Lords Sitting of 6 November 1980

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.

DISARMAMENT
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support at the Geneva U.N. Disarmament Committee the proposal of the Swedish and Romanian delegations that there should be an international freeze on all military expenditure.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, before negotiations could begin on freezing military expenditure, we would need international agreement on a means of reporting and verifying military budgets. The Government are supporting work in the United Nations to reach such agreement, but further progress depends on Soviet willingness to co-operate.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask whether he could explain this contradiction? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has made admirable speeches in Eastern Europe in favour of détente and disarmament. Can he explain the contradiction why the Government are opposing every proposal made in this House for disarmament—chemical weapons last week, the Indian Ocean yesterday, and the proposal today? Will the Government themselves take the initiative if they are sincere in making proposals for disarmament?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are not opposing every proposal that comes forward but we have to consider each and every one on its merits, principally in the light of whether it will be effective.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord say which other delegations are supporting the proposals from Sweden and Romania?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think I have that information in front of me. No formal conclusion has been reached on this matter in any event, and any answer I could give would be only an indication of people's preliminary positions.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Committee of 21, an actual majority at Geneva, are supporting this proposal, representing the unaligned nations?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is always so well informed on these matters and I bow to what he has to say, but the fact is that we still have to consider it in the light of whether or not it would be effective.

MICROCHIP INDUSTRY: JAPANESE AND US INVESTMENT
2.39 p.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards encouraging investment by Japanese and US companies in the British microchip industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, within Her Majesty's Government's policy of encouraging inward investment a particular welcome is given to high technology industries, such as the microelectronics industry.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is no concern amongst many small firms on competition in this country? Would he agree that taking a lot of the weight off the Government's shoulders in training young people for this new revolution will be helped by the foreigners coming in?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is very important, from whatever quarter, to continue the emphasis on the microelectronics industry because of its all-pervasive influence on the whole of British industry. We therefore welcome the latest technology, both developed at home and by companies who bring it from overseas.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he can say how this will help the three electronic factories that were recently closed in this country?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the recent closure of the three consumer electronics factories in this country was caused by a whole set of factors, including the world recession and the international competition in this area. While we regret it very much, fortunately we still have in this country a strong consumer electronics business which we believe will survive and grow.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether in our schools, colleges and universities we are teaching the technology of the microchip, so that the children of this country are brought up in the way of working in this area?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that is a separate Question that ought to receive attention to itself if it were to be tabled. However, such teaching is increasing in schools and universities.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, whereas it is the Government's policy to encourage investment from United States and Japanese companies, there is a danger that the embryo British industry may be starved and that the competition may become so intense that we shall not have the national capability which is so essential for our defence effort and our industrial progress?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend asked that supplementary. First of all, as long as the Government are concerned we believe in an open climate for investment for our industries abroad and for other people here, but we do not intend to give aid
1044
specifically to foreign companies in this area, or in any other. Our aid schemes, whether regional or for a specific industry as in this case, are open to the home industry and to foreign industries alike. Further, in my department we advise potential investors in this country as to what we see to be the state of the market. Normally commerce is best at sorting out where there are gaps in our marketplace or our technology, but occasionally my department can help in avoiding a degree of over-competition in a saturated market such as my noble friend envisaged.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, can my noble friend further help us? Will the foreign companies be encouraged to go not necessarily to the areas of highest unemployment, but to the areas where they have the real back-up facilities?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, that is their choice and their commercial decision. We have a regional policy and if, indeed, their needs can be met in the areas of greatest need, we are of course happy.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, can the Minister say how this policy really helps technical development and research in the electronic industries in this country, upon which our war potential and our defence requirements may vitally depend?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, that, again, I think, is mainly a separate question. But we continue major support of micro-electronics. We have backed the second stage of Inmos, we have two major micro-electronic schemes which are still operating and we have companies specialising in the defence area which are in the forefront of this kind of development.

VIDEO-TAPING OF BROADCASTS
2.45 p.m.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: 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 it is a fact that the video-

1045
taping of a BBC programme by a private individual for his own use is a breach of the law of copyright.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, there is a breach of copyright if, first, the programme which is taped includes copyright material—namely, a literary, dramatic or musical work, a sound recording or a cinematographic film, or if the broadcast is itself of a tape; and, secondly, the private individual making the tape does so without the authority of the copyright owner.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply I should like to ask him two further questions. His reply seemed to cover the category which I used in my Question of "for his own use". Is my noble friend aware that "for their own use" something like one-quarter of a million owners of video-tape machines are presumably breaking the law unconsciously every day; and would he say how this kind of use squares with the concept of an Englishman's home being his castle, if they are thereby infringing the law?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is true that the technical position is that the owner of one of these machines, recording a programme which is the subject of copyright, should, in fact, get the copyright owner's permission—and that is not necessarily either the BBC or the IBA—before he does it. Palpably, as I think the Whitford Committee saw very clearly, that is an impossibility and perhaps it does not matter very much, so long as the tapes concerned are being used only for private purposes and for the convenience of the house-owner to look at a programme, either again or at a time which is convenient to him.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the law, as he described it in his original Answer, is unenforceable, unenforced and ought to be improved?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I believe that from this Box I cannot ask a question back. But the question in my mind is: would my noble friend like to suggest to me how the copyright law, which is a very important law and which works over the whole of the rest of the
1046
area, should be made enforceable or how the exception should be made in the area of people's homes? There has been a committee, the Whitford Committee, looking at this and the Government have undertaken to publish a Green Paper at some stage. But perhaps if my noble friend has ideas, he can let me have them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me what position I am in, having shown a video-tape of the New Zealand-Wales match? Am I likely to get a policeman knocking at the door, having already been punished once by the New Zealanders?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think it depends whether you show it to a Welsh audience or a New Zealand audience.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me how many prosecutions have taken place in these circumstances?
Viscount TRENCHARD: No, my Lords; but I will let my noble friend know whether any have taken place in relation to use in a home.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, may I ask whether this applies to a Scotsman's home as well as an Englishman's home?
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is it not the case that, in any event, a copyright infringement will not establish any right to the uninvited to enter the home of an Englishman, a Welshman or even a Scot?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is correct.
Lord DAVIES of PENRHYS: My Lords, would the noble Viscount consider the problem which arises when people have come around selling these video machines, saying that everything is all right and that there is no law to stop them? Something ought to be done about that.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think it would be quite wrong to forbid—if that is the noble Lord's suggestion—

1047
the sale of these machines, which are marvellous machines and which can be used perfectly legally to record the New Zealand-Wales rugby match, which is a live performance, and many other live performances. Personally—I do not know whether I should be saying so—I cannot see, if there is a technical breach of the law in the home in other areas, that it really need concern us in this House very much. What is important—and steps are being taken—is to enforce the copyright laws, if anybody starts using this facility for commercial purposes.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, could the noble Viscount say whether there is any hope that, if the proceedings of the House are broadcast, those noble Lords who make speeches will be paid performing rights?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not think that I should answer any more questions!

MINISTERIAL VISITS TO EAST EUROPEAN STATES
2.50 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement after the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Hungary and to Poland, and of the Minister of State to the German Democratic Republic, and what conclusions they have drawn in respect of the United Kingdom's and the EEC's political and commercial relations with these countries.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, I had useful talks with the Hungarian and Polish Foreign Ministers and with the top leaders in both countries. Mr. Blaker's visit to the German Democratic Republic concludes today. I hope these discussions will strengthen our political and commercial relations with these countries.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. While being the first to agree that interference in the domestic affairs of the formerly independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe is to be deplored, is it not, none the less, a mistake to underestimate the influence of the democracies in trying to bring forward the happy day when a greater measure of national independence can be enjoyed, with which one hopes more personal freedom and more democratic institutions would march?
Secondly, and rather more importantly, may I ask my noble friend whether I am entirely correct in saying that we and our allies have every right and reason to use our influence to these ends, and that we are not inhibited from doing so by any treaty arrangements or other agreements, secret or public?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it very important that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If any of us start to do so, it may be that some others will. The sort of visit which I paid to Hungary and Poland and that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs is paying to Germany, in itself has an effect in influencing, creating and developing understanding between countries of different political philosophies. There is certainly no treaty which prevents that.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: Is it not a fact, my Lords, that the timely visit of the Secretary of State was warmly welcomed by the Governments concerned?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it was not only warmly welcomed; I was invited there. I do not think that I should have been invited if I had not been welcome.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the Foreign Secretary, now that he has happily and safely returned to the United Kingdom, since the question not only refers to commercial relations but to political relations, whether he can indicate whether those political relations have been improved, and in what direction? Can he also give us an assurance, if he does not mind my asking this further question, that he has not been indoctrinated?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, having sat in this House now for a great number of years with the noble Lord and not having yet been indoctrinated by him, I can assure him that it will take more than four days in Hungary and Poland to change my views about certain matters. The political issues which were discussed between Poland and ourselves and Hungary and ourselves were of course the obvious matters of East-West relations, détente and disarmament, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned earlier today. Though it would be perhaps an exaggeration to say that we were agreed about these matters—although there were some points of agreement—there is no doubt that the very fact that one talks frankly about these things leads to a greater understanding of other people's positions. I do not think that one ought to underestimate the usefulness which visits of this kind have.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, could the Foreign Secretary indicate to us whether he is able, through these visits, also to help our allies to get a certain amount of information—or is this question too indiscreet to be answered?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking me whether I let our allies know what happened, indeed I did. Yesterday I was in Luxembourg, at a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten, because the Greeks were also there. I told them, of course, what went on.

ACCESS TO PARLIAMENT
3.55 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I rise with your Lordships' permission to raise very briefly a question of obstruction outside your Lordships' House which has arisen in the last 40 minutes. The whole of the road between Vauxhall Bridge, the Embankment, Millbank, through to this House has been occupied by a long procession with banners, a demonstration which has had the effect of obstructing access to your Lordships' House. It has been sealed off and I have had great difficulty in reaching the House by 2.45. Surely demonstrations are in order in this
1050
country of demonstrators visiting this House, but it must be wrong if they have the effect of sealing off roads and preventing your Lordships and Members of the other House from reaching here by Question Time.
It may be said by some of your Lordships that I should have got out of my car and walked, or run, but I happen to be disabled and, as some of your Lordships know, cannot walk more than a few yards. There are many others in your Lordships' House and in another place who are in the same category. I do hope that something can be done to prevent this kind of thing in future.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, must have had an unfortunate experience because I happened to come here fairly late, too, and was not so obstructed, but perhaps I was lucky. Certainly if noble Lords are obstructed and prevented from coming to your Lordships' House it is a serious matter, but of course it is one for the police. Each Session we have an order which prevents stoppages in the street. Such an order is minuted at the beginning of each Session. It was so minuted at the beginning of this Session. However, I will ask Black Rod to take account of what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, ask him to look into the complaint and see what he can suggest as a result.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend.

DINNER
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Third Reading of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill is expected to be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for a short period, so that your Lordships who are particularly interested in this matter may have an opportunity for refreshment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
2.57 p.m.
Bill read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 1 [Relaxation of Ministerial control of authorities]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("or police authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 52 and 65, which may help to shorten the proceedings. The controls for which the relaxations are sought by these amendments are over the appointments of the chief, the deputy chief and the assistant chief constables and the provision and maintenance of the buildings, structures and premises which are part of the day-to-day running service of the police.
The police authority, as Members will know, is required to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force, properly housed and equipped. The chief constable has his force placed explicitly under his control and direction. He has the powers of appointment, discipline and promotion up to the rank of chief superintendent. The Home Secretary has the duty to promote the efficiency of the police, both generally and through the provision of common police services. The result of these provisions, as embodied in the Police Act 1964, is that the control is in effect a threefold partnership between the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable.
The local authority associations submitted a joint paper on the review of central Government control over local authorities in February 1979 in which they urged that as much as possible of the management of the local services should be left to the local authorities—that includes the police authorities—while the Government concentrated first on maintaining only that influence on the aggregate of local authorities' expenditure which is necessary for the macroeconomic control and, secondly, on the involvement of the broad national strategies within which local authorities and
1052
other bodies have the responsibility for operating.
The amendments fall into the two main classes. First, so far as the repeal of the relevant parts of Section 426(1) and Section 64 of the Police Act are concerned, we are concerned with the control over the appointments involved. Such controls are very difficult to justify in the light of the freedom which local authorities have to appoint, for example, their chief executives. The exercise of these controls by the Home Office has been known to create some local difficulties. It seems to some that the Home Office is becoming increasingly interested in being involved in the whole selection procedure in a way that perhaps goes beyond its proper remit.
On the other amendment, surely the appointment of the chief police officers is an essential part of the exercise of a police authority's statutory duty, and on the second area, on providing and maintaining buildings and premises, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, at the last stage of this Bill announced that there were to be proposals for some relaxation of detailed project control on schemes costing up to £1 million. This is welcomed but it still leaves statutory powers of control outstanding. What we should like to know, if the noble Lord can tell us, is whether this concession which he announced at the last stage relaxes controls on other than financial grounds, and would it not also be consistent for the Home Office to relax controls on land acquisition and on property leases? These seem to us to go hand in hand with the dispensation announced at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, having spoken on similar amendments at a previous stage, I should like to say a few words. Whereas I support the latter part of the speech just made by the noble Baroness, dealing with property and maintenance and the amount of work which is still going to be put on local authorities in order to follow this new so-called relaxed procedure, I am not happy about the abolition of the Home Office control over the most senior appointments. In this country of ours we are lucky to be very free of corruption, but on the other hand there is always a chance that a local favourite before a selection committee gets priority because

1053
the local people just do not know the whole field. It is right and proper that in the interests of the police service the Home Office should retain that control. The police are all too anxious to see the ghost of the old watch committees arising amid this question of local freedom to make all appointments, and that would be disastrous.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I should like to add a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said. I moved these amendments almost word for word at Committee stage—which seems now to be a very long time ago—and I was "shot down" by the Committee on the appointment of chief constables. I think rightly so; I accept that decision of Parliament. But where we can relax the control over the buildings and minute details of buildings it really will be in the interests of good government. If these amendments are not acceptable, I hope that at least the principle will be acceptable to the House.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for their comments as regards the appointment of chief constables. In fact we have covered this ground before and I thought that your Lordships were content. Let us be quite clear that we are not here talking about the removal of some central controls over local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, seeks some relaxation of the controls over police authorities exercised by the Home Secretary. But police authorities are not local authorities; they are independent statutory bodies composed of two-thirds county councillors and one-third magistrates. Police authorities are dependent on the county council or, in the case of combined police authorities, the constituent councils for funding police expenditure. However, 50 per cent. of expenditure on the police is paid by central Government through a specific grant.
The effect of these amendments would not be simply to relax some central controls over police authorities; they would undermine the constitutional
1054
arrangements for the administration of the police as embodied in the Police Act 1964 which followed on the report of the Royal Commission in 1962. At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Belstead reminded the House that the Royal Commission set out the responsibilities on the three elements on which our policing arrangements are based, namely, chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary.
First, the Act places each force under the direction and control of the chief constable and in this way his operation of independence is clearly set out. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who emphasised the importance which he attaches to this, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Ridley, and I suspect that the noble Baroness herself would not quarrel too much with that.
Secondly, the chief constable is appointed and his force is maintained by the police authority and it is to this authority that the chief constable is generally accountable. Thirdly, the Home Secretary has an essentially supervisory role summed up in his general duty to exercise his powers to promote the efficiency of the police.
Without going into a great deal of detail here, I should like to say generally that as my noble friend Lord Belstead said in Committee, the Home Secretary's role reflects his responsibility for the maintenance of the Queen's peace, which is one of the prime functions of central Government. This ultimately is the duty of the Home Secretary and therefore we think it essential that he should have, and should exercise, adequate powers to secure the efficiency of the police service.
The powers to approve the appointment of chief constables, deputy chief constables and assistant chief constables come within this category, as does the power to approve a deputy chief constable performing the duties of his chief officer for longer than three months, as do the powers to approve the number of police officers in a force and to approve the provision of buildings. These are only some of the many responsibilities placed on the Home Secretary by the Police Act, but the individual provisions cannot be divorced from the wider considerations of law and order.

1055
I think that Parliament expects the Home Secretary, with the professional advice of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, to be able to ensure that officers of the right calibre are appointed. Similarly a determination of the number and rank of officers needed in each force is crucial to the efficient policing of this country; and again Parliament expects the Home Secretary to be in a position, with the professional advice of the inspectorate, to influence these decisions.
This was a matter which we talked over at some length. In fact, when I was in another incarnation, so to speak, I argued the same case exactly from the opposite side, but I accepted for myself then that there was here a circumstance which did not come within the general category of the relaxation of controls.
I think here are factors which are very special, and I hope the noble Baroness will not want to press this point. As was said in Committee, there are sufficient arguments here to justify not relaxing this particular control, the relaxation of which I think would cause much concern to everyone in your Lordships' House. In these circumstances, perhaps the noble Baroness will feel able not to press at least this amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not intend to press the amendment, but having read through the debates in the Committee stage, and reinforced by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, this afternoon, on the fact that we ought to keep the appointment of the chief constable in the hands of the Home Office, or under very strict supervision from the Home Office, because of corruption, I fail to see why a chief constable is any more likely to be corrupted than, say, a county planning officer, who is appointed by the county council.
However, I think this matter has had a very good airing. I had hoped that the noble Lord might be a little more forthcoming about the other relaxations on buildings and land, in view of the support I was given from his side of the House. Perhaps he would be willing to take that point back and look at it again with his colleagues in the Home Office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Power to direct other bodies to publish information]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("the") to end of line 9 and insert ("descriptions of bodies mentioned in subsection (4)(e) and (g) above, in the application of those paragraphs to England; and

(b) to the London Transport Executive,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is needed to correct an error which was made in Committee stage, without which the powers concerned would be conferred on the Minister of Transport in both England and Wales, and this would not reflect the present division of responsibilities for transport matters between the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Meaning of "works contract"]:
3.10 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I ask leave to deal with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 together. The reason I ask leave to take this course is, of course, that it is the only technical way in which I can draw the attention of the House to the disapproval of Part III of the Bill as a whole, of those who sit on this side of the House.
I do not intend to reiterate any of the detailed arguments that I was able to adduce to your Lordships at Committee and Report stages of the Bill. What I do want to say is that this part of the Bill could have been cast in a very different way from that in which it has been laid before your Lordships. It is a tremendously complex part full of accounting and technical details, and in order to turn it into a really workable form one would have had to rewrite the whole of Part III.
The first point that one notes about Part III, which deals with direct labour organisations, is that nowhere in the Bill is a direct labour organisation defined. This must be held to be a little remarkable, because if we turn to Clause 20 we find plenty of definitions, including that of an "appointed day", "construction or maintenance work", a definition of "development body", of a "DLO revenue account", of "functional work", Yea, even, my Lords, a definition of a "local authority". But nowhere in the Bill, as indeed my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal pointed out at Report stage, is there a direct labour organisation defined.
Your Lordships are aware that I am not a lawyer, but I am given to understand on reliable authority that an absence of definition can very often lead to difficulties. It is all very well to say, "Of course, everybody knows what a direct labour organisation is; there is no need to define it", but we have many immortal cases in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court where one of the learned judges in the past has said, "What is a motor car?". These things are not unusual. I do not know whether the noble Lord when he comes to reply can provide some kind of rough and ready definition, but your Lordships may feel that, if you are going to devote a whole part of the Bill to direct labour organisations, what constitutes a direct labour organisation ought to be capable of reduction into the Queen's English; if it is something that is capable of definition and also of legal entity, then it should be possible to reduce it into words. I sincerely hope the noble Lord will be able to give that some thought.
Putting that aside, it was only when I came across, quite accidentally, the detailed report of the working party on direct labour organisations—its final report, which, unfortunately, was not in my possession either before Committee stage or Report stage—that I realised the real shortcomings of Part III of the Bill. This working party sat—if sitting be the correct word, because I presume it did a certain amount of travelling as well—for some 18 months. It commenced its sittings, I am informed, in October 1976 and the final report was put out in August 1978 by the noble Lord's own department. Modestly it has
1058
not claimed ownership of it or responsibility for it, and indeed, again somewhat modestly, the noble Lord did not refer to its contents in any very great detail when he was introducing this part of the Bill to your Lordships.
On going through it in detail, I am bound to say that I understand why. Here is a very responsible working party; its chairmen were provided by the Department of the Environment itself; it had numerous members. I will not weary your Lordships with all the names; it would take far too long; but they comprise responsible representatives from the Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Property Services Agency, the Association of County Councils, members from the noble Lord's District Auditors Department, and indeed members of quite a number of prominent local authorities themselves. It took evidence from a very wide section of those who might be considered as being legitimately interested in the whole question of direct labour organisations. It took written evidence from the Federation of Specialists and Subcontractors, from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, from the Institute of Municipal Building Management, from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and from the TUC. So it cannot be said that it was in any way unrepresentative.
In the event it produced a very moderate report. It was a moderate report, I would assume, because those who were members of it arrived at a consensus of the most practical things to be done to improve the organisation of direct labour organisations, to tighten up their tendering procedures, to make them more comparable with those with whom they were alleged sometimes to be in competition. As I say, if the whole spirit of Part III of the Bill had followed out the very sensible recommendations of the working party, there would have been very little to divide the House about on its context.
Incidentally, your Lordships may be interested to learn that one matter that was revealed in the report was the fact that, as regards the GLC, when discussing its figures for the year 1975–1976, the figures supplied by the treasurer showed

1059
that it would have cost the GLC an additional £8 million per annum if its housing maintenance work, then done by direct labour, had been placed with term contractors at the lowest tender rate. That may be a fact which is not generally known as there is the broad, general, political allegation that DLOs were in some respects wasteful; they were responsible for the waste of public funds; they resulted in the waste of ratepayers' money and, indeed, perpetrated all other kinds of cardinal, financial and organisational sins. It is, therefore, very interesting that in the case of the largest authority in the United Kingdom—and this was not challenged in any way by the working party and indeed was accepted by it—there was a saving of £8 million.
Looking at paragraph 3.1 of the report we see that the committee revealed its opinion and said:
"In our view it is not surprising that all but 10 of the 549 local authorities in the United Kingdom have found it beneficial to have a construction workforce of some size or another, directly under their own control".
Perhaps if extensive quotations had been made from this document, the attitude in some quarters of the House towards DLOs might have been considerably different. I can only speculate as to what happened when the final report of this working party came into the hands of the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister. I would assume that he read it. I would assume that he assimilated it. But, of course, it is the business of a Minister to make decisions. Quite clearly Ministers are not bound to adopt recommendations of working parties. They are free agents within the confines that are imposed upon them by their own colleagues in the Cabinet. They are free to make their own decisions. But certainly a decision in principle must have been made.
The Minister had two alternatives. If he wanted to produce a Bill or a part of a Bill covering this aspect of a local authority's work he could have decided to proceed on the broad, general lines laid down in the working party's final report—the general lines of consensus politics. He could have said to himself, "Well, perhaps there are a number of pet things that I would like to do myself but, by and large, since I am the Minister for the
1060
Environment and since I do wish to maintain the friendliest relationships with local authorities and desire to work harmoniously with them, I shall proceed on the basis of consensus and seek maximum agreement".
His alternative was to proceed with the policies of confrontation. We on this side of the House complain, so far as this part of the Bill is concerned, that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Heseltine decided to proceed on the policies of confrontation. This part of the Bill not only represents a direct challenge to the responsibility of local authorities, it does not only de-rate the degree of community between councillors and the electorate itself, but it endeavours to pursue the diktat. One finds in the 19 clauses comprising this part of the Bill that on no fewer than seven occasions does the Minister take power to issue regulations; on four occasions he takes power to make orders and on five occasions he takes direct power to give directions without any consultation with anybody at all. But nowhere is the desire to confront local authorities more obvious than when it comes to the Minister's power taken in this part of the Bill to direct that a local authority shall produce a report, and to direct at any time. In this part of the Bill he gives directions that in certain defined circumstances the authority shall cease direct labour operations either as a whole or, indeed, in whichever particular subdivision of its work may fall below the prescribed rate of return on capital which he from time to time—and which he alone—prescribes.
Nothing is in greater contrast with that than the very sensible observations brought out in the working party's report. I refer to Appendix K, paragraph 13, which does, to some extent, paraphrase the earlier and more detailed paragraph 9.6 of the report itself. It says:
"…any new legislation governing DLOs should provide for the application of profits and the defrayment of losses made by a DLO, and should impose a requirement on the parent authority that its DLO should not make an overall loss taking one year with another over a 5 year period".
It then says, and these are the important words:
"Where this requirement is not met … the position should be specially reported to the elected members who would be required to conduct a comprehensive review of the DLO to

