Lords Sitting of 16 July 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

Tourism in the UK and Hotel Tariffs
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a fall in the number of tourists visiting the United Kingdom is expected following the recent increase in hotel tariffs greater than the increase in the rate of inflation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the latest indications suggest that there will be a continued increase in the number of tourists visiting the United Kingdom during 1984. The British Tourist Authority estimate that over 13 million visits will be made to the United Kingdom this year compared with 12½ million in 1983. Provisional results from the International Passenger Survey for the first four months of this year show that the number of visits has increased by 12½ per cent. compared with the same period in 1983.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging answer. Can he tell me whether there is any additional increase to the British economy by British families taking holidays in this country, as well as the roaring trade done by British travel agents for the millions of families who go abroad during the summer season?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords, there is an addition to the British economy. The balance on the travel account for the first four months of this year was £60 million, compared to a deficit of £26 million for the same period of last year. This reflects the fact that we now have a very buoyant domestic trade with an estimated increase in spending of some 19 per cent. by British tourists last year over the previous year.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, reverting to the noble Lord's original Question, which suggested that the recent increase in hotel tariffs was greater than the increase in inflation, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that for three-star hotels and hotels of a lesser category than that the increase is no higher than the rate of inflation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for that information. I did not have that. My information is of a slightly different kind. A recent survey covering the year to April of this year suggests an average national increase of 7.6 per cent. for a single room and 6.9 per cent. for a twin room compared with a 5.2 per cent. increase in the retail price index over the same period. But those
1172
figures take no account at all of the various discounts which are so very often offered by hotels.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at least some of the increase in hotel prices recently was due to the decision of the Wages Council to introduce compulsory increases in hotel and catering industry wages, particularly for juveniles, in excess of the rate of inflation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said. My noble friend's supplementary question underlines the need for us to be very careful about the rate of wage increases.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not one of the main reasons for the buoyancy of the tourist trade the fall in the value of the pound, which has had disastrous effects on every other area of the economy in terms of the increases in prices of raw materials and finished goods; whereas the tourist trade is the only trade to benefit from this weakness in the pound?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, many factors affect the level of incoming visitors to this country. These include the state of the world economies, exchange rates and our ability to provide high quality tourist attractions and facilities. When the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says that the one reason for the buoyant tourist trade—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I did not say that. I said one of them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, when the noble Lord ascribes a single reason for an increase in the tourist trade to the temporary comparative weakness of the pound I would say that it is because we offer good facilities in this country. If the noble Lord does not believe me, all he need do is go into Parliament Square and ask the hundreds of visitors to this country who are to be found there.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is the noble Lord not also aware that the average price of a New York hotel room in dollar terms is now very much higher than the average price of a London hotel room?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for that question. He has, indeed, assisted me in answering effectively the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, on the subject of the value of dollars, should not these visitors to our shores buy their pounds rather fast before the value of the pound goes up very considerably, as it certainly will when this coal strike is successfully ended?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for the confidence he quite rightly shows in the affairs of this country.

Resource Allocation in the NHS
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made since 1979 in reducing regional variations of health service provision under the RAWP system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, since 1979–80 we have reduced the gap between the best and worst funded RHA by more than a third—from 22 per cent. to 14 per cent. This represents substantial progress towards our aim of achieving a fairer distribution of resources across the country.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very informative reply and ask two more questions. First, what are the current plans for adapting resource allocations where there are population changes? Secondly, where there is depopulation in London, what are the measures to protect the finances of the London teaching hospitals, having due regard to their international role of leading the world in medical research and care of the sick?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in the past RAWP targets were calculated on historical population data, although we did take account of population growth in making actual allocations. Next year we shall be using population projections in the formula, and this should take a better account of expected population growths. I hope that that answers my noble friend's first question.
So far as medical teaching in London is concerned, certainly London's health authorities fully recognise the importance of reconciling teaching and service needs. So far as closures and things like that are concerned, proposals that are referred to Ministers will be carefully scrutinised, and the effects of any change on the Secretary of State's duty to provide reasonable facilities for medical education will be taken into account.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister realise that the Question refers to the RAWP system? What is it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, RAWP stands for the Resource Allocation Working Party.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we are satisfied that the RAWP fair shares policy, which was initiated by the previous Labour Government, has been continued to the real advantage of the traditionally deprived regions, and that we are grateful for his indication that the gap has been narrowing? Does he also accept that the benefit for the other regions is being achieved at the expense of real cuts in services in the overfunded Thames regions at a time when in real terms growth is virtually nil?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we do not accept that, because the Thames regions are receiving no growth this year, and can expect reduced allocations in future, they have no scope for improving services. That is of course the important fact. We are requiring all authorities to undertake a sustained cost improvement programme to release resources for improving patient service, and we shall look to the Thames regions to tackle that vigorously. I think that there is still too much emphasis on the need for additional resources without making the best use of what we already have.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but am I right in believing that it was always the avowed policy of the party opposite to level up rather than down?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, but we are talking about the fact that historically London has been overprovided because there has been a move away from London, and the regions have been underfunded. That is why it is necessary to do it this way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that answer will not do, with the best will in the world? All over the country there are vast lists of people waiting for things, and the RAWP provision is not being fulfilled. Simply to meet demands by cutting back resources and closing hospitals is not a sensible way to tackle the difficult problem that the Government face.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps progress towards RAWP has been too slow. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the fact is that it is not a perfect science. He will also know that I have on many occasions rehearsed the achievements towards not just increased expenditure to the National Health Service throughout the country, but also, in particular, as against closing hospitals, opening new ones.

EEC Expenditure Regulations: Cash Limits
2.46 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will list the EEC regulations governing expenditure under Titles 1 and 2 of the EEC Commission's Operational Budget (Official Journal L 12 of 16th January 1984) that require amendment to make such expenditure subject to cash limits established by an EEC budget in order to enforce budget discipline; and whether they will confirm their intention to use their veto under the Luxembourg Convention to prevent any price increase in the Annual Price Review which would result in established cash limits being exceeded.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, as my noble friend the Prime Minister explained in her Statement in another place on 27th June, which was repeated in your Lordships'

1175
House, the European Council has agreed that net expenditure relating to agricultural markets should increase less than the rate of growth in the own resources base. Finance Ministers are now working on the precise measures to guarantee the effective application of this principle. It is premature to speculate what form these measures might take.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that agreements expressed in such general terms at EEC summits are quite meaningless? Is he also aware that there is established by law a network of regulations which ensures the payment out of money on a demand-led basis, and that the only way to limit that expenditure is simply by fixing cash limits—a fact of which he is well aware in other, more domestic fields? Is the noble Lord additionally aware that any agreement to increase the VAT resources beyond the existing 1 per cent., without firm guarantees of the imposition of cash limits on that demand-led expenditure, will be entirely worthless? Will he please answer the last part of the Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, the agreement of the heads of government on the need for budget discipline was clearly expressed both at the Brussels meeting in March and at the Fontainebleau summit. It was then remitted to the Finance Ministers to turn those general agreements on points of principle (which is where one has to start) into concrete proposals. The Finance Ministers are meeting this week, on Thursday, 19th July, to discuss those matters. I would have thought the right thing to do was to await the out-turn of that meeting.
So far as the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned I do not think that it would be profitable to discuss at this stage what measures should or need be taken in relation to agreements which have not yet been reached.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those answers are quite unsatisfactory? The uncontrolled expenditure of the European Community under Titles 1 and 2 exceeds £9½ thousand million a year—all uncontrolled, all demand-led. Is he aware that the last price review, which remained the one controlling mechanism as long as the provisions of the Luxembourg Convention held, has now apparently gone by the board, without protest even, by the Government? Does the noble Lord intend to insist, in future, that the annual price review is of vital national importance to the United Kingdom within the provisions of the Luxembourg Convention and will he ensure that in future, if necessary, it is enforced?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not accept, either in principle or in detail, the interpretation which the noble Lord endeavours to place upon events. May I start by reminding him that under the various agreements that this Government have negotiated we have paid £3,000 million less to the European Community than we would have paid under the arrangements bequeathed to us by the Labour
1176
Government. I am certain that this is the major reason for the noble Lord's indignation about these matters. I entirely agree with him that expenditure on the common agricultural policy needs to be kept within bounds. There was clear agreement between the heads of government on that principle. It now rests with the Finance Ministers to turn that agreement on principle into practical proposals.
May I also say that the agreement to the increase in own resources is entirely dependent on a satisfactory outcome on the other matters, and it will be open to Parliament to vote on this matter when the regulations are drawn up, when agreement is finally reached.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the announcements about the own resources and the possible postponement of the increase coming about would affect the 1986 budget, and could he indicate, in that case, what the implications are for the enlargement of the Community by Spain and Portugal?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness is an important one. One of the principal reasons for the proposed increase in own resources is to pay the cost of enlargement. The communique makes it quite clear that the increase in VAT, which is necessarily linked to the other matters—it is not a separate matter; it is linked to budget discipline and the control of agricultural expenditure—should come into force not later than 1st January, 1986.

Local Authority Spending Levels
2.52 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will be able to announce the permitted levels of local authority spending for the next financial year.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, my right honourable friend hopes to make an announcement later this month.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in view of the fact that it must have a bearing on next year's financial agreements, could the noble Minister tell us what really happened in the settlement between the Government and the Liverpool City Council? Did the Government suffer a humiliating defeat, as printed in Militant Tendency's newspaper, or was an accommodation reached under agreed criteria? If the settlement was reached on the latter basis, would the same criteria be afforded to the local authorities in Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield in order to avoid any confrontation in the future?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am glad to say that Liverpool was treated no differently from any other authority in England. They received no special concessions. They received nothing on rate support grant, nor on targets, nor penalties, nor disregard, nor

1177
HIP allocations. They have gained nothing which they could not have gained in the normal course of discussions with my department about their programme. Liverpool have cut their proposed expenditure from £261 million to £223 million. Their claim that there has been a massive concession is frankly a smokescreen to cover their humiliating climbdown and the total failure of their attempts to confront the Government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Minister finally sits down, may I press him and ask him whether he is aware that in the press over the weekend there have been two projections? One is that there will be a moratorium on local government spending for the next financial year. Secondly, in the Sunday Times yesterday it was predicted that the rate support grant will be cut to 49 per cent. from, I think, 52 per cent. this year. If this policy is pursued and either of those figures is used as a criterion, is that not a recipe for future confrontation?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can make no observations at all on the likely rate support grant settlement. As to the point about a moratorium, I certainly cannot comment on that, either, but I hope, as does the noble Lord, that that will not come about.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, will the noble Minister not agree with the comment in The Times today from the former leader of the Liverpool City Council, Trevor Jones, that much of the so-called victory that the Labour-controlled council has had is thanks to the considerable reserves of over £20 million built up by the Liberal administration in the previous year?
Lord Bellvvin: My Lords, had there been a "victory", I would have been interested to know the reason for it. I can certainly say that, far from being a victory, it was indeed exactly what I said; namely, a humiliating climbdown by those concerned.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Third Readings of two Scottish consolidation Bills, the Committee stage of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill and the Education (Northern Ireland) and University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Orders will be taken.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
2.57 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Restriction of terms of councillors elected in 1985.
PART A PROVISION FOR ELECTIONS IN 1985 AND SUBSEQUENT LIMITATION OF TERMS OF OFFICE
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall have power after the passing hereafter by Parliament of an enactment which provides for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and the transfer of their functions, to make an order to restrict to a term expiring not before 1st April 1986, the period of office of councillors of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils elected in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act on 2nd May 1985, for the electoral divisions as set out in Schedule (Composition of Greater London Council and Metropolitan County Councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which stands in not only my name, but also the names of the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Hayter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, I feel that we are in a very difficult position in regard to this Bill today. Two thirds of the original Bill have been taken out since Committee stage. It would have been far more proper and far more advantageous to the House in its discussion of the Bill if Parts I and II had been recommitted. This should have been the Committee stage of those parts of the Bill, and not the Report stage which we are on today.
Further, only one day has been allocated for Report. We on these Benches certainly feel—and I think many other noble Lords also feel—that this Bill is not receiving the kind of attention that it should.
This amendment which I am moving is the most important amendment this afternoon. It sustains the clear decision taken by the Committee of this House on 28th June and complements that amendment by ensuring that elections take place in May 1985. It also grants power to the Secretary of State to limit the terms of those elected, once the main abolition Bill has been passed. In that way it is, therefore, linked to Amendments Nos. 19 and 50.
Amendment No. 19: Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
(" Review of metropolitan county council electoral divisions.
.The Secretary of State shall, not later than one month after the passing of the Act, direct the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to carry out a review of the boundaries and electoral divisions of any metropolitan county for which such a review has not been completed under the principal Act within the previous twelve months, and to make proposals by 1st March 1985.").
Amendment No. 50: Before Schedule I, insert the following new schedule:
(" SCHEDULE
COMPOSITION OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCILS PENDING A DECISION BY PARLIAMENT ON THEIR CONTINUED EXISTENCE
1. Pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence, the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils shall be one member elected for each of the electoral divisions in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act.
2. In respect of the Greater London Council the electoral divisions shall correspond with the Parliamentary constituencies in Greater London.
3. In respect of a metropolitan county, the electoral divisions shall correspond with proposals made to the Secretary of State by 1st March 1985 following a review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England pursuant to section (Review of metropolitan county council electoral divisions) above and in relation to any such proposals this paragraph shall have effect in place of paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 9 to the Principal Act.").
The clear decision on 28th June was taken, in the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who moved the amendment in Committee to,
"prevent the Secretary of State from ordering the cancellations of elections to the Greater London Council and to the six metropolitan county councils".—[Official Report; col. 1035.]
Let us be quite clear that the compromise proposed by the Government to extend the terms of office of sitting councillors to April 1986 is in no way a viable substitution for holding elections in May 1985. The Government amendment not only suspends the elections, but does so before the House of Lords has had an opportunity to make a decision on the abolition Bill, the provisions of which are still unknown not only to this House, but, seemingly, also to everyone else: or, if that is not so, they are a very closely guarded secret. Really, we cannot be expected to buy a legislative pup of this kind. Indeed, the order cancelling the May elections would have to be made by mid-March at the latest, before this House could have even a sniff of Second Reading. Even the amendment that is now part of the Bill, providing that any order should be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, does not meet the case in this instance. As we discussed in Committee, it is the practice, as we are all aware, of this House not to vote against an order that has been passed by another place. So, although to discuss affirmative orders has some value, it has no real value in this instance.
The Government's extension of terms is to run to April 1986. Yet both past experience and present forecasts indicate that, if it is to be properly done, it will be impossible to complete the abolition handover by April 1986. Indeed, resisting in Committee on 3rd July an amendment which sought to make 1st April 1986 the final deadline for the, now happily deceased, interim councils, the Minister said, at column 180:
"To put a specific deadline in this Bill is not only unnecessary but it prejudges Parliament's timetable for considering the main Bill, and prejudges Parliament's consideration of that Bill since it is that Bill which will specify the abolition dates".
Further, the Leader of the House, when questioned on the use of the reference to "into 1986", when he made a Statement on 5th July, said that it basically meant April.
Let us look at this a little more carefully. The main abolition Bill is highly unlikely to be enacted before July 1985—at the earliest. The joint boards and quangos which will inherit most of the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils cannot be created until then. On the Government's timetable they will have at the most nine months before abolition proper sets in. It takes nine months to produce a baby, but I reckon that it takes much longer to produce a quango. In the metropolitan counties, for example, 18 new joint boards and 36 district councils will have to decide levels of service, appoint staff, reorganise departments, transfer assets (which is a very complicated job), re-allocate debts, reorganise superannuation and insurance and pool information—to mention just a few of the functions with which they will be concerned.
The problems of disbanding the GLC are even greater. Central government will have to decide how to reorganise the rate support grant and the rate
1180
equalisation scheme in London. Government departments will need to reassess the new powers and role. Therefore, the councillors whose terms are extended could be in situ 18 months, or even two years, without being elected, and they would include those who would not want to stand for re-election, anyhow, as many have indicated. Yet a proposal to extend the unelected councils for longer than 12 months would, I am sure, not be acceptable to either your Lordships or to people outside. The Government have quoted that well-known fallback "precedent" in order to justify what they are doing in order to cancel elections. They claim that extension of terms accords with the precedents. But there is no precedent for either cancelling elections or extending terms in advance of the main legislation. In 1963 the tenure of LCC councillors was extended in the London Government Act and elections for the new GLC were held in 1964. In 1972 elections to authorities facing abolition were allowed to proceed although the Local Government Act was not implemented until 1974. Therefore, there are no real precedents for this. Even if there were, they would be bad precedents, which should be strictly ignored.
The Leader of the House will, I am sure, be at his most persuasive when he speaks. He will rightly say that the interim councils have been dropped. I do not think that the Government could have done less than that. But, I beg you, my Lords, beware his golden tongue which will caress Amendment No. 5, which stands the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and which is the Government's alternative. However, this will not do. The House of Lords will still be constitutionally by-passed, since the elections will be cancelled before we have seen the abolition Bill. Extending the terms of office in this way without elections is undemocratic, dangerous and unprecedented.
We demonstrated, on 28th June, by a very large majority, our opposition to abolishing elections before the main Bill has passed all its stages in both Houses. Many noble Lords—the majority, of course—from all sides of the Chamber spoke against the Government Bill and in every case mentioned the problem of elections and the by-passing of the House of Lords, both of which are important points. Nothing that the Government are offering has altered that one iota. Today, our essential task is to safeguard the constitution and our parliamentary democracy. We can do that, and decently maintain our consistency, only by voting for this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Baroness deals with elections to be held to the GLC and the metropolitan county councils in May 1985. On 5th July, I told the House that the Government proposed to introduce amendments providing for the existing members of the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils to continue in office, but without elections next year.
The noble Baroness's amendment—from what she says, she clearly agrees with its terms—must therefore be regarded as an alternative to the Government's proposals. Thus it might be helpful to your Lordships

1181
if I was to speak to the Government's amendments at this point. The amendments which enable the present members of the GLC and metropolitan county councils to continue in office are Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 to 11, 48, 49, and 51 to 53. Amendments Nos. 37 to 39, and 54, to which my noble friend Lord Bellwin will be speaking in greater detail later on, are to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.
Amendment No. 2: Clause 1, leave out Clause 1.
Amendment No. 4: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out ("order shall be made under subsection (2) above") and insert ("such order shall be made").
Amendment No. 5: Clause 3, leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
("Suspension of elections and extension of terms of office
3.—(1) No ordinary elections of councillors of the Greater London Council or for a metropolitan county shall be held after the coming into force of this Part of this Act; and any such councilor—

(a) whose term of office would, apart from this section, expire on 7th May 1985; or

(b) who is elected to fill a vacancy occurring after that date, shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant, continue to hold office until 1st April 1986.

(2) In section 7(2) of the principal Act (elections of metropolitan district councillors) the reference to a year of election of county councillors shall be construed as a reference to a year of election of councillors for a non-metropolitan county.
(3) In sections 89(3) and 90 of the principal Act (filling of casual vacancies) as they apply to the Greater London Council and a metropolitan county council references to the date on which a councillor or person would regularly have retired shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above; and in the said section 89(3) the words after the semi-colon shall not apply in relation to those councils.
(4) Section 8(2)(a) of the principal Act and paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 2 to that Act are hereby repealed.").
Amendment No. 7: Clause 4, leave out Clause 4.
Amendment No. 8: Clause 5, leave out Clause 5.
Amendment No. 9: Clause 6, page 5, line 4, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
Amendment No. 10: Page 5, line 17, leave out ("a council whose members are appointed under this Part of this Act") and insert ("the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council").
Amendment No. 11: Page 5, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
Amendment No. 48: Clause 11, page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 49: Clause 13, page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this Act the constituent councils are—

(a) in relation to the Greater London Council, the London borough councils and the Common Council; and

(b) in relation to a metropolitan county, the councils of the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.").

Amendment No. 51: Schedule 1, leave out Schedule 1.
Amendment No. 52: Schedule 2, leave out Schedule 2.
Amendment No. 53: Schedule 3, leave out Schedule 3.
Amendment No. 37: After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Control of disposals of land.
.—(1) Neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act dispose of any land except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(2) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of a particular disposal or in respect of disposals of any class or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.
(3) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in section 123 of the principal Act (general power to dispose of land) or in any other enactment; and the consent required by this section shall be in addition to any consent required by subsection (2) of that section or by any other enactment.
(4) It is hereby declared that section 128(2) of the principal Act (protection of purchases etc.) applies to any disposal of land to which this section applies.
(5) In this section references to disposing of land include references to—

(a) granting or disposing of any interest in land;

(b) entering into a contract to dispose of land or to grant or dispose of any such interest; and

(c) granting an option to acquire any land or any such interest; and references in this subsection to an interest in land include references to any easement, right or charge in, to or over land and to a licence to occupy land.").

Amendment No. 38: After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Control of Contracts.
.—(1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act enter into a contract which (with or without other matters) provides for—

(a) the carrying out by or for the council of building or engineering works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £250,000;

(b) The carrying out by or for the council of maintenance works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;

(c) the supply by or to the council of goods in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;

(d) the provision by or to the council of administrative, professional or technical services in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000; or

(e) the use by another person of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of the council, or the use by the council of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of another person, in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000.

(2) Where the consideration or any of the consideration under a contract is not in money, the limits specified in subsection (1) above shall apply to the value of the consideration; and any necessary apportionment shall be made of consideration which is referable to two or more of the matters mentioned in that subsection or to any of them and other matters.
(3) For the purpose of determining whether a limit specified in subsection (1) above is exceeded in the case of any contract, there shall be taken into account the consideration under any other contract or contracts entered into by the council in the previous twelve months (but not earlier than the passing of this Act) so far as relating, in a case within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, to works of the same or a similar description to be carried out on the same or adjacent land or, in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of that subsection, to goods, services, vehicles, plant or apparatus of the same or a similar description.
(4) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of a particular contract or in respect of contracts of any class or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.
(5) A contract shall not be void by reason only that it has been entered into in contravention of this section and a person entering into a contract with a council to which this section applies shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.
(6) In this section—
"building or engineering works" includes any work involved in the laying out of land, the improvement of land or buildings, the construction or improvement of a highway and any work of demolition;
"maintenance works" includes work for the maintenance or repair of land, buildings or highways, the gritting of a highway and the clearing of snow from a highway.").
Amendment No. 39: After Clause 10, insert the following new clause: ("Disqualification for contravention of sections (Control of disposals of land) and (Control of contracts).
.—(1) If, on the application of a constituent council or a local government elector for the area of a constituent council, it appears to the High Court that the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council has made a disposal in contravention of section (Control of disposals of land) above or entered into a contract in contravention of section (Control of contracts) above, the court may order any person responsible for authorising the disposal or contract who is, or was at the time of the conduct in question, a member of the council to be disqualified for a specified period for being a member of any other local authority.
(2) In sections 80(1)(e), 86(b) and 87 (1)(d) of the principal Act references to Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall include references to this section.").
Amendment No. 54: In the title, line 12, after ("of') insert (", and disposals of land and contracts made by,").
These amendments have been introduced in response to the decision of your Lordships on 28th June, when what is now Clause 1 was inserted into the Bill.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount will give way for one moment. I understood that there had been a certain amount of discussion about grouping. The later amendments which the noble Viscount mentioned are not in the original groupings. The original groupings cover Amendments Nos. 1, 19 and 50 and Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11. I really must protest. I carefully did not refer to the later amendments, but the Leader of the House did.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I hope that she will excuse me. I made it very clear that I understood that these amendments would be discussed separately later, and that my noble friend Lord Bellwin would reply to them in detail. I hope the noble Baroness would feel that it was reasonable for me, as it was part of the statement which I made on 28th June, to refer in general terms to these amendments, but in no way prejudicing the discussion which will follow. I hope that that would be felt reasonable by the noble Baroness, because, on the whole, I feel that it is my duty to explain what I did say as part of the package in my statement on 5th July.
I have decided to set out the Government's proposed new package myself because I feel that the Government's reaction to your Lordships' vote raises issues concerning this House and its relations with another place, wider than this Bill. Such issues, in my judgment, should properly be dealt with by the Leader of the House.
The Government believe that your Lordships' decision was based principally on two objections to the Bill as introduced. The first objection—and by far the most widely and strongly held—was to the proposal for nominated transitional authorities. In particular, objection was taken to the fact that political control of one of the authorities would have changed when the nominated authority took over. Noble Lords in all parts of the House felt that this was undemocratic and would be a bad example to set for the future.
The second objection which was raised—this was referred to by the noble Baroness—was to the cancellation of the elections to the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils due to be held in May 1985. It was clearly right for the Government to give careful attention to the decision taken by this House in a matter which raised what were, in many people's minds, constitutional issues.
As I indicated to the House on 5th July, and as will be apparent from the amendments which have been tabled, the Government have accepted the view expressed by your Lordships so far as the transitional authorities are concerned. They have therefore decided that the present membership of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils should be extended until those authorities cease to exist as a result of the main abolition Bill, if that Bill is approved by Parliament.
1184
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, criticised the provisions of the Bill as giving the Government,
"the power to impose upon local governments and their electorates nominees of different councils, differing in functions and duties from the county councils, elected for a different purpose, and, significantly, of a different political persuasion".—[Official Report, 26/6/84; col. 1037.]
The course which the Government are now proposing meets this objection completely.
As I also indicated on 5th July, it would clearly be unreasonable and wrong for actions to be taken by the outgoing authorities between now and the date of abolition which might prejudice the position of the successor authorities. I would very much hope that such actions would not take place. If they were to take place, it would certainly not be in the interests of the people that these authorities have been elected to serve. But the Government must, in order to safeguard the position of the successor authorities, take account of the suggestions that prejudicial actions may take place. We have therefore decided to introduce the three new clauses contained in Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39. These provisions are entirely aimed against irresponsible action. Amendment No. 37 requires the consent of the Secretary of State to be given to all disposals of land by the outgoing authorities. Amendment No. 38 requires such consent to be given before certain contracts above prescribed values are entered into.
Both amendments empower the Secretary of State to give general consents to particular classes or descriptions of disposal or contract, and it is my right honourable friend's intention to make full use of this power so that the proper conduct of the authorities' affairs is not impeded.
The third new clause, Amendment No. 39, buttresses the first two new clauses by providing for the disqualification of council members who are responsible for authorising illegal disposals or contracts. Such disqualification can be ordered only by the High Court. It is not proposed to invalidate transactions undertaken in contravention of the new provisions, and thus there is no question of the rights of third parties being prejudiced.
The Government have not accepted the argument advanced by some of your Lordships—and in particular in the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Baroness—that there should be elections to the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils during the passage of the abolition Bill through Parliament.
There has been a danger throughout the discussion on this Bill to regard the issue as simply one of the Greater London Council. Whatever may be the disagreement with me otherwise, many noble Lords will agree that much of the argument has centred on that particular point. But all the metropolitan county councils are involved. I understand that elections, if held, would involve some 14 million voters. And what would be the outcome of all the work and all the activity involved in that? It would be the election of councillors, if the abolition Bill passed through Parliament, for less than a year. How could this be justified?

1185
Furthermore, the elections would be held when the main abolition Bill was before Parliament and might well have passed through another place and had its Second Reading in this House. Surely none of us in Parliament can neglect the dangers inherent in a sort of referendum taking place on an issue which is the subject of parliamentary proceedings. I can think only too clearly of the sort of undesirable precedent that would create on other occasions; and so, I believe, would many of those noble Lords who are advocating an election today.
Nor of course do I lack powerful allies in expressing doubts about the wisdom of elections. The Opposition's own spokesman in another place, the honourable Member for South Shields (Dr. David Clark), said on the Second Reading of this Bill that he sympathised with the Government's wish not to hold elections. He went on to suggest that the natural thing to do in those circumstances was to let the existing local authorities continue—which is exactly what we are now proposing. I must emphasise to noble Lords that he is, after all, the spokesman of the Opposition in another place, and that is what he said.
During the Second Reading debate in this House many noble Lords, in making the case against the Government, made reference to speeches made by my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister, the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and other ex-Cabinet colleagues of mine over the years. I can now pray them in my support. Mr. Heath originally in April, on Second Reading of this Bill in another place, argued that the right way to deal with the problem of the elections was for the existing councillors to continue until the changeover. My other colleagues have also indicated their support for this course.
My conviction that the cancellation of elections to the outgoing authorities is the right approach is strengthened by the fact that it has been done in the past. Both in 1963, at the time of the setting up of the GLC, and in 1972, at the time of local government reorganisation in England and Wales, provision was made for the cancellation of elections. In both cases the terms of office of existing councillors were extended—as is now proposed in the Government's amendments before your Lordships. Certainly—and I say this at once, to concede the point made by the noble Baroness—on those occasions the cancellation was done in the main Bill abolishing the authorities. But in this case, in view of the timing of the elections, there is no alternative but to introduce the necessary provisions in this Bill.
One ground of objection raised by some of your Lordships to the cancellation of elections was that the cancellation was to be effected by an order made without reference to this House, while the main abolition Bill was still in another place. My noble friend Lord Bellwin indicated at Committee stage that the Government were willing to accept an amendment—tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy—providing that the order cancelling the elections should be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In the event that amendment was withdrawn, but Amendment No. 4 before your Lordships today has the same effect. It will provide a further opportunity for your Lordships to
1186
consider this matter, and will I hope set at rest any fears that proper regard is not being paid to the views of this House.
Lord Ennals: Not at all.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, "Not at all" may be the view of the person who said that, but it does not happen to be my view.
I believe that on behalf of the Government I have made a quick and positive response to your Lordships' vote on the 28th June. I am entitled to point out that the Government have made a substantial concession to the views of this House, particularly when one remembers that the Bill had a majority of 128 on Third Reading in another place. As a Government, we have paid, as I see it, proper respect to this House as a revising Chamber. I do not believe that any Government could be expected to go further, and few would have gone as far.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment because, for all the reasons I have given, I believe that the Government's package is one which should command the support of the whole House.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I am presented with a difficult problem in following the noble Viscount, who has spoken with great persuasive powers as he always does. Before I refer to the matters about which he has spoken at some length, I wish to refer briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which is of very great importance to your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness made the point that what the Government are doing at Report stage is virtually introducing a new Bill. They are putting forward some very far-reaching amendments indeed which those of us on the Opposition Benches have had comparatively little time to consider. I should have thought that it was a great pity in the conciliatory atmosphere that the noble Viscount has been propounding, that we have not been conciliated so that we could have had the Bill recommitted and then considered these entirely new points, certainly about financial controls, in the atmosphere of a Committee stage rather than at the Report stage.
Having said that, I expect that some of your Lordships will think that the concessions that the Government have made are sufficient. Indeed, to be quite frank, I and my noble friends thought a very great deal about the proposal that was being put forward for allowing the existing councils to run a further year. But I must say that, after mature reflection, we came to the conclusion that, in view of the thrust of your Lordships' arguments on 28th June, the proposal would not be sufficient to satisfy the views expressed then about the Government's proposed legislation. Admittedly, the amendment that was carried in your Lordships' House has been observed to the extent that it cures the "nominated councils" concept which was totally repugnant to a very large majority of your Lordships. But it does not do anything else. It cures only the change in political control that might result from a nominated council.

