Lords Sitting of 5 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
The Lord Elibank—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

DISABLED: PROVISION OF INVALID VEHICLES
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the rule whereby disabled people, who are provided with invalid vehicles while in full-time paid employment, have those vehicles withdrawn when they lose their job or retire.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, vehicles are withdrawn in these circumstances only from people who were not so disabled as to qualify, by virtue of their disability alone. During last Wednesday's debate on the Social Services the noble Baroness drew my attention to a particular case which had prompted her to table this Question. People in this category were issued with a vehicle specifically to enable them to remain in employment, on the strict understanding that the vehicle was liable to he withdrawn when no longer needed for that purpose. This is a feature of the old arrangements which, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, will for-tunately disappear now that the present Government have ended the old scheme. Eligibility under our new mobility allow-ance scheme is based solely on medical criteria of disability.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether somebody who becomes of pensionable age is able to get the mobility allowance?
526
Further, is it Government policy to downgrade people so that they become less mobile and less independent? Is the noble Lord not aware that many people, when they reach 65, become more arthritic and bronchitic?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, at the present moment it is not possible for people of pensionable age to get the mobility allowance. The noble Baroness knows only too well what the system is. The system at the present moment is that the Government have brought in a regulation whereby people can claim, if they are eligible, a mobility allowance of £5 a week. At the present moment it is being phased in for the 15 to 25 year old age group; from the 1st April this year we are phasing in those between the ages of 25 and 50; the next group will be of 5 to 15; and the next group will be those from 50 to 65.
With regard to the second point the noble Baroness raised, I want to make it perfectly clear that the matter to which she is referring is in relation to what was known as Category 3, those suffering from a slightly less severe disability which limits walking to the extent that personal trans-port is needed to get to full-time work and home again. So that although persons are given the vehicle, when they cease to be employed they are not immobile—they have a fair degree of mobility—and then the vehicle must be withdrawn. Before that is done the Department undertakes a medical investigation to see whether that action is justified.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us who are interested in the cause of the disabled, including the limbless ex-Servicemen, appreciate the new disability allowances which this Government have brought in, but think that it is a cruel hardship to take this vehicle from a disabled man the moment he leaves the work for which the vehicle was provided in order to get him there? Will the noble Lord look at this matter very carefully?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords, I cannot give any undertaking that we will look at it very carefully because we have already done so over a long period of time. This particular category has been in existence for a number of years. This

527
is no new thing. It is not that the person is incapable of mobility but that his mobility is restricted, and in order to help such people to overcome the strain on them when they have to go from A to B to work and from B home again, they are given a vehicle. When they no longer need it for that purpose, it seems perfectly reasonable that it should be taken back.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, having listened to my noble friend, am I right in assuming that some amelioration of this position has taken place? Never-theless, can he tell us what it would cost were this regulation withdrawn completely? It has existed between all Govern-ments, Conservative and Labour. In my own period in the Ministry it was there. Finally, how does a man who is immobile enough to have a chair but who loses his job, look for another job if he does not get a chair to do so?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot answer the first question about the question of cost. If a person at some stage has been eligible for a vehicle, and the person gives up work or loses work and ultimately goes back to work, the very fact that the person had an entitle-ment at one particular period means that he or she retains that entitlement.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, arising from the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, may I ask whether the noble Lord agrees that there is a group of people who have had withdrawn some-thing to which they have been entitled, and who will in fact wait for a very long period of time indeed before the Government's proposals are applicable to them? There is a gap.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Baroness is on an entirely different point, my Lords. I think I know the case she has in mind. We have discussed it and she will know that it is not applicable to the Question which is before the House.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that there is undoubted suffering caused to a number of those who lose their employment, may I ask my noble friend if the Ministry will take steps to secure wide publicity of their new pro-posals so that disabled persons may be aware of them?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL:I think that we have already done so, my Lords, but I will pass on my noble friend' s comment to my right honourable friend.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord further on this matter because I was not referring to the case to which he referred and on which he has been most helpful? Would the noble Lord not agree that there is a very serious gap in the proposals between the phasing out in a case such as is directly relevant to the Question and the applica-tion of the new mobility allowance? May I further ask what happens to the vehicles after they are taken away from the individuals concerned and what people are expected to do?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not for a moment accept that there is an enormous gap. The category which we are discussing is perfectly clear and there is nothing I can say that will add anything to what I have already said.
The EARL of ONSLOW: My Lords, with the amount of unemployment that exists and with the given difficulties of people who are physically handicapped in trying to find a job, may I ask the noble Lord why it is right that when they have a job they get the vehicle con-cerned, yet when they do not have a job they have to look for work, which is diffi-cult in the present unemployment position, without this vehicle? How many people fall into this category? Will the noble Lord please try to find out what the cost of rectifying this anomaly would be? The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has shown me some correspondence on this subject and I think the noble Lord is aware of the particular case to which she is referring.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will study what the noble Earl has said and see whether I can get any information along the lines he has suggested. If I can, I will certainly write to him.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, recommended in her 1974 Report that in cases where disabled people are likely otherwise to lose their vehicles when they lose their job, they should be given the opportunity to purchase the vehicles on favourable terms?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am aware of the Report of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I do not think I can express an opinion because I have not taken advice on the point raised by the noble Lord.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Young: what happens to the vehicles after they are taken away from these unfortunate people?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, they go into stock and ultimately they are reissued to others.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, did this co-called injustice exist under the previous Conservative Government? If so, what action did they take to remedy it? Apropos of the present Government's granting of a disability allowance, may I ask whether similar disability allowances were granted by that Conservative Government?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not want to involve a previous Administration other than to say that these categories have been in existence for some years. The mobility allowance is entirely new and was introduced by the present Government.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the mobility allowance could be capitalised so that a person who wanted to get a vehicle would be able to use the mobility allowance for, say, the interest on the money he expended to buy a vehicle because one was not available through the mobility policy?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is something I should have to look into. I hope the noble Baroness will not mind my saying that her supplementary question goes rather wide of the main Question and would involve a good deal of calculation.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the House is enormously interested in this matter; that is quite obvious from all the supplementary questions that have been put. I waited until the noble Baroness, Lady
530
Elliot of Harwood, had asked her question because I knew that she had been trying to get in for some time. However, we have spent more than 10 minutes on this one and I suggest that we now move on to the next Question.

ACAS AND DOCK DISPUTE
2. 49 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Secretary of State for Employment still considers the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is the appropriate body to give such assistance as the parties concerned may require to resolve the difficulties caused by the unofficial action of some dock workers which led to the withdrawal of the BACAT service between Rotterdam and the Humber.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service was established as an independent body by the Government in order to help the parties resolve industrial disputes. The Government have every confidence in the capacity of the Service to carry out its duties.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to my information, several weeks prior to my first Question on 15th March the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service made it clear to the British Waterways Board that it has no locus to assist in this dispute, which was not a dispute between the British Waterways Board and its own employees? Has the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service been in touch with the noble Lord to inform him that it could make no contribution to the resolution of a dispute, not between the British Waterways Board and its employees, but concerning the employees of the British Transport Docks Board? In view of the fact that the British Waterways Board first tried to introduce this backup service in June 1974, and it has been held up ever since, does he consider that it is about time that the Secretary of State for Employment took some notice of it?
Lord JACQUES: The Service has been and still is in touch with the parties. Presumably it is still of the opinion that it would not assist to have a court of inquiry. The Government have confidence in the judgment of the Service. I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the background to this matter. At Hull and Goole, the number of registered dockers has declined from 4,600 to 2,300 in the space of a decade. Looking round this House, I can see many noble Lords who, had they been dockers at Hull, would have been somewhat hot under the collar.
The EARL of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether that has anything to do with the introduction of the BACAT service? We very much need to increase our exports and I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that we very much need to increase the competitiveness of those exports. There are other industries in which there has been a similar shift in labour. I felt that the noble Lord's last answer was not 100 per cent. satisfactory.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, most of the reduction at Hull and Goole—and remember the size of that reduction—has been due to new methods. The labour force has gone a long way to accommodate the introduction of these new methods. I believe that, within a very short period of time, this further new method will be introduced. However, your Lordships should bear in mind that, if one is to introduce methods which reduce the demand for labour, the timing must be right. Do it in a period of unemployment and you will generate resistance. Do it in a period of boom and you may well generate confidence. Timing is vital.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not true that there has been a considerable investment of public money in this new method of carrying goods on our waterways which will relieve both our roads and our railways? Also, as two years have already passed and as the action is being taken by a very small number of militants who are threatening unofficial strike action, would it not be a good idea to set up an inquiry so that we can get on with improved methods of transporting goods?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the question of whether or not there should
532
be an inquiry is primarily a matter for the Service. The Service has the power to hold inquiries and, if the noble Lord will look at page 17 of the annual report, he will see that ACAS held three courts of inquiry last year. If he looks at Schedule C of the report, he will see the results of those inquiries. However, it is difficult to see what good an inquiry would do. The facts are well known. The shop stewards concerned have been instructed by their union to cease the industrial action concerned. Furthermore, I understand that the shop stewards, following their refusal to give an undertaking to abide by the union's constitution and the decisions of its regional committee, have had their credentials withdrawn. There has, therefore, been full co-operation from the trade unions. The employer concerned—the Port Authority at Hull—does not wish to push the matter to a confrontation.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, speaking of the employment situation, did not the employers make an offer to pay £75 a week for doing nothing to the six persons who were to be made redundant? Also, can the noble Lord please reply to my previous question as to whether ACAS made it clear to the Board that it had no locus to intervene in this dispute because it was not one between the Board and its employees? Why has this information not been conveyed to the Secretary of State?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if I may answer the last question first, I am not here speaking for ACAS, nor am I able to do so. I am speaking for Her Majesty's Government. I have no knowledge of the point which the noble Lord has raised because it is a matter between an independent authority and the British Waterways Board. As to the first question, I have no information on any offer of £25.
Several Noble Lords: £75!
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord on this point? I said that ACAS had notified the employers that it had no locus to intervene in the dispute, but the Minister still insists that ACAS is the appropriate organisation to sort it out. Am I to believe the Minister or the information which I have received indirectly from ACAS?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I believe that there is some confusion here. This is an industrial dispute and ACAS therefore has the authority to intervene. My —information—received this morning—is that it has been and is still in touch with the parties.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, are the Government aware that they are continually exhorting people to invest in industry of every kind and that the object of investment is mostly to decrease unemployment? How does that tally with one or two of the answers which the noble Lord has given?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it tallies very well with a previous answer which I gave. Time those innovations properly and you will probably get the right response.
Lord HAWKE: But, my Lords, we are being exhorted to invest now.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, if I may bring the noble Lord back to the real point of this Question, I do not wish to comment on the merits of this dispute, but is or is not the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service empowered by its terms of reference to deal with this kind of dispute which is not the ordinary dispute between employees and their employers? If it is not within its power to do so, is it not up to the Secretary of State personally to take responsibility?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is confusion here because there are two disputes. First, there is a dispute between the dockers and the Port Authority. That is the real dispute. Settle that and one will have settled everything. There is a subsidiary dispute, in that the dockers asked for an undertaking from the British Waterways Board that it would not provide berthing for schemes such as BACAT. The Board refused to give that undertaking and, in consequence, all the goods going on to the barges of the British Waterways Board at the Humber have been blacked. So there is a subsidiary dispute in which the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service may not be directly involved. However, it is certainly directly involved in the main dispute.

MACKEREL FISHING BY PURSE-SEINERS
2.58 p.m.
Lord VERNON: 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 accept that large purseseiners fishing for mackerel are accustomed to reject several nets of fish before obtaining a net of the quality desired, that up to 50 per cent. of the fish rejected can die in the process and that as a result, over 100 tons of saleable fish can be destroyed as the result of a single rejection.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, sampling of shoals of fish to determine whether they meet market requirements is undoubtedly carried out by both purse-seiners and conventional trawlers. The problem of rejection and slipping of catches is one of the issues which Her Majesty's Government are currently pursuing in connection with general provisions for the conservation of mackerel stocks which the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission is soon to consider.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and for saying that an investigation is to be carried out. Is he aware that qualified observers in the fishing industry have considerable evidence that large quantities of mackerel are being destroyed in the way suggested? If the result of the investigation bears this out, will the Government take very firm action to prevent this really shocking waste of valuable protein?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, we shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said. There is reason to suppose that the biology of mackerel would lead to a lower survival rate than is normal in such circumstances. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is seeking scientific advice on this point. Until then, if the noble Lord does not mind, I would rather not comment on the figures which he has given in his Question.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this problem was raised in my debate on

535
the problems of the far South-West? Is he further aware that these dead fish which are dumped by the purse seiners—and in this case it was the trawlers which came from Scotland—cause great difficulty for those who are legitimately fishing for bottom-feeding fish? Can he tell us when we shall have an agreement to divide the Channel between ourselves and the French so as to keep the Scots and the Russians out and conserve our stocks?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as a spokesman for the Scottish Office, I should like to say that our policy is not to discriminate between United Kingdom fishermen. When there is a proven conservation need, it should apply fully and fairly to all our fishermen. However, I am glad to tell the noble Lord that officials are holding meetings with the producers' organisations concerned to consider how best the points made can be met.
Lord HOY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this complaint has been going on for a considerable time? I am sure that what the fishing industry want is an assurance that these inquiries will be expedited to prevent any further deterioration and waste in this respect. If my noble friend can give an assurance that the matter will be expedited, I am sure that this will bring satisfaction to all concerned.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; I am happy to give my noble friend that assurance.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that not only mackerel but herring, in immature stages of their life, are ground into fish meal which is very wasteful, bearing in mind both the dumping and the shortage of both types of fish in the sea?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, although that is a different question, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, that past indiscriminate fishing, in the absence of quota controls, has been responsible for the decline in herring stocks. But I am sure that he and other noble Lords will agree that regulating the total quantity of fish taken is more important than discriminating against particular methods of fishing.

HEALTH CENTRE LAVATORIES FOR THE DISABLED
3.1 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that public lavatories in health centres are suitable for disabled people.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the provision in health centres of at least one lavatory suitable for elderly, disabled and wheelchair patients of either sex was expressly recommended in a draft design guide on health centres distributed to health authorities and other bodies in 1974.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that much more encouraging reply. Is he aware that as a member of a community health council in my district, I have not yet found one health centre or one health clinic where this facility applies? Can the Government encourage existing centres to make this facility available? Is the noble Lord aware that it would be better if the door to the lavatory were made to slide rather than open inwards?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. There are approximately 600 health centres in England and I can assure the House that officials of my Department have visited almost all of them and have not yet found a health centre which does not provide a lavatory for elderly, disabled or wheelchair patients. If the noble Baroness has information on specific health centres we should be very glad to have details. As I say, we have visited most of the 600 or so health centres, which is quite an undertaking. With regard to the point concerning the sliding door, the leading architectural authority on design for the disabled, Selwyn Goldsmith, advises against the sliding door because very few people who use a wheelchair have sufficient strength, or are at the correct level, to be able to move the door right back. We understand that it is preferable that the door should open so that there is a direct passage in, and

537
it is much easier from the point of view of the disabled person to have that type of door.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for the action which has been taken. Would it not be helpful if the names of those authorities which have taken action as a result of the guidance given were published? This would make people aware that there are some local authorities who are still not taking action. It is a very good idea to congratulate the people who take action. I think the noble Lord will agree that this matter involves a different psychology. The more that people follow the guidance, when it is reasonable, and the more that those people are known to the public, then the more likely it will be that the advice will be accepted by everyone.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it causes some surprise that it is claimed that there appears to be a widescale disregard of the guidance, bearing in mind that officials have visited almost all of the 600 health centres and have not found one without proper facilities. The noble Baroness speaks about local authorities, but we are concerned with lavatories in health centres, and we are under the impression, as a result of personal visitation, that this need is being met.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I apologise, my Lords, for not saying "health centres". There are so many names for everything that sometimes one becomes a little mixed up.