1061
determine whether it should continue to operate, and if so, whether its activities should be limited in any way; and to publish the results of the review".
That particular finding of the working party may strike your Lordships as being eminently reasonable. It is quite clear that this working party—comprising members of the Department of the Environment as well as all the other authorities involved and those from whom it took evidence—took the view that DLOs should be responsible and should be required to work profitably, or at any rate without loss over a defined period, and that if that does not happen then there should be a detailed report to the elected members and the whole matter should be made public.
That strikes me as being an eminently reasonable proposal which does not in any way violate, but even enhances, the status of the local authority as an elected body, and leaves the locally-elected body to determine just what shall happen with its own direct labour organisation. That is in sharp contrast to the provisions of the Bill that has been inflicted upon us. There the Minister expresses himself in peremptory terms—after one year he can do this and after the one year he can direct the other. The whole essence of the matter is the establishment of the Marsham Street diktat over the discretion of the local authority. Nor is that all. From time to time during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, especially in Committee, we have suggested to your Lordships certain amendments to Part III of the existing Bill, imperfect though Part III was in its total concept. Our object was to improve it, with all its structural defects and with all the defects that lie behind the purpose of its introduction.
Noble Lords will remember that amendments were introduced on this side of the House permitting DLOs to work outside their boundaries. We pointed out to the House particular circumstances where, owing to winding roads which would cross and in some cases recross individual local authority boundaries, it was obviously a matter of common sense that the DLO should have power—subject to the agreement of the other local authorities—to work in a sensible and practicable fashion. But that was refused us.
However, the working party report said:
"DLOs should be permitted to work outside their parent local authority boundaries for other local and public authorities as well as inside them on both new and repair and maintenance work; be able to second staff from one authority to another (as already happens between some authorities) and that the financial and accounting rules when they do so should be clearly stated".
Then there was a paragraph in the report of the working party which went even further; indeed, further than was suggested by some quarters on this side of the House. In paragraph 11, we find:
"Consideration should be given to extending the scope of powers available to DLOs to include work for private house-owners in certain circumstances, viz., where the dwelling is either a former council … or is one in the various areas of special treatment prescribed in the various Housing Acts.…".
et cetera. But there is no mention of these in the Bill.
Your Lordships will also remember that we on this side of the House introduced amendments concerning the provision of emergency services and also the accounting treatment of them. But these also were rejected by the noble Lord; whereas the working party report at paragraph 18 of Appendix K says:
"DLOs may also be required, because of their authority's statutory obligations, to provide emergency services at short notice. If this disrupts ongoing work and gives rise to measurable extra costs, it should be identified and charged to the cost of the emergency rather than the work in hand".
Then there were pleas from this side of the House that some account should be taken of the work performed by direct labour organisations, with the full authority of the directly elected council, to do certain works on social grounds. These were refused us; whereas the working party report says:
"Costs arising from decisions taken on social grounds, e.g. the employment of extra trainees as a contribution to employment for school leavers, should be identified and charged not to the DLO but to the central funds of the authority".
There are many others. One cannot help but contrast the whole Government attitude as expressed in the strident terms of Part III of the Bill, with the eminently reasonable attitude that has been taken by the working party. Let there be no doubt that we, on this side of the House, welcome the fact that there should be

1063
better organisation in direct labour organisations; we welcome improved accounting systems; and we welcome cost accountability. All matters of that kind are welcome, with the proviso that in the first instance the prime people interested in these are the local authorities themselves; they are directly elected bodies; they are the people who are closest to those in the local authority area who derive benefit from or, in fact, use the services. It should be in their hands to determine their rules.
Therefore, on this side of the House we resent the endeavour by the Secretary of State to seek to enforce his will on local authorities rather than pursuing more moderate and consensus policies advocated in the working party report on direct labour organisations, and following the lines of open, friendly co-operation with local authorities, to the detriment of the status of neither. I beg to move.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House whether it is in order to make a long Second Reading speech on what is ostensibly an amendment on Third Reading. Whether or not it is in order, it is undoubtedly against the traditions of the House. I think that it is treating the House with contempt and that it is quite monstrous.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I do not intend to speak on that point, so perhaps we should hear what the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House has to say first.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend puts me in a slight spot if he asks me to give a ruling on a speech which another noble Lord has made. Indeed, I should find it very difficult to do so. Of course, your Lordships are masters of your own procedure, and we must do what we think is right in the House.
There is a problem here and I am bound to say so. I realise that the noble Lord feels very strongly about this. The problem arises when a number of "Leave out" clauses are tabled at the Third Reading of the Bill. I would only address such remarks as I make to that principle. Of course, one can only be guided by
1064
Standing Orders over this. If one looks at the Companion to the Standing Orders one sees that with regard to the Report stage it says:
"An amendment to leave out a Clause or a Schedule is not desirable on Report if the purpose underlying the amendment is to initiate a general debate".
Presumably such a stricture also refers to Third Reading. In so far as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have in fact initiated a general debate I think that one might question whether this was the right procedure. If one looks at what the Companion to the Standing Orders says with regard to Third Reading, one sees that it says:
"It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading".
I would do no more than draw that to the attention of your Lordships' House. One is in a danger because the current trend over the past few years has been to make the Third Reading an extension of the Committee stage and the Report stage, and in so far as that is a trend your Lordships may think that it is an undesirable trend. But one, of course, works within the Companion to the Standing Orders.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not be a party to defending anybody in your Lordships' House who opposed Standing Orders. I know that it is a matter for the House to decide. I would not defend my noble friend on this side of the House if I thought that he was wrong. But I do not think—and I believe the noble Earl the Deputy Leader has confirmed this—that he has offended the rules of the House. Something may not be desirable as a general rule, but it may be highly desirable in certain instances.
As the noble Earl knows, we feel very strongly about this Bill, as strongly as other noble Lords feel in favour of it. Noble Lords opposite have got down 34 amendments today at Third Reading. Among other things—I cannot count them—I understood there were 74 amendments. When I counted I found that we on this side are responsible for 40 and I think noble Lords opposite are responsible for 34. I think the noble Lord probably accepts my figure.

1065
When speaking just now, I understand that my noble friend was speaking to something like 18 amendments. I accept that it is undesirable for certain things to happen at Third Reading, but if my noble friend has got down an amendment which has already been before your Lordships' House and has been decided upon, I do not think I shall have any difficulty in persuading him not to pursue it. But if there is such an amendment I am sure it is not more than one; or perhaps there are two. We ought to bear in mind that we are dealing with a Bill of some importance and that feelings are very strong on both sides of your Lordships' House. On reflection, while we want to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible, I do not think it would be right to say that my noble friend is offending in any way. As I said at the beginning, what may be desirable as a general rule may not be desirable on certain occasions. In view of the importance and far-reaching effects of this Bill, this is one of the occasions when it should be discussed quite fully, but I am sure my noble friend will take into account what the noble Earl has said.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I think there is a point of some substance here and I wonder whether it would be a good thing if the Procedure Committee had a look at this once more and gave us some guidance. It might be a practical suggestion.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, I do not like this kind of debate at all. In the past I have not been used to Third Reading debates which deal with a large number of amendments; it does not happen in another place, but it does happen here. In its nature, a Third Reading debate is fairly general so it stands to reason that debates on amendments on Third Reading are likely to be fairly general as well; so I do not think that the complaint was terribly well founded. But the thing I really do not like about this kind of complaint is that it arose at the end of my noble friend's speech, which I found an extremely interesting one. If it turns out that my noble friend or any other Member of the House is in breach of the Standing Orders or any of the customs of the House, surely the time to challenge him is when he is in breach. He should be interrupted then and not at the end of his speech. To
1066
wait until the end of the speech and then raise the matter is really to trail a red herring across procedure and to utilise a kind of device. And I think utilising the device is as offensive to the House as the matter of the complaint might have been if the complaint were justified.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one word and I shall not prolong this debate. I find it unsatisfactory that any noble Lord should attempt to rule the House by insinuation, as the noble Lord opposite has attempted to do.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord AVEBURY: Yes, my Lords; I stand by that word. To stand up at the end of Lord Bruce's remarks and make reference to them as being undesirable in some way, as if that were to be the same thing as impermissible, is really not to direct the House in the proper way that it should be going. If, indeed, anything that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had done was impermissible under the Standing Orders, then the proper moment to have raised it was right at the beginning of the debate; or, if I may say so, it could have been done through the usual channels when the noble Lord's amendments first appeared on the Order Paper. If there was anything improper in putting down a large number of amendments, as the noble Lord has done, to leave out certain clauses, then that could have been taken up through the Opposition Whips and perhaps, if it was contrary to the procedure of the House, the noble Lord would have seen fit to withdraw them.
But the noble Lord himself has pointed out that things have changed in the last few years, that the procedures on Third Reading, which are so foreign to those of us like the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and myself who come from another place, where at Third Reading one can only stick rigidly to what is in the Bill and not what one would have liked to see in it if one had had one's way at Committee and on Report, are entirely different. They are clearly evolving, as the noble Lord himself underlined when he said that the practice had grown up in recent years of developing certain themes on Third Reading. If the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has simply continued a practice which the Government consider to be undesirable

1067
then they have their remedy through taking it up with the Procedure Committee. But I hope they will not come along during the Third Reading and attempt, as I say, by insinuation to silence noble Lords opposite from doing what they consider to be perfectly proper.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I can say just one other thing? I know that noble Lords feel very strongly about this but I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is being less than fair if he says that any one of your Lordships is trying to rule by insinuation. I do not think my noble friend has sought to do that, nor do I think that any other Member of your Lordships' House would do so. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said this was utilising a device. Again, on reflection I think that is a fairly strong description. I think that what was happening was that my noble friend was airing a view, which some people would have, that it is not the normally accepted procedure to list as a matter for Third Reading a whole series of clauses which should be left out. The principal purposes of amendments at Third Reading are to clear uncertainties or to get clarification on various issues which have been raised earlier, or for the Government to fulfil undertakings. That has been generally accepted to be the purpose of Third Reading amendments.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that things change. Noble Lords will have noticed that this particular procedure on Third Reading has changed, but I should like to suggest that possibly the Lord Chairman, who at the moment is on the Woolsack, might take into account the words of my noble friend Lord Home. I think this is a matter which could be and properly should be considered by the Procedure Committee, as opposed to continuing any further at this moment. It would be a pity if any noble Lords were to feel that an intervention either soured Lord Bruce's speech or cut across the trend of his argument. We could go from here quite happily after that intervention because I think that my noble friend Lord Derwent was only trying to express a matter of concern.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I should like to make a small point on the amend-
1068
ment, which rightly or wrongly has been moved and is before the House. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to say when he comes to reply whether he has considered one point that has been worrying me. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has said, there is no definition of a direct labour organisation.
On an amendment which I proposed, Clause 20(3) was included in the Bill. This makes it clear that there are excluded from the direct labour organisation provisions work done by a local authority in its capacity as a dock or harbour undertaking. It seems to me that, if that is specifically excluded, it might be held that because other similar operations by local authorities, such as operating an airport or perhaps operating a transport undertaking, are not excluded the labour employed in those activities was also included under the heading of direct labour organisations. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when he replies could give some indication of what he thinks about that.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I think my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned the query that I raised in the House, that there is no definition of the words "direct labour organization". I read carefully the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, made in answer when I used the example of the city that I know best, which has the equivalent of three direct labour organisations all under the control of different committees of that council and different officers. I used the example, for Members of your Lordships' House who were not at that previous debate, where the council had a direct labour organisation for its public works department, another direct labour organisation for its housing department, and another for another department which I have forgotten. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, most likely will remind me of it. However, we have three. I was concerned whether all those departments would be one direct labour organisation under the Bill. When I read his reply I really was not satisfied. I did not know whether he really did not understand my question because I put it so badly, or whether there could be an answer this afternoon.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I say how nice of the noble Baroness to make her last point in the way she did. I think we need not weigh too much on this point of definition. The phrase "direct labour organisation" is not used in the text of the Bill. It is used in the Title, but it is not used in the text of the Bill except in the phrase "DLO revenue account", which is defined. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no need for a definition as such.
In any case, the crucial point is surely the nature of the work done. If any employee of the council carried out construction or maintenance work his activities are subject to Part III irrespective of the title the council chooses to give to his department. I hope that that would perhaps satisfy certainly the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I recognise that this is only part of the various points that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was making. It certainly was not the one on which I understood him to base the thrust of his whole argument.
Apart from the reference to the report of the working party, which I think the noble Lord said was brought out in I978—and I recall that working party sitting—the noble Lord today told us nothing new at all. He has made clear again his strong dislike of this part of the Bill, but that is nothing new, if I may say so. I really do not feel that he strengthens his case by referring to "Marsham Street diktat", and the Secretary of State forcing his will, and such phrases. What we have to do here is to look at one or two basics.
There has long been disquiet about the working of direct labour organisations, and there is no secret about that. The previous Labour Government themselves came out with proposals for more tendering; for separate DLO accounts on a trading basis; for a rate of return to be calculated on a current cost accounting basis, and so on. Indeed, the main basis for much of this section of the Bill comes in fact from the report produced as long ago as 1975 by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on direct labour accounting. As I recall, it was that report which touched off the working party to which the noble Lord referred.
1070
I am not going to go into much detail as to what that working party said. One would want to look at its composition. I seem to recall that it was made up in the main of officers; people certainly with much responsibility. But then one would have to see what their interest was is analysing the 1975 report. When we talk about the GLC making or losing if it places out work to the private sector, again I think we would want to look carefully at exactly what those figures were based upon.
I could make a long speech which would set out precisely why I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on this issue. But at the end of the day I would come back to a few basic facts. The fact is that there is a need for more accountability; there is a need for competitive tendering. No one can really make a case contra to that. I have said on so many occasions now that I should not have to repeat it again, that there are efficient DLOs, and there is a place for them to do certain work. It should not be necessary for me to have to say this again but I do so because the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has intimated, at least, that the Government are—I forget the phrase he used today; he has used a number of phrases in the past—clobbering DLOs, or whatever. It just is not that at all.
If it is clobbering them to want to see accounts published, then that is clobbering. If it is clobbering them to want to see tendering in competition with everybody else, then that is clobbering. If it is clobbering to want to see them have to produce separate accounts on the basis that we have said, then that is clobbering. However, I do not think it is that at all. It is simply an attempt once and for all, long overdue, to give the good, the efficient organisations the chance to show just how good they are. Those who are not are the only ones who need to be concerned. If what is in this Bill makes them, one way or another, become more efficient, look to their workings, look to what they can do more competitively, then it is jolly well overdue for this requirement to come about.
Therefore, it will not be a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that I do not accept what he says in these amendments at all. I think in fact that the

1071
majority of local government people welcome these provisions because they give a chance to those who are doing a good job to show to all and sundry that they do.
3.58 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is not in his place. It is perhaps the case that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was unaware that I got into touch with the Minister's office earlier this afternoon in order to inform them that I had no intention of moving the individual amendments that are down in my name; that I proposed to speak to them all on the first amendment, and that for the convenience of the House I did not propose to move the remainder, or at least did not propose to divide the House upon them. I was advised on the proper authority of the only technical way of being able to express our disapproval of Part III of the Bill.
I sincerely hope that the House will therefore acquit me of any intention to be discourteous to the House, or indeed to the Government, or in any way to violate any of the principles upon which it has worked successfully for so many years. It will always be my objective to conform not only to the rules of the House but also to the spirit with which the House seeks to have them carried out.
In reply to what the noble Lord has said, I shall not keep the House long save to say that of course I willingly accept that it is desirable to have all the various accounting, disclosure, and division and cost control procedures dealt with in the Bill. The issue between us does not concern those at all, although in my view technically some parts of them are going to be difficult and tortuous to carry out. My complaint is solely of the power to direct the local authority and order it about. This is what I object to in this section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment Nos. 8 and 9:
1072
Page 11, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("submitted") and insert ("the price of each offer")
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("above") to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid my noble friend Lord Morris cannot be here this afternoon, and so I will speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 on his behalf. My Lords, these are both very simple drafting amendments, purely designed to clarify Clause 9(8), with regard to exactly what can be disclosed, needs to be disclosed, by the local authority. The wording is the result of fairly extensive consultations with the department, and I hope that the result—I believe it will—will meet with the approval of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley. My noble friend Lord Morris, in moving his amendment to this subsection in Committee, gave notice that he would be considering the matter further and I agreed that the drafting would repay closer examination. It is, as my noble friend Lord Henley says, a matter of drafting, and no one in this House or in another place has ever challenged the substance of this provision. There is happy unanimity on what is required; the publication of tender competition results without the breach of any commercial confidentiality between authority and contractor. The present amendment appears to have the merit of simplicity and certainly shortens the clause, and I accept it willingly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord HENLEY Lord HENLEY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("above") to end of line 38.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I have already spoken to this on Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords, I take it that Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 are not now moved.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Rates of return: Powers of Secretary of State]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. The definite article here is intrusive and has survived by mistake from earlier amendments. By removing it it will be made clear that failure to earn the required rate of return in any three consecutive years will mean that a report has to be prepared for the council to consider. This is what everyone has always taken the clause to mean and the amendment will merely make the drafting coincide with that understanding. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Application to joint committees]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 23, line 18, at end insert—
("Provided that no such order in respect of the accounting and financing provisions shall specify a date prior to 1st April 1982.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe Amendment No. 21 would be more appropriately discussed after a later clause, after Amendment No. 25. There is an error on the face of the amendment itself.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Maybray-King): My Lords, Amendment No. 21 should be No. 25A and we will take it after Amendment No. 25.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Part III—supplementary]:
4.4 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 25A:
Page 23, line 18, at end insert—
("Provided that no such order in respect of the accounting and financing provisions shall specify a date prior to 1st April 1982.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name. This seeks to ensure that the
1074
accounting and financing provisions shall not come into operation on 1st April 1981 but on 1st April 1982. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will accept it from me that there is nothing at all perverse in the moving of this amendment. I am not in any way trying to wreck or postpone the Bill. It is simply that there are practical implications involved. I have already drawn your Lordships' attention to the fact that there are some minor instances in which regulations can be issued, some four occasions where orders are going to be issued and some five instances where directions can be made. In addition, on the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister himself stated that after the passage of this Bill he would continue to listen to any further arguments the local authorities want to put on timing and
"We shall see how things go, but we shall need a good deal of hard evidence if we are to move away from the target set out for this part of the Bill".
Speaking for the moment as a practical accountant, I can envisage very many difficulties indeed, particularly in the re-devising or the re-programming of computers that are in use in many local authorities. Your Lordships will, I am quite sure, appreciate when reading through the very complicated accounting section of the Bill, that this does mark a very radical change in the whole of the accounting and cost procedures of local authorities. Moreover, the institute concerned, which is the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is itself going to produce a code of guidance to enable those who are employed in an accounting capacity in local authorities to be able to bring these measures into operation. I believe that that code is well advanced, although it is not yet in its final form. It is going to take some time to produce; it is going to take some time to circulate and, if I may say so, as one who has spent a considerable amount of his time in studying technical publications of one kind or another, particularly those relating to accounting and finance, it will take some time to assimilate.
I am therefore asking the noble Lord to think again on this. Very few months now remain before 1st April 1981. If this part of the Bill, Part III, is to come into operation, in spite of what we consider on this side of the House to be defects, then

1075
I think we are all agreed that it should come into operation effectively, efficiently and smoothly, and for this I think 1st April 1981 gives much too short a time. I therefore beg the noble Lord, in all seriousness, to think again about this, because it is my view, which is, I must tell the noble Lord, widely shared by those with experience in these matters, that it will be very difficult indeed to get this into operation by the end of next August, let alone 1st April. I hope that in the friendliest possible spirit, bearing in mind the terms of the servant in which I have felt bound to address him from time to time, the noble Lord will give very careful consideration to this matter. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, very briefly, may I say that on this amendment I agree very strongly indeed with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I understand from telephone calls I have received just before your Lordships' House met today that local authorities throughout the whole spectrum—and I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can speak for the ADC and the ACC, but as far as the AMA is concerned, and I understand the other two associations—are very concerned and very worried, and certainly the local authorities with which I personally am connected are very concerned and worried that the Government is setting an impossible task if this matter is not put off, as suggested at the moment. We do hope the Government will look upon this favourably.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I say at once that I entirely and unreservedly accept the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in moving the amendment and I am not unaware of the concern to which he referred. I know that many local authorities are anxious about their ability to get to where the Bill calls on them to be within the time stipulated. However, the amendment presents problems because, as noble Lords will know, we are anxious that the earliest possible start should be made, and therefore this is a problem of striking a balance.
1076
We believe that authorities have had time. It was in August of last year that we made clear what was being proposed, and I hope that most authorities have been moving in the right direction and that implementation in the time is still possible. We have tried to help in this respect. We have made some concessions to ease the burden of starting the new system, easier tendering requirements, particularly the freeing of all maintenance work below £10,000 for highway authorities, winter maintenance programmes, compulsory tendering and the de minimis exemption for the smallest authorities. To contemplate a further relaxation now, even acknowledging the problems that some have, is not something we would willingly want to do.
It has been suggested that perhaps we might have further consultations with the local authorities on this point. In fact, we have had a great number already on this as on all other matters concerning this part of the Bill, and officials are constantly in touch. Nevertheless, in an attempt to be helpful and to show that we are not dogmatic about it, if the local authorities wish to come back and make some formal representations on this point, we shall be willing to receive them. While I would not want to give the wrong impression by indicating that we will accept this—I could not say that at all; in fact, to the contrary is my brief—I can say that we would be willing to hear again what they may wish to say about it and have a further discussion with them if they care to approach us. I assure the House that we will certainly listen.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry the Minister has not seen fit to give way on this. The views I have expressed are broadly those of a large number of local authorities who are sorely beset by the problems raised by the technicalities of the Bill. I should have thought it would be in the interests of good relations between the local authorities and central Government for the wishes of the local authorities to be accepted in this respect. I repeat, I am sure they will with complete loyalty carry out as expeditiously as possible the provisions of the Bill and, with some difficulty, the provisions of this part of the measure.

1077
In the careful and accommodating remarks the Minister made he indicated that of course if he had conversations with local authorities, that must not be taken in any way as implying that the Government could be persuaded to give way. I cannot feel that if the local authorities visited the noble Lord's office they could provide any reasons other than those I have already given, except perhaps to elaborate them to suit the circumstances of their particular cases. I am in a very non-contentious mood this afternoon, but
on sheer grounds of practice and out of regard for the fortunes of the local authorities and the difficulties with which they are faced, I am afraid I must divide the House.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 135.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Hale, L.

Amulree, L.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Avebury, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Henderson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Beswick, L.

Hooson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Simon, V.

Briginshaw, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Brock way, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strauss, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

McNair, L.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pargiter, L.

Whaddon, L.

Galpern, L.

Peart, L.

White, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Wigoder, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ferrers, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Ferrier, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelwood, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alport, L.

Clancarty, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gage, V.

Auckland, L.

Clwyd, L.

Gainford, L.

Avon, E. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Berkeley, B.

De Freyne, L.

Gridley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Boardman, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Boothby, L.

Dundee, E.

Halifax, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Eccles, V.

Harvington, L.

Bradford, E.

Effingham, E.

Henley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Caccia, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cairns, E.

Energlyn, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Caithness, E.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ilchester, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Exeter, M.

Inglewood, L.

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

Faithfull, B.

Killearn, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilmany, L.

Kimberley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kinloss, Ly.

Mountgarret, V.

Sharples, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Newall, L.

Somers, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Northchurch, B.

Spens, L.

Long, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stamp, L.

Loudoun, C.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Orkney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lyell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swansea, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Redmayne, L.

Teviot, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Robbins, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mansfield, E.

Roberthall, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Rochdale, V.

Vickers, B.

Marley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vivian, L.

Middleton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Westbury, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

St. Germans, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Monson, L.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Selkirk, E.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Rating exemption for fish farms]:
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 31, line 27, leave out ("concerned") and insert ("engaged").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is one of two technical amendments to the clause which was accepted by the Government at Report stage. It seeks to specify that the occupier of any dwelling-house on, or adjacent to, a fish farm and, therefore, eligible to be assessed for rating purposes as though it were tied to its use in connection with that fish farm, must be "engaged in" rather than merely "concerned in" fish farming operations. The use of the word "concerned" could provide a loophole by which the provisions of this clause would have a wider application than is our intention. I am thinking of a situation in which a person was financially concerned in fish farming, but could not be said to be engaged in it in any other way. The use of the word "engaged" is therefore preferable, and is consistent with the corresponding agricultural provision in the General Rate Act 1967, Section 26(2)(a). I beg to move.
The Earl of AVON The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 31, line 39, leave out ("aforesaid") and insert ("mentioned in this subsection or in section 26(2) of this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the second of the two technical amendments to this clause. At present subsection (2) provides for the rateable value of fish farm dwellings to be estimated on the assumption that, for rental purposes, the house could not be occupied or used otherwise than in connection with fish farming. I am advised that this restriction is too narrow. It would be more realistic to assume that dwellings at fish farms could be occupied by people engaged either in fish farming or in other branches of agriculture. This amendment provides that the purposes for which such dwellings should be deemed to be occupied or used shall include agricultural as well as fish farming operations. The result would be that dwellings would be valued on the same, generally favourable, assumptions as other agricultural dwellings. Without this amendment the valuer would have to assure a very restricted clientele, which would be unreasonably favourable to the occupiers at fish farms in comparison with the occupiers at other farms, or in any other dwelling. I beg to move.
4.26 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
(" Rating relief for industry and commerce
. There shall be added after subsection 40 of the 1967 Act the following new section:—

"40A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by Order make a scheme for the purpose of giving relief from rates, in such a manner, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the Order, to persons liable to rates in respect of hereditaments (not being domestic hereditaments) and such a scheme may make different provision for different cases and different rate periods.

(2) An Order under subsection (1) above shall only be made in response to requests from trade organisations or organisations representing employers.