1187
However, the other objections that were made during the debates at Committee stage, and I think on Second Reading, are still valid. The proposal that the noble Viscount has put forward does change the electoral arrangements before the main legislation will have passed through both Houses of Parliament, and maybe before the main legislation has reached your Lordships' House. Therefore, I feel that the very clear opinion of your Lordships passed in the amendment on 28th June has not been observed in the amendments that have now been put forward.
I must go on briefly to say that I think the Government are being extremely sanguine in believing that they will be able to predict the timescale to April 1986. It is my belief—and I have some support from the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State—that April 1986 certainly might not see the end of the problems about the changeover that will take place. He admits I think that the staffing problems will certainly not be resolved by that time. However, as regards the Government's legislation to abolish the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council, I certainly agree very warmly with the noble Viscount that we have had far too much time and energy concentrated on the Greater London Council and apparently the mutual hate campaign between the Government and Mr. Livingstone, and far too little time spent on the very considerable work, activities and benefits that the metropolitan councils have given to the areas under their control.
The main Bill will involve the setting up of at least 18 joint boards, and it will involve at least 36 district councils in taking over the existing powers of the counties and the Greater London Council. As someone who has spent a large part of his life in local government, I cannot see how, for example, the harmonisation of standing orders, how the financial regulations and the working practices—all entirely different from council to council—can be sufficiently co-ordinated in the timescale that the amendment envisages.
Therefore, I must say that while one concedes that there has been a concession made by the Government in extending the life of existing councils, it seems to me that if the timescale that I predict is the one that results, and the life of these councils has to be extended beyond April 1986, then the old councils—the Greater London Council and metropolitan councils—will have served a very long additional term. They will be serving six or seven years when they were only elected for four years, which might well not be the wishes of the electorate at all by that time. They will be very stale councils.
Therefore, although strong arguments have been presented for the course suggested by the Leader of this House, I feel that we should stick to what I believe was the principle enunciated in the amendment that was carried, and that we should persist in that view. As one who served on a district council and a metropolitan county council, I can hardly bear to think how difficult it will be when reorganisation goes through to get, for example, the 10 district councillors of Greater Manchester to agree among themselves as to who will do what and how they will do it. How will these councillors with multifariously different attitudes and
1188
internal jealousies be persuaded to work together? I know that they will have to work together eventually—it will be forced on them. But I do not believe that the proposals meet the wishes of this House in terms of elections, and I do not think that the timescale described by the Government is realistic or can be carried through. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support the amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord Molson: My Lords, it is in the honourable tradition of this House to deal with broad matters of principle and not to allow itself to be unduly restricted by matters of minor amendment. On no occasion could this be more applicable than when the large issue of contstitutional principle has been raised. The Opposition—both Oppositions—have done their best to raise this matter—I think quite rightly—to a matter of the gravest constitutional importance. Therefore, I think that my noble friend the Leader of the House was entirely right to deal with its matter on the broadest lines. It would have been impossible to raise the great issues which have been discussed not only in this House but in the press and throughout the country if he had not presented the general picture of all the amendments which the Goverment propose to move as a single comprehensive whole. It represents an acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of the considered opinion of your Lordships' House. Thanks very largely to the tact and persistence of my noble friend the Leader, this Government, possessing as they do a great majority in another place, have bowed to what I am sure is the right constitutional doctrine: that your Lordships are right in making amendments to Bills which come from another place.
This matter could not have been dealt with by a number of small amendments. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I pursue the argument that, so far from abandoning any of the principles for which your Lordships have voted, in point of fact the series of amendments (not a single one, but all of them taken as a whole) represents the establishment of an important constitutional principle in which the Government have accepted the considered opinion of your Lordships.
Personally, I feel obliged to deal with this matter in a little detail, but it is entirely in line with the general matter because, unwittingly, I have been involved on the air in defending the views that I put forward and, unexpectedly, Mr. Kenneth Livingstone appeared on the air on the same occasions. I hope that I convinced the large audience which I was addressing of the correctness of my views, but apparently I failed to convince Mr. Livingstone! Even in these solemn matters humorous incidents occur.
On one of these occasions when I had spoken over the air, I came to the House and found a message waiting for me from my noble friend the Leader of the House asking me to come to him in his room at 6 o'clock. It was slightly reminiscent of an invitation to my housemaster's room! I arrived there, not punctually, but five minutes early and I told my noble friend that on ITV at 6 o'clock what I had said was likely to appear on the screen, and I understood that perhaps Mr. Livingstone would appear at the same time. My noble friend said that he would be very

1189
interested to hear what I had had to say. I replied that I, too, should be very interested to hear what I had said, and I added that I was also rather nervous.
However, when the television set was turned on at 6 o'clock it turned out to be on the wrong channel and on the screen appeared Wimbledon. Although Wimbledon was more beautiful and more interesting than Livingstone and Molson would have been, we did not feel that it was relevant to the matters under discussion, so my noble friend turned off the set and we returned from Wimbledon to Westminster.
I am sorry to see that today the six county borough councils have been spending their ratepayers' money on whole-page advertisements putting forward their political views. I regard that as an abuse of the ratepayers' money. Because, for example, those ratepayers say that the Government are treating your Lordships' House as a rubber stamp—and the Marshalled List proves exactly the opposite—and because we who had to vote against the Government on two occasions had to support the amendments that were available, it has been argued that we were in favour of preserving the Greater London Council and the other councils, and, as the noble Baroness has suggested today, of elections in May 1985. When I put my name to the amendment that was carried, I made it plain to my co-signatories that I was supporting the main issue and not in the least supporting anything that might follow from that, however logically it might follow according to the line of reasoning of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
I have consistently made it plain that, in supporting amendments to this Bill, I am not supporting either the proposal to preserve those councils or the elections of May 1985. I hope that when I try to establish that your Lordships will acquit me of any egotistical desire to repeat my own previous speeches. But I have to do so in order to justify the line which I have taken and, which indeed your Lordships have also taken.
On the first occasion, on the Second Reading debate on 11th June I said at column 920 of Hansard:
"I am not voting against the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not voting against the abolition of the … metropolitan county councils. How could one do so at the present time when the Bill has not even been published? I am voting in favour of drastic amendment of this Bill during its Committee stage here".
I then went on to criticise what was proposed for the interim and I said that the proposal was:
"in my opinion so irrational and so undemocratic that I doubt whether it will survive critical scrutiny in your Lordships' House".
Well, it has not. Later, I said:
"Without making any commitment, I have every intention of supporting my noble friends on the Government Front Bench in the abolition of these authorities." [Col. 921.]
I then continued:
"your Lordships may think it suitable to carry amendments against the Govenment". [Col. 921.]
And your Lordships did so.
On 28th June (at col. 1038 of Hansard). I said:
"When we come to the main Bill to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils I shall vote for the Second Reading."
After criticising the Greater London Council for abusing its power and spending the ratepayers' money irresponsibly, I continued:
1190
"In relation to abuse of its power in general, Parliament can at any time impose restraints by rapid legislation and possibly by this Bill if suitable amendments were made."
That is exactly what is being proposed at the present time. I said:
"Can we not have an arrangement which would be acceptable at any rate to Tory Peers who cannot go along with the Government as this Bill is at present drafted but who support the main objective, as I do? But I repeat that the end does not justify the means." [Col. 1040.]
This series of amendments do exactly that.
I hope that I have not wearied your Lordships with this ratiocination supported by relevant quotations from my previous speeches, and I have shown that the Government have met, by these amendments, all the arguments of constitutional principle raised in earlier debates on which some of your Lordships voted against the Government and I think a number of my noble friends abstained from voting. We can, without any inconsistency or abandonment of any principle, vote for this amendment. I hope and believe that by a large majority we shall do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, which amendment?
Lord Molson: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend; but I have said that we are discussing the general issue on this matter as was indicated by the Leader of the House.
If I may end on a facetious, even perhaps a frivolous, note I would say again what I said on 5th July. A medieval judge, in a well-known dictum, said:
"The Devil himself knoweth not what is in the minds of men".
Mr. Livingstone was recorded as saying that a settlement on these lines was not in the minds of your Lordships. I have shown that a settlement of this kind was in the minds of some of your Lordships. So Mr. Livingstone—who in the opinion of many of us was uniquely qualified to know the extent of the Devil's knowledge—flatly contradicted the judge when he claimed to know what was in your Lordships' minds. But the judge was right, and Mr. Livingstone was wrong.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am getting up at this point because I thought that nobody else was rising in order to expand on what my noble ally has said with regard to this series of amendments. I thought it was appropriate that the Alliance point of view with regard to the future of all these councils should be made clear, and why. First, I must start by acknowledging my agreement with what the Leader of the House said at the start of his speech, and my appreciation for what he has done.
All of us are deeply indebted to him not only for listening to the debate and the result of that debate on an earlier occasion, but in succeeding, in spite of the very large majority in another place, in spite of—I hope I am not being too frank—the attitude normally displayed by cabinets with regard to the importance of events in your Lordships' House, and in spite of the attitude of this particular Cabinet, in being able to persuade his colleagues to accept a major departure from original policy.

1191
Some of your Lordships may feel—I think most of you would feel, and I certainly would feel—that honour is therefore satisfied. Indeed, that is so. But that is very different from saying that your Lordships' duty, on appropriate occasions, to make the other place think again is equally fully satisfied. I do not think it is, and I shall explain why as shortly as I can.
The Alliance has gone to considerable trouble to consider these matters in great depth. We had a very high powered commission considering these matters for some two to three years, the results of which were incorporated in the Alliance manifesto. That manifesto made it absolutely clear that it was our desire to bring the people much closer to their representatives in local elections, and that the way of achieving that would be to remove one tier of government; to set up regional authorities; to devolve upon those regional authorities all those responsibilities which need not be carried out in Whitehall; and finally would be to see that the regional authorities were appropriately represented in your Lordships' House. The suggestion was that some substantial number, possibly 50 per cent., of a revised second Chamber should consist of regionally-elected representatives in your Lordships' House to go along with another 50 per cent. of appointed persons as Lords in Parliament.
That is a totality of ideas which together make a great development in local government coupled with a desirable reform in your Lordships' House. It is therefore not easy to relate those principles to the particular issue which is before us now. We are in the usual position of wishing that we were not in Ballybunion—however attractive a place that is, especially if you are a golfer—and wishing that we were not starting from there on our journey. But we are. We have to turn our minds to what we now should do in relation to the general issue before us at this present time.
We said we would give it very careful consideration when our Leader made his important statement. We did not respond in any other way. We said that we would give it very careful consideration. We have done so; and we have reached the conclusion that the weightiest argument of all is the right of individuals to elect their representatives in self-government. I can think of no more weighty argument than that. That it is put to us in contradiction that it will cost a fair sum of money is not a weighty argument against it.
Nobody is more keen on saving money than I am. It is in my blood and I have had a great deal to do with it. Nobody can say "No" to ideas of expenditure in more than 52 varieties better than myself. Nevertheless, it is not right that a sum of money should be set as an argument against the principle of the right of electors to decide in these important bodies how their affairs should be run, how they should be governed for at least 12 months and possibly for 24 months. That is the substantial argument which outweighs every other. We do not count arguments in this House; we weigh them and that is the weighty one.
There is no basis whatever for suggesting that there is a solid precedent for doing what we are doing. The only precedent is in an enabling Bill, in the main Bill itself. If the Government had not made such a cock-up
1192
of all these arrrangements and if, instead of trying to introduce a paving Bill which now looks ridiculous (assuming that the Government's amendments will be accepted), they had introduced one Bill and were proposing in that one Bill to make these arrangements, then they would not have been anticipating the will of Parliament. It would have been totally different and that probably would have been acceptable to a great number of your Lordships. But they have not done that.
Therefore I repeat that there is no substantial precedent for what is now proposed. It would be more than dangerous, it would be wrong to deny in these circumstances the people of these vast areas the right to determine their own self-government. Therefore we shall vote in that sense.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think that we ought to be concentrating upon the first amendment moved by the noble Baroness, because that is what is likely to be put to the test first. I could not help feeling what a consummate actress the noble Baroness was when she was moving that amendment. She was quite superb in the way she presented a case which has no substance in it as though it was serious. A lot of it was humorous in a way—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, no.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in a minute I will show the noble and learned Lord what I mean, by quoting. The noble Baroness spent a lot of her time saying that the timetable for getting alternatives could not be done in months. She even went on to suggest that it would take years. Those of us who have been in Parliament for any length of time know perfectly well that the timetable is what Parliament makes it. She talks about two years to do these things. We know perfectly well that if the will is there and if the general desire to move forward is there on all sides it can be done in any period one likes to lay down.
On issues much more important than this we have seen things go through all their stages and organisations set up in weeks. So the very idea of suggesting that one of the problems in accepting the alternatives my noble friend has put forward is that the timetable would not allow it is a nonsense and I think she knew it would be a nonsense—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I, my Lords?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: No, my Lords. I have just got on my feet. Next the noble Baroness said that there were no precedents for this. Then she half gave way on that and said there were precedents for extending the life, but there was no precedent for its happening before the main Bill and what it stood for had been gone through. But, if we had to be tied so deeply into that as a precedent, there never would have been a precedent in the first place. In order for there to be a series of precedents to rely on in the future someone has to set a precedent at some time.
I am arguing that on this issue at this time if one takes all the circumstances into account—first the need for the legislation, then the personalities involved who are trying to frustrate the legislation—if ever there

1193
was an occasion to set a precedent (and Heaven knows it is a small one) this is the time to do it. I say that with full confidence because it was clear to me when our manifesto said that we would abolish the Greater London and the metropolitan councils, that what is being suggested now by my noble friend—or something like it—would have to precede the eventual main legislation.
When on Second Reading we agreed, with a big majority almost equal to that on the first amendment in the Committee stage, it must have been obvious to anybody who had any understanding of parliamentary procedures that this sort of thing was inevitable to get the main legislation, backed up by a manifesto, backed up by a big Parliamentary majority which shows that the country wanted it—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: No, my Lords. Then what did the noble Baroness say?
Noble Lords: Sit down! Give way!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, what did the noble Baroness say? She said that even if there were precedents we ought to ignore them. I took down her words. She said that even if there were precedents they ought not to be followed, so where is the sanctity of precedent in this argument, having said that?
It reminds me of the story of the husband who had a wife who was sometimes unreasonable. She gave him two ties for his birthday. He thought, "I'd better wear one", and when he came down she looked at him and said, "So you didn't like the other one then?". The argument of the noble Baroness reminds me of that.
It was clear to me when we dealt with this at the Committee stage that there was nothing that my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government could do which would satisfy the Opposition on this. They did not intend to be satisfied on it. It was perfectly clear that that would be their attitude and it is clear with the amendment that they have now moved, which would mean a new Bill altogether.
That word "constitutional" is always being thrown out with great emphasis in your Lordships' House. Nothing unconstitutional, nothing even verging upon being unconstitutional, will happen if we follow the advice of my noble friend. We do not have a written constitution which is being breached. It cannot be unconstitutional if the Government continue to do what they have done up to now. They have not moved an inch, or tried to move an inch, without first getting the approval of both Houses of Parliament. If that does not make it constitutional, I do not know what will. All this talk about being unconstitutional makes a nonsense of our being able to recognise changing circumstances and the changing world which we see coming upon us all every day. If we allow this argument of being unconstitutional when Parliament is being made the body that is to decide what will happen, then we are moving along a road upon which I think it will be almost impossible to continue with what we call a parliamentary government.
1194
The noble Lord from the Liberal Benches spoke about its not being democratic. He made a great point that people must be elected to make these decisions and that there is something undemocratic if we do not do that. On that I agree with him. Ultimately it is the voters who ought to have the power to decide and have to suffer the consequences if their decision is right or wrong. But in this instance the only suggestion that I have heard is that people elected to other councils should be called upon to implement what it will eventually be their responsibility to implement later on. I have heard no suggestion that anybody other than elected councillors would do this—I give way because I have quoted the noble Lord.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the noble Lord clearly was not listening to what he himself said on an earlier occasion when he supported the Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am making perfectly clear what I have always felt and I have said it on all occasions, because, as I said in my last speech on the Committee stage, I have actually operated what is suggested and has been suggested by the Government up to now. There is no question of stepping into the dark and not knowing what will happen. What we have suggested in the terms as I have understood them is that we shall go back and will operate more or less the system that existed before the local government Act which brought the metropolitan boroughs and the Greater London Council into being. I have reminded your Lordships that 10 or 12 smaller authorities, all of whose members were elected, got together and had to organise the regional health service and that sort of thing. All that has been suggested here is that we should revert to something that has worked. It is not only words, but something which has actually been in operation and worked successfully.
I believe that if your Lordships' House were on this occasion to follow the advice of the noble Baroness and were to support this wrecking amendment, that would be unconstitutional in its long-term effects and, I believe, undemocratic in its long-term effects—and for this reason. Every Government, if they are to face up to their responsibilities, have to be aware of the precedents, yes. They have to be aware of the rules of law, yes. But they have also to take into account the atmosphere which they experience every day, and everybody on all sides of this House knows that if you extend the life of the people who are at present in charge of the Greater London Council you are extending the life of people who want to put a dagger in what you think is important legislation; and they would do that.
I want to warn my noble friend that, although he has suggested Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39, the very fact that he felt he had to put down those amendments shows that he has doubts whether the people there will work as they ought to work. The fact that he has to incorporate those amendments in order to try to give himself statutory power to enforce his views is confirmation that he thinks (as I do) that Mr. Livingstone and his friends will pay no attention to whatever is passed. They will use every minute and every bit of power they have, right to the end, to frustrate this legislation, which has the authority of the

1195
manifesto and the people of the country behind it. I hope that my noble friends and those who are not committed on understandable loyalty-to-party grounds will recognise this for what it is, and will not allow the amendment of the noble Baroness to have the approval of this House.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I acknowledge the concession that the Government have made and the irenic way in which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House put forward the case, but I believe the question still remains, as I felt the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, put it quite plainly, whether the package which the Leader of the House has commended to us has restored a proper democratic accountability. I want to make just one or two very brief points.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House spoke of a whole package, not simply this one amendment, which included the amendments just referred to, Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39, which limit expenditure to £100,000 and £250,000. I have been meeting this morning with the Bishops of the London diocese, and they have been speaking to me. Those of us who have care of great buildings, for example, know that £250,000 sounds a great figure but can scarcely do more than offer some repair to an ancient church. We are talking about perhaps two years of budget restrictions which are far more than preventing unreasonable spending, It would be taking away any serious capacity to act during that period of time. I believe that such capping proposals should be introduced, if they are to be introduced, as part of the substantive Bill.
The metropolitan county councils, such as Merseyside, for example, which are responsible for the overview of wide and important matters which continue during a period of two years, are making positive intervention where the needs are greatest. I do not believe that in this way, before the substantive Bill is brought forward, that capacity to act should be taken away. At the root of the anxiety in your Lordships' House behind the amendment that was carried recently was a firm opposition to implementing intentions until the main decision has been properly taken by Parliament.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, may I say something in the unusual role of a constitutional lawyer? I fear that in this debate the main issue between the two sides—one wanting elections and the other passionately wishing to avoid elections—does not come to the surface. But supposing that in those elections the large majority of people elected were those who approve the changes proposed in the coming Bill abolishing the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council, I suggest that noble Lords opposite would have no objection. Similarly, I do not think that noble Lords on this side would be so keen on pressing for elections if they thought that those elections would provide a mandate for the Government to proceed with these reforms.
The Government say that they do not need this mandate; that the proposals were in the manifesto, and that constitutes a mandate. I think that this is a serious
1196
20th century corruption of the doctrine of the manifesto. The fact that some proposal or other appears in an election manifesto which contains perhaps 50 other proposals does not mean that all the people who vote for that party approve of every one of those things which are in the manifesto. All that it means is that they want to vote for that party and that they approve of their ideas as a whole.
In the 19th century, in Gladstone's day, the doctrine of the mandate meant something quite different. It meant that to introduce a change like this, a constitutional change, you dissolved Parliament and went to the country with this sole issue before the electors. You then received a mandate or you did not receive a mandate. It was true of the Irish Home Rule Bill, it was true of the Parliament Act 1911 and it was true of the introduction of protection, for which Stanley Baldwin dissolved Parliament in 1923. But I do not think that you can maintain that the mere fact that this figured in a manifesto is an adequate substitute for asking the people immediately affected—and the electorate of the constituencies are the people immediately affected—whether or not they are in favour of this change. Holding the elections would be an ideal way of finding out.
4.8 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, when the original Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House, many of your Lordships had two main worries. One was that it was a gerrymandering Bill and the second was that it would in some way denigrate from the powers of this House. I feel that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has met us today, in his preliminary speech, on both of these points. For example, the political colour of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan councils is to remain unchanged during what I would call the interim period. So much for the gerrymandering. Then we had the anxiety that in some way or another this was derogating from the powers of your Lordships in particular. Again, this point has been met because we have been told that nothing will happen until the abolition Bill has received the Royal Assent. So, my Lords, it seems to me that our main worries have been removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, suggested that we should have a new Bill. I do not see why we should have a new Bill because, after all, what are these amendments but asking your Lordships to approve the abolition of the GLC and of the metropolitan counties, which was in the Conservative manifesto.
I think that the main argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and others, has been, "Oh well, it will mean probably more than nine months—it may be a year and perhaps even two years—before the Bill becomes law and therefore before the abolition takes place". Some of your Lordships will remember the time when it was proposed by the Government that the LCC should be abolished and that the GLC should be put in its place. I was present in the House at that time and I well recall the tremendous fight that was put up by Lord Morrison of Lambeth to try to stop that change. Day after day, night after night, clause after clause and word after word, he challenged the then Government. All of that, I suppose, took about six weeks. If that happened at that time, I can see no

1197
reasons why, if the Government really want to get something through, it should not happen again. Maybe it would be over a month or two; April is one thing; a little later in the year, say June or July, is another—but, broadly speaking, I cannot possibly imagine why the Government, if they want to, cannot get this Bill through both Houses within a year.
That being the case, I feel two things. One is that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, should not he accepted by your Lordships; the other is that, for the reasons I have tried to outline, the main amendments—I am sure that many in your Lordships' House are grateful for their being moved or put down—meet most of our worries and therefore we should support them.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords. I believe that in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, more or less exposed the difficulties that the Government Benches are in. He made it transparently clear—something which we all knew—that we have no constitution in this country, and at the conclusion of his speech he pointed out that this measure is in no way unconstitutional. That I submit is the confused attitude in which the Government find themselves after the decision of your Lordships last month. The fact of the matter, brutally put, is that: it was not anticipated by Her Majesty's Government; it has thrown them into a terrible dilemma; and they must somehow or other seek means to evade responding to a fundamental decision made in your Lordships' House.
I believe, too, that the new clause moved by my noble friend Lady Birk, with the support of the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Claughton and Lord Hayter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is a reasonable new clause to make a part reality of what this House decided and what the majority in this House wanted. The only way to say "Nay" to that is to say that when we voted against the Government the last time we made an error and now we are going to withdraw. That will in no way enhance the status of this House because, if I may say so, the majority of people—I have no actual firm evidence other than that gained from talking at public meetings—found that the decision of your Lordships' House was courageous; not so much that it caused the Government to have second thoughts but that it defended democracy. A great many people smiled at the fact that it was in this House of Peers that democracy was defended. That is something of which I believe we can indeed be very proud.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Whitelaw, made the point that the Government felt uneasy about the attitude of some councillors, whom they are not going to vote against, whom they are not going to urge voting against in their party publications, but whom they are going to demolish. When the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said that—I regretted it, because he had made a reasoned speech—he returned to the birthplace of this entire measure. It was born out of hate and venom. Both are very bad advisers.
It seems to me that subsequent clauses, on which I cannot speak yet, will once again try to ignore the desire of this House and ignore the opinion of ordinary
1198
people. What can we do, whatever we think of them, other than look at the various polls? When it suits our purpose we say, "Look at this poll, look at that poll", and so on. But we all know that when the polls are not in our favour we are not sure whether they are very good. When they are in our favour then, of course, they are quite remarkable. We all know too that, by and large, within a 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. margin, they are fairly accurate. This weekend a MORI poll of Londoners revealed that 61 per cent. of the people of our capital city approved of what was done in this House just last month. Londoners believe that your Lordships were right to defeat the Government a couple of weeks ago.
Then, I believe, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made a vitally important point. He said that we cannot talk about constitutions—unless we are the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls; then we can talk about constitutions which we are going to rape, talk about things which are unconstitutional, and then say we have no constitution. I do not know how you work that one out but it is a problem for the noble Viscount.
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made an important point when he referred to the London Government Bill of 1962. Here perhaps is where the present Government went wrong and where the Conservative Government which introduced the London Government Bill in December 1962 were so right. First, the Bill was based on a Royal Commission—no Royal Commission for this Government. It was based on a White Paper. The White Paper was debated in another place and it was debated in your Lordships' House. Various amendments were made; some were accepted by the Government of the day, who appeared first of all hostile. But we have got to see what that Government adhered to when they were asked by the Royal Commission to adhere to certain fundamentals. If the only answer we have is that Royal Commissions are a nuisance, then why set them up in the first place? If they are going to set them up, I believe it is incumbent on the Government to take some degree of notice of what they recommend.
The fundamental recommendations of the Royal Commission on the London Government Bill were adhered to by the Conservative Government of the day. It did them very great credit. The result was that, when the elections took place in London, the opposition parties tried to use that point but lost and were defeated because of the upright behaviour of Sir Keith Joseph and his colleagues in another place. That is so totally absent in the behaviour of the present Administration.
The Royal Commission stated,
"that it is best to give as much power and responsibility as possible to those who are in the closest touch with the people for whose benefit local government services are provided".
It also said:
"We believe that there is a serious danger that unless local government can be rehabilitated in the way we suggest there will be a drift towards some form of regional administration, with a good deal of intervention by the central Government".
The former Conservative Government of 1962 took cognizance of that and avoided introducing anything which might he redolent of that form of totalitarianism. I should like now to quote what was

1199
said by Sir Keith Joseph, when he opened the Second Reading debate:
"In a most cogent chapter of its Report, Chapter 13, the Royal Commission considers and rejects two alternatives. First, that the central Government should fill the gap in the local administrative structure. The Commission says that this would be the death knell of responsible local self-government in greater London. [Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col, 53.]
He added:
"The Commission is plainly right".
Later he went on to say this:
"The Bill will ensure that there is a body directly elected by the people of London charged with responsibilities for watching over the whole physical environment in the interests of London as a whole and having powers and resources to match its responsibilities." [col. 54.]
It was on that basis and that argument that the Conservative Party later fought that great election for the GLC, and they won. I feel it is a sad thing today that the Government which created this GLC and based it on democracy—that that same party—should now be building a new structure which is totally alien to the whole concept of democracy as we have seen it grow up. It is pushing us back a few hundred years. This issue has been discussed in many other parts of Europe and America with unbelief in some places that we should be doing this. I believe that the new clause moved by my noble friend Lady Birk is a move in the right direction for us to make a reality of the views that your Lordships expressed, not in favour of either Government or Opposition, but for what I believe is the general desire of Londoners and the ordinary people of our country.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as I understand it, your Lordships are formally discussing Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but together with it are discussing Amendment No. 5 in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is therefore perhaps useful to seek to look at one as against the other. Contrary to the form of the Bill as it originally came to your Lordships, they both provide for the continuance of the GLC over the further year which, as your Lordships will recall, under the earlier provisions would have been dealt with by representatives of the successor constituent authority. The basic distinction is that the noble Baroness's amendment provides for an election at the normal time for the GLC, whereas my noble friend's amendment provides for an extension of the term of office of the present incumbents.
I quite appreciate that there are Members of your Lordships' House, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—and I am sorry that he is not, I think, in his place at the moment—who attach such importance to the electoral process that that would seem to them to be a decisive difference. But I would ask your Lordships to reflect a little further on this matter. Obviously, if you are setting up a body with a full term of life in front of it, it is proper that it should be elected according to the ordinary rules of election for that body. But on no view is that being done in this case. The date spoken of for termination of the GLC under these proposals is April 1986: that is to say, the life of the new council will be something under 11 months. I wonder whether, if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were here—
A noble Lord: He is!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has contemplated how far he carries his argument about the supremacy of elections. There must come a point of time in respect to which it is not worth going through the whole electoral process, not only for the expense—and I am bound to say that I thought some noble Lords opposite, who had served in government with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, looked a little surprised at the way he brushed away questions of the control of expenditure—but there must come a point on the time-scale at which it is a waste of money and a waste of effort to have an election.
Therefore it is very much a matter of judgment for your Lordships whether 11 months comes within that time-scale or not, but what I think more important is: what would that election be about? Plainly the issue that would be discussed—certainly by the present incumbents of the GLC—would be the continuance of the GLC. But that, ex hypothesi, is an issue which would be before Parliament and almost certainly by then at a very advanced stage in our discussions. It would he quite impossible for anyone putting up for an electoral term of 11 months to put forward any constructive policies or plans for London.
The election would be either about matters which this House would then be concerned with, or it would be about trivialities. Therefore it seems to me that to go through the farce of an election for the purpose simply of rather dogmatic democratic consistency would be a mistake, and that it is better and simpler to take the ladies and gentlemen who have been elected to the GLC and give them a further year.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would permit me to intervene just for a second?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, my Lords.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is quite right when he says that such an election would be limited in its scope. It is quite likely that it would be in the nature of a referendum on whether the matters which were, as he puts it, before Parliament at that time were right or wrong. But would he be right in suggesting that such a thing would be trivia? I would have thought that such an election, if it dealt with whether or not it was right to retain the GLC, would be a matter of very great importance, and it would be something upon which the electors as a whole could properly be asked for their opinion, rather than for Parliament itself to arrogate the total right to decide.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but I think that he under-rates the question of the time-scale. At the time when this referendum, as he calls it, would be taken, the abolition Bill would certainly be through another place and probably quite well advanced in this House; and it really would be fantastic to believe that the outcome of that referendum would have any influence on events.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am not myself a great believer in referenda—
Lord Howie of Troon: I am!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I personally believe that they have done a good deal of harm on occasion; but, even if one is a great believer, the referendum should be taken before the moment of decision and before the legislation is introduced, not after, and therefore—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry: if the noble Lord wants to intervene again I will happily sit down; but if he speaks from a semi-sedentary position he is a little more difficult to follow. I take it the noble Lord is quite happy to accept that what is essential, if you believe in referenda, is to have them taken at the right time when they can influence decisions. If they are taken at a time when it is too late to influence decisions they probably annoy the people who have taken part in them quite a bit when they see how futile their particular manifestation of opinion has been.
This is therefore the difference between continuing the present GLC for another year or having this election. When I spoke in this House on the last occasion this Bill was before us, I made the same point about the futility of an election of a body for a few months, and I am very happy to leave the point there, although I do feel that one can exaggerate the significance of the election.
But what has been done has been to meet the major point, about which I know a lot of noble Lords felt very strongly, of the change in the political complexion of the GLC. That point has been met and so, I think, has the point about the position of this House. I think I am not exaggerating if I say that these rather striking decisions, in the circumstances, reflect the calibre and quality of our present Leader of the House and his courageous willingness to take what cannot have been, in the circumstances, an easy decision.
I have only one more point. The right reverend Prelate referred—and we shall be coming to them a good deal later this evening—to the clauses in which power is taken to restrain expenditure by the GLC during its final year. We can discuss these then, but I would only say to the right reverend Prelate, with great respect, that there are a very large number of people in this House who would be horrified at the idea of leaving the ratepayers of London to the depredations of the present majority of the GLC. Not only have they indulged in great extravagance but they have gone out of their way to say that on their way out they will indulge in a scorched earth policy. If the Government were not to come forward with restrictions of this kind I, and I think a good many others in this House, would find it very difficult indeed to support this proposal. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, whose genuine sympathy with the causes for which he works we all recognise, will appreciate that something of this sort is essential in the circumstances and the only question perhaps—and we shall come to this—is whether the
1202
safeguards proposed are adequate. The GLC is a great spender. Some control must be exercised and I hope that he will reflect on that.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and speakers on the Government side have all emphasised that this is only for 11 months. Both the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Evans questioned whether it is possible to do a transfer of this scale in 11 months, and surely the burden of proof is on the Government to show that so large an undertaking can be undertaken in so short a time. If that is not so, then the argument based on 11 months, which was the burden of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, falls, and surely the obvious thing is that it will not be done in 11 months.
The only other point that I wish to make is about the assumption that this will be a referendum to support Councillor Ken Livingstone and his friends. Here I speak as a London ratepayer and I happen to be represented in the GLC by no less a character than Councillor Ken Livingstone himself. I am absolutely longing for the opportunity to cast my vote against that gentleman and to get a less extravagant council in to handle the transfer. Surely it is in everybody's interest that you have a different council handling the transfer, but you cannot do that unless your have an election.
Lord Ingrow: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader for his reference in his opening remarks to the metropolitan counties. I have no part in the London argument, nor in the personalities thereof, but one must remember that the major part of the metropolitan counties existed without a two-tier authority for the whole of their existence until 10 years ago, and few people think that they are better managed now under a two-tier system.
But I should like to make two points that have come out of the discussion, the first of which is about the deferring of elections. I go back—being a little older—longer than some people, but I remember being elected to a council on 1st November 1946. In those days, the borough elections were held in November. I was elected for a term of three years, but in the interim period it was decided that the elections should move to the spring in order to encourage greater turn-outs and everybody got another six months.
Every councillor in a borough council who was in office on 31st March 1948 had a further six months of office. All mayors did and they had extra mayoral allowances for those additional six months. That included all those councillors who were elected to councils when the British public did not vote as well as they might have done in 1945. They would all have come out in 1948. Instead they went on till 1949, six months later—perhaps Labour councils lasted longer than they would have done—and had an extra rate-fixing session.
But nobody then thought that it was a terrible thing. Extending for another six months was the practical way, the economical way, the way that suited the public, and everybody did it without any argument. Those who say that it is monstrous to deprive the

