and the trade unions, because of their experiences, are fully alive to the need to safeguard the interests of staffs involved in the shake-ups that follow. It is little wonder, therefore, that they feel deeply concerned to ensure that those for whom they speak, men and women who have given loyalty and service of the highest order to the communities for which they have worked in local government, shall not suffer as a result of reorganisations which might imperil their security and prospects.
  Clause 244 deals with the transfer of officers consequent on reorganisation. Subsection (3) introduces an undesirable and, to the trade unions—it will be appreciated that this afternoon I am doing my best to voice the views of the trade unions—unacceptable provision that after an officer has been transferred, his terms and conditions of employment may be changed. Obviously when his terms are improved there is no difficulty, but the effect of the provision as now drafted could be detrimental, and it runs contrary to the principle of protecting the officer by recognising what is for him an unfortunate circumstance over which he has no control and by meeting that position by the payment of a personal salary peculiar to the holder. This has worked in local authorities within which reorganisation has happened; I believe it operates within the Civil Service following the reorganisation of Departments. and it is by no means novel in the private sector. To put it simply, it means that the scale of the transferred officer should be preserved on a personal "no detriment" basis.
  Amendment No. 128 is intended to prevent a new receiving authority from changing the grade of any particular officer so that he would be prejudiced thereby. Amendment No. 129 is, I suggest, one of simple justice. The areas where it would have relevance may be limited and I understand that South Wales is an outstanding example. If an officer who is called on to move a considerable distance finds himself unable to sell the house in which he is living at the time, or is able to sell it only for a figure much below that which obtains for similar property in other parts of the country, such as the part of the country to which he may be transferred, obviously he is placed in a position of considerable financial embarrassment. If better solutions could be found for those to whom transfer means the change of residence with considerable loss it will be enlightening and helpful to hear them. Failing that, it would be reassuring to those most vitally involved to have the words of the Amendment written into the Bill.
  I have moved the Amendment as briefly as I can. I hope it will be appreciated that there is a very great deal more that could be said on this matter and that I could at length illustrate the points I

  1509
  have been endeavouring to make. I hope, because of the limitation I have imposed on myself, that it may command the more sympathy from the Minister when he replies. I beg to move.
  3.55 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for moving these Amendments altogether and for doing it so swiftly and comprehensively and clearly. May I say again what I said to him the last time we were debating these matters: that I acknowledge readily the great importance of these clauses that deal with the transfer of staff and the full justification for the appropriate trade unions to take the interest, which I know they do, in these matters.
  So far as the first two Amendments, Nos. 127 and 128, are concerned, there was a fairly exhaustive discussion of these matters in another place, both at the Committee stage and on Report, so perhaps I need not go into it at quite such length and detail as I might otherwise have felt bound to do. May I start by making clear what the situation is under Clause 244. I am not sure that it is fully appreciated. The first point is that immediately on transfer the officer transferred continues to enjoy the terms and conditions of employment, including pay, no less favourable than he was enjoying immediately before transfer. The second stage is that when the new employing authority offers him new and permanent terms and conditions of service those terms and conditions, not including pay, must continue to be no less favourable than those he was enjoying previously.
  The third point is that if his permanent duties continue to be reasonably comparable to those he was performing immediately before transfer, his salary scale must also be no less favourable. In other words, provided the transferred officer is doing a reasonably comparable job—as undoubtedly the great majority will—his pay scale and other terms and conditions of service are guaranteed. If, however, his new job is not reasonably comparable he will get the appropriate rate for it and be entitled to compensation by virtue of regulations under Clause 247. The difference between us on this is whether an officer on a permanent basis should get more than an appropriate rate for the job. This two
  1510
  stage operation involves complete protection for an interim period, followed by the determination of new terms and conditions of service and is designed to allow staff and authorities to ease into the situation in a humane and orderly fashion.
  The new authorities will want to produce sensible and efficient management and staff structures. This will take some time to work out in practice. The uncovenanted disadvantage of a number of anomalous situations, involving senior officers rather than junior staff, could well frustrate these efforts and there is a danger that they might lead to increased redundancy. We feel convinced that the right way of managing this matter is that where an officer is moving to a job which is not of a comparable scale to what he had before he should receive the rate for the job and receive the compensation due to him, rather than, as the noble Lord is suggesting, he should go on receiving his present salary on an exceptional personal basis. This could lead to difficulties: it could be upsetting to other staff; it could lead the authority into making appointments of people who were on a comparable scale before and it could lead to redundancies. All these matters, as the noble Lord I am sure is well aware, were covered in the debate in another place. The last point I should like to put to the noble Lord is that the Bill's provisions are the same as those in Section 85 of the London Government Act 1963. The provisions in that case worked well and we believe that they will work well in the case of this Bill.
  May I now pass on to the noble Lord's third Amendment, No. 129. This is in two parts and I would, if I may, deal with them separately. The first part seeks to ensure that where a transferred officer cannot sell his house or can only sell it at an unfair price, the new authority must either buy the house or reimburse the loss suffered. This is trying to put into legislative terms matters which are necessarily vague and indeterminate and which we feel are best dealt with by the exercise of administrative discretion. It talks of sale by the employee at a "fair price" but there are no criteria to determine what a fair price should be in these circumstances. It requires the local authority either to purchase the