(3) Before making an Order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations of local authorities and with such other bodies of persons with whom consultations appear to him to be desirable.

(4) The power to make an Order in subsection (1) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage I moved Amendment No. 60, which was a rather limited amendment, to allow for "mothballing" to be a permitted way in which productive industry might be excused rates so that it could maintain equipment in being during these extremely hard times from a business point of view. The equipment would still be available when times get better and industry is able to take on more employees. Industry could then quickly re-establish its machinery and other equipment, which would in the meantime have been subject to reduced rating, thus making available extra financial resources to keep going in these, I repeat, extremely hard times.
Unfortunately we did not quite make it on Report, but there was great support from all sides of the House, and that encouraged me to think that on the whole your Lordships agreed not so much with the detail of the amendment, but with the principle of giving an opportunity to wealth-creating industry to be tided over during the difficult period and be fully ready to expand when the moment came. The President of the CBI wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pressing that point and inviting him to accept an amendment that would try to deal with what one might call the wider issue; and the present amendment seeks to do just that. It seeks to give power to the Secretary of State, when approached by the repre-
1082
sentatives of productive industry, to make an order to enable rate relief to be given, possibly on a temporary basis, to deal with a temporary and strict situation. It has that intention; and the proposed new clause makes full provision for the representatives of local authorities to be consulted so that the Minister would not in the end make the order without both sides having their full say; but he is given this flexibility to be able to deal with the extremely difficult situation which prevails at the moment.
By the way, to make the point, I spent this morning sitting on a joint industrial council seeking to agree a wage settlement for the biscuit industry, with which I am associated, as your Lordships I think know. We could not reach agreement. The reason was that the poeple with whom we were discussing could not appreciate—and perhaps many of your Lordships do not appreciate—just exactly how difficult life is for productive industry today. It really is extremely tough. Hopefully, this is temporary; hopefully, this situation will be surmounted. But it can be surmounted only if productive industry is allowed to have all possible flexibility to maintain itself and its equipment, and, indeed, as far as possible, its employees, to take it over this difficult time.
So, my Lords, this amendment seeks to give the Government the sort of power they want. Unfortunately, because we have been so pressed for time I fully recognise that the wording of the amendment is not perfect, as it should be. I had rather hoped—indeed, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Bellwin asking him about it—that perhaps the Government themselves would think of an amendment which would be better worded and would meet the same objective. Unfortunately, I do not see that on the Marshalled List, but I am hopeful that perhaps this might mean that the Government will accept mine, with all its imperfections. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I think the House will have listened with considerable sympathy, as it always does, to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he speaks, as he is entitled to do, on behalf of trade and industry. The worrying aspect to some of us is, I think, this. The previous amendment which the noble Lord moved at another stage of the Bill, as

1083
he frankly told the House on this occasion, limited to certain circumstances the relief of rates to trade and industry. This amendment seems to give an overall discretion to the Minister in any circumstances at all, after he has consulted the local authority associations and trade associations, as he sees fit, to make an order which would relieve industry and trade of rates.
I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would want to prevent the relief of trade and industry if they knew that there were certain other matters protected, but I think that some of your Lordships may be worried, as my noble friends and I are worried, that where you have capital and expenditure of local authoritities limited by Act of Parliament and regulation then, apart from a few sources (and even they have to be taken into account in regard to their allotment, as it were, of capital and expenditure) the only way in which local authorities can raise their money is through rates on the domestic occupier and on the occupiers of business premises.
In those circumstances, if it is not the local authority that has the power but the Minister, it seems that the local authorities and the domestic ratepayers can be very badly hit; because, as I have said, central Government having limited the amount of expenditure for local authorities, if they then exempted certain businesses and trades from their proper rating assessments and liabilities they would in fact be imposing an extra burden upon domestic occupiers, who I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would admit are as hard hit as anybody in these times. This is the worrying thought that I believe some of us have who might otherwise be so anxious to support him.
4.34 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I think your Lordships will appreciate the work which has been put into the various editions of this clause with which we have been concerned at the various stages of this Bill. I referred to the difficulties on previous occasions, and on this occasion my noble friend has, in a way, got out of those difficulties by creating what is an extremely flexible framework for the Executive. Some of your Lordships
1084
might possibly feel that the proposed powers are rather too wide for the Executive to have in this particular area.
I understand perfectly the intention of the new clause, and it would certainly at first sight appear to give the Secretary of State scope for quite a number of different forms of relief. The only express limitations on the power are, first, the requirement that the Secretary of State cannot make an order unless first requested to do so by trade organisations or organisations of employers, and then there is the provision that there must be consultation. The first of these limitations is somewhat unusual in legislation, and would perhaps elevate trade and employers' organisations to a rather unusual prominence. Although, as I have said, the intention is wide-ranging. I must tell your Lordships that we are advised that as drafted it will in fact be a good deal narrower than my noble friend had in mind. In particular, the advice we have been given is that the word "relief" in subsection (1) of his new clause, when construed in the light of the general rating legislation into which it would be placed, could be interpreted only as 100 per cent. relief in respect of hereditaments. Therefore, although apparently rather flexible, it would not, as drafted, exactly achieve the aim that my noble friend had in mind.
We are of course very conscious of the problem to which my noble friend has referred, and perhaps I need not weary your Lordships by going over the difficulties in giving effect to these, which I summarised on previous occasions. However, I should like to conclude by saying to your Lordships that the Government have themselves approached the problem of business ratepayers with concern and understanding, and my right honourable friends with responsibility in this area have given very serious consideration to this particular clause—and that consideration continued right up until what might be regarded as almost after the last minute.
It is relevant to point out what we have done already in this matter. The new provisions in this Bill on empty property rating are significant, and after Royal Assent we shall be bringing forward an order under Clause 42 to impose a ceiling of 50 per cent. on empty rates in the non-domestic sector. This will bring a great

1085
deal of benefit to very many firms; and, I might add, it will bring relief in many of the cases that are sometimes put forward in arguments for mothballing relief. Moreover, the Government will be able to review the new ceiling on empty rates in a year or so, and make further reductions if this is desirable.
May I also say, my Lords, that we have not irrevocably ruled out rate relief for premises only partly used. I recognise the depth of feeling with which my noble friend and, on earlier occasions, other noble Lords have spoken on this matter, and may I say in recognition of that that we shall keep this proposal in mind. I expect there will also be opportunities to discuss it further with the CBI in the coming months. I should also like to remind your Lordships and those concerned that there is a possibility of empty property relief in cases where it is possible to set aside an area with separate access and other requirements of a separate occupancy, so there is scope for an examination of that in particular cases. Having said that, may I advise your Lordships not to accept this new clause, and I hope that in the light of these explanations my noble friend may perhaps feel able to withdraw it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I fully understand the difficulties of implementing this proposed clause as it is phrased. I am most heartened by his remarks about bearing in mind for the future the various factors which he enumerated. I am hoping that as time goes on he will be able to find his way through to giving purpose to those intentions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Rating of unoccupied property]:
4.41 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 41, leave out lines 14 to 29 and insert—
(" (2A) The owner of a relevant hereditament shall not be exempt from being rated under this Schedule in respect of that hereditament on the ground that the provisions of section 32, 33 or 34 of this Act would exempt the hereditament from being liable to be rated or to be included
1086
in any valuation list or in any rate, unless it appears that the relevant provisions will so exempt it when it is next occupied.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to an amendment which we put forward at Committee when, as was the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the previous amendment, I was encouraged by a slightly sympathetic reception. I hope I shall receive a still more sympathetic reception this afternoon. The amendment is put forward in slightly different wording. This clause is intended to close the loophole in the 1967 General Rate Act whereby the gas corporation and electricity boards can escape liability to rates on their empty showrooms. There have been difficulties with other properties—notably, offices—and this amendment would tidy up the law so that public corporations were not exempt from rates on empty offices, showrooms and dwellings. I hope that the Minister will give me a shock, even at this late stage, by accepting the amendment.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, this amendment is a revision of one which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, moved at Report stage. In the Bill as drafted, paragraph (4), subparagraphs (2A) and (2B) of Schedule I of the 1967 Act, as amended by Clause 42, are intended to close a small loophole in the present statutory provisions on empty property rating whereby unoccupied electricity and gas showrooms are able to avoid paying empty property rates. The loophole came to light in a court case concerning Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and it was thought that the clause would close it. The noble Baroness's amendment at Report stage, which the Government agreed to consider, led to investigations into the need to ensure that empty offices as well as showrooms of electricity and gas boards should be liable to rates. There have been discussions between officers of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the department about this matter.
This amendment now goes further in that it covers all empty electricity and gas board premises (that is showrooms, offices and dwellings) which, when occupied, are subject to normal rating provisions. It also extends to analogous premises on railway board land. It removes any doubt that, when unoccupied, such premises should be liable to empty

1087
property rating in the same way as premises owned by any other person or organisation. This amendment clarifies the purpose behind the original legislation and I recommend to your Lordships that it be accepted.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am delighted at this late stage that we have had one of our amendments accepted.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
(" Agricultural premises: Scotland
.—(1) In section 7 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (provisions relating to agricultural lands and heritages and dwelling-houses occupied therewith) in subsection (2) in the definition of "agricultural lands and heritages" after the words "market gardens" there shall be inserted the words "nursery grounds".
(2) In the definition of "agricultural buildings" in that subsection after the words "market garden" there shall be inserted the words "or nursery grounds".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment which I bring forward at the request of the Scottish Farmers' Union and which should have been put down on Report stage but I did not get it early enough. It is an absolutely new amendment which has not been discussed during any period of our discussion of the Bill. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for bringing it up like this, but it is worth considering because it brings forward rather an important matter.
This amendment refers to a definition of agricultural land called nursery ground. Market gardens are already derated while nursery ground is derated in England and Wales but not in Scotland. Nursery ground covers 792·6 hectares of ground and on this ground is grown a variety of things none of which requires to be under glass. On it grow fruit stock, ornamental shrubs used considerably by local authorities for improving the environment, roses, rose stock, ornamental trees, bulbs, flowers, outdoor growth for hardy annuals and fruit stock. The value of the trees and shrubs grown is
1088
quite considerable. In 1978 it was £8·3 million, in 1979 it was £8·4 million and in 1980 it will be approximately the same although maybe a little down. The total value of stock grown on the ground is £40 million. The Scottish NFU have in their membership between 50 and 60 members who are engaged in this form of agriculture but outside NFU membership hundreds of men and women are employed in this kind of agriculture.
It is in order to bring this section of agricultural and horticultural development into the same category as in England that this amendment is moved. It is nothing new; it is exactly what has been done in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope the Government will see their way to accepting it. The reason that it was brought to my notice was that in a recent case the Strathclyde regional local valuation panel said that open growing areas planted almost wholly with the kind of fruit trees and shrubs that I have described were not devoted to agricultural usage a market garden and therefore were not entitled to have nursery ground benefits from agricultural derating. Considering that it is done in England and Wales, I think that this is a most unfair definition and I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting this amendment to be sure that in the matter of derating we have the same treatment in Scotland as obtains in England and Wales. I beg to move.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness on this. We all know how valuable are many of the things in this category which are grown in Scotland. Think of the roses, for example, which are famous. It seems to me that in this case we should be in line with the practice in England. This is not so in every case but here, in regard to the situation that we have heard described, it seems right and appropriate that we should be in line and have nursery grounds in the same category as market gardens in general.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the new clause moved by the noble Baroness. It is a growing industry, and a valuable one with considerable export potential, and it should be treated in the same way as many other aspects of

1089
agriculture. I trust that in this case the noble Earl will be able to achieve parity with England for the Scottish nurserymen. It gives me enormous pleasure to support the noble Baroness. I do it because she ordered me to do so—and it is a wonderful thing for a politician to be able to have as his reasons affection, conviction, and fear.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to say from the Cross-Benches that I support strongly the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting it. It will be good for Scotland as it is already good for England. What England deserves Scotland also deserves.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I dare not be here and not support this amendment, such is the power of the noble Baroness. But, honestly, it is only fair and right that in this particular section we should have justice and equity for Scotland and for the nursery people. It gives me great pleasure to support this amendment.
4.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, my noble friend was good enough to tell me before the weekend of her intention to move this amendment. Therefore, I am glad to say that I have not been taken by surprise. I should like to say to her and to all of the noble Lords who have gallantly rushed to her aid from all parts of the House that Scottish nurserymen are not at a disadvantage, and there is no need for this amendment. The reason I say that is this. Her new clause in effect seeks to add the term "nursery grounds" to the definitions of agricultural lands and heritages and agricultural buildings in Section 7(2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 in order to ensure that nursery grounds and their related buildings benefit from agricultural derating. The justification for the change regarding agricultural lands and heritages is that in England and Wales the definition of agricultural land in Section 26(3) of the General Rate Act 1967 already includes the term "nursery grounds".
The term "nursery" can cover both the growing of young plants for transplantation at a later stage and, more
1090
loosely, the stocking of young plants which are brought in for retail. In the former sense, "nursery grounds" are already entitled to agricultural derating in Scotland because assessors do not distinguish between land on which plants are grown for harvesting and land on which young plants are cultivated for onward growing elsewhere. The latter kind of nursery where plants are stored prior to their sale (sometimes called a "garden centre") is not entitled to derating.
The definition of "agricultural lands and heritages" in Section 7(2) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 does not include "nursery grounds" unlike the corresponding provisions in the General Rate Act 1967. But I want to reassure my noble friend that this difference is not to the disadvantage of Scottish growers because, as I said, local assessors do not distinguish between the growing of young plants in nursery beds and the growing of mature plants in, for example, fields or orchards. Nursery grounds already benefit from agricultural derating in Scotland and it is in those circumstances that the amendment is unnecessary.
As my noble friend has said, the original inspiration of the amendment was a recent appeal in Strathclyde in which a firm of landscape gardening contractors (describing itself as a nursery) was denied derating. In that case, the valuation appeal committee noted that the open ground on the contractor's premises was used, not to grow young plants, but to store young plants which had been bought in from other growers, until they were required for use in connection with the business.
That is the only case which has appeared on this subject. It is a very recent one, and one can well understand why it has caused anxiety in the minds of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. Nevertheless, I hope my noble friend will agree in the circumstances that nursery grounds in the proper sense of the term and associated buildings already benefit from agricultural derating in Scotland. The lands and heritages which appear to be excluded and not in any strict sense nursery grounds are in a different category. I hope therefore that the House will accept this assurance that there is no inequity either as between Scottish and English practice

1091
or as between Scottish and English nurserymen.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the situation. As long as it is well known and appreciated by rating authorities that nursery grounds are included, among other things, then I am satisfied and will withdraw the amendment. If there is any doubt, I trust that the Scottish Office will issue a circular of some description to give the information that this is ground which passes the test of being a market garden ground, derated ground, and there should be no doubt in the minds of rating authorities, and they cannot descend on market gardeners or other gardeners and change the rates. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Commencement and extent]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 46, line 15, after ("6(2)") insert ("and (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an essential, but minor, drafting correction to the commencement provisions for Part V of the Bill. As drafted, the Bill wrongly provides for two related provisions to come into effect at different times. These can be found in Schedule 31, paragraph 6. Under the commencement clause, sub-paragraph (2) is to come into effect only after a general rating revaluation, which is correct. Sub-paragraph (3) however would have effect on Royal Assent, which is wrong. The amendment provides that both shall commence only after a revaluation. I beg to move.
Clause 56 [The block grant]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 55, line 17, at end insert (", other than any amount payable under subsection (3) above,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment designed to ensure that Clause 56(7), which specifies that the block grant payable to an
1092
authority should not exceed its total expenditure and should not apply to any payments of grant made under Clause 56(3). Clause 56(3) allows for the possibility (should the authorities concerned request it and the Secretary of State agree) of the grant which would otherwise be payable to a county council, the GLC or ILEA to be paid instead to the districts or boroughs on which they precept. In this particular case it would be legitimate for grant paid to exceed the expenditure of the district or borough, because the precepting authorities simply receive their grant indirectly through the precept. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 55, leave out lines 30 to 32.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while we remain totally opposed to the block grant, we accept that it is probably going to be a fact of life after we have finished with this Bill in this House tonight. Therefore we thought that it would be slightly better if we could get it based on the method of equalisation known as percentage equalisation rather than that known as per capita equalisation.
I accept that this matter is very complicated to explain; I also confess that I had it explained to me by means of graphs which I could understand; but it is very difficult to show graphs across the Table of the House. The issues are: first of all, does a variation in expenditure measured in pounds per head or percentage terms give a better indication of variations in standard of service? Secondly, which of the methods is more readily understood—if either of them is?
It can be argued that the per head measures do not properly reflect the variations in need, and those who understand this principle far more clearly than I do will pose the question: Given that, because of differences in conditions between the areas, local authority A needs to spend, say, £300 a head to provide the same standard of service that could be provided by an adjacent local authority, B, for some £200 a head, could the £10 extra per head spent in authority A provide as much extra service as £10 extra per head in authority B?
If the answer is considered to be "Yes", then per head equalisation would be a fair choice. Both authorities would be able to raise the extra rate to pay for the extra £10 per head. If the answer was considered to be "No", authority A then needs to spend an extra £30 a head to provide as much extra service as authority B can provide for an extra £20 a head. Then percentage equalisation would be a fairer choice.
Authority A would only have to levy the same extra rate to pay the £30 a head extra spending as Authority B would have to raise to pay the £20 a head extra spending. The same cash increase in spending would have a different effect on the rates of the two authorities. This amendment, if acceptable, would remove the option in the Bill to choose a per capita equalisation. I hope that my perhaps inadequate explanation may convert the Minister into accepting that percentage equalisation would be the fairer way of doing it. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as I hope everyone in your Lordships' House will know by now quite clearly—I am sure they do—the purpose of the rate support grant system is to enable authorities to provide a comparable standard of service for a similar rate in the £; in other words, it is an equalising grant. This amendment is about whether the poundage cost to authorities of equal increments in expenditure should be equalised, as the noble Baroness suggested, on a per capita basis—that is, so many pounds per head (which is the present system): or on a percentage basis—that is, an increase in expenditure of X per cent.
There are arguments for and against both bases of equalisation and it is important to note that the legislation provides for both possibilities. The noble Baroness, whose amendment is designed to rule out the possibility of per capita equalisation, advanced the arguments in favour of percentage equalisation and those against per capita equalisation. I respect her point of view. But I have to say that there are arguments which can just as easily be mounted in favour of per capita equalisation—which is the established method—and against percentage equalisation.
1094
Unless pressed, I do not propose to go into these now, because this is one of the issues on which the Government will shortly have to reach a decision in the context of the forthcoming rate support grant settlement for 1981–82 and they have not yet reached a final view. For this very reason, it surely would be wrong to rule out in the legislation one of the bases of equalisation. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will consider the explanation to be a fair one and that she will understand that we do not want to accept the amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point that these are two of the options that may be open to the Secretary of State when he is considering the rate support grant and something about which he will no doubt have to consult with the local authority associations. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Adjustments block grant]:
5.3 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 58, line 25, leave out from ("Temples") to end of line 27.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again this refers to the block grant. There has been a long debate about the use of multipliers in block grant and considerable concern has been expressed about the extent to which a Secretary of State might use multipliers to produce grant penalities or advantages for certain authorities or classes of authorities. In Clause 59(6) we set out the prescripton of the purposes for which the multipliers may be used, and then Clause 59(6)(d) removes all the good work that goes before by giving the Secretary of State power to use multipliers for any purposes he chooses. We think that is too wide and that some of the misgivings at present about multipliers might disappear if the Government could accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, while I appreciate the point the noble Baroness is making, I do not accept that there is cause to be alarmed about the clause in its

1095
present form. We discussed this particular issue at Committee stage. I said then that the three specific purposes for which multipliers may be used listed in paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of Clause 59(6) are the main purposes for which multipliers are in practice likely to be used. This remains the case. But as I also said then, any other purpose not listed is by definition excluded. It surely would be imprudent on grounds simply of good administration of the new system to rule out paragraph (d), which does provide for the possibility of other uses, and that is why I cannot accept the amendment.
However, I should also point out that the power in paragraph (d), if it were used, would have to be in accordance with principles applied either to all authorities or all authorities in a class—there would be no question of picking off individual authorities. I might also point out that paragraph (d) in itself provides a safeguard against misuse of the power to use multipliers to adjust authorities' grant entitlements: it makes it clear that if the Secretary of State wants to use multipliers for any purpose other than those listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) he must spell it out—because it is a formal "determination" in his annual report to Parliament, which must be subject to a vote in another place before it can take effect. There is therefore considerable value in setting out on the face of the Bill both specific uses for multipliers and a general power. I therefore believe that there are adequate safeguards in this clause as it stands, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness would accept my views on this, because it is a very complex matter and, as I know only too well, it is sometimes very hard to absorb all these points simply cross the Table in debate
At the end of the day, that is a view one has to take. I think that the explanation given is a fair one. It is based on the Bill as it is—hopefully, the Act, as it will become—and as regards the fears that have been expressed before, I believe they are taken care of by what I have said about covering classes of authorities. That is the intention. That is the way it works, and I hope the noble Baroness may feel able at least to accept the spirit of what I am saying.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I just thank the Minister for defending what is in effect the amendment which I moved at Committee stage and which the Committee accepted. We do want to support the Minister on this because, as he has already said, nothing can be done without the approval of Parliament; and I think that is right.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we certainly accept all the safeguards and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience in spelling these out again to us. The trouble is that you cannot write safeguards into an Act of Parliament, and we have to accept them on face value. We do accept what the noble Lord said is the intention, but it is again giving very wide powers to the Secretary of State, even though he has to come to Parliament for them. There are misgivings, and I thought it only fair to raise this matter today. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 59, line 10, leave out from ("In") to end of line 15 and insert ("their application to block grant payable to a local authority for the commencing year subsections (3) and (6)(a) above shall have effect as if references to an amount determined by the Secretary of State were substituted for the references to the amount of block grant payable to the authority for the previous year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment designed to extend Clause 59(12) so that it relates to the reference to the previous year in Clause 59(6)(a) which was incorporated at Report stage. That clause provides that multipliers may be used to limit changes in the amount of block grant payable to an authority as compared with the amount payable in the previous year. In the first year of block grant, the previous year must be subject to the special definition in Clause 59(12), which already applies to another such reference in Clause 59(3). I beg to move.
Clause 60 [The Rate Support Grant Report]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 59, line 35, after ("determinations") insert ("relating to the relevant grants which are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is necessary to make it clear that the Rate Support Grant Report need only specify the determinations relating to the relevant grants. I beg to move.
Clause 68 [Rate support grant—supplementau]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 64, line 26, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment which is necessary as a result of Amendment No. 120 at Committee Stage, which added a new subsection to the clause concerned with Section 31(7) of the Education Act 1980. I beg to move.
Clause 72 [Expenditure which authorities may make]:
5.10 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 66, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("(3)(e)") and insert ("and such payments may be made, subject to section 73 below, for such purposes as the Authority think fit.
(4) In subsection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I, in moving this amendment, speak also to Amendment No. 41? These two amendments are purely technical. As it stands, Clause 72(3) provides that an authority may make in any year capital payments equal to or less than the aggregate of the amounts listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). But paragraph (f) does not give an amount; it sets out various enterprises which are included in the term "trading undertakings". These amendments will remove paragraph (f) from subsection (3) and make it into a new subsection (4). My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word of warm appreciation to the Minister for the amendment that he has moved, which will give very considerable satisfaction to many local authorities. I think I am right in saying that concealed in this amendment is an acceptance of the point made in a debate in this House. If I am correct, may I say to him that to the very high parliamentary reputation that he has built up can be added a capacity for persuading his colleagues of the wisdom of a sound argument, widely supported in this House? We very much appreciate his attitude and its accomplishment in that direction.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hill, for what he has just said. In fact, I think it is the next amendment which covers the point. Nevertheless, the sentiments are most appreciated and I am very grateful.
5.12 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 67, line 8, at end insert—
("(ix) any direct labour organisation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that, after the discussion on this amendment, I shall be able to offer the noble Lord similar felicitations to those just offered by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton. On the assumption that the efforts of local authorities will bring their direct labour organisations into that degree of efficiency which they themselves desire, and upon which the Secretary of State will insist by imposing certain obligations to yield a percentage return on capital, it is quite clear that they will make a profit. One way of encouraging or rewarding good management would be to allow local authorities to use DLO profits to supplement capital expenditure allocations. This would enable DLOs to be better equipped, and presumably, would improve their performance.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, joins me in desiring to encourage direct labour organisations to be profitable in some or all of the divisions of work. This amendment would enable them to do that. I sincerely hope, in the light of the noble Lord's exceptional

1099
geniality this afternoon, that he will find himself able to accept the amendment without any violation of his conscience, and without incurring the extreme displeasure of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I was not aware that I was being unusually genial, if "genial" is the right word. If that is so it can only be because of the approaching end of some of our labours. But I think we had better just hang on a little, because there are still some amendments to come yet—and, who knows? Nevertheless, I appreciate the spirit of what the noble Lord said. Would that I was able to be so helpful. I hope noble Lords will have noticed the fact that it was my noble friend Lord Avon who accepted the noble Baroness's amendment, so perhaps it is to him that the words should be directed on another occasion.
It is correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said, that the clause which he moved so successfully is being accepted by the Government. In fact this is, I suppose, the first occasion that we have formally said so and there will be no attempt to put it back in another place. So I think that that is the good news which the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was wanting to hear.
This amendment would add direct labour organisations to the list of trading undertakings, but one would have to say straight away that direct labour organisations are quite different in character from all the other trading undertakings listed in Clause 72. Noble Lords will see that those undertakings all perform the function of providing services for persons outside the local authority. This is obvious from the list—airports, markets, transport undertakings, places of entertainment and so on. Direct labour organisations are different. The reason for their existence is that they perform a service for their own authority. Work which they may do for some other body, as mentioned in Part III of the Bill, is ancillary and subsidiary to this basic reason for their existence.
This difference is reflected in the notion of profits of the undertaking. It will not be a simple matter to establish the profits of most of the trading undertakings concerned, but, at least, the concept of
1100
making profits out of services provided, at a charge, to other people is readily understandable. With direct labour organisations, the position is much less clear. Clearly, a direct labour organisation must charge its own authority's services account with the true cost of its work and should show a rate of return on capital employed. But that will not amount to making a profit out of the DLO's own authority.
The difficulty—and scope for confusion—of establishing what might be profit for an undertaking such as a direct labour organisation, which does most of its work for its own authority, would be enormous. In view of this and, as I said earlier, because the fundamental difference between a direct labour organisation and trading undertakings as such is so great, we could not accept this amendment. I understand the thrust behind what the noble Lord said. He asked: if it applies to one, why should it not apply to the other? I am saying, in effect, that if they were both equal and on all fours, that would be an unarguable case. While I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, who has presented cases on which he feels very deeply, and has presented them with great restraint—and I respect that—unfortunately, I see this enormous difference between the two. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am very mystified to understand just what the noble Lord is driving at. He seemed to imply that the direct labour organisations would not make a profit at all. But they must. He has himself laid down in the Bill the form in which the accounts shall he drawn up. He has himself laid down in the Bill that a rate of return on capital shall be employed. A rate of return on capital cannot, in fact, be accomplished without a profit being made.
This is the whole reason for the preparation of a revenue and expenditure account, the preparation of a balance sheet and the preparation of a statement showing the source and application of funds. It is the whole purpose of the use, after certain adjustments, of the whole system of current cost accounting, to which the noble Lord has now become addicted. But if there is no profit, his whole accounting concept collapses.