1203
public of the chance to vote—perhaps wrongly, because we have not been invaded for a long time and therefore we do not value the secret vote as we should—have the wrong idea, which many top politicians of all parties have, that there are vast cohorts outside this hall waiting to canvass solidly for three weeks every night with other people writing envelopes. All parties will say that a lot of people think there have been quite a lot of elections, and for many people there will not be tears if there is not an election in the metropolitan counties next year.
My other point is the one raised about the length of time to achieve the handover. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, raised the point. I think the noble Lord said that he has spent a lifetime in local government. If you have spent a lifetime in local government, I am sure you do not believe that it can be done in 12 months. I am not scoring a point. I have spent only half a lifetime. But the fact remains that if you have had to exist in business all your life, except for the statutory period of six years or so in the army, you find that a very large number of things can be done very quickly indeed, if they have to be done. Business and the armed forces would not survive unless they were able to act fairly quickly. Local government is a fairly leisurely occupation, but it will have to be a good deal less leisurely in order to meet the deadlines. I am quite sure that all those very capable chief executives can fit in with any period that Parliament lays down and, therefore, I hope that those objections to the general argument, which I find slightly bogus, will not influence your Lordships on either the practical point or the moral point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, made two points which I would welcome the opportunity, within the rules of order of a Report stage, to debate with him very briefly, and I shall now attempt to do so. The first point he made was that the timing for any legislation is in the power of Government and Parliament to determine, and that there is no reason why legislation should not be brought forward quickly and brought into force quickly if the Government so decide.
The second point he made was that the manifesto commitment of the Conservative party at the last election to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties carried with it a manifesto commitment, which ought to be observed, to any measures that were thought necessary in any paving Bill. One can hold one or other of those views—I happen to think that they are both wrong—but certainly, in logic, one cannot hold both of them.
If the noble Lord is right in his first point, and the timing of legislation is the prerogative of Government and Parliament, why has Parliament not seen the main Bill which would provide for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties? The answer must be that the Government have not found it possible to bring forward such a Bill and they are forced to bring forward a paving Bill in its place. That is where the Government have found themselves in such enormous difficulties.
I do not deny the possibility that in certain
1204
circumstances Governments would be right to bring forward preparatory legislation, paving legislation, in anticipation of later decisions of Parliament. But such paving legislation can, I suggest, only be such as increases the liberties of the citizen, not legislation which—as in this Bill which comes before us now, or the preceding paving Bill which came before us on Second Reading and in committee—actually restricts the liberties of individuals. That is the difference with a paving Bill. That is why any paving Bill of this kind which restricts the liberties of the 14 million people in London and in the metropolitan counties is unacceptable. I am surprised that so many noble Lords do not see that that is the fundamental objection to the Bill. I cannot see into the minds of the 190 Peers who voted for the amendment during the Committee stage, but I presume that that was in the minds of a considerable number of the 190.
The only other point I want to make was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He objects to referenda. I do, too; I agree with the noble Lord. However, he queried the validity of elections next year on the ground that the election would be about something which he does not like. I should have thought that by now political parties had learned that they may attempt to persuade the electorate about what elections should be about but that in the end it is for the electorate to decide. I should have thought that the evidence of February 1974 was sufficiently in the memories of most of your Lordships to make that point clear. The Heath Government wanted the election to be about who rules the nation. The electorate thought otherwise. I find it very disdainful of the noble Lord, as an attitude towards the electorate, to think that because he has a view about what an election should be about the electorate themselves should not decide what that election should be about.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord has made a personal reference to me, may I say that the point I was trying to make, which I hope I made clearly and which I shall try to do again now, is that when you stand for elective office you must put forward the policies which you will implement if elected. I was making the perhaps fairly obvious point that if you are going to be elected only for, say, 10 months, there will be very few policies which you can honestly and sincerely put forward. That is not disdainful; that is realistic.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the noble Lord was being disdainful to the councillors. Of course they must put forward the policies upon which they wish to be elected. I cannot imagine that any of the parties contesting an election on 2nd May 1985 would lose the opportunty to put forward those policies and seek to persuade the electorate of them. If, however, the noble Lord believes that what would happen would be that the electorate would express a view on the Government's policies on abolition, I think he is right, and then I insist that it is disdainful of him to suggest that the electorate should not make up their own minds on that matter.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that I believe your Lordships are

1205
keen to come to a decision on this issue and that therefore I should reply very briefly to the points which have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, recognised the concession which I had made but felt that by prolonging the life of the councils they were likely to be prolonged for six or seven years instead of one year. I bow at once to the noble Lord's considerable knowledge of local government. Such knowledge has been paraded by the noble Lord and also by my noble friend Lord Ingrow. I have to admit that I have no experience at all of local government. I believe that my friend Lord Ingrow had a point when he said that if a reasonable time limit is set—I emphasise the word "if"—and if there is goodwill on both sides, this will be in the interests of the ratepayers of the various areas concerned. I speak as a ratepayer in London, though sometimes I wish I did not. If there is goodwill on both sides, my noble friend Lord Ingrow believes that this could be achieved in the time available, and I very much hope that he is right.
My noble friend Lord Molson spoke with pleasure of what has been done. I am grateful to him for the very generous remarks which he made. I noted that some speakers have said, as my noble friend mentioned, that it is going to be claimed in the advertisements that this House is a rubber stamp. It is interesting to note how many different things you are accused of doing when you are in politics. At one moment you are accused of trying to make people a rubber stamp; at another you are accused of driving them into a wicked surrender. All sorts of arguments are put forward.
I do not accept the rubber stamp view, for this reason. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and to others who spoke on the same basis that it is important to remember what is the role of this House. I stressed that role in my opening speech and I come back again to it.
It is surely correct to say—though I speak subject to correction by those who know much more about it than do I—that this House is a revising Chamber and that it asks the Government in another place to think again. I felt it to be my duty to go to my colleagues and make suggestions as to how we could reasonably meet the views of this House. Those noble Lords who questioned whether I was able to go far enough must recognise that I was doing so against the background of the elected Chamber of the House of Commons having passed the Bill by a majority of well over 100. That is the basis upon which I went to my colleagues. I see in front of me some of those who in the past have occupied my position. I reckon they know very well that if one goes to one's colleagues against that background it is an achievement to get—properly, as I see it—a concession for this House. I do not believe, as I said in my speech, that it would have been possible to go further.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that he was a trifle hard when he said that I was evading responding to the views of this House. However, I take what he said in the best of parts and turn to what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I regret that he is not in his place because I wanted to say something nice about him, which he might be surprised to hear, and also something very
1206
firm to him, which he might also be surprised to hear. What I am going to say that is nice about him is that I recognise fully that in putting the point which he made about expenditure on Merseyside he is representing his very considerable concern about the problems in that area. From my period of office as Home Secretary I recognise the great contribution he has made.
That is the kind remark which I want to make. Against that background, I hope that I may also be allowed to point out to the right reverend Prelate that the clauses which are going to be discussed will in no way limit expenditure. The position is that the Secretary of State will have to give his consent. Provided that the kind of projects which the right reverend Prelate submits are satisfactory, I believe that consent will be given. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will realise that in using the words "not limited" he was not wholly correct. I hope, too, that we shall be able to meet the very real point which he made. If the right reverend Prelate has been unable to hear my remarks, perhaps he will read what I have had to say on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, spoke about manifestoes and 20th century corruption. I have to say to the noble Lord that I suppose I was swept into that phrase about 20th century corruption with very good company. Many noble Lords in all parts of the House who have been in government, and also those who advise governments, recognise that at times they quote the manifesto and that at other times they stand upon what has been put forward in the manifesto. We are all entitled to do that. I have never put too much stress on ours, but we are entitled to put some stress upon it. In the past, the noble Lord has, I am sure, put some stress upon his and I do now, but not too much. I believe that neither of us is guilty of 18th, 19th, or 20th century corruption in so doing.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Perth for what he said, because I genuinely believe that we have met the charge. I minded very much personally the charge of gerrymandering. I minded it all the more when that charge came from some of those whom I greatly respect and from some of those who had been colleagues in Cabinet with me—one, indeed, a Prime Minister whom I served for a very long time. I found that to be deeply distressing. I am very glad that by the amendments which have been made that charge has been completely removed, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Perth for what he said.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls told his story—I hope this will not be thought to be too light a point—of someone who had been given ties on his birthday. I have to say to your Lordships that this year I was given no ties on my birthday, merely a very sharp defeat for the Government in your Lordships' Committee at that time, from which I hope I have taken the appropriate lessons—always a proper thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, actually welcomed the idea that if there was an election held, it might be considered to be a referendum. I must say I was interested, on the other hand, to find the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, taking the opposite view—and they are quite close together on the same Bench—that if it was going to be a referendum, he

1207
would greatly dislike it. I hope that the two noble Lords will decide between them. Personally I should dislike it if it were a referendum—and I stick to my point which I made during my initial speech; namely, that, there must be at least a danger that if councillors are going to be elected for only one year, that will be the result of that election. It may well not be. Many would like it not to be, but there is surely at least a danger; and I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was genuine enough to admit it.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said something which was slightly surprising to me. He said that of course cost did not really matter. I must say, looking back at my time with him in another place, I found that, coming from him, surprising, but perhaps he would do me the credit of realising that I had thought that criticism might be made if I gave the cost of these elections, and so I was scrupulously careful not to do so. I think he was therefore firing at a target—even if it was me—from which I managed to get away at that time. I think there is a point here, but I equally agree with him that we should not over stress it.
The Leader of the Liberal Party, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, again mentioned the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, about the period likely to be more than 11 months. I do not believe that this should be so, always provided that every effort is made on all sides to make sure that it can work. I believe that it can, and I believe that it should.
The noble Baroness also said, on the question of a referendum, that, as a constituent, she was longing to cast her vote against Mr. Livingstone. Perhaps it would be fair for me to say to the noble Baroness—indeed, it surely is fair; and I think this is the important point which I was making against a referendum—that she will have every opportunity in this Chamber to cast her votes (and very powerful votes) as to exactly what she wishes to see when the abolition Bill comes before this House. My argument is that this is the proper place in which these matters should in the end be discussed. That is why I was against a referendum—partly on the grounds of the short period of time, and partly on the grounds of the dangers of a referendum.
Of course I understand the views of those who would have liked to see this House go further, who still believe that even for a period of 11 months there should have been an election. Of course there are strong arguments for that. But I maintain that, having received a very clear message from your Lordships on 28th June, it was right for me to go to my colleagues. I do not think any noble Lord in this House would imagine that it was possible to go and get everything that everybody in this House wanted, particularly in view of the very strong views expressed in another place.
I feel that I have done the best I can for this House. I have stood up for this House as a revising Chamber, I must say, at a very difficult time, on a very difficult Bill, and it is on that basis that, despite the feelings of some noble Lords, I hope I may be able at this time to command considerable support in the Chamber for what I have sought to do in the best interests of the House of Lords.
1208
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, put her case very reasonably, but I am sorry that, on the basis I have mentioned, I must ask the House to vote against her amendment, and thereafter to vote for those of the package I have put forward. I hope that your Lordships will feel that this has been a reasonable debate, that the Government have taken up a very reasonable position, and I therefore ask for support for what we have done.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House really has my admiration. He has made a tremendously good job of what is fundamentally a very bad case, for which he personally is not responsible. He was extremely fair when he agreed that the other precedents that have been quoted were, in the main, in legislation, which is the point which I and others have been making continually. But he also said that because on this occasion there was not time, the proposal had to be in this Bill. What we are being asked to do is to vote in a way that would be quite contrary not only to how we voted before, by a large majority, but also to the constitutional issues as they concern this House and to the whole concept of elections, because the Government did not have the time to bring forward their main Bill and include all these proposals in it. That really is not good enough. With great respect, we cannot be asked to do that.
I find the argument about elections and whether it is going to be a referendum quite extraordinary, because what we are talking about are elections which should normally take place. The way they are dealt with by individual people involves their own individual vote and their own individual right. It is interesting to notice that since the last vote we had on this matter in this Chamber, when the amendment was carried by a large majority, in the metropolitan county councils, according to a MORI poll, 60 per cent. were against the cancellation of elections and 16 per cent. for, while in the GLC, 61 per cent. were against the cancellation of elections and 13 per cent. for the cancellation. I find it very difficult to understand the attitude of noble Lords opposite to the point that if there were elections, it would mean, particularly in London—and I must say that, while they said that we did not concentrate on the metropolitan counties, they have spent most of the time discussing the GLC—that voters would take the opportunity to vote for what they wanted and against what they did not want, so that it would be a proper democratic vote.
If I may say so with respect, I do not think there is very much in the argument that the tension would be taken off the elections as the Bill was going through Parliament. The whole point on the question of delay—which has not been satisfactorily answered—is that the setting up of alternative councils when abolition takes place will be so complicated. The councils will be so vast and so difficult to administer that there will be a very real problem about time. It is not just a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, seemed to think, of rushing something through Parliament. That is only the beginning of it. It is then a question of how you deal with the functions afterwards.
These are very serious constitutional issues. We are not dealing with taking odd snipes at different people,

1209
at different parties, or even at one another in this House. What we are concerned with is the major change that is envisaged in a large number of local authorities before the main Bill is passed, let alone before it has even been published.
I think we have to take this question very seriously. I must say, with great respect, the Leader of the House, with great dexterity, was able to divert our attention from the amendment which we are discussing. This is the one that would deal with the cancellation of elections and which, in so doing, would by-pass the constitutional position of the House of Lords. The noble Viscount diverted our attention by speaking in general terms—and he had a right to do so—about the whole Bill and about what was going to happen in later clauses. We are not at the moment discussing the later clauses. We are discussing the question of the cancellation of elections. I think there are many noble Lords in this House who must still be unhappy. Having voted as they did on 28th June, they cannot possibly be satisfied by the case that has been put forward today by noble Lords opposite. I hope that noble Lords will stick to the line that they took on 28th June, since in the main nothing fundamental has changed since then, and that they will support my amendment.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 248.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Amherst, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Denington, B.

Attlee, E.

Diamond, L.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Aylestone, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Balogh, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Banks, L.

Ennals, L.

Barnett, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bernstein, L.

Ezra, L.

Beswick, L.

Falkender, B.

Birk, B.

Falkland, V.

Birkett, L.

Feversham, L.

Blease, L.

Fitt, L.

Blyton, L.

Foot, L.

Boothby, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Bowden, L.

Gardiner, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Gifford, L.

Brimelow, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gosford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Grey, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Grimond, L.

Caradon, L.

Hampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hanworth, V.

Chitnis, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hayter, L.

Collison, L.

Head, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hooson, L.

1210

Howie of Troon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Plant, L.

Hunt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ingleby, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jacques, L.

Rea, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rochester, Bp.

John-Mackie, L.

Rochester, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kearton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kennet, L.

Scanlon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Serota, B.

Lawrence, L.

Shackleton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Simon, V.

Listowel, E.

Stallard, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Stamp, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tanlaw, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mar, C.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Underhill, L.

Milford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Minto, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wheatley, L.

Molloy, L.

White, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mulley, L.

Willis, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Ogmore, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Oram, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Peart, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Burton, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caldecote, V.

Allerton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ampthill, L.

Camoys, L.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Annan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

Astor, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Avon, E.

Cayzer, L.

Bagot, L.

Chelmer, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Chelwood, L.

Barber, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Bauer, L.

Cockfield, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belper, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Belstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cowley, E.

Bethell, L.

Cox, B.

Biddulph, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boardman, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Bolton, L.

Craigton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Crathorne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Braye, L.

Croft, L.

Brentford, V.

Cross, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Daventry, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Davidson, V.

Broxbourne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

De L'Isle, V.

1211

Denham, L. [Teller.]

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Denman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Digby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Marley, L.

Donegall, M.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Dundee, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Eccles, V.

Middleton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Milne, L.

Elibank, L.

Molson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Enniskillen, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Erne, E.

Moyola, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fisher, L.

Northesk, E.

Forbes, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Geddes, L.

Peel, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Glanusk, L.

Perth, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gormanston, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gowrie, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gray, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Portland, D.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Radnor, E.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Haig, E.

Reigate, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Remnant, L.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Renwick, L.

Hanson, L.

Richardson, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ridley, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Romney, E.

Harvington, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hastings, L.

Rugby, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hertford, M.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Ilchester, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Inchcape, E.

Shannon, E.

Ingrow, L.

Sharples, B.

Ironside, L.

Sherfield, L.

Jessel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Soames, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Killearn, L.

Southborough, L.

Kilmany, L.

Spens, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kintore, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Knutsford, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Strathspey, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lyell, L.

Torphichen, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Townshend, M.

McFadzean, L.

Tranmire, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Trefgarne, L.

1212

Trenchard, V.

Vivian, L.

Trumpington, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Tryon, L.

Westbury, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Ullswater, V.

Windlesham, L

Vaizey, L.

Wise, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Vickers, B.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
Clause 1 [Commencement of Parts I and II]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment having already been spoken to, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Commencement and termination of interim provisions]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 7, after ("may") insert ("and in the event that a Bill for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils and for the transfer of their functions has not received Royal Assent by 31st July 1985, shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this may well be an amendment that the Government will be prepared to accept. If so, it would save time. It seeks to ensure that elections are reinstated if the main abolition Bill is not passed. The Government's main amendment proposes to extend the term of office of existing county councillors by cancelling the 1985 elections before the main abolition Bill is passed. I think that we are entitled to ask this: what happens if the passage of that Bill is delayed?
In answer to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that if the main Bill fails, then elections will be reinstated, to be held in May 1985 or later in the same year. But that obligation is not written into the Bill. This amendment would correct that and make sure that that provision is on the face of the Bill, thus avoiding the possibility of councillors continuing to hold office without having been elected to do so.
If for some reason the main Bill were not passed in the next Session, or for any series of reasons abolition were delayed, it is essential that councillors whose office is held over by courtesy of Parliament seek reelection. Under the Bill as at present drafted that need not happen. Although the Secretary of State has undertaken to reintroduce elections if the main Bill fails, the Bill does not require him to do so.
The provisions of the paving Bill are free standing. Apart from the will of Parliament, unforeseen events could also determine that the main Bill is not approved for enactment. However, under the Government's proposals the interim or intermediate arrangements could proceed, irrespective of the fate of the main Bill. That has a great deal of relevance to the later parts of the Bill, where, for example, a staff commission is to be appointed; councils and their officers placed under a duty to provide information: legitimate spending powers are to be centrally controlled; approval of structure plans, and other

1213
functions, are to be frozen; and the GLC and metropolitan counties will have a mandatory duty to undertake financial consultation.
All those provisions will take effect immediately. If the paving Bill is passed, they are likely to have been in operation for several months before the main Bill reaches the House of Lords. Those measures pre-suppose the abolition and are said to be dependent on it, but it would be clearly unacceptable that any of them should continue if the main Bill were not to be enacted; yet, as with the extension of terms of councillors, there is no guarantee in the Bill on their repeal if Parliament does not approve the abolition proposal.
The amendment seeks only to ensure that all the provisions of the paving Bill cease if the main Bill is not passed and that the status quo is restored as soon as possible. That procedure would reinstate proper control by Parliament over the actions of the Secretary of State and would remove any possibility that councillors would stay on, unelected, if the main Bill were to fall. It seems to me to be a sensible and practical amendment in the position that we are in, with a paving Bill leading on to the main legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the truth is that this amendment is unnecessary. Should the main abolition Bill fail, the paving provisions will no longer be necessary, useful or relevant. The Government have always recognised that. That is why we have given our undertaking about the commencement order; why the power to repeal is included; why the Bill has the Short Title that it does; and why we have all come to call it the paving Bill. There has never been any question but that, should the main abolition Bill fail, the Secretary of State will exercise the power to repeal the paving legislation and restore the status quo as soon as is practicable. The amendment is not only unnecessary but, I submit, also undesirable. I recognise that a date, 31st July 1985, has been specified in answer to an objection which I put forward to a similar amendment in Committee which did not specify a date; the objection was that it was unclear at what stage a Bill could be deemed to have failed to receive Royal Assent. But by including a specific date we simply run into another objection. The amendment now before us would prejudge Parliament's consideration of the main Bill. It sets Parliament a deadline for considering a future Bill. Clearly that is not acceptable.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I understand the view expressed by the noble Lord the Minister about the position if the Bill fails. I have been quite rightly subjected to a certain amount of well intentioned humour about the fact that I said it might go on very much longer than people had predicted. However, I wonder what would happen if, after the paving Bill, the main Bill dragged on through another place and through your Lordships' House for a very long time indeed. Would the position be that the councillors, given an extended term under the terms of this paving Bill, would then continue on almost indefinitely, something like the Long Parliament of the 17th century, or the Rump Parliament? Would it not
1214
be advisable that there should be some kind of terminus ad quem such as this amendment suggests, for that purpose if not for the other one on which the Minister has given an undertaking?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords by leave of the House, I hear what the noble Lord says. Of course, a hypothetical situation such as he describes could not be ruled out as impossible. However, if we are dealing here in terms of likelihood, I think not least because of much of what was said—and I would refer specifically to what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said during the earlier debate—that in practical terms that really is not a scenario which seriously needs to trouble us. What ought to trouble us is the likelihood of the possibility that I have described and the undesirability of fixing a firm date in the way that this amendment does. I have no doubt at all that this would create all kinds of problems, and the Government cannot accept it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it causes me some slightly hitter amusement that on the other amendment we were told all the time that of course everything will be sorted out and the Bill will he through before the end of the session; that it is possible that the following year everything will be done so there need not be elections. Now the Minister is replying to this on the basis that in case the Bill is not through we should not put in this date. What we are concerned with is that, whether it is this date or another date, there should be something which does not let what will be a status quo just go on forever.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, was quite right when he explained and added to what I said by saying that this could go on indefinitely if there is not something in the Bill which makes it quite clear that if the abolition Bill does not go through, this stops. The councillors will be sitting there. Are they to be ossified forever, sitting in their respective metropolitan councils, or the GLC, because there is nothing in the Bill? The Written Answer to a Question, or indications, from the Secretary of State are entirely different from having this on the face of the Bill. I think this is very unsatisfactory.
However, what I propose to do at the moment is to withdraw the amendment and have another look at it, taking into account what the Minister has said about the date. I would also ask him if he would look at it. I stress that this is not a party political point. I think the real problem here is that nowhere is there any intimation in the Bill of what happens if the abolition Bill, for some reason or other, does not get through, is unduly delayed or anything else which could happen. I do not know if the Minister would like to agree that he will look at it or take the point, because his answer seemed to be mainly concentrated on the question of the date.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I am not sure what Question I ought to put. Is the noble Baroness withdrawing her amendment, or not?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I was going to withdraw the amendment, but hopefully would have heard a word from the Minister. This is the problem with Report stage.
Lord Bellwin: Again, by the leave of the House, though I am anxious on Report not to keep asking for leave, may I say that of course I will, as I always do, read carefully what the noble Baroness has said and I will be in communication with her about it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Suspension of elections and appointment of councillors]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 5:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("ILEA .
.—(1) Section (Suspension of elections and extension of terms of office) (1) shall not apply to the election to the Greater London Council by electors of an inner London borough for membership of the Inner London Education Authority.
(2) A councillor elected to the Greater London Council by electors of an Inner London borough for membership of the Inner London Education Authority—

(a) whose term of office would expire on 7th May 1985; or

(b) who is elected to fill a vacancy occurring after that date, shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant, continue to hold office until a date which shall be no later than 1st November 1985.

(3) An election to the Inner London Education Authority shall be held not later than 1st November 1985.
(4) At the election referred to in subsection (3) above one person shall be elected by the City of London to represent it on the Inner London Education Authority.
(5) Any person elected to membership of the Inner London Education Authority under subsection (2) above shall be a member of any body or authority which may as a result of any subsequent enactment be established to assume the responsibilities and functions of the Inner London Education Authority.
(6) Persons elected under subsection (3) or (4) above shall hold office for a period of four years from the date of the election and any vacancy arising during that period shall be filled by an election held in the electoral district where the vacancy has occurred.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be recalled that at Committee stage I sought to amend the Bill to allow the proposed elections of the ILEA to take place next May when, without this Bill, an election would in the ordinary course of events have been held. On that occasion I advanced the arguments in favour of this in the interests of the continuity of administration of education in inner London and of the future of the 300,000 children, the teachers and the staff of the ILEA who depend upon good administration for the effectiveness and standard of their education.
Amendment No. 5, to which your Lordships have just agreed, only affects marginally the problem with which I am attempting to deal. It means that the present ILEA will continue in office until 1986, after
1216
which presumably an election of some successor body will be held. This in turn means that for the next 20 months education in inner London will be administered by an authority under sentence of death, whose powers of decision on the important problems of adjusting accommodation and teaching staff in the face of falling pupil numbers, and on the urgent task of raising educational standards throughout education in London, will inevitably be reduced and whose motivation will be weakened.
At the end of that period a completely new body will be set up whose members will perhaps take a couple of years to get to grips with the important matters upon which decisions are urgently necessary now. In all, nearly four years of the future administration of education in inner London will consequently be jeopardised. My amendment seeks to advance the election to the new body by six months. Under my amendment an election will take place to the ILEA before 1st November 1985. On that occasion 36 members—35 for the inner London boroughs and one for the City of London—will be elected for a period of four years. These members will thereafter continue to hold office after the present GLC ceases to exist and will be members of any authority which subsequent legislation next year may bring into being. That legislation might, I suppose, increase the number of members by nomination by the inner London boroughs and the City as is at present the practice. The advantage of my amendment is that the period of uncertainty will be reduced and that there will be continuity of administration for London's education over the transitional period between the present GLC and the new structure for the government of London which the Government are seeking to introduce.
When I moved my amendment at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Bellwin said that the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when discussing a similar amendment in another place, agreed that
"there are arguments here on both sides".
My noble friend went on to say:
"All these matters are not black and white, and open and shut … We have just on the balance reached the conclusion which I think is probably right".—[Official Report, 3/7/84; cols. 168–169].
Balance is the key word. The balance of the argument with which I am addressing your Lordships is not between two alternative courses of action to provide what is best for the future education of young people in inner London or what is the most practical as between two solutions to the administrative problems which the proposed new system for London throws up as a result of this and the succeeding Bill next year. The balance is simply between the interests of education, which have long term significance for the whole population of our capital city and which will affect the lives of a generation of its children with consequences that stretch out into the decades of the next century, and the short term political interests of the two contestants in the present controversy over the Government's proposals. It could be argued, on the one hand, that an election held for the ILEA next year would take on an undesirable and inappropriate political significance to the disadvantage of the Government. On the other hand, it could be argued that the prospect of an election to the Inner London Education Authority next year would weaken the

1217
energetic campaign that the GLC has mounted against abolition to the disadvantage of the majority party there.
I always hesitate, particularly in the presence of the right reverend Prelates, who assist us in our deliberations, to make reference to the Old Testament. I think however that I am right in saying that King Solomon gained favour in the sight of the Lord by asking, not for long life or for political success, but for judgment. I hope very sincerely that the Minister who replies will tell us that the judgment of the Government in this matter is that, after further consideration, the interests of education in the great capital city of ours outweigh the possibility of some small political embarrassment for the Government next year.
I know that whoever answers this debate may well argue that there would be advantage in waiting to include the provisions that I am suggesting in next Sessions's major Bill. At that time, he may well argue that the detailed arrangements for the future of the ILEA, its composition and its powers, will be clearer. The main Bill will presumably be passed and receive Royal Assent by the end of July 1985 in time for elections to be held in the subsequent October. That is really what the object of my amendment is. There may be advantages in arranging that the end of the term of office of members of the new ILEA should coincide with the borough elections that become due in 1990. That would enable my object to be achieved, the Minister may well argue, just as effectively as including it in this amendment in this Bill. Such arguments will no doubt weigh with your Lordships. But what really matters is that changes now apparently to take place in the manner in which London is governed should be carried out with the least interruption and damage to its greatest service—education. I hope very much that the Minister's reply will make it unnecessary for me to divide the House. But, if it is necessary, I hope that your Lordships' judgment will support the amendment. I cannot of course guarantee that if it is passed, we shall find favour in the sight of the Lord; but I know that we shall earn the gratitude of all those who have at heart the real interests of education in London. I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: When I announced in this House the change that the Government proposed to make in relation to elections to the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils, I told my noble friend Lord Alport that I hoped to be able to tell the House at Report stage what had been decided on the timing of direct elections to the Inner London Education Authority. As noble Lords will know, the ILEA is a committee of the GLC. Unless reconstituted, it would disappear with the abolition of the GLC. The Government, as the House knows, have decided that the ILEA should continue in existence as a directly elected body. That decision has I think been welcomed by my noble friend and many others. We are fully aware of the importance of getting the timing of this important election right. The new ILEA must be elected in good time to allow it to prepare for a smooth takeover of its important functions. That is the burden of the extremely important amendment of my noble friend Lord Alport. I accept its importance. I accept, too, naturally, what my right honourable
1218
friend the Secretary of State for Education said in another place about the balance so far as the dates are concerned and the importance of getting this right.
My noble friend's amendment provides for the elections to be held not later than 1st November 1985. Whatever wisdom has been granted to me—and I should say to the right reverend Prelates, evidently not much—what has been granted to my noble friend is considerable, because I continue by saying that the Government are now firmly of the view that this is a matter best left to the main abolition Bill itself. The Government have been criticised for attempting to make major advance provisions in this Bill that would more appropriately be dealt with in the main Bill. Noble Lords may agree that this is such a provision. Our intention is to deal with the date of the ILEA elections together with the substance and dates of all other matters connected with abolition in the main Bill itself.
In my reply to my noble friend Lord Alport on 5th July, I said that I would come back with a clear indication of what the Government intends. I hope that he and the House will forgive me for perhaps going a little further than I should have done on that occasion. I certainly trust that what I have been able to put forward is the Government's firm decision to deal with this matter in the main abolition Bill. That has, however, this advantage. The Government, in finalising the provisions that we are putting into the main Bill, are considering carefully how the dates of various measures should be arranged in relation to each other. In making these decisions, we shall consider most carefully all the arguments that have been deployed in relation to this amendment. There will then he an opportunity for your Lordships to debate the Government's substantive proposals on timing when the main abolition Bill reaches this House. The Government's overriding concern will be to ensure that the date chosen is the most appropriate one for the proper continuation of educational facilities in London. I agree wholly with what my noble friend said—it was the main purpose of his amendment—that education must not suffer and that we must make certain that it does not.
I hope that my explanation will help to meet my noble friend's concerns. I can give him a categorical assurance that dealing with the date of elections to the new ILEA in the main abolition Bill rather than in this paving Bill will not preclude the holding of those elections in the Autumn of 1985 if that is the best course to follow. The Government will carefully note my noble friend's view. I shall see that it is brought to the attention to those of my colleagues most closely concerned. We have noted what he says is the best date. We shall consider that most carefully. When the abolition Bill itself comes forward, the matter, coupled naturally with our decision, will then be put before Parliament for full debate. I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this important matter in the way that he has done. In the light of what he has said, I hope that he may now feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, having supported the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in Committee, I should like to do so again, very briefly. In my submission, the