PAY AGREEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3. 30 my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the pay agreement.
ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
AUSTRALIAN ESTATES COMPANIES BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
3. 7 p. m.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND WALES
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS rose to call attention to the present state of local government in England and Wales; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I do so because it seemed to us on these Benches that now that two years have passed since the Local Government Act 1972 came into force, we ought to have a look at the way in which local government in England and Wales, in its reorganised structure, is working out. It is perhaps not inappropriate to do so when attention is focused on local government in view of the district elections taking place throughout the country tomorrow.
The first factor we have to grasp is the size and the scope of local government today. Local authority expenditure on goods and services, including staff, has taken an increasing share of the gross domestic product over the past 25 years, rising from about 8½ per cent. in 1949 to about 9½ per cent. in 1964, to over 12 per cent. in 1974, and to about 13 per cent. last year. Over 2 million people are employed in local government, if we include teachers, school meals staff, and other people working in education. The total expenditure of local government is around £13, 000 million, or about one quarter of total Government expenditure, both central and local. Education takes nearly half of all current local government expenditure, and just over half the number of employees in local government are involved in education.
As the Minister for Planning and Local Government pointed out in another place on 9th April, there has been a particularly rapid growth in local government overall

539
current expenditure in recent years. In the decade to 1963 the average annual growth rate in volume terms was just under 5 per cent. However, in the two years 1973–74 and 1974–75 the rate of growth was 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. In 1975–76 the rate has been reduced to about 5 per cent., and in 1976–77, as part of the general economy measures, a complete standstill is being sought. As the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary remarked when he was still the Secretary of State for the Environment, "the party is over."
So we see that local government is now big business, but it is Parliament that has made it so. In the post-war period very considerable responsibilities have been placed on local government in the fields of education, housing, and the social services. In recent years of course extra duties have been laid on local authorities in respect of, for example, chronically sick and disabled persons legislation, safety and health at work legislation, consumer credit legislation and, most recently, the Community Land Bill.
The first conclusion I come to is that we have to give much greater thought to the potential further development of local government responsibility. There is much to be said for the maximum degree of decentralisation and, providing we get value for money, there is no reason why the local government share of total Government expenditure should not be higher than one quarter. But we need genuine decentralisation, not a duplication of activity. There would have to be a parallel decrease in central Government expenditure in real terms.
The flood of legislation placing new burdens on both central and local government must be abated; and we need to ensure that we preserve for local government an independent decision-making role. Local government must not be reduced to being nothing more than the local agent for central Government. And to the extent that they do have to act as the agents of the central Government, the local authorities must be fully consulted when policy is being formulated as to the impact on them and their resources which proposed legislation will have. It is no good leaving the consultation until legislation is before Parliament or on the
540
Statute Book. Perhaps the machinery of the Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance could be used for this purpose.
Secondly, we must recognise that in many fields, but particularly perhaps in the field of the social services, the local authorities cannot provide the services they are already supposed to provide on their present budgets. There will inevitably be heavy pressure for increased expenditure as soon as circumstances permit. But if the expanding service which they are expected to provide is one reason for increased expenditure on the part of local authorities, then inflation of course is another and an obvious one. A third has undoubtedly been reorganisation itself which has involved the employment of 110, 000 extra staff and cost a great deal. The local Government Act 1972 was of course the product of the last Conservative Administration, and it is rather ironic to find the last Conservative Government cast in the role of encouraging the big spenders, and the present Labour Government forced today by economic circumstances to play the miser.
My Lords, we on the Liberal Benches rejected both the reorganisation proposals of the last Labour Government, following on the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, and the subsequent proposals of the Conservative Government. While we recognise the need for a degree of rationalisation and amalgamation, we felt the district councils in the Conservative proposals were too large and would take local government further from the people rather than nearer. We felt that the county councils were too large to be local and too small to be regional. We would have preferred rather smaller district councils, with neighbourhood councils below, operating under a regional umbrella. We called for 12 such regions in England.
In the Dissenting Memorandum to the Kilbrandon Commission Report, the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and Professor Peacock suggest five regional Assemblies for England and I think we have been sufficiently impressed by the case they present to feel that that number may well be right. All that has happened in the past two years has confirmed us in our views. The introduction of regional government has unfortunately been made

541
more difficult because of the multiplication of the tiers of local government and a natural desire not to have another upheaval too soon after the last. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and Professor Peacock have shown very clearly that there is a regional tier of government in operation at the moment but it is not subject to democratic control. However, we are shortly, I understand, to have a White Paper on Regionalism in England and I will say no more about that subject today.
My Lords, it has been impressed upon me by councillors throughout the country whom I have consulted prior to this debate that local government since reorganisation has become more remote from the people; that constituents' problems now take longer to sort out than they did; that there is wasteful duplication between the county and district, particularly in the field of planning; and that the amount of paper in use has vastly increased. It is significant that while the number of staff has increased the number of elected councillors has decreased under reorganisation from 37, 510 to 23, 950 through the replacing of 1, 390 old authorities by 422 new ones.
If local government, albeit with a structure which is far from perfect, is to carry out the tasks already allotted to it, and perhaps to take on others, there will, as I said a few minutes ago, be pressures for increased spending. When we take this into account, and bear in mind the financial stringency of the moment, the need to get value for money and to eliminate waste is very clear. We can all give examples of waste in local government which have come to our notice: expensive new civic centres, property bought by a council and standing empty month after month. In one authority £8, 250 was spent in postage to send pay packets to school meal ladies. Another authority spent £100, 000 on producing a glossy magazine three times a year. A local authority paid £125, 000 two years ago for extra office space" as a matter of urgency" and it is still empty. And so one could go on.
The Islington Gazette on 13th February asked its readers this question:
" Did you know that if the borough' s population continues falling as fast as Islington Council continues recruiting extra staff, then by 1984 everyone in Islington will work for the council?"
I cannot vouch for the validity for that prediction but it would appear that 700 extra staff have been taken on in four years and, even allowing for the extra burdens placed on local government, one is bound to ask whether they are all really necessary. While it is important, if we are to get the right staff, that they should be well paid, nevertheless there are many misgivings today about the level of some of the salaries offered in local government in the wake of reorganisation. Manchester University appointments board recently drew attention to the fact that among its graduates last year it found that some local authorities were prepared to pay about double what the same type of graduate was getting for the same type of job in the private sector.
However, we not only need to eliminate waste, we need to reform the whole system of financing local government expenditure. Far too high a burden is placed on the rates, a system of raising revenue which takes no account of ability to pay. The protests about the size of rate increases in the past two years were fully justified. Even so, local government is being forced to rely more and more on central Government grant. New sources of local government revenue must be found. The rating system, with very much less revenue required from it, should be reformed so that the rate is levied on the site value alone, which, incidentally, would mean that those who improve their property would no longer be penalised. But the Layfield Report, which I understand is already in the hands of the Government, will deal with all this, and we must wait till it is published before we can tackle local government finance in depth.
One final word on finance. Careful attention should be given to the better promotion of council facilities. In one district council which I know one-third of the gross expenditure is covered by income from council facilities. If these were marketed better, an even higher proportion of the gross expenditure could be covered in this way.
My Lords, following the publication of the Bains Report on management structures for the new authorities many authorities have sought to implement the recommendations; and, as a result, most councils now have a policy and resources committee. The Bains Report envisaged

543
such a committee aiding the authority in setting objectives and priorities, coordinating and controlling the implementation of those objectives and, through a special sub-committee, monitoring and reviewing performance. In some instances, however, the policy and resources committee, faced with the need to econo-mise, merely asks each departmental committee to cut its proposals by a given percentage. There is thus no real overall choice between options related to different subjects. There is merely choice within each departmental area and no overall determining of priorities. Also, there is often a reluctance to appoint the crucial performance review sub-committee, which should examine the unit cost of each service to help determine effectiveness and identify areas for further attention. The possibility of having committees of the council constituted on an area basis covering all services, instead of having committees on a departmental basis, is worth researching thoroughly.
For the successful running of the local authority it is essential to secure the co-operation of both staff and public. Staff should be encouraged to offer suggestions for the improvement of the services provided. The provision of suggestion boxes for the use of all grades, manual workers as well as office workers, can be a very fruitful source of new ideas. The first step towards gaining the confidence of the public is the reduction of secrecy in council affairs to the absolute minimum. In Liverpool, Liberals have made committees and sub-committees open to the Press, radio and public alike except for a few restricted areas where, for example, people's private affairs are involved. Then, again, Liberals, who form the largest group on the Newbury District Council, have ensured that all full council meetings, committee meetings and subcommittee meetings are open to the public and the Press; and, of course, similar steps have been taken elsewhere.
We are all concerned with the problem of apathy about local government, and one way to combat it is through the promotion of greater participation by the public in the work of the council. In Liverpool, the education committee tours the city, meeting in different schools, with a particular invitation to parents and teachers to attend. Ways and means of enrolling
544
the public to help with particular projects should be explored, and I have in mind such projects as clearing up footpaths, looking after grass verges, cleaning up children' s play areas and maintaining open spaces. Another important avenue to participation is through housing co-operatives for tenants of local authority houses. By this means tenants are enabled to participate collectively in decisions which affect them. I very much welcome the circular on this subject issued by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in January of this year, and the encouragement which it gave.
With regard to participation in the meetings of the council, some councils are experimenting with a question-time at the beginning of their meeting when members of the public may put questions to councillors. The Liberals at Newbury have written into the standing orders of the council the right of members of the public to speak to the council when a resolution to suspend standing orders to enable them to do so is moved by a councillor and passed. A deputation of any seven ratepayers can request a meeting with any committee, and if the committee refuse the meeting they must state their reasons to the next full council meeting. A deputation of any 20 ratepayers can request a meeting with the full council, subject to the approval of the policy and resources committee.
Finally, may I say a brief word about standards of conduct in local government —a subject which has given rise to some anxiety in recent years? I believe that, in addition to the oral disclosure of an interest at the time the subject concerned is discussed, there should be a statutory register of councillors' pecuniary interests, as recommended by the Prime Minister' s Committee on Local Government Rules of Conduct in 1974; and this register should be open to inspection by any elector for that particular authority. I further believe that one of the best safeguards against corruption and the possibility of corruption is a vigorous opposition to the ruling Party. When opposition is weak because the electoral system grossly under-represents the opposition, or does not represent it at all, as sometimes happens, temptation is greatest. This is, of course, a strong argument for proportional representation to be used in the election of local authorities.
To sum up, local government is big business. With genuine decentralisation, as I was saying earlier, it may become even bigger business, although for the moment, due to the economic situation, a curb must be placed on its growth. In these circumstances, we need to get value for money, to eliminate waste and to overhaul the traditional committee approach. The whole method of local government financing must be reformed, and in this connection we wait for Layfield. To operate satisfactorily, the fullest co-operation must be obtained from the staff and the public. A whole new range of ways to invite the public to participate in the work of the council must be explored. We must take further steps to safeguard the standards of conduct, and we must also safeguard the independence of local government from central Government control and dictation. Finally, may I say how much we all owe, though we may criticise them from time to time—and criticise them sometimes vigorously—to the hard-working councillors of all Parties and of none, and to the staff, who keep our local government functioning. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, this is the time of year, the season of the rate demand, when everybody is agreed that local government costs too much. It is usually quite a short season of a few weeks, and for the rest of the year we are all, in turn, calling on local government to do more: to implement the health and safety legislation, to step up the reorganisation of secondary education and to get busy and busier with the Community Land Act. Even this afternoon we have been urging them to do more for the disabled. Can any of your Lordships recall anyone, after May, asking Her Majesty' s Government why the county councils are not doing less? Or moving a Motion that the districts should slow down or cut back their services? Of course, it never happens. But perhaps this year it will be different, because certainly the ratepayers' feelings are exceptional in their intensity, and, as they can be analysed correctly, it might enable some positive and permanent remedies to be introduced.
I should like to say straight away that I do not think there is any truth in the
546
suspicion that the present higher costs of local government are due to reorgan-isation. Local government in Greater London was not reorganised two years ago; but were the London ratepayers spared the rate rises? —not a hit of it! They went up marginally more in Greater London than elsewhere. All local government costs were pushed up over the country by high inflation on top of steadily expanding and extending services. Is the cost of local government services really all that unreasonable? What do our average weekly bills look like? When John Citizen and his household spend £3·40 a week on drinking and smoking, £5·50 on travelling around and £3 on the HP of their consumer durables, what does he pay in rates for his schools, social services and all the other city services put together? —£1·50. I do not believe that that is unreasonable. I believe that that is very good value for money; but the demand conies in one nasty dollop and it hurts.
We have now reached a point, nevertheless, where the citizen has been led to expect a higher scale of local government services either than he likes to afford or the country can afford. My hope is that this year the intensity of the mood of the rate demand season will last long enough for us to work out the implications henceforward of a low-growth or no-growth state of affairs for local government after a generation of continuous and sometimes very rapid expansion and increase in costs.
We in Parliament must restrain ourselves and restrain our Ministers—and this afternoon was a case in point—from urging yet further functions and expenses on local government; and local councils and their officers must turn from for ever asking for more resources to thinking much more carefully about how to get the best from the resources they already have. My belief is that manpower training is now probably the most fruitful field for attention, and it is already getting it, and, particularly, management training on how to adjust to a new era of little or no growth in resources, an era of the raising of quality from the expansion of paid professional staff to the involvement of community and voluntary effort, to get more things done and to provide more on a do-it-yourself basis. I repudiate the charge that the cost of local govern-

547
ment services is unreasonably high or that the value we get for our money is low. But I am certain that the costs can go no higher and that better value can still be obtained; especially if we learn to do more for ourselves and our neighbours and expect less to be done for us.
I turn to the structure of local government. Whatever we may feel about the changes made two years ago, there are two points on which I hope we can all agree; namely, that the inherited pattern of no fewer than 1, 390 separate local authorities could continue no longer, that there had to be reform to reduce such fragmentation. The second point on which I hope we can all agree—and I am relieved to hear nothing of it in the moving of the Liberal Motion—is that, now reform has taken place, the existing structure of two main spheres, district and county, must remain unchanged for some years to come. I would suggest that it is far too early to come to a judgment of the new system, although there is no harm in our having a debate today about it, and far too early to contemplate any further fundamental changes.
The right approach at this stage is to give the new districts and the new counties time to settle down—for, after all, the climate in which they were asked to start their work could hardly have been more difficult—and, so far as possible, to use the counties and districts that have been elected, their members and their staff, to fulfil as many as possible of the local responsibilities that fall to be discharged. My belief is that the two basic types of authority, district and county, with adaptations and adjustments but not fundamental changes, can find patterns of co-operation in standing conferences, agency arrangements, joint committees which, however awkward they may seem to be, are preferable to the introduction and election of further authorities to carry out local functions and to take over responsibilities from central Government. I believe that the present weakness or fault, if there is one, is not that of the local authorities being unequal to the responsibilities that Whitehall would like to decentralise upon them, but rather that Ministers and their Departments are unwilling to give local authorities the wider responsibilities and
548
freedoms that they should have and are now so much more capable of discharging.
This brings me to the relationship between central Government and local government which Ministers in another place were last week at pains to describe as a partnership. A partnership is certainly the right way to express the proper constitutional relationship between central Government and local government; but it was not the way in which it came across when, for example, Ministers were explaining how the Community Land Act would be made to work. The local authorities then were in many respects required to behave and to be treated as agents of central Government; and to a large extent they are still by many Whitehall Departments, particularly the DES and the DHSS who exercise far too much detailed control over their extensive programmes and their expenditures in the key sectors. Now that the reorganisation of local government is two years behind us, the most urgent and pressing item on the agenda is a critical overhaul of the way in which central Government controls local government and how the so-called partnership is working. In that connection I specially welcome a reference to the Joint Consultative Council on Local Government Finances. I believe that that is one of the most constructive developments affecting local government for many years, but is is only a first step in a process which must go much further and be more firmly established if the relationship is really to deserve the title of a partnership.
One pattern which deserves to be extended into other fields is that adopted by the DOE and local authorities for the administration of transport and highways; the allocation of finance by way of a supplementary block grant based on Ministerial broad approval of local plans stretching five years ahead, approval of a more precise programme for the year to come and a review of the achievements of the year past and a renunciation of further detailed approval and scrutiny of individual items for the year ahead. I should be glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, of anything more she can tell us of other proposals in this field of the relationship between central Government and local government which can indicate to us that the good start made with this Consultative Council and with the TPPs is to be

549
continued so as to make the partnership with local government more realistic and their autonomy more real. Without this autonomy, local government cannot possibly be said to be democratic in any real sense.
This brings me to my last point. Democracy is supposed to mean government by the people. The theory is that it is exercised by each of us casting each of our three votes every three or four years for our Member of Parliament, our county councillor and our district councillor and by paying taxes and rates for large numbers of paid hands to do various things for us under the control of our representatives. It is widely felt that this works out in practice very different from the theory, and indeed is getting further from the theory, and that the theory itself needs reviewing. I believe it is a total illusion to think that three more votes on top of the three we already have—one for representatives in Europe, another for representatives in the regions and another for representatives in the neighbourhood—will really do much to stem the tide of dissatisfaction. I believe that lower and lower polls in these six elections and greater and greater protest are more likely results.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I stop the noble Lord at this point in his interesting and constructive speech to say that this is the philosophical problem. The noble Lord spoke about the "hitherto fragmentation of local government". One of the things I see now in all this is the problem of remoteness. Of course, I do not know the answer to this, but it is certainly one of the problems. I am very interested in what the noble Lord is proposing, but can he give an answer to it?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it is a difficult problem, but it is the one to which my few remaining remarks will be addressed. The fact is, as I was going on to say, that we have an electorate which is capable of and, I believe, desiring to do much more than cast three, four, five or six votes every three or four years. I believe the electors want positively and personally to participate not just in the statutory planning process but in all planning for their future and in taking many of their own decisions, setting up many of their
550
own services and helping to keep them going.
Six tiers of Government—Europe, the United Kingdom, the region, the county, the district and the parish—trying to run our lives for us is, I believe, a burden of administration which is too great to be borne and so far from giving us more scope for real democracy it is in grave danger of imposing further constraints on personal freedom and responsibility too suffocating to be endured. I believe that our energies and, even more, our imagination should be turned elsewhere—to transform the swelling tide of negative protest at the system into a more positive contribution towards helping it, and away from fitting the real, live, local pressures and issues into the dull and insensitive moulds of statutory provision and party political dogma. Let us be like Ezekiel and see some new life breathed into these bare and barren bones.
Plenty of things can be done, Take, for example, public participation in planning and deciding things. With a few exceptions in the statutory planning field, the proper process of participation in local government is nowhere defined. The right time for the electorate to have their say is not specified. Everyone tries to participate all the time and no one knows when to give up participating. The present process is exhausting for the councillors, irritating for the citizens, time consuming for the officers, and it invites militancy.
Take another aspect of the proper democracy, that is to say, direct personal involvement in setting up and running things. There are large untapped resources in our communities today capable of meeting and managing many community needs. Good neighbour schemes, environmental clean up campaigns and voluntary play groups for children are just some of those with which we are already familiar. But there could be many more. By encouraging and fostering more of these, the level of many local government services could be raised and their range extended at no extra cost. But, of course, it is no good expecting the citizen and community involvement to happen unless the policies of Whitehall Departments and those of the political Parties are adaptable and adapted to the wishes of local people;

551
and they are not so at present. I hope we are approaching the stage when the factor that most commends a councillor to the ward that elects him is his skill in stimulating and guiding of the communities he represents positively to influence and to provide for themselves more of the services they want and need. I hope we are also approaching the stage when proven skill in promoting and aiding community involvement is a qualification sought after by officers as an essential to advancement to the higher ranks in local government.
It has to be said that the traditional patterns of strong, hierarchical, centralised, professional departments in local government do not help this development in civic democracy. But area management is one recent development that does. This possibility has emerged from the inner area studies set up by the Department of the Environment three or four years ago under my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State, especially in Liverpool. I understand it has been adopted wholesale in Stockport and is being tested by the Department of the Environment and monitored by the Institute of Local Government in at least six other places.
Area management has four possible elements in it. There are area committees, made up of councillors of the area—a distinct and, in many areas, a novel political unit; area staff teams of officers exposed to local as well as departmental influences, and schemes for the decentra-lisation of various local government services nearer to the people for whom they are provided. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that that is desirable. Fourthly, there are the conduct of studies and surveys and the allocation of resources geared more specifically to the needs of an area. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, finds something there to bite on. I think we all need to give more attention to those last points and to add some flesh to the bare idea of local democracy.
I should therefore like to conclude by summarising four points. Let us commend rather than criticise local government for what they do for us, but henceforward let us be very wary of piling on to them
552
many more jobs and adding to their costs and our own rates. Let us allow the basic structure to settle down; make central Government and local government partnership a reality and harness protest to positive purposes.