  1511
  property or to reimburse the financial loss suffered. But again there are no criteria for determining the purchase price or the amount of financial loss. And it is this lack of precision and difficulty in the concepts and the terms that are used which cause us to think that these are matters better not included in legislation.
  The existing Scheme of Conditions of Service for administrative, professional, technical and clerical staffs specifically recognises the problem which this Amendment is seeking to meet and states:
  "It would be reasonable for the employing authorities concerned to be able to examine these cases on their merits and to have discretion to deal with them."
  That is, we feel, the right way of dealing with it. Representatives of the local authorities and their staffs will be negotiating the detailed terms and conditions of transfer through the appropriate channels and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will accept an assurance that the Government will urge local authorities to exercise their discretionary power generously in the interests of staff adversely affected by the need to move their homes.
  The second part of this Amendment seeks to ensure that the new authority will be required to pay the transferred officer any removal or additional travelling expenses incurred at the time of transfer to the new authority or within a period of four years thereafter. The consultative document on compensation arrangements which was issued on March 7 indicates that the Secretary of State for the Environment intends that the staff transfer order will require employers to pay removal and travelling expenses that result from the transfer and refers to a period of two years. The only difference between us, therefore, seems to lie in this question of the number of years—whether two, or four as in the Amendment—and I presume that what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is intending to do with the four years is to cover a situation where a new authority decides to build a new administrative centre with the result that the physical transfer of staff takes place only with the completion of the new building. I accept that there will be some, perhaps many, delayed transfers of that sort, but the detailed terms and conditions of such transfers
  1512
  are necessarily matters for negotiation between employers and employees. But I will undertake to look again at the two-year limit that we have previously suggested with a view to ensuring that any officer who is required to move his home as a result of reorganisation will be protected by the provisions of the staff transfer order in relation to the payment of travelling and removal expenses. Changes of the administrative centre or other transfers which are not directly attributable to reorganisation will, of course, be a matter for consideration by the appropriate negotiating body when that question may arise. I hope, my Lords, that I have gone some way to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that we are doing our best to make sure that the objects he has in view are met although not written rigidly into the Bill.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the very full explanation he has given of the Government's attitude to these Amendments. I am grateful for the very great care he has taken in dealing with a number of points. I think he will appreciate that he has probably made a much fuller reply than was made in another place when this subject was discussed there. It was pretty obvious that no reply at all was there made, for instance, to Amendment No. 129. I am therefore very grateful to the noble Lord.
  May I say in regard to what he said on Amendments Nos. 127 and 128, that I have studied the discussions in another place and have had access to some correspondence which has taken place since the debate there. The Minister's argument in another place was not acceptable to the trade unions. I think they will probably be very interested indeed in what has been said here this afternoon. I think the best way for me to deal with that is to say that I should welcome the opportunity I shall have of discussion with them after the noble Lord's statement has appeared in Hansard; thus we may look at it in some depth.
  In regard to Amendment No. 129, I am extremely appreciative of the noble Lord's effort and I shall look at the time period with a view possibly to extending the two years to a four-year period. I am sure that that would give a great deal of satisfaction, and if the noble Lord is able

  1513
  to come back with an Amendment to that effect on Report it would be very acceptable. On the question of what is a fair price for property, I should have thought that the district valuer could have been involved somewhere. In the light of what has been said this afternoon, it may be possible to come up with something on this question. If further consideration is given by the Minister and on our side, perhaps on Report, we may find a solution which is thoroughly satisfactory to those who will be most affected. In the circumstances, I am very pleased to ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 244, as amended, agreed to.
  4.9 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 129A:
  After Clause 244 insert the following new clause:
  Continuity of employment in cases of voluntary transfer
  " .—(1) This section applies to a person if,—