1219
sooner that elections to ILEA are organised and held the better. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has spoken of deferring this decision to the main abolition Bill, which presumably would be likely to receive Royal Assent, if it does, some time in the summer of 1985. But it must be borne in mind that the existing GLC councillors will be in place for a further year from that date. Imagine the chaos of demoralised GLC councillors, in their last months, preoccupied with staff problems and the dismantling or handing over of existing services, with neither time nor will to deliver prompt decisions on key matters affecting London education!
If the Government want to argue, if the noble Viscount wants to argue, that there is no problem as ILEA's elections will follow immediately on the demise of the existing councils, they or the noble Viscount should first take into account the following obvious difficulties. The new body will need more than a few weeks to decide on the composition of its committees. The transfer of key staff from the GLC to the new body will take some time. During this process, decisions on the appointment of head teachers, on the repair and maintenance of buildings, and on the purchase of vital teaching aids and materials, will have to be deferred, to the detriment of teaching in the schools.
I should like to make a plea to the Government not to involve ILEA, quite unnecessarily, in the death throes of the GLC, if that is to be its fate. If these throes should be prolonged beyond the Government's target date, as many prophesy they will, ILEA will be left in limbo and elections will presumably be deferred for an indefinite period; and that cannot be right.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, has made an excellent case for advancing by a few months the ILEA elections, to which the Secretary of State is committed, in order to ensure a smooth transition and lack of disruption to the education of London's children. One gathers from the noble Viscount's speech that the Government do not intend to accept the amendment, but I hope very much that they will bear these considerations in mind and attach to them the importance they deserve when they are deciding on the date for the ILEA elections.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name was put to the last amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, at the Committee stage of the Bill, and I was strong in supporting him to have the elections for ILEA in May 1985. I have to confess that I find it more difficult to support the idea that the elections should happen by 1st November, and I think that, on balance, if they are not to be in May next, which would be the ideal solution for ILEA, perhaps it would be wise to wait to see what is in the main Bill. But I hope that all the considerations about transfer, the problems for the schools, for the officers and for the staff will be taken into account by the Government when the date of the elections for ILEA is considered.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for the support which they have given on two occasions and the advice which they have given to
1220
your Lordships' House on this particular matter. Having listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Whitelaw has said, I think it would be difficult for me to proceed with this amendment on this occasion. Quite clearly—and I think that it is well recognised—there are still many details to be decided with regard to the arrangements for the government of London after the end of the GLC, and at present those are not clear. I believe it would be right to give further time for the Government to make up their mind with regard not only to the form of the new ILEA but also to the date when the elections should take place.
I would say only this, if I may. While one will wait for the major Bill to come next year, I hold myself free to introduce this subject if the provisions that are put forward in that Bill do not, in accordance with my view, fulfil the needs of education in London. In the meantime, while waiting for that Bill and thanking my noble friend for the reply which he gave, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Replacement of councillors]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9:[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 10:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to enable the Secretary of State, if he considers it necessary for the transaction of business, to reduce the quorum of the council of an abolition authority below that specified in the Local Government Act 1972. The considerations to which I referred in moving the new disposals of land clause are relevant to this amendment also.
Your Lordships have already agreed that subsections (1), (2), (5) and (6) of Clause 6 will be omitted because they deal with appointments to the transitional councils, which will now no longer come into being. But subsection (3) will be amended so as to adapt the Secretary of State's power to reduce the quorum specified in the Local Government Act 1972 for meetings of the abolition councils, as they will now be.
As before, the power will be exercised only, first, if he considers it necessary for the transaction of business at council meetings; and, second, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House. The purpose of the amendment remains the same as before—namely, to prevent council business from being disrupted by deliberate non-participation or the resignation of council members—and, like the other new counter-obstruction provisions, it needs to be seen in the context of the changed situation which I described earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has made it quite clear that the purpose of the amendment is to negative any attempts by a council in situ to operate its own standing orders in accordance with the lights in which those standing orders were compiled; in other words, it is to anticipate an event which the Minister believes will happen. Of course, this is all part of a piece by the Government in this legislation. It remains to be seen whether or not those things come to pass; but what the Minister is doing is to seek powers to circumvent the possibility of a council exercising its own standing orders. In effect, what the Minister is doing is to amend the standing orders of the councils which are affected.
The House ought to take on board very carefully the draconian nature of the powers which the Government are taking. They are going to seek not only to reduce the quorum. I should like the Minister to tell us down to what number he feels it will be safe for him and his colleagues to leave a quorum in situ. I should like the Minister to spell out for us, before we make progress, the kind of actions which are likely to be the ones that will lead to this taking place: or is the Minister going to tell us before any actions at all take place—that is, in order to circumvent the very first retrograde action that the amendment of the standing orders is going to bring about?
Often standing orders refer to one-half plus one, or one-third plus one, depending on the numbers. Can the Minister tell us precisely the kind of amendment the Government have in mind? Are the Government going to take away the right of a council to exercise its own powers? If the Minister says he is going to take unto himself the right to reduce the quorum, what rights has the council left in respect of its own quorum and its own business?
To what extent is the Minister going to visit upon the council, its sub-committees and all of its other bureaucracy which is governed by standing orders, the effect of this amendment? It is all very well the Minister saying that it simply refers to a quorum, to those who need to be present in order for the business that is transacted to be valid. I can imagine some interesting situations which could arise. We need to be told the full extent of the powers which this simple amendment provides.
Sadly, the Government have not taken on board what they believe will be the situation before the abolition of the councils, but have anticipated the actions of certain councils in the event of progress being made as regards the abolition argument. So the Minister is simply telling us with all sweetness and light that all that he is doing is seeking to prevent a council conforming to its own standing orders. We want the Minister to tell us a little more of the circumstances in which he believes that he will need to act, and also a little more about the flesh on the bones of the amendment that he is proposing tonight. We need to know a great deal more.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, let me simply say that in terms of numbers it would, frankly, depend in each case upon how many people were turning up to ensure that the council's business was being conducted. If one is to assume that this is a draconian step which is being taken without any
1222
preconsideration, I would only have to refer the noble Lord—as I shall, if I am asked to do so, when we come to later amendments dealing with obstruction—to some of the statements made by many of the people who are currently working in these councils as to what they will do. If there is a sad aspect to this whole matter, it is that there are many people working in other of the councils concerned who would in fact seek, not only to disrupt but to prevent the council conducting its business. They are the ones who, as has so often been the case in the last few years in all matters of local government, have to pay a price, because there are those who say quite clearly, "Our intention is not only not to co-operate, but to seek to frustrate the policy; and if that means frustrating the operation of the councils, then so be it". We would be very remiss if we did not take powers to ensure that at least there be a quorum of people to conduct the council's business.
Any councillors who do not intend to act in an irresponsible way have nothing whatever to fear or to be concerned about as regards what this amendment seeks to do, because they will turn up and they will conduct the council's business. They are the elected members, and I should have thought it was their duty so to do. Moreover, that is their right and that is their opportunity. This could be described as a reserve situation to cover the possibility (I shall say no more than that, and I say less than others have said) that there will be those who do not want the council's business to function. It would be very irresponsible of government not to take some powers to do as we are proposing in this amendment, to enable them to ensure that the council can, in fact, operate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, by leave of the House, can the Minister be a little more specific about the circumstances in which these powers will operate? For example, if what we are now talking about becomes an Act of Parliament, can the Minister tell us by precisely how much a quorum will be reduced? If the Minister says that it depends, or that we shall have to wait and see, or that we shall have to anticipate, are we to await upon the intention of a councillor, or of many of them, not to turn up at a council meeting in order to take a decision? In other words, can the Minister tell us what will be the trigger?
The Minister talks in terms of generalities. The fact that a council does not like what a government are going to do is not news, it is not unique; it is happening all over the country. There are councils which are dragging their feet on a range of matters and which have done so not only over the last five years under this Government but for the previous five years under a previous Government. The Minister is asking us to make this an Act of Parliament, and, therefore, I want him to tell us the precise circumstances in which this piece of legislation will be used.
The quorum having been reduced, what leeway is there for accidents? With the quorum reduced, one assumes to a figure which will allow the minority who wish to attend the council meeting to make sure that there is a valid quorum, accidents can happen. What kind of leeway will there be? Shall we actually have the Minister in Whitehall altering figures, or is it going to be percentages? Whichever it is, what kind of leeway is

1223
there to take account of circumstances, whether or not there has been reluctance, which lead to accidents? The Minister needs to tell the House a little more.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, again by leave of the House, the noble Lord referred to a council not liking what a government are doing. This has nothing to do with whether a council likes or does not like what a government are doing. This is simply about the conduct of the council's business—nothing more nor less than that. All that the Government are saying is that the council must continue to conduct its business. There are many people who have said, "We have no intention of enabling the council to conduct its business". They have not said it in those words, but they have said it in so many, and I shall give quotations if called to do so.
But the fact is that, faced with that type of situation, a government must have the power to enable there to be a quorum of members. The noble Lord asks, "How many should be a quorum?" You can fix the quorum at a lower figure, but that certainly does not stop others turning up. If the majority party wants to turn up, then that is what it ought to do. This whole discussion would have been unthinkable as recently as four or five years ago. It would have been absolutely unthinkable that people elected to office to represent the electorate should even talk of not turning up to conduct the council's business because that will frustrate Government policy. That is the type of scenario that we now see. It is so sad, and it cannot appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, with his background in local government. We are putting this forward to make sure that the business is continued—there are no sinister motives or reasons. Whatever quorum is fixed, however low it may be, it is still within the power of the members and it is the right of the members—all of them—to turn up. Indeed, that is really all that the Government want them to do: to turn up and conduct the council's business.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 11:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Financial consequences of abolition.
.(1) Before the introduction into Parliament of legislation proposing the abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils and the transfer of their functions—

(a) The Secretary of State shall require the Audit Commission to inquire into and publish a report on the financial consequences of implementing proposals for the abolition of those authorities and the transfer of their functions; and

(b) That report shall be submitted to each House of Pariiament.

(2) The Secretary of State shall furnish to the Audit Commission conducting the inquiry referred to in subsection (1) of this section, a statement of the expected effects on public expenditure of the abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils and the transfer of their functions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when considering this amendment I should be grateful if we could also turn our attention to Amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 13: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Committee of inquiry.
.Before the introduction into Parliament of legislation proposing the abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils and the transfer of their function the Secretary of State shall appoint a committee of inquiry to inquire whether those authorities should continue in existence, and that committee of inquiry shall report on the matter.").
Both amendments seek to ensure that before the main abolition Bill is introduced into Parliament investigations are completed as to the need for, and the financial implications of, abolition. This paving Bill, as its name suggests, is intended to prepare the way for total abolition. There is, however, very considerable uncertainty about very many aspects of the abolition proposals which can be resolved only when the main Bill is discussed in another place and in your Lordships' House.
The evidence and financial estimates upon which the Government base their policy have not been made available, and it is suspected in some circles that those bases do not actually exist. In those circumstances, what these amendments seek to ensure is that information is gathered and assessed by independent bodies and presented to Parliament before Parliament is asked to consider the issue of abolition in the main Bill.
It might be thought that the Government, in seeking to be reasonable, would not wish to take the step of abolishing elections and by-passing precedent in an atmosphere of uncertainty and lack of information. However, to date the Government have refused to relax their determination to legislate with undue haste, without appearing to be sure of the consequences, and in the face of the 90 per cent. respondents who opposed the White Paper's proposals and who replied to the Government's request for submissions on the proposals.
The amendments bear directly on the Long Title of the Bill, which states that it makes:
"provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence".
Parliament can hardly take a fully considered, objective and balanced view of the future existence of these bodies when so little information is available to it. It is not enough to hope that more information may be made available by the Government when Parliament comes to consider the main Bill. These amendments seek to ensure that that information is made available and is required to be available.
So far as I can see, the Government have produced no evidence to support their proposals to abolish the councils, except that there is a general atmosphere that they should go and a feeling, engendered throughout the debates and discussions on these Bills, of a personal vendetta involved in the Government's proposals. There has been no independent investigation or inquiry set up by the Government to consider the functions, costs or operation of the Greater London Council or the metropolitan councils, the needs of their areas, or the relative effectiveness of alternative structures. A very interesting series of

1225
proposals has been put forward by the Conservative members of the Greater London Council for a London-wide body, with a different kind of constitution from the present one, but no consideration by this Government seems to have been given to the advice of their own friends.
Despite repeated requests, both here and in another place, Ministers have been unwilling to give any clear estimate of the costs which they claim that their proposals for the abolition of the six metropolitan councils and the Greater London Council would save. Again, they have refused to publish the public responses to the consultation on the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities. I gather that over 5,000 responses were received and, as I believe the Government have themselves conceded, less than 10 per cent. were in favour of the abolition proposals. In the face of this opposition from generally informed sources, the Government should surely concede the necessity for some kind of independent committee of inquiry to look into how best the present county-wide services should be administered, and these amendments seek to do just that.
In Committee on 3rd July, at cols. 234 to 240, there was a short debate on an amendment that I moved calling upon the Secretary of State to produce a report on the financial consequences of the abolition proposals. Your Lordships' Committee was then reminded that the only independent financial study, by Messrs Coopers and Lybrand, which was based on detailed information gathered from all the metropolitan counties and half the metropolitan districts, concluded that there would be likely to be extra costs—not decreased costs—of between £36 and £61 million per annum; and that is just in the six metropolitan areas, and excludes such extra costs as might be incurred in the Greater London area.
At that time the noble Lord the Minister opposed the amendment and he made a number of points; first, that the financial effects of abolition would depend on decisions to be made by the successor bodies once they have information on the existing Greater London Council and metropolitan county council services; secondly, that the time to debate the issue of costs should be during the debates on the main Bill; and, thirdly, that:
"The case must rest on the savings in administrative costs, overheads, and other things".—[Official Report, 3/7/84; col. 258.]
I propose here that before Parliament is asked to consider the main Bill, as the noble Lord the Minister suggested, the Audit Commission, which was set up under the 1982 legislation, should report on the financial effects of the abolition proposals in the light of the information which must have been gathered and will have been gathered under the later provisions of the paving Bill, and in the light of the Secretary of State's own assessment of the likely effect of his proposals on public expenditure overall.
Therefore, in moving these amendments I seek to meet Lord Bellwin's arguments: first, that the financial investigation would be conducted in the light of information gathered by the Secretary of State and by the boroughs and districts on the operation of the metropolitan councils and the Greater London Council services; secondly, that an informed debate about costs could then take place in your Lordships'
1226
House and in another place when the main Bill is introduced. Thirdly, it would ensure that an independent—I repeat, independent—study is made of the financial effects of removing a tier of government and redistributing the services of that tier—the services to be maintained, so the Government assure us, at the same level and at an equally high level among a mixture of boroughs, districts, joint boards, joint committees and central Government agencies.
In its submission on the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations stated:
"Before any fundamental alterations are embarked upon, evidence should be produced to show that the hopes of savings and better value for money have every chance of being realised in the future. The onus is on the Government to prove that its reorganisation plans will give … ratepayers a better deal".
Those comments were made by the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations and not by a political party or a group of Left-wing agitators. Presumably the ratepayers' association is the body of people most concerned to ensure that expenditure levels are kept down.
I believe that this amendment would ensure that the Government will have to discharge that burden before Parliament is asked to decide the issue on abolition. The Audit Commission was established under the Finance Act 1982 with extensive powers in respect of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities, and we debated its powers and duties at great length in your Lordships' House during the passage of that Bill. If the Audit Commission, is appropriate for anything, it would seem to me to be particularly appropriate as the body to be asked to inquire into the costs of abolition and the likely cost of transferring functions to other bodies.
Without such reports, effectively, the Government seem to be asking Parliament to ignore the possible costs of their proposals, to ignore the possible costs or the possible savings which eventually will be contained in the main abolition Bill but whose first critical discussion was during the course of this paving Bill. I should have thought that the paving Bill provides the ideal opportunity to insert these amendments so that, when we discuss the main Bill, we shall have the fullest possible information about costs, expenses, and so on. Therefore, if we believe in open government and a full and effective discussion of the problems, I think it would be sensible for these amendments to be supported. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 13, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said he wished to speak, seem to me to be simply an attempt to involve the Audit Commission—and a wholly undescribed committee of inquiry in Amendment No. 13—in the processes of consideration of the forthcoming abolition Bill. This is an odd procedure. To talk, as Amendment No. 13 does, simply of a "committee of inquiry", without indicating its character, quality and function, seems to be quite extraordinary. But what strikes me even more about it is how derogatory this proposal is to the parliamentary process. If the Government are introducing complicated legislation of this kind with obviously substantial financial issues involved, then it

1227
is for the Government in another place and in this House to justify the proposals, including their financial aspects.
We heard a good deal a week of two ago about how certain former items in this Bill were derogatory to this House. It seems to me that the suggestion that none of us here is capable of probing the financial aspects of Government legislation is even more derogatory. This House is full of people with financial experience. It is full of people who have been directly involved in public finance. The idea that we are not capable—and would not regard it as our duty—of forcing the Government to give a clear account of the financial consequences for their measure seems to me rather offensive. I hope therefore that my noble friend will reject this amendment.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I find it strange to refer to an amendment of this sort as offensive and as in some way affecting the proper government of this country. If we were speaking of a Bill which was merely a financial Bill, and which dealt with certain statistics which dealt with certain matter of fact principles, then it might be that Parliament would be the only place to decide and to put forward the financial justification of the particular Bill.
However, the noble Lord starts from a premise that he assumes is right, and then builds a case upon a foundation which has no base at all. This is not just a Bill which talks about the financial consequences of doing something; a balance sheet that can be drawn up by the Government. The Bill we are discussing strikes at the root of government in this country, and I do not just refer to parliamentary government. If we have developed anything at all in this country that is of any use to mankind, it is a system of consent to government at practically every level from the grassroots right to the top. That is what we are talking about.
One of the major problems of this Bill, and the abolition Bill, is that it is undermining the consensus by which this country has operated for numerous centuries. It is undermining that consensus because now there is a wide feeling abroad among people who have spent a lifetime developing local government systems in this country. I only wish that some of the people who are here this afternoon to vote had in fact had some experience in local government.
Let me speak for Merseyside. Merseyside is a typical example of the problems being faced in this country both economically and socially. Merseyside is an area which for many years was dominated by the presence of Liverpool city council. It was the largest in a wide area, parts of which depended for their economic existence upon the existence of trade inside Liverpool. When people moved out to more luxurious areas like the Southport and Wirral areas they left behind problems of which we are seeing some manifestation now.
Merseyside has just gone through a traumatic experience, and gone through it mainly because that kind of consensus that should exist between central and local government has ceased to be. If we carry out
1228
the abolition Bill as the Government intend, I wonder what will they do when a local authority like Liverpool, hard pressed by economic problems, then starts once again to try to take decisions which central Government do not like? Will they abolish Liverpool? Within Merseyside that is where the problems are.
We shall have the abolition Bill after 10 years of a Merseyside county council. Supporters of that reorganisation from that side of the Chamber said that it would take perhaps five to 10 years for there to develop a new attitude towards local government and central Government. After 10 years the Government propose to get rid of it and substitute the kind of local organisation which led to the problems on Merseyside, and which led to the fragmentation of decision-taking inside Merseyside when it was so important to build up a consensus on Merseyside that would lead to a good society.
Now that has gone. What we are talking about now is whether or not the Government should go forward, and try to convince many good people on Merseyside who have spent a lifetime in local government that they want to take them with them; that they want to demonstrate that this is a good move; that after the change Merseyside will be a better place to govern, a better place to live in, and a better place socially. That is what the Government should be doing. But what are the Government doing?
Question after Question has been put down in this House as to the research which the Conservative Party or the Government have carried out into these proposals. There have been no answers. Question after Question has been put down in this House as to the consequences, financial and otherwise, of the proposals they were bringing forward. There have been no answers. The truth is that this Government are determined to do what they have decided to do inside the Conservative Party. They do it at their peril, because just as the consensus has been destroyed in this country, just as the alienation of millions of trade unionists has taken place, just as the alienation of moderately-minded people has taken place because of the economic pressures of 4 million people without a just standard of life, so it will happen in local government. The consensus will be gone completely.
At least if we carry this amendment it will demonstrate that the Government are prepared to show their cards on the table, and let all the financial consequences be examined in an independent way so that people inside local government can be taken along with any proposal. And we hope that, if the Government are shown by a proper and impartial examination to be wrong in certain things, they will be able to change their minds. It will at least get us away from the idea that the Government are determined to impose their will upon a local government system which is one of the most valuable things that this country has ever created.
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin—not because he happens to be the Minister concerned; and it is a fairly hopeless request—in the name of all the conversations that he and I have had in the AMC and other places, and I urge him because of all the beliefs that he held about local government, that we should preserve this local authority purpose, and that we should not

1229
fragment into the kind of local government that this Bill will impose on Merseyside, and to think again and have this inquiry.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I say first that I would wish that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, was as vehement in his expressions of concern about so many things. I know that he has these concerns—because I too gladly refer to the conversations not that we had, but that we still have from time to time—about what is happening in local government. In response to an earlier amendment I mentioned that we are discussing taking measures that five years ago would have been unthought of and unnecessary. There is so much going on in local government today which is anathema to those who are really concerned about the future of local government. I shall come to the points that the noble Lord made in a moment, but that had to be said in the beginning in that the noble Lord asked me something specifically referring to my background in local government.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, there is no one who has opposed what is going on in local government more than I have. There is no one who disagrees more with the abuse of power inside local government which is being operated in certain places. But am Ito say that over and over again? Because Ken Livingstone steps over the boundary, does that mean that the Government are going to change the whole system? Is it not just possible that if the Government tried another approach we could get local government back on to an even keel; we could once again re-establish in this country the consensus which used to exist between central and local government? We cannot, because the Government will not even try.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should have begun my response with a quotation which reads as follows:
"We shall, therefore, legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all of their functions in their area so that they can sensibly undertake. We shall, of course, consult carefully and genuinely before we introduce our legislation. However, we shall set up no more inquiries. We shall legislate. And we shall legislate so that these reforms will be enforced during the lifetime of the next Parliament".
That was Gerald Kaufman just prior to the general election on behalf of the Labour party. So whoever should be concerned about our having to set up inquiries and so on, I do not think it should be any of your Lordships opposite.
The debate we are having about the financial implications is one that we have had several times already. We had it on Second Reading, in Committee and I have had it in many places elsewhere. No doubt we shall have it again. The fact is that, however one sets out, one cannot tell now what will be the decisions taken on spending by local authorities for the first year when they will be taking over the planning cycle 1986–87. It is all right to quote Coopers and Lybrand, but if one reads them carefully one sees that they qualify everything they say all along by referring to assumptions that they are making. There is no objection to that, but they have to make assumptions.
Another equally famous—if that is the right word—certainly respected company, Price
1230
Waterhouse (who did not spend the time Coopers did, but no one can take away from them in any sense their reputation compared with Coopers) were willing to put their name to something quite different. One can argue this at length, but in thinking about it carefully one finds it makes no sense to try to base assumptions on the kind of assumptions that were made.
We have taken steps and made inquiries and there are reports from people in the North-West, from treasurers and leaders of councils in London with their projections on what they think will come about. Not only do they endorse our original thoughts about savings, but they go much further than we would. I would not want to put numbers, but the Government would say that seriously to consider taking out a whole tier of local government—a tier which has built up to employ in administration alone the numbers that there now are—and to say that there can be no savings, is to fly in the face of any logic. We do not accept that that is so. I have explained why we do not accept this business about another review. Of course, it means delay: that is what opponents of the Bill want to see. But we shall not get into that.
We have said, and your Lordships are aware, that the Secretary of State has given a firm and clear understanding that we will keep Parliament fully informed on the cost of and savings from this change. In particular, the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum of the main abolition Bill will state the expected effects on public expenditure. But there is no purpose in placing a clause in this Bill to produce an unnecessary report and to cause unnecessary delay before the information is available.
Quite apart from the objections that I have already raised, neither of these amendments has any place in the paving Bill. Both amendments seek to remove the Government's right to introduce and Parliament's right to consider a future Bill as and when it is expedient so to do. If Parliament wishes to place conditions or caveats on the main abolition Bill, those matters should be discussed as part of that Bill. That is all I want to say on the amendments.
I have one last word as I sit down. I keep saying that this is Report and I do not want to keep on bobbing up and down, but to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, the fact is that he knows as well as I do that just about everybody in the metropolitan districts, every district leader at the time of reorganisation and since and up to the time when the Government announced their intention to introduce abolition, was speaking out vociferously and fervently in favour of abolition. They know very well that while there may be an odd situation where they may not do better, the fact is that I believe very much that in a unitary authority the local people know best. How on earth Liberals, of all people, can oppose us on this I do not know, with their continued expression on wanting local government to be at as local a level as it can be. I do not accept that we have a better system working where I come from than worked before reorganisation; quite the contrary. If you can show me any services that have worked better I want to see them, and if you do I will show you another one that is worse. The fact is that I am far from convinced. I believe vehemently, as does the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that abolition when it comes—it is

1231
not part of these amendments or of the Bill—will be better and will get us back to where we ought to be in local government, at the local level.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, more than once the Minister has said that we have been over this ground before. These questions have been asked at Second Reading. The questions have been asked, but no answers have been given. The Minister says that it is not possible to give answers to certain of the questions, but I invite him to look forward to the situation when the alterations take place, the dust dies down, the figures are produced and the ratepayers are faced by a Bill which is infinitely more costly than what is paid now. The Minister cannot tell us that it will not be so, as he is unwilling to give us any figures. I imagine that people will then say, "We don't like that. Let's go back to where we were before". One of the premises upon which the abolition case has been built is that ratepayers' money is being wasted in a range of ways. Never mind the way in which grants are given, the whole bureaucracy is wasteful. When the Secretary of State announced his intentions in these matters he was not as coy as the Minister is now on one of the main planks. One of the main planks was that this would save money.
All these amendments are doing is to ask the Government to let us have some validation of the arguments that the Government have used. Who better to do that than—not a private organisation as respected as are Coopers and Lybrand, or anyone else—the Government's own Audit Commission? What on earth is wrong with that? I will say what is wrong. The Government have a timetable; they want to get this quick rather than right. If they get it quick and it turns out to be wrong, too bad, the damage has been done but it will not be damage in the Government's eyes. They will have achieved their objective. That is not to save money or to get local government reorganised, but to get rid of the local government units that are proving to be such an embarrassment.
The Minister could help us considerably by answering the questions that have been asked here this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, says there is no evidence. What the Minister has said is that he has seen some interesting information from the North-West and from some of the treasurers in the metropolitan areas. The House may decide that something the Minister has seen, that we have not—the Minister will not tell us about it—is sufficient for us to pass a massive piece of legislaton.
I invite noble members opposite to contemplate the enormous hostage to fortune that they are giving. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in what I think will be looked upon as a memorable phrase, said that this House would be offensive if we were to force the Government to give a clear account of the financial consequences of their legislation. How offensive is that, not merely to your Lordships' House but to the whole concept of what we are supposed to be here for? We are supposed to be here not merely to ask the question but, before we pass the legislation, to be satisfied. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that it would be derogatory and offensive if we were to force the Government to give a clear account of the
1232
financial consequences of their actions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I have rarely met such a perversion of my argument. The point that I was making was that when the Bill—in this case the abolition Bill—is before Parliament it will be the function and the duty of both Houses of Parliament to get from the Government the financial consequences and to press them for all available details at that stage.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I would simply say that Hansard tomorrow will reveal whether the premise upon which I made my criticism of what he said is valid or not. What the noble Lord is saying is, "Let us get on with it; let us pass the first piece of legislation to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC! Let us do that first and then let us see what case the Government wish to present later". There is no one in business who is looking at feasibility studies and there is no council which has had an idea put to it which will not ask how much it will cost, how much it will save and what will be the financial consequences, before taking the first decisions.
These are the first decisions in toto and what we are asking is that, before Parliament accepts the premises behind the first decisions, we should have some financial details. The Minister is entitled to say that the proper place for that is at a later stage. We are simply saying that the earlier we can do that, the better it will be as far as we are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that it would be an odd procedure for us to involve the Audit Commission in the abolition Bill because both Bills hang together—but that is what we are doing.
My Lords, this is what we are driven to as an Opposition. We believe that the financial consequences, let alone the political and bureaucratic consequences, will be enormous. We are simply saying to the Government, "Why do you not put your money where your mouth is?"Why do the Government not say to us, "Here is the evidence"? If that means a delay of months or of a year, let us see the evidence. The Minister believes that when the evidence is produced the people will accept it. What we are saying is, "Produce the evidence first!" We have been invited to buy this particular pig in a poke. The questions that we have been asking have not been answered, and they deserve to be answered.
When the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, made his earlier remarks, what he said was that there is insufficient information of a financial character. We have been deluged—of course we have—with special pleading not only from the authorities but from the bodies that believe that they themselves are going to be affected. But there is no use in hoping that the information will come along later. We need the information at this particular time. There is no argument about it: the Government have certainly made their case based upon the financial savings. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, actually began to deliver as far as he was concerned. Five thousand responses have been made to the White Paper and, as far as the Government are concerned, only 10 per cent. of the 5,000 are in favour of the abolition proposals.

1233
When the GLC had to look at this proposition, it made available all the submissions which had been put forward. Together with other noble Lords (not all of one political persuasion) I went to County Hall to look at them. In fact, some could say that that was a put-up job; hut, of course, they would—would they not?—because their grants are affected. But at least the evidence was there for us to see; and they are very worried people. And all that they are saying to the Government in respect of the financial case is, "Why do the Government not produce some figures?" We know why. It is because the original premise upon which the Government's case is made is one that is very shaky indeed.
As far as we on these Benches are concerned, what we are getting, sadly, in this debate are bias and prejudice from both sides of the argument. We are, each of us, the protagonists in these arguments, convinced that the other is wrong; that there is something malevolent about the actions that are being taken in proposing the matters and also that somehow or another we have got no right to oppose them. What we are saying is that when it comes to finance, there ought to be no argument. The Government have rested upon the premise that it is impossible to forecast the kind of programmes and the kind of work that is going to be done. I am simply saying that it is all very well but we want some figures which either can be accepted or can be criticised.
The noble Lord the Minister failed to take any account of the arguments of the National Union of Ratepayers. While they are not a political body, I think that one of the cases that the Minister and his colleagues have made in manifestoes and other places, is that the ratepayers are demanding these abolition steps. The National Union of Ratepayers are saying that before those steps are taken, the onus is on the Government to prove that their reorganisation plans will give ratepayers a better deal. We know what the ratepayers, in the main, mean by a "better deal": that is, not only value for money but also a reduction in the cost of the service. I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Evans, responds to this particular amendment, he will certainly press upon the Minister that the Government have run away from the opportunity they had. They had an opportunity not only to convince their own supporters, those behind them who have listened with care and diligence to the arguments but still have been denied the facts. They have not been given the facts by this side of the House because we are not prepared to speculate about the situation. The Government have rested their case on prejudice and bias and we believe that that could be negatived substantially if they were prepared to use proper financial yardsticks.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I have listened to everything that has been said during the debate on this particular amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston for his support. We have been members of the same council in opposition to each other for a number of years. He will know that over the period when I was on the county council and he was chairman of it, I was then (as I still am in principle)—surprise! surprise! to the noble Lord the Minister—opposed to the concept of metropolitan
1234
counties. However, I must say that the Government have made such a mess of this legislation that I am actually becoming quite fond of them. I think that the Greater London Council is a different matter. I believe that there is need for some kind of strategic planning and so on for a capital city.
I am anxious to have the information to enable me to find out what are the financial arguments for and against abolition of one tier of local government. I was never in favour of blank destruction of the county councils. I wanted them to be replaced by some form of regional government; and that is still broadly my view. I was rather surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, being so upset by this desire on my part that your Lordships and everyone else should have more information to enable them to come to a sensible decision as to whether the metropolitan county councils should go or should remain. I think that the arguments of the National Union of Ratepayers are very valid arguments in this context. I accept the fact that I merely suggested in my second amendment that the Secretary of State should set up a committee. I concede that it will have to be more specifically stated but I have sufficient trust in the Secretary of State to believe that, if my amendment were carried, the Secretary of State would set up a committee of inquiry which was of a balanced nature.
However, I believe that the Executive has access to far more information than do the Opposition parties. Therefore, if the argument on the main Bill is to be a sensible and deep-thinking argument, I think we are entitled to have more information than the Government seem to be making available to us. I think we should have it early, before the main Bill, rather than later during it. I think that that is a perfectly sensible proposal. I must say to the noble Lord the Minister that he may believe that Gerald Kaufman speaks for me but I want to assure him with great warmth that Gerald Kaufman does not speak for me, nor for my noble friends in either the Social Democratic or the Liberal Parties. I would like to remind the noble Lord the Minister that I was working away quite happily as a county borough councillor saying what a fine form of government county boroughs were when what happened but his previous Conservative Government came along and destroyed our beautiful unitary system and replaced it with a two-tier system in the metropolitan areas which none of us wanted at that time. It was forced on us. Now the Government, having realised their mistake, want to dismantle it without going into detail as to what are the financial implications and so on.
So I do not think that it is we on these Benches who have been inconsistent. I think that it is the Government who have been inconsistent. I believe that we should force them, in so far as we can—perhaps we are becoming a little arrogant but possibly what has happened today has made us slightly less arrogant—to provide your Lordships of all political persuasions and of none with the information that the National Union of Ratepayers wants and that any person sensibly interested in the future of local government should want and should be entitled to receive. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg to move.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 197.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Balogh, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bernstein, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beswick, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mar, C.

Blyton, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Milford, L.

Bowden, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brimelow, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Oram, L.

Chitnis, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Rhodes, L.

David, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Scanlon, L.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gifford, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Gosford, E.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Hall, V.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kaldor, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Barber, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bauer, L.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bellwin, L.

Allerton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Annaly, L.

Bessborough, E.

Astor, V.

Biddulph, L.

Avon, E.

Birdwood, L.

Bagot, L.

Bolton, L.

1236

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hyton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inchcape, E.

Braye, L.

Ingrow, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ironside, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kemsley, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Caithness, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kintore, E.

Camoys, L.

Kitchener, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Knutsford, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Cayzer, L.

Long, V.

Chelmer, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Colwyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, A

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Cowley, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cox, B.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Middleton, L.

Craigton, L.

Milne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Minto, E.

Croft, L.

Molson, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Digby, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Moyola, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Munster, E.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Northesk, E.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Onslow, E.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peel, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Erne, E.

Perth, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Pike, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ferrier, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fisher, L.

Fortescue, E.

Portland, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Geddes, L.

Reay, L.

Gisborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Remnant, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Gormanston, V.

Renwick, L.

Gowrie E.

Rochdale, V.

Gray, L.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Haig, E.

Savile, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Sharples, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sherfield, L.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Soames, L.

Harvington, L.

Somers, L.

Hastings, L.

Southborough, L.

Henley, L.

Spens, L.

Hertford, M.

Stamp, L.

Hindlip, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hives, L.

Swansea, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Terrington, L.

1237

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Vaizey, L.

Torphichen, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Townshend, M.

Vickers, B.

Tranmire, L.

Vivian, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Trenchard, V.