PAY AGREEMENT
3. 48 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His words are as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the outcome of the discussions between the Government and the TUC on pay and on the wider operation of the social contract during the year from the beginning of next August. The House will already have heard about the conclusion reached by the General Council of the TUC at their meeting this morning.
"In my Budget speech I said that, in order to end next year with an inflation rate at least in line with our foreign competitors, we should aim at a further halving of our inflation rate by December 1977; and that this would require that in the next pay round the nation's money wage bill should rise by under half as much as it is likely to rise in this pay round.
"I went on to say that the tax reliefs I was describing were based on the assumption that the pay limit in the next round would be in the area of 3 per cent., but that much would depend on the way in which the new policy was structured.
"Early this morning the Government reached agreement with TUC representatives on recommendations they would make to the TUC General Council to implement the Government' s counter-inflation policy in the twelve months beginning on 1st August 1976. The General Council have now endorsed these recommendations by a very large majority and will commend them to a Special Conference called for 16th June.

553
"On pay, the Government's discussions with the TUC concentrated on two main questions. They were the structure of a new pay limit for the year from 1st August 1976; and the level of the limit and its impact on the nation's pay bill. On structure, the discussions produced an increasingly strict and tight form of limit, reducing progressively the risk of extra earnings increases through exceptions or leakage.
"On the level of the limit, both sides were concerned to reach a conclusion which met the Government' s counter-inflation requirements; which protected the low paid but at the same time gave more room for differentials than the £6 limit; and which, above all, would command the support of the trade union movement at all levels; there is no basis on which any incomes policy is likely to succeed in practice other than the understanding and support of those on the shop floor.
"The result was a pay limit which, if approved by the TUC Special Conference, can be expected to add on average about 4½ per cent. to wages and salaries. This increase of about 4½ per cent. is well under half the increase represented by the £6 limit. That limit was equivalent to about 10½ per cent. and the effect of equal pay and certain transitional provisions was to add upwards of I per cent. to that.
"The new limit permits a maximum weekly increase of £4 and a minimum of £2.50, with a 5 per cent. limit on increases for those in the middle band of earnings. The effect of the low upper limit is to reduce the impact of the new agreement on the pay bill to about 4½ percent. I attach the highest importance to the clear and straightforward structure of this new pay limit. It was widely expected that there would be more exceptions and complexities in this second year of the policy, and I myself assumed that this would be so at the time of the Budget.
"In fact the structure of the new limit is in some respects even simpler than it has been for the £6. We do not on this occasion have to provide for large equal pay increases or transitional exceptions outside the pay limit, which in the current year have added appreciably to the pay bill. Next, there is no
554
question of consolidating pay increases under the £6 policy into basic rates: this alone could have added as much as 2 per cent. to the total pay bill.
"No special exceptions are proposed for productivity bargains. There is no loophole for rectifying what people may see as anomalies. The calculation of pay increases during the year from 1st August is quite unambiguous, and avoids the uncertainties of the pay bill for a group. The increase will take the form of a supplement to the pay of the individual, calculated week by week or month by month as 5 per cent. of his total earnings, subject to a floor of £2. 50 and a ceiling of £4, which will apply to incomes at all levels above £80 a week.
"Apart from the changed form of the limit, the rules for the £6 limit will continue to apply, subject to a minor exception to permit the negotiation of occupational pension schemes up to the level required by law to permit contracting out of the State scheme, which the Government announced last July.
"This 4½ per cent. level of pay increase is likely to be below that in practically all the Western developed countries this year; even the Germans, with their excellent record, are seeing a rate of increase of about 5½ per cent.
"The Government regard these proposals, like the £6 proposals before them, as a thoroughly responsible and statesmanlike response by the TUC to the needs of the counter-inflation programme.
"The recent discussions have not been confined to pay alone. The TUC have naturally stressed the vital importance of keeping the rise in prices to the minimum during the period of the new pay policy. Price controls must not be swept aside while an incomes policy is in operation. The Government therefore believe that price controls on both profits and costs must continue at this time but that the price control regime must be so modified as to encourage investment and jobs in our economy. My right honourable friend will be discussing current price controls and the essential changes that we believe must be made to ensure

555
economic growth with the CBI, the TUC and all other interested parties. As soon as these discussions have been concluded, a further Statement will be made to the House and a Consultative Document will be issued in the normal way.
"In order to contain the effect of price increases on those with growing families, I propose not to proceed with next September's 5p increase in school meal charges. This will cost £35 million in the current year. It is something to which the TUC representatives attached great importance in our talks.
"The TUC have of course been equally concerned with jobs and training. As recent surveys have shown, demand from exports and investment is now expected to increase rapidly and the prospects for employment are much brighter in consequence. Since the last TUC Annual Congress I have brought forward four separate sets of selective measures, in September, December and February and again in my recent Budget, to improve the prospects for employment, both directly, as through the introduction and improvement of the Temporary Employment Subsidy, and indirectly, for example through the additional expenditure on industry schemes and to extend facilities for industrial training.
"The full effect of these measures has not yet come through but we estimate that over 100, 000 people already have jobs or training places as a result of them. I now propose to allocate an additional £15 million for training and job creation by the Manpower Services Commission.
"The additional expenditure of £50 million will be charged against the contingency reserve and will not add to the expenditure totals announced in the Public Expenditure White Paper.
"The Government are satisfied that the new agreement, if approved by the TUC Special Conference, will, as I have explained, meet the requirements of the counter-inflation policy. When that has happened, they will recommend to Parliament the enactment in full of the conditional tax reliefs specified in the Budget."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it is arguable, and perhaps even more than arguable, in commenting on this Statement, for which we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, that the country really cannot afford an increase of incomes at all. If we look around at our competitors and compare their situation to ours, it certainly is not very reassuring. Though, of course, 4½per cent. is a great deal better than nothing, it is not as good as the 3 per cent. which the Government themselves said was all that they felt could be afforded. Nevertheless, it is much better than nothing. At the same time, one ought to remember that the difficulties are of the Government's making. In March 1974, as a result of their Election promises, which I think were foolish, and as a result of abandoning the Conservative Government's incomes policy, wage settlements were sometimes running at nearly 30 per cent. Nobody can say that the £6 a week, and now the 4½ per cent., is not a great deal better than that.
I hope very much, too, that the noble Lord the Leader of the House can elaborate a little—although perhaps it is not fair to ask him to do so—on what seems to be a contradictory statement in what he has said about the need to keep price controls, and, at the same time, to get rid of them. One thing is absolutely certain, that if business and industry in this country are not allowed to make a good and sufficient profit then we shall not get investment; they will not get their cash flow and we shall not get the resurgence of business interest in this country.
May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House one or two questions. First, may I ask him whether the £2.50 is going to be a right, as the £6 limit grew up to be? Secondly, may I ask him whether, as I take it to be, although there is no mention of it in the Statement, the tax concessions will take place? If that is so, could the noble Lord tell the House what the 4½ per cent., plus the tax concession, means in terms of net demand on the economy? Thirdly, may I ask the noble Lord whether any consideration at all has been given by the Government to the problems which this agreement will bring to middle management—and not just to middle management, but to skilled craftsmen? There

557
are other people working in this country who are not members of trade unions and they have to be considered as well. There is no doubt that that class of person has suffered a considerable decline in his real standard of life over the last few years while those who have been earning less have, in point of fact, had an increase in their standard of life. I think that the noble Lord will know of the frustration, the demoralisation and, indeed, the determination of some of those whom we can least afford to lose, to leave this country if there is no light at the end of what has been for them a very unpleasant tunnel.
Lastly, I would say this to the noble Lord. I think that the people of this country are becoming very confused about the economic situation. I do not necessarily lay the blame for that entirely at the Government's door. One morning we hear on the radio a statement from the retailers that in two years' time everything is going to be all right; the next morning we have a statement from some Cambridge economist that doom is around the corner. Everything is contradicted from one day to the next. I think that the people of this country are becoming thoroughly bewildered about the economic situation. I hope very much that this agreement, which I welcome, will not be taken by the Government and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an excuse for euphoria about the economy, because it deals only with part of the trouble. Not least, the agreement does not deal with the enormous borrowing requirements of the Government. Therefore, while welcoming this agreement I hope that we can keep a sense of proportion about what difficulties lie ahead.
4.3 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches I, too, should like to express a welcome to this agreement, particularly if it ends the uncertainty about this country which has prevailed both here and abroad since the Budget speech, which left so much in the air. May I put three questions to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. First, can the noble Lord say by how much this new formula is likely to reduce inflation? Secondly, can the noble Lord say how it is proposed to ensure that public expenditure is contained within the
558
£50 million and whether that figure includes expenditure on pay in local government? Thirdly, there was reference in the Statement to occupational pensions, and I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House could clarify that point. Ts this a new exemption or is it, as I think it is, a restatement of the existing position, in which nothing can be negotiated which exceeds the minimum required to contract out? Nothing more than that can be given. If this is so, do the Government recognise that these restrictions will make it virtually impossible to implement in April 1978 the new Pensions Act, to the detriment of many millions of workers, most of whom are in the manual and female categories? I hope that the Government will look again at the matter because we are getting too close to the December 1977 date by which all the decisions must be made by employers.
4.4 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for the welcome he has given to the contents of this Statement and also, although rather belatedly, at the very end, for the welcome given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I take the view that the agreement that has been reached with the Government by the TUC negotiating team is a major advance not only for dealing with inflation but, I believe, in the long term for dealing with the way in which we conduct negotiations on pay and general conditions. These negotiations have been conducted under the constraints and the threat of the consequences of inflation. When one considers that in July of last year the pay bill was increasing at an annual rate of 29 per cent. and that now the TUC have given an undertaking to the Government that they will try to persuade their members to accept a pay policy of 4½ per cent., this is indeed remarkable and very great credit is, I think, due to the TUC negotiating team. Clearly anything is better than nothing, but this is a very major advance.
Turning to price controls, clearly these need to be retained but modified and, as the Statement says, it is the Government's intention to undertake immediate discussions with the CBI, the TUC and any other interested organisation to find

559
out what changes should be made—particularly, as the Statement says, in order to deal with investment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that without profit there can be no investment. That point, therefore, must be very much in the minds of those who are looking into the matter.
Under the £6 procedure, the lower limit of £2. 50 is not a right but the lower limit. It may be that some companies will not be able to afford it but this is something which the unions, or the workers' representatives, will have to negotiate with their own employers.
So far as the tax concessions and their consequences upon the national demand are concerned, in his Budget Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if one made these concessions the consequences would be marginal. The Chancellor's Statement was based upon 3 per cent., but for reasons which one could go into—it is a very complex discussion—the difference between the 3 per cent. and the 4½ per cent. now proposed is not so great as would appear, because on the 3 per cent. basis we were considering a policy where the constraints and the limitations might well have been less. Therefore, I take the view that the demand on the economy still remains marginal or, perhaps, less marginal than it was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Statement.
With regard to middle management, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that they in particular have been affected not only by this pay policy but by that of the noble Lord's own Government. This is one of the greatest difficulties in seeking a national policy during our present economic constraints and I fully appreciate the very great hardship, frustration and, in some cases, downright despair that has been caused. But when one is seeking a policy of this sort in these conditions, one of the greatest dangers is to seek to create exceptions—because where does one draw the line? The Government will shortly need to consider and discuss the way in which we can ensure that we have the right middle management in both the private and the public sector. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that when he reads the newspapers and listens to the media he is confused about what is the present economic situation
560
of this country and what its prospects are.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not confused!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is certain about what it is, and he may be one of the very few exceptions in your Lordships' House. I must say that I am confused when I read the Press and listen to the media. They do not seem to say the same thing from one day to the next. I will say only this to the noble Lord. I believe that we have made some progress during the last nine and twelve months. We see exports beginning to move forward—and heaven knows! the pound is so undervalued that here is a heaven-sent opportunity for industry really to exploit the export market. I think we have now a real opportunity, if we are prepared to seize it, but I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that there is no sense of euphoria in the Government. There is a realisation that although some progress has been made down the right road, the road is still very long for us and we shall only reach the end of it if we genuinely believe in ourselves and have the determination to fulfil these policies. I believe that what the TUC have offered today is a realisation by the TUC—the representatives of the workers of this country—that they too recognise what is at stake and they are determined to see the country through.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked about pensions. This is really a restatement of the present position and we are not anticipating any change, certainly not at this moment. The noble Lord also asked me two other questions: first, about the Contingency Fund—the extra £50 million. I assure the House that the Government are firmly bound by the White Paper proposals on public expenditure and that this sum of £50 million will be taken out of the Contingency Fund and therefore must be at the expense of any other claims that there may be upon it. We do not intend to see the Contingency Fund exceeded. With regard to the first question put by the noble Lord, I do not have the details. It is a complex matter but I will write to him within the next day and provide him with that information.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, can my noble Leader tell me

561
this? The £6 limit stopped dead at a salary of £8,500—is there any equivalent ceiling to the present proposals?
Lord SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. The limit of £8,500 is abolished but any increases will be contained within the £4 upper limit.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us would wish to congratulate both the Government and the TUC negotiators on their very statesmanlike answer to the problems which they faced? Is he further aware that unless we can make this a productivity, prices and income arrangement, any increase will be inflationary and will not in fact reduce the levels of inflation at which this is aimed? Will he therefore say whether we are each year to subject ourselves to the kind of agonies which we have had in the last few weeks, while speculators play ducks and drakes with the pound on the pretext that they do not know whether or not an agreement will be made? Will the noble Lord agree that it would be far better if we were now to accept the need for a permanent incomes policy rather than go on with the kind of nonsense we have had to endure recently?
Further, will the noble Lord say whether the 4½ per cent. will he paid on the standard working week or on all hours worked? In other words, in industries which are working on overtime will the overtime rate be enhanced as well as the standard work week, which we know is to be improved? The long period of collective bargaining based on economic power has produced a mal-distribution of income throughout industry and it will not be sufficient for long simply to have a standard percentage increase; rather would it be better if we could allocate certain sums of money to each industry within which they could do their negotiating. I think that would help to iron out the mal-distribution which we now see in so many of our industries.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend on the question of productivity. A pay policy of this sort clearly does not produce a stimulus for improvement in productivity, although I might suggest to my noble friend that the risk to jobs today, which is very much in people' s minds, is in itself a stimulus, or ought to be a stimulus, to productivity.
562
In regard to the question of overtime, this agreement would mean that if an individual with his basic pay plus overtime was to exceed (shall we say?) £80 a week, then the limit of £4 immediately applies. Overtime is included in the general income to which this limit will be applicable.
As to the future, I am sufficiently—if I may use the term—an old-fashioned Socialist to believe that one cannot seek to plan the national economy in terms of investment and other fields without having some plan for pay, which is a major part of the cost of industry. However, I am sure my noble friend will recognise that a second year of pay policy is always harder to achieve than the first year. I hope that the TUC and the CBI and the Government, through the NEDDY would, once we have this policy well entrenched and fully supported, give consideration as to what it should be for the next year and what should be permanent. But this is a matter which I suggest we need to approach with a little delicacy, recognising the different conflicting views which exist not only within the trade union movement but also within management and throughout industry. I personally believe that one day we shall have to go to a more sensible way of achieving pay settlements than the continual friction that we have had in the past.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I have listened with admiration to the explanation given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House as to how the figure of 4½ per cent. is very like the figure of 3 per cent. which was originally adumbrated by the Chancellor, but what I failed to hear is this. In the pre-Budget deliberations of the Treasury, when the Chancellor fixed a figure of 3 per cent., he no doubt had in mind a stable pound, but since that time the pound has declined by some 8 or 9 per cent. This figure surely is in addition to inflation and it is for this reason that one doubts whether the settlement of 4½ per cent. is in fact identical with 3 per cent. I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain this?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is something which we could clearly debate, although a debate on the Floor of the House on a technical and complex matter is not necessarily the way in which we can achieve agreement. I could explain to