1101
A profit is made, because of the determination of the difference between the cost to the local authority of the work that it is carrying out, and the amount that has, on his own insistence, been inserted into the books of the direct labour organisation as the substitute for the invoiced selling price. He has all the matters under his control. He has made provision as to what happens when there are deficits.
Now we are asking him to make provision as to what happens to the surpluses which, if his policies are carried through, are bound to arise. It is not as though one is asking the Government to assent to the squandering of the profits that have been made. The suggestion is not that those profits should be spent outside on wild and riotous living but that they should be allowed, as a matter of accounting, to take them into account for the purposes of their capital expenditure. In other words, the more profits they make on their DLO, the more they are allowed within their capital expenditure allocation. What is unreasonable about that? I should have thought that it stood out a mile that some encouragement should be given to local authorities to utilise the returns on their capital in this way. I should be very loth to accuse the noble Lord of pedantry or anything of that kind, but may I suggest he is sticking too close to the briefs which those of us who have seen "Yes, Minister" know quite well are provided to Ministers, and that he should exercise a little common sense.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not see why one should assume in the first instance that briefs are necessarily not common sense. I could be accused, perhaps more than most, of not sticking closely to mine. Indeed, I assure the noble Lord that the complaint I get is that I depart too often from the briefs and do not stick to them.
Like most things, it is a matter of judgment. The nub of this argument is that the profits which the direct labour organisations will be making, as opposed to those which trading undertakings outside are making, come from supplying services to their own functional departments within their own authorities. The profits come from within; they make no external profits. They make the surplus from giving the service to the functional
1102
department within their own authority which places the order. Yes, indeed, a profit it is, hopefully, in accounting terms, and indeed a profit it needs to be—and will be, we hope. But I do not see how that can be compared with the profit which a trading undertaking outside makes by selling its goods or providing its services on the open market to anyone.
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.23 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 67, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, this is the last occasion, possibly, that we shall be able to refer to Clause 72 of the Bill. I am so sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, is not in his place, because I should have liked to associate myself in his hearing with what he said regarding the amendment which has been accepted. As the House will know, my noble friends and I put down an amendment in precisely the same terms as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, except that we added an exhibition centre. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he approved of the addition. It was not subtlety which led us to defer to the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and leave him to speak to his amendment from the Cross-Benches. It was merely an appreciation that his oratory would most likely be far more successful than anything which I could put over. That was a matter which was put to me by my noble friends in no uncertain terms. It was in that spirit that the House received the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, and gave its encouragement to the noble Lord the Minister to agree to the amendment.
We on our side would also like to thank the Minister for the understanding he has shown regarding this amendment, which originally was resisted. I share the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, for the way in which his conviction has now presumably been imparted to others, with the result that we now learn that this clause, as amended, will stand part of the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, as one who spoke with unusual vehemence against my noble friend when we debated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton—Amendment No. 107, as I recall it, at the last stage—I should like to add my thanks to the Government, if it is not premature to do so, for their acceptance of this amendment and for their intention to retain it, or to do their best to retain it, when it reaches another place. This is a considerable improvement of the Bill. Although I incurred the wrath of my Chief Whip in getting the amendment in at an earlier stage, I am glad that now it is going to stick.
Clause 74 [Withdrawal of specification]:
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 68, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) The same principles shall be applied to every withdrawal of specification under this section for any year.
(4) Withdrawal of specification under this section shall not have effect until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since we are going very rapidly, and helpfully so, through this Bill at Third Reading, I wonder whether your Lordships will bear with me for one moment while I refer to the basis upon which this amendment is put forward. At Clause 72(1) on page 66 of the Bill as it now stands, the Minister is empowered—indeed, it is stated to be his duty—to specify in relation to any authority an amount of prescribed expenditure for each year. If noble Lords will now turn to Clause 74(1), the Minister can withdraw a specification so far as it relates to payments which the authority have not made before it is withdrawn. That is subject to a point in subsection (2), which says that he cannot withdraw a specification if the local authority has already entered into a binding contract to spend the money, although it has not already been spent.
The purpose of the amendment is to see to it that the same principle regarding the policy of withdrawal shall apply to all local authorities and that favour will not be shown to any authority as against what may happen to others. That is
1104
the spirit, noble Lords will remember, which we discussed—indeed, the Minister emphasised it—when we looked at the block grant provisions in Clause 59. Clause 59(5)(a) says that the power
"may only be exercised—

(i) in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities; or

(ii) in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities belonging to the appropriate class".

All that this amendment therefore seeks to do is to carry through this principle in regard to the withdrawal of payments which are included in the Minister's specification so that a general and similar policy is invoked in regard to all local authorities. The purpose of the second part of the amendment is purely to see that the other place has the right to look at these matters when there is such an order for withdrawal.
Let me say at once that if the noble Lord the Minister were inclined to accept the first part of this amendment and not the second, or the second part and not the first, obviously I should be more content than if I were to hear him say that he does not accept anything at all. If the House would like to hear my own personal preference, for what it is worth—and I put it forward humbly—it would be that, if he were to dissect the amendment, the first part should prevail over the second; namely, that there should be clearly written into the Bill the spirit of fairness which is already written into the block grant provisions. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, the amendment is in two parts, and I must say at once that the intention behind the first part is not at all clear to me. It could mean either that where the Minister withdraws an expenditure allocation he must follow the principles set out in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 74, or it could mean that the Minister must not apply different principles to the withdrawal of different expenditure allocations made for the same year; but in either case the first part of the amendment seems to be confusing.
If "the same principles" is meant to refer to the principles set out in subsection (1) and (2), then I would say that the Minister is already bound to apply those principles, and the amendment

1105
would do nothing to strengthen or weaken that obligation in any way. If on the other hand the amendment is meant to provide that the Minister may apply whatever principles he likes to the withdrawal of expenditure allocations in any year, on condition that these principles should not vary from one place to another, then this seems to me like a reduction in flexibility in the way the system will work; and, may I say, rather an arbitrary loss of flexibility at that.
While the second part of the amendment certainly has the virtue of clarity, I would argue that it is no more desirable than the first. I can quite understand—and indeed I sympathise with—the thinking behind the second part, which is that the Government should not be able to withdraw expenditure allocations so suddenly as to cause destruction in a local authority's capital programming. As I said at Report stage, we recognise the possibility of such destruction if the Minister ever found it necessary to take back an expenditure allocation once he had made it. The amendment would oblige the Minister to seek approval by a resolution of the House of Commons before the withdrawal of an allocation could be effective. This would mean that the Minister would not be able to withdraw an allocation without making it known, some considerable time before the event, that he intended to withdraw it.
Clause 74(2) provides that the Minister cannot withdraw an expenditure allocation in so far as it relates to payments which an authority is contractually bound to make. That is to ensure that no authority can be put in the position of having to break contractual obligations through the withdrawal of an allocation. But if the Minister had to give a substantial period of warning that he intended to withdraw an allocation there would be nothing to prevent the authority concerned from entering into contractual commitments that could make it impossible for the withdrawal to take effect. In other words, the amendment could mean that the Minister's power to withdraw allocations would be useless in practice.
I am convinced that that would not be in the national interest and, as I said in several earlier debates, it is the national interest which is of paramount importance. The situation could arise, although
1106
we all hope very much that it will not, where the only way in which a Government could prevent a national overspend would to be to withdraw all unspent and uncommitted allocations with immediate effect. The amendment would jeopardise our ability to take that remedial action. For that reason and for the reasons I gave earlier—and I think that the second reason is a particularly powerful one—I fear that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord IRVING of DARTFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to bear with me a moment, I should like to raise one point, although I am not absolutely certain that it is exactly on this amendment. There are large numbers of authorities who have contractual obligations in terms of capital projects at the moment, and if the specification were to be withdrawn and the money which is available at the moment, either in terms of capital receipts or in terms of balances, were not available, this would create a critical situation. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give me an assurance that, as a transitional measure, the Minister will see those projects through to an end.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, there is no need, because we have made it clear that, where a contractual obligation is undertaken, that simply stands. There is no question that it can be interfered with in any way.
Lord IRVING of DARTFORD: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister for some further elucidation. Where there is a contractual arrangement where, for example, a building has been put out to contract in its entirely, that is quite clear—and I understand the point that has been made, but if, for example, there is a management contract where there may be, as part of the total project, 30 or 40 contracts, some not yet let but essential to the total construction of the building, would his point cover that situation as well?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, that is a very interesting point and offhand I would say that it would not be covered. In other words, in such an event the authority would not be able to enter into the further commitment to finish off

1107
—or whatever it may be. I recognise the significance of what I am saying, but I hope we are talking about rare situations, and it would only be if the national interest was felt to be in jeopardy that such action would take place. I have said all along that this is a reserved kind or situation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, puts it extremely well and has done many times throughout the whole of the discussions on these matters, but that is the position at the end of the day.
Lord IRVING of DARTFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that these may be expensive buildings, five, six or seven-eighths completed, but totally unable to be used and an expensive waste of money, whichever way they are looked at.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Minister will consider the last statement made by my noble friend, and we will deal with it after he has given consideration to it, possibly through another medium.
I have had occasion to say to this House more than once that local authorities resent some of the powers given in this Bill, because they are being treated like children. When I heard my noble friend a moment ago answer the amendment which I had ventured to table for the consideration of your Lordships, I felt that I had to turn my phrase into "being treated like naughty children." Your Lordships have been invited to consider the proposition that when a Minister intimates that he is about to withdraw a specification because money has not been spent by a local authority, that local authority will immediately—if the Minister cannot carry out his intimation immediately and make it effective—enter into a contract in order to see that the money is spent or contracted for, and therefore the Minister will be done out of his direction or withdrawal. As I said before, this is really going too far. It will lead to such a resentment among local authorities as in my judgment—and I say this most humbly—will lead to a deterioration of the relationship between central Government and local authorities to an extreme degree.
I am not going to weary your Lordships with a long speech, but I did not hear the
1108
noble Lord the Minister say why it was that in Clause 59 of this Bill it is possible for a power which dealt with the determination of different multipliers for different authorities to be limited, by a statement that that power can only be exercised in accordance with principles to be applied to all local authorities and why it is possible to do that in regard to multipliers and it is not possible to do that in regard to the principle of withdrawals. All I am seeking to do by this amendment is to see that the same principles are adopted by the Minister so that the question of equity and fairness can be made abundantly clear.
I appreciate what the noble Lord the Minister has said in regard to the approval of another place, and I shall not weary your Lordships with any further discussion of that topic; but I hope that on consideration the Minister—even if he wants to alter the wording—will at least agree that it is right that, when you withdraw from a local authority a specification you have given them for expenditure, because they have not yet spent it, the same principles will have to apply with regard to that policy to all local authorities, without, of course, any preference one against the other. It is that principle that I tried to enunciate and I hope that at the last minute, even if he wants to alter the wording, the noble Lord the Minister can concede that it is a principle worth agreeing to.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not know that I can add much to what I said before. I think we may be on slightly different ground here; I suspect we probably are. To me the great strength of the argument that I was putting was the one where the noble Lord asked, "Would authorities behave like naughty children?" That is not the term I would use, but I would have to say that in my experience it is not unknown for authorities, either anticipating or knowing that certain directions will take place, to take steps to, if you like, nip in beforehand. I think in some instances this is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, do they in Leeds?
Lord BELLWIN: Well, my Lords, I am not going to say. Certainly it is the kind of matter that one has thought about.

1109
I think it would be unrealistic not to assume at all that it could happen, and that is really what I am saying.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 86 [Distribution of planning functions between planning authorities]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 78, line 37, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a pure technicality which is necessary, after the insertion of subsection (3) into Clause 86 in Committee, to clarify what the succeeding subsections refer to. I beg to move.
Clause 87 [Fees for planning applications, etc.]:
5.42 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 82, line 15, at end insert—
("(b) to a County Planning Authority in England or Wales in respect of any application by a body referred to in paragraphs 1(d) (h) and (i) of Schedule 19 for an authorisation which, if granted, would result in a deemed planning consent.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 together, as they hang together, and, before I move them, to correct a small misprint in Amendment No. 44. The third line should read
"paragraphs 1(d), (h) and (j)
, not
(i) of Schedule 19".
This is a misprint which I hope can be seen if one refers to the schedule.
I should explain, in view of what has been said this afternoon, why I am raising this subject on Third Reading. I put down these amendments on Committee but they got muddled up with the debate on the Question that the clause stand part, and in the interests of supper, if I remember rightly, I was very popular with your Lordships when I withdrew them so that they would be debated at a later stage. I should, of course, have put them down on Report, but for two reasons I did not.
1110
One was that I had not by then received what I regard as a less than satisfactory reply from my noble friend Lord Bellwin, which I subsequently did receive, and, secondly, I was not sure that I could be here on that day. However, the matter was briefly touched on at Report stage, and my noble friend said, without quoting him at length, that he did not rule out what I am trying to do. So I did warn of this amendment at Third Reading, and hope that with that explanation your Lordships will allow me to proceed.
We are talking here about the question of payment for applications for planning permission. I am well aware that this is very unpopular in many parts of your Lordships' House, but we have made the decision, rightly or wrongly, that such payments will be introduced for such applications and we must stand by the decision. It was very thoroughly debated, and I for one supported it. What I am saying here is that if we accept that principle, as we must do, we must support the principle that no one should be exempt from these charges, that the Government cannot exempt itself or the nationalised industries, which, under the planning Acts, are deemed to have planning permission and do not technically require it from the planning authority. I believe it is quite wrong that the Government should exempt itself. I think it does itself great damage by trying in effect to excuse itself from its own laws and what will be an unpopular process. It will be resented, however desirable I may think it is, and it will be seen as clobbering the private sector at the expense of the public sector, and that is not what this Government should be doing.
I want to quote from advice which was given by the Government itself, by the Department of the Environment. I am sure my noble friend is well aware of the advice. Circular 7/77 reads:
"Advice to county councils with regard to development by bodies entitled to Crown exemption under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts: the Department of the Environment urge that Government development proposals should be processed in the same way as if they were a planning application, that similar publicity should be given to such proposals as would have been given to a planning application, and that the views of the county planning authority upon such proposals should be made known within the same timescale as that which applies to a planning application".

1111
So the Government itself is treating such applications as though they were planning applications. Therefore, I submit that the cause of charging for these is a very real one and should be supported.
Moreover, of course such proposals are normally on a scale which far transcends that of normal development. I gave examples of this at Committee stage and I shall not repeat them. They very much tend to be the larger planning applications, which cause a great deal of work and worry to all planning authorities. My amendment gives the Secretary of State power to make such charges generally if he thinks fit, and I am not suggesting what they should be. Of course, I suppose that, if they so wish, the Government can always reimburse the nationalised industries for such charges as may be levied. Perhaps it will be said that such charges will be relatively minute in comparison with the amount of money which most of our nationalised industries manage to lose in any one year, but that is not the subject of the debate. Some of them are very profitable and could well afford to pay the charges that should be levied. It may be said also that this is only public money circulating from one pocket to another. But in the context we have at the moment, with local authorities so often being accused of extravagance, I think that the true costs of such applications should lie where they fall, and I submit that this means that deemed consents should be treated in the same way as if they were applications for planning permission.
The second amendment is necessary because otherwise the opencast coal division of the National Coal Board, which has its own special Act of 1958, could be exempt from the net in which I wish to include it. The Secretary of State for Energy in this case gives himself planning permission after such consultations. These consultations are quite different from the normal form, and I leave it to your Lordships' imagination to picture the violent reactions to such opencast operations now and in the past. I have suffered perhaps more than most from this in my own case and I know a great deal about it. Lest it be thought that I am declaring a special interest, it might be of interest to your Lordships to know that next week the Warwickshire
1112
County Council will be considering, and I believe is recommended to oppose, a proposal that some 90 hectares of land in a built up area should be opencast mined for coal. So your Lordships can see the seriousness of this. Even if it is a profitable operation for the country as a whole, the point is that the opencast coal operations should bear the same charge for planning applications as if they needed planning permission under the planning Acts.
It cannot be right that there should be one law for the private sector and another for the public sector. The public sector cannot opt out of charges. As I have said, we have accepted the principle of charges. I am not against nationalised industries and I am not against procedures where planning permission is deemed to be given by the State. I merely wish to be fair between both sectors and I wish to push this amendment as hard as I can. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: My Lords, the amendment proposed is to insert the words on the Marshalled List, subject to the letter (j) being substituted for the letter (i) in the third line.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I must rise to support my noble friend Lord Ridley in pressing this amendment most vigorously upon my noble friend, and I hope my noble friend will accept it. The House did hear the argument he raised against it at the earlier stage and will be in a position to judge what weight it had. I think, if I may say so, it was a respectable argument, but it has to be set against the much wider considerations of public fairness; my noble friend has already elaborated this and I do not need to say much more in support of it.
The situation we face is that the Government are seeking to introduce planning fees—and they are controversial enough, though I support them—in order to reduce public expenditure. Without this amendment we shall introduce planning fees in order to reduce public expenditure and then exempt all the public authorities from having to pay them. That really is an absurd situation, and the resentment that it will cause when planning fees are introduced generally in the private sector of industry and among individuals certainly

1113
cannot be contemplated. We shall have individual householders going along to obtain a planning permission for some extension or alteration to their own property and having to pay a fee for that. We shall have the National Coal Board or the Atomic Energy Authority or the Public Services Agency going along and making application for planning permission which will involve the local authority concerned in a public local inquiry perhaps lasting for three months, and being exempted from paying any fees at all. That is a perfectly intolerable situation and I cannot conceive that this Government would want to support it for one moment.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ridley knows, I have differed from him and from my noble friend Lord Bellwin throughout on this question of introducing charges for planning applications. I still think that they are wrong in principle and harmful in practice. But, your Lordships have decided otherwise and we must, as my noble friend Lord Ridley has said, therefore, accept them. I wholly join with him, on that basis, in being very critical of the Government's attempt to exempt themselves and the nationalised industries from this imposition.
If these charges are right then surely they must be right for everybody. Surely this Government, of all governments, should not be seen to discriminate against private enterprises and in favour of public bodies. I think that my noble friend Lord Ridley is logical and right in moving this amendment and I shall listen with great interest to my noble friend Lord Bellwin's attempt to justify what the Government propose. I know that he can justify most things—he has shown that throughout the progress of this Bill—but he will have to be rather on his mettle as regards this matter.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am so glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because for the very first time, as a newcomer to this House—but as one who has so much enjoyed participating with your Lordships' courtesy in its debates—I am able to agree with what the noble Lord has said.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I must be wrong!
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I shall wait to see, if the House divides, where the noble Lord casts his vote. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord has said in much more eloquent and clear terms than I could employ. But, it so happened that from these Benches I too opposed the whole idea of planning fees and I was able on behalf of my noble friends to move an amendment at least to exempt certain classes of planning fees from being charged and the Government were good enough to accept that amendment.
We, on this side of the House, would not wish in any way at all to claim that it was either equitable or fair that once the idea of planning fees is accepted—as it would appear to be accepted by this House and will now be written into the Act—nationalised industries should be exempt. I hope that that is an exhibition of the fairness and equity with which all my noble friends are clothed. It will be interesting, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, to listen to a Conservative Minister oppose an Opposition Front Bench on the issue of nationalised industries being exempt, when the Opposition Front Bench is saying that, in its view, they should not be.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I should like to say from these Benches that we very much support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. We do not mind on these Benches—perhaps because we have fairly few friends—where we find our friends, whether they be the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
I must say, as other noble Lords have said, that I am very strongly opposed in principle to the application of charges for planning consents. But, having said that—and we have debated the matter at length and I have divided your Lordships' House on part of it myself—once we have reluctantly accepted the principle, it seems to me absolutely wrong that the nationalised industries and deemed planning consents should be excepted.
There is already a great deal of resentment about local authorities giving themselves planning consents. It causes and has caused over the years a very great deal of resentment in all local authority areas

1115
where the private developer has to put in a detailed planning application and the matter is debated and discussed, and the local authority very often puts through a whole estate of houses without having any discussion or debate on the deemed basis. If we now extend this and exempt them from charges in addition, I think that it will cause, rightfully, as several noble Lords have said, a great cleat of cynicism and a great deal of resentment.
Put very simply, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I hope, if the noble Lord the Minister is not willing immediately to accept this amendment—and I hope he will—that the matter will be taken to a Division, because I think that your Lordships feel, in a majority, very strongly against this exemption.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to ask one question. I am entirely in favour of every word that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said. I was against the proposal to charge for planning authority. However, in this amendment, I note that my noble friend Lord Ridley talks about England and Wales. Do I take it that we in Scotland are in the happy position of escaping from this, or are the nationalised industries to get away scot-free in Scotland, as they are in England and Wales? If so, I am dead against it. Unfortunately the clause about charging for planning has been accepted and is in the Bill, but I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that the nationalised industries should be included. So, I should like to know whether this amendment and the whole principle apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. If that is so, it only makes me feel more against it than I was previously.
Lord DIGBY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, drew the distinction in Committee between consultations and the power of deciding planning applications. I should like to point out that in this case there would be a power of deciding if the applicant was not a Government body. Therefore, this is not consultations in the true sense; it is an alternative to the planning application.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it seems as if I really need to emulate Houdini; but I think that I can do just that. Let me say at once that I really do not know what this is all about. I do not know why there is all this major concern. Let me make it absolutely clear—and I sincerely hope that this will assuage the major concern of my noble friends, and indeed of noble Lords opposite—that, in fact, with three exceptions to which I shall refer in a moment, all nationalised industries make planning applications and will pay charges for so doing. That surely is the matter which is causing most concern.
The three that do not are the following: first, the opencast coalmines, which are dealt with under special legislation—I do not have the details of it, but no doubt I could get it fairly quickly—and the other two are the CEGB transmission lines and power stations which, under Section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which I have here, have a special release entirely outside this Bill. Furthermore, the amendment would not bring Crown development within charges, because Crown development is already outside planning legislation as a whole. I shall in a moment give the other reasons why we take this view, but I must say that I admire my noble friend's persistence in pressing this matter.
The one point which seems to be troubling most of your Lordships is the question of fairness. I say at once that I absolutely concur in this. How could I say otherwise? The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is quite right. How could I say otherwise than that, of course it would, in my opinion, be unjust. But I am happy to say that the nationalised industries do come within this sphere, with the three exceptions which I have mentioned, all of which have special circumstances and situations. They cannot in any way be considered in the generality of nationalised industries.
The amendments propose a widening of the scope of charging beyond the area of planning applications and related approvals, and into certain consultations undertaken as part of the process of obtaining approval for developments by statutory undertakers. I have just mentioned what those are. It has been argued that from the local authorities'

1117
point of view, dealing with consultations about "deemed consents" is a task which is equivalent to considering and determining a planning application. From that it is argued that it should be possible to recover some of the administrative cost from charges. Nevertheless, I think that we should preserve the distinction here between consultations and the power of deciding planning applications. There is a wide range of matters on which local authorities are consulted in one way or another, even in the field of planning. For example, we are setting up new arrangements for districts to consult counties about planning applications under the provisions of Clause 86. To charge for consultations raises a new principle which goes beyond the proposal that we have put forward in Clause 87.
I notice in particular that the amendment provides only for fees to be paid to counties. But, by the extension of that principle, I would have expected fees to be paid to districts where they, too, were consulted in these cases. Where local authorities consult other bodies—if you like, water authorities or parish councils—should they not also receive a proportion of the fee? It becomes apparent very quickly that if we are to move far in this direction we shall lose sight of the purpose of these charges, which is to offset the public expenditure involved in development control and to shift some of the burden of financing it away from the ratepayer and taxpayer.
Therefore, in charging for consultations we risk creating an expensive and complex bureaucratic procedure for passing payments, or proportions of payments between bodies inside the public sector. I would not wish it to appear that the Government are unsympathetic to the thought behind this amendment. I said so, I think at Committee stage or Report stage—it all seems so long ago. For who would not be sympathetic towards the simplistic argument of the equity of charges applying as much to nationalised bodies as to everybody else? I go with that 100 per cent. But I hope that I have been able to show that it applies to all the nationalised industries, with the three specific exceptions which I have mentioned, and that we are not now seeking to exclude them in the Bill but that, for whatever reasons were decided in the past, they are already excluded by virtue of other
1118
legislation. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to accept that explanation and perhaps not press his amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, would he be good enough to inform the House of the clause in the Bill which exempts the three classes to which he refers?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I would refer to Section 40 at page 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That applies to transmission lines and power stations. The opencast coal mines have special legislation and I shall get that information in a few moments. If I could read the writing before me I would give it to noble Lords now.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be as helpful as he always is. If I may be very frank with him, the difficulty I find myself in—and other Members of your Lordships' House may be in the same difficulty—is that we are dealing with a provision which enacts that planning fees may be charged by order of the Minister, and we went into that very fully in a previous debate in your Lordships' House. What I cannot find in this enabling, empowering clause is any exception which relates back to the Town and Country Planning Act, or anything else. I am sure that it is my fault, and I merely rise to seek clarification and not because I am trying to make a clever point.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, who so often comes to my help, assures me that you do not have to apply for planning consent. I have before me a piece of paper which says that, in fact, Section 2 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 covers the point about opencast coal mining. The point I make is that, with the three exceptions that I have mentioned, for the specific reason I have given, nothing in what we propose in the Bill sets out to exclude any nationalised bodies. They all fall within this Bill; they will all have to make applications and pay charges.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, I seem to have caused a positive flurry of pieces of paper from behind my noble friend, and for that I apologise; I have never

1119
seen so much paper change hands in such a short time. I am afraid that I cannot reply to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood about Scotland; I would never dare to speak in her presence about Scotland. I am talking about England and Wales, and I have no doubt that, as always, Scotland will follow where we lead.
I do not accept the Minister's argument. No doubt he is much better acquainted with some of the details of the Bill than I am, but my amendment would make it clear beyond doubt that all nationalised industries would be included. I refer your Lordships to Schedule 19 where it refers to Government departments in
paragraph (d), nationalised industries, roughly speaking, in paragraph (h), and statutory undertakers in paragraph (j). We are talking about:
"… authorisation which, if granted, would result in a deemed planning consent".
I believe that the amendment is unacceptable to the Government. I believe that it is right that I should press it, for the reasons that have been advanced by so many noble Lords on all sides of the House, and I ask your Lordships to accept it.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Phillips, B.