Windlesham, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wise, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
6.50 p.m.
Clause 7 [Establishment and functions of staff commission]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("such") to ("shall") in line 5 and insert ("relevant authorities, bodies representative of such authorities and staff employed by them").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to take Amendment No. 15.
Amendment No. 15: Page 6, line 5, leave out ("not later than one month after the passing of this Act").
The amendment seeks to broaden the requirements on the Secretary of State to consult before establishing the staff commission and to remove the current discretion as to which organisations are consulted. There is of course real pleasure that some consultation is taking place and what we are asking the Government to accept is that the consultation be widened.
Clause 7 requires the Secretary of State to consult such local authority associations or local authority unions as appear to him to be concerned, before establishing the commission. The commission is to be established within one month of the passing of this Bill. It is obvious from the Government's timetable that the consultation is not intended to be extensive.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, at column 186, indicated some sympathy with the argument for greater consultation, but he rejected the grouped amendments on the ground that a veto might be given to individual authorities to block the establishment of the commission. What was Amendment No. 31 might have appeared to give rise to that veto and so it has not been re-tabled. Therefore, in our view the Government ought to be minded to accept the amendment that is now before the House.
As this amendment makes clear, there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the local authorities directly affected by the abolition proposals; this is despite the fact that Clause 7 defines them as relevant authorities for starring purposes. Consultations are to be conducted, if at all, through local authority associations; that is, the AMA and the Association of London Authorities. As was made clear in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and myself, this could place the AMA in particular in a very difficult position. The House might recall the argument that the AMA, which has to represent the views of disparate organisations within it, may very well have some difficulty in doing that, though it is not an impossibility.
In the same debate the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, also said, speaking from the Government's point of
1238
view, that all opinions should be represented in the consultations. The consultation process itself will take place in difficult circumstances. The main Bill will still be at an early stage of discussion during the one-month period and we are simply trying to forecast and anticipate when this present Bill will receive Royal Assent. The expectation is—I think not unreasonably—that when that happens, the main Bill will still be before Parliament, either in another place or here.
The first year of the staff commission's work will take place in a virtual vacuum, without the backing of an agreed abolition policy. We believe that in these circumstances it is important that the upper- and lower-tier authorities are given the opportunity themselves to take part in the consultation.
Again I quote the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who at column 189 complained that relevant authorities had not themselves instigated consultations with the Government since the publication of the Bill. With due respect to the Minister, that is not the point that we are trying to make in this amendment. As a matter of both principle and practice, all authorities affected should have the opportunity to engage in consultation at a serious level. If a number were then to choose not to take part in consultation, that would be a matter for them. The House might prefer to follow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on 3rd July, at column 188, when he said:
"My right honourable friend will be perfectly happy to consult with those who want to consult him".
All we are seeking is a form of words on the face of the Bill which will allow those who wish to consult the Minister to exercise their statutory right to do so. The trade unions, whose members will be affected, should also have a clear right so to do. I think the Minister can rest assured that without that written into the Bill, people vitally affected—both trade unions and local authorities—are unlikely to find a means whereby their views will be put.
What we want is the removal of the discretion, and we believe that there is a discretion on the Secretary of State to consult such trade unions or local authorities as he (that is, the Secretary of State) considers it proper to consult. The amendment would require such consultations to be offered to local authorities and their associations, as well as the trade unions. To date there has been no discussion with the trade unions over the implications of the break-up of the upper-tier councils, and the Minister has, I think, the opportunity to tell us whether that is correct. In other words, have there been consultations with the trade unions on the consequences of the abolition Bill? If in fact there has been no opportunity and consultations have not taken place, will the Minister tell us how he is going to set about consulting the trade unions on this matter?
In our view, the Government are moving with undue haste. I would repeat that they need to be right, rather than quick. We believe that our amendments are reasonable and they ought to have the support of a sympathetic Minister, who replied to the debate on the last occasion and who is in his place to answer them here tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches I should simply like to indicate that we support this

1239
amendment. We think it is very important that there should be the broadest consultation. It really is a criticism of the Government and their strategy that this consultation has not already taken place. I was moved to intervene because of a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on the last amendment, when he twitted the Liberals, of all people, as being against the idea of unitary authorities. I am not an expert on local government, but in 1972 I happened to speak against the then Local Government Bill in another place, objecting to the way in which local government was being reformed. I said that I was in favour of unitary authorities, but that there should be a strategy for it all.
In view of the words uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the fact that there has not so far been consultation, it seems to me that we come to the basic fault of the Government; that is, that there does not appear to be a strategy at all. What they appear to be doing is reacting to provocation, and they do not have a strategy. If there was a strategy, one would expect that there would he a plan for authorities throughout the country and a determination on where elected strategic authorities are required. It seems to me that it is terribly difficult to justify, for example, Essex having an elected strategic authority and the huge metropolis of London not having one. It is the absence of this kind of strategy as well as the absence of thinking about this matter that makes one feel that this is a highly rushed, hasty Bill, and that here we have an example of the lack of consultation beforehand.
I wish that the Government could convince me—and I have an open mind about the whole question of whether metropolitan authorities are necessary. I, and those on these Benches, should be very much happier if there was any sign of a strategy and a thought-out policy with regard to this matter, rather than a reaction to personalities and their, no doubt, in many cases, objectionable, performances. This amendment shows that there has been a complete lack of consultation so far, and, at the very least, the consultation should be broadened.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think there is widespread agreement that a staff commission will be an essential part of this reorganisation, just as in other previous reorganisations: in the words of 1066 and All That, that it is a good thing. But I have to say to your Lordships that, in the Government's view, these amendments would throw into question the very existence of the staff commission. What we are proposing in Clause 7 is to set up such a staff commission along the lines of those established under previous reorganisations—exactly those lines. Such commissions, independent commissions, have been widely welcomed and have played a valuable role in ensuring fair treatment for staff. My right honourable friend (and when I referred to him in Committee I meant, as I do now, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and not my noble friend Lord Bellwin) has made it clear that he intends to see that this commission match their predecessors, both in standing up for the staff, who obviously face an unsettling period, and in having a real understanding of the problems of both new and old employers.
1240
These amendments which we are now discussing would require the Secretary of State to consult individual staff and authorities, not just their representative bodies. They would, in effect, give any one authority or representative body consulted by the Secretary of State the power to veto or to delay indefinitely the establishment of a staff commission, irrespective of what any and all of the others think. Is that democratic? Is that really in the best interests of staff? Are the Opposition really saying that they are prepared to put those interests at risk in this way? The right and proper way forward is to establish the staff commission and for them to work out their modus operandi, and who they will consult with.
The real nub of these two amendments is when the consultations should take place. I readily accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that no consultations with the unions have as yet taken place, and the reason is that the unions have not wanted those discussions. They appear to take the attitude that, if they turn their back on the Government's policy, then it will go away and they will not have to bother about it. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke about the absence of thinking—I think I have the words right. If that does not display an absence of thinking, I should like to know what does.
Nothing we are doing will prevent the staff commission from consulting whoever they wish, and, indeed, the Government are open to views. The difficulty has been that some authorities have been unwilling to make their views known to us, and—I have said it before and I say it again—I wish to goodness they would. But we are dealing now with the need to establish a commission. I say to the House what I said in Committee. It is totally unacceptable to make the existence of such important safeguards a hostage to potential vetoes, which I strongly suspect would be politically motivated.
I am sure that the House will agree that the commission need to be in place at the earliest possible opportunity. It must be in the best interests of all the staff concerned that they begin the process of consultation with interested bodies and provide my right honourable friend with general advice on staffing issues without delay. The sooner they are set up, the sooner they can start to consider how to protect the interests of staff. They will not start their work in earnest until Parliament has settled the principle of abolition in the main Bill. Until then the commission will make their plans, will make contact with authorities and staff representatives and will ensure that no one tries to jump the gun. This must be right in the interests of staff, and I ask the House to reject these amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I intend to withdraw the amendment, but can the Minister reiterate that which I believe he has implied and which his noble friend Lord Bellwin indicated during the last session? If no consultation has taken place because it has not been requested, and in view of the noises that were made that the Minister will be happy to see that consultations take place with those who wish to take part, will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding that the staff commission, outwith any obligation in the Bill, will be prepared to consult; that

1241
is, to receive representations from, and to discuss with, local authorities and trade unions who request them so to do?
I ask your Lordships to forget the arguments about politicisation; as to whether politics have stopped it. I simply want to have an assurance from the Minister that if a trade union or a local authority, which appeared not to have the opportunity as of right, nevertheless wished to exercise the opportunity—once the procedure starts and the staff commission begin to work, saying, "We are now prepared to consult and we have some obligations to do so"—it will be able to ask, "Will you also listen to what I have to say?" Can the Minister tell us to the best of his ability—because the staff commission will decide—that those who wish to make representations and to have discussions will have the opportunity of doing so?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to respond to that. Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is perfectly right in saying that it will he for the staff commission to decide. But I can see absolutely no reason—and nor, I am sure, will any of my ministerial colleagues—why they should not decide in the way that the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this might be a sensible time to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Rent (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Foster Children (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
7.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 be agreed to. This order, which was laid before the House on 7th June 1984, amends the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972; and it incorporates in that order the procedures, contained in the Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, whereby certain grant-aided schools may become controlled integrated schools. The order enacts various recommendations contained in three important reports: first, the Astin Report on the management of schools in Northern Ireland; secondly, the Benn Report on voluntary schools in Northern Ireland; and, indirectly, the Warnock Report on the education of handicapped children and young people in Great Britain.
The order received considerable attention in Northern Ireland. It was considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly and commented on by some 150 other bodies and individuals. My honourable friend also met deputations from two of the Northern Ireland political parties. Arising from this wide-ranging consultation, 10 changes of substance have been made. The order is, as your Lordships will see, fairly long and detailed. Therefore I hope your Lordships will forgive me if at the outset I speak only to the broad principles of the order.
The Government announced in March 1981 that they had accepted most of the recommendations of the report of the working party on the management of schools in Northern Ireland. This will be more familiar to your Lordships as the Astin Report. The most significant of the Astin recommendations was that parents and assistant teachers should be represented, as of right, on the boards of governors of all grant-aided schools. These recommendations were given a general welcome, although views differed as to the proportions in which the various categories of membership should be represented on the boards of different types of school.
The Government's proposals for the future composition of boards of governors were first announced in September 1981 and they were translated into legislative form in the proposal which was published on 1st July 1983. It was obvious from the comments which were received that in particular transferors' representatives on the management bodies of controlled schools and the trustees of voluntary schools remained dissatisfied with their share of the total memberships of their respective boards of governors.
In the light of the views which were expressed, the transferor representation on the smallest board of governors of controlled primary and intermediate schools has been increased from three to four. This increases the voting membership of those boards to nine. In the case of the smallest board of governors of a maintained school and of a voluntary grammar school which has entered into an agreement with the department, or an education and library board, the number of members representative of the trustees or

1243
foundation governors has been increased from five to six. This increases their voting memberships to 10. I would add that there has been no change in the required numbers of parent and teacher governors.
Parents and assistant teachers who will be elected to the school board of governors by fellow parents and teachers must be given a responsible role in school management. The importance of that role, I am sure your Lordships will agree, cannot be enshrined in legislation. It is a role which must be developed by all members of the school board working together to further promote the welfare of the school and its pupils. We hope that the new school boards of governors will take the opportunity which is presented by this legislation to contribute in what we hope will be a meaningful way to the efficient management of their schools.
Aside from changes in the composition of boards of governors, the order implements a number of other recommendations contained in the Astin Report. To take one example, Article 25 requires school authorities to prepare schemes setting out the procedures for the suspension and expulsion of pupils. This article expresses the working party's concern about the urgent need for clarification and greater precision concerning suspensions and expulsions. As all of your Lordships will be aware, this is a very difficult area. Education and library boards have a statutory responsibility to ensure that children of compulsory school age are provided with suitable education and also to ensure their attendance. Voluntary school authorities do not have such responsibilities. Because of the contrasting nature of the different school authorities it is important to establish procedures which will, so far as is possible, be common to all grant-aided schools.
To achieve that end, Article 25 which is before us this evening will empower the Department of Education to prescribe certain fundamental matters which must be common to all schemes. Article 34 of what was the published proposal but which in fact is now Article 33 of the draft order contained a provision which would have given an education and library board the power to appeal to the department where it considered the board of governors of a controlled school was acting unreasonably in not giving consent to the redeployment of a teacher. The provision was based on a recommendation of Astin, but it was strenuously opposed by controlled school interests on the grounds that it was unacceptable that there should be a statutory provision whereby controlled schools could be required to accept teachers from voluntary schools while voluntary schools retained absolute control over their own teaching appointments. In the light of these views, my honourable friend concluded that the provision should be removed from the order.
I mentioned earlier the Benn Report on voluntary schools. Your Lordships may be aware that this recommended that voluntary grammar schools which become non-selective should have the choice of either having their revenue expenditure financed under the maintained school system or continuing to receive their recurrent grant direct from the Department of Education. Your Lordships will see that Articles 7 to 11 enable a school to exercise that choice and, if it
1244
wishes, to change its initial choice. The Benn Report also contained certain other recommendations which the Government accepted for the simplification of the present complex system of recurrent grant distribution to voluntary grammar schools. Your Lordships will see that Article 30 provides for its replacement by the block grant system.
May I now turn to the provisions in the order which amend the law on special education in line with the amendments which have already been made in Great Britain. Those amendments were based on recommendations of the Warnock Committee on the education of handicapped children and young people. While the committee was concerned only with Great Britain, the Government believe that many of the changes in the law which have been made in Great Britain are also relevant to Northern Ireland. In particular, there is no reason why the concept of special educational treatment for children categorised in one of 10 particular types of handicap should not be replaced by the new wider concept of special educational provision based on the special educational needs of individual children. The strong arguments which the Warnock Report put forward for this change of emphasis apply equally to Northern Ireland. The real need is that the teacher should have a clear statement of what is required to meet the needs of each child with serious learning difficulties.
There is also no reason why parents and children in Northern Ireland should not have the same protection in the arrangements for assessments and making statements of special educational needs as has been considered necessary in Great Britain. Parents of course have always been closely involved in the decision-making process where it was thought that their children might need special education; but this legislation makes specific provision for parents to be able to make their views known, and above all to talk to the professionals who are involved.
The order also includes the statement of principle that wherever possible children with special educational needs should be educated in ordinary schools. The integration of such children in ordinary schools has been a feature of special education in Northern Ireland for many years; but the Government hope that the statement of principle enshrined in legislation will provide a further stimulus. Clearly not all children with learning difficulties can be educated in ordinary schools and there will continue to be a need for separate special schools for some children.
These changes make up the bulk of the draft order that is before us this evening. There is also a large number of miscellaneous amendments. Of these miscellaneous amendments, perhaps I might draw your Lordships' attention to Article 27. This re-enacts existing legislation relating to the provision of milk, meals or other refreshment at grant-aided schools and institutions of further education and makes the service subject to arrangements approved by the Department of Education, instead of regulations, The arrangements to be approved by the Department of Education will, among other things, lay down requirements for the standard of school meals to be provided. Provision is also made in Article 27 to require facilities to be provided for pupils to eat food which they have brought with them to school.

1245
If there are any other matters on which your Lordships would like information, I shall do my best to deal with them. I shall be keen to hear the views of the House and will do my best to answer any questions. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on the 6th July when the House debated the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1984 my noble friend Lord Underhill, anticipating the evening when this very lengthy, diverse and complex order would come before your Lordships' House, once again voiced criticism of procedures of Government which rely on Orders-in-Council which are not exposed to detailed scrutiny and which are unamendable. Indeed, this is the essential criticism which is constantly levelled against the use of Orders-in-Council in the Government of Northern Ireland. I believe that this criticism is relevant in the context of this order.
I have also been reading the Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the proposals as they then were which lead to the draft order. Generally speaking, the parties who gave written or oral evidence to the Assembly's Education Committee are broadly in sympathy with most of the new articles. I think it is appreciated that some of the articles create valuable new rights for parents and for teachers. But we have also picked up evidence of concern. There are grounds of concern about one or two of the provisions in the order. There is profound concern that the Government have missed a great opportunity to grant to severely mentally handicapped children the right to education in schools alongside their non-handicapped peers. I propose to return to this point.
The changes which the noble Lord the Minister has described in the management structure of the schools as recommended by the Astin Report are clearly supported although as the noble Lord expects there are reservations on numerous points of detail such as the total membership of the Board of Governors or how it should be comprised. There is particular welcome for the principle that both teacher and parent governors will be elected by secret ballot. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House when these proposals will be implemented.
There is also support for the provision to establish procedures to govern the suspension and expulsion of pupils referred to by the Minister—again, another Astin recommendation relating to a very difficult area. But we have picked up comments by a number or parties who argue that the procedures, although obviously welcomed, are no substitute for effective counselling and guidance, but the latter would of course involve additional expenditure.
There is widespread disappointment at the failure of the Government to make additional resources available to ensure that parts of the order are effectively implemented. This comes out very clearly in the comments on special educational provision based on the special educational needs of individual children. Again, the same message comes through in the comments on the principle that children with
1246
special education needs should wherever possible be educated in ordinary schools. These principles are of course widely accepted, and, to some degree, applied in Northern Ireland.
But one cannot substantially increase the level of integration without new resources being made available. If the new resources are not made available the ideal envisaged by the order will not be achieved. Indeed it has been said by some witnesses that the department is raising expectations of both educationalists and parents of children with special needs which cannot be achieved, at least in the short term, as the additional funding is not being made available. Indeed, one organisation which gave evidence suggests that the implementation be deferred until extra finances are quantified and made available for the purpose, but I do not know that we would go along with deferment. I appreciate that the Government consider that the provisions can be achieved without additional resources, but I am bound to say that that has been challenged by witness after witness.
I wish to refer in some detail to the widespread criticism of Article 16 which gives effect to the new Article 25E which relates to "children unsuitable for education at school", and which I accept is not a new provision. It is a restatement of the existing law. But this is the article which has attracted the strongest criticism and it is therefore clearly one of the most crucial provisions of the order.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to the Warnock Report, but 10 years after the publication of the Warnock Report parents of mentally handicapped children and teachers and voluntary organisations with a special interest in the mentally handicapped child find it difficult, unbelievable, that in one corner of the land the education department of central Government still accepts that there are children who are unsuitable for education at school and that this order should be a vehicle for perpetuating the exclusion of severely mentally handicapped children from the educational system. What is relevant in England, Wales and Scotland is equally relevant in the conditions of Northern Ireland. There are parents of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland supported by teachers and others who condemn the whole philosophy embodied in Article 25E. They go beyond that. They consider that it constitutes a denial of a human right and they are determined that this injustice should end.
My attention has also been drawn to a research study carried out in 1982 and 1983 by Eamon Dwyer of Ulster Polytechnic, and Mr. Swann of the Open University, into the education facilities provided by the Health and Social Services boards for the mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland. I have not read the report. I have not seen a copy of the report, but I am advised that its authors came to the conclusion that the mentally handicapped children whom they saw were seriously disadvantaged. They exempt the staff from criticism but conclude that the facilities were inappropriate and inadequate, and presumably this will have retarded the child's development.
In another place on 26th June Article 25E came under heavy fire. In the opinion of many people, the

1247
Minister in the other place failed to deal adequately with the criticism of Article 25E. Some will say, and I will elaborate on this, that his reply was possibly misleading. The Minister claimed that the Assembly had recommended that the responsibility for the education of a mentally handicapped child should remain with the Department of Health and Social Security. However, I have been unable to identify authority for that view. Perhaps when the Minister replies he can guide us to the authority for his claim. I have been told that the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee had argued in favour of the status quo—but they would, wouldn't they!
I wish to know whether the opinion of the Health and Social Services Committee has been adopted by the Assembly. If it has been adopted by the Assembly, it would appear to me that the Assembly is pursuing conflicting ends, or conflicting policies; unless, of course, the recommendation of the Health and Social Services Committee has been overtaken by that of the Education Committee. It is beyond dispute that the Education Committee of the Assembly strongly recommended that the responsibility be transferred to the schools, and as I read the report of the Assembly this recommendation was adopted by it. In his letter to the Assembly of 10th November 1983 to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—a letter which is reproduced as a foreword to the report of the Assembly, ordered to be published on 9th November 1983—the Speaker of the Assembly told the Secretary of State:
"The Assembly has recommended the amendment of the proposed new Article 25E to provide a right to education for all children".
It seems to me that that is the position adopted by the Assembly.
In the debate in the other place on 26th June, the Minister was also told that the Children's Legal Centre in London was then canvassing whether Article 25E should be challenged before the European Commission of Human Rights as being in breach of the fundamental human right guaranteeing the right of a child to education. Indeed, the Children's Legal Centre had informed the Minister in May that it considered that the article violated the convention. But, again, nowhere has the Minister dealt with this claim put forward by the Children's Legal Centre.
A parent in Northern Ireland told me on Saturday that he has the firm intention of going to the European Commission of Human Rights to challenge the article. Will the Minister inform the House whether his department has taken legal advice on whether or not this article is in breach of Article 2 of the First Protocol, which is the article which provides that no person shall be denied the right to education? If the department has sought advice, may we know what advice was tendered.
It is appreciated by all that it is too late in the day to amend the order and that the order cannot be delayed, but there is a wide group of parents and educationists in Northern Ireland, and here in London, who wait with great interest to learn whether the Government are prepared to reconsider Article 25E with a view to bringing in amending legislation which will bring the
1248
law in Northern Ireland on this subject into line with the legislation of England, Wales and Scotland. We would hope that there is at least a commitment to undertake such a review at an early date. If the Minister can come forward with an encouraging word, this debate will have been worthwhile. With the reservation I have mentioned, but an important reservation, we from these Benches give our support to the order.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we, too, welcome the order as a whole and thank the Minister for his exposition of it. I think that the weight and complexity of the order and the complexity of the explanations which the Minister was able to give without in any way being able to go into detail is some evidence as to the unsatisfactory nature of law-making as it refers to Northern Ireland at present. I do not think anyone denies that. The longer the present situation goes on, the more it is incumbent upon us to find some way in which Parliament deals with these matters whereby we, too, can have a say in what we are supposed to be passing.
The whole question of education in Northen Ireland is, of course, a fraught one which has been discussed in your Lordships' House from time to time. All of us want to see a much greater rapprochement between the communities in Northern Ireland. Many of us feel that this can best be tackled at a fairly early age through the education system. We know the difficulties which have been met in doing this and that the problems we meet there are merely in miniature the problems which we meet in the Province as a whole. However, again this is one of the areas where I think we must not miss the opportunity of reminding the Government that if we are to produce, in the long term, peace and justice in that unhapy part of the United Kingdom great steps forward will have to be made, and they will have to be made in many other fields as in this one.
We know that there are already experiments in joint education, but it is time, I think, that the Government tried to take some new initiative. It is too often the case that the initiatives in Northern Ireland are of the major kind, such as, "What are we going to do now about getting all the parties together round a table?" or, "What are we going to do about major governmental machinery?", and there is not enough concern about what can be done on a smaller scale. I think that it is in the area of education that we must undertake such an initiative.
Clearly we do not have the time to debate the details of this particular order, nor a real opportunity to amend it; and since we do not have that opportunity there is not the incentive to go into great detail tonight, but there are one or two matters which should be mentioned. Part II deals with school management and it is a good step forward that the aim of this part of the order is to increase parental representation on the school boards of governors. The closer we come to the English system, the better. I do not necessarily feel that about everything in this order and, indeed, we feel that it is good that there should be differentials between various parts of the United Kingdom on various matters. However, in this particular matter the United Kingdom appears to have taken a considerable step

1249
forward and the Government themselves have this very close at heart. It would be a good thing if we could progress as fast as possible towards the English system.
In that connection, I certainly pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Office for the way in which it has stuck out for the election of parent and teacher governors, since some people opposed that, preferring nomination. Nomination would have led to much abuse by the vested interests of the Province, as it is always liable to do, and this is a step forward.
Part IV concerns, "Education of Children with Special Educational Needs". I go along with many of the criticisms that have just been made about that matter. I think that it is a great pity that the care and education of some disabled children are left under the control of health boards, when in this country we have made major steps forward through the Warnock Report. Once again, I suspect that a system more in line with that which we are bringing into force in England would be preferable—although as we have said in England, so again I should like to repeat what has already been said about Northern Ireland: we realise that one of the problems is financial resources.
It seems to me that from this side of the House we cannot too often say that in such matters priorities must be set and financial resources found. If we are challenged to say where the financial resources should come from, I do not think that any of our parties would be in difficulty in pointing to resources from the Government's present programme. That is not the problem. The problem is what one puts forward. The whole question of the care and education of handicapped children demands the greatest possible care and provision of resources.
Part V is headed, "Miscellaneous and Supplementary". One thing that I do not think has been mentioned so far, and that is in Article 20. In England and Wales pupils cannot transfer to further education until they have reached their 16th birthday. In Northern Ireland pupils have been able to transfer during their 16th year—once they are 15. The Government have been changing that over the past few years voluntarily, and the order puts that into statutory effect. We are far from clear that that is a step forward. The flexibility of the old Northern Ireland system was probably a good thing. I know that it is a contentious matter, as are all matters concerning the age of compulsory education. But I think that there was not necessarily a case for changing the Northern Ireland system to that of the United Kingdom.
One other small point arises on Article 33. In England and Wales teachers can be compulsorily transferred when a school is being closed, if the only alternative is unemployment. Compulsory transfer means that the local education authority has to accept the teacher. The option of a central appointment is not available in Northern Ireland at the moment. Under the order the decision to employ a teacher can only be taken locally. We on these Benches are always supporters of local decisions and local control, but I feel that there should be some fall-back position whereby teachers in that situation need not necesarily find themselves out of a job. It is really a query to the Minister as to whether there cannot be found some way forward from that.
1250
Although I have one or two major queries and one or two minor ones, on the whole this order is a considerable step forward. There has been wide consultation in the Province and there is a wide measure of agreement. We certainly welcome it and congratulate the Government on what they have done.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench in the matters that he so ably raised concerning the education of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland.
If I may digress for one moment, I have a little matter that I should like to put to the House. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak across the floor of the House with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, since his appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that this is a little belated, but as I come from Northern Ireland I should like to join with others and place on record my earnest good wishes to him for a happy period in office, and success in dealing with the many problems of the Province. I understand that he is tackling his responsibilities in the Northern Ireland agricultural community with great enthusiasm.
One point was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies arising from the order on which I wish to press for action. It concerns the plight of the mentally handicapped children in the five-plus age group, for whom at present there are not adequate places in suitable educational establishments. I understand that the officers of the Belfast Active Group have written about that immediate issue to the Northern Ireland Department of Education and to the Inter-Departmental Working Group on the Education and Training of Mentally Handicapped Children.
I recently met the parents of some of the children in that five-plus age group. The Minister and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, particularly Mr. Patten and Mr. Scott, will not need to be reminded by me of the great weight of distress, anxiety and concern that lies on the parents of those children. I feel sure that a little ministerial action and administrative rearrangement could alleviate that distress. May I ask the Minister to use his good offices to invite Mr. Nicholas Scott and other ministerial colleagues of his urgently to undertake the review mentioned by my noble friend on the Front Bench of the situation of the mentally handicapped five-plus age group in Northern Ireland? I wholly support my noble friend's remarks in connection with the order.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise for a moment or two to support my noble friends in their attitude to and criticisms of the order. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his assuming those heavy duties. I am sure that they will not get him down. I think that he has a natural buoyancy which perhaps is the most valuable quality one could possess in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he will restrain any tendency that he has to win any contest by physical means—I am referring to his exploits on the football field—when he is dealing with the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see him here.
I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is, as it were, incarcerated on the Woolsack, so that he

1251
cannot say what, I am sure, he would wish to say about the situation of the mentally handicapped. A discussion of the mentally handicapped without his contribution is rather devoid of its main attraction. I should like to think that he would sympathise with what has been said.
I am rising only to say ditto to what has been said on the subject of the mentally handicapped by my two noble friends. But amid all these congratulations I should like to press the noble Lord as to why the Government have not gone further. What is the explanation? Is it something to do with resources? In his opening remarks, the noble Lord gave us the impression that the Government were trying to give effect to the Warnock Report. He certainly said something about the Warnock Report, but it may have been rather cryptic. I think that we are entitled to ask what the hitch is. Why cannot what is being done in England be done in Northern Ireland? I end by repeating my wish that the noble Lord will have a very successful reign.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, may I first of all thank all your Lordships who have listened to my exposition of a field with which until three months ago I was not entirely familiar. I regret that I am still familiarising myself with some of the more detailed aspects of Northern Irish education let alone the Warnock Report and other points of interest which have—I think, detained, is probably the wrong word—fascinated the House this evening.
We are very grateful for the attention that has been given by all of your Lordships who have spoken and even by your Lordships who have not spoken but who have stayed with us during the discussion of this particular order.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who opened the debate on the order this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, both mentioned the problems of dealing with what is in effect a fairly weighty matter by means of an Order in Council. I am sure that they and all your Lordships will accept that it is an especially important and interesting subject this evening. However, I do not think that I can go more deeply into the method of legislating by Orders in Council at present. I am afraid we shall have to continue this method of dealing with legislation, for the foreseeable future at any rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a number of questions. First of all the noble Lord asked about the implementation of various school management changes. The order requires boards of governors for all grant-aided schools to be constituted in accordance with the new provisions. We hope that this will be done by 31st December 1985. This will include the election of both parents and teachers to the boards of governors.
In the second group of his questions, the noble Lord asked about finance. His question was in particular directed at the new provisions for, and indeed the need for, special education. I would reply to the noble Lord by telling him that the provisions of the draft order largely replace and bring up to date what are existing arrangements. They are not expected to give rise to
1252
any additional expenditure either by education and library boards or by the Department of Education. I am sure your Lordships will be aware that the Government are satisfied that the provisions of the 1981 Act can be implemented without additional resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked me whether the boards might need to employ additional psychologists for educational purposes. I am given to understand that some local education authorities in Great Britain have appointed additional staff of this nature. However, I think the noble Lord would accept, and your Lordships who are specialists in this field would accept, that to make comparisons on this basis we should need to know the firm base from which the authorities started. If we take one example, we should need to know previous ratio of psychologists to pupils because, as your Lordships are aware, this may vary from one local education authority to another. The ratio of educational psychologists to school children in Northern Ireland is as good as the average elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We do not expect that the implementation of the new legislation before us this evening will create the need for additional posts, in this field at least.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, led the main part of the debate. He was followed by other noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the noble Earl, Lord Longford and the noble Lord, Lord Blease. All were concerned with the education of mentally handicapped children. Perhaps I may just take a few minutes of your Lordships' time to try to spell out the particular position contained in Article 16, of the present order and Article 25(e) of the earlier legislation.
It all goes back to the responses which we received to the consultative document on the education and training of mentally handicapped children. These replies are still under consideration. I am afraid that no decisions have been taken about the future responsibility for the education of these particular children. The order that we have before us this evening simply makes it clear that the current arrangements for these children will continue. These arrangements are, of course, that education and library boards will determine the children who are unsuitable for education at school and they will refer them, for the attention which the children require, to the health and social services boards.
This particular term, which we have to define, of being "unsuitable for education at school", we have to read in the context of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. This itself includes a definition of a school for the purposes of the order. This reading of the definition into the Education and Libraries Order 1972 does not mean at all that the children—and especially these particular children—are being denied in any way the right to education. Rather it means far more: that they are considered unsuitable for the type of education provided in the schools which come within the scope and within the terms of the order.
I am sure that your Lordships will be aware that these children attend institutions called special care schools. I do not think that anyone, least of all those of your Lordships who have spoken this evening, would

1253
dispute that these children do receive education which is entirely suitable to their needs, and above all their educational needs, at these particular schools.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt at this point?
Lord Lyell: Please do.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord may be going to answer my question but he has not yet answered it. Why should there be a different system in Northern Ireland from the one here?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am only about halfway through my comments.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I see.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope to come to the noble Earl's point. I think that I have received specialist direction upon his particular queries and I hope to cover them. If I do not cover them, then before I finally sit down I shall certainly attempt to do so. However, perhaps the noble Earl will wait until I come to the final conclusion here. I hope that at least some of the argument will be laid bare.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned what has been said in another place. He mentioned various legal centres. I am certainly aware that the present position has been challenged. I think it has been challenged by the Children's Legal Centre as being possibly in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I would say to the noble Lord and to the noble Earl that this is one of several comments which we have received in replies to the consultative document. We are considering in particular the detail as to whether this particular aspect of Article 16 needs further study, whether we can do anything further about it, or what might happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the involvement of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are aware that they were originally opposed to Article 25(e), but I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that that article simply clarifies that the existing law will continue to operate. The Assembly itself did recommend no change. That is the advice that I have. If we clarify it, it is that the responsibility for the education and, above all, the training of mentally handicapped children should be retained by the Department of Health and Social Security and its agents, the health and social services boards.
The Assembly also recommended that the Department of Health and Social Security and the agents, the health and social services boards, should be given the statutory duty of providing education for mentally handicapped children; that is education combined with special care. That is another very important matter which we are examining at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of the Children's Legal Centre and its possible case. We are still consulting and discussing on this matter with the relevant departments. We have not yet obtained legal advice. We are in the course, naturally, of obtaining it among other consultations, but we have no definite legal advice as to how we shall respond to this putative case if it goes forward.
1254
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me to comment on the encouragement of integrated education. We value his forthright encouragement. The policy of the Government is to encourage integrated education in Northern Ireland wherever there is a local wish for it. Certainly, the Government will welcome requests made in this field for controlled integrated status.
The noble Lord also raised what I think he called the flexibility of further education of children in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord will see that Article 20 provides the statutory base for the policy of ending the transfer of pupils to further education at 15 years of age by changing the law to ensure that, in future, further education may be provided only for persons over compulsory school age. The Government take the view that we are satisfied that the educational needs of pupils of this age would best be served by their remaining at secondary school until they are 16. But, in addition, the youth training programme is placing an additional workload on further education colleges. Indeed, the ending of transfer at 15-plus, if we can call it that, will release valuable resources in the colleges to enable them to cope with the extra demands being made on them possibly in other fields.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also asked me about the fallback provision of the redeployment of teachers. During the consultation period on the draft order, we found that there was considerable opposition expressed to the provision about the education and library board's power of appeal. It was pointed out fairly forcibly to us that such a provision might significantly dilute powers of controlled schools' boards of governors and might lead to controlled schools being forced to accept teachers unacceptable to them. Some education and library boards also opposed the provisions on other grounds. The boards would wish to avoid what they would see as unnecessary and unproductive friction between themselves and local school management bodies, and, therefore, in practice, they would not exercise their powers of appeal.
As a result, the Government concluded that the likely effectiveness of the appeal powers with regard to the redeployment of teachers would not be sufficient to outweigh the strength of opposition expressed to us on this measure. We would stress, however, that without the provision for the power of appeal the article will provide for increased flexibility in redeployment arrangements in that it will extend the board's power of redeployment to cover teachers employed in other board areas as well as its own.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised a particular point. First, I thank him for his kind words, as, indeed, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his kind welcome to my spell in Northern Ireland. I can stress to the noble Lord and to the noble Earl that if my first 100 days are anything to go by, I shall be more than happy; indeed, I am thrilled to be serving with such an excellent team and, above all, to know that I am trying to serve such marvellous people in Northern Ireland. It is more than rewarding to serve there, and, above all, to try and get right some of the detailed educational points this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Blease,