563
the noble Lord on another occasion that the figure is not as far removed as is believed. It is true that the loss in the value of the pound in recent months must be a contributory factor to inflation in the coming 12 months. It is a great credit to the TUC negotiators that they were prepared to recommend this settlement in the light of the pressures and the problems which are going to be placed on their members in the next 12 months.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I welcome the Statement; however I have one question to put. The noble Lord the Leader of the House said there would be no exceptions. Does this mean that those who are on salaries with an incremental scale cannot get those increments and the 4½ per cent.? If that is so, it is extremely unfair as between the private and public sectors, the public sector being largely on incremental scales.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can give a very snap answer. I do not believe that incrementals are excluded, but I should like to check on it and I will write to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I would only say to him that in all cases there are anomalies and hardships, as we heard at Question Time yesterday.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on this settlement, which is much better than seemed possible a short time ago. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on telling us that the Government are not in a state of euphoria. The difficulty about the economic situation is that it has been very bad indeed. A year ago we were on the brink of disaster. The situation is now much better than it was. So everybody is inclined, when the team wins a match, to throw their hats in the air and forget about the relegation which was so near. The more the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and members of the Government go on pointing out how far we are from being out of the wood, the more hope we have later on. I congratulate them.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say that the only time I shall have any euphoria is when this country is like Liverpool, top of the League. Until that
564
moment, there will be no sense of euphoria. But being serious for a moment, we have made some progress. We are far from safe, but I believe that at least the ship is being pointed in the right direction. My Lords, 35 minutes for an important Statement is, perhaps, right, but I think we might now be encouraged to move on to the debate.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask just one question? Would the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that, if inflation is to be conquered, the sensible way to do it would be to tie any wage rise to any increase in the gross national product? For instance, if the gross national product is 3 per cent., then the wage rise would be 3 per cent.; if the GNP were 5 per cent., the wage rise would be 5 per cent. Surely that is the only rational way to defeat inflation.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, rational, but not necessarily realistic. People have to live; people still have to buy things. Therefore, we must seek the right balance between those legitimate demands and what the nation, in effect, can afford.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND WALES
4. 23.p.m.
Debate resumed.
The EARL of LONGFORD: My Lords, I acknowledge with gratitude my exalted position in the order of speakers; it is not as high as I have been when I used to play some part in allocating the positions. I take it as a compliment to the old Oxford City Labour Party, of which I was once an ardent member under the leadership of the late Richard Crossman. He was not restrained in those days by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, because that was long before her time, and not even by the Dame, as she came to be called in his diaries, but by the aunt by marriage of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, Lady Townsend. Those were exhilarating times.
Of course, it is possible to discuss this topic under the heading of constitutional structure and procedure or under the heading of the issues that divide the parties —I will not say of Party politics; we never

565
think of them nowadays in this House—or again from the point of view of the social reformer and social worker. I shall be mainly concerned with that last aspect. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing this subject, and refer to the thoughtful speeches of the noble Lord who dealt mainly with the structure, and of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who dealt with structure and some of the Party issues.
With the greatest respect, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to realise that when he felt he was speaking in a very non-Party way and quite dispassionately, he was in fact making a speech that could not possibly have been made from this side of the House, except by someone about to cross the Floor. He was putting forward all these matters from a Conservative point of view. For example, the noble Lord alluded to what seemed to be the rather dangerous demand to increase facilities for the disabled. He mentioned them as topics having been raised at Question Time. Of course, he is entitled to his outlook, and he has stressed the fact that the cost to local government must not be allowed to increase. The noble Lord is entitled to say that we on this side of the House, and the leadership under the Prime Minister and the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Healey, have accepted officially, as a Party at any rate, the need for very considerable restraint on local government spending. But without pursuing that topic, if I may put the matter simply and I hope not unfairly, the noble Lord sees this as a kind of permanent restriction. We see it as a temporary restriction, and regard with the greatest possible regret the fact that in the years ahead, owing to the crisis we have just been discussing, we must have this unwelcome restraint. The noble Lord seemed to be laying down a kind of absolute principle that local government costs are not increased, but I do not want to pursue that aspect this afternoon.
As regards the constitutional structure, one of the many achievements of the late Mr. Richard Crossman was to set up the Redcliffe-Maud Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Recicliffe-Maud, and his colleagues produced a report widely favoured on this side of the House, but which has met with little favour by and large, from the other side of the House.
566
I am an unrepentant supporter of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, perhaps on personal grounds. There is nobody, in my own generation anyway, who seems to me to have done more public service, one way and another, than the noble Lord, so I would be biased in favour of any report of his. But, again, I will not pursue the topic of the virtues of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, or the proposal of the Labour Party that we are now bringing forward as compared with what we have now got.
I agree that we, or whoever is in power, must make the best of the existing structure, but that does not mean we cannot hope to alter it. If the Labour Party are in power for a long time, I am sure it will be altered quite fundamentally. I have no doubt about that. Having said that, I want to concern myself with how we can make the greatest possible increase in the social services during this period of financial stringency, which I must accept as a fact for our purposes this afternoon—a temporary fact, I hope, but a fact. I should like to lay the greatest stress on what I am going to say—I have given the noble Baroness some notice of this—about the difficulties that arise from the discrepancy between the standards provided in each particular service by the best local authorities and the not-so-good ones, or if you like the bad ones. I shall be dealing mainly with that discrepancy.
If we are to talk about improving the general standards slightly, we must realise that in some cases a large increase is necessary before anything like a tolerable standard is attained. I should like to take three services, all of which depend considerably on assistance derived from the local authorities. In the first place, let us take the mentally handicapped. The phrase, "the Cinderella of the social services" is rather worn out, so I will try to avoid it, but no one is likely to deny that we, as a nation, have spent far too little on the mentally handicapped hitherto. There has been some small but steady progress in recent years.
Let us take two examples, the local authority adult training centres and the local authority hostels for children. The figures that I give are maybe not the latest, but they are the latest available. Of course, the reconstruction has affected the

567
situation but not the underlying point. The number of places in local authority adult training centres rose from 22, 000 to over 34, 000 between 1970 and 1975. That was a steady progress in those five years of more than 50 per cent. But it was still below the target set in the White Paper of 1971, which mentioned 72, 000 places. And the same was true about the figures for hostels. So there is no possible ground for satisfaction, let alone complacency, with the position as it is now.
How can we make sure that this limited rise, this trickle, continues under the conditions that we are all now aware of, the conditions of stringency? I am not accusing the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, of being in any way less compassionate than I am, and everyone will agree that this small increase ought to continue, but will it continue in the world of the next few years, in the Britain of the next few years? A disquieting feature arises in all the social services, but is nowhere more noticeable than in this. This is the factor that I mentioned earlier I was going to stress, this sharp discrepancy between the good authorities and the backward ones. Take the adult training centres. There are 91 places per 100, 000, I am told, or there were, according to the last count, in Dorset; down to 40, less than half, in Cornwall. In regard to hostels and homes for children, taking county by county, we find that Staffordshire in 1975 had 77 places, and no places at all had then been provided—I may be told otherwise by the Minister, although she has not been given notice of these details—in Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Devon, Kent, Cambridgeshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. So there are these very great diversities between the good places and the bad.
The general point I want to raise, having given notice to the Minister, is this. What leverage are we going to exert on the retrograde authorities to bring them up to the level of the good ones at a time when we are in a general sense saying there must be an attitude of restraint? I would urge, of course, that the mentally handicapped in general should receive a higher priority than they have had or seems to be likely. But may I concentrate on the question I have just put: how can the retrograde authorities in particular be levered up to the level of the good ones?
568
Of course, I realise and all of us who have been involved in local government know, that we cannot have it all ways. We know it is of the essence of local government that there should be a large element of discretion, and that discretion will be used in various ways; some people will use it more generously than others. But in what I have called the age of stringency the need for reducing these variations, or at any rate making sure that the minimum is provided, is ever greater and ever more obvious.
I would say a few words about the physically disabled. I am still thinking of all this from the point of view of the local authorities, who are our concern today. The main point that I have just been making applies equally here; there is a sharp contrast between the good and the bad. The Disablement Income Group circulated recently all directors of social services, to ask what the position was likely to be in the coming years in view of the threatened retrenchment. I have the answers available here. They certainly provide an astonishing variety. Many of the authorities consider themselves unable to continue—and I think it is true of most of the authorities—with previously planned rates of growth. Some are actually cutting back services. This is all the more serious in view of the backlog in recent years. In some cases, of course, it is not a question of just prodding someone who has fallen far behind, but of trying to encourage the average authority to follow the best ones. The Disablement Income Group attach particular importance to the Crossroads scheme, which has been in operation in the Rugby area since 1974, and perhaps elsewhere. Under this scheme, which represents co-operation between an enlightened authority and a charitable body, the local authority provides care attendance for severely disabled persons who have no relatives to look after them. They are thus enabled to remain at home. That not only saves money, but may make the difference between the break-up of many marriages and their preservation. Here the point I am making is that somehow or other we must induce the average authority, somehow or other we must stimulate them, to emulate their enlightened brethren. Once again, have the Government any ideas as to how this can be achieved?

569
Finally, I would say a few words about the homeless, in whom many other noble Lords besides myself take a special interest. The variation between the different local authorities is just as blatant here as in the other cases. The Minister revealed in a reply given last December that, for example, to take only one point, about three-quarters of all authorities restrict their help to those who have connections with their area. Anyone who knows the problem knows that that is quite inadequate. One could give many other examples of the discrepancies. The Government's objective, the Minister said at the end of last year, will be to secure the wider observance of the best practices, which, in his own words, an increasing number of authorities are adopting. Here, again, we come back to the familiar problem. How do we raise the standards of all the authorities; how do we induce them, to use a neutral word, to move in the direction of the best ones?
This becomes more and more important the more the stringency operates. In the case of the homeless, it seems that in principle we have the Government on our side. I have given the noble Baroness notice of this question. The obvious need is for legislation to set out clearly the minimum obligations of district councils towards the homeless. Last November Mr. Crosland, then the Minister for the Environment, indicated that he intended to place the statutory responsibility for accommodating the homeless on the housing authorities. Well, that was what was said last December, and here we are in May and, so far as I know, we have not heard any more. I beg the noble Baroness, whose heart is very much in all these matters, to say that this legislation will be brought forward at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament. The noble Baroness's own sympathies are not in doubt, but is she in a position to make an official statement?
There are, of course, endless other disparities and anomalies in the social service provision of the various local authorities. To some extent, as I have said, they are an essential ingredient of the local autonomy that we all prize highly. But at this time, when local authorities which have not been doing at all well are being given an excuse by the general need for economy to continue in their sluggish ways, it becomes more and more imperative
570
to watch them closely and to guide them gently but firmly into better paths.
4.40 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing this Motion this afternoon, and in following the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I think I should declare an interest as president of a county association of local councils, because much of what I will have to say this afternoon refers to the lowest tier of the local authorities. I was very much interested in what the noble Earl said, because we both share a great interest in the operation of the social services.
The noble Earl asked your Lordships a number of rhetorical questions. If I may be allowed to interpolate, I think he asked, how can we ensure that this limited trickle of expenditure will continue? In the course of my remarks I hope to demonstrate ways in which economies can indeed sustain the social services and perhaps improve them, though I agree it is in a limited way. Of one thing I am absolutely certain, and that is that the Local Government Act 1972 was both necessary and desirable in the way that it introduced two, or, in effect, three tiers of local authority. It is interesting, looking back on the speeches on Second Reading on 31st July 1972, to see how things have fallen out. I must say that I was wholly in agreement with my noble friend Lord Sandford in what he said on that day. I entirely agree with his comments today, and especially his four closing points on how we should address ourselves to this subject.
I must say that I find it difficult in many ways to follow the coherent pattern of the Liberal Party in this particular field. While I agree to some limited extent that even at the present moment the size of some districts is a little large, nevertheless on Second Reading of the Local Government Bill in 1972, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned particularly both provincial and regional authorities. Of course this is very much part and parcel of the Liberal concept of very large regional groupings.
So we come to the state of local government as it is today with, in effect, three tiers. As I said a little earlier, I wish to address myself to the lowest tier, the local councils. We have a large barrage of

571
criticism addressed to local government, and we first ought to clarify this criticism in two categories. Are these criticisms of inflation, or are they criticisms of the two tier system? A number of us would agree that many of the criticisms relate to inflation and the results of inflation rather than to the structure itself. Had it been decided to adopt the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, it may have been possible to demonstrate that the results would have been even worse so far as the inflation cost of local government services is concerned. However, it should be in the forefront of our minds to consider the present need to economise and cut down waste, as both my noble friend Lord Sandford and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, have said. Let us look, therefore, at the field of concurrent functions between the district and local councils. Here is a fruitful field for your Lordships to examine because quite substantial savings can be made in the cost of administration.
The overheads of managing matters of detail from a rather distant centre are disproportionately high. This can be demonstrated in a quite recent example from Leicestershire. The problem was how to care for 26 churchyards. The district council were initially asked to estimate the cost of looking after them. They proposed an estimate of £16, 000. The same project was offered to local councils, and they estimated on precisely the same terms of reference and achieved a saving of £10, 000 by offering a budget of £6, 000. This they achieved in the use of direct labour. This demonstrates both a need and a readiness of local and district councils to work together, and to see how often things can be done more effectively, efficiently, and cheaply without lowering standards. This surely is what my noble friend Lord Sandford was saying in regard to partnership. I know that he related it to the partnership between local authorities and central Government. Nevertheless, in our estimation, there should be a similar sense of partnership between the different tiers between the local authority. Taking the matter of local government finance one stage further, I should mention that the National Association of Local Councils has given both written and oral evidence to the Layfield Committee, whose report we now await.
572
I refer now to the question of local government boundaries, and the two different systems for England and Wales which were enshrined in the 1972 Act. The two different systems were the two different systems of organisation and rearrangement, because in Wales an initial Community Review concerned with geography is now complete. In Wales they are better able to proceed with the district electoral arrangements, whereas in England the system was reversed; the review of electoral arrangements came first, with no intention of starting to review parish boundaries until 1979. The underlying reason for reversing these two processes may have been administrative, because of the shortage of commissioners to act in this important capacity. Nevertheless, I think it can be said that Wales has quite a head start on England in this particular field. This means a risk in the organisation of parish boundaries in England because the shape of parishes is likely to be contrived for electoral reasons and not by the natural features of geography—in other words, the computer wins. This is a source of anxiety to the National Association of Local Councils, and perhaps it may be possible to confound this and to reassure those concerned. I offer this as a present anxiety to your Lordships for consideration.
One of the more important aspects of the Local Government Act 1972, so far as local councils are concerned, was a new right enshrined in that Act for local councils to be shown plans. I should like to address your Lordships in regard to the question of planning, and planning permission. Nearly 30 years have passed since the 1947 Act, and perhaps it is appropriate to cast our minds in this direction for a few moments. Clearly it was in the mind of Dr. Alice Coleman earlier this week, when addressing the Royal Geographic Society on this subject. On Monday evening Dr. Alice Coleman suggested three serious defects in the planning concept. She suggested that ribbon development has in fact increased, whereas the 1947 Act aimed at its reduction. She suggested, as most of us are only too well aware, that farmland is disappearing at a very high rate indeed; and, thirdly, that in the past 30 years we have seen an ever increasing loss of our cultivatable acreage. Dr. Coleman is in a very good

573
position to assess this because she has been measuring and analysing the first utilisation study by Professor Dudley Stamp in 1933.
There are really four main causes of present anxieties. Local authorities are overloaded with vague and differing criteria of land use; secondly, local authorities are using computers instead of using their feet and maps; thirdly, derelict land is being used in insufficient quantities and, fourthly, official planning ideas very often conflict with local planning considerations. This field in which that lowest tier, the local council, can operate can, in our view, be extremely beneficial on environmental grounds. If Dr. Coleman's criticism that an insufficient use of local knowledge is being made, surely the local council can bring to bear with great benefit its intimate knowledge of a district. We discussed a few weeks ago the question of allotments, a matter of great consideration among many residents both in the Greater London Council area and throughout the United Kingdom. Once again, the knowledge within the local area is very much in the hands of the local council and can be brought to bear with value.
I wish to comment on the point my noble friend Lord Sandford made, about breathing on the dry bones. No body other than that lowest tier of local authority is able to breath with such benefit. It is possible to have a much more intimate relationship with the electorate through local councils. Had there been unitary authorities, the sense of remoteness from the electorate by the elected representatives would be enormous, and I suggest that the local council can, in present circumstances, benefit democracy enormously. The things which really count to so many people in this country are relatively simple matters, but they are, nevertheless, immensely important. For example, over 8 million people every week wish to collect their pensions, a difficult task in remote areas. Here is a field in which the local council and local representatives can help those in rural areas. An efficient prescription service can very often be assisted by a local council. The health and social services, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, can benefit very greatly from an association between voluntary bodies and the local council. It is almost
574
certain that in the next few years, as unfortunately the stringency may last for more than 12 months, local authorities will be calling on, and indeed expecting, voluntary bodies to help them in these very important fields, as they are doing most helpfully now.
I end by referring to the subject of partnership. I am sure that a sense of partnership and association between the tiers of local authority and voluntary bodies will greatly benefit local government in England and Wales today.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a simple and elementary question? Has he been applying the term "local councils" to what other speakers have referred to as district councils, in other words, parish councils?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I have been carefully referring to "local councils" since the term "parish councils" was changed in 1972. Now the organisation is the National Association of Local Councils. I beg the noble Lord's pardon if I misled him, and I certainly did not intend to mislead him or the House. I have been referring to the parish or local council.
4.55p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I must start by redisclosing an interest because I still have the honour to be president of the Association of County Councils. There are presidents and presidents, and they have very different powers. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Sandys, who is a very powerful character, has powers equivalent to his character. In the case of my Association, which has the most kindly and benevolent relations with its president, I am never instructed what I am to say and, so far as I know, no member of it ever reads what I have said. I must also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for my absence, owing to another engagement during the first part of his speech.
The new—if they can still so be called —local authorities come in for more than their fair share of criticism, much of it ill-informed, and I want today, as my noble friend Lord Sandford has, to commend the new authorities for the