Amherst, E.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Glenamara, L.

Raglan, L.

Banks, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ridley, V. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rochester, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Hampton, L.

Sandford, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Blyton, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shannon, E.

Bradford, E.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stamp, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Caithness, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chitnis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strauss, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

McCluskey, L.

Swinfen, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davidson, V.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

Melchett, L.

Wade, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Digby, L.

Monson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Whaddon, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Fortescue, E.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cockfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Colwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Avon, E.

Craigton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Bellwin, L.

Croft, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gainford, L.

Bessborough, E.

De Freyne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Glenkinglas, L.

Boardman, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dudley, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L. (L. Chancellor.)

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles, V.

Halifax, E.

Cairns, E.

Elibank, L.

Hanworth, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Harvington, L.

Cathcart, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Chelwood, L.

Faithfull, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Ilchester, E.

Marley, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Ironside, L.

Middleton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Kemsley, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Selsdon, L.

Kilmany, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimberley, E.

Mottistone, L.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Kinnaird, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Northchurch, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Nunburnholme, L.

Swansea, L.

Liverpool, E.

Onslow, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Orkney, E.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Vickers, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vivian, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

Mansfield, E.

St. Germans, E.

Young, B.

Margadale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.15 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 82, line 15, at end insert—

("(b) to a County Planning Authority in England or Wales in respect of a consultation relating to an application made to the Secretary of State for Energy under the Opencast Coal Act 1958.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already debated this. My noble friend said it was one of the few exemptions. In the circumstances I will not force a Division, but I hope very much that the points I have made will be taken into account in due course when planning authorities come into being.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
("Planning permission
. The grant or refusal of planning permission shall be in writing signed on behalf of the appropriate local planning officer and any document purporting to grant or refuse planning permission which is so signed shall be conclusive evidence that such permission has been lawfully granted or referred as the case may be by the appropriate local planning authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that at Report stage on this Bill I moved the two amendments which are identical with those before your Lordships today, but I withdrew them in certain circumstances. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to carry on with the speed with which the Third Reading is being conducted by speaking to Amendments
1122
Nos. 46 and 47, if your Lordships will approve this, and then possibly taking them separately if in his reply the Minister finds that that is necessary. This is purely for the purpose of clarifying the law as it stands, first of all in regard to the validity of a planning permission and, secondly, the time from which the planning permission should run. At the moment the law is far from clear and it is the opportunity, which we ought not to miss, to see that the law is clarified and made certain in this Bill.
It can be appreciated that anyone receiving a planning permission, unless the matter of validity were made completely clear, would have to inquire whether before the permission was granted the authority that gave it had carried out the necessary consultations which are set out in this Bill; because it might be held subsequently that if those consultations had not been carried out the planning permission was invalid. That is an unhappy situation which your Lordships obviously would not wish to see; so Amendment No. 46 sets out clearly, I hope, the position of the validity of a planning permission and the fact that if it is signed in the appropriate way there is conclusive evidence that it has been granted properly. It has just been pointed out to me that there is a mis-type in the last line but one of Amendment No. 46; the word "referred" obviously should be "refused". I hope your Lordships will permit me so to amend the amendment.
When this was dealt with at the Report stage the Minister said, at column 318 of the Official Report of 28th October 1980:
"The Government appreciate the desirability of clarifying exactly what constitutes a decision on a planning application. The existing legisla-

1123
tion and decisions of the courts leave the position unclear. Our own proposals for clarifying the position had to be excluded from the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill for lack of space. The noble Lord "—
which was a kindly reference to me—
"has put forward his own proposals, on lines different from the Government's, and I am grateful to him for his efforts in tackling this problem".
Later, at column 319, the Minister said:
"… I accept that there are differences of opinion as to how the existing legislation should be clarified. I wonder whether, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments so that all concerned can give more thought to the matter and bring forward some considered proposals on another occasion. I must tell him that I am not certain what I mean by 'on another occasion', in the sense whether or not we are referring to the last stage of the Bill or if it will be later. I suspect that it will be later. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that this is very much a technical matter, as we see it".
Then my last quotation is from what I said just before I withdrew the amendment, and the noble Minister did not dissent. This is at column 320:
"I should be the last person in the world to try to press these amendments on your Lordships if the Minister has said, as I understand he has said, that he realises the problem and that something has got to be done in the Bill itself to make these positions perfectly clear. In view of the elementary nature of the problem, if I may say so, I hope that this can be done by Third Reading. It does not seem to me to present so many difficulties. I can merely ask the Minister to do his best to do it by Third Reading; in any event, I am sure he will do it before the Bill leaves this House. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw this amendment…".
I referred then to the same situation applying to the next amendment, and that amendment is now Amendment No. 47. That deals with the effective date of a planning permission being indeed the date when the resolution is passed by the local authority, or under subordinate powers dealt with by the planning officer who has the delegated power to do it. The question, of course, as to whether appeal times and so on should date from the time of the making of the resolution to grant the permission, or indeed to refuse it, is a separate matter, and I imagine that the noble Minister may want to repeat what he said before, with which I do not quarrel at all: that time in respect of appeals and matters of that kind should indeed run from the date of the receipt of the planning permission by the applicant and not, obviously, from the date when the resolution is passed.
I apologise for bringing these matters again before the House, but the Government have recognised that the law is unclear on both these matters and have recognised the need for clarification. The clarification should be in this Bill, and as this is the last opportunity I may have of referring to the matter, I thought your Lordships would think it proper for me to bring the amendment back again, especially in view of the assuranceses given by the noble Minister at Report stage. I beg to move.
6.23 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I put to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a problem on both Amendment No. 46 and Amendment No. 47? On Amendment No. 46, I know of four cases where the question, "What and when was the planning permission" has been before the courts. In two of them the courts have held that the document which was purporting to grant the planning permission was completely invalid and void: in the one case because the officer had written exactly the opposite of what the committee had decided and had granted planning permission when they had refused it; and in the second case, which was the famous supermarket in South Wales, where the clerk of the district council purported to grant a planning permission when he had neither the authority of his district council nor of the county planning authority which actually ought to have been seized of the matter in the first place. In both events the courts overruled the apparent effect of the document, but they would not be able to do, I think, without great difficulty if the document was conclusive evidence.
The two other cases did not raise quite these matters but they would have been equally difficult, because in one which was in fact settled there was never a document which granted planning permission at all. There was a resolution of the committee which was followed by the issue of a refusal notice, and eventually the local authority decided that they would agree that planning permission had been granted, but for reasons that I have never understood they still refused to issue a document to that effect, and the planning permission is enshrined in the consent order in the High Court.

1125
I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, thinks those situations fit into the concept of conclusive evidence because I, with respect, do not. On Amendment No. 47 the question I would briefly ask him under paragraph (b) is, what document is there in the world which rescinds a decision to grant, or indeed rescinds a decision to withdraw a planning permission? I know of no such thing within the Town and Country Planning Act—certainly not one that can be done by an officer under Section 101. I simply wonder what on earth the noble Lord is referring to.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, what an interesting and erudite intervention I have to deal with. I shall do my best knowing that something of what I say ought to make sense in view of the fact that the very specialist committee of the Law Society which sat on this matter, and indeed dealt with the provisions of this Bill, has put forward the very amendments which I have ventured to put before the House, as I told the House at Report stage. Having, therefore, endeavoured to shift any blame that there may be in a most cowardly fashion, may I endeavour to deal with both the points made by the noble Viscount.
In regard to the first point, I should have thought that the answer was that this merely refers to the validity of a permission in respect of the lawful granting of it. In other words, if indeed a local authority has granted it, and there is a permission, then it shall be deemed to have been lawfully granted without the recipient of this permission having to inquire whether the necessary consultations, for example, have taken place.
In the interesting and intriguing example which the noble Viscount gave the House where the authority had not granted it in fact and an officer had made a mistake, I would respectfully say, especially when you look at the second amendment, that the permission had in fact never been granted at all, and that the whole substratum of the case brought before the court was to the effect that the permission had never in fact been granted. I should have thought that that was the answer to that one, and that it was indeed dealt with by the use of the words "lawfully granted". As I said in the other case, it would not have been granted at all.
1126
In answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount on Amendment No. 47, I am led to believe-I am not by any means coming before your Lordship as an expert in planning matters—that where there is in fact a rescision of a decision to grant, or withdraw, planning permission, this is in fact notified to the person who is interested by a document. All that this says is that if there is such a document then the date of it, or the effective date of it, is as set out in this amendment. I should have thought that there was not very much harm in the wording here, if indeed that is not so, because if there is no such document then the clause will not have that effect. I am sure that the noble Viscount will be able to sleep tonight on that assurance.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships have listened to two very interesting amendments, and as they have been put forward with much skill by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on two occasions now, and behind them stands the Law Society, I feel that they would be a matter of great interest to your Lordships. The noble Lord had just said that not much harm is to be attached to the words of the second amendment, but as we are going to deal with both amendments together perhaps I may be permitted to tackle them in like manner to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The noble Lord sets forward his case with the very laudable intent of clarifying the law. But for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who would have thought that his case was anything other than highly satisfactory on the face of it? But, my Lords, we have very sound reason to doubt it. These amendments deal with the validity of planning decisions and their effective date, and during the debate on precisely similar amendments which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Report stage, my noble friend Lord Bellwin pointed out that the Government accepted the need for clarification of what constitutes a decision on a planning application, and indeed that our own proposals on this particular matter were only excluded from this Bill because of lack of space.
During that debate my noble friend also pointed out, however, some of the problems we see coming from these

1127
amendments. The debate on that occasion was a rather technical legal one and I would not wish to take up your Lordships' time now in going through these difficulties to any great extent. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Bell-win asked the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whether he would withdraw his amendment to enable all concerned to give further thought to the matter so that proposals could be brought forward on another occasion, and the noble Lord quoted Hansard. But what he did not quote was the very last sentence of my noble friend's statement, and perhaps I may quote it here. It is once again, as he rightly said, from column 319 of the Official Report for Tuesday, 28th October. My noble friend's closing words were:
"I hope that I have said enough to indicate that this is very much at technical matter, as we see it."
Lord MISHCON: I am sure the noble Minister will allow me to intervene, if only so that I shall be shown never to have tried to mislead the House. Indeed I quoted that sentence very clearly and read right to the end of that quotation, as he will see in tomorrow's Hansard if he looks at it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I must apologise both to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to the House. I did not hear that, and I must not have been listening. I believe that this amendment and its successor are both very much more technical in nature and very much more substantial in nature than your Lordships have perhaps been led to believe. This is not something that can be done within the timescale of this Bill. The Government's own proposals have had to be dropped because of lack of space, as I have said already, and because this subject bears only a peripheral relation to the provisions of this Bill. There are other interested parties, outside Government who should be given an opportunity to give their views. My Lords, the Government's own proposals have evoked considerable differences of opinion and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, therefore, to accept my assurances that we will look further into this matter in the light both of his proposals and of our different proposals, and would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I did receive an assurance at Report stage that this would have the immediate consideration, or the fairly immediate consideration, of the Government. That assurance has now been repeated. Although I would have hoped that something could have been done in the intervening period, I think it would be singularly ungracious of me not to withdraw the amendment in the circumstances; but I would plead with the Government that this is a very important matter, that it is essential that the law should be clear on these vital aspects of planning, and that I hope that all the consultations will therefore take place with the usual urgency which the Government attach to most matters.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I should like to make one point clear. As we see it, we believe the first amendment goes much too far in making all documents valid on planning decisions, no matter what misdemeanour has taken place. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has indicated so clearly to your Lordships a misdemeanour which happened in a particular instance, and a second one. This lead to the decision; and also it conflicts with other provisions which courts would have to sort out. My Lords, I think there is a severe and much more serious matter to be considered here.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble Minister has said nothing which leads me to alter what I previously said to your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 126 [Sums to be paid to the Secretary of State]:
6.34 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 115, line 3, at end insert ("and shall have regard to the programme of planned development of the town.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I refer your Lordships to Clause 126, again, because we move very fast and we are now dealing with the question of new towns and your Lordships will recall the quite

1129
fervent debate which took place both at Committee and Report stages on the powers that are given to the Minister to direct that payments shall be made by new towns, and the only limitation which is put upon that power is one that he shall consult. Your Lordships will remember that there were amendments brought forward to limit that power. They were brought forward at Committee stage, and it is rather essential that I remind your Lordships of what happened on that occasion.
At Committee stage, and after a very full debate from all parts of your Lordships' House, there was a very definite expression of concern about this unlimited power of the Minister, and as a result an amendment was put to your Lordships in Committee that there should be added to the words "before giving a direction "—I am quoting from the Bill:—
"Before giving a direction under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the corporation or, as the case may be, the Commission …".
Your Lordships divided on this matter and the Division was carried against the Government—and thre were noble Lords participating in that vote in favour of this amendment, I repeat, from all parts of the House. This was the amendment:
"… and shall satisfy himself that such payment does not undermine the programme of planned development of the town and is consistent with the principles of sound financial management of his assets".
That amendment having been carried against the Government at Report stage, the Government sought to remove the amendment, and there was an expression of opinion—I think I am correctly paraphrasing some of the speeches that were made, again from all parts of the House—and some concern that, on consideration, perhaps the power of the Minister was being limited too much and too vaguely if one considered the fact that he had to take into account the principles of sound financial management of his assets. I can remember speeches being made from the Benches opposite, I believe I am right in saying from the Cross-Benches, too, which intimated that if only there had been a watering-down of this limitation, then there would be very much in the minds of your Lordships the view that there should be a limitation, but that this was too wide, this was too strong, this was too general, this was too vague.
So I come back, if I may, appealing to all sections of the House, and saying very deliberately that there is not a scrap of politics in this at all. I say that because the politics, if you like, was in the point that the Minister should not be able to direct new towns in this way. But once you concede, as one has to concede because of the vote of the House, that the Minister should be able to direct, would your Lordships really think that the functions of this House as a revising Chamber, a thoughtful Chamber, were being carried out if there was no limitation at all, even in the sense that the Minister had to take into account what were the plans of the new towns for the future?
This is really what this amendment means: the present plans and the future plans, must he take them into account? It does not mean to say that if the new towns put forward a case he has got to accept it. It merely says he has got to take it into account, but he cannot be ruthless in his demand that the new town pays a certain sum of money. Having cut in two the amendment that was first passed in Committee and having removed the vague element, and therefore the argument that was against it on Report, I hope your Lordships will consider it right that the amendment as it stands should be carried.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made clear, the amendment returns to ground which we debated exhaustively both in Committee and on Report and on which we divided. Throughout the debates the noble Lord has expressed fears about the lack of a direct precedent for the wording of this clause. He has wanted to see the powers of the Secretary of State limited in some way by the wording of the clause. I think his latest attempt is an improvement on the previous one, since it would make the decisions of the Secretary of State less susceptible to delay through challenge in the courts. However, I still cannot advise the House to accept the amendment, and I will explain why.
When we last debated this point I explained that we could not look at the powers which the clause would confer in isolation. Whatever the Bill says, the application of the powers will have to take account of the many factors applying in the real world. As I said on Report,

1131
in the real world any Secretary of State would have to take into account the two factors that were mentioned in the previous amendment to the clause. These were the planned development of the town and the principles of sound financial management. The noble Lord's amendment is therefore unnecessary since the Secretary of State will be bound, in the nature of things, to have regard to the planned development. But those are not the only factors that would have to be taken into account. Quite apart from any factors of national policy, the needs of the planned development of other new towns into which the assets realised might be ploughed back would be very relevant.
The amendment therefore seems to me to single out one of the many factors to be taken into account and enshrine it in the Bill, thus giving it undue prominence. If it is a question of comparing the need of a nearly completed new town for some desirable, but not essential, element to round off its development with the need of a third-generation new town still in the full flood of development for some essential element of infrastructure, I know to which factor I would want to give more weight. Yet with the noble Lord's amendment it would be the needs of the nearly-completed town to which the statute would direct the Secretary of State to pay attention.
Furthermore—and I make this point in no sense as a carping criticism—the amendment is not clear. It would direct the Secretary of State to pay attention to the "planned development of the town". But the Commission for the New Towns is already responsible for seven towns. The Bill would leave it to the commission to decide in which of its seven towns it should realise any assets, subject of course to any direction by the Secretary of State, should be in some rare case see it necessary to give one. This would make it difficult to see how the Secretary of State should go about complying with the literal wording of the amendment.
I revert to the basic question here. Massive public resources, over £3,250 million are tied up in the new towns. We believe there is a case for redirecting some of these resources from the towns which have completed all or part of their
1132
development to other parts of the country where public investment is needed. As I have explained, in this year and the last, this is to the other new towns—some £700 million—and the needs of the other new towns are a factor to which any Government must pay attention. But doing so, we enable investment to continue without new public borrowing. We thus simultaneously provide the resources for the new towns programme and keep down the public sector borrowing requirement. To do that requires judgments to be made. Those judgments are inevitably for central Government who have to take into account a wide range of factors. We do not think we should single out just one of these factors to be written into the Bill. I admire, as I always do, the assiduity and clarity with which the noble Lord presents his case, but within the context of the overall responsibility which falls to Government, we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, on Report I referred to Clause 99, dealing with the disposal of the land by public bodies, and I referred to the fact that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the land can be disposed of without serious detriment to the performance of their functions or the carrying on of their undertakings. However, when I look at Schedule 16, which lists the public bodies concerned, I find that the New Towns Commission is included as is the corporation of a new town. Why, therefore, are qualifications laid down as to conditions which the Minister must take into consideration under Part X dealing with the disposal of public land, yet the Government resist laying down a condition in this clause relating to new towns themselves?
Baroness DENINGTON: My Lords, I wish to give the strongest support possible to the amendment, which I am sure would be extremely helpful to the Secretary of State as well as to the New Towns Commission. It would mean the Minister having regard to these matters in his consultations, and I must say how much I welcome the fact that there are to be consultations because, whereas I understand that to date in Scotland and Wales there have been consultations, to the best of my knowledge in England the Secretary of State has not, directly through his

1133
department, had direct consultation with the new towns, and that is why some of the present damage has been occurring. I hope the words "planned development" do not just mean the physical development; they must also mean the financial planning of the town, because the two go hand in hand. It is surely impossible to do the physical planning without considering the financial aspects of it.
New town corporations have been very conscious that the nation has invested the millions of pounds to which the Minister referred. It is therefore vital that they should have regard to the financial implications of all they do so that in the end, when the towns are complete, they are a sound investment for the nation. Indeed, I assure the House that if they are allowed to go on without damage, they will prove not only socially wonderful investments for Britain but sound and profitable ones. But, as I say, that will happen only if they are not damaged in the meantime, and they are in great danger of being damaged now by being required to dispose of assets which are not ready for disposal. They will be undersold when, if they could be held for perhaps three of four years—for various reasons and each project and asset one considers has different reasons for selling now or delaying a year or longer—they would be profitable. After all, these are business transactions and the nation and the Government should be looking at them, as the corporations and the commission would wish to look at them, with a view to getting the best possible return.
Therefore, I am exceedingly glad that there are to be consultations. I take it that that means that there will be direct consultations with the corporations when the corporations could put to the Secretary of State all the facts regarding such points as perhaps not finding quite so much money one year and doing better for the nation and for the Government by having a postponement for a year; and so on. In those circumstances, the whole financial outcome, in which the Government are interested—and properly interested—would be very much better. The words of the amendment would, I believe, strengthen the Bill, and I would beg the House to give them very earnest consideration and indeed support them.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should like to have a very quick word, since I recall that the noble Baroness. Lady Denington, was not present when we discussed this matter at Report stage. I know the noble Baroness's interest in this matter and so I should like very briefly to say again something that I said at that time, and which I strongly believe. I said that I felt that this particular case was as strong as most, if not all, cases about which I had spoken in your Lordships' House. It is about how we deal with national resources. There must be a point in time when a Government putting hundreds of millions of pounds a year into any sector—and here we are talking about new towns, which we support—must ask, can we afford to do this, and if we must do it, where do we get the money from? If there is a possibility of taking assets from those new towns that have been there for some time putting the assets into liquid form and then redeploying them to the benefit of new towns—as has been the case in the last two years—I see nothing wrong in doing that. Furthermore, I think it absolutely vital that sooner or later we accept the reality that there is only so much money available. Redeploying money in this way puts it to the best use without forever printing new money. I believe passionately in the case for what we are doing, and I am sure that, if we divide on this issue, my noble friends will fully support me.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, once or twice from the Dispatch Box opposite the noble Lord has reiterated his personal commitment to new towns, and we do not question that at all. He has also reminded us of the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been ploughed into new towns. We take that point as well, and we also look on the other side and see the benefits that the country has had from the new towns. I accept that the noble Lord would like to see new towns continued, and I also accept that he would like to see some, perhaps a major part, of the money that is coming from the sale of new town assets ploughed back into the Mark 2 and Mark 3 new towns, so that we can have early completion of them and so, as my noble friend Lady Denington has said, we can have a reasonable portfolio of assets that will be worth considerably more as the years go by and the assets mature.