1255
mentioned the problem of mentally handicapped children. We shall, of course, consider the need for additional facilities for mentally handicapped children. We take on board the points that he has raised.
I hope I have gone most of the way, even if I have not covered every single point that has been raised by your Lordships. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for warning me that he would be opening the bowling on Article 16. Thanks to him, I have had at least some more detailed reply available for him and for your Lordships. To conclude our deliberations on the order, I should like to stress that Northern Ireland has good reason to be proud of the quality of its educational service. The Government are convinced that the changes that the order will bring about are for the good of the educational service and, above all, for the good of the children and the young people of Northern Ireland. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
8.7 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before us this evening facilitates the establishment of a new university institution in Northern Ireland. Following upon the final report of the higher education review group, the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic entered into discussions about the creation of a new style of higher education provision to be formed by the merger of the two existing institutions. The two institutions agreed to the merger and have taken the necessary procedural steps to bring it about.
In November last year the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic jointly petitioned Her Majesty the Queen for a charter for the new university institution to be created by their merger, and to be known as the University of Ulster. At the same time, the New University of Ulster sought that, if Her Majesty were graciously pleased to assent to this petition, she would, at the same time, revoke the charter of the New University of Ulster. A copy of the petition and of the draft charter and statutes was tabled in the House on 16th January this year. The charter contains many of the measures needed to bring about the merger, and, although the university charter is a matter for my noble friend the Lord President, there are a number of aspects of the charter to which I should like to refer briefly.
Firstly, this is the first merger in the United Kingdom of a university and a polytechnic, and as such it has attracted a good deal of interest on both sides of the Irish Sea. We have to emphasise, however, that in no sense is this merger a test-bed for higher education in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is, and, above all, was designed to be, the answer to the
1256
special problems facing higher education in Northern Ireland. If others can learn from it, so much the better.
Secondly, a unique feature of the charter is the requirement that no less often than every seven years an external review be carried out to assess how effectively the university is fulfilling the objectives laid down for it in the charter, and, above all, how effectively it is using the resources available to it. This is of particular importance because of the wide-ranging and challenging nature of those objectives, encompassing as they do work at all levels of higher education, including research, degree and non-degree work.
Thirdly, the draft charter and statutes were prepared jointly by the NUU and the Ulster Polytechnic, and at every stage in the drafting there has been wide consultation, including consultation with staff and students. The inauguration of the University of Ulster is planned for 1st October 1984. If Her Majesty is pleased to grant the university charter to the petitioners, certain legislation will be required to deal with those aspects of the merger which could not be included in the charter, and also to amend or repeal existing legislation affected by the merger. This short order now before the House contains these measures.
I turn very briefly to the provisions of the order. Article 3 transfers the assets and liabilities of the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic to the University of Ulster. It also provides for proceedings in connection with anything transferred in this way to be continued in the name of the University of Ulster. I draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the provision in this article, in paragraph 4, for Magee University College, Londonderry, to be maintained as an integral part of the University of Ulster. Your Lordships may be aware that Magee College is a higher educational establishment, originally founded in 1865 by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for the training of its clergymen. Its courses and entrants were broadened over the years, and, with the establishment of the New University of Ulster in 1968, it became a part of that university.
Article 4 dissolves the statutory corporate body known as the governors of the Ulster Polytechnic. This body will not be required following the merger, since its work will be subsumed in the council of the university, though some of the members of the governors have been nominated to serve on the university council. Some, however, are not continuing into the new institution. In particular, we should wish to thank—I am sure that all of your Lordships who are aware of the educational scene in Northern Ireland would want to do so—Mr. William McNeill, who has been chairman of the governors of the Ulster Polytechnic since it was established in 1969. We very much want to put on record his valuable and appreciated service over 15 years.
Article 5 provides a means of redress should any members of staff feel that the employment offered does not meet the criteria envisaged in Statute XXV, whereby all permanent employees at both the NUU and the Ulster Polytechnic were assured that they would be offered employment in the New University institution without diminution in pay, and that this employment would be as nearly as practicable upon

1257
the same terms and conditions as they enjoy at present.
If Her Majesty is pleased to grant the new charter, some minor amendments to existing legislation will he required. These are included in article 6 and in schedules 1 and 2. The latter repeals the whole of the Ulster College Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, which founded what was then the Ulster College and later turned into the Ulster Polytechnic.
I should like to pay our tribute to the work and the reputation of the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic. Both were established in the late 1960s in response to the recommendations of the Lockwood Committee's report on higher education in Northern Ireland. The University of Ulster has determined to carry on, and build upon, the very best traditions of both of these institutions.
I am especially pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, the chancellor of the New University of Ulster, has agreed to act as chancellor of the University of Ulster. Under his very able leadership, I am confident that the University of Ulster will fulfil our expectations, and, in a new form of higher education provision, will meet the needs of Northern Ireland. The order before us this evening facilitates this creation, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, unlike the draft education order, this order is short and straightforward. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing the order, which, as he explained, is necessary to enable the merger of the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic to be implemented. The move towards a merger did not have a very auspicious beginning. There was a feeling that the merger was being foisted upon these academic communities, and there were complaints about inadequate consultations. But not very much is to be gained now by going into detail about that early history.
We on these Benches welcome the merger of the resources of these two institutions, uniting a university with a thriving polytechnic. We agree with the Minister that the University of Ulster can be a model that befits the Northern Ireland situation and its requirements. We want it to be a success, and its council and staff deserve to succeed.
We note that the charter will provide for the role and, presumably, the standards of the new institution to be reviewed no less than every seven years. While we go along with this, we are also bound to express the hope that the monitoring will be undertaken in a way that will retain the confidence of those being monitored. Article 3 transfers the assets and the liabilities of both institutions to the University of Ulster, and the assurance in paragraph 4 of this article that Magee University College will be maintained in Londonderry as an integral part of the University of Ulster will be welcome.
But the merger will mean that the work circumstances of some staff will change, and there will be problems of redeployment. Therefore, we welcome
1258
very much Article 5, which makes provision for compensation to be paid to employees who decline or relinquish employment in the circumstances specified in the article. We believe that the new article is an improvement on the original proposal, as it contains the right of appeal to an industrial tribunal. But the terms and conditions of compensation are not known.
The merger will be implemented on 1st October. That is no more than 10 weeks away. On the assumption that this order is not likely to be thrown out, I should like to ask when the terms and conditions will be known. Can the Minister tell us whether or not the department is likely to offer guidance by, say, the end of this month? Meanwhile, we on these Benches support the draft order.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the Minister for explaining the terms of this order. I think we have some reservations about the nomenclature of the new university. Admittedly, it stems from two institutions which both had "Ulster" written into their title. Nevertheless, as everyone who has anything to do with Ireland knows, Ulster is nine counties, of which only six are in Northern Ireland. It is a fact that there has been a certain amount of resentment at this appropriation of the name "Ulster" for this university. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that observation, or tell us the thinking behind the adoption of that name.
The whole matter of the payments for voluntary redundancies and the improvement in conditions of service for those who formerly worked at the polytechnic appears to be costing more money than the Government originally thought possible. This was raised in another place by Mr. Soley, and it is a valid point. We should like some assurance from the Government that they have now come to terms with this and are able to say that the necessary money will be forthcoming.
I should like to ask only one other question. A conventional university charter assumes a vice-chancellor, who is always an academic, and a registrar and staff who are the civil servants of the university and who belong to a career structure of their own. Polytechnics on the whole have directors who deal with different aspects of the running of the polytechnics and who are almost all academics. There is not the same Civil Service structure.
Although, as the Minister has said, this merger is possibly not meant to be taken as providing guidelines for what may happen in other parts of the United Kingdom, nevertheless it is a trail-blazing exercise. It appears not to have adopted in full the university staff structure, but to have gone along, to a certain extent, the path of the polytechnics' structure. We should rather like to know whether that was the intention and, if so, what is the thinking behind this particular point? Apart from that, we certainly welcome the order.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Grey of Naunton: My Lords, I intervene very briefly. First I should like to support the order and to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his kind personal reference to me. As he has told your Lordships, I have an interest to declare, in that I am

1259
privileged to be the chancellor of the New University of Ulster and, if Her Majesty is graciously pleased to accede to our petition, to be the chancellor of the University of Ulster.
I do not this evening canvass the merits of merger; that die is cast. Suffice it to say that if there were to be a merger, as the Government have required, obviously the best course to follow would be such as produced the maximum co-operation and good will between the two parties who were merging. That has been accomplished, thanks to the labours of many devoted people who have put aside feelings that they may have had about the disappearance of the institutions which they had served. This order is part of that procedure. So we in the new university and in the university yet to be hope very much that the rest of the procedure which has been embarked upon will be quickly and happily completed.
Of course, it would not be Northern Ireland if there were not some little differences of opinion about what is what. It is not only in the three counties that are not part of the Province of Northern Ireland that some reservations have been expressed about the title of, "University of Ulster". The Queen's University of Belfast, which has long considered itself to be "the" university of Ulster, has had some feelings about it. But it is not only in university life that perfection is hard to attain in Northern Ireland. I think that we have come as near to it as we possibly can and I hope that the rest will be happily completed. With those words I commend the order to your Lordships.
Lord Blease: My Lords, for a number of years I was actively involved in the general work of both the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic. For those reasons I should not like this occasion to pass without saying a few words in respect of the order. During the years I came to know something of the great sense of commitment, the dedication and the excellent academic and educational contribution made to Northern Ireland by the officials and staffs of both these institutions. We all know something of the tremendous community, social and economic difficulties with which each of these organisations has had to cope from initial establishment. However, we are also pleased to have witnessed the high hopes, the new aspirations, the sound ideals and the new opportunities for learning which the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic opened up to many young people in Northern Ireland and, let me add, from the Republic and from overseas.
For many reasons I have a very warm regard for the New University of Ulster, its officials and staff. I know that they will continue to give of their best to the University of Ulster. I should like to add that I know that the choice of the noble Lord, Lord Grey, as the chancellor of the University of Ulster has been very well received in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Grey, does not need me to sing his praises. He has very many friends in Northern Ireland. He has proved to be a great help, a great encouragement and a great stalwart in times of trouble in Northern Ireland. He has stood at the head of education in the Province in his efforts to keep it afloat and I know that he has numerous friends in many parts of the community in Northern Ireland.
1260
I join with noble Lords and others in wishing the merger every success, and I hope that the University of Ulster will have the facilities and resources, and will provide the opportunities for educational excellence, to enable it to contribute much that is necessary to the wellbeing and prosperity of the people of the Province. I support the order.
Lord Bowden: My Lords, I should like briefly to intervene because I knew the university at Coleraine very well when it was first being established. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the genius of its first vice-chancellor, who tackled appalling problems with very great courage and skill and in a manner which to most people was really rather surprisingly untypical of academics. He had a curious mixture of the academic distinction which one expects of such a man and an enormous ability in practical affairs. I hope very much that his work will be remembered and that the tradition he established of a combination of academic distinction and practicability will be retained in the new institution; I am sure it will be.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again I should like to thank those of your Lordships who have devoted your time to this educational subject, which is on a somewhat different plane, and who have studied the order in detail. I assure the House that all the contributions that have been made this evening will be carefully noted and I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his welcome of the order and for what we hope will be achieved. The noble Lord asked me two questions. First, he asked about the review, and about monitoring. The monitoring of the new works and of the finance will be undertaken, in addition, by the working party of the University Grants Committee. Secondly, the noble Lord made reference to Article 5. I shall have to write to the noble Lord, but I hope that I shall be able to answer him satisfactorily by saying that regulations will shortly be made available. I cannot go into the exact timespan of "shortly"; but clearly they are underway and in preparation as regards compensation, which is covered in Article 5.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also had very kind things to say as well as one or two other comments on the institution. I stress to the noble Lord and to your Lordships who might be a little lost by the nomenclature of "Ulster" and what it means, that the title "University of Ulster" was the unanimous choice of the staff of both institutions. Your Lordships will be aware that the name "Ulster" appears in both present titles and as far as we are aware we have received no objections to this title for the new institution. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also asked about the merger costs. I am able to inform him that for the first year the university will have what is known as "level funding" and it will therefore have the financial funding which would have been available to both institutions had they continued in their separate existencies. But in addition, the Government have made available a further sum—in the region of £360,000—to cover such items as superannuation costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also raised one

1261
other question on the staff structure. I would stress to him that this particular structure has been the subject of very close consultation and it has been designed to meet the requirements of an institution of the type which we envisage. I was very grateful for the kind words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Grey, and we are very pleased that he has been able to make a contribution this evening. We thank him for his support. Of course, he will have been aware of the Government's gratitude to him from my earlier remarks.
We thank the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for his support for this new venture in Northern Ireland. We are sure that it will live up to the high traditions of learning and academic excellence, which are endemic in Northern Ireland. We are very grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden. We are confident that the spirit and the talent that he mentioned will be seen in the new University of Ulster.
In conclusion, I should like to pay the Government's tribute to those who have worked very hard over the past two years to bring about this merger. The union has been guided by the steering group under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, and we should like to pay our tribute to him and to his group now that the task is virtually complete. We want to place on record our thanks to him and his colleagues on the steering group for the job which they have done so well in such a short time.
The actual work of knitting together the two institutions will fall to the council and the staff of the university, and in particular to the vice-chancellor designate, Mr. Derek Birley. We believe that one of the most encouraging aspects of the past two years has been the way in which the staff from both institutions at all levels have come together to plan the courses and the faculty structures for the University of Ulster. We believe that this spirit of co-operation has been fostered by Mr. Derek Birley. His work—and the work of the university—is only just beginning, but I am sure that all noble Lords who are in the House tonight and also those who read the report of the debate will join with me in wishing Mr. Derek Birley and the University of Ulster well. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
8.35 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, the next amendment is Amendment No. 17.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we stopped at Amendment No. 16. There was a reference to Amendment No. 16 before we adjourned but Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 hang together.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that Amendment No. 18 is also to be taken at the same time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 27, after ("duty") insert ("as provided for by subsection (A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may help the House if I initiate what is likely to be a short debate on the philosophy behind Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18.
Amendment No. 17: Page 6, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) The duty imposed a relevant authority under subsection (2) above shall only arise in respect of any direction given to that authority under that subsection after the passing hereafter by Parliament of the enactment which provides for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils.").
Amendment No. 18: Page 6, line 29, at end insert—
("() No direction under subsection (2) above may be given by the Secretary of State until he has consulted the commission or a relevant authority or bodies representative of staff employed by a relevant authority, as the case may be, as to its proposed terms.").
These amendments relate to Clause 7, which is the clause that relates to the staff commission. In effect, in Amendment No. 17 we are asking the Minister to respond to our desire that the directions which are to be given shall only become mandatory after the passage of the main Bill. As presently drafted, in our view the Bill is illogical for the following reason. Directions may be imposed on the commission or on local authorities before the main abolition has been decided. A period of over 12 months could arise if the commission was set up in, say, August 1984 and if this Bill secures Royal Assent before the House rises; clearly that is always possible.
The main Bill may very well be delayed until October 1985—we hope for ever. Thus, a period of more than a year would elapse. During that period directions could be given forcing local authorities to make preparations to receive staff or freeze recruitment in either the upper or lower tier authorities with no certainty that abolition would be approved. We rest on the premise that until Royal Assent is given to any piece of legislation, anything is possible. We are simply saying that if that extended period comes about, there would be uncertainty and potentially there would be considerable cost. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said more than once that if the main abolition Bill does not make progress at any stage, steps will be taken automatically for the provisions in this Bill to be cancelled. We simply want to make sure that nothing wasteful as regards expenditure and nervous and emotional energy (which quite clearly will be very heavy) takes place before it is absolutely necessary.
When the matter was debated in general terms in Committee on 3rd July the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, suggested (at col. 199) that the power to

1263
make such directions would only be necessary because the relevant body had refused to be co-operative or reasonable. Although that is a useful statement of the intentions of the Government in relation to these powers, their exercise need not be so restricted within the terms of the Bill. As set out, the subsection to which we wish to add gives power to issue directives, first, to the staff commission as to its procedures; and, secondly. to the local authorities as to the furnishing of information, the implementation of advice by the commission and the payment of commission expenses. We believe that this covers a very wide area. It is unlikely that the staff commission itself would be acting in a way that the Government would regard as unreasonable. Therefore, the intention must be to regulate its activities with directions which can then be made binding on the local authority indirectly affected.
We await with interest whether, this second time round, the Government are minded to take this step, or whether they intend to persist in imposing on local authorities at a dreadful time the further duty to make ready for an abolition that the Government intend to bring about, and for which we certainly are not ready. In those circumstances, why should local authorities be put to the inconvenience and worry of doing something which more than once the Minister has said will not be a fait accompli until it has been passed? Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 and speak to the related amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should explain that I called Amendment No. 17 on the understanding that Amendment No. 16 had been disposed of before the dinner adjournment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because he has made it clear that he is moving No. 16 as a paving amendment to Nos. 17 and 18. The amendment before your Lordships is therefore No. 16.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord. Lord Graham, is making. However, he casts his thought as to what will happen if the main Bill does not reach the statute book until October 1985. If, on the other hand, the main Bill is rather quicker, for whatever reason, surely things of the sort that this clause is trying to ensure are best discussed good and early so as to get them out of the way as soon as possible.
There is another way of looking at it. The noble Lord's amendment might cause delay which could have adverse effects on the staff concerned rather than good effects if the main Bill comes through reasonably quickly. This is an interesting balance, but on the whole I should not have thought that the amendment was helpful if you take the assumption, which I do, that the main Bill will be early rather than late.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I respond immediately, by leave of the House? The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, makes a fair point in saying that one can look at this either way, and, either way, there is likely to be chagrin on the part of one party or the other. All we say is that we would prefer to run the risk of having to move fast if it took place in October. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is
1264
saying: why move fast? Why not move early even though it might be that it is wholly abortive? It is a fair point; it is a fair balance.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I felt, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that his arguments were completely opposite to the arguments put forward earlier this afternoon, when he was saying how important it was for us to have information on exactly what everything is going to cost, and everything that is going to happen, and how we must have all that before we have the Bill. Now he is suggesting that all these parts of this Bill which would give us that very information, which would be helpful and would provide the answers he asked about earlier, should be put aside. That is one reason why I must oppose his amendment.
Another reason is that it may be necessary in terms of protection for the staff themselves. I have previously paid tribute to the high calibre of officers in County Hall, and I think highly of the officers' own staff. I was distressed to see this big heading:
"Ken attacks the staff association",
and a quote from him saying:
"The bigest obstruction to us carrying out our manifesto is the Government, and the second biggest is our own staff".
That is a quote from Mr. Livingstone. That does not sound like someone who is out to protect his staff's interests. It sounds as though he is already in conflict with them.
If there is progress and they work with the Government, as I hope and believe they will, there may be a greater conflict develop, and advice from the Secretary of State may be very necessary to help to smooth the path and protect the staff under those circumstances. For these various reasons, I would certainly oppose the amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to both my noble friends, but before commenting on what they have just said perhaps I may bring us back to the amendments on the Marshalled List, which seek, in various ways and to various extents, to constrain the Secretary of State's power to make directions under subsection (2) of Clause 7.
It may be of help if I make clear the reasons for including such a power. First let me say that this provision follows exactly the precedent set in earlier reorganisations. I hope and expect that the commission will work largely by laying down general principles, and then by influence and persuasion that it will secure the free acceptance of these by the parties concerned. However, some degree of enforcement may be needed, and the choice lies between giving a power of direction to the commission and reserving such a power to the Secretary of State to use on the recommendation of the commission. We do not wish to jeopardise the commission's essential role as an advisory body working by encouragement and persuasion. The subsection therefore reserves the power to the Secretary of State. It will be used, and only used, at the instigation of the commission themselves.
I repeat that this provision is well precedented. But let me also say that we see the exercise of this power as something of a last resort. Nevertheless, it is necessary if the interests of staff are to be fully safeguarded. My

1265
noble friend Lady Gardner is absolutely right: what we are talking about here is the proper interests of the staff concerned in this changeover. The sooner we get the staff commission organised and established as a going concern, the better off the staff will be and their interests safeguarded.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 seek to tie the power of direction to the main Bill. Perhaps I could explain why we decided to provide for the establishment of the commission in this Bill, because it is germane to the consideration of these amendments. If we had left it until the main Bill—which is what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is seeking—it could not have been set up as a statutory body until the summer or autumn of 1985. That would be too late to begin effectively to protect the interests of the staff. We therefore decided to set it up in this Bill. I do not think that that prejudges the principle of abolition, as the staff commission will not begin its work in earnest until another place has approved the principle of the main Bill. Until then, the commission will make its plans, will make contact with authorities and staff representatives, and will ensure, as I have said, that no one tries to jump the gun.
My Lords, the commission will need to be getting on with its work whilst the main Bill is still in Parliament. The effect of these amendments would be to ensure that it could not properly begin its job until it was too late to be of benefit to the staff concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, talked about the chagrin of one party or another. What I am determined about is that the chagrin of the staff shall be totally non-existent.
Amendment No. 18 would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with relevant authorities about the proposed terms of any direction before he could make it. But since a direction would normally only be necessary because the relevant body had refused to be co-operative or reasonable, one cannot help but wonder what point there would be in such consultations—unless it was a deliberate attempt to delay and frustrate the commission's efforts on behalf of staff. There is of course, nothing in the subsection as it stands to prevent such consultation should it seem worthwhile. There is nothing new in subsection (2) of Clause 7. It is a tried and tested formula which has been used twice in the past. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject these amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I intend to withdraw the amendments, but there is a big difference in approach as to the next 18 months. The Government are clearly working on the premise that they have taken for granted the outcome of parliamentary procedures. They are assuming that their legislation will be approved, and they are entitled to do that. They have their majorities in both Houses.
Lord Bellwin: Sometimes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am speaking of as recently as I can remember—and it hurts! Therefore, they are fully entitled to work on the premise that that which they consider to be proper and good legislation will be carried. Equally, we are entitled to work on the premise that until both Houses have had the opportunity of examining the Bill in detail and using all legitimate parliamentary procedures which are
1266
open to them, we are not prepared to facilitate the easy progress of any aspect of the Bill.
It was interesting of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to allude to the fact that very little would be done until the other place had accepted the principle. Again, we are elevating the other place above this place in the hierarchy of sovereignty in these matters. If there is equality of sovereignty in these matters, then we ought to stipulate equally that it will not be until this place has acted as the Minister is entitled to believe that the other place will act, and that is to facilitate the passage of the Bill. It will not be easy, it will be argued about, and we will have heart-searching. There is likely to be very little amendment in the other place, but, as we have seen over the last few weeks, in this place it is possible for matters not to be taken for granted as they are in the other place.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for posing, quite fairly, not the dilemma—it is not a dilemma, for either Lord Mottistone or myself—but the approaches to these matters. There is no shadow of doubt to us on this side. We know the risk we are taking, and we know, too, of the opprobium that would be heaped upon us if, at very short notice, everything had to go through and everyone, including trade unions, would ask why we could not have had longer to carry it out. But that is the way of the world. They are asking us at the moment, though not directly I would hasten to add; but I know that they are interested in, and supportive of, the moves we are making. Nevertheless if at the end of the day it turned out to be a rod on their own backs, no doubt they would ask why they were not given more time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised what she saw as the inconsistency in my argument that we ought to delay before taking action when contrasted with the earlier argument I used that we ought to take as long as we could, or as long as we needed, to get information. I was deploying the opposite arguments on each of two separate sets of circumstances. If I have been inconsistent, so, too, has the noble Baroness, because clearly she opposed my approach on this question, as no doubt she did on the other. Heads you win, tails you lose. It is "Gardner's Question Time".
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it was a question not of there being delay or no delay, but of information. Earlier the noble Lord was asking for audits on all kinds of accounts and for information to be produced. I have been consistent in both, I consider. But it is not a question of delay, as that was not the topic under discussion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation. I confess quite readily that part of the nexus of this argument is delay. There is a punishment. There is a detriment to the delay, which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone pointed out. Things can be done hurriedly and perhaps in an angrier frame of mind, with less time. We are attempting to delay in this context. But the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has demonstrated the use of remembering what political opponents have said by reminding me of earlier arguments. I have a little book full of quotes made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, which from time to time I intend to use. In these

1267
circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Information in connection with proposals for abolition of authorities]:
8.51 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert—
("(1) This section has effect where an enactment has been passed by Parliament which provides—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am looking through the amendments that we are moving along at a fairly fast pace and with this amendment I think we should consider Amendments Nos. 21, 24, 25, and 28.
Amendment No. 21: Page 7, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below").
Amendment No. 24: Page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("(2A) No request under subsection (2) above requiring the compliance of officers of the Greater London Council shall be made by the Secretary of State until he has consulted bodies representative of officers concerned with the proposed terms of any such request.").
Amendment No. 25: Page 7, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below").
Amendment No. 28: Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
("(3A) No request under subsection (3) above requiring the compliance of officers of a metropolitan county council shall be made by the Secretary of State until he has consulted bodies representative of officers concerned with the proposed terms of any such request.").
I hope that your Lordships will agree to that course of action, which I am sure is in the best interests of the pursuit of this debate. The purpose of these amendments is to limit the duty on local authorities and officers to provide the information needed to implement proposals, once they have been approved by Parliament. The clause, as it stands at present, places a duty on the Greater London Council, the metropolitan counties and their officers to supply the Secretary of State, the borough and district councils, with any information they may request. As currently drafted in Clause 8, the duty extends to that required to facilitate the formulation of the abolition proposals as well as their implementation. Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972, requires that every local authority, every joint board and every joint committee are obliged to provide the Secretary of State with such information about their functions as he or either House of Parliament may require. The Secretary of State, therefore, already has the power that he requires to obtain information to enable him to formulate his proposals. It seems to me that any extension of those powers would be unnecessary.
In addition, such information is constantly supplied by local authorities under their obligation to publish information and in the continuing exchanges between them and Government departments, particularly when grant aid is sought, for example for land reclamation projects. The information is often extremely extensive and covers a great number of years, in particular in regard to the annual submissions for transport grants and the passenger transport executive's proposals.
Where further information has been sought by the Government, all authorities up to now have responded positively. In fact the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council have consistently expressed the view that information on the abolition issues should be not only available, but widely disseminated. Earlier this evening I moved an amendment to try to make more information available about the financial benefits, or non-benefits, of the abolition of one tier of local government.
It should be noted that the Local Government Act 1972, which established the authorities which it is now sought to abolish, recognised that a review might be necessary after 10 years and before 15 years, and contained provisions in Clauses 46, 47 and 48 to make that review possible. On 30th May this year, however, the Secretary of State issued an order preventing the Boundary Commission from commencing its review of the metropolitan counties and districts, although it must be assumed that such a review will take place in the non-metropolitan or shire counties before the 15-year period expires in 1989. The Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils have also suggested, in addition to the Boundary Commission review, a Royal Commission, a Parliamentary Select Committee, an examination by management consultants, the Audit Commissioners, as I suggested earlier this evening, and academic institutions, all of which proposals the Government have consistently refused. The metropolitan counties commission independent reports, therefore, on various issues, which I also mentioned earlier. There has been, for instance, the Coopers and Lybrand report.
It seems that while the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council have gone to a lot of trouble to supply the information which they can obtain from various bodies, and have proposed other ways, the Government's record is less impressive. As I understand the clause as at present drafted, it obliges the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties to provide information that the borough councils and district councils may require. It will be remembered that the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Bellwin, said, during the Committee stage on discussion of this principle, that,
"The principal object of the Bill is to allow the successor authorities every opportunity to prepare for their new responsibilities and for a smooth transfer of functions".—[Official Report, 3/7/84; col. 206.]
Once the main abolition Bill is eventually approved, there can be no objection to that, but until that time, as I see it, the successor authorities—the district councils, joint boards, and so on—cannot know for certain how the metropolitan counties' functions are to be devolved. In those circumstances, unless the Minister can explain the matter to my satisfaction, it does not seem to me that they could make sensible requests for information, since they cannot disclose the kind of information they want. Therefore at this stage of the paving Bill they do not require the power to do so—not until after the main Bill has been enacted.
As recently as 12th June this year, in answer to a question on the list of authorities to be rate capped, the Prime Minister said:

1269
"the rate capping measure has not yet been enacted. It is still before the other House and it would be somewhat premature to devise a list before the Bill has even become an Act".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/6/84; col. 759.]
The Rates Bill was nearing the end of a six months' Session in Parliament and received the Royal Assent within a fortnight of the Prime Minister's reply. The main abolition Bill has not been published; yet we are still being sought to require officers and local authorities to provide information, the nature of which they cannot possibly know. It seems to be totally in conflict with the Government's views earlier on over rate capping. I hope that the Government will either be able to explain to the satisfaction of your Lordships what seems to me to be a mystery or possibly to reconsider the matter and amend the legislation—perhaps not in the precise form of the amendments but in some form which will satisfy what seems to me to be a series of contradictory proposals. I beg to move.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, Clause 8 is an integral part of the measures we are taking in this Bill to pave the way to abolition. An important object of the Bill is to allow the successor authorities every opportunity to prepare for their new responsibilities and for a smooth transfer of functions. In order to be able to do that, they need information, and they need it as soon as possible.
That is why we have included Clause 8 in this Bill. It does not prejudge the main abolition issue; it prepares for that eventuality. It does so by extending existing powers under Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate paving measure.
This amendment would prevent Clause 8 from being used until the main abolition Bill had been passed. If this amendment is accepted, we might just as well delete the entire clause from the paving Bill and leave it for the main Bill. Yet the clause as it stands makes it explicit that its purpose is to facilitate the formulation of proposals to abolish the GLC and MCCs, as well as to implement such proposals in the event of their being approved by Parliament. So we have been at great pains in drafting this clause to show that the clause does not prejudge the main Bill, and to explain why the provision is needed in advance of it. Amendment No. 20 would effectively wreck one of the Bill's most important interim measures.
To deal with the other amendments, Clause 8 has two main purposes. It is intended to assist, first, in formulating the abolition proposals; and, secondly, subject to Parliament's approval, to help to implement those proposals by ensuring a smooth transfer of those authorities' functions to the successor authorities. On both counts, access to the information, I repeat, will be vital. It is therefore necessary for this Bill to ensure that such information will be available in the preparation of the abolition legislation, in the consideration of it by Parliament and in the run-up to abolition.
There is already a duty on every local authority to provide the Secretary of State with information about its functions. We have taken this opportunity to clarify that requirement for the particular purposes of abolition. Clause 8 therefore makes clear that the information which the GLC and the MCCs already
1270
have a duty to supply includes abolition. It also extends the requirement to enable the boroughs and districts to have direct access to this information.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 28 deal with requests for information made by the Secretary of State. They do not affect requests made by the boroughs and districts. The amendments would require the Secretary of State, before asking for information from a GLC, MCC or borough or district officer to consult
"bodies representative of officers concerned"
about the terms of the request. I understand the points that have been made. Your Lordships want to safeguard against the possibility that the Secretary of State might require information from an officer who simply does not have it; and I would say that concern is misplaced. The duty will be enforced by the courts, for example, through mandamus or by injunction.
These are discretionary remedies. The courts will apply common sense to the particular crcumstances of each case; and clearly it will be far from sensible to insist that someone provides information that he does not possess, and the amendments therefore are unnecessary. They would also be damaging in their effects. They would introduce uncertainty and delay to the process of acquiring information from the upper tier. There will be uncertainty about how the representative bodies should be chosen. The amendments are silent in this respect. They leave it to the Secretary of State to determine, or for the staff interests to say, or—however unlikely it may seem given the attitude of some staff—actually for agreements between the parties.
An authority determined to be obstructive would no doubt exploit these uncertainties to maximise delay, and the amendments are similarly silent on what constitutes consultation. This, too, would provide opportunities for delay if authorities choose to test each case in the courts. I hope that with these explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments because we feel that Clause 8 is critical to the Bill, and I am sure that the noble Lord will, at least, accept that.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Lord the Minister had to say. I think the best course at this stage will be to read through his speech and reconsider the matter. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("and its officers").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the words "and its officers". The Minister has been clear—and I think quite fair—in pointing out that he is most anxious to ensure that officers are not placed in an invidious position, and he recognises that there could very well be something like a tug of loyalty between their responsibility to their employers, those who pay their wages and those whom they serve, and to the Government Minister and legislation which is before them. As presently drafted, Clause 7(2) and (3) impose a duty to supply information both on the GLC