  (a) at some time before 1st April 1974, or on that date but otherwise than by virtue of provision made by an order under section 244 above, he enters the employment of a new local authority (in this section referred to as 'his new employment'), and

  (b) had he continued until 1st April 1974 in the employment (in this section referred to as his previous employment') which he last held before he entered his new employment or (if he did so continue) had he then ceased to be in that employment by reason only of section 1 or 20 above, provision would have been made by an order under section 244(2) above for his transfer on that date to the employment of a specified local authority.

  (2) Where this section applies to a person, then for the purposes of section 28 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (qualifying period for protection from unfair dismissal) and section 1 of the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 (minimum periods of notice)—

  (a) the period of employment in his previous employment shall count as a period of employment in his new employment, and

  (b) the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment."

  The noble Lord said: This again is to protect the interests of employees. The doctrine of continuous employment is important in a variety of contexts and in this clause we are concerned with two, protection against dismissal and the period of notice. The protection
  1514
  against unfair dismissal afforded to an employee by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 does not apply unless the employee has been continuously employed by one employer for a period of two years. There are specific provisions in the Act covering the situation where the employer changes through the operation of an Act of Parliament. In such circumstances the notional change of employer does not break the continuity of employment. It follows that the generality of officers transferred to the new authorities under the staff transfer order will not lose the protection against unfair dismissal afforded by the Industrial Relations Act. It would, however, appear that those officers who themselves secure appointments to the new authorities prior to the operation of the transfer order might, unless specific provision was made, break the continuity of their employment and thus have to start a new two year qualifying period before they were protected. This Amendment is designed to put that right. Equally, the amount of notice to which an employee is entitled under the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 varies according to the length of his period of continuous employment, and the same point applies equally to the determination of continuous employment for the purposes of notice. This is a clause which should help to protect the staff in their rights under those two Acts.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 245 agreed to.
  Clause 247 [Compensation for loss of office]:
  LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 129B:
  Page 192, line 29, after ("to") insert—

  (" (a) the provisions of any such order as is referred to in section 326(1) of the Public Health Act 1936;

  (b) an existing local authority ceasing, as respects the whole or any part of their area, to be a food and drugs authority, within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act 1955,

  (c)")

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment 129B, and perhaps I could take with it No. 129D and No. 142A. These Amendments enable the compensation regulations under subsection (1) to be applied also to persons suffering loss of