575
increasing success with which they are grappling with their very formidable current problems. Most of them seem to be settling down well and adapting themselves with notable success, getting the measure of those problems and, more important, building up new loyalties and giving an increasingly efficient service, and this after only two years of the new system.
Because some people are now questioning whether there was ever a need for reorganisation in 1972—I am glad that Lord Sandford referred to that—it is as well to recall why reorganisation was undertaken. During nearly 90 years of their existence there had been dramatic changes in the work of local authorities; the quantum and the complications of the services had grown out of all knowledge. Whitehall had to deal directly with 1, 400 local authorities, and this at a time when the proportion of the local authorities' expenditure that was being met by central funds had grown to more than half. In some cases new services involved technical aspects which were beyond the powers of the small staffs of the smaller authorities. There was, therefore, general agreement that some reorganisation was necessary. As noble Lords will remember, the Royal Commission reported in favour of unitary authorities, broadly on a county basis and that was accepted in principle by the Government of thè day. Eventually the succeeding Government preferred a system of two main tiers; as Lord Sandys said, there are three tiers of local government. That was adopted and personally I think that it was the right choice. I could not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his preference for the unitary system. Had unitary authorities been adopted, the current criticisms of remoteness would, it seems to me, be bound to have been more vigorous and more justified.
Local government expenditure has increased rapidly in recent years. What are the main reasons for this, so far as one can sort them out? They are not, in the main, as a result of local government reorganisation. I am sure that Lord Sandford was right on that. In fact, as he said, it is some confirmation of this that the expenditure of authorities which were not reorganised has increased pro rata, in fact at a slightly higher rate. Nor was it
576
because local authorities had taken the bit between their teeth, so to speak, and rushed off to initiate new projects on their own. The chief reasons were unquestionably, first, inflation—as Lord Sandys said —secondly, the additional responsibilities that have been continuously laid by Parliament on local authorities without any very accurate costing having been done at the time; and, thirdly, the higher standards and remuneration which have been current in the public service since that day.
As an example of what I mean—I will not weary the House with other examples because noble Lords will knowwhat I mean when I say that they have been continuously loaded with new functions—in 1974 under the heading of "Consumer protection "that Department was faced with five Acts of Parliament, eights sets of regulations, nine orders, two sets of rules and one direction, all of which necessitated extra work and more staff. I am not criticising that. It is a statement of fact illustrating what I mean. There are some cases in which the new structure is proving more expensive. Perhaps the best example is in the planning field. Reorganisation provided that the responsibilities for planning should be shared between the counties and districts and that has unquestionably caused a need for more technical staff—who are hard to find—and this is a source of additional expenditure. In some cases, it is quite feasible to argue that the scales of remuneration at the time of reorganisation may have been on the high side but the overriding reason is without doubt the general expansion in all national social services which have received the approval of the electorate and the public at large and which of course cost money. That is a point which is never made as clearly as it should be when the legislation is passed. As I have said before, I never remember a case of a Bill where the financial memorandum estimate bore any relation to what the measure ultimately cost.
We are shortly to have an authoritative report on local government finance from Mr. Layfield's Committee. This will be an important report. Few people are expecting any dramatic or revolutionary recommendations and, in particular, I believe that the chance of a feasible and workable new source of local finance will

577
prove a very difficult search. Certainly, the increase in local rates over the past few years has been very painful. Some people say that rates as a source of local government revenue should be entirely eliminated. I imagine that most people believe that that would not be possible even if it were desirable. I believe that rates are a sensible, entirely practicable and fair basis for some parts of local government expenditure. However, bearing in mind the manifold functions of local authorities today, rates do not provide a fair or reasonable source for the major part of that expenditure. We must await the Layfield report and must not expect too much from it, though it will be an authoritative report from very know-ledgable people.
I turn to the policies of devolution for Scotland and Wales. There is some renewed talk about a new tier of local government for the rest of the United Kingdom. As regards Wales, I do not wish to say more than that prevailing Welsh opinion seems quite strongly to feel that if the proposed policies of devolution were in force, local government in Wales would not be brought nearer to the citizen but rather would be further off. Everybody who talks about Wales with the greatest knowledge insists that the problem is entirely different from the Scottish problem. I therefore trust that we shall have a separate Bill for Wales if one is brought forward, rather than having one Bill for the two countries or two Bills brought forward at the same moment. If that were done, I believe that we should get into a real mess. My own opinion is clear: it is that if there were to be a new, additional tier superimposed on what we have at present and based on regions, it would be certain to destroy local government as we have it, and to result, as I believe my noble friend Lord Sandys suggested, in our having six tiers of government; that is, the lowest level, the district councils, the county councils, the regional level, Parliament and the EEC. We should be far and away the most overgoverned country in the world, and the most expensively governed, too.
It is true that, if any powers given to a regional tier were to be delegated entirely by central Government, that would be a different thing. However, none of us who knows anything about local government believes for a moment that that would
578
be the situation. Some of the powers would not be delegated from the centre but would be brought up from local authority level to the new regional body. I should like to declare my own view; that is, that if one looks at the rest of the United Kingdom and considers each region, one will find that in many parts of the United Kingdom there is no real homogeneity and no identifiable regional loyalties which would be strong enough to justify a separate and additional tier of government. I speak with special knowledge of my own area in the South-West, where the distances are large. We have thought much about this and we cannot look forward with enthusiasm to regional government even in an area which many people might think of as being ideal for that purpose. On another occasion, I may tell your Lordships more about the differences between Devonians and Cornishmen, but perhaps I should not do so now.
I believe that there has never been a time in local government when more consideration has been given to questions of efficient management, manpower use and the standard of conduct of members. I am sure that it would be wrong to think that our new authorities have any complacency whatever about these important matters. I suppose that the major problem at present facing local authorities is how to reconcile diminished revenue in real terms with the maintenance of their services and standards. With continuing inflation, it is clear that these things cannot be completely reconciled. Perhaps understandably, central Government, while appreciating the problem, have not been eager to suggest where cuts should be made. Local government does not quarrel with that because the last thing we want is detailed directions from the centre as to how our resources should be disposed. I am sure that in the present situation some reduction of services and standards is unavoidable. I hope—and I go as far as that with the noble Earl, Lord Longford—that such reductions will be temporary and not permanent, but I am afraid that they cannot be avoided altogether. However, I hope that, whether the reductions be permanent or temporary, Parliament will never again load so many new responsibilities on to local government or do so precipitately as was done during the past 10 years.

579
Since reorganisation, there has undoubtedly been some increase in Party politics at county and, perhaps, district level. On some issues, this is not inappropriate if apathy is not to be the alternative. However, in other cases it is surely unproductive and will be kept, one hopes, within reasonable limits. Those of us who have sat on local authority bodies know that so often the best work is done when there is a general consensus as to what will be acceptable and in accordance with the desires of local people. The noble Earl, Lord Longford—and I am not in a particularly critical mood this afternoon— referred to discrepancies in standards between various local authorities. One understands that. But we really have to decide whether we are in favour of local autonomy, discretion and choice. If so, I am sure that we must accept some lack of uniformity as a necessary price for that autonomy. In my opinion, it is a price which is well worth paying. If we try to get both, we shall somehow fall between two stools.
My Lords, the greatest practical need at present is to give the new local authorities time to settle down and to get the measure of their recently imposed responsibilities and functions. Most of them are doing well and making real progress. Ministers have recently testified to the energetic efforts which local authorities are making to cope with the current financial restrictions and stringencies, and I believe that Ministers are right to pay that tribute. The new arrangements by which Ministers are consulting representatives of the local authorities, through their Associations, are working, from the angle of my association at any rate, extremely well. We believe that that is a tremendous step forward and we hope that successive Secretaries of State will keep up the momentum and show that they believe in this method, as the Secretary of State has since this has been started. We have to start training a new Secretary of State now, but we shall take that in our stride.
May I say on behalf of our Association that we believe in this and appreciate it, and the meetings held so far have been encouraging. My Lords, let us give these new Authorities—and they are new, because they have only two years operating experience behind them—a reasonable time
580
to show what they can do. Their members and their staffs have skills, experience and adaptability. They justify our confidence.
5.11 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing this subject and by apologising to your Lordships for not speaking on local government in general but rather confining myself to speaking about London. There are three reasons for so doing. The first is that I know something about London, having been a local councillor first on the London County Council, and then on the Greater London Council, for a total of 15 years. Furthermore, it is my view that the problems of London are the problems of metropolitan authorities writ large. It is also my view that Parliament should not be allowed to continue to forget the problems of London. London suffers from two problems in particular, and they are to some extent interrelated. One is size; the other is deprivation. I say that these problems are interrelated because most large cities have their deprived areas due to the fact that such cities are uneven in their development.
As your Lordships know, London extends to 610 square miles and has a density of 12, 800 residents in each square mile. It is an old city which was not planned; it grew up. The consequence of this is that there are many high cost problems in London. There are the high costs of operating here. One reason why costs are high is that there are only limited options for solutions to problems.
Let us consider transport. The Greater London Council is the traffic authority, and a week or so ago Members were taking us to task for our parking restrictions. There is a great demand for movement in London, and peak hour journeys by road and rail are at a premium. There is a sharp interaction of public and private transport in London. There is multiplicity of both destinations and networks in terms of transport. There are 8, 000 miles of roads and 680 miles of passenger railway track. When taken together with the fact that there is a high concentration of employment in central London—1, 250, 000 jobs—the length of work journeys in London is, on average, a 100 per cent. greater than the national

581
average. The demands at any one time leave the London authorities no option, and that is why we do not apologise for the fact that we place public transport first and foremost. While we have some sympathy for the private road user, we feel that public transport must have priority in this city.
The density of traffic in London is 10 times greater than the national average, and in peak hours the density is 50 times greater. Altogether London has 4 per cent. of the road mileage of Great Britain, concentrated in 0·7 per cent. of its area, and it carries 10 per cent. of all the traffic. Your Lordships can recognise the inevitable consequence: there is congestion, and congestion increases costs of all public and private services which are dependent on road usage. But that is not all. It also slows down construction, and it impedes maintenance on both roads and buildings. London, as a capital city and as the cultural, administrative and financial heart of this nation, maintains a considerable number of special facilities and attracts a large number of tourists and visitors from home and abroad. Of course, in London it costs much more to acquire land or property, or to build, or to employ labour, than it does anywhere else in Britain.
Let us take housing. London's housing problems are of the same scale as the transport problems we have been talking about. There is a preponderance of old and decaying Victorian dwellings in London, and many of them suffer from a lack of exclusive basic amenities, such as hot water, a bath and indoor lavatory. The rents are high and over crowding and share accommodation abounds. There is considerable homelessness. I have figures for 1974, though not for 1975. In 1974 half the total number of people who sought assistance in this country because of homelessness were in London, and the same holds good for squatters. London has more than half the total number of this country's squatters.
The 1971 Census showed that while London contained only 16 per cent. of all households in England and Wales, it contained nearly 35 per cent. of those households living at a density of more than 1·5 persons per room. That same Census showed that, while 14 per cent. of London' s households shared accommodation, the national average was only
582
4 per cent. I may add that in fact in the case of inner London it was 21 per cent. Again, that Census showed that 22 per cent. of London' s households lacked or shared one of the basic amenities I mentioned earlier. The national average was 14 per cent.; and Liverpool, which was the next highest, was 16 per cent. London houses 10 per cent. of its population in half the country' s furnished tenancies; and, of course, as your Lordships know only too well, London' s privately-rented sector—that is, both furnished and unfurnished—has been dwindling quite sharply. In fact, it declined by 24 per cent. in the ten years from 1961 to 1971. I have already mentioned the rapid increase in the cost of everything. The consequence of that, of course, is that the cost of building houses in London has also increased tremendously. In fact, in 1974–75 the cost of building a GLC dwelling was £15, 300, and it is estimated that it will be £17, 000 this year.
Then—and this, today, is our biggest worry—there is the question of employment. There has been a rapid decline in the availability of skilled jobs in London near workers' homes. That is tied up with the first topic I mentioned—transport. At the same time, there has been a growth in the service industries, and many of the jobs in the service industries are, in fact, low paid. There is a higher rate of drift from job to job, as your Lordships would expect; and there are hard-core pockets of unemployment, particularly among the young. I mentioned that jobs have been declining in London. I can give your Lordships a figure. Jobs in manufacturing industry, which is where the number of jobs is in fact declining, fell by 550, 000 between 1961 and 1973; and in percentage terms that works out at 34 per cent. That is the drop in the number of jobs in manufacturing industry in London.
At the same time, however, between 1961 and 1971 some 80 per cent. of the jobs that were lost were in firms which were reducing the scale of their operations or closing down altogether, and 20 per cent. were in firms that moved out of London. In other words, not only were we losing a lot of jobs because people moved out of London, which is what one talks about frequently, but also many of the jobs were in firms which closed down

583
altogether; in fact, the majority were. Of course, during this same period when we lost all these manufacturing jobs there was an increase of 80, 000 jobs in the service industries; and, as I said earlier, those jobs are low paid—not all of them, but many of them are.
In addition to the present predicament, as we see it much of London's existing employment is also threatened. More than 55 per cent. of the South-East Region' s small firms—that is, those which are employing, 100 workers or fewer—are in inner London. I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say, but Government policy—it has been so under the Governments of both Parties—restricts the growth of employment in industry in London. It has been impossible, so far, to get the Government of either Party to recognise that, while London as a whole may be prosperous, there are certain areas of London which are as deprived as any of the deprived areas for which special provisions are made by statute. For example, unemployment in Stepney is over 10 per cent. —it is 10·2 per cent. So it is in Poplar. It is not quite that in Canning Town, but it is 7·1 per cent. It is 6·3 per cent. in Brixton, and 5·8 per cent. in Deptford. Therefore, in some of these places it is much more than the 7 per cent. which qualifies for special attention. So we do have these deprived areas, and we in London should like the Government to recognise that fact. They are not areas in which there are 10, 000 people with 10 per cent. unemployed, because most of the boroughs in London are boroughs with a quarter of a million people. Therefore, these unemployment figures one gives amount to quite a lot of people.
To turn to education, many of our primary and secondary schools—and here I am speaking more about inner London—were built in the last century. We have a very high turnover of teachers. The reason for that, of course, is the high cost of living here in London, and also the stress of living in London. There is an easier life if you move out of the stress areas of London. There is a considerable gap between the number of children under the age of five in inner London and the number of places available in private and State nurseries; and, of course, as your Lordships know only too well, economic
584
pressure makes it necessary for many of our mothers to go out to work. The consequence is that they go out to work and leave their children at home with untrained child-minders.
Of course, it is not only employment which has gone out of London: the population has gone, too. The population of London has dropped tremendously. The figures that I have show that for inner London, in the sixty years between 1911 and 1971, the population dropped from 4½ million to 2½ million. In the case of outer London, I have not the figures for such a long period; I have them only from 1951. The drop is not so large, but it is still a drop—from 5 million to 4½ million. The population of London today is only 7¼ million, and the projections are that by 1981 it will be 6·4 million to 6·7 million and by 1991 it will be 5½ million to 6½ million.
My Lords, having just pointed out the necessity for mothers to go to work, perhaps I can move on to the question of low incomes; because I have been speaking about the high cost of living in London. The problem facing low income families is accentuated in London by the high cost of living. There are many groups who are particularly vulnerable, groups such as the old, the sick, the unemployed, the one-parent family of which we have many and the service workers I have mentioned earlier because their pay is so low.
I have painted a difficult picture. I wanted your Lordships to look at the picture of London and to recognise the problems that face London government. In London, we have had two-tier government for ten years or more. The boroughs are the main organs of local government and the GLC has strategic powers over London as a whole and is responsible for the services for London as a whole. Incidentally, when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I thought that he would regard the GLC as an ideal council in that all the things he mentioned we have been doing for a long time. We opened our committees to the public long before it was the law to do so. We have had tenants on our local housing management committees for some time. We have had a register of councillors' pecuniary interests for some time. For those who have been talking in terms of seething expenditure, I may point out that, in spite of the picture I