1271
and the MCCs and their officers. May I remind the Minister that on July 3rd in column 209 he told the House:
"if an officer had to provide information despite his authority's wishes, there would be no question of his being in breach of contract of his employment".
He went on to say that,
"officers will not be in breach of contract if they go against their employer's wishes in this respect".
The fact remains that officers will in fact be in breach of contract if they go against their employer's wishes. Sadly, these matters will need to be tested sometimes in the courts. The Government and the House will have within their memory decisions that were made in the courts—one as recently as today—where actions by the Government are not always held automatically and ipso facto to be ones which the courts will hold up as reasonable.
What the Government are seeking to do is to place officers under a statutory duty to provide information, notwithstanding their employer's wishes. This quite clearly is the nub of the argument. There will certainly be occasions when it is the desire of a council not to have its officers provide the information. We simply ask: can it be right for the Government by legislation to be seeking to direct employees to do that which they might otherwise be expressly forbidden to do by their employers; something which the Government would never countenance for their own employees. In other words, the Government would not countenance some other body saying that there is another body which has the right to information from the employees of the Government. Yet the Government are saying to local government, "We are going to pass a law which says that we have the right to tell your officers"—that is the officers of local government—"that they must divulge information to the national Government".
If the Government are interested in the need for good relations, we honestly feel that the kind of approach implicit in this clause is hardly conducive to their attainment. There is yet another stage in this House through which the Bill must go at which, after we have listened carefully to what the Minister has to say, we may decide not to press the matter. But I certainly look forward to listening to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not sure that I can add a great deal to what I said in Committee. We heard the argument that the provision would place officers in an invidious position, and that officers would have to choose between obeying the law and obeying their employers. But as I said in Committee, that is not the intention or the effect of the provision. On the contrary, the duty on officers is a protection for them. The officer's duty would be clear; it would be the same duty as we all share—to obey the law. If there were a conflict of demands, that would be the creation of the employing authority. I want to reassure your Lordships, as I did the Committee, that if the officer had to provide information despite his authority's wishes, there would be no question of a breach of his contract of employment arising. It is an implied term in every contract of service that an employee may not be required to do an unlawful act, or to refrain from carrying out a legal duty. So officers will not be in
1272
breach of contract if they go against their employer's wishes in this respect.
The placing of such a duty on officers is not unprecedented: so far as local authorities are concerned, there is a precedent in Section 23(5) of the Housing Act 1980, which relates to the right to buy. This provision has now been repealed by the Housing and Building Control Act 1984, which was passed last month. That Act repeals Section 23(5), but replaces it by Section 10, which is a wider power. Under Section 23(5), the obligation on landlords and their officers was to supply information which the Secretary of State needed in exercising his power to intervene in particular cases. The new provision introduced by Section 10 of the 1984 Act extends that obligation to assist the Secretary of State in deciding whether to intervene and in exercising his power to issue directions on conditions of lease. Section 10 of the 1984 Act is therefore a close if not exact precedent for what we are proposing in the paving Bill.
I feel sure that the first part of my remarks sum up the whole matter. I would not have thought that this was such a problem. There are many aspects here where clearly there is a great difference of opinion. I would have thought that this is not one of them. The concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is a fair one and I take it as such, but of all the various issues I would not have thought that this was one where there is a great difference between us.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, may I say briefly that I understand the point that the officers would be protected by obeying the law; but I rise only because I have been approached by quite substantial numbers of representatives of NALGO and other people engaged in local government at various levels, who said to me that they understand what the provision is but that their problem is that they have local authority councillors cheek by jowel with them telling them to do this or that or the other, and at the same time they have a remote—shall we say?—civil servant in Whitehall telling them to do something different.
They are very concerned—particularly in view of what the noble Lord, the Minister, himself said recently about the changed attitudes in local government—that their lives would be made almost intolerable. They would be obeying the law by doing what the civil servants tell them. However, they would be living in an atmosphere of great tension for some considerable time because they would be forced to disobey the instructions of councillors whom they have been used to obeying for some considerable length of time. The penalties for them obeying the councillors and disobeying the civil servants could be as serious as being sent to prison.
I am quite sure that the dilemma which this position imposes on local government officers in the rather tense atmosphere which exists at the moment is one which we as the House of Lords should consider, and we should seek to give as much comfort, assistance, advice and support as we can to local government officers who are in a very difficult position whether they obey the law or whether they choose to obey their local government masters.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, certainly poses the

1273
strain and I think, as a good local government man, as the Minister is and as I would profess to be, too, in all humility, at the end of the day good local councils are not going to place their officers under that intolerable strain. They are not going to make it very unhappy for the officer to decide what he needs to do. I suspect that at the end of the day, if the reality of the situation is the weight of the muscle or the penalty that is involved, no good council of any political persuasion is going to make it impossible for its officers to act honestly, fairly and professionally at the end of the day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has paid tribute, as I think everyone does, to the high standard of service given to all councils by council officers. Their professionalism is acknowledged, shared and enjoyed. I do acknowledge that the Minister wrote to me after the last debate, when I quoted the case of R. v. the City of Birmingham, which was a Court of Appeal decision in 1982, and asked how that squared with the 1980 Act. The Minister pointed out that it was overtaken in 1984; and of course I accept completely the rationale of the Minister's answer. But I wonder whether in fact he can say something about how that squares with the decision in 1982. I should like to repeat again what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in the Court of Appeal decision in 1982. This is what he said, and it is above and beyond and outwith the issues of the 1980 Housing Act:
"As I have already said, all relevant information acquired by a local authority's social workers in the course of their duties, whether or not it be confidential, is acquired on behalf of the local authority, and becomes the authority's information."
We want the Minister to say a little bit more about transposing a council officer to the place of a social worker, the council officer being in possession of information, confidential or not, and the decision of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—that is, whether if in fact that information is in possession of a council officer what Lord Donaldson was saying is applicable. In other words, is the information acquired on behalf of the local authority and does it become the authority's information? If it is the authority's information, what we are posing is: what is the necessity of asking an officer to divulge that which is not his to divulge because it belongs to the authority? If the Minister can help us to understand the juxtaposition of what he has told us is the position and what Lord Donaldson said, perhaps we can make progress.
Lord Bellwin: By leave of the House, my Lords, certainly this is an area of much sensitivity and I accept that without any question, but the problem is that the need for the information is extremely important. I think there is a fundamental flaw, if I may say so, in the analogy between the social worker, with his duty to maintain the secret information about an individual, and the officer of a local authority, with his knowledge of the authority's affairs—because, although I raised the noble Lord's eyebrows when I said this at the last stage, I am very much one of those who have always been great believers in the provision of information as widely as possible. I believe that that is a very important thing in local government.
1274
However, I am not without sympathy towards the point that is being made. I just know how essential this is. I cannot undertake to do anything other than to read carefully and look into what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said on this point. I cannot do more than that with it. I would propose to correspond with the noble Lord and to send him a copy of what I write to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, between now and the next stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the light of that promise, though the noble Lord has given nothing away, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Postponement of exercise of functions]:
9.21 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, line 25, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: Should this clause be enacted in its entirety, it would cause unwarranted delay to the review of the strategic planning framework within Greater London and the metropolitan counties. The Minister will be aware that we had a short debate on the position of the Greater London development plan and its continuing need for updating when the matter was before the House some two weeks ago. Even assuming that the main abolition Bill is passed in the form desired by the Government, development plan reviews would have to wait until district and borough councils had sorted themselves out and felt able to undertake this novel work. Such delay is particularly unfortunate in the seven metropolitan areas—those parts of the country suffering the most from economic decline and change. These areas need diligent and continuous planning, and their needs should not be ignored.
The period between now and the proposed abolition gives us the last chance to get a sensible up-to-date strategic planning framework for the metropolitan areas. If abolition goes through, structure plans will become fragmented and difficult to administer. Rather than arresting structure plan work, the Secretary of State should be pressing for a final round of structure planning before abolition overtakes us. In seeking to arrest structure planning work, the Government are ignoring the views of many influential bodies who see the urgent need for strategic guidance on such matters as housing land. Unless land allocations for development are brought up to date, there is every risk that major building programmes will be disrupted to the disadvantage of the building industry.
The Government appear to be unclear about the effect of their amendment. During consideration of Clause 8(1) on 22nd May in another place, Sir George Young said,
"No alterations to those [i.e. existing structure] plans are with my Department".—[Official Report, Commons; col. 968.]
He then went on to say that the crucial point on which the Secretary of State would decide on whether to invoke Clause 8(1) would be the timing of the

1275
submission. In fact, amendments to structure plans have been submitted by the Greater Manchester Council and the West Midlands County Council. Why should the Secretary of State be under no duty to consider this necessary updating?
The amendment removes an unnecessary complication from the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. No other service rendered by the metropolitan counties has been singled out for similar attention within the Bill, and no good reason has been advanced for the arbitrary decision to stifle this valuable work. Like so much else in this Bill, the clause assumes that abolition has already been agreed to by Parliament.
In your Lordships' House at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, stated on 3rd July at column 244 of the Official Report that for the Secretary of State to remain under a duty to consider development reviews would clearly be absurd. He said:
"It would be a waste of time, money and effort to have to consider alterations that could not be processed before abolition takes place".
But Parliament has not yet decided that abolition is to take place; nor has it decided when abolition is to take place; nor has it decided that the Government's proposals for 69 mini-development plans to replace seven structure plans is the most effective way to provide a strategic planning framework for the seven major conurbations. Yet Clause 9(1) assumes that Parliament has taken those decisions: otherwise, why does it seek to enable the Secretary of State to halt progress on strategic planning reviews?
One is tempted to wonder whether Clause 9(1) has been placed in the Bill merely in order to settle an argument between the Secretary of State and the Greater London Council which the Secretary of State has lost in the courts. In reality, it has nothing to do with any needed interim arrangements pending major legislation on the metropolitan counties. One of the prime reasons for setting up the GLC in 1965 stemmed from the finding of the Herbert Commission that there should be a strong integration of land use and planning and transportation policies within the capital. That need is as great today as it was then. There was no analysis included in the White Paper Streamlining the Cities as to the success or failure of the planning system at the metropolitan level. None the less, the White Paper and a further consultation document proposed fundamental changes in this respect.
The Government's proposal received very widespread criticism indeed from all quarters, not least from all of the major professional bodies acting in this field. In response to this universal criticism, the Government have suggested only minor modifications to a set of proposals that the profession knows will be unworkable. The clause which we are considering today paves the way for an unacceptable and chaotic hotch-potch to replace structure planning in the capital city of the nation.
The Secretary of State has already suffered and lost a long legal battle with the GLC over the alterations to the Greater London Development Plan. He refused to issue the regulations which the GLC sought to govern the alterations to the plan. After a High Court judgment he issued the regulations but then
1276
announced his intention to introduce legislation to remove his duty to consider the alterations. The clause before us, Clause 9(1), is that legislation, therefore despite losing in the courts, despite the wide recognition of the need to update the GLDP, despite enormous support for the alterations which the GLC is proposing and despite the fact that the alterations will be submitted to him in about six weeks' time, the Secretary of State wants to turn his back on the planning system and on his duties under it.
The result can only be damaging to London. Even if legislation to abolish the GLC is eventually enacted, there will still be a need for a London-wide view on planning. No one has ever suggested otherwise. The trouble is that the Government have made no coherent proposal to replace the present system. To replace one single structure plan for Greater London with up to 33 separate plans seems a curious and unworkable method of streamlining the government of London and a very odd way of curbing alleged extravagance. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, like it or not—and the Opposition obviously do not—we are still considering a paving Bill designed to make interim provisions leading up to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils and the transfer of functions to the lower tier. As part of these measures, Clause 9 will help to prevent unnecessary waste of time, money and effort. It does not prevent useful and worthwhile work from continuing and it most certainly does not prejudge abolition.
Under subsection (1) the Secretary of State would no longer be required, although he would still be able, to examine alterations to the Greater London Development Plan or to metropolitan county structure plans. This provision will be invoked where necessary to avoid abortive work. For example, there will be no point in continuing with such consideration where the alterations could not be processed before the time when abolition may or may not occur.
The amendment which we are considering would maintain the Secretary of State's duty to consider proposals submitted to him for the alteration of the Greater London Development Plan or of a metropolitan county structure plan. That would be absurd. It would be a waste of time, money and effort to have to consider alterations which could not be processed before abolition takes place and which might very well be inappropriate at the end of the day. In any of the scenarios which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned, each one of which would have a different result at the end of the day, a decision might very well be taken in the interim period which proved to be totally abortive.
There is at present an approved structure plan in force in Greater London and each of the metropolitan counties. However, the GLC and the county planning authorities are expected to keep their plans under review. Under Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, they may submit to the Secretary of State such alterations as they consider expedient. The Secretary of State may hold an examination in public under Section 9 of the 1971 Act before taking a decision on any alterations.
The White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, and my

1277
right honourable friend's recent announcement of a proposed simplified planning role which he is considering for the main abolition proposals, are well known to your Lordships. No change is to be made to the proposals for regional guidance, planning conferences, and the London Planning Commission, for example.
The position in London has attracted particular comment. I suspect that it is this which motivates the noble Lord's amendment. The history is well known, that prior to the last election the GLC had commenced work on the drafting of alterations to key policy issues, such as employment and offices, to update the GLDP. The Department of the Environment prepared regulations to govern the formal process of consultation, submission and examination in public of such amendments. However, our manifesto commitment to abolish the GLC led us to reconsider the laying of such regulations for the reasons I gave earlier. We concluded that it would be illogical to give the GLC formal powers now to amend a document which could ultimately be replaced by new plans to be prepared following abolition.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the fact that the GLC had challenged this decision in the courts and had obtained a ruling that the Secretary of State was under a duty to make the regulations. In announcing his intention to comply with this ruling, my right honourable friend made it plain that he still considered the GLC's proposals for amending the GLDP to be a wasteful extravagance in view of the Government's declared intention to introduce new planning arrangements for London following abolition. The actual content of the proposed alterations emphasises the point. They include such matters as policy for women and community areas. These and other issues can hardly be regarded as relevant to a land use structure plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the remarks of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. I can tell him that the update of those remarks is that in the West Midlands alterations were submitted in June 1983 to update the approved plan and were the subject of an examination in public in December. My right honourable friends are considering the report of the panel who held the examination in public, and hope to publish proposed modifications later this year. In Greater Manchester, alterations were submitted in March this year which rolled forward the policies in the approved plan to 1991. The period for objections ended in April, and my right honourable friend is arranging for a short examination in public to be held later this year. Either of these cases, as I understand it—and if I am wrong I shall have to write to the noble Lord—would be held up by the proposals we are discussing in Clause 9(1). In South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear there are no alterations to any of these four structure plans for the department at present. Indeed—although we now know that there are about to be—nor are there for London.
Therefore, when announcing that the regulations would be made, my right honourable friend also made it crystal clear that he would be seeking the approval of Parliament to the inclusion in legislation to be
1278
introduced in this Session of a power enabling him to defer consideration of such proposals, and of course this provision meets that commitment.
To sum up, it seems a waste of time and money to consider amendments to a plan which itself will be replaced in due course by the new planning arrangement which will operate in London and the metropolitan counties post-abolition. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is not my intention to press these amendments to a vote, but I think that all that the Minister has said is rather sad. All that the GLC is seeking to do is to keep in existence something which could very well be seen by its successors, if indeed there are to be successors, as appropriate. The Minister in fact gave the game away by seeking to point out two elements which are included in the plan, the policy for women and community areas.
By indicating that they are inappropriate the Minister shows the manner in which these matters are looked at by himself and his colleagues. I may very well consider that they are inappropriate and, in fact, other people with greater powers than either the Minister or myself may consider them inappropriate, but drawing the attention of the House to them indicates the kind of antagonisms which exist in certain ministerial minds towards these matters, particularly when the genesis for them is the GLC itself.
I simply want to say, and repeat, that when the GLC is abolished, if it is, and whatever other body is put in its place by the Minister and his friends—we do not know the precise nature—they may very well decide collectively, in one shape or another, to combine so that effectively what they will wish to re-emerge will, in fact, be the GLDP, writ large, but 18 months on. However, all that the GLC is asking from the Minister is to be allowed to proceed, for it to submit, and for him to act. If, in fact, his action is overtaken by the passage of the Bill and if, subsequently, the successors to the GLC show a disinterest in what is on offer, then, of course, they can persist and produce their separate plans—whether there are 32, whether it is on an area basis, or whatever it is.
The Minister fails to comprehend that by his action he is sterilising a great deal of economic activity, just as some of the economic activity which has been generated may very well be anathema to him. The fact that there is little progress on an already outdated plan, which will be outdated even further, could, I imagine, without being an expert, have a deleterious effect on development, planning, land use, building and the like. All of these things are detrimental, and the Minister has failed to take them into account. His attitude makes me more sad than angry because, in my view, there is a punitive and vindictive aspect to the Minister's action, particularly in his defiance of the actions of the court. He has made his position quite clear and I believe that this is one of the detrimental actions by the Government for which the people of London will have to pay. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Control of general expenditure powers]:
9.38 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("Local Government Act 1972") and insert ("principal Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment bringing Clause 10 into line with the rest of the Bill where the Local Government Act 1972 is simply referred to, for ease of reference, as the "principal Act". I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, many of us have discussed from time to time—the last time during the Housing Act—the difficulty of following reference in the delegated legislation and the problems it involves. It seems to me that to carry on with this and leaving out something which is perfectly clear, where we know which Act to turn to—the Local Government Act 1972—and inserting "the principal Act" is a retrogressive step.
I see that the noble Lord is shaking his head, but this has been going on for some time and it would at some point be a good idea to stop it and call Acts by the names they are known by so that it is easier to look them up.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 5, at end insert—
("() Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall in any event be extended to the incurring of expenditure where the recipient person or body is, for all or part of any one financial year, in receipt concurrently of funding from monies voted by Parliament including Urban Programme, the grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission and funds administered by the Department of Industry, and in receipt concurrently of funding from the European Social Fund, Regional Fund, or other sums.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a series of amendments all dealing with the same subject are Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 36.
Amendment No. 33: Page 18, line, 10, leave out from beginning to ("expedient") in line 12 and insert ("The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this section within a period of two weeks from the Secretary of State's receipt of the application in respect of any expenditure to which this section applies unless he certifies that it is not").
Amendment No. 34: Page 8, line 14, after ("is") insert ("not").
Amendment No. 36: Page 8, line 18, at end insert—
("() The consent of the Secretary of State under this section shall not be required for any expenditure incurred under the said section 137 by way of a grant to any body or organisation where:

(a) such organisation or body has been in receipt of a payment from the council concerned within the previous two financial years; and

(b) the payment to be made to that body or organisation does not exceed the total amount so given in the previous two financial years.").

All the amendments refer to an amendment included by the Government at Committee stage dealing with Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, or—should I now say—the principal Act. As we know. Section 137 empowers any local authority to:
"incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of their area or any part of it or all or some of its inhabitants",
up to the limit of the product of a rate of 2p in the pound.
What the Government are now proposing to do is to limit the ability of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, after 1st April 1985, to incur expenditure under that section except with the prior consent of the Secretary of State. So far the Government have been unable to offer any positive argument to justify the need for that amendment.
What the Government are doing is relying on an accusation that the GLC and the MCCs may be planning to use their Section 137 precept powers in a way that they dislike. If we turn to the Official Report of 3rd July, at col. 250, that was the explanation given by the Minister. This takes no account of the responsible way in which the MCCs and the GLC have exercised their Section 137 powers to meet the local needs of their areas. There may have been some controversial objectives which the Government, and probably many ratepayers, do not like. They may dislike one, like another and not like a third.
Financially expenditure on those objectives amounts to only a small proportion of the total exercised by the MCCs and the GLC. Even so, the power is protected from misuse by the ability of any ratepayer to take action in the courts to challenge the propriety of any decision by a council to spend money under this section. Nevertheless, since 1974 there is no record of a successful challenge having been made.
The real worry is that the councils use their Section 137 powers to give grant aid to bodies such as marriage guidance councils, citizens' advice bureaux, councils of voluntary service and for one-parent families, and similar bodies. Many organisations in the voluntary sector are extremely concerned about that. I have no doubt that other noble Lords have been inundated with letters from those organisations which are very concerned about what will happen in the future.
The issue not only has a social side. Prior to 1979–80 most of the spending under that section was for those rather more social purposes. Since then the power has increasingly been used to assist economic development, frequently in combination with funds from the private sector, from the Government and from the EEC. The record of employment creation is very great. For the metropolitan county councils in the last year, £19 million out of a total of £22 million was used for economic development.
In its amended form the Bill will set a precedent likely to lead to the complete erosion of the main principle of Section 137, which is to give power to the councils to use their initiative and their own criteria. Further, once established, that precedent clearly has implications for lower tier authorities—in fact I think that that thought was floated during the Committee stage—and for any voluntary organisation receiving aid from one of those authorities. The whole clause is unnecessary. It is a further centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. It provides for retrospective and also pre-emptive deprivation of powers from democratic local government. It is both disrupting and confusing. It is also damaging to many worthwhile voluntary and community groups.
Further, the basis on which the Secretary of State will give consent under the new clause is far from clear.

1281
Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that,
"it is expedient for the council in question to incur",
the expenditure. The remainder of the subsection merely repeats the words of Section 137(1), but in effect removes the discretion as to what is of benefit to the area or the inhabitants from the council and gives it to the Secretary of State.
This series of amendments is aimed at trying to improve somewhat the very severe effect on many authorities. I have in front of me a letter from the Joint Docklands Action Group, which is very concerned about the job creation scheme, and the councillors would be left with little say and resources for development of their policies in many areas.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 32, which stipulates that,
"Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld",
seeks to restrict the Secretary of State's discretion. Since the Government's case appears to rest on allegations of asset stripping and related forms of sabotage of their abolition objectives, the amendment should cause no difficulty because it specifically seeks to exempt from the need for consent the incurring of expenditure where the recipient body, far from being a nefarious partner in perhaps a GLC attempt to asset strip, is so respectable as to be already in receipt of funds voted by Parliament and in varying degrees already audited by or under direct or indirect control or influence of the Government.
I think the Government may find that they can meet part of this point. The examples that we put in the amendment are the Urban Programme and the grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission. I must apologise that there are some typographical errors in the way that Amendment No. 32 is now printed. It should read:
"Manpower Services Commission or funds administered by the Department of Industry or in receipt concurrently of funding from the European Social Fund Regional Fund".
The words, "or other sums", should come out.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 place the onus on the Secretary of State to determine and certify the incorrectness or illegality of any payment. The figures show that by far the greatest part of what the metropolitan county councils and the GLC spend under Section 137 is for objects of which the Government do not disapprove. The objects include grant-aiding bodies to provide advice and/or courses for the small businessman; offering small grants or loans to both start and establish small firms; financing training courses to eliminate skill shortages and easing the financial burden of recruiting and training additional staff through job incentive schemes. These are all objectives of which at one time or another the Government have stated that they are greatly in favour. They have stated that they are in favour of this type of initiative and this way of creating work. A number of these approaches have been funded by the EEC.
The Section 137 powers are also used to help larger firms through development companies such as the Greater Manchester Board. These companies, working closely with private sector institutions,
1282
provide services that can help a firm to relocate, to re-equip and to expand and management buy-outs to be effected. It would seem there again that, if consent has to be asked for all the time, all this is going to be slowed down. A great deal of this money will not find its way to where it is needed. It will really have a very damaging and destructive effect on what Section 137 was intended to be used for and the very important way it is developed both in the social and in the economic field.
The final amendment in this set is Amendment No. 34, which deals with the same points as, and is linked up with, Amendment No. 33. So what we are attempting to do in these amendments is to try to lessen the very harsh approach of the new clause which was put into the Bill at the last stage. We wish to make it more mellow and also enable the expenditure to be used in a way that is productive. As the Bill stands at the moment—one hopes that this is fairly rough drafting by the Government to which they will be prepared to accept amendments—it will affect to a great extent industry, social work and countless organisations that rely on Section 137, which, as the Minister must agree, has had considerable success, in order to continue the work that they are doing. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I noticed that in her fairly lengthy speech the noble Baroness made no mention of the ratepayers. Has she considered the safeguards for ratepayers which might be involved in the Government's present attitude and which her amendments would reduce? It is all very well being grand about the sort of things she has mentioned, but the ratepayers are very important.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is rather sad that Clause 10 is necessary at all, but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that it is necessary. The points that the noble Baroness advances, as I said earlier in the day, might well have carried weight some years ago, but they ignore the realities of today. It is not so long ago that all local authorities would unquestionably assist in implementing the law of the land as sanctioned by Parliament, however vigorously they might have opposed the passage of legislation during its consideration by Parliament. I am glad to say that for the vast majority of authorities that still remains the case: I wish to make that quite clear. But we cannot overlook the activity or, should I say, the activism of a minority of authorities that are bent on overturning both convention and responsibility. They seemingly canvass the proposition that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils would in due course, if Parliament willed the end of their existence, see to it that there was an orderly rundown of their affairs. In particular, they seemingly look to these authorities spending prudently under their discretionary power in Section 137 and, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, safeguarding their ratepayers in the process and smoothing the handover to the successor authorities.
Let us be clear. We are actually talking about considerable sums of money. In the case of the GLC, it represents, I think, £38·8 million a year. They are

1283
lesser amounts for the metropolitan counties, but we are still talking about great sums of money. I do not question the good faith of the noble Baroness and those who would support her view; but they must have no illusions about what could be in store. The assets that have been paid for and that are rightly those of the ratepayers could be eased from their control by financial sleight of hand. That has to be said. The potential scale of irresponsibility is enormous. As a Government, we would be irresponsible if persuaded to believe that the irresponsibility of some of the authorities concerned was so far fetched that no preventive action was called for.
In practice, the Government have no choice but to come to the assistance of London and metropolitan ratepayers who fear, with good reason, the last-minute excesses that could be visited on them. The object of this provision is to prevent such excesses taking place. It is our duty to ensure that in their final year the authorities act responsibly and that any temptation to do otherwise is removed. We cannot leave scope for displays of bravado intended (who knows?) to rally factional support at the expense of ratepayers as a whole.
It may well be helpful if I briefly set the record straight on three particular points. First, anxiety has been expressed—and the noble Baroness repeated it—about the impact which the provision could have on certain of the voluntary sector recipients of aid. I do not dispute for one moment that the genuine voluntary sector has benefited from grant aid and assistance made available under Section 137 by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
I made it abundantly clear at Committee stage, in introducing this provision—I gladly say it again—that such activity has absolutely nothing to fear from Government intervention. Our bona fides are demonstrated by the fact that on this front our record as a Government is second to none: and that bears repeating. We recognise both the value of voluntary sector work and its dependence in many instances, as the noble Baroness rightly said, on grant under Section 137. We shall give that recognition full practical effect when we come to exercise this provision.
Secondly, there are bound to be other categories of expenditure which will not be affected by the provision. I have in mind, for example, cases where the Secretary of State has approved projects under the urban programme and urban development schemes. Consent for payments under Section 137 in respect of such projects will follow.
Thirdly, we are not in the business of halting such useful work as can be, and frequently is, carried out by, for example, the Greater London Enterprise Board and the enterprise boards set up in some of the other metropolitan counties. We accept that enterprise boards can help to forge a vital partnership between the public and private sectors. Equally, however, we shall not be prepared to approve large payments to enterprise boards if they are accompanied by merely a skimpy, insufficient outline of their purpose, or if they are clearly intended to facilitate the control of substantial land or property holdings passing to a body one removed from the council and its ratepayers, and
1284
hence, in due course, from the successor body and its ratepayers. It is right that we should be clear and unambiguous on this point. There will be no getting round it.
In replying to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, it seems right for me to set in proper perspective the remarks that have been made about the actual operation of the Clause 10 controls—not so much today by the noble Baroness, although she did touch upon it. I think it is important to say that we are alert to all that is involved there. We shall be concerned about that. We shall take all the necessary steps and do whatever is needed to enable the controls to work. If we are to afford the ratepayers of London and of the metropolitan county councils the protection they need, our procedures must be designed to work—not to appeal to the authorities under scrutiny.
In conclusion, I say again that it is regrettable that Clause 10 is necessary, but we have been driven to it by our increasing awareness of deliberate and orchestrated irresponsibility. The clause leaves with the GLC and the metropolitan county councils the initiative for expenditure under Section 137. There is no question of the Government taking over the authorities' role of making proposals; but there should be no illusions about the need to supervise that role.
The interests of the ratepayers in the abolition authorities, and, indeed, of the good name of local government as a whole, are both at stake. The very existence of Section 137 is increasingly coming under public scrutiny, and, frequently, public criticism. If a few authorities, by their unrestrained use of Section 137, can call into question the very existence of the power, then—I have said this many times in your Lordships' House—they do a disservice to its many worthwhile uses and to local government as a whole. The Government cannot, and will not, abdicate their responsibility in this matter, and that is why the provision has become essential.
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister has assured us that the Government recognise the importance of grants under Section 137 for the collaborative work between voluntary bodies and statutory bodies at local level. One had believed that the Government were very strongly in support of schemes of this kind and the noble Lord has assured us that this will continue. Judging from the correspondence that we are all receiving, the voluntary bodies are very far from assured that the position will continue as it has in the past. I know the Minister accepts the fact that this collaboration is a most important development. The extent of it is new. It is a real growth point. It is providing real jobs in areas where, but for it, they would not exist, and any setback to this new development would be disastrous.
The noble Lord says that worthwhile schemes will be supported, but that they will have to be supervised. That casts a shiver down the spine of any of us who are trying to make schemes of this kind work. Getting money out of the public authority at the end of the day is already worse than extracting teeth. It takes so long that a great many schemes are nearly bankrupt because of cash-flow problems before the money

1285
arrives. If on top of what happens already we have to have further supervision, the position of these schemes—especially those that are struggling into existence—will become quite impossible. Is there no way in which the Minister can devise a scheme in which he catches offenders but lets the great mass of legitimate schemes continue as they are at present?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, there are two points that I should like to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right: there is concern and that is why I welcome the opportunity to say what I have said on this matter. Perhaps I should elaborate a little further by saying that the people who have written in have had a lurid picture painted for them. I am glad of the chance to make clear where the Government stand in this regard.
There is no supporting evidence at all to indicate other than what I have said is right. The matter is being discussed as if a power of consent had never been operated previously. That is just not so. For example, there is the case of consents to disposal of housing land. We are not entirely on untrodden territory when we talk about general consents. It must also be made clear that this whole provision will operate only for one year. It bears repeating that this is a temporary measure designed to deal solely with proposals for expenditure in the year 1985–86; that is all. Clearly we would not want to see good schemes lost because of a temporary measure and how it works.
I do not have the concern that I know some have, and I do not have that concern because I know the way in which we intend this to operate with general consents. It is only in certain areas, where we feel that it is absolutely essential to watch the situation, that we propose to do as I have said. So I take what the noble Baroness has said seriously, and I am glad of the chance to make clear to those who are concerned that they do not need to have that concern, and at the same time I ask the noble Baroness to understand why we feel as we do about the need for this clause.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister will allow me to intervene for a moment, although I have not heard most of the past proceedings. However, I heard what the noble Lord was saying just now and so I hope I shall be in order in saying a few words on behalf of the voluntary bodies. The Minister must know that there is widespread anxiety and concern—he must at least agree about that. I do not know why he thinks that there should be so much concern if people had confidence in him and his colleagues. The truth is that they have no confidence. The whole of the voluntary world has no confidence as regards this particular matter—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, what did someone say? Does the noble Lord want me to give way? No. I hope that the noble Lord will not continue to interrupt from a sitting position; that is not like him. I was saying that it is perfectly obvious that the voluntary world has no confidence in the Minister and his colleagues. Why should they have confidence? As the
1286
Minister knows, the great majority of the citizens of London are against the abolition of the GLC. Is that disputed? Every poll shows—
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, they have spent millions on advertising—
The Earl of Longford: Noble Lords are getting awfully rattled. They are sitting there chatting away for all they are worth. I am asking for a moment or two. I am going on, but I want to point out that noble Lords are not observing the rules of the House by making all these interruptions from a sitting position.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, if the noble Earl would like someone to interrupt him, perhaps I may do so. The fact of the matter is that the despondency and despair of the voluntary bodies has been encouraged by the Labour Party, whose members go around spreading these stories and causing a great deal of unnecessary anxiety. The noble Earl comes here in the middle of the debate without knowing what has been said, and carries on with this entirely fallacious argument.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord had the courage to stand up and say what is manifestly false. That was a contribution to the debate.
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, everyone knows and every poll shows that the great majority of the citizens of London are against abolition.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, why not have an election?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, they are terrified of going before the electorate; they are scared stiff of going before the electorate. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that the voluntary bodies have no confidence in the Minister. Of course, what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said is perfectly true. If one is actually responsible for one of these voluntary bodies—if one is chairman, president or holds some such office—one knows perfectly well that when one speaks of the Minister having to approve one of these schemes, one is talking nonsense. How can this very enlightened, hardworking Minister or his colleague (who, for all I know, may be equally enlightened and hardworking) possibly approve all these schemes? It is a physical impossibility; it is a nonsense. I wanted to put that small point before the House before we proceed to a Division.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for having interrupted him from a sitting position. I can only explain that I was surprised that so normally reasonable a Member of this House as the noble Earl committed himself to so outrageous an observation as that which he made about the attitude of the voluntary bodies. The respectable voluntary bodies—and not all voluntary bodies are respectable—have far more confidence in my noble