  1515
  employment or loss or diminution of emoluments as a result of the provisions under other legislation, and make the necessary consequential repeals. They relate first to persons affected by orders under the Public Health Act 1936 concerning land drainage; secondly, to public analysts and employees of local authorities which cease to be food and drugs authorities for the whole or part of their areas; and, thirdly, to persons affected by orders under Section 46 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. This is a further extension to help staff in those categories with regard to compensation, and I am sure it will appeal to your Lordships.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 129D.
  Amendment moved—
  Page;92, line 31, at end insert—
  (" or
  (d) the provisions of an order under section 46 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;
  and without prejudice to the repeal of any enactment by this Act, regulations making provision for any of the cases specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) above may provide that the provisions as to compensation made for that case by section 326 of the Public Health Act 1936, section 129(1) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 shall not apply in relation to persons to whom the provisions of the regulations apply.")—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: May I call attention to the fact that we seem to have passed over Clauses 245 and 246 in the original Bill?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I do not think so. We have a very complicated order dealing with the clauses, and I think those two clauses have been dealt with or are going to be dealt with. I think everything is in order.
  Clause 247, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 248 [Remuneration of employees of existing local authorities outside Greater London]:
  4.13 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 130:
  1516
  Page 193, line 14, after ("London") insert ("and from representatives of employees of local authorities").
  The noble Lord said: I have a substantial brief on this Amendment and the next, but I propose to cut it as drastically as I possibly can while still endeavouring to do justice to the case I seek to make. It may be again to the convenience of the Committee and again saving time if I speak to Amendment No. 131 as well as No. 130 now.
  Clause 248 deals with the remuneration of employees of existing local authorities outside Greater London. It seeks to prevent employing authorities from making unjustified increases in pay or grading before the appointed day; that is to say, April 1, 1974. On the face of it, its purpose is unexceptionable. I understand that the Secretary of State is to designate the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board—I understand it is shortly called LACSAB, a pretty awful name—as the advisory board to consider any increases in pay made, or proposed to be made, by any authority outside London. It is a body which represents employers' interests only. I think it will therefore occasion little surprise to the Committee if I say that the trade union interests involved—and particularly the National and Local Government Officers' Association—take very strong exception to this approach.
  I understand that LACSAB will consult and seek information from new and existing local authorities, and the Secretary of State may direct any local authority to furnish it with the information is desires. If LACSAB, in its wisdom—and I stress that it represents employers' interests only—considers a local authority has fixed, or proposes to fix, remuneration at a rate greater than it considers appropriate, they then notify the authority concerned and recommend a substitute rate. Should the local authority ignore LACSAB, they may raise the matter with the Secretary of State. It is only at this late stage in the proceedings that consultation will take place with representatives of the local authorities and their staffs. There then follow arrangements whereby the Secretary of State may give the local authority a mandatory direction, and for dealing with cases where local authorities have slipped through the net.
  I have to say that the apparatus created by this clause is regarded as far too elaborate and cumbersome. Local authorities are generally very law abiding, and the risk of abuse in this matter is pretty minimal. What creates concern is that consultation with the unions would be ruled out altogether where, under subsection (3), a local authority accepted the LACSAB recommendation. The Amendments would ensure that the unions would be consulted at the outset. I hope that these Amendments will be treated as sympathetically as those I moved a few minutes ago. They are certainly put forward with a view to being helpful. Their acceptance would do something to mitigate the very strong fear that this clause, as it stands, could encourage some local authorities to use it as a reason for not conducting a normal review of establishment or revising the grades of posts in cases of increased duties and responsibilities. That is something to be strenuously avoided. Normal reviews of establishment, applications for re-grading, and the operation of existing provincial and national appeals machinery, must continue without interference. I mention this because the clause is seen as an instrument whereby difficulties might be created for staffs, who are at present at a disadvantage due to below average grading of posts, when compared with other authorities merging to form a new council.
  I should have liked to say a great deal more on this question, because those of us in local government are aware that this situation all too frequently exists. Any suspicion that there could be direct Ministerial intervention in the fixing of salary scales—even in a limited and temporary manner—is highly undesirable. If it occurred it would create an objectionable precedent. I am sure that the unions involved would be most helpful in seeking to tackle the very few cases of unjustifiable increases that may possibly arise. One feels that the intervention of LACSAB and the Secretary of State in this field is as unnecessary as it is undesirable. I beg to move.
  4.20 p.m.
  LORD ABERDARE: I know that the noble Lord appreciates the need for this clause and, like him, I should hope that it would be called into use only on very rare occasions, if indeed it had to be
  1518
  called into use at all. But what we feel about his suggestions in the Amendment is that there is really no advantage in making the fact-finding procedure under Clause 248 too elaborate, because the local authorities themselves can provide all the facts which the advisory body—LACSAB, as he called it—is likely to need. If a local authority does not do so and drags its feet, then the Secretary of State can issue a statutory direction. We believe that to force the advisory body to seek information from the staff associations at this stage would be unnecessary and cumbersome, and could result in this body with its cumbersome title ending up with a mass of duplicated information. But of course there is nothing in the clause to prevent the associations from offering, or being asked to offer, information.
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development gave assurances at the Report stage in another place that the Secretary of State would not consider a request for a direction unless both sides of the appropriate National Joint Council had been given an opportunity beforehand to consider the matter. Moreover, under subsection (4) it is quite clear that the staff side will have an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State before he issues a direction. I suggest to the noble Lord that this is where it really matters, and that there is no gain to anybody from cluttering up preliminary procedures with what would not be essential to the work of the advisory body in this instance.
  With regard to Amendment No. 131, I was not very clear what the noble Lord was seeking to gain. Its effect would be to limit the advisory body to taking action only on the basis of information obtained directly from local authorities or, if Amendment No. 130 were carried, from staff interests. We feel that this Amendment would introduce technicalities into the procedure, without any obvious advantages. It would limit the advisory body's power by preventing them from giving advice to a local authority except on the basis of information gathered under subsection (2). We believe that it would be better to leave it to their common sense than to require them to act only on information which they have received under subsection (2). So I do not think