1135
But we have never ever had more than assurances that some money will go in. What we really want to know is that the Government are firm in their intention, that the money derived from the sale of new town assets, or even only a large proportion of it, will be ploughed back into other new towns so that they can be completed and can reap the harvest that they have sown.
This is the wrong time to ask new towns to put a large proportion of their commercial and industrial assets on to the market. The new towns know that they will have to sell; those people who want to buy will know that they have to sell, and therefore the new towns will not realise a proper sum for the assets that they are selling. They will not raise as much money as the Secretary of State had hoped for, or had demanded that they should raise. These assets ought to be left alone to mature. As the years go by they will continue to be worth considerably more.
New towns, in particular Mark 2 and Mark 3 new towns, cannot meet the arbitrary demands of the Secretary of State and at the same time maintain not only their solvency, but also their means of reinvesting and completing. In the other place one of the noble Lord's colleagues said that the money could be used for kidney machines and other things; we have to sort out our priorities. Those of us who are concerned with new towns have new towns and their completion as our priority. We accept in good faith what the noble Lord says—that he would like to see the money ploughed back into early completion of the new towns—but that is not what the Bill says. That is not what was ever said in the other place by any of his colleagues. The amendment would provide a small insurance, as it were, so that the Secretary of State would have some regard to the programme of planned development of the new town before asking it to dispose of some of its assets. That is all we are asking for at this time.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, may I say very quickly that this question still comes back to the basic principle. The Government have shown their intentions in that in the last two years they have ploughed £700 million into the new towns. I think that that is great evidence
1136
of intent. But if one says let the assets mature in the existing new towns—and that is what the noble Baroness said—where is the money to come from in the future? There is not a bottomless pit. When we are talking of this kind of money it is clear that someone will have to make a decision somewhere down the line as to where the money comes from. We cannot go on forever simply saying that we shall find it somewhere. This is my very point: those who are most keen to see the development of the new generation of new towns ought to be encouraged by the fact that the Government have said, "Let's raise money this way". Of course I cannot guarantee what will happen to all the money. Clearly no Government could say what they will do with all the amounts of money in the years to come. Who knows what the priorities will be. But that our intentions are honourable (if I may put it that way), in that we have a commitment to the new generation of new towns is, I believe, unquestioned. In so far as we can afford, one hopes, to use all the money, I am assuming that we shall probably want to, but no one can give guarantees. To that extent I cannot help further than I have done.
6.57 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I make a last appeal for my amendment. I do so by trying to bring back the House not to the speeches made in the Chamber, but to the actual wording of the Bill. It is a pedestrian remark not really worthy of your Lordships' intelligence to say that this Bill is to be an Act of Parliament that will be binding not only on a Conservative Government, with their present Ministers but also on any Government until the Act is either amended or repealed. I say with all due deference that unless speeches about the intentions, policies and priorities of a Minister are translated into an Act, your Lordships will not have carried out your duties as legislators.
It so happens, as we all know, that the present Secretary of State for the Environment is a very quiet, studious, introspective individual. But who knows? One day there might be a Secretary of State for the Environment who is flamboyant, who likes getting his own way, who has very definite ideas of his own as to where he can gather money from local government

1137
and put it into the general exchequer. I know that at present your Lordships cannot conceive of there being such a complete contrast with the present Secretary of State for the Environment, whom we all so much adore.
It is for that reason that I bring your Lordships back to the wording of the Bill as it now stands. I repeat that this Bill is to become an Act that will be binding on any Government. It provides that without having to come back to Parliament at all, the Secretary of State can direct a new town to pay up an unspecified, unlimited sum. I shall not again go into the whole question of why it is wrong for this power to be so unlimited, so unqualified. I have been into it before and your Lordships will be bored with me even more than usual if I repeat my arguments. All we are saying in the amendment is that when the Secretary of State exercises what some of your Lordships might regard as this dictatorial power, then at least, after he has consulted, he should have regard to the planned development of the town from which he is exacting the money. That is all that is asked. He has not got to be convinced; he has got to "have regard" to it.
When the noble Lord the Minister says, "Ah!, yes, but there are other things, no doubt, that he would have
regard to", I have no doubt your Lordships will agree with him. Of course there will be other considerations. They cannot all be put into the Bill; but you can put into the Bill the very minimum consideration that he ought to have—and I underline the word "consideration"—namely, that before exacting a payment which must be made he has regard to the planned development of the town from which he is taking it, and will have regard to the fact that this may destroy something which is very good and something for which people have worked and aspired. If he decides to destroy it, so be it; that is his right. But at least let him have regard to this programme.
I may be disappointed in the Division which results, but I cannot conceive of anyone who has a proper constitutional belief in the limitation of the power of a Minister, and certainly I cannot conceive anybody who has the interests of new towns really at heart, voting against this amendment. I may prove to be disappointed—it will not be the first time—but I live in hopes.
7.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 104.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Amherst, E.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bernstein, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Segal, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Byers, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chitnis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strauss, L.

Diamond, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller].

Fulton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gosford, E'

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Belstead, L.

Bradford, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Auckland, L.

Boardman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Avon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cairns, E.

Bellwin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Caithness, E.

Cathcart, E.

Harvington, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Ironside, L.

Pender, L.

Croft, L.

Kemsley, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Ridley, V.

De Freyne, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Germans, E.

Denham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandford, L.

Digby, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Dundee, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Selkirk, E.

Elibank, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Selsdon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Elphinstone, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swansea, L.

Fortescue, E.

Margadale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Middleton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gisborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Gowrie, E.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Greenway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Nugent of Guildford, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think this is probably the right moment at which we should adjourn for a certain time. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 to 8 p.m.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
Consideration on Third Reading resumed.
Clause 167 [Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 148, line 6, leave out from ("unless") to ("to") in line 7, and insert ("he has a written Ministerial authorisation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak also to Amendment No. 50 and say
1140
that these two amendments are consequential to the amendments to Clause 167 we accepted on Report which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and which dealt with the powers of a UDC to survey land. They make it clear that a person who enters land under clause 167(1) needs to have a written ministerial authorisation in the case of an objection by a local authority or statutory undertaker to the placing, leaving or removal of apparatus. They also define what is meant by a "ministerial authorisation." On this basis I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling these consequential amendments to the amendments that I moved on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 148, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert ("he has a written Ministerial authorisation to do so.
(4A) In subsection (4) above "Ministerial authorisation" means—

(a) in relation to land held by a local authority the authorisation of the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to land held by statutory undertakers, the authorisation of the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Relaxation of controls over functions relating to clean air and pollution]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 163, line 13, after (""or"") insert (", in the second place where it occurs,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same as No. 66. This is a minor correction intended only to make clear that the purpose of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 is to delete the words from the second "or" in Section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956; that is, to remove the need for the Minister to be involved in any disagreement between local authorities on which should deal with any premises that straddle the boundary between them. I beg to move.
Schedule 7 [Highways]:
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 177, line 33, leave out the words ("the appropriate highway authority") and insert ("each body which is a local authority for the purposes of section 28 of this Act in relation to the land concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to define in clear terms the appropriate authorities that the Secretary of State must consult before proposing to make a public path creation order. It is necessary because there is no interpretation in the Highways Act 1959 of what constitutes "an appropriate authority" in this context.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): My Lords, I should point out that the figure "33" in the first line in the amendment should read "32".
Schedule 12 [Prescribed expenditure under Part VIII]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 197, line 24, at end insert—
(". Expenditure on Direct Labour Organisations by an authority to which this part of this Act applies shall not be prescribed expenditure for this part of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may describe this as a technical and accounting amendment and I am hopeful that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. Under the various accounting provisions of Part III of the Bill, your Lordships will recall that each direct labour organisation—nay, more than that, each particular subdivision of work within the DLO—is considered to be an entity for accounting purposes; but it is only necessary to say that the DLO as a whole certainly is so and has to publish its own balance sheet, its own revenue expenditure account and the various other statements that go with it. That means that DLOs, according to the Bill, will as of right and in law acquire their own assets, which will be shown in their own balance sheets and for the balance sheets to be certified by whatever auditors do the audit, whether it be the district auditor service or outside auditors. For them to be satisfied that the balance sheet shows a true and correct view, they must be satisfied that the expenditure has been incurred on the assets concerned and that the assets exist.
It follows, since the DLO section of the Bill seeks to ensure that local authorities generate a proper return on capital, that the DLOs' overhead rates will have to be sufficient to cover their costs. If they do this, it will obviously involve the capital expenditure of the DLOs being charged directly against capital allocations at the time of acquisition; yet, at the same time, in order to conform with the procedures so meticulously laid out by the noble Lord, they will have to charge the cost of equipping the DLO; in short they will have to pass on some charge for depreciation, some charge for the use. There will therefore be an element of double charging. All this amendment seeks to do is to see that there is no duplication in this. Consequently, this should be accomplished by the insertion of the amend-

1143
ment I have suggested at page 197, after line 24.
I trust that the noble Lord has followed the accounting argument and I rather hope in these circumstances that he will find himself able to accept the amendment which, I can assure him, does no violence to the policies implicit in the Bill or to the determination of his right honourable friend to ensure that it works in accordance with its provisions. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as on one or two other occasions today, I have been close to the noble Lord but just have not managed to get all the way with him. I understand the purpose behind this amendment. Direct labour organisations do work mainly for their own authorities and Part III of the Bill is concerned that the true cost of having work done by a direct labour organisation, including depreciation and replacement cost of equipment used, should always be shown. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to argue that the cost of providing that equipment for the organisation should not be controlled separately, since to do so could result in double counting—once when the asset is acquired by the authority for the organisation and once when the use of the asset is included in the cost of using it, for example, for building a school.
I am afraid, however, that we are not able to say that expenditure on a direct labour organisation shall not be subject to control. The main reason is the one which underlies the whole purpose of the annual control of local authority capital expenditure. It is the Government's duty to be able to control the acquisition of capital assets by the public sector in order to be able to achieve a proper balance in the consumption of assets by the public and private sectors. We cannot continue to accept a situation where, in effect, the public sector takes first bite at the nation's wealth and then leaves the private sector to take what might be left. This means that we have to be able to exercise control at the time of acquisition, not merely at the time of subsequent use.
There are of course other implications of the amendment. There is the difficulty of disentangling the cost of equipment which might be used for a variety of purposes within the authority. There is
1144
the possibility of equipment being bought for the direct labour organisation as a means of evading controls which would apply if it had been bought for any other service department of the authority. Or there is the possibility that little or none of the cost of equipment would be shown if the equipment was in fact little used.
My Lords, I do not want to make much or these points. The main point is the need to control the acquisition of assets as it occurs. Having said that, I am still conscious of the problem of double counting. On this, I can only say that when a direct labour organisation does work for its authority (or indeed any other) then the cost of the work for capital control purposes need not include the depreciation of assets used. I recognise that this departure from the principles of Part III of the Bill so far as direct labour organisation accounts are concerned is not entirely satisfactory and that some additional work may be necessary to identify the appropriate amounts for counting against capital controls.
I was careful to note what the noble Lord was saying, and I think that we have to say that we must look at this aspect. I do not know how far it will satisfy the noble Lord, but I am certainly prepared to say that we will look at this and, if it seems appropriate—and it might—we shall be able to take any necessary action by regulation under Schedule 12. I know that is never the same as having it on the face of the Bill, but I hope that I indicate by that that we are cognisant of this matter and appreciate the point that the noble Lord made. If we have to do something, we shall be able to do it in that way.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's response. It still seems that there is a misunderstanding about this matter. I have tried to make it clear from the outset of these debates on the accounting methods that have been prescribed in Part III that there is no such thing as the local authority acquiring an asset on behalf of a DLO. Either the DLO acquires the asset itself and owns it itself, or no balance sheet prepared by the DLO in accordance with the provisions can contain the value of that asset. If it does not contain the value of that asset, it is impossible to determine the

1145
capital of the DLO for the purposes of determining the return on the capital employed. This is the dilemma in which his right honourable friend's determination to lay down these precise rules has landed the noble Lord.
The noble Lord has said that for the time being perhaps—and I accept his assurance immediately—it will not be necessary for the DLO, when preparing its income and expenditure accounts, to make allowance for the depreciation on the equipment that it uses or on the equipment that it "owns". This is the point. That vitiates the whole of the comparison between private enterprise firms on the one hand and the DLO on the other which, so far as I can see, it has been the main purpose of this Bill to insist upon.
The noble Lord is in some difficulty, and I have no desire to detain the House on this. I have already talked for far too long on these breathtakingly exciting accounting matters.
I am quite content, in view of the explicit assurance by the noble Lord that he will look at the matter further; but I warn him now, as I have already warned him, that if the accounts are going to be prepared on the basis of the rigid rules laid down in Part III of this Bill, then this prediction which I am going to make will come true: when the accounts are prepared at the end of the year, with all the anomalies that will arise from some of the less intelligible parts of the Bill, no self-respecting accountant is going to certify them.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Schedule 14 [Amendments relating to surveys and plans]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 202 line 28, at end insert—
("(aa) subsection (5) (indication of action areas in general proposals for structure plan) shall cease to have effect except in relation to structure plans approved by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: With Schedule 14 we move back into planning and that part of planning which is to do with the amendments to surveys and plans. I should like, if I may, to speak at the same
1146
time to Amendment No. 58 and couple that with four further amendments. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 70 and 71. Those four amendments amend Schedule 34 which introduces various repeals to other enactments. This package of six linked amendments—two to Schedule 14 and four to Schedule 34—constitute a third joint attempt by myself and the noble Lord's department to make an adjustment to the respective responsibilities of counties and districts that flow from the fresh division of planning functions achieved by Clause 86 of this Bill.
As I have spoken to this object twice already, both Committee stage and Report, in an attempt to move amendments which, in the eyes of the Government, were defective and lacking in various ways, I will not go into the whole matter again, unless any noble Lord wishes me to do so. Suffice it to say that the responsibilities which are adjusted by these amendments are those in connection with the designation of action areas, which in the past has been dealt with by the counties in the course of preparing their structure plans, and the preparation of local plans devised to be linked with those actions areas by the district planning authorities when the structure plans have been approved. The amendments are complicated because they need to look to the future, the division of responsibilities established by the Bill, but to retain some part of the existing arrangements in respect of those structure plans which were approved before the passing of this Bill.
I hope that my noble friend, having had a part in framing these amendments, will now at last—and this is our last chance of doing it—be able to accept the amendments in this form. I am most grateful to him for his assistance. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, there is very little I need to add to what my noble friend Lord Sandford has said. He has explained fully the reason for this group of amendments. I am very grateful indeed for all the trouble that he has taken. I am happy to advise your Lordships that these amendments should be agreed. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 70 and 71 are consequential on the previous amendments which I have now accepted. I am very happy to accept these, too.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, there was a lot of talk earlier about a deal in smoke-filled rooms! Is this not a case where the ADC have stolen a march on the other local authority associations? Are they suitably contrite for what they have been doing?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I had not noticed the ACC had done too badly out of the discussions that took place as we went along.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 204, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—
("5A. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsections (6) to (8) of section 10C of that Act (development plan schemes):—
"(6) Where a district planning authority make representations to the Secretary of State that they are dissatisfied with a development plan scheme, the Secretary of State may amend the scheme, and any amendment so made shall have effect as if made by the county planning authority.".
5B. The following provisions of that Act, namely—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment may or may not date back to a smoke-filled room some many months before this Bill was drafted. Whatever its origins, it is again a topic to which I have alluded at previous stages, but a different topic from the one introduced by Amendment No. 56.
On this occasion I should like the agreement of the House to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 69 on page 12, which repeals other enactments through Schedule 34. These two amendments, taken together, amount to little more than technical amendments, limiting and adjusting the way in which the Secretary of State will be able in future to influence development plan schemes. As with previous amendments, I have had very considerable assistance from the noble Lord and his department. I hope that we have got these right as well, and I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this amendment makes a useful alteration to the provisions of Section 10C, giving the Secretary of State direct powers to amend a development plan scheme in response
1148
to representations by the district council, which will replace his existing powers of direction to the county planning authority. I commend it to your Lordships, and we are glad to accept it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58:
Page 204, line 43, at end insert—
("6A.—(1) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4) of section 11 of that Act:—
"(4A) Without prejudice to subsections (1), (2) and (4) of this section, the local planning authority may prepare a local plan for any part of their area (in this section referred to as an "action area") which they have selected for the commencement during a prescribed period of comprehensive treatment, by development, redevelopment or improvement of the whole or part of the area selected, or partly by one and partly by another method.
(4B) A local plan prepared for an action area under subsection (4A) of this section shall indicate the nature of the treatment selected for the action area.".
(2) Subsection (6) of that section (which imposes on a local planning authority a duty to prepare a local plan for any area indicated as an action area in a structure plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State) shall cease to have effect except in relation to structure plans approved by him before the passing of this Act.".").
8.22 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 205, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 18 and insert—
("(a) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1):—
"(1) After the expiry of the period afforded for making objections to a local plan or, if such objections have been duly made during that period, after considering the objections so made, the local planning authority may, subject to section 12 of this Act and subsections (1A), (2) and (3) of this section, by resolution adopt the plan either as originally prepared or as modified so as to take account—

(a) of the objections so made;

(b) of any other objections made to the plan;

(c) of any other considerations which appear to the authority to be material.

(1A) Where—

(a) an objection to the plan has been made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

1149
(in this section referred to as "the Minister"); and

(b) the local planning authority do not propose to modify the plan to take account of that objection,

the authority—

(i) shall send the Secretary of State particulars of the Minister's objection, together with a statement of their reasons for not modifying the plan to take account of it; and

(ii) shall not adopt the plan unless the Secretary of State authorises them to do so.";

(b) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3):—
"(3A) Subject to subsection (3B) of this section, where particulars of an objection to a local plan made by the Minister have been sent to the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) of this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to direct that the plan shall not have effect unless approved by him.
(3B) The Secretary of State need not give a direction under subsection (3A) of this section if he is satisfied that the Minister no longer objects to the plan.";
(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) after the words "subsection (3)" there shall be inserted the words "or (3A)"; and

(ii) in paragraph (d)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage the House agreed to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley. As I pointed out then, and as my noble friend recognised, there were flaws in the drafting which called for correction. This amendment seeks to make a more general revision of Section 14 of the 1971 Act.
Although the Government consider the provision added to the Bill by the amendment tabled by my noble friend to be unnecessary, for the reasons I gave when we last discussed the matter, the purpose of the present amendment is to provide a new procedure which we consider will secure his intention more adequately than his own amendment did. Because there were already provisions relating to Section 14 of the Act in Schedule 14, the amendment incorporates one provision in addition to those covered by my noble friend's amendment, but the changes it is making to Section 14 are as follows.
A provision is being added to ensure that where the local authority do not
1150
propose to modify a local plan to meet an objection from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food they must notify the Secretary of State of that fact, and the new subsection (1A) provides that, in such circumstances, the local authority shall not adopt the plan until specifically authorised to do so. In addition, there are two new subsections—(3A) and 3(B)—which place a duty on the Secretary of State to call in the local plan for his own decision unless he is satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer wishes to object to the plan. I believe this amendment fully meets the intentions of my noble friend's amendment, and I beg to move.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment. It demonstrates to local planning authorities that Parliament and the Government place a special responsibility on them to reach agreement when preparing plans with the Minister of Agriculture; in other words, to make every effort to minimise the loss of good agricultural land. My noble friend referred to the fact that he considered it unnecessary. Although I hate to draw his attention to it, I will nevertheless draw his attention in this instance to an article in The Times of today and I will quote just the headline:
"Department failed deplorably to look after citizens' interests and protect cottages".
This amendment was one moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley at Report stage in order to safeguard agricultural land. We feel it is necessary and we are grateful that the Minister has accepted its need. However, could he just confirm that he will guard against a "rogue" authority trying to evade this new responsibility by modifying the plan only slightly to take into account the Minister's objections? Also, can the Government give an assurance that in these circumstances they would use their power to direct the authority not to adopt the plan until he authorises them to do so, so that a ministerial review of the position could be made?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, in the past I have criticised the Government occasionally and in the future I may do so again, and so I should

1151
like to thank the Government, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has done, and in particular my noble friend Lord Bellwin, for drafting this amendment and accepting it in principle—not because I happened by chance to move it, but because a majority from all sides of your Lordships' House decided to support it, not only with their voices but with their feet. I should be less than honest if I did not say I was pleased that the Government have listened to your Lordships, particularly on an agricultural matter.
Schedule 31 [Urban Development Corporations: Finance etc.]:
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 296, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Any person may inspect a report of a corporation (including a copy of its audited statement of accounts for that year) under this section and shall be supplied with a copy of the report by the corporation on payment of such charge for a copy as it may reasonably require.
( ) A corporation shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in its area notice of—

(a) the place where and the time when any report under this section may be inspected;

(b) the fact that copies of the report are available for supply to any person requiring them; and

(c) the charge for each such copy.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence for having brought this matter once again to your attention. As your Lordships are aware, it concerns accounts of these urban development corporations, and all that this amendment seeks to do is to make quite sure that these accounts are open to anybody requiring to see them and that the corporation shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in its area notice of the place and time where any report under this section may be inspected, the fact that copies of the report are available to be supplied to any person requiring them and the charge for each such copy. We are informed that the Government are in favour of open government; indeed much play was made of this in the general election which brought them into office. Here is an opportunity to do not only what is reasonable but actually what they said they would do.
Let us consider the position in regard to the accounts, not only of limited companies, whether private or public, but also the accounts of local authorities and those of direct labour organisations. These are open and can be obtained, and everything is quite open and above-board. In the case of the local authority with its DLO, the local authority itself is responsible to its local electorate. Therefore, there is a double filter, in a way, because not only are the local councillors able to inspect accounts but the public as well. Even in the case of ordinary limited companies, whether private or public, the public have access by due application to the Registrar of Companies. I am aware that these days it is a little more difficult since they are now on microfiches and in Cardiff, as against being in London, as formerly. Nevertheless, the facility is there and public companies do it in any event.
An urban development corporation is responsible for very considerable activities in the neighbourhood in which it is established but without the benefit—I assume the noble Lord will agree with me that it is a benefit—of any democratic representation and without the benefit of local accountability through its elected representatives because the members of an urban development corporation are in fact appointed by the Minister: they are his creatures and if one wanted to be a little sardonic about them one could say they are quangos, but this term is probably not capable of the same connotations as when it was used for political purposes a little while back. Surely, in the public interest, it is all the more necessary, if public confidence in these bodies is to be maintained, that their accounts and reports should be open in the same way as those of a local authority, a direct labour organisation, or whatever it is.
The noble Lord said on Report that this might, of course, be included, and that the whole purpose was to make more information available. He said that, perhaps, he could deal with it by regulation. Why is there this sudden propensity to deal with everything by regulation, when it can be put quite firmly in the Bill itself? I really must ask the noble Lord not to take refuge behind the answer: "We will include it in regulations"; or,

1153
"We will put it in a circular"; or, "We will issue instructions"; or, "We will use our best endeavours to ensure that". Why not put it in the Bill? Is it not more honest to put it in the Bill? Is it not more compelling to put it in the Bill? Indeed, is it not simpler, for the avoidance of all reasonable doubt, to put it in the Bill? My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I welcome the principle behind this amendment. It is, indeed, the Government's intention that UDCs should operate in as open a way as possible, and I am sure it is right that their reports should be made widely available at a reasonable charge, that they should be capable of inspection, and that these facts should be advertised. I am very happy to give the noble Lord an undertaking that we shall ensure that this gets done under the powers we have to give directions to UDCs.
But when the noble Lord asks "In that case, why not incorporate it in the main legislation?", I have to say that these are important matters, and I hope that what I said a moment ago indicates our feelings about them. We do not want to tie UDCs down in the main legislation to a particular régime which might prove inflexible or inappropriate. For example, there could be a press strike and notice, in those circumstances, might more reasonably be given via local radio. Indeed, one might use that or other of the media as a preferential way of doing things. We might wish to ask the UDCs to make documents other than their reports available as well. This only indicates that there are also restricting factors in the noble Lord's amendment.
I have given a pretty clear assurance—and I repeat the undertaking—that we shall ensure that this gets done under the powers that we have to give directions to UDCs. That, by the way, is an assurance which I did not give at Report stage. In a way, I feel rather sad. The noble Lord and I have discussed so many matters and we have now come so close, though I have not gone all the way to where he wants to be. If he will, I think he will just have to wait and see what happens, in practice, in the light of what I have said.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, naturally, I am very indebted to
1154
the noble Lord who has given an assurance in specific terms, which he did not find himself able to give at Report stage. This marks a considerable advance and we on this side are duly appreciative of it. I am not saying that the obtrusion of extraordinary events, such as a strike, a storm or a tempest, might not prevent publication at the due date. Those are matters of force majeure, which are applicable to any clause of the Bill. They would apply equally to the accounts of DLOs.
Perhaps the period of six months, which is prescribed for the rendering of a direct labour organisation's accounts, might be frustrated by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister tripping over and hurting himself in six months' time, producing a state of forgetfulness. He might forget to make a direction when he should have made it. Those are matters of force majeure, but I do not think that one can pray them in aid in refusing to enact something which presupposes that matters will proceed more or less with normality, within the context in which they are set.
But I have no desire, particularly in view of the noble Lord's very zealous efforts and the progress which we have made this evening, to detain the House any longer. I should have much preferred it to be in the statute, but I unhesitatingly accept, and recommend my noble friends to accept, the quite unequivocal assurance which the noble Lord has given and which, I am quite sure, will be noted very carefully by all those concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 32 [Enterprise zones]:
8.36 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 297, line 32, at end insert ("and

(c) in relation to Scotland shall specify that the scheme shall be prepared in conjunction with the appropriate regional council.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the designation of enterprise zones and, while I welcome and am considerably interested in the development of enterprise zones, I should warn the Government that the enthusiasm for