585
have just painted, the GLC was able to keep its rates steady this year, the same as it was last year.
The point about London government is that there is a great deal of co-operation between the GLC and the boroughs; in fact, London government could not work if there were not that degree of co-operation. I would say that the best example, because it is the most recent, of how well we co-operate is the fact that the GLC and the London Boroughs Association agreed on a land acquisition and development scheme under the Community Land Act, and there was such complete agreement that, in effect, it is that scheme which the Secretary of State is now to propound as the scheme for London. I thought I would give your Lordships that information because that is an example of the scale at which we co-operate.
That brings me to another field in which we are co-operating which is also a field of opportunity. The GLC and the riparian boroughs are co-operating in the Joint Docklands Committee to try to develop the docklands. The dock-lands is an important example of the opportunities you can have and the need to make sure you use them to the full. I would say that one major issue which is common to London and to other older cities is that there is much dereliction caused by the movement of population and economic activity from the central city areas. I am not saying that it is only London that suffers this, but merely that London suffers it worse than any other city because it is very much larger.
This particular picture is exemplified in the docklands. As a consequence of changing port technologies, there has been a progressive decline in the trade in the enclosed docks and river wharves and at the same time there has occurred the loss of industrial activity which I mentioned earlier. The consequence of that is that you have an area of decline in the docklands. There is obviously an urgent need to channel resources into such an area so that revitalisation can take place. The opportunity, as I said earlier, is a great one. Much of the basic infrastructure already exists. Land, unused, is close to a large population with varied skills and aptitudes. We need new and better homes to replace some of the
586
outworn buildings in that area and we need to improve the services and the general wellbeing of the area in order to provide some happiness to the people who live there and to the additional population that it can now carry.
The Docklands Joint Committee have produced a strategy for meeting the necessary reconstruction; and they need to be complimented in that they have also approved a substantial commercial project in Surrey Docks, and are also initiating a steadily expanding housing programme. As I said earlier, it is imperative that they should be supported in developing this particular area. Your Lordships will gather from the story I have been telling that I am making a plea for additional financial resources for London—and I make no apology for making that plea. We are all awaiting the report of the Layfield Committee. In so far as the GLC is concerned, we made certain recommendations because we thought the best thing would be a mix of several taxes. In effect, a local authority can choose which mix it wants: for example, rates plus a local income tax, plus a sales tax, plus a tourist tax, plus a tax on motor spirit. In fact, we suggested that if the Government could rethink their policy on motor vehicle licensing, it might be a good idea if authorities like the GLC and the larger metropolitan authorities (who are the people who up to now have collected the tax) also kept the tax since they are in most instances also the traffic authority.
We also suggested a lottery. I will not go into that again. Your Lordships know that when the Lotteries Bill was going through this House, I tried to persuade the Government to accept Amendments which would make a lottery worth while to local authorities of the size of the GLC. They would not play and we had better leave that alone. Of course, whatever the Layfield recommendations are, they will require legislation and therefore will take time. So we are still back to where we always have been in London—that is, the rate support grant.
Our plea, and the plea I am making, is we should get our fair share of the rate support grant. We have never had our fair share of the rate support grant. For example, in 1974–75 London accounted for 19 per cent. of all relevant local authority

587
expenditure and received 13·9 per cent. of the grant pool. That is typical. Last year we did better because of the ex-Secretary of State for the Environment who was supported by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They saw the point, a point that I was making earlier in my speech, that although London's problems are great, their problems are of the same character though not as great as ours. They supported us in seeing that London had a more equitable share of the rate support grant. We received £102 million more than we otherwise would have done. Having obtained that, the Government insisted that they should claw back some of the amount that would have been London's proper share if the rate support grant had been distributed according to the national distribution formula. In other words, although we have moved forward, we are still not there because we feel that, if we are responsible for 19 per cent. of the expenditure, we should get 19 per cent. of the grant.
The argument of course has always been that London's resources are so great that in effect London can take care of its own problems. But I hope I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that our problems are a lot greater than people seem to think. Even if we have increased resources, we need those resources in order to cope with our increased problems. If I may give another figure to illustrate what I am talking about, when Government says that we have these improved resources, what they really mean is that Londoners are privileged in that they pay higher rates. I will illustrate this by giving the figure for the year 1975–76 where the average domestic rate in London was £130·87p; for non-metropolitan districts in England it was £87·93p and for Wales it was £53·68p. So the difference, what is called London' s additional resources, is in fact that Londoners have to pay higher rates. I hope from what I have said earlier, your Lordships will see that in forcing Londoners to pay these higher rates we are imposing a lot of hardship on a lot of people.
I hope it will be borne in mind that London is not just one homogeneous place; that London, being a large area, has prosperous areas and also deprived areas. I wanted to make a suggestion
588
which I am sure the Minister herself can take on board. But it is something I hope the Prime Minister will take on board because it is my view that what we need is a Minister for urban affairs who will be high enough in the hierarchy of Government to be able to defend the metropolitan authorities and secure from the Treasury adequate resources to enable them to do their job. That is something I would throw out to my noble friend, and I hope she can let it drop in the right ears at the right time. It is my view that that is really what is required in so far as the metropolitan authorities are concerned. I also agree with much of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Sandford, about making additional use of the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance. I am sure that the Council can be made to do a lot more useful work than it is being used for at the moment. One would hope the Government will take that on board, too, and proceed to make much more use of the Council than is being done at the moment.
Several noble Lords have spoken about devolution. In so far as London is concerned, the general view of the London authorities—and it is not just the GLC, but also the boroughs, too—is that any devolution which will take place can be accommodated within the present structure. Whatever form of devolution from central Government is agreed upon, it should be within the present structure that exists in Greater London at the present time.
Finally, I want to make some points about democracy. One is the extent to which local authorities, particularly large ones, like the GLC, need to have public participation. The GLC does this to a tremendous extent. I do not want to take much more of your Lordships' time to dilate on that—I have taken long enough. The point about public participation is that it takes time. If you are going to allow people to discuss these issues and, finally, to come to an agreed decision, the decisions cannot be made quickly. It is also more expensive; and do not let us run away from that, either. In terms of its value to the community, it is worth both the cost and the delay.
The other point I want to make in terms of democracy is with regard to neighbourhood councils. We have two

589
in London, one in North Kensington and the other in Hammersmith. This is something which needs to be pursued more. It is a valuable adjunct to bringing ordinary people into an activity concerning what is taking place in their area. In the GLC we have been experimenting with a couple of projects on what we call the mass attack on deprivation. We have picked two areas, one in Spitalfields and the other in North Islington, where the GLC, the local council, plus all the local voluntary organisations, are being brought together to see whether by co-operating and using collective influences something can be done about the deprivation in those areas. Those are additional suggestions. These last three matters are (shall I say?) pets of mine and therefore I thought I should not sit down without putting them to your Lordships.
My Lords, I apologise for having spoken for so long, but I thought I ought to make the case for remembering London, recognising London' s problems and making sure that London has the resources in order to deal with her problems. Always remember, my Lords, that London is the capital of this country.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON:My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of joining everybody else in thanking my noble friend Lord Banks for having raised this subject for our discussion today. I think it follows admirably the discussion we had last Wednesday on the priorities for social services. My noble friend opened the debate in a very balanced manner, and concentrated largely on the structure of local government as we find it today. He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and there was a great deal of agreement between the two noble Lords in what they said. There were two important aspects, over and above everything else, on which they agreed. One of these was that for the time being, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, there must be an abatement of the spate of legislation putting extra burdens on local authorities, and that the ultimate aim must be greater devolution and more power in the hands of the local authorities, as reconstituted.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, did not quite understand the Liberal attitude of
590
mind on local authority regionalism and councils generally. May I remind him that we have always been quite consistent in what we have said. We were, at the time of the discussion on reorganisation, always in favour of regionalism with smaller district councils than the ones we have now under the umbrella of the regional authority. I think we were right, and all of us on these Benches believe we were right. From experience in a large number of districts of the feeling of remoteness of the elector, especially in the size of district that we have now since reorganisation, I think we were right and we should not dream, any more than I believe anyone else in this House would dream, of attempting to reorganise something yet again. The same arguments apply to the organisation of the Health Service in this country. We may all think there are too many tiers in that organisation as well, but both reorganisations were too traumatic an experience for anybody to attempt such a reorganisation yet again, not only for the staff involved but because of the momentary impact on services.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, used the debate in a way which I welcome very much. He decided to talk on one subject; in other words, about one of the responsibilities of local government. I should like to do very much the same. The noble Earl chose the social services as the greatest priority handled by local government, and the one which he felt to be the most pressing to raise in this debate. I would challenge the noble Earl on that, and say that I believe the most important issue in the hands of local government is that of housing. I believe that many of the problems mentioned by the noble Earl concerning the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and deprived people in society, could be solved if housing conditions in all our communities were correct. Certainly, they would form much less of a problem. An enormous number of problems about which the noble Earl was telling us are created by bad environmental conditions; so I would say that, above all else, housing is the problem which local authorities need to concentrate upon.
We have spent an enormous amount of money on housing. I believe the subsidy bill is at least £2 billion, or £125 per year per family. Therefore it is right that we

591
should stop and think and see, as both noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Sandford, said, whether we are getting value for money. Another interesting fact is that the housing expenditure rose in volume terms by 77 per cent. between 1973 and 1975, but in cost terms it rose by 119 per cent. I think we should increasingly direct our minds and the minds of local authorities to the question of whether these increases were inevitable or whether they were partly due to other factors, including the clash of interest between central Government and local government.
I believe that to an increasing extent the Government are using both local government and social policies as instruments of economic policy. In other words, I think the Government have been using a housing policy in order to assist in keeping down the wage demands of the nation. I believe we should look at this to see whether we have succeeded, because if it has been successful there is perhaps something to be said for that kind of policy. But I believe that we have not succeeded in containing wage inflation by the policies introduced by central Government.
The second question one must ask is: Why has the increase in public expenditure on housing been so enormous, together with the fall in income on the housing account? The fall in income from rents is an example of the Government's attempt to keep down costs; and this cost the local authorities of this country £90 million in 1974 and 1975 alone. That money has to be found from somewhere else. Then, equally because of inflation, there was a fall in the sale of council houses because of the high mortgage rate, together with an increase in the running cost covering repairs and maintenance, partly because of the failure of wage restraint—and in this regard I should be happy to argue that the £6 pay limit and its influence was not as steadying an influence as sometimes we have been led to believe.
Even if, with these enormous sums, the cost was right, it would be right only if we had satisfied or were in the process of satisfying the needs of the nation. Most people think that we do not have enough housing and that the housing lists are too long. On the other hand, we read in
592
the Press estimates of bodies outside Government circles, claiming that we have an overall surplus of housing in the country. There was a leading article in The Times claiming just that. It can be argued whether or not we have enough, but what I think is generally agreed is that we do not have a balanced housing stock and we do not have a housing stock that has taken into account the demographic change in the population.
It seems to me, therefore, that local authorities must begin to look at the problem completely afresh. With the kind of economic difficulties the nation is facing, we cannot possibly go on without thinking of more economical ways of dealing with our housing problem. I think it is generally agreed that to rehabilitate or convert housing is much cheaper than to build new housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke about London and the cost of building here. I have some 1971 figures which show that a one-bedroom dwelling cost £4,500 to build, and rehabilitation of older accommodation of the same size cost only £1,100, while the conversion of a larger, older building cost £3,200. One does not have to be an economist to see in which direction we should move. There is an abundance of property available for conversion. Therefore, I am amazed at the Government's cut in the grant for home improvement from 1975 to 1976. We must get our priorities right, and it seems to me that, economically, it is sounder to concentrate on the improvement grant.
That has the secondary benefit, in many cases, of avoiding the terrible result of rebuilding; that is, the destruction of communities. We have to look at our cities and villages as living communities and use our resources as economically and as humanely as possible. Also, we have not made use of our existing housing in a balanced fashion, between large and small families. There is not enough incentive and opportunity for a single person, living in a reasonably priced house which is too large to maintain, to move into more suitable accommodation, where he or she would be happier and would free accommodation for young couples with families who are more in need of larger houses.
I have been talking about all these points for one reason. Every county

593
council and district council must look in a thorough-going fashion at the kind of priorities they are to set themselves for the next five or 10 years. We talk all too glibly about the fact that we want more housing, but we have not even set out properly the criteria and objectives that will govern the kind of housing we hope to provide. I believe that a real investigation, area by area, into the housing supply of this nation is necessary, and when that is done the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance can make a contribution towards a solution of the financial problem. A two-fold inquiry is necessary, one medium-term and one longterm. If a medium-term inquiry was undertaken, it would give a certain amount of security and guarantee to the construction industry in regard to their commitment to local authority housing work. We all know the problems of the construction industry. We all know how in a boom period it is impossible to get anything built at a reasonable price, and how in a slump period it is equally impossible because the labour has disappeared. In the long run all these things must happen in regard to housing, but that is no reason why a district council or a county council should sit back and wait for instructions from central Government.
I was delighted that there were so many references to some of the Liberal councils in Great Britain, including Liverpool. Liverpool has really tackled the housing problem, because of the tremendous need that exists there, and has done so in two ways. It provides an adequate number of council houses every year, amounting to about 2,000. But the cost of council housing is enormously high today; even in Liverpool each house costs £ 13,000 and, with the interest charges over a period of 60 years, this amounts to an enormous sum and becomes a great burden on the ratepayer. If it is right for everyone to have a decent house, whether rented or not, then it is even more right that everyone who is capable of achieving home ownership should have his own home; so every encouragement should be given by local authorities and by Government to help people to own their own homes. This is what Liverpool has done, and the amazing fact is that it is cheaper both to the nation and to the house buyer for private people to own their houses. What is also important
594
is that Liverpool council has used the derelict centre part of the city and is building new communities, which is one of the most heartening things I have read about for a long time.
There are other councils which have taken different steps. We all know that the Rent Act created housing problems, because of the landlord's fear of letting in case he could not get rid of a bad tenant. In Berkshire, Newbury district council has entered into agreements with landlords who have housing to let, with a guarantee that the house will be returned at a certain time. Action of that kind has an impact on the housing problem, but I still believe that we must as a nation undertake a proper housing analysis, area by area, district by district, so that we know we are spending our money in the right way and are getting value for it. Unless we do that, there will not be money left over, in present conditions of local government finance, for other services, such as social services. It seems inevitable that housing and education will have the first call on the finance available to local government, and the social services, about which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke, will inevitably suffer. Therefore, it is important that we get our housing priorities right, so that we do not waste money on building unwanted houses and build according to a proper plan which will, in the end, give this nation a decent home for everyone to live in.
That is a tremendous responsibility for local government to undertake but, in addition, it is all the time being given more new responsibilities by central Government. I should like to back all the speakers who have said that we must resist further instructions from central Government, so blocking the workings of district councils and county councils within the foreseeable future, because they will not function properly unless they are left alone to work in their own way towards a proper policy of priorities.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks, very much for introducing this debate this afternoon, and I listened with great interest as he ranged so clearly over a wide variety of local government topics. Having

595
said this, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will accept my apologies. Most unfortunately, I have to attend a meeting at which I should have been 10 minutes ago, and if I disappear after I have spoken I shall read with great care what both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, say at the conclusion of this debate.
I am glad that the subject has been introduced because I regard local government as important and interesting. It is disappointing that there have not been more speakers this afternoon. Nevertheless, we have been very fortunate that all of those who have spoken have spoken from great experience and with very great knowledge. I suspect that one of the reasons that some people have been unable to take part in the debate this afternoon is that she local government district elections are to take place tomorrow, coupled with the fact that for some authorities this is the beginning of the local government year. My noble friend Lord Ridley has asked me to say how sorry he is that for that reason he has been unable to take part in the debate today.
Local government is important for the influence that it has on our lives. Far too many people still do not realise how great its influence is, for it suffers from either had publicity or no publicity at all. When it is not considered extravagant or too mean, it is frequently considered dull. Perhaps one of the reasons for this lack of understanding is that despite the fact that local government has changed and developed—and developed very rapidly indeed since 1972—it is still a world peculiarly of its own. Those who have been in local government understand it. When they were in local government they had the comfortable knowledge that they could open their diary and see that on 3rd October they would be on the education committee, or the planning committee, or whatever it might be. But alas! once one translates oneself from local to central Government one discovers, as I have discovered today, that one is very lucky if one knows what one is doing tomorrow morning, let alone any further ahead than that.
Those who have been in local government understand it. Local government quite transcends Party political differences and appears to be strange to the outsider,
596
not only because of the complexity of its functions and problems but because of the complexity of its finance and the complexity of the relationships between central and local government. Local government has another great characteristic: the loyalty of its members to their authorities. Now that I travel quite a lot around the country, I never cease to be impressed by the people who say to me, "Of course, we are a pioneering authority in this particular service". And w hat authority has not been a pioneering authority? Then one listens to sombody like the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who spoke this afternoon with such tremendous knowledge of his own authority and its problems and, indeed, of the problems of large towns.
Local government has come very much to terms with ways to deal with many of these problems. I believe that the new local government structure has produced management structures within local authorities which follow very much the lines of the Bains Report and has given to them at least a way of beginning to cope with the problems which they face. I should like to think that central Government had as much corporate planning as has local government. When I look at how central Government works, I am bound to say that I feel it could well read some of its own circulars on this matter to local government. However, at the end of the day local government is as good as the people in it, both elected members and officers, make it. I believe that one of the most important tasks facing anyone in public life is to encourage good people to come forward to take part in local government. For my part, I welcome the system of allowances to members which was introduced in 1972. This system has been quite unjustly criticised, but if for no other reason it has been of enormous benefit to women entering local government often when they could not face the extra expense that public life demanded, although they had no particular wish to earn a lot of money from it.
The fact is that local government is an extremely complex world and I sym-pathise with those who undertake its responsibilities. Many of your Lordships have referred already to the work that has been put on to local government. I believe that there have been something like a thousand Acts of Parliament since