  1519
  I can help the noble Lord very much on these two Amendments. We do not think they are necessary and we believe they have certain disadvantages; but perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider what I have said.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: Again, may I express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the care and clarity of his reply. Although he has spoken with great clarity, at this late hour in our proceedings to-day and at the end of a fairly strenuous couple of weeks it may be that I have overlooked something he said or have not properly interpreted what he has said. I am sure he will understand if I say that I should like to read the OFFICIAL REPORT closely when it is issued. As regards Amendment No. 131, after I have read the report of what he has said about it I may feel obliged to come back to it at Report stage, but I think it would be wrong at this point in the Committee's proceedings for me to set about elaborating what the Amendment seeks to do. While appreciating very much the attitude which the Minister has shown in giving a fairly full reply to what I have said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 248 agreed to.
  Clause 249 [Local Acts and instruments]:
  LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 131K is consequential on Amendment No. 98E. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 195, line 3, leave out ("that date") and insert ("1st April 1974")—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 131H is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 197, line 30, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 34 and insert ("applying wholly outside Greater London (except in the Isles of Scilly) and so much of any local statutory provision applying partly within Greater London as applies outside Greater London, being in either case a provision in force immediately before 1st April 1974 and not expressly repealed or revoked by this Act, and subsection (9) above applies to any such
  1520
  local statutory provision of the following descriptions ").—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 131J.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 197, line 43, after ("undertaking") insert ("a provision relating to any person's status, or the right of any person to be admitted, as a freeman of any place or the rights of any person by virtue of any relationship or association with such a freeman.")—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 131P:
  Page 197, line 44, at end insert ("or a provision contained in the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938").
  The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 131P, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Clause 249(9) of this Bill provides, in effect, that all local statutory provisions to which the subsection applies shall cease to have effect in 1979 or 1984, according to whether they do or do not apply to metropolitan counties—unless, of course, they are exempted by an order of the Secretary of State or an appropriate Minister. Subsection (11) as it is now amended exempts provisions applying wholly to Greater London and also what I might term hybrid provisions in so far as they relate to Greater London as opposed to areas outside it. Difficulty has arisen in respect of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938. This most excellent of measures, which should be blessed by all those who live or work in South-East England, provides, in effect, for the preservation of land from industrial or building development in areas in and around Greater London. The position to-day is that many thousands of acres are held by local authorities under this Act subject to restrictive covenants to preserve their character, and many other thousands of acres are privately held with restrictive covenants similar to those which apply in the case of the local authorities.
  I will not go into the technicalities because I understand the Government are sympathetic to the proposed Amendment; but, putting it in a sentence, the safeguards for the Green Belt would be

  1521
  considerably diminished if that part of the Act extending outside Greater London were in effect repealed. At the same time, if the position were to hang in the balance, as indeed it could until 1984, I believe that the operation of the Act would be blighted (if I may use a horrible word) in the sense that, meantime, it would be unlikely that there would be any more additions to the list of safeguarded properties. This situation, your Lordships may well agree, is unsatisfactory. It has worried a number of the local authorities, and also the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. This Amendment is intended to preserve the law as it is in relation to the Green Belt as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, whose name is on my Amendment, desires me to say that he cannot be in his place but gives the Amendment his blessing; and that applies also to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. I beg to move.
  LORD SANDFORD: The Government are pleased to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 249, as amended, agreed to. Clause 250 agreed to.
  Clause 251 [Committees of existing councils for consideration of certain matters]:
  LORD ABERDARE: Amendments Nos. 131A and 131B are consequential upon Amendment No. 98E. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 201, line 20, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (3)").—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment 131B.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 201, line 27, after ("sections") insert (" (Transitional arrangements for discharge of functions)").—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 251, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 252 to 254 agreed to.
  LORD ABERDARE: This is the new clause on disqualifications for the House of Commons which we have already discussed on a paving Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After clause 254 insert the following new clause:
  Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957
  " .—(1) The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
  (2) In Part II of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places in alphabetical order—

  ' The Local Government Boundary Commission for England;

  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales;

  The Staff Commission for England established under section 245 of the Local Government Act 1972;

  The Staff Commission for Wales established under section 246 of the Local Government Act 1972'.
  (3) In Part III of Schedule 1, in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places in alphabetical order—

  ' Assistant Commissioner appointed under Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972;

  Registration Officer appointed under Part III of the Local Government Act 1972'.