1155
them is to be found at its height in the area that is to be designated. In the surrounding areas, and in other areas of high unemployment, there is fear that whatever industry is attracted will pass them by and go into the enterprise zone, while firms will be worried that there will be what they consider unfair competition from the zone, which may be only two or three miles away. There the enthusiasm is a little more muted.
It is ironic that the Government are taking this step at the present time when, in special development areas with high rates of unemployment of 18 per cent., such as in the Cumnock-Kirkconnel area, they have stopped finance. In the Stonefield development, they have a new type of Range Rover car, which had gone through its development period and was building up the prospects of good orders, but the Government suddenly clamped down and said, "No more money". Yet here they are prepared to put money into enterprise zones.
Enterprise zones are not exactly new. I remember that in 1951–52, in Scotland, we had the Toothill Report. The idea then was to have growth points. This is virtually the same thing, but now it is called an experiment. In Scotland, which has one-quarter of a million unemployed, we have only one enterprise zone presently mooted, and that is at Clydebank. The Government have said that it is an experiment, but it is a strange experiment when, before it has started, they select another two areas, as they did the other week, at Corby and somewhere else. But in Scotland there is only one.
Clydebank is just on the North-West of Glasgow, and I believe that the area of 570 acres which has been mentioned comes slightly into the Glasgow district. Of course, it will be of concern to the whole area that the enterprise zone authority will become a planning authority. It may well be that for planning purposes it is overlapping another district.
But much more important is the question of the regional authority which is the major planning authority for drawing up the structure plan. The structure plan which affects the Clydebank area is before the Secretary of State. Would it not have been far better if they had brought in the
1156
regional authority, in conjunction with the district authority, to plan the enterprise zone? It would have saved conflict. Noble Lords should not misunderstand me. There is quite a wealth of generous feeling towards the enterprise zone. We want it to succeed, and if we want it to succeed, we want speed, liaison and cooperation rather than conflict.
One must appreciate that Strathclyde, which has the whole of West Central Scotland in its area, has the heaviest unemployment in the whole of Scotland—not just in this one part. Its resources are limited, as the resources of all local authorities are limited by the Government. We have been told that the standards are not going to be reduced so far as the enterprise zone is concerned. But who will have to provide the infrastructure? The regional authority will have to provide the infrastructure. Quite apart from the money that the Government are going to put in, there will have to be money from the regional authority. At the same time it is going to lose rateable value, although it will be made up to them by the Government, according to what has been said.
Would it not be better in those circumstances, and help to soothe some of the fears of neighbouring authorities, if Strathclyde were included, in conjunction with the district authority, in the planning of the enterprise zone? The sole purpose of my amendment is to bring the two authorities together at the start. It will save conflict; it will ease some of the fears that they are going to be done down by the proximity of the enterprise zone. We had the same thing when Edinburgh at one time was not a development area although the area outside Edinburgh was, and when we saw factories being built not in Edinburgh but on the periphery. This is the sort of thing which people fear. It is a good idea, but it is not a panacea for Scotland's ills. We want it to be developed, we want it to be a success and we want it to be a success quickly so that it can spread elsewhere if the Government can afford the money.
That is the purpose of this amendment. It is a simple amendment but it is one which anybody with knowledge of local government and of how local authorities react to the interplay of the structure plan on the strategic plan would want. I know that whoever is going to answer,

1157
whether it be an English Minister or whether it be either of the two other noble Lords who are sitting there, is going to say, "Don't worry about it. Willy. It is all there, anyway. The next subsection says that the Secretary of State may suggest that they have got to consult so-and-so". With all due respect, for the protection of interests and for the purpose of getting that co-operation the possibility of consultation is not sufficient. The other interests would be better protected and things would go along very much more quickly if the statutory obligation for co-operation were there right from the start. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment very strongly indeed. Ever since the reorganisation of local government in Scotland there has been difficulty over the responsibilities of the regions and those of the districts. The regions are the planning authorities, and it is the regions which must be consulted and which must be brought into any development anywhere in the area within which they operate. Schedule 32 lists the district councils, the London borough councils, the new town corporations, the urban development corporations. But none of those operate in Scotland. The new town corporations and the urban development corporations are not the bodies which have the authority in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is absolutely right. It is the regions which have the planning authority. One has to have the backing of the regions for any enterprise in any area at all. The districts are all very well, but they do not have the planning responsibilities. Planning is the responsibility of the regions. It would be most unfortunate if a Bill like this were to be passed without mentioning for Scotland the importance of enlisting the support of the regions, consulting the regions and getting them to back whatever enterprise is put forward. It will not be successful unless we do so. It is much better to start straight away with the right situation and the right consultation, otherwise we shall run into trouble as, indeed, has been the case in some of the areas—not to do with enterprise zones but to do with the relationship between the district councils and the regions. Therefore I strongly support the amendment.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, first may I try to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I hope he will accept—indeed, the House should know by now—that a fierce Scottish heart beats here in the absence of my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I hope that the noble Lord noted that I listened carefully to his dissertation on the reason why he believed that his amendment should be included in the Bill. It is clearly desirable that in preparing a scheme for an enterprise zone, district councils should consult the regional council. Indeed, my right honourable friend intends that his invitation to district councils to prepare an enterprise zone scheme should contain a direction to this effect. If noble Lords examine paragraph 1(5) of the schedule, they will see that it is quite adequate as it stands for the purpose which I have explained.
We believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is not only unnecessary but undesirable. The whole ethos of enterprise zones is to minimise any possibility, or even procedures, which could lead to delay. To require schemes to be prepared jointly—for this is what the phrase "in conjunction with" implies—would open up the possibility of negotiation and of lengthy bargaining over a fairly extended period to produce a document which might be acceptable to both councils in all its detail.
What we propose in the Bill is both simpler and better. The district council will consult the regional council in preparing their scheme. If the region consider, for some reason, that the scheme which is published and adopted by the district fails to take proper account of the views which they, the region, have expressed, they will doubtless make representations to the Secretary of State that it would not be expedient for him to make an order which would designate that zone, which we find is provided for in paragraph 5 of the schedule. Then my right honourable friend can decide whether the issues at stake are so vital that they should hold up the designation of the zone. We certainly bear in mind all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in supporting the concept and the ideas behind the enterprise zone.
The reason for rejecting the amendment is that we wish to keep the legislation

1159
simple and effective. I hope that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood will accept that this is the main reason why we are unable to accept the amendment. In conclusion, we intend to direct that Strathclyde should be consulted in the preparation of the schemes for the Clydebank enterprise zone. The noble Lord's amendment is for this purpose unnecessary. We believe that it will create an opportunity for delay, and that is the last thing which we, or indeed the House, would want.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I do not want any delay, either, my Lords. It is eight months since we first heard of these enterprise zones. Then what we had in Scotland was a battle between part of Renfrewshire and Clydebank and other places as to who was going to be selected. I am appalled at the delay which has already taken place. I want to minimise the delay in getting the thing drawn up, designated and then functioning. The point is that the impact of this zone, which is only one little island of industrial dereliction within a greater area, has a considerably greater impact than those other areas surrounding it, and Renfrew and Glasgow and Dumbarton and Milngavie and Bearsden all want to have some kind of protection. They are not going to get it from the district of Clydebank. I know the people in Clydebank and they are pretty good, but when it comes to the industrial concern for the whole area, that is a matter for Strathclyde, by statute.
When it comes to the expenditure—suppose we have to block up highways. Who does it? Not Clydebank but Strathclyde. If we want a new road, who does it? It is Strathclyde. We have already been told by the Government that they are not going to extend cash limits, so the authorities have to take it out of their resources. The noble Lord speaks about minimising delay, but when one is faced with a situation like that there is a recipe for delay, when the decision is that of one person and the expenditure is that of someone else.
I knew that there was consultation but we want more than consultation there, and one of the dangers about speed in consultation is that the consultation becomes perfunctory. We have been told
1160
to do it and we have done it. I want to make it co-operation rather than consultation, and I am very disappointed indeed in the answer that we have got from the junior Minister tonight. I would rather the Minister of State had been here, but I can quite understand that he is away in Liverpool tonight watching Aberdeen play Liverpool and that his fierce Scottish heart is beating in football terms. Maybe not—he may be in the Gallery of the other place listening to the debate on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill. I am disappointed. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment but I am not going to divide the House. I will allow the amendment to be negatived.
On Question, amendment negatived.
8.53 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 304, line 23, at end insert ("not being a major retail space development.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at various stages during the progress of the Bill amendments have been tabled to remove major retail space users from the rating exemptions proposed in the enterprise zone concept. In opposing these amendments the noble Lord made a number of sympathetic statements but said nothing more positive than that. At Committee stage he said:
"I should have thought that this was arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the proposals—some would say the most difficult aspect of the proposals"—
and added:
"I say again, we realise that there are arguments on both sides on this issue and strong and genuine differences of opinion and it is because we want to have the right answers that we are still having discussions about this".
Then we moved on to Report stage, when the noble Lord took the House further into his confidence and said:
"Noble Lords might like to know that the possible solutions under discussion at present are about planning restrictions and not so much about changes to rating exemption, because our conclusion is that rating exemption itself should stand".
It is because of this sympathetic response from the noble Lord that I have tried to deal with this problem today in the way suggested by the noble Lord at Report stage. The amendment will have the

1161
effect of removing a major retail space development from the planning exemption granted in an enterprise zone. There is considerable concern about this proposal and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is seized of this problem.
Today the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—and I would say in parenthesis one would hope that the AMA are as successful as the ADC and the ACC were in earlier amendments—held a meeting of representatives from all those authorities involved in the initial list of areas that are to be invited to establish enterprise zones. At this meeting particular concern was again expressed about retailing in enterprise zones. The meetings that many of these authorities are having with the Department of the Environment officials suggests that in practice the Government are much less flexible than your Lordships might have supposed from the remarks made by the noble Lord at earlier stages of the Bill.
For example, in Swansea, planning control will operate only for retail developments above the very large figure of some 65,000 square feet, although Swansea apparently did not want any retailing in their enterprise zone. Below 65,000 square feet any number of developments can go ahead and there will be no geographical restriction. At a meeting today a delegation from Swansea was again unable to get more specific controls.
I have also been sent a copy of a letter which may have been circulated to a number of your Lordships by the Manchester Chamber of Trade, enclosing a copy of a letter sent by the Chamber of Trade to the Secretary of State. In this, they expressed their alarm about the possibility of retail outlets becoming established in the Trafford Park enterprise zone. In their letter to the Minister, they say:
"It is understood that the Manchester Ship Canal Company have leased, subject at present to planning permission, an area of some 23·4 acres of land at Salford Docks to Hypermarket Holdings Limited to construct a supermarket of some 170,000 square feet, which would be by far the biggest in Greater Manchester. As you are aware, retail trading in the big cities has been very difficult for some and the recent increases in rates and services have almost wiped out what little trading profit was left. The advent of a privileged competitor on our very doorstep could prove disastrous to many of us and lead to the closure of some".
1162
They go on to say:
"Since the advent of the new Arndale Centre we are already over-shopped and there is no prospect here of a larger cake to share between us. The county structure plan forecasts a further fall of 1·5 per cent. in local population up to 1986 and the unit for retail planning information does not forecast any further significant growth".
They conclude:
"We therefore ask you that retail distributors should be excluded from the Trafford Park enterprise zone or if they are included they should be subject to the same planning controls and rates as the rest of us. Members of this Chamber have paid their way in this City without subsidies of any kind for upward of 100 years and we want to stay that way".
My Lords, these voices of concern are voices which I know the noble Lord hears. He is seized of the problem here and I only hope that he will be able to give us firm assurances tonight on this matter. I do not want the noble Lord's reassurances merely to steer this Part of the Bill safely through. The Minister must give a clear and categorical statement that local authorities will be allowed to control retailing above a certain size, either throughout an enterprise zone or in part of that zone. If local authorities are to be coerced into allowing any form of retailing, then the experimental basis of such zones is called into question.
During the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, the Minister for housing made a statement which has not been followed up. He said:
"The matter of resources for enterprise zones, particularly in regard to infrastructure, is one that we shall consider, but of course we cannot consider it until we know which will be the enterprise zones and whether they will or will not have infrastructure implications. But we shall be anxious to consider that and to see whether help is needed".
At least one authority which embraces an enterprise zone has been told that grants will most definitely not be available for infrastructure provision. Many of these sites will require major capital investment, expenditure which will have to compete against the overall capital allocation under the provisions in this Bill, and Government resources must be made available if the schemes are to be a success. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some positive assurances on this this evening. I beg to move.
9.1 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, may I say very briefly that I fully

1163
support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I have had a very large number of worried people contacting me about this possibility. I think there is a genuine and quite well-founded belief that it would be very unfair competition for a hypermarket to have the advantage of an enterprise zone competing with established shopping centres. In relation to the Speke enterprise zone this will cause a great deal of concern. I have had representations made to me from the Greater Manchester area. We have in my part of the world already turned down planning applications for hypermarkets in various parts of the Merseyside region. I am sure many of your Lordships have had representations made to you about this problem. I know the Minister is well aware of the problem and I hope he is going to be able to give real assurances to your Lordships' House, because this is a problem causing concern to people who have spent many years and a great deal of money in building up successful and competitive businesses.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I can say immediately that I cannot give the kind of undertakings the noble Lord asks me to do specifically. The fact is that there are still questions to be answered in this area and the whole thing turns on discussions with individual authorities. Clearly I am not going to comment upon what any particular authority is saying, because I shall need to be discussing it with them myself before I could do so. But the fact is that it is the authorities themselves who have applied to us to be included in this. When I said earlier that we were concerned about hypermarkets, I meant exactly what I said. But I cannot give an undertaking to accept an amendment which places a restriction in this way when I know how different the circumstances are in different areas and that what applies and is right and proper for one may be quite wrong for another. Nor would I want to mislead the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or this House that I would do so.
We fall back again and again on the point that this is an experiment. No one guarantees its success. With it comes the kind of problems we are talking about. I have responded to this in your Lordships' House; I have indicated that the Government are aware of this problem and are
1164
not seeking to coerce local authorities, as the noble Lord suggests; not at all—that is the last thing we want to do. We are not trying to coerce anyone about any aspect of this. We are saying here is an opportunity. We want to play a role in this. It will cost the Government money, but because we think that these are areas of such dereliction that they need some special treatment we are prepared to see that money goes in in that way.
But, in doing that, we recognise the concern of those, not so much in the area but on the periphery or in nearby areas, who may be adversely affected. I must say that other than in the retailing area—and there is one other area I can think of in which someone has approached us—in the main I think the benefits to be gained will more than outweigh any such difficulties that may be thrown up. But, at the end of the day, this is going to have to be decided by the authorities themselves not by the Government coercing anyone. All we can do to help them in making their decision as to whether to proceed is to say that of course we recognise this difficulty; we will be willing to take a different approach in different areas where what may concern one may not concern another. That is why I cannot accept this amendment which seeks to restrict it and tie it down. If that means that noble Lords are not able to go along with it. I am regretful, because I think it is recognised by everyone that this is a real attempt to try to do something. Therefore, I hope it would receive even reserved approval by everyone in your Lordships' House, and I still hope that will be the case. But I am not in a position to give the undertakings the noble Lord asks for.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord is not in a position to give those undertakings. As I have said in earlier debates we have had on this issue, the establishment of these major retail users within enterprise zones can have a very serious effect on the peripheral areas immediately outside. It seems to me right that such matters should be reserved to the local authorities within those areas. I am sorry the noble Lord has not been able to give the undertakings which I have asked for this evening, and I shall divide the House.
9.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Schedule 34 [Repeals.]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
9.14 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 318, line 13, after (""or"") insert (", in the second place where it occurs,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 53, which was the same. I beg to move.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rochester, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Stedman, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Maelor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Stone, L.

Denington, B.

Peart, L.

Strauss, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wade, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Raglan, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Avon, E.

Ferrier, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Boardman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gowrie, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Orkney, E.

Caithness, E.

Hanworth, V.

Renton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ridley, V.

Chelwood, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Germans, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Inglewood, L.

Savile, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Digby, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Marley, L.

Wynford, L.

Falkland, V.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 71:
Page 324, line 50, after ("7") insert (", in subsection")
Page 324, line 54, at end insert ("and subsection (5)")
Page 325, line 2, leave out from ("section") to end of line 12 and insert ("10C(2), the words" Subject to regulations under this section".").
Page 325, line 20, at end insert ("; subsection (6)")
Page 326, line 5, after ("end,") insert ("paragraph 6,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to each of the five amendments which now follow in my name and as they are all amendments to the same schedule, I believe that I would be in order in suggesting that they should be moved en bloc. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 330, line 2, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 174(3).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment consequential on the repeal of Section 174(3) of the 1972 Act by subsection (2) of Clause 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 73
Page 330, line 7, at end insert—

("1973 c. 65.

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Section 46(2).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I beg to move Amendment No. 73 which stands in his name. I hope that the House will agree that this is a technical amendment which inserts into Schedule 34 Section 46(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which is repealed by Clause 25(2) of this Bill. The amendment is identical in effect to that which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. Having said that, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord BELLWIN Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 330, line 10, at end insert—

("1976 c. 70.

Land Drainage Act 1976.

Section 65(8).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the very last gasp! This amendment is consequential upon the acceptance by the House of Amendment No. 173A which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone at the Report stage. Is it not appropriate that at the very end of the day I should say that we are very pleased to accept this amendment, which is why we move it in this way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.20 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, this is a long-awaited moment; I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is virtually three months since we approved the Second Reading of this Bill, and although it is a long Bill and in some parts a somewhat complicated one, we have had a
1168
very thorough go at it. We spent almost seven hours over the Second Reading debate, in which 27 speakers took part. We spent very nearly 50 hours over the Committee stage, covering seven days and usually late nights—a length of time which I should imagine is not often surpassed in your Lordships' House. Having examined the Bill in such detail and having argued the merits of so many alternative approaches, we returned to the attack again the next time round and spent over 25 hours over four more days on Report stage. And even today, in that part of the Third Reading which is given over to the consideration of amendments, we have taken up no negligible space of time. That is good going for a revising House, and I think that we and our respective colleagues in another place can be satisfied that this Bill has been gone over thoroughly and revised where appropriate.
As to the merits of the different amendments we have made, these will appeal or not, according to one's point of view. Perhaps I might mention briefly just some of those which the Government see as more significant. It is part of the fruits of our deliberations that authorities whose expenditure is less than their grant-related expenditure will not thereby suffer a loss of grant; that urban development areas will, in general, be restricted to the inner cities for which they are designed; that the publication of information provisions in Part II designed to further local democracy will apply to Scotland and to public bodies other than local authorities proper. We have done a good deal of tidying, perhaps particularly in Part XVI but also in dealing with such important matters as education pooling, the Metropolitan Police and passenger transport executives.
Most of these changes were at the Government's behest, but we have seen a fair amount of, dare I call it, private enterprise as well. My noble friend Lord Ridley secured the addition to the controls schedules of a large number of useful items dealing with highways and road traffic. My noble friend Lady Faithfull led us to reverse the effect of the Liverpool judgment which has been an obstruction to the valuable work of the local ombudsman. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has persuaded us to repair the long-standing anomaly whereby vice-convenors of Scottish local authorities are

1169
not entitled to the allowance enjoyed by their English and Welsh counterparts. My noble friend Lord Colville moved some successful amendments to extend domestic rate relief to separately assessed garages; and similarly in the rating field are those amendments of my noble friend Lord Thurso, which attracted so much support from all quarters of the House and which we hope will give to fish farms the same benefits as those enjoyed by the more conventional kinds of agriculture.
I should also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, whose powerful arguments backed up those of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and persuaded the House to accept an amendment against my original advice but which, in the end, as I said earlier, we have not asked the House to reverse. Nor should I omit to mention at this stage the deep interest in the system of structure and local plans shown by my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Sandford, together with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon and others. And finally, there is the new Part XVII of the Bill, dealing with gipsy sites, for which we are indebted, I suspect in some sense collectively, to the noble Lords, Lord Irving and Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Ridley.
Nor would I like to pass over the miscellaneous improvements which have been made to the Bill. Clause 186, for example, although its title is rather dry, is none the less a useful provision; and as late as last Thursday we added a helpful new clause about land drainage, at the behest of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. That was the last amendment, with which I have just dealt. I do not see that I can leave this subject without mentioning the many invaluable corrections to the drafting which have been made at the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton, whose keen eye has picked up many slips of our pen.
All these amendments, however, have left intact the lineaments of the inner dignity and thrust of the Bill. I know that there are still those on the Benches opposite who hold fast to their original conviction that Part VI, the heart of the Bill, will have an adverse effect on the
1170
future of local government. I respect their opinions, even though they are diametrically opposed to mine. Our debates, of course, have not been confined to the amendments I have mentioned; they have ranged widely, as widely as the alternative system of rate support grant which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. But in the end we have approved, in all the various stages, the substance of the Bill as it was introduced, and I am grateful for the support which the House has shown to the Government's point of view.
I respect, as I have said before, the opinions of those on the Benches opposite, who doubtless will shortly rise to disagree with me; but I have made clear throughout my absolute conviction that they are utterly and irredeemably wrong. But that does not mean that we have not had constructive and helpful debates, for we have had both, in large measures. We have, indeed, been able to accept many of the amendments proposed from across the Floor, and we have listened to many helpful interventions and many fine speeches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has carried the major burden of opposing this Bill; it is a heavy task, to which my own experience can bear witness. I pay tribute to her unreservedly for her constant courtesy, and, may I say, charm; for her tirelessness—an essential requisite, I am afraid—and for the valiant way she has coped with the sometimes very complex issues which the Bill presents. I am deeply grateful to her. In these virtues she has been most ably supported by her colleagues: the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the always so compelling, eloquent and persuasive Lord Mishcon.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has carried a very substantial burden on the Liberal Benches. I should mention our admiration for the enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, threw himself into the battle for direct labour organisations. I especially appreciated his restraint, and it will always be a matter of some regret to me that at the last I was not able outrightly to accept at least one of his amendments; but there you are, that is in the way of things.

1171
I also acknowledge the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The local authority associations have been ably represented in our debates by their presidents, and Cambridgeshire in particular has found doughty protagonists in its three noble Baronesses who were so active in our debates. Nor shall I forget the always stylish and respected interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek.
My last and most pleasant duty in this last debate upon the Bill—and I say at once that I apologise to any noble Lord or noble Baroness who I do not mention, whom I would dearly like to; I know they will forgive me—is to express my warmest thanks to my colleagues here on this Bench who have provided such able and agreeable help in bearing the Government's flag in this House. I know the others will not mind my saying that we have perhaps benefited most from the deep and intimate knowledge of the rating system possessed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who, together with the Minister of State for Scotland, has also taken the lead when our debates have strayed away from England and Wales. May I say as an aside that it has at all times been a great comfort to me to know that when technical legal points have come up at short and unexpected notice my noble friend has sat there next to me. He really is a great comfort in every way. I am grateful to him. My thanks are also due to my noble friend Lord Belstead, who has coped with an unusual range of Home Office matters, stretching from police to pleasure boats.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers, not content with covering agricultural matters, has taken responsibility for some of the rating and for many of the complicated controls in Part I of the Bill. And I shall not forget the sterling services rendered in Committee by my noble friend Lord Sandys on new towns, and by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who helped with some of the urban development provisions. Last, but by no means least, there is my new colleague at the Department of the Environment, my noble friend Lord Avon,
1172
who has proved bold and resolute in this baptism of fire and has taken on such controversial issues, single handed I may say, as gipsies, and he has done it without flinching. So my special thanks are due to all of them for the hard work they have put in, and indeed for their kindness in the first place in agreeing to relieve me of some of this task. May I also thank the Whips and the business managers for their patience, skill, tolerance and understanding. This indeed was paramount.
But I think perhaps I should finally extend my thanks more widely to my other noble friends on the Benches behind. There were invaluable contributions from my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Morris and others, who I know will forgive me if I do not mention them individually; also, my thanks go to the noble Lords opposite who have spoken, and to all those Cross-Benchers who have made such a valuable contribution to our debates. My Lords, the atmosphere in this Bill, despite its contentiousness, its weight and its complexity, has usually been good-humoured and courteous, and I owe it to the whole House to thank them for this, which has eased my path in the formidable task of steering this Bill through the House. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
9.31 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, first, I should like to offer thanks from this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his courtesy, his very conciliatory manner and his equanimity at all times. He has carried the heavy burden of this Bill and at times we wondered whether he was going to stay the course, but always he has remained good-tempered and kindly, and we are grateful to him. We offer thanks also to his officials for providing us with Notes on Clauses and on Government amendments, and heaven knows there have been enough of those, even another 20 today—so many that our fears have been confirmed during the passage of this Bill that it was ill-conceived and cobbled together in the first place. It leaves this House with four additional schedules