597
1945 which are directly relevant to local government, and it would be impossible to name the Government circulars that have been issued about those Acts. To draw the distinction between what is mandatory, permissive and advisory is not always very easy. It is small wonder that some people in local government find that it is becoming an increasingly esoteric world that they have entered, one in which they find it very difficult to deal both with the complexity of the problems and the need to understand the importance of dealing with their electorate.
One of the important points that has been raised this afternoon is that of regional government. We do not know what the Government have in mind for devolution in England, but I am bound to say that my sympathies lie entirely with those who are opposed to yet another tier of government. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Amory had to say about the artificiality of these geographical areas. The fact remains that the larger they are the more remote they become from individuals. Anybody serving in regional government, if it were at all a powerful tier of local government, would have to make it virtually a full-time occupation. If he or she did this, they would be unable to do any other job. Therefore, they would be cutting themselves off from the communities that they were serving. However, the key question would be whether devolution would mean that the powers were to be taken from Westminster or whether they were to be taken from local government.
I have very great sympathy with what has been said about the difficulties for Wales. I believe that they are justified in feeling that powers are to be taken from local government and given to the Assembly. This will not help the question of the remoteness nowadays of government. It will not give to the Welsh people a greater feeling of participating in their own affairs. Our worst fears could be justified: that it would not necessarily mean that the powers would be taken from Westminster and given directly to Wales. Therefore, I think that we need—at any rate at this stage—to view with some suspicion the idea of yet another tier of government in an already over-governed society.
The next major issue which must remain at the centre of all our discussions is that of
598
finance. My I ask the noble Baroness whether she can tell us when we can expect the report of the Layfield Committee to be published. I understand that it is with the Government now and I hope that we shall be able to see it quite soon. After all, last year we had a Bill which prevented revaluation on the grounds that the Layfield Committee was sitting and that the whole of the rating system was to be questioned. If, as is widely rumoured, the Layfield Committee are likely to say that some form of rating should be kept, we could well find ourselves in an increasingly anomalous position—and, of course, the rates are still with us. It is extremely important for local government that is should know where it is going on this matter of finance.
The dilemma of local government finance was very well illustrated by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He picked on one subject and said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that in the case of the social services it should be the object of the Government to make the recalcitrant authorities raise their standards to those of the best authorities.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I may have given that impression. meant towards that level. If the noble Baroness will read what I have said, I think she will see that I did say that. At the same time, you could not raise them exactly to that level, but they should be raised in that direction. There should be a minimum which is not at present achieved.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I apologise if I have misquoted the noble Earl. My point is that if, as many people would like, there should be similar standards of service in local government, one could not at the same time ask for local authority discretion on other services. Either you can have uniformity or you can have choice. You cannot have both. Therefore, we have to decide which, as a matter of principle, we prefer. I think it is far better to give to local authorities the discretion to do what they think is right rather than to try to insist upon a uniformity of service. After all, unless we have gone into all the details of the matter, we do not know why one authority has chosen to do one thing or another, but we do know that if we give discretion

599
to local authorities we give them the opportunity to experiment.
If I might show the other side of this coin, if we take a good authority, such as the Kent County Council, and look, for example, at their special family placement project and what they have done to pioneer experiments in the fostering of difficult children, we will see that it is possible, by not having uniformity of service but giving discretion to local authorities, to provide a scheme which not only produces better care for very difficult children but in fact proves to be cheaper as well. It seems to me that this is a better line to take and the right one.
On finance, I would say that local government is put into a very difficult position when it is asked to produce so many services without any extra money and I hope—and this is the second question that I should like to ask—that when she replies, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will explain who is going to pay the extra £35 million on school dinners which arises from the Government Statement this afternoon. As I understand it, next September's 5p increase in school meals is no longer to be made. Does the £35 million fall as an extra charge to local authorities, and in particular to education committees? Does it come out of the £50 million that the Government have set aside, as I understand it, for extra expenses? In any event, has this matter been discussed with the local authority associations, or is it in fact simply an arrangement between the Government and the TUC without any consultation with the people who will actually have to pay it? I think nothing could illustrate better the dilemma of local government than when they are suddenly confronted with something like this, because at the end of the day they will have to pay the bill for the school dinners.
I think that our objective on local government finance should be getting value for money, and one of our objections, not only as a matter of principle, to the Community Land Act has been its excessive cost, both in terms of extra civil servants and, on the Government's own estimation, that it will still cost £300 million on the land account by 1980. All the prospects that were held out to us of enormous sums of money that were
600
going to be made out of land speculation by local authorities prove, in the cold light of dawn, to have come to nothing. Nor do we believe that there is any point in adding to local authority burdens by increasing direct labour forces or indeed taking over many functions that are far better performed by private business, as was proposed under the West Midlands Metropolitan County Bill—now, I am glad to say, dropped from another place.
Surely the point of local government finance must be how we get the money to those who really need it. I very much sympathise with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about helping the mentally handicapped, the homeless, the old, the young and the sick, and all those who need it. One of the ways we do it is by giving the money to those who really need it and not in indiscriminate subsidies. I listened with enormous interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said about housing. As she made so many of the points that I intended to make I will not repeat them, except to say that I agree with almost everything she said. I could only wish that her Party had said the same when the Local Government Finance Bill was going through this House in 1972. Nevertheless, I am very pleased that even at this hour so many of the principles which we have propounded over the years are in fact the same as those that the Liberals now agree with, and I hope that may continue.
The fact remains that the cost of housing is enormous. It is estimated that in 1978–1979 the cost of housing will be something like £1, 500 million a year more than it was said to be in 1973. If we look at the proportion of the cost of housing covered by rents, we discover that in 1971–72 rents contributed about 73 per cent. of the income towards local authority costs of housing. The figure is now 43 per cent. and at the end of the White Paper projections up to 1980 it will have risen to 50 per cent. In the meantime, the average council house rent as a percentage of income will have fallen from 7 per cent. to 5 per cent. At the same time, the average initial mortgage repayment as a percentage of income will have risen from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent.
I quote these figures only to show that if we are looking for savings in local government there is surely ample room for

601
saving here. The important point about savings is that it is not to take something away from somebody; it is to give it to those who really need it. I think we need to take a good, hard, long look at housing so that we see that every family that needs a house gets one, and that we are not offering indiscriminate subsidies to those who are quite able to afford to stand on their own feet.
I was very struck by the figures that I saw in the Financial Times earlier this week as to the cost of a council house in London, which it is now said costs £20,000 to build. To service the interest and the management and maintenance cost comes to £2,900 per year and the local authority receives by way of rent £450, leaving £2,400 to be found from the ratepayer and the taxpayer. It may well be that it is essential for some. I am not saying that it is not, but I cannot believe that it is essential for all, and that is the crux of the argument.
I conclude where I began. I think local government is an extremely important subject. I believe it has often been maligned in the Press and misunderstood by those outside. It has a very difficult job to do and I believe it is doing it very well indeed. Above all, I believe it needs the support of all its friends, particularly at a time of economic crisis when above all we are going to want higher standards at a time when we have ever less money to provide them. It is not my purpose in any of the remarks that I have made, or that we have made from this side of the House, to criticise local government. In everything that we have said we aim to be constructive and, above all, to make quite sure that the very necessary services provided by local government go first to those who need them most.
6.28 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, we had an interesting and strangely muted debate until the noble Baroness opposite stood up. I am extremely sorry that I shall be answering some of the points she made without her being here. It is much better to hit hard at somebody when they are in front of you than at the space which they occupied. The debate was initiated in a most reasonable manner by the noble
602
Lord, Lord Banks. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, from the point of view of the elections, put his finger on the admirable timing of this debate and on the tremendous upsurge of interest that takes place around this time of the year. We personally also have an interest here, depending on where we live, because while we are still debarred from voting in General Elections we can at least, as Peers, vote in local elections.
A debate of this sort offers an opportunity to touch on an infinite variety of topics, ranging from issues of broad principle to items of local detail. Although we have had a fairly limited range of speakers in terms of numbers, nevertheless the topics that have been covered have been enormously wide-ranging and numerous. Noble Lords will bear with me, I hope, because they will not want me to delay them too long, so if I do not answer all the points made, or if I should even miss out some of the more important ones, I shall write to noble Lords. I shall read Hansard very carefully tomorrow to see that I have not left anything out by mistake.
My Lords, in the debate this afternoon, local government has been put on the analyst's couch, and I suspect that some people would not recognise themselves or their problems. But this is a time of stress for local authorities, for members and officers, and also for the local authority associations, which we should not forget, which act as important clearing banks of local authority opinion. Local authorities are still coping with the aftermath of the reorganisation which took effect two years ago. That reorganisation was strongly opposed by my Party, but we have to live with it, and I accept that it would be quite wrong to enter into another era of reorganisation at this time. It does not transform what is bad into what is good.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, referred to what was said, at the time of the introduction of the Act, about its effect on finance and staff. I agree to a large extent with all the points the noble Viscount made, with the exception of his comment on this Act. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the time said the Bill would have little direct effect on either overall local authority finance or expenditure, and:

603
"Reorganisation of local government will, in the long run, enable staff to be more effectively and economically deployed".
We have certainly seen the effect it has had on finance. A great many of the strictures obliquely made on the question of staffing, not only in the Chamber this afternoon, but generally outside, are partly due to the fact that although there are fewer authorities, they are bigger. This means that since some of the same people are responsible for a far greater proportion of the public living within their areas, the numbers of staff have risen, and also the amount that they are being paid.
Concern was expressed, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the consequences of the regional devolution proposals, particularly on Wales. I can say at this moment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is currently having consultations with representatives of the Welsh local authorities. Although it would not be prudent of me to trespass further into these Welsh fields, the fact that these consultations are taking place, and that my right honourable friend is receiving deputations I hope will make them feel that action is being taken in this quarter.
As has been pointed out by ail noble Lords who have spoken, local authorities are under great pressures. These pressures come from contrary directions. Local authorities are under pressure to expand services, to provide a wider range of services, and higher standards. I can remember many years ago when I was a borough councillor myself, there was a tremendous difference in the services for which we were responsible, compared with the huge expansion of today. I am quite sure so many of the really horrendous things that are being highlighted today, such as the plight of battered babies and battered wives, are things which have not suddenly occurred, but which were hidden from us and were missed by those who could bring them to public and social attention. There is an increased awareness today. There is a great deal more research in all these spheres. Research reports very often implement and step up the pressures for action. We have seen a vast expansion in the social services, in transport, and in
604
fact in the whole area which I like to feel is the raison d'etre of my Department; that is, trying to improve and enhance the quality of life.
These pressures have been continuously exerted by the public, by successive Governments, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, pointed out. These are the main reasons why local government expenditure and manpower have been increasing ever since the war. At the same time, local authorities are under pressure, through the current economic circumstances, to slow down or to halt expansion, to achieve a standstill in both spending and staff. This is a formidable task, and often appears to be an almost impossible one in a period when rising costs and rising wage levels bear so heavily on local authorities, especially as it means postponing the improvement of services which many authorities wish to achieve.
It is in this period of stress that I believe the difference in philosophy between the Government and those sitting on the Benches opposite shows itself with even sharper clarity. This was pointed out pungently by my noble friend Lord Longford. Our approach is certainly not to "knock" local government. Our approach is to work in partnership and co-operation in helping local authorities to maintain and improve services by efficient and good management, and, when it is economically possible, to expand services. Again, I believe there is a very great difference in approach and opinion, as my noble friend Long Longford also pointed out. It is one thing to want to expand services and to do whatever you can during a time of economic stress, but looking forward to a time when you will in fact be spending more money on those services; and it is quite another thing when one is saying, "Yes, there are certain things we should do", but not really wanting to look forward to a really fullhearted expansion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, I thought rather exposed this difference, as, indeed, has been done outside the Chamber, in the country, and in the various political broadcasts of the Tory Party. The word "selective" is used all the time. What on earth do they think is happening at the moment? Everybody is not getting a pay-out all the time. Those of us who, fortunately, are not in

605
need of all these services, and particularly the social services and personal services, are not automatically getting them. They are selective. They are selected on the basis of people's need. This overall phrase which trips so easily off Tory tongues I find to be a cloak, a camouflage, a cloud of rationalisation, a fundamental dislike for the expansion of expenditure in these areas.
Apart from the rather more technical points on housing made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Robson of Kiddington and Lady Young, there was a very, very dead silence on what cuts should be made. Yet in another place, and also in propoganda leading up to the elections tomorrow, we hear cries about public expenditure of the Labour central Government and Labour authorities. It is quite impossible, however, to learn if there were to be cuts, where in fact the cuts should be made. I think it is about time, when people talk about this profligacy, that they should say what they want to do. Fortunately, a more reasonable attitude was taken this afternoon. Do they really want to cut down housing? Do they really want to cut down personal services, the social services? Do they really want education cuts? Do they want concessionary fares to old people to be cut? All these cost a great deal of money.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Baroness for a moment. I do not think my noble friend Lady Young or I suggested any cuts at all. I think it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would keep to the debate. What my noble friend said, and what I would have said if I had been dealing with the same topic, is that we like to see the expenditure going to those people who need it and not being wasted on people capable of standing on their own feet.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is exactly what I said myself, and all the noble Lord is doing is repeating what I call these generalisations. If all he is saying is that we have individuals from time to time and from place to place who are abusing the system, this applies to anything and everything everywhere, not just to local government or central Government. If the noble Lord is picking me up on the basis that I am dealing with a very
606
fundamental point that is being discussed all the time, the question of too great expenditure and where the cuts should come, I am certainly not going to be put in my place by his saying that it is not relevant to the debate. The debate, as I understand it, is on a Motion dealing with local government in England and Wales today. We have had three speakers from the Opposition Front Bench, although the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, took himself to the second Bench to deliver his speech. When we have three speakers who presumably are putting Opposition policy, and they, either through lapse of memory or in order to keep the debate as cool as possible, do not use the sort of arguments which are being used all the time by them, and certainly by their colleagues in the Party to which they belong, and which represent the policy to which they subscribe, I still think I have a right to take this point up. If they wish to dissociate themselves from everything said by their colleagues in another place and outside, to say that they would not dream of having any cuts in anything at all, that they think the expenditure we have now is right, and that the local authorities should be left to work out their own priorities, even if some of the things they spend money on may seem slightly strange to them, that the local authorities must follow their own route and be at the mercy or receive the thanks of the electorate, then this is fine. But I am really not going to stand up and pretend that there are no forked tongues about, even if noble Lords feel they are not in this Chamber.
My Lords, to return to the theme of what I really want to talk about—the liaison between central and local government—we set up, as many noble Lords mentioned, the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance in May 1975. The Council consists of representatives of central Government and representatives of the local authority associations. Even in the first year of its existence it has shown what a valuable forum of consultation it is, with great future potential. I do not think my noble friend Lord Pitt needs to worry that we are not aware of the extraordinarily good start it has made and also of the great need for it to expand its activities and development in the future. Indeed, I would say that this is a landmark in the evolution of local government and does more solid good for the relations between

607
central and local government than many of the volumes of verbiage which are poured out on the subject.
Through the Consultative Council local authorities are involved in the negotiation about the level of rate support grant at a much earlier stage than before, and from this year they will be brought into the public expenditure survey process, which really brings them right into the middle of the financial negotiation and discussion. The Council have also discussed ways of ensuring the right overall priorities in government spending and that the money available is used to the best possible effect. It is in this area, in this Council and through this exchange, that one hopes we shall get a movement towards a certain overall agreement on priorities, but at the same time local authorities retaining their own autonomy.
The local authority associations, through the Council, are fully committed to the objective deriving from the current economic climate; that is, there must be a standstill not only in expenditure but also in total manpower. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked whether there were any other exercises in this area which were promoting this very essential co-ordination. We have agreed on a joint exercise to watch and examine manpower in local government. This joint watch already shows a stabilisation of local government manpower. I think this was a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It is one example of co-operation between central and local government. Another is the joint manpower study which was recently launched to make sure that advice was available to local authorities on management decisions involving manpower.
Both employers and employees in local government have staunchly observed not only the current pay policy but also the Social Contract which preceded it. And this has been an enormously powerful contribution to the success of the present counter-inflation policy. I feel quite sure that we in the Government have very good reason to believe that the Government will have the full co-operation of local government and the local government associations in the next stage of the pay policy, the Statement on which was made this afternoon.
608
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the experience of the Manchester University appointments board in relation to local government salaries. These salaries, it is claimed, are out of line with those paid for comparable work in the private sector. Though I would not wish to convey that the Government are unmindful of these criticisms, knocking the public service does seem, unfortunately, to be a favourite pastime in some quarters at the present time, although I am happy to say that this did not come forth today. As I have already mentioned, local government are competing for people in other work outside, in industry. As the areas have become bigger and the amount of responsibility greater, it is essential that people should be offered salaries which will both encourage them to come into local government and to stay there. It is true, as I think all noble Lords will agree, that we are still going through the teething stages of this reorganisation, and obviously again on the manpower side this also needs to be sorted out. But local government is a big business, responsible nationally for very important services and a very large slice of the economic cake.
Noble Lords have referred to the burden of rates, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke particularly of the London situation. It is true, of course, that the twin grim problems of inflation and tile difficulties that local authorities have experienced over achieving necessary reduction of high rate of expenditure have led to high rate increases. Last year, 1975–76, domestic rates increased by some 34 per cent., but this year the indications are that the domestic rate will increase by less than 10 per cent. and the increase in non-domestic rate will be even smaller, about 7 per cent., thanks to the fact that the Government, by keeping the domestic element constant in money terms, gave proportionately more relief to the commercial ratepayer.
I am quite aware that this figure of less than 10 per cent. is only an average, and there have been considerable swings around this so that some ratepayers have been faced with increases which are much higher. But there has been—and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, admitted this when he was speaking—bias in favour of certain authorities by way of the rate support grant. As he said,