  (4) In Part III of Schedule 1, both in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in its application to the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland, in the entry relating to local government officers, the following words shall cease to have effect, that is to say—

  (a) in the sub-entry beginning 'Clerk or deputy clerk', the words ' of the council of a county in England and Wales, of the Greater London Council or' and the words `England and Wales or'; and

  (b) in the sub-entry beginning 'Town clerk or deputy town clerk ', the words `of the City of London, of a borough in England and Wales or'."—(Lord Aberdare.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Clause 255 has already been dealt with.
  Clause 256 [General provisions as to interpretation]:
  LORD ABERDARE: Amendments Nos. 131D and 131E are consequential upon Amendment No. 98E. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 203, line 5, after ("regulation") insert ("or the giving of a direction")—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ABERDARE: I bee to move Amendment No. 131E.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 203, line 8, leave out ("or regulation purporting to be made") and insert ("regulation or direction purporting to be made or given").—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 256, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 257 [Savings]:
  LORD ABERDARE: This Amendment corrects an error in references in previous

  ("7 Edw. 7. c. cxl.

  The City of London (Union of Parishes) Act 1907.

  Section 22.")

  Page 377, line 44, at end insert—

  ("21 & 22 Geo. 5. c.17.

  The Local Authorities (Publicity) Act 1931.

  The whole Act.")

  The noble Lord said: In the test of Schedule 30 there are two Amendments which are not to be moved—at least, I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will not want to move Amendment No. 132, and I shall not want to move Amendment No. 138D. Apart from those two, the rest are Government Amendments and there is not a single one which is not either consequential or drafting. I would suggest, therefore, that we move them in three blocks,

  (" 26 Geo. 5. and Edw. 8 c. 48.

  The Health Resorts and Watering Places Act 1936.

  The whole Act.")

  Page 380, line 41, column 3, leave out (`paragraph ") and insert (" in Part II, paragraphs 1(3) and ").

  Page 381, line 12, column 3, at end insert ("Section 18(5)").

  Page 385, column 3, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—

  (" In section 126, in subsection (1), the definition ' county ' and subsection (4).")

  clauses of the Bill concerning the conservators of commons. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 206, line 18, leave out ("239 or section 242") and insert ("242 or section 243(2)(b) ").—(Lord A berdare.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 257, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 258 agreed to.
  Schedule 30 [Repeals]:
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendments on sheriffs moved by my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 371, line 26, after ("Sections") insert ("170").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.35 p.m.
  LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendments No. 131G and 131M:
  Page 373, line 50, at end insert—
  pausing at Amendments Nos. 132 and 138D to register that those are not to be moved. That will then leave two Amendments with which my noble friend Lord Aberdare will deal. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 131G and 131M.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 132A to 138C.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 378, line 28, at end insert—
  Page 387, line 14, at end insert—

  ("5 & 6 Eliz. 20.

  The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

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

  (a) in the sub-entry beginning " Clerk or deputy clerk ", the words " of the council of a county in England and Wales, of the Greater London Council or " and the words " England and Wales or"; and

  (b) in the sub-entry beginning " Town clerk or deputy town clerk ", the words " of the City of London, of a borough in England and Wales or ".")

  line 17, column 3, at end insert ('Section 10 ").
  Page 394, column 3, leave out lines 14 to 16.
  Page 396, line 16, column 3, at end insert (" Section 92(3) ").
  Page 397, line 19, column 3, leave out from (" 8 ") to (" paragraph ") in line 21.

  (" and in the amendment of section 195 of the 1933 Act, the words " or county borough " ")

  column 3, leave out lines 44 to 46 and insert—
  (" Section 15(4).").
  line 47, column 3, at end insert—
  (" In section 21, in subsection (1), the words from " and expenses " onwards, and subsections (2) and (3)(b).").

  (" 1965 c. xxxix.

  City of London (Various Powers) Act 1965.

  In section 33, in subsection (1), the word "6 and " " 2 and " and subsection (2).")

  Page 405. column 3, line 27, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3, paragraph 2(1).")

  column 3, leave out lines 52 and 53 and insert—

  ("Section 8.")

  Page 406, line 7, at end insert—

  ("1970 c. lxix.

  City of London (Various Powers) Act 1970.

  Section 7.")