1173
and over 30 new clauses, which must be a record for any Bill.
We are drawing to the end of 13 long days' consideration of the Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, it seems a very long time since Second Reading on 5th August. We said then that this was a worrying Bill, because it is an enabling measure which will give the Secretary of State far too much power through secondary legislation, and at the very heart of this Bill, in Parts V, VI and VII, are a set of proposals which have fundamentally restructured the relationship between central Government and the local authorities. We have been unable to get the right assurances as to how these parts of the Bill will work, how a fair formula will be decided upon and on what basis, and what redress authorities will have if they feel they have been treated unfairly and that their particular local problems do not seem to have been taken into consideration.
The local authority associations and everyone working in local government or serving on local councils are still unhappy about this Bill, and they feel that local government will only be responsible for a group of agency services directed and overseen by civil servants in the Department of the Environment. We still say that the local authorities should be able to make their own judgments about their expenditure needs, capital or revenue, provided they are prepared to finance them from their own resources and make their own decisions with a due sense of responsibility and local accountability.
This was a monstrous Bill on 5th August, and it is not much less so today. The Government have given very little—lots of assurances, but very little written into the Bill—and personally I very much regret that the Government felt it necessary to reintroduce in this House, after being defeated in the Lobbies, the original subsection on the sale of new town assets. I am not denying the Government's right to try to reverse that decision, but I remember that when we were in Government we were always told by the noble Lords opposite that when they defeated us in the Lobbies it was because this House was a revising Chamber, and it was sent back to the other place to give
1174
them a chance to look at it again. It makes interesting speculation as to why this course was not followed in this particular instance. Could it be that some of the Government Members representing new towns might have appreciated the danger and voted against the Government if they had had a second chance?
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has repeatedly said they are committed to new towns; they want to see them all completed. Again we have had assurances, but again, even as late as this evening, we have got nothing written into the Bill and no future Secretary of State can be bound by any assurances given by his predecessors. At Second Reading I said that it would be a sad, sad day for democratic local government if this ill-conceived Bill ever got on to the statute book but that we would do our best to amend it and make it more sensible and workable. We have fought hard to amend this Bill. I believe we have won many of the arguments but so few of the votes, and this iniquitous piece of legislation goes forward almost as the Government intended. We still maintain that it is a constitutionally deficient Bill. It is arbitrary. It gives far too much power over local government to the Secretary of State, to any Secretary of State, and it is a covert and a dangerous Bill which has gone a long way to destroying the mutual trust and confidence between local authorities and central Government, trust and confidence that has taken decades to build up.
The overall damaging effects will be inevitable when the Bill is enacted; it is so alien to our traditions of local government. Local government will be forced to put the blame on central Government for any failures to provide the services the people want and it will be the Ministers in another place who will have to spend a lot of time answering correspondence and Questions from MPs because their constituents will have to go to MPs when it is no longer a matter for their local councillors. The aggregate expenditure on local government is what matters and it has been proved from all parts of this House and admitted by the DoE that local government aggregate expenditure was strictly under control before the Bill even emerged. Indeed, if Government departments were as much under control

1175
and managed their affairs as well as local government, we should not be in the mess with PSBR that we are today.
Many people have given long years of service to local government at every level from parish and community councils to district councils, county councils and metropolitan authorities. They have fought their elections over the years on programmes tailored to suit their areas. If they wanted to provide more ambitious services than their neighbours they could do so in the sure and certain knowledge that if their electors approved of what they were trying to do they would probably hold their seats next time round, and equally certainly if they had gone too far they would be out on their ear. They had their independence and their freedom, and the price they paid—they paid it willingly—was that they had public and local accountability.
Local government is about different authorities with different needs and different resources. Different authorities come to different conclusions and make different decisions about their spending needs, and the justification for all that is their local accountability. After this Bill is enacted, that will all be history. From next week, local government as we have known it over the years will have gone. Local government in this country has a long and honourable record and it deserves better than this Bill, which shows a complete and utter disregard for local democracy and is a deliberate move to replace local control with central dictatorship.
I asked in Committee, speaking of noble Lords in all parts of the House who have had a distinguished record of service on local authorities: would you want to continue in local government as a puppet of a Secretary of State of whatever party? I appealed for help to remove the arbitrary clauses in the Bill. I failed, but my colleagues and I have fought a good and hard fight to save local government. I am proud to have worked with every one of them and I know we would do it all over again if at the end of the day local government could remain local, could retain its autonomy, its independence and its local accountability. But that is
1176
not to be, and it is a sad day for many of us to see the Bill leave this House virtually unamended in any of the respects that are so vital to save local government.
9.38 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I wish at the outset to join in the paeans of praise to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way in which he has taken the principal part in conducting this very complex Bill through your Lordships' House. He got so carried away that he described my noble friend Lord Thurso as his noble friend; I am glad that he has certain friends on the Liberal Benches. The Minister's great experience of local government and his great patience in piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House have made what I thought was an impossible task into one that has been only just possible. He has been fortunate—he said that himself—to have had his noble and noble and learned colleagues on the Front Bench to help him, but the principal praise for the way in which the Bill has been conducted must go to Lord Bellwin.
I have found working with, and very rarely against, noble Lords on this side of the Chamber a pleasant experience, particularly the consideration and understanding I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and I have been most fortunate in the help and advice I have had from colleagues on my own Benches.
This is a Bill of 19 parts, 197 clauses, and 34 schedules, though I am sure that since today's proceedings it is much larger. During the period that we have been discussing it the West Germans have had an election, the Australians have had an election, and the United States have chosen a president. When one considers those points one gets some idea of the length of time that we have spent on this Bill.
An indication of the complexity and the difficulties of the Bill is provided by the fact that today when I arrived here starry-eyed after staying up very late last night watching the results of the American presidential election, I found a huge selection of further amendments from the

1177
Government. That is perhaps also an indication of the way in which, as the noble Baroness said, the Bill has been "cobbled" together by the Government.
So far as I am concerned the Bill is not only, as I originally suspected, an attack on my concept of local government—and obviously a concept which I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—but it is also an attack on the reasonable and rational use of Parliament to discuss and improve proposed legislation. Furthermore, it seems to me to be an invasion by the executive of the function of the legislature, and certainly in many ways a mockery of the role of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber.
I repeat that this is not a criticism of the noble Lord the Minister. It is a criticism of this enormous Bill, which is really six or seven, or perhaps even nine or 10, different Bills all added together. It is not really a way in which any Government of any political complexion should go about legislating. In clause after clause, and part after part, the Bill has introduced new opportunities for the Secretary of State to make orders, to introduce regulations, and to set down codes of practice. It is a question not only of the mammoth size of the Bill, but also of the fact that it triggers off a whole new creeping, cancerous growth of subordinate legislation. I remember that during an earlier stage of the discussion of the Bill in your Lordships' House—I think it was on Report—the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, rightly pointed out that the volume of this subordinate legislation would effectively preclude any serious examination or discussion of much of it, very important though it is.
The parliamentary process of examination and control of legislation, the protection of the rights of citizens and the right at local level—I underline at local level—to manage our own affairs is in very serious danger of breaking down under the legislative programme, or blitzkrieg, of this Government. The Bill has introduced a number of minor reforms, which I welcome, giving local authorities more freedom, but in my view these are largely cosmetic. In trying to deal with the long-standing
1178
major defect of British local government, its financing, the Bill has succeeded in further emasculating and centralising local government in what I believe to be—though I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will not agree—a very dramatic way. First, it has removed the need for regular rating reviews, and thereby the Government have destroyed the tax base of local authorities. This will increase the anomalies and unpopularity of the rating system and remove any natural buoyancy in the rate base. The Government claim that they are considering the whole question of rating; in fact they have been claiming this since they came into office. No one, least of all the Government, expects quick results. In the interim the Government have now introduced uncertainty and arbitrariness into the timing of revaluations. In my view this is bad administrative practice carried out in the name of economy.
Secondly, by introducing the block grant, the Bill has made a fundamental attack on the two central basic decisions that individual local authorities have historically been able to make: the local authority's judgment of its own need to spend, and its determination of the rate that it needs to levy. To me those are two fundamental obligations, duties, and rights of local government. What has so concerned me and I am sure several noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber is the fact that during the passage of the Bill local government has ceased to be local government and has become local agency of central Government.
Try as the Government may, they cannot successfully hide, and they have failed to hide, this fundamental blow to local government autonomy. It will not do for the Government to say that local authorities can still make these decisions. The whole thrust of the transitional provisions and the block grant is to penalise heavily those authorities whose judgments and decisions differ from those of central Government. As I said earlier, during the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, the Bill introduces what I have described as the concept of democratic centralism as understood in the third article of the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; namely, the obligation

1179
of lower bodies to observe the decisions of higher ones.
The Bill has further emasculated local independence by introducing urban development corporations to do the work that in my opinion locally-elected local authorities with a little more freedom could well have carried out themselves. Indeed, the whole purpose of setting up county councils under the 1972 legislation was to enable them to do these very things which have now been taken away from them; and by introducing fees for planning applications the Government have introduced a new and, to me, totally unacceptable principle of charging or, indeed, of taxing individuals for the privilege of accepting limitations on how an individual can use his own land and property.
My Lords, praising the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he has conducted this Bill does not in any way diminish the view held on these Benches that this is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation, and is a blow to the very heart of democratic local government in this country.
9.47 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his conduct of this Bill. Those congratulations are all the more heartfelt because eight years ago I occupied his office. I believe I endured at least as many Divisions, and I am certain I suffered many more defeats. So I know what it feels like; and I am sure my noble friend is delighted to be at the stage we have now reached. His is, I think, an astonishing achievement, and perhaps the greatest tribute to him is that, although this friendless Bill leaves us almost as friendless as it was when it arrived, it leaves us with his personal reputation very firmly established and, if anything, very greatly enhanced. That is a remarkable achievement, and is thoroughly deserved.
My noble friend has done his persuasive best to infect us all with his own personal
1180
convictions about, and his own personal enthusiasm for, this Bill. I think he has been helped in that, if I may say so, by arranging for notes on clauses and notes on amendments to be issued to us, and that has enabled us to see more clearly what it was that the Government were intending to do. There is no doubt that his persuasiveness, coupled with those notes, has served to allay a number of suspicions and to remove a number of doubts, but I have to tell my noble friend and his noble friends on the Front Bench that there is a considerable job of work to be done before local government as a whole is persuaded that this Bill is going to be for their long-term benefit—and this work must be tackled very seriously when the Bill is on the statute book.
My Lords, I am sure we have been able to improve the Bill here and there, and I hope that another place will be able to acknowledge and accept the improvements we have made. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It will come when we see the way the Bill works out in practice, and whether the fears expressed by noble Lords opposite (many of which, I am afraid, I share) about the extent to which central Government will be tempted and enabled to interfere in the workings of local government are justified. It will emerge when we see the quality and the tone—particularly the tone—of the many regulations that will emerge from this Bill, and when the benefits which Ministers claim for this Bill are realised, if in fact they can be realised.
My Lords, local government is used to criticism. Members and officers know that they have to accept criticism as part of the hazards of their office and that it is not for them to enjoy the rewards of profit, as it is in the private sector. During the passage of this Bill, particularly in this House, that criticism has been greatly intensified. It has been intensified by private industry, who find themselves grappling with the recession, with redundancies and with high interest rates; it has been intensified by central Government and not least by Ministers responsible for local government as they have been left grappling, not with complete success, with their own failure to control their own targets of public expenditure for

1181
which they were directly responsible; and it has been intensified by private individuals grappling with the manifold personal problems which beset them in these hard times.
Local government has learned to live with these criticisms and, I hope, to welcome it and use it constructively; but it cannot do so unless the criticism is specific, constructive and can be substantiated. I hope that a lot of these broad, general, wide swipes of criticism of local government will begin to die down; for they are destructive, damaging to morale, quite counter-productive and no useful purpose can be made of them. If this Bill enables local government to be criticised in a specific, constructive way which can be substantiated, it will do some good.
One of the reasons for this Bill is that local government is responsible for a very large sector of public expenditure, £14,000 million; and local government in present circumstances has a very clear duty to help cut our national economic coat according to our national economic cloth; to stop spending what we do not earn and to do everything it is required to do with the maximum efficiency. For instance, we must use the housing stock we have got; and the Housing Bill will help us to do that. Planners and the district councils who are now responsible for the employment of the great bulk of planners, must learn to encourage rather than to restrain productive enterprise. That is a lesson I am sure they are now learning fast. But there is not a great deal of mileage to be gained in curbing waste and extravagance because there is not as much of that about as people would like to believe. But where it exists, of course, it must be curbed and, if necessary, penalised.
But, in addition to that, certainly we will have to reduce services. We must certainly review charges where they are already made and consider introducing charges where they are not being made. It will be necessary certainly to reduce staff, I hope by means of natural wastage; but everyone in local government must realise that high wages in present circumstances can only accelerate reductions and oblige local government to move from
1182
natural wastage to enforced redundancies. In all this, it is most important that everybody concerned with trying to help local government do what is expected of them should distinguish between the savers and the spenders. For those local authorities—and I like to think it is the great majority—that have been trying to curb expenditure and to make savings for several years, it would be very difficult to do very much more. The fact that there are a few who have been spending far more than they should have been spending under present economic circumstances does not mean to say that huge savings can be made now suddenly by the great majority. They cannot.
The only other thing I want to say is that it is now the clear priority of local authorities, and the district councils in particular, to promote and support industrial development by the private sector. This is our highest priority. It involves a significant change of attitude by our planners, and that I think is being achieved. It requires an appraisal and the dissemination of examples of the best practice in this field by districts and their associated agencies, in the promotion of wealth-creating and job-creating business enterprises. If some of the clauses of this Bill help in this way I believe that our five weary weeks will not have been spent in vain.
9.55 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I should like to add a few words from this side of the House. I can understand the feelings of noble Lords about this Bill because many of them think that it is an English Bill. Certainly from the Front Bench opposite I have had nothing but courtesy—and I return nothing but admiration to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for the way that he has conducted this Bill. He has shown a knowledge of local government that must have surprised many people who did not know him. When we appreciate that this Bill has followed the Housing Bill, the cast may have changed at times but not the cast on the Front Bench, because he was there during the Housing Bill and showed the same mastery of the subject. I am delighted about that.

1183
I am not going to thank him for the Bill. As a Scotsman, I consider this to be a bloated, mongrel measure. The future of this place is under question in certain parts of Parliament. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will be all that satisfied with what we have done. Inflation is the enemy. When it came to us, the Bill had 166 clauses; now it has 197. When it came to us it had 265 pages; now it has 330. When it came to us it had 30 schedules; now it has 34. So we have played our part in inflation.
From a Scottish point of view I say "mongrel". The Minister said at one point in his "farewell" speech that the heart of the matter was Part VI. How many clauses, my Lords, in Part VI apply to Scotland? Not a single one. There are 197 clauses, and more than 100 of them do not apply to Scotland. If we take the main clauses, Parts IV, V, VI, VII and VIII, dealing with local government allowances, rates, rate support grants, miscellaneous grants and capital expenditure—those 62 clauses—only seven apply to Scotland. When we take town and country planning, land held by public bodies, and so on, right through to land in Wales, Parts IX, X, XI and XII, there are only two of the 25 clauses which apply to Scotland. This is not the way to legislate for Scotland.
Tribute has been paid to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I challenge him as the adviser to the Government on Scottish law. He is not a Scottish Minister. He is a United Kingdom Minister; he is the adviser to the Government on Scottish law. Is this the way to legislate for Scotland? Is it fair to ask any Scottish local authority to go through all this Bill and pick out the bits and pieces that apply to Scotland? Is it fair to the Scottish lawyers? Are we going to reprint this Bill leaving out all the English parts? That is a simple, straightforward question and I should like an answer from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate now. Is that going to be done?
This has been done before and this always happens when we get this confusion of legislation. It is not good
1184
enough for somebody to get up and say: "It is a United Kingdom Bill". We have a corpus of law in Scotland related to local government. It is nothing to do with English local government; it is an entirely different system.
The same thing is true of town and country planning. The same thing is true of the oldest subject for legislation in Scotland, land. Why should we get this mixed up? It is absolutely impossible. It is asking a bit much for the few of us in this place who are Scots to plough our way through all this business of reading English legislation and trying to translate it in those clauses which apply to Scotland. By the way, the draftsmen have had an awful time with this, I am perfectly sure. I could suggest a few more amendments, but I have a little more to do with my time than spend it on this particular one.
I listened to the noble Lord who referred to 1973 and the time he had, because that was the Bill that dealt with local government reorganisation. The year 1973 was when the Tory Government introduced local government reorganisation for Scotland. Many people, including many people sitting opposite me tonight, felt that was a disaster for local government. They said that local government ceased to be local. I tend to agree with the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches that with this Bill it tends now not to be "government". More and more what we have got is directives and regulations, the law being laid down; and the choice of decision by local government has gone.
I remember a time when elections were fought by the party opposite on the platform of freedom for the local authorities. They have shackled them and they have shown that they have no confidence in them. The statutory responsibility for the functions is still upon local authorities, but if they seek to carry out their functions in accordance with what they think to be essential, they are going to be clobbered by the central authority and by the Secretary of State, be it in Whitehall or in St. Andrew's House.
It is not good enough, and I think that many people will live to regret the day,

1185
having already regretted that they took away the local aspect from local government. Now I think they have restricted the "government" part. My last plea
1186
is this: Never let this happen again, so far as Scottish legislation is concerned. This is the wrong way to treat Scottish legislation.
10.2 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether or not it is a coincidence that we are passing this Bill on Guy Fawkes' night and I will not go so far as to say that it is such a threat to democracy as that gentleman was; but I do think we have provided enough bonfire material to last for many years to come.
This Bill has fundamentally altered the relationship between local and central Government. It may be for the better or it may be for the worse. We cannot see into the future and we cannot be certain about it. All I think is that nothing will be quite the same again after this Bill. We have already had many disquieting reports about the complications which the new system of rate support grant is introducing.
Those of us who have taken part in these long debates have enjoyed it; I do not deny that. This House has done its utmost to do the job for which it exists, and it has done the job very well. I have been greatly privileged personally to be able to take some part in it and occasionally to weary your Lordships with some of the views of the Association of County Councils. I think we really must welcome the way the House has tackled the somewhat tedious subjects in parts of this Bill.
Let us look for a second into the future. I think that this country must devise a better way of financing local government than the complicated house of cards which we have constructed over the years and which is in danger at times of collapsing—a system which can blend accountability, responsibility and acceptability and which does not need this sort of legislation to control it. It is about 70 years or more since the question of local government finance was raised in Parliament. I think it was under A. J. Balfours' Administration, which ought to please the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. Anyway, whether or not we have succeeded in solving it is a matter which I think your Lordships would agree is uncertain. We must give local authorities freedom, because I think democracy suffers very greatly if the local authorities are not free, and one of the essential parts of a vigorous democracy is a sound local government.
1188
I believe that this House, whether it be reformed or not, is ideally placed to look more closely at how we really can finance local government properly in the future. We need at least a year's rest from this subject—I am sure that your Lordships would agree that nobody wants to talk about it at the moment—but after such a period I do hope that we can return to it with a renewed sense of purpose and a feeling of how to make this thing work.
I should like to add a very sincere tribute to my noble friend Lord Bellwin for all that he has done to pilot this Bill through the House. I shall not repeat what has been already said, but I feel strongly that he has done a marvellous job on behalf of the Government and to help local authorities. He has explained so many difficult subjects to us with great expertise and skill. His readiness to listen, if not to concede amendments, is something that we all deeply appreciate, and he has been well supported by many other Ministers.
But I hope that he, and his friends in the Government, realise that there is concern in local authorities up and down the land at some of the measures which have been passed tonight. I hope that they are wrong, and I hope that I am wrong in saying this. I cannot help saying it, because I believe it is what people think, and I cannot deny that many local authorities think that I and some others on these Benches have perhaps not fought the Bill as hard as we might have done. But we have done our best. I think that there are bridges which now need to be rebuilt between the Conservative Party and their friends in local government, and I hope that, in some small way. I can play a little part in that process in the future.
10.6 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is so right. There is one note of unanimity in this House during the closing phases of our debates, and it is that we have had the privilege of hearing in charge of this Bill someone who is undoubtedly a very good and a very courteous Minister. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood in this

1189
expression. He is, indeed, a man of many parts, as this Bill is a Bill of many parts, and, as I said, I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that if only the parts of the Bill were as comely and attractive as the parts of the Minister, my noble friends and I would be happier tonight than we are.
It is an astonishing time to hear this debate on whether the Bill should pass. Listening to some of the speeches of noble Lords opposite, I have closed my eyes and wondered why they are not on these Benches, or, if they have not been on these Benches during the passage of this Bill, where they have been in the Division Lobbies. If they had been there this Bill might have been very drastically amended.
I suppose that few of us can remember an occasion in regard to such a measure as a local government Bill of this kind when the views of the local authority associations throughout the country have been completely ignored. This is an extraordinary situation and one that, unfortunately, does not bode well for future relationships. But I suppose that we are all grateful for the offer of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that he will serve as a bridge over this crumbling relationship and endeavour to make it better than it seems to be at this moment.
Nobody wants to repeat a Second Reading speech tonight. I only want to say this on behalf of my noble friends and myself: the pitiful part of the Bill, as we see it—and this is not just empty criticism for the sake of criticism—is that we feel that it has dealt a very harsh blow at democracy in this country. We think it has done it, not just because of the reasons that have been advanced, that government has gone out of local government, or local has gone out of local government and authority has gone out of local authority. It is not just that. It is, as my friends and I have tried to show so often—and I know that our colleagues on the Liberal Benches have done the same—the shame that we feel that people should be so discouraged from entering into the service of local government, because so many powers and discretions have been taken away that it almost makes their job meaningless.
1190
The other blow to democracy is this. Many of us who have served in local government over the years, and have loved it, have found ourselves somewhat discouraged at election time when we have seen the size of the polls. It has been a matter of grave concern to all of us. If it was small before, what has the voter been left to vote for now if all the powers, discretions, capital expenditures, limits of expenditure and so on are taken away from authorities and if all that they are left with as political parties is to say, "Well, it may be that what we have done is the fault of central Government" or, if they are on the attack, "Had it not been for the limited amount that we have been given by central Government we could have done better".
We feel that this is a sorry Bill and a bad Bill. We have done our best to amend it. We have met with courtesy on the other side—I hope that I am using my words very carefully—but with a firmness that at times has seemed to be rigidity. I am sorry for the sake of this House that there has been that rigidity, but if ever we have an opportunity on our side of the House of challenging what has happened as a result of this Bill we shall do so, in the hope that at least at some time an amending measure may be brought about.
10.11 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, at this time I, too, have no intention of making another Second Reading speech, but I ought to respond as briefly as I can—I shall try to do so very briefly—to some of the points that have been made. May I begin by thanking everybody who has spoken for being so kind to me personally. I appreciate that very much indeed. It is quite a traumatic thing to go through, and even more to hear nice things said in this way. It makes one feel very humble. That is certainly how I feel at the moment. However, I must pick up some of the points which have been made. I am only sorry it seems that in debates which take place on, That the Bill do now pass? that in addition to the courtesies and the expressions of mutual respect there has to be a reference to what the legislation is about.

1191
When the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that local government, as we have known it, will have gone as a result of the Bill, I am sure that she does not expect me to agree with her. My personal hopes and aspirations for local government are not one whit less than hers—or less than anybody else's, if it comes to that. May I repeat something which I said at some stage down the line; namely, that if I did not believe in what we as a Government were putting forward I could not do it in the way I like to feel that I have done and that many of your Lordships have been good enough to say I have done. Therefore, as always with most things in life, there is more than one point of view.
On this basic fundamental of all fundamentals—that is, the freedom for local government to do things—I would pray in aid of very much the myth of existing freedom: at least, the freedom in local government today which is far less free than it was when I came into local government in the early 1960s. When one compares what we are going to leave local government with after this Bill has been passed and what we found, then one simply has to accept that there is a great gap between us regarding how we see it. I am not going to weary the House by going through all the reasons why I think that this is so. Noble Lords would not thank me for that, and it would not be right that I should do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, made his major attack upon the financial provisions—the block grant. He referred to the two aspects to which I also wish to refer; namely, the extent to which the block grant either increases or decreases the ability of local government to make its own decisions about what it spends and about what it rates. I repeat what I have said so often: that it does not in any way affect that, because it is all about—and it is only about—the distribution of grant from the central taxpayer.
There is a finite sum of money every year which goes out to local government in the form of the rate support grant settlement. It is u fixed sum. The whole debate—you can call it block grant or
1192
you can call it what you like—is all about how you distribute that money among some 450 authorities. Everything else is peripheral. It is all about that, and I maintain that categorically because we, through the block grant, think that this is a better way of doing it than the unloved and criticised-by-everyone existing method. It is for that reason that I think we have something better. If we differ about it, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we shall have to see, when all the debate is done with, whether we were right or wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said such nice things to start with, and then he spoiled it! I only say that he complained so bitterly about how little in the Bill affected Scotland, when all the rest of his colleagues on this side complained so bitterly about how much it affected England. There is no doubt about it, one really cannot win !
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for his very kind remarks and, as I said a moment ago, he summed it up by saying "the proof of the pudding will be in the eating". I always appreciate what my noble friend Lord Ridley says. He was very kind to me, and he was right when he said that there is concern in local government. My goodness! if we do not know that now, we do not know anything. Of course there was concern before, there is concern now, and there will go on being concern. If as a Government, with this Bill under our belt—if that is the right way to put it, and probably it is the wrong way—we cannot in fact show that it is better for local government, then that concern will be justified. I submit that it will be for the good of local government.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, throughout these proceedings, as indeed in the proceedings on the other two Bills in which I have been involved, has always been so gracious and so eloquent and so persuasive, and I sometimes feel, as with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, how sad it is that one is not able to move all the way that they would like us to do. Many of their arguments were very sound and sensible, and I hope in return they will accept that where there is a balance between us I take

1193
the Government's line because I believe that just has the edge on a narrow situation. I am grateful to Lord Mishcon for all the kind things he said, and I urge him, as indeed I urge all noble Lords opposite, not to feel so disheartened about it. It is a Bill of which I myself am very proud because I think it will do for local government many of the things we always dreamed about and wanted to see. Only time will tell. With that, I wind up a very long session indeed, and I am very thankful that I do.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.