609
London, for example, came in that category. Incidentally, in this debate I cannot comment on unemployment in London, although the noble Lord asked me to, because I think he will agree that that is a subject for a different debate on a different occasion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred to Liverpool. Again, I do not want to take credit from the work done by Liberals in Liverpool, but nevertheless the rate in Liverpool has been kept down not entirely by the work of the Liberal administration but because in 1974–75 they were in receipt of over £43 million from central Government funds, and for 1975–76 that was increased by nearly £10 million; an increase of over 21 per cent. This is really what kept the rates down in Liverpool. To take some of these individual cases for comparison is a rather more intricate matter than it seems on the surface. Nevertheless, as many responsible local authority commentators have acknowledged, the major difficulties experienced in 1974–75 and 1975–76 in connection with rate increases have been eased by the Government' s success in their counter-inflation programme, and also by the willingness of local authorities to curb their expenditure.
The trouble with rates is that they have a bad name and everybody hates them when they have to pay them, which is an understandable reaction. But rates today represent no greater proportion of the income of the average household than they did before the war—and the rates we pay certainly do not vanish into some bottomless bureaucratic pocket; they are translated into services, houses, roads, amenities which we use and benefit from. But it has long been agreed that a good hard look at the local financial structure is required. Hence the advent of the Layfield Committee, which was set up by the Labour Government. I can now tell those several noble Lords who inquired that we hope to publish this very large report later this month.
One other point so far as rates are concerned. I would agree that they are an intolerable hardship to some people, but, by a considerable extension of the rate rebate scheme, essential relief has been given to those most in need. The take-up of the rebates, which has always been such an enormous and worrying problem, has, due to an effective recent
610
publicity campaign, now become remarkably high—some 70 per cent. of eligible households—and the rate rebate scheme benefits 2½ million households, with a total of £90 million granted in 1974–75.
Value for money is certainly something which has been stressed during this debate, and it is what every ratepayer and every citizen rightly expects; but the current financial situation, I agree, makes the need for it even more vital. The first essential is that each authority should settle its own priorities. This means that resources may well have to be diverted from highly desirable programmes to preserve essential priority areas of spending. The Government set minimum standards of provision of services, but beyond these statutory levels it is for local authorities to decide their order of priorities. My noble friend Lord Longford raised the point of the physically handicapped and the mentally handicapped. I am afraid that the way in which it works is that the central Government have very clear views on priorities for public spending, and in the area about which he was talking, personal and social services and health, the Department of Health and Social Security has made proposals about these priorities in a document which was published in March, Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England, which is a Consultative Document which I expect several noble Lords have seen. It sets out national priorities for the whole range of health and personal social services in the context of the White Paper on Public Expenditure. It is a Consultative Document and the Department hopes that it will be the start of a constructive dialogue on priorities between central and local government. I have a feeling at the back of my head that statements have been made in another place about money possibly being made available for housing authorities to integrate people into the community. However, if my noble friend will allow me, I should like to have this thoroughly checked and I shall write to him about it.
On the other side of the picture, on housing for the disabled, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made a Statement in the other place on 14th April when he reported on the results of the first twelve months of a special drive for housing for the disabled, and the response was encouraging. However, I am afraid there is no room for

611
complacency. It would not be any good my pretending, or anybody else pretending, that economies in local authority services are not needed and that the effects will not be felt. Contemporary local authority accounting has to be harsh, and authorities have to streamline their operations with efficiency and economy and, above all, avoid waste—especially waste of manpower.
Nevertheless, they are running a wide range of important services: they are managing massive capital and current budgets with an annual expenditure of about £14,000 million; they employ about 2 million people; and do all of this with a high degree of expertise. Therefore, it would be wrong to give the impression that efficiency and value for money are not already the constant concern of most local authorities; for management and efficiency are primarily the responsibility of local authorities themselves. They employ their own staff; they arrange their own internal organisation, and they monitor their own performance. Indeed, the Government have no power, or even desire, to intervene in these matters. It is quite true that what is one authority's high priority might be seen by other people, and other authorities, as something very much lower down the list. Different circumstances make for different cases and, as I think has been said by several noble Lords, this is one of the prices that we pay for democracy.
With 450 major authorities it would be unrealistic to expect total social and financial perfection. Similar examples of where things have slipped up or gone wrong could be quoted in many big business organisations. In fact, we see the results daily. I think that it is unfair to expect more of management of local authorities—certainly at this stage when they are trying to work a new structure, and people are not perhaps yet used to working on a scale as big as this and are having to work themselves into it—and expect them to perform in a consistently perfectionist way, which we neither get nor expect from industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned the need for a register of pecuniary interests, as recommended in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. These matters are being considered now by the Royal Commission
612
on the standards of conduct in public life under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. When he reports, as I understand from him he hopes to do soon, the Government will consider the matter. However, I understand that voluntarily a number of authorities have their own registers, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.
I come to the question of housing, on which a great deal has been said, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to whom, to avoid delaying your Lordships, I will write. Housing is, of course, a major responsibility, particularly of the metropolitan and non-metropolitan district councils. There are certain things which none of us finds particularly satisfactory; I do not think that anyone could be satisfied with any housing situation unless everybody who needs a home has one. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, spoke of the numbers—whether there were more houses than people needing them—and here the big problem is that one can have houses in the wrong places for those who need them. It is a question of finding the right balance and taking demographic changes more directly into account, and these particular themes were included in Circular 24/75, Housing Needs and Actions, which was issued last year.
I am entirely in agreement with the stress that has been placed on rehabilitation because it is economic, it makes use of houses that are there and, from my own conservation point of view, lone is able to add to the housing stock buildings which one would like to keep for their historic and aesthetic value. We must, nevertheless, have a policy which continues to add urgently to both the stock of new and rehabilitated houses. So far as rehabilitation is concerned, an increase on the original expenditure has been made available for 1976–77, with additional resources, as part of the measures to relieve unemployment. In 1974, when we returned to power, we had to act urgently. Housing was in a terrible state. Immediately an increase in the public expenditure provision for housing was made and that is now yielding results. In 1974 public housing starts were 30 per cent. up on the previous years, and in 1975 they

613
improved by a further 19 per cent. Last year the total number of houses built in the public and private sectors was 312, 000, which speaks for itself.
On the question of the sale of council houses, this subject was touched on and was, I think, inherent in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said when she was making various criticisms of the present housing policy. There are, of course, circumstances in which authorities can sensibly sell council houses to sitting tenants, but many people who seem to support the idea of selling them in an extremely wholesale way ignore the fact that council houses have been provided to meet the housing need as a whole and not just for the benefit of the individual tenants who are living in them at the present time. Thus, it is the whole local housing situation which must be looked at before a view is taken on whether or not a housing policy makes sense. When one looked at the Conservative Party political broadcast last night one would not have thought that there was anybody in need of rented accommodation and that everybody was willing and able to buy his own home. That is quite untrue and socially inequitable.
Regarding some of the other points made on housing by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, my Department is undertaking a housing finance review which will cover many of the points that have arisen on the financial side—rents and so on—but I will not delay the House by going into that now. I certainly do not need to be persuaded of the wretchedness of homelessness and the fearful consequences on the family and the individual, a subject that is rightly raised constantly in this House. The increase in house building which we are achieving will help the situation, but I readily admit that that is not enough in itself.
My noble friend Lord Longford will be glad to hear that the Government are completely committed to introduce legislation, as soon as that is legislatively possible, to place the statutory responsibility for the accommodation of the homeless on housing authorities. I can only say, for what it is worth, that I am doing everything I can to see that it is brought forward, as he asked, in the
614
next Session, but I cannot speak on behalf of the Lord President of the Council or the Cabinet. I assure him that my Department is well aware of the need for this as a high priority in the list of Government legislation across the board. This would, of course, make housing and social sense, and I am sure that local authorities will approach it with energy and compassion.
On the question of planning, the use of land, a matter to which Lord Sandys referred, I am aware of Dr. Coleman's views. I am also concerned about the conclusions to which she came in her article in the Sunday Times. The noble Lord will understand that it is difficult for me to comment in detail when we have not had an opportunity to study the data on which the observations were based. I will only say that I dread to contemplate the state we would be in if we did not have the planning controls we have. They compare very favourably with other countries which have no planning legislation, one of which I visited recently. That does not mean that ours is perfect and does not need improving. I also assure him that the local authorities are well aware of the need to minimise encroachment on good agricultural land and to curtail their ribbon development. Lord Sandys will be aware of one problem and that is the great cost of the infrastructure of filling in and building in urban areas.
On what is becoming well-trodden ground, the Community Land Bill, I will not say more. I seem to have said a good deal about it in the last few months. It seems that we shall never get agreement on that between noble Lords on the Benches opposite and my noble friend. I will only say that it is not a burden on the rates and that because of fits concentration on positive planning it should, given a chance, a chance which it needs, improve planning, the economy and the whole areas within which we have been discussing all the needs of local authorities.
I was pleased to see the stress that was given by many noble Lords—Lord Banks, Lord Sandys and Lord Sandford, among them—to the whole question of communications, a subject which I feel very strongly is tremendously important. It is even more important now than it ever was because of the increased size of

615
authorities and the far greater need to make positive efforts to get channels of communication between councillors and constituents, councillors and officers, officers and members of the public—all the way through. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a circular to local authorities in April of last year in which he stressed the need for local government to take positive action to ensure the maximum degree of openness in the conduct of public business. This of course leaves a very great area of manoeuvre because the statutory provisions set are the minimum, and it is up to the local authorities themselves to extend them.
The relationship which exists between local councils and the Press is, I believe, healthy. It is improving and certainly a healthy democracy depends on this relationship being maintained and improved. Some of the experiments which were mentioned, such as question time, are extremely interesting. There is also the question of participation—that people should participate and voice their views—and in practical terms there are such matters as the dual use of local authority buildings. This is being looked into and in fact carried out by many local authorities, and this is a way of both public participation and a sensible use of resources.
The part of the voluntary worker and the voluntary effort which enriches all other effort—it cannot be a substitute for the skilled work that we now require and demand in our social services—is of enormous benefit. I should hate, both for the sake of the recipients of that work and for the sake of the people who are doing it, to see the day when voluntary work in this country withered away. I believe that it would take something away from them.
Finally, what we have to avoid—and I believe that we are all in agreement on this—is confrontation between central and local government. We must develop a full partnership based on consultation and a proper understanding of each other' s interests and problems. Apart from the very strong political differences that divide us, I feel that the need for understanding and consultation is something which has been accepted by all sides of
616
the House. It has made this debate an extremely useful one.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Banks, would bear with me if I raised one point with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, before she sits down. She did not seem to want to be interrupted again in the middle of her speech, so I have left it until now. I agree with her that there are political differences between us, but it is just as well to analyse them and understand precisely what they are. The noble Baroness seemed to have the impression that my noble friends and I had been advocating cuts in local government expenditure. That is quite unrealistic and it would be quite irresponsible to do such a thing, and none of us did. However, if she has a record of such a statement being made by any of my honourable or right honourable friends in Parliament on which she bases her assumption, perhaps she will let me know and I shall know what she is talking about.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether he feels that he is in order? He is raising a question following a speech, but he appears to be making another speech.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not really making another speech. I am just dealing with a point which I began to raise in the middle of the speech of the noble Baroness. She did not seem to want me to pursue it then.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I believe this to be quite out of order. My opinion is worth no more than anyone else' s, but the noble Lord feels that he was shut out when my noble friend was speaking and therefore feels entitled to "deal with the point", as he calls it. I submit with the utmost deference that that is quite out of order.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it would be out of order if I were making a tremendous speech, but it is no more than common practice just to raise a minor point before a noble Lord sits down at the end of a speech. That is all I am seeking to do. Both Parties are agreed that we want to cut out waste. The difference between us is that we regard it as waste to offer indiscriminate subsidies to everybody

617
by way of housing subsidies, whereas the Party of the noble Baroness does not. That is the only difference between us.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not propose to answer because I consider that I answered the point before. Although I feel that one should be generous on these occasions, I must agree with my noble friend Lord Longford because, after the first interruption, I again explained exactly what I meant. There is therefore no point in my repeating it again. The noble Lord can read it in Hansard tomorrow.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, all I want is for the noble Baroness to write to me if she has these particular statements in mind.
7 13 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, we have this afternoon had a very useful and interesting debate. Of course I am greatly tempted to I take up many of the points which have been raised and to expand on them at length, but this would not be the moment to do so. However, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and to thank them most sincerely. They have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, spoken with a wealth of experience. I should like particularly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her comprehensive reply on behalf of the Government.
I am left at the end of the debate with a feeling that we shall in the near future be returning to at least four of the themes which we have been discussing this afternoon. One is the theme of structure and, while I believe that we all agree that any immediate reorganisation would be unfortunate, I nevertheless share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that in due course there will be some modification. I believe that it will be a modification to accommodate regionalism.
Secondly, I believe that we shall return to the whole subject of the balance of tasks between central and local government, the possibilities of decentralisation and the possibilities of co-operation. I am sure that we shall have to develop further the question of participation which I mentioned in my remarks at the beginning and to which other noble Lords have referred. The noble Baroness,
618
Lady Birk, also dealt with this towards the conclusion of her speech. Finally, I have no doubt that we shall very soon be plunged into a discussion of local government finance. So we shall be returning to all these themes before very long. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
The Lord Segal, Chairman of the Select Committee, reported that the Committee continued to sit this day in the absence of the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, all parties consenting thereto; and that with the consent of all parties, the Committee will sit in his absence for the remainder of the proceedings.
NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
ADOPTION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
WRITTEN ANSWERS

  BEEF PREMIUM PAYMENT AND INTERVENTION QUALIFICATIONS
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether all beasts which qualify for the Beef Premium Payment will also qualify for acceptance into intervention; and if not what extra quality standards will apply.
  Lord STRABOLGI: In the beef support arrangements that we operate in the United Kingdom intervention and premiums have different, though complementary, purposes and the standards are different. In Great Britain the current minimum qualifying weight for intervention is 661 lbs. dressed carcase weight for steers and 476 lbs. for heifers compared with minima of 434 lbs. and 374 lbs. respectively for beef premium scheme. Carcases accepted into intervention must have a smoother and more even fat cover than is required for the been premium scheme and must be of superior conformation. The surface of the carcase must not be damaged by bruising or warbles or by any other defect which might affect its value after freezing and storage.
  In Northern Ireland minimum qualifying weights are the same for both schemes but the general fleshing standards are higher for intervention than the minimum required for the beef premium scheme. Furthermore carcases with a rather thicker fat covering can qualify for beef premium scheme but not for intervention.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDER LEY Lord STANLEY of ALDER LEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether it is true that Intervention Centres in the United Kingdom will only accept complete sides of beef and will not accept deliveries of one metric tonne of forequarters or hindquarters, as stated in the Intervention Board' s Explanatory Leaflet (Support Buying for Beef) of March 1975; and if so—

  (a) when the arrangements were so changed;

  (b) how much notice was given of such a change;

  (c) who authorised such a change; and

  (d) why Parliament was not informed, since the change affected the Beef Premium (Protection of Payments) Order 1975.

  Lord STRABOLGI: It is true that the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce is not currently permitted to accept offers of beef consisting wholly of hindquarters or forequarters. The minimum quantity which may be purchased is 2 metric tonnes of carcases, sides or compensated quarters. Purchase of hindquarters was suspended on 26th May 1975 and forequarters on 1st November 1975. The suspension of purchases of hindquarters was announced in the EEC Regulation Number 1315/75 of 23rd May 1975 published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 24th May 1975 (OJ No. L133 pp. 44–47) and on 14th May 1975 the Intervention Board gave notice of this development. The suspension of purchases of forequarters was announced in the EEC Regulation No. 2823/75 of 30th October 1975 published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 31st October 1975 (OJ No. L280 pp. 38–40). The Intervention Board informed all those who subsequently inquired about offers into intervention and on 10th December 1975 an amendment to the explanatory leaflet was issued. These changes were authorised by the Commission of the European Communities with the agreement of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal. I am unaware that the changes had any impact on the Beef Premiums (Protection of Payments) Order 1975.

  CLOMIPHENE AND MULTIPLE BIRTHS
  Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What information they have on the incidence of multiple births following treatment with clomiphene.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Figures showing the number of women for whom fertility drugs have been prescribed are not available. I propose to seek expert advice about whether there is a need for further study of these preparations.
  House adjourned at a quarter past seven o' clock.