  (Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 259 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  LORD SANDFORD: Amendment No. 146 is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 207, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  Line 59, column 3, at end insert ("and").—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 138E to 145.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 399, line 8, column 3, at end insert—
  Line 48, column 3, leave out from ("the") to end of line 49 and insert ("definitions of" local authority "and" population" ").
  Line 50, column 3, at end insert—
  (" In Schedule 2, in paragraph 2, in subparagraph (1) the words from" but except "onwards and sub-paragraphs (2) and (3); and paragraph 6.").
  Page 400, line 20, at end insert—
  (" (3) Except for section (Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957) above, paragraph 33 of Schedule 29 to this Act and the repeals made by this Act in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 and any enactment amending that Act, this Act shall not extend to Scotland.
  (4) Except for section (Amendment of House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957) above and the said repeals, this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.").—(Lord Sandford.)
  4.37 p.m.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR THE EARL OF BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 146A:
  As an Amendment to Amendment No. 146, in the proposed new subsection (3), line 2, after ("above") insert ("paragraph 11 of Schedule 23,").
  The noble Earl said: "I am not certain that I was mentally sound when I put down this Amendment concerning the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, but it was a comfort to know this afternoon, from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner said, that I am not altogether alone in making mistakes. In order to follow this Amendment may I suggest that your Lordships turn to page 340 of this enormous Bill. Quite a number of sections of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 refer to England. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 23 to the Bill we are now discussing amends Section 10 of that Act, which concerns the welfare of certain hospital patients, to persons under guardianship of, or transferred to, a local health authority. Under the English Mental Health Act 1959, as amended by paragraph 9 of Schedule 23 which removes the terms "local health authority", children authority" ,and"local authority" and replaces them with the term, "local social service authority", the welfare of such persons in England and Wales will be the responsibility of the local social service authority.
  I hope that noble Lords will have followed me so far. But the real point is this. The purpose of paragraph 11 of Schedule 23 is to include hospital patients et cetera in the care of a local social service authority in England and Wales. As the Bill stands, and unless my Amendment is carried, the law as regards Scotland will remain unchanged. I apologise to your Lordships at the very last stage of a lengthy Bill and at a late time in the afternoon for raising this point, but the question before the Committee is whether this paragraph should or should not extend to Scotland. With a few misgivings, I beg to move.
  VISCOUNT MONCK: I should like to compliment the noble Earl on the way he moved a very intricate Amendment. I have not followed a single word of it, but I agree with every word that he has said.
  LORD ABERDARE: I feel like saying the same; but I have followed what the
  1528
  noble Earl has said; indeed, I followed closely what he said when we were discussing paragraph 11, on page 340. It is a complicated matter. I should like to take it back and think about it. The noble Earl's point has already been put to Parliamentary counsel and we are considering it carefully. I am grateful to him for having drawn our attention to it. I hope that, on that undertaking, he will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment (No. 146) agreed to.
  Clause 259, as amended, agreed to.
  On Question, That the House do now resume?
  4.42 p.m.
  LORD CHAMPION: On the Motion that the House be resumed, as is rather usual at the end of a Committee, I think we have to extend the usual courtesies between the Front Benches. Although we have been operating under the pressure of a tight time schedule, which I deplore, I should like to thank Ministers for their treatment of the Committee and for their consideration of the numerous Amendments moved by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee. I would especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, with whom I have been happy to co-operate in an endeavour to be fair to noble Lords, and particularly to the officers and staff of the House. I will say one further word. I thank the Government and Ministers responsible for this Bill, in particular, for notes on clauses made available to us. This is an advantage that I had experienced only when I was a Minister, and never before in any other capacity. It is an innovation that I welcome, and I hope it will become common practice. However, I hope not to see for a long time a Bill as complex as this one.
  LORD ABERDARE: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I would in turn thank him most warmly for the way he has cooperated, because in some ways I think that on his side of the House he has had an even harder time than we have. I am grateful, and I should also like to

  1529
  thank the staff whom we have kept up late on many occasions. I hope we have improved the Bill with the numerous Amendments that we have made. We have done so very freely and without relying on what I believe is called the B.I.M—the built-in majority.
  LORD CHAMPION: You have not always had it.
  LORD ABERDARE: May I also say how very useful the exhibitions in the Royal Gallery have been. I am sure that note will be taken of what the noble Lord says. I understand that in November we are likely to have a debate on pornography and I am not quite sure what will happen about such an exhibition then.
  House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.