1287
friends than they have in the noble Lord and his noble friends. There is really no reason whatever why they should have any apprehension.
However, it may well be that some of the so-called voluntary bodies that have been assisted, in particular by the Greater London Council, perhaps rightly, have very little confidence as to whether their grants will be continued once the GLC has been abolished. Let me remind the noble Lord of one or two of these bodies that have benefited from the Greater London Council. They include the English Collective of Prostitutes, Lesbian Line. London Lesbian and Gay Centre, the Campaign Against the Police Bill, and the Gay Bereavement Project. Those are the types of bodies that have been benefiting from the GLC and it is perhaps not unreasonable that they should have some apprehensions. As a ratepayer in London I think that it is quite outrageous that my money, contributed in rates, should be used for these perverted purposes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter's hit list of organisations of which he does not approve is becoming a little tattered. He has been using it over and over again at all stages of this Bill and at all stages of the Rates Bill. It is not a particularly effective list because the noble Lord does not actually give the figures of the amounts of money concerned.
We have made some progress in this debate in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has paid tribute to the work of the Greater London Enterprise Board and other boards, which at the Committee stage he called the "so-called" enterprise boards. It is worthwhile to have that improvement in his attitude. I am grateful to him for what he now says about it.
But I spoke in the somewhat unreal circumstances at the end of the Committee stage more in sorrow than in anger about the problems that the Government would have over the implementation of this new clause. The fact of the matter is that it is neither possible nor probable that the Labour Party could, in this short time, have whipped up the kind of opposition to this new clause that there has been from voluntary bodies. Neither has it in fact happened; but the truth is that at all stages of this Bill the process of applying for grants under Section 137 continues. The voluntary bodies are already making their plans, quite properly, for 1984–85, and they have been applying to the Greater London Council, to the metropolitan counties and to other local authorities for finance for next year.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has not adequately replied to—even when he has been making reassuring statements about general consents—is how he is going to deal with those applications which do not qualify for general consent, what extra staff he is going to have at Marsham Street to do this work, and how quickly he is going to deal with the applications. There is an amendment in this list on exactly that point. That, combined with the issue of the continuing and necessary work of the enterprise boards—not just the Greater London Enterprise Board but the West Midlands Enterprise Board, in particular—shows that the Government have not adequately thought out this new clause, and
1288
not adequately thought out their response to this series of amendments.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, we have heard a great deal about this, and not least from the noble Baroness. Lady Birk, who singled out organisations which she knows perfectly well would still have support from the Government. Members on this side of the House are just as keen on supporting legitimate registered charities and welfare organisations which do first-class work as are noble Lords on the other side of the House. But it is interesting, and a fact, that the 2 per cent. rate levy which is ultimately intended for local authorities to use at their discretion has been far exceeded by the GLC by the simple process of adding to the housing committee's budget and to the finance committee's budget monies going to some of these non-charitable and rather peculiar bodies named by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
In particular, the GLC is not a police authority, but it is sustaining a committee on the police for which it has no statutory authority. It is also financing a group which blatantly does its best to undermine the authority and status of our police force. No one on these Benches is challenging the work of these advisory committees, the citizens' advice bureaux, or the charities. I remember with deep regret a great national registered charity in this country—and I have consistently supported its Kent organisation—even though it was denied in the House of Commons by the Minister, deliberately putting out propaganda showing a free bus pass which is crossed out with a red cross and saying, "If the GLC is abolished, you will no longer get your free bus pass". That was an outrageous lie. It was against the charter of the Charities Commission. It is this type of abuse which Members on this side of the House, and ratepayers on both sides, object to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe that unless the Government retain these powers in the present Clause 10, the worthwhile and deserving charities to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred would have great cause for concern, because I believe that the presently constituted Greater London Council would spend its Section 137 money on all the less deserving causes quite deliberately in order to worry the more deserving causes. This is what one has to be frightened of. There has been a deliberate scaremongering tactic by the present GLC to worry the genuine and highly thought of charities. There is no cause for that alarm because I believe that this clause gives the Government control over what the Section 137 money is spent on. They will see that it is well spent, in the genuine interests of those really deserving in London. The danger is that unless this clause is there, the money will instead be frittered away on far less deserving causes and the genuine charities will be left out.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this has been an extraordinary and very depressing debate, with the exception of the speeches of the noble Baroness the Leader of the Liberal Party and my noble friends behind me.
Noble Lords: No.
Baroness Birk: It is perfectly true, my Lords. Quite frankly, I was amazed that more noble Lords who are concerned with various forms of charity, with enterprise and industry, did not speak up in a rather less prejudiced way. They gave us the same stories which we have heard before from noble Lords opposite. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—who probably has the list in his mind and does not need to have it on a worn out piece of paper—produces the same number of charities or other recipients of money every time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me, I would say that I have so large a list that I pride myself on producing a different group on each occasion.
10.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have heard that same list several times, but the noble Lord does not give the percentage that it comes to out of the very large total funds disbursed by the GLC.
Another point is that, once again, noble Lords on the Government side complain that so much of this argument centres around the GLC. They use the GLC all the time as a battering ram. The metropolitan county councils, of which we hear little from them, are also using Section 137. When I moved the amendment, I quoted a great many of the activities that they are carrying out and the amount of money going into job creation. However, this is all ignored because a certain amount of money goes to particular organisations of which individual Peers disapprove.
In a democracy we not only spend money, but have to sustain and suffer things that we do not always like as other people have rights and freedoms to indulge in them. I am sorry to give the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, so much publicity, but when he talks about "respectable" voluntary bodies, what he really means is the type of bodies of which he personally approves. When it comes to charity and voluntary bodies, we all have our particular favourites. We support certain groups and other people support other groups. That is a good thing; otherwise some charities would not receive any money.
Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned ratepayers. He was quite right to do so, but he did not mention the amount of wealth creation that is going on through the exercise of Section 137. In any case, the ratepayer has a comeback if he or she wishes to use it.
What were worrying were the Minister's replies. So far he has made two fairly lengthy replies on this question. There has been nothing concrete. There has been a great deal of innuendo which, if it accurately reflects the views of the Government, gives them only a harsher and less compassionate look than does their present image, with which they are not doing very well.
The Minister also said that the Government cannot, and will not, abrogate their responsibility. This Government are taking that type of responsibility to such an extent that they are squeezing out local government altogether. They are taking everything to the centre and, as I think my noble friend Lord Longford pointed out, in any case when these
1290
decisions are undertaken by central Government, they are not undertaken by the Minister or the Secretary of State. They cannot sit down and go through all this every day and do all their other work, which mounts up as well. It means that this is done by bureaucrats in the department. The amount of time that it is going to take is one of the worries of the various voluntary bodies. It is not only the question of whether the funds will continue but the amount of time that it will take, the amount of delay and the financial problems that they will have meanwhile.
The other thing which worries me very much was that the noble Lord said that this was only a temporary measure. There is nothing in the Bill which says that it is temporary. It may end when the abolition as far as the GLC and the MCCs are concerned ends; but the Government have a rather unfortunate habit, when they grab on to something, of then using it in a different way. I think that when this was discussed in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to districts and boroughs which she thought were overspending—and I am recalling this from memory—and the Minister in reply said, "That is for another day".
I believe that that is exactly what we are going to see. The Government are taking over tremendous powers all the time and they are not going to give them up very easily. When it comes to the work being taken over by the district councils and the boroughs, then this shutdown will probably follow and be carried over to them. We have really heard nothing that can give any hope that the Government are either seized of the problem or are prepared to do something constructive about it.
All that they do, I repeat, is to make innuendoes that people are doing this and that and we have to protect them. People do not need the sort of protection that the Government are trying to give. And, in protecting, they are creating far greater problems and far greater hardships. I feel, as do my noble friends, very strongly that the Government response to this is short-sighted, blunt, hard and harsh. It is a great pity that they will not say, "We will look at this", and that they just dashed this Bill off in a hurry and a panic in a fury against the GLC—for that is what it is all about.
If the Government had accepted the amendment that we moved earlier today and had agreed to the elections, then the voters of these places would have had the chance to indicate what they wanted. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Let them vote and let them say how they feel. If the money is being spent in a way that they disapprove of, let them vote out the present local councillors who are in power at this time. That is the way to do it; and not this way of grabbing everything to the centre and then not being able to cope with it in a proper manner. I find it absolutely awful and will want to look at it again and study carefully what the Minister has said, because I think that we shall then have to think of some other way of approaching this problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I point out correcting the statement that was made that it was not another district that was referred to in the previous debate, but another section—referring to Section 142? That I

1291
think is what the reply was given to about which the noble Baroness was speaking.
On Question, amendment negatived.
10.25 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 18, at end insert ("and either unconditionally or subject to conditions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a technical amendment, providing that any consents given under this clause may be either unconditional or subject to conditions. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not think that this amendment is quite as simple as all that. It says,
"either unconditionally or subject to conditions".
That is a very wide span. While I suppose the Government could argue that this represents a rather wider and more reasonable approach, it opens the way for major interference by the insertion of any condition whatsoever into a particular payment. So the Secretary of State becomes a third party between the council and the recipient of a payment and thus, if one takes as an example the Enterprise Board, could have any particular government policy injected and imposed as part of the condition. If this is incorrect and it means something entirely different, perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will be kind enough to enlighten me.
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, and by the leave of the House, what the noble Baroness says is quite correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 18, at end insert—
("() The consent of the Secretary of State under this section shall not be required for any expenditure incurred under the said section 137 by way of a grant to any body or organisation where:

(a) such organisation or body has been in receipt of a payment from the council concerned within the previous two financial years; and

(b) the payment to be made to that body or organisation does not exceed the total amount so given in the previous two financial years.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I mentioned Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 36, but I found that I had spoken only on Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 because the Government have an Amendment No. 35 and Amendment No. 36 became mixed up there.
Amendment No. 36 attempts to avoid subjecting those bodies and organisation which are currently in receipt of a grant under Section 137 to unnecessary delay in negotiating extensions of grant aid during the remainder, or the extended term, of the GLC and MCCs. I will not go through the whole argument because it is basically the same argument as before. The vast majority of bodies and organisations in receipt of Section 137 money are involved in activities which are in no way controversial.
Clause 10, with which this amendment tries to deal, will create uncertainty in the financial planning and programming of bodies and organisations that had
1292
been anticipating continuing financial support in the period through until 1st April 1986. Proposals for giving grants in 1985–86 will in large measure be drawn up involving negotiations between the metropolitan county councils and the GLC and the potential recipient bodies during the autumn of 1984. Now, the Clause 10 provisions could set such negotiations at naught.
What the amendment seeks to do is to safeguard the interests of those bodies and organisations which are already in receipt of Section 137 money, but this would in no way restrict the Secretary of State's role in respect of any new arrangements for grant aid which may be in mind for 1984–86. Before the Minister replies on this, I should like to say that undertakings given verbally, however well meant, are not sufficient. They have to be in the Bill both for us to find them acceptable and for the people who are concerned, the recipients of grant payments, to feel some security themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, may I briefly hope, even at this late hour and with all the evidence to the contrary, that the Government will consider this amendment favourably. Despite all the dark portents which noble Lords have indicated about the abuse of Section 137 payments, overwhelmingly they are for such estimable organisations that even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, could not find them sinister—the Marriage Guidance Councils, the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. councils' voluntary services and similar bodies and organisations in the voluntary sector. They would come under this heading of grants that have been made for the last two years, and for some of the demands to be increased.
Anyone who has been involved with the voluntary sector knows how important it is for these organisations to be able to plan ahead and to have a very clear idea of the amount which they can expect to receive from the local authority, or otherwise, because if they have not got this they cannot plan their programme; they cannot continue to employ their staffs in any consistent way so that they can give the people who enjoy their services the benefit of those services and the continuity of them.
I would have thought that this was a very much easier way for the Government to pursue their plans. I do not approve of this clause in any event, but I think this would be a mitigation of it. Even the Conservative political centre has praised the attitudes of some metropolitan counties, and particularly the way in which Tyne and Wear have made good use of disbursements of a regular kind, such as the ones we are talking about in these amendments to help in the Tyne and Wear area. A great number of authorities, certainly in Merseyside, for instance, are using the Section 137 powers to assist economic development, to cut down unemployment and to help in finding employment for young people, very often in combination with private sector funds, Government funds and EEC funds. Once again, surely this kind of payment on a regular and consistent basis which has not been augmented should be exempt from the Secretary of State's approval; otherwise, I suspect that the whole burden and load of this meticulous inquiry being carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State by civil

1293
servants will bring some very important and useful activities to an unexpected close.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like very much to support what my noble friend has said and to add one more point to the reasons why it is so undesirable that there should be this degree of interference from the centre. I know it is an unpopular point, but the fact is that our Civil Service is not trained and equipped professionally to make judgments of this kind. One is constantly finding oneself in the position in which people who have a great deal of knowledge, often backed with proper professional experience, are being judged by people who have no such knowledge. This is an outrageous way in which to conduct affairs.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks as if every single payment made under Section 137 is as pure as the driven snow. In fact, it is not so. This Amendment No. 36 would exempt from the control procedure each proposal by an abolition authority for expenditure under Section 137 to grant aid a body which that authority had already grant aided during 1983–4 or 1984–5. I accept that the exemption would apply only up to the limit of the total amount of the payments given to the body during 1983–4 and 1984–5. I accept also that it would enable payments to he made without reference to the Secretary of State to a number of bodies, notably in the voluntary sector, who rely heavily on Section 137 grants and whose activities are unlikely in the event to be in question.
In practice, I do not doubt that a considerable number of bodies who have received grant aid during 1983–4 and 1984–5 will clearly continue to receive grant aid during 1985–6. The Secretary of State's approval will be readily forthcoming. That is the message which I relayed at Committee stage and which I have already taken pains to repeat today; but, for reasons which I referred to earlier, we cannot safely claim a universal rule to exempt every single recipient of Section 137 funds over the past two years from the Secretary of State's scrutiny.
It is unfortunately quite conceivable that such a body could be used as a vehicle for purposes which the consent powers are designed to frustrate. In particular, it would be imprudent, without supervision, to allow expenditure by these authorities or enterprise boards to carry on at the rate of the past two years combined. I am driven, inescapably, to the conclusion that the principle behind Amendment No. 36 should not in any form be introduced into Clause 10.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene briefly, because the Minister must explain what he is after. If one looks at the proposed amendment, one sees that it can refer only to organisations which are already in receipt of grant, and the amount will not exceed the grant paid in the previous two years. Therefore, it can hit only at an existing organisation which is receiving grant. Let the Minister come clean. Which of the organisations receiving grant does he want to stop? We might then know where we are. We have had innuendoes and I have brought forward facts and figures, which have been denied by the Minister, to show that all the information in Marsham Street is not always correct.
1294
Therefore let the Minister come clean. Which of the organisations receiving grant does he want to stop? If he says that there is none, he can then approve this amendment without any worry at all.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, I again ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and those who spoke earlier, whether they in turn will tell me that every single payment made under Section 137 in the past two years has gone to organisations which were proper recipients of monies. We are not talking in any way about genuine voluntary organisations. I have said again and again that they have nothing at all to fear. The fact is that there are millions and millions of pounds going to some of the enterprise boards and other bodies.
Is it so wrong that one should want to ask questions about to what precisely those monies are being applied? If any of those bodies are applying them correctly to job generation, which we are told about, and which I acknowledge, since I know some of them, they have nothing at all to fear. So why does anyone have anything to fear, if the purposes for which they are receiving the money are reasonable and proper? That is as good an answer as the noble Lord ought to expect on this amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is quite clear that, once again, we have come up against a brick wall. My noble friend Lord Underhill was quite right, but again we have had vague replies. The Government do not seem to have confidence in any body or in anything. In any area of life or work there are people or organisations who sometimes do not come up to the standards which one would expect in every case, but you do not then put an absolute blanket over everybody else, which is exactly what the Government are doing.
These are small amounts. The Minister all the time talks about millions and millions of pounds and thousands of people, but he does not put a figure on all these miscreants. He just talks in a wide, broad way and turns down any form of amendment which is reasonable. These amendments are not wrecking amendments. They are trying to improve a clause which many of us here dislike intensely. We are trying to do something about the clause. I have spoken to four amendments on this clause tonight, with considerable support from my noble friends and from the Liberal Benches, and yet we have got no movement at all. It is a very distressing and dim outlook. The Minister does not have to worry. Neither the Labour Party, nor the Liberal Party, nor, indeed, anybody else, has to point this out to the voluntary bodies. They are worried sick about the whole situation and are waiting to hear from the Government about it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause:
("Control of disposals of land.
.—(1) Neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act dispose of any land except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(2) Any consent under this section may be given either in repect of a particular disposal or in respect of disposals of any class or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.
(3) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in section 123 of the principal Act (general power to dispose of land) or in any other enactment; and the consent required by this section shall be in addition to any consent required by subsection (2) of that section or by any other enactment.
(4) It is hereby declared that section 18(2) of the principal Act (protection of purchasers etc.) applies to any disposal of land to which this section applies.
(5) In this section reference to disposing of land include references to—

(a) granting or disposing of any interest in land;

(b) entering into a contract to dispose of land or to grant or dispose of any such interest; and

(c) granting an option to acquire any land or any such interest;

and references in this subsection to an interest in land include references to any easement, right or charge in, to or over land and to a licence to occupy land.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the new clause is to make disposals of land by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils subject to the consent of the Secretary of State from the date of Royal Assent. My noble friend the Leader of the House has explained the considerations which led to the Government's response to the arguments put in both Houses and to the new clause agreed in Committee in place of Clause 1 of the Bill, as presented. The amendments to Part II of the Bill form the first limb of this response. This new clause, together with the other two new clauses, Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, to which I wish also to speak, are the second. What I have to say about Amendment No. 37 will apply generally to those amendments, too.
The first point is that the new clauses need to be seen in that context. They are a response to the specific situation in which we now find ourselves through the expression of your Lordships' will. I should like to say a little more about this because it is most important.
The Government have always recognised that there could be scope for obstructive or irresponsible actions on the part of the outgoing authorities. As long ago as 1st March I announced that the main abolition Bill would prevent these authorities from committing their successors, through fixed-term staff contracts or excessive compensation. The Bill, as presented to your Lordships' House, required the authorities to provide information to the boroughs and districts, and to consult them about expenditure. Even as these provisions began to be debated it became clear that they might not be sufficient to dissuade some of the abolition authorities from making mischief before they disappear. The Government therefore introduced Clause 10 which we have just been debating.
These proposals received a good deal of support in Committee as well as elsewhere but they were made—indeed, all our counter-obstruction provisions were made—in the context of authorities which would, under the Government's original proposals, have been controlled by the elected members of the successor boroughs and districts for their last 11 months. Those successor councils would have been keeping a close eye on any commitments into which the outgoing authorities might have been entering. This in itself would have acted as a powerful check.
The whole situation has now changed. The existing councils will now be in existence for much longer and the effect of the new amendments to Clause 3 will be to more than double from 9 to 20 months the period in which, if they choose, the GLC and the metropolitan county councils could take action which might seriously prejudice their successors. At the same time, the constraints which the coming into existence in May 1985 of the transitional councils would have provided will be absent.
I used the phrase "if they choose". It is indeed a matter of choice for those authorities. Nobody is saying that they have got to choose to be obstructive, and I continue to hope and believe that most of the councillors will behave sensibly and responsibly. But the present situation is not one in which it is possible for me to be over-optimistic.
I referred in Committee, when introducing the new clause providing for controls on Section 137 expenditure, to a number of things that had been said by various of the council leaders. I shall not repeat them now but, if called upon later, I shall do so. Suffice it to say that there is obviously a great responsibility on the Government to recognise that there really is a great danger here. Nobody who acts sensibly, responsibly and reasonably has anything whatsoever to fear from the new clauses. Only those who set out to undermine their successors by depriving them of assets or letting contracts which are not reasonably necessary for the discharge of their functions stand to fall foul of the new controls. I cannot say this too strongly.
Without making a great meal of it, there are those who argue that the new controls do not go far enough. They may be right; only time will tell. The Bill already contains a number of counter-obstruction provisions. We considered very carefully what further was needed. We are convinced that the clauses which we now propose are a realistic response to the threats—I hate to use the word but that is what it is—and the actions which we fear. They are not excessive but they show our clear determination not to allow the outgoing councils to use their longer period in office so as to frustrate the Government's objectives. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we now seem to have reached the height of Government control and restriction. These powers that we are now discussing are virtually unprecedented. This is not something which has just been said by politicians, but is something which is felt by students of local government and academics who are concerned with it, and historians as well.
The control of the disposal of land means that the local authorities which have used the capital they get from the disposal of land to finance other activities are under obligation all the time to sell at the best possible price unless there is a special reason; and then they have to go to the Secretary of State. These powers are going to operate immediately this Bill is passed, and will not wait until abolition. They are being enforced by disqualification. The disqualification has to be ordered by the court, but there is no time limit set. This is a far greater extension of disqualification than anything we have ever known before.

1297
These measures are a further attack on local democracy. They pre-empt abolition because they have virtually immediate effect. The moment this Bill becomes law these powers come into operation, eight months within the normal term of office of the present administration. There exist already very firm legal provisions which can prevent this sale of assets at anything other than the market price. Local authorities already have to work within the scrutiny of the district audit. They also work within existing budgets and precepts, and have to abide by duties of reasonableness.
The Government have given no prior information on the criteria the Secretary of State would use in wielding his proposed powers. There is no information on the machinery, administrative processes and staffing to be set up. The volume of spending and the numbers of cases caught up by the triple net, now, of Section 137, disposals and contracts over £100,000—£250,000 for buildings—is so great that the DoE is likely to be swamped with applications for consent.
On the clause dealing with contracts, as I understand it, taking those restrictions alone, the GLC would be having to send for consent to the Secretary of State something in the region of 250 applications a week. It is going to be almost impossible for any local authority to be able to carry out the duties which are imposed on it, and provide services for people within this financial straitjacket. It means that for some authorities, if there is a great deal of money that is needed to be spent on something like snow clearing, this then has to go to the Secretary of State. What happens meantime? These sums of £250,000 for engineering works or building and £100,000 for maintenance and so on, may sound a lot of money just in figures, but when we are talking in London in terms of eight million people and, when we get to the metropolitan councils, of six million people, it is not a lot of money when you are having to build, maintain and look after what are very large communities indeed.
One sometimes gets the feeling that things could not get worse, but then the Government come up with something else which is very much worse. There is a point—perhaps the Minister will be able to explain it to me—on the clause dealing with disqualification. As I understand it, it says that somebody could be disqualified for doing something even if the thing that they are concerned with has not itself been declared void. There seems to be a tendency throughout all these amendments to increase the power to disqualify more and more people. Apart from the practical effects of these clauses, the effect on the relationships between local government and central Government are getting worse and worse under this Government. We now have a series of amendments on matters where the conflict, the tempers, the feelings are all very high and very easily aroused. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Government are taking these powers and treating the large local authorities as though they were small schoolchildren. For the Government to be engineering this and doing it in a way that has, I repeat, been unknown previously, by making what are considered to be the most extraordinary provisions, is something of which the House should take some account.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords. I hope that even at this late hour I may have your indulgence to say a brief word in regard to this fasciculus of new clauses. Let me say at once that I support the principle underlying the new clauses on the necessity to impose restraints on profligate, reckless councils whose recklessness may indeed be accentuated by their sense of impending doom. Certainly nothing that the noble Baroness has said has eroded by one scintilla my conviction that the principle is right.
I rise mainly to say a cautionary word in particular regard to the content and drafting of Amendment No. 38. The new clause concerns the control of building and civil engineering contracts and represents a laudable effort to legislate simply on complex matters. However, building and civil engineering contracts, as your Lordships may know, are notoriously complex. I certainly know it. I have learnt it. I cannot properly say that I have learnt it to my cost, because, happily, it has been to my professional profit, but the long and laborious hours which I have spent on these matters in my professional capacity have shown me beyond peradventure their complexity. They have indeed been long and laborious hours spent in the interpretation of these contracts and in the resolution of the conflicts that arise from them.
The new clause in Amendment No. 38 prohibits the entering into construction contracts of over a specified amount—£250,000. That is a good intention but the wording gives rise to problems. The words "enter into a contract" are not defined in the new clause but, in my submission, they can only mean "conclude a contract binding in law". It is only at that stage—the conclusion of a contract binding in law—that the new clause contemplates the necessity to seek the consent of the Secretary of State.
As your Lordships will know, local authorities contract under seal. As your Lordships may or may not know, local authorities normally use the local authority edition of the contract issued by the Joint Contracts Tribunal, the present edition in force being the 1980 edition, with its articles of agreement and voluminous conditions of contract. But the formal conclusion of a building or civil engineering contract is only the final step in a long progression; each step involving the expenditure of money and time, not only by local authorities—although, of course, by them—but also by many other prospective participants in the contract work.
The council, as building owner, will start with the preparation of drawings, first in outline, and then detailed. Then a specification will have to be prepared, with detailed bills of quantities compiled by quantity surveyors. On the basis of those documents, an invitation to tender will be prepared and issued to prospective or possible tenderers, who in their turn will price the bills of quantities and base their tender upon that. Those tenders—not just one, but several—will be studied by the council's experts, and one will then be recommended for acceptance. Only after all those preliminary steps will the contract be entered into, as the clause lays down. Then, and then only, will the consent of the Secretary of State be required, then, and then only, will the provisions of the clause bite; that is to say, after all that expenditure has been incurred—expenditure which refusal of consent will necessarily render abortive.

1299
I see two potential injurious consequences possibly arising in that scenario. First, the expenditure by the council will constitute a burden on the ratepayer, without any control (because there is no control envisaged up to that stage), and, in the event, for no purpose if consent is ultimately refused. Secondly, there is the expense for would-be contractors, without any reasonable prospect of return—an abortive expenditure which in its way is injurious to the national economy. I respectfully make this submission to your Lordships in general and my noble friends on the Front Bench in particular. Consideration should be given to seeking a more precise, even if necessarily a more elaborate, scheme of control to fortify that welcome and necessary principle.
I think perhaps I should mention one other very sort point. Subsection (5) of the new clause states:
"A contract shall not be void by reason only that it has been entered into in contravention of this section".
Of course, if the contract is not void, as the clause says, the builder has a right to sue for payments under the contract or to sue for breaches of it. The council, in its turn, is likely to plead in its defence impossibility of performance by reason of refusal of consent by the Secretary of State, which is a necessary prerequisite to its performance of the contract.
I can see a very considerable legal tangle arising from that subsection. It may be profitable to lawyers—and who am I to say that that is a bad thing?—but it will not really reflect credit on the statute law, or indeed on those of us who in this House and the other place have the responsibility to make it. So may I respectfully ask my noble friend the Minister to have these points in mind? I appreciate this clause has been prepared at short notice. May I ask the Minister to see whether he cannot get a better drafting of this clause to underlie and promote the purpose giving rise to it? I reiterate that for that purpose he has my unqualified support.
11 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I would not seek or have the temerity to pursue Lord Broxbourne's reasoning about the nature of the clause. I am sure that he is right. But what his speech underlines is the rash nature of how this added piece of legislation has been brought before us. He underlines the drafting difficulties. We on these Benches here have the very serious problem of trying to understand the complexity of its proposals at very short notice indeed. It is very sad that we should be considering such important amendments at 11 o'clock at night with so little preparation and clauses that are as I have said before today an entirely new Bill: a control of local government expenditure Bill. It is not a paving Bill at all. It is an entirely new adventure.
It is a sad reflection on the relationships between central and local government that the Government have found it necessary to put down these amendments because of what they fear some local authorities will do. It is sad that the relationships between local government and central government have reached this pass; and it is sad also that there are,
1300
as I am aware, local authorities that are irresponsible and have to be controlled. But I feel that the measures that the Government have taken to control them are unduly and unnecessarily draconian. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister in his reply will tell us why Section 123 of the 1972 Local Government Act is not sufficient for his purposes. I think that was the section that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned. Perhaps he would tell us why the Government believe that the powers they have at present to prevent asset stripping are not sufficient for them.
I know that there have been a lot of stories about how Liverpool City Council is going to be saved by Mr. Livingstone, by taking a lease on the town hall, but even I cannot really believe that that kind of Grand Guignol was meant to be taken seriously. I hope that it is not to deal with that kind of problem that the amendments are put down. In being put down in this broadly based way, they will interfere with the orderly disposal of assets of the metropolitan counties. I talk only here of the metropolitan counties, disposing, for instance, of police houses. As a policy of the police authority the county council in Merseyside are disposing of 200 police houses. I wonder whether each of them will now have to be scrutinised by the Secretary of State.
In the present committee cycle in Merseyside County Council, which is a six-week cycle, there are more than 20 transactions which might be affected by Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Are they all to be scrutinised by the Minister? Presumably they will be scrutinised at the end of the six-week cycle after they have been through the council and then will come back to the council at some later date.
What will happen is that perfectly innocent, harmless transactions of a routine nature, which are vital for the future of local government in any form, are going to be completely bottled up in bureaucratic nightmares in Whitehall. I feel very seriously that if the Government found it necessary to introduce this kind of draconian legislation they might have put a lower limit or made exceptions of the kinds of transactions which are of a routine character and need not be caught by these particular amendments. I hope that noble Lords on the Government side of the House realise the dangers that they are imposing and the ridicule to which they are likely to expose themselves when the full force of this amendment comes to be seen in practice at local government level. I hope the Government have second thoughts.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Molson, stated that those who had opposed the Government in the previous vote in Committee stage had done so because they objected to the suspicion of gerrymandering in taking away power from the metropolitan councils and the GLC, and in some cases changing the political nature of those authorities.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson because, as I tried to explain in a three-minute speech at that stage, there were those of us who also objected on principle to the removal of the right of the 14 million electors to exercise their vote, to choose their councillors and to dismiss their councillors, which

1301
would have saved a great deal of the anguish which has been shown on the other side of the House during this evening's debate. However, that is decided for the moment.
But may I point out to those who sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that these three amendments are also a type of gerrymandering. They do not remove the vote from the electorate. What they do is remove control of council action and place it in the hands of central Government. As I said at the Committee stage, among all parties in this country there is a very honourable tradition of local democracy and the building of national democracy through local democracy, not least in the Conservative Party. I wonder whether it is not the case that tonight on the other side of the House there are noble Lords who do not feel somewhat uneasy at seeing central Government usurping the functions of elected local councilors, because that is surely at least dangerously close to digging up the roots of our democracy as a whole.
One may say that there is no danger now. But, referring back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said this afternoon, we do not have a written constitution. We do not have the protection of a written constitution. We can create, and we are tonight being asked to create, precedents. Those precedents can be used at other times for a much more dangerous purpose than is apparent in the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, tonight.
I would ask the noble Lord whether he does not realise that these amendments represent the kind of gerrymandering that was seen by his own colleagues, by many of his right honourable friends in another place, and, indeed, by many Conservative councillors in both the GLC and the metropolitan councils to be so offensive. I ask noble Lords, before taking the drastic step of passing the power of decision-making from elected local councillors, who form the roots of our democratic system, to central Government, and above all, to the Executive, to think carefully as to where we are going in the march which we have seen of adding to the power of the Executive at the expense of both Parliament and elected local authorities.
I would ask the noble Lord to consult his own supporters in the metropolitan councils and in the Greater London Council because, as I understand it, they have already expressed widespread dismay and, indeed, clear opposition, and have made threats that, if taken along this road, they will resign their seats on the basis that they are being denied the power to do the job for which they were elected by the people of this country.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for a specific assurance on a particular point relating to this clause. The assurance that I seek—I hope that noble Lords will agree that he may give it if he so wishes—relates to how the Secretary of State will use his powers under the new clause contained in Amendment No. 37. The specific reason for this is that negotiations have been taking place for a couple of years between the Theatres Trust and the Greater London Council concerning the
1302
ownership of a number of theatres. The Greater London Council is the freeholder of a number of theatres in London. The Garrick and the Lyceum are examples. There are a couple of others, quite apart from the complex on the South Bank, which is now extremely important. Negotiations have been taking place for the freeholds to be passed over to the Theatres Trust, which is a body set up by Parliament, brought into being by an Act carried under Conservative aegis, with trustees appointed by the Minister. The Arts Council is represented on it. It is a body set up for a specific purpose, and it is now trying to fulfil this purpose.
These negotiations have reached a fairly advanced stage. It is likely, of course, that some money will have to accompany the freeholds if they are transferred. The National Trust does not accept a freehold without a monetary accompaniment to it. In this case, the monetary accompaniment would be smaller, but in some cases it would be non-existent because the freehold might be profitable. Nonetheless, it would not have to be excluded. What I seek from the noble Lord is an undertaking that in exercising his powers under this Act the Secretary of State would not veto this whole proposition and make it impossible for the GLC and the Theatres Trust to complete their negotiations if both parties wish to do so. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me that assurance.
I share very strongly the feelings which have been expressed in this House that we would be better off without these clauses at all. We would be better off not having to ask the noble Lord to give us the kind of assurances for which we are compelled to ask because of the existence of these clauses. The Government have changed their mind. Last week they were determined to get rid of the present administrations in the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council, and this week they say they are going to preserve them, to sustain them in power. Mr. Livingstone must remain, whether or not the people of London want him to remain. The Government are going to deprive them of the power to dispose of Mr. Livingstone and are going to determine, by Government edict, that he shall remain for a period of time.
Since it is the Government's decision that the existing administrations shall remain, then surely it is a nonsense for the Government to say, on the one hand, "We are determined that you continue to exist", and, on the other hand, "We are equally determined to deprive you of the powers you already enjoy". Surely this is a complete and total nonsense. It illustrates the mess into which the Government have got themselves. Nevertheless, having said that, I want to say that if they are determined to get themselves into the mess—I hope we are going to try tonight to stop them from doing it—it might help to convince some of the noble Lord's colleagues, though I hope not too many of them, if he could tell us how the Secretary of State is going to do this. Is the Minister going to intervene and say, "No, this is not going to go ahead", or is he going to say, "Negotiations which are already in hand, provided they are reasonable and proper and are consented to between the parties, may continue and be completed"?
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I hope that even at this late hour your Lordships will allow me a moment or two. Alas, I must needs declare an interest. The last time I spoke on such an occasion, with equal reluctance on the part of the House, I was so keen to cut everything out that I actually forgot to declare my interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, took me to task for it. I work for the GLC, and it is for that reason that on Clause 38 I want to take just one minute of your Lordships' time.
I stand before your Lordships as a man who actually does the things that are set down in Clause 38. I do spend a hundred thousand pounds at a time—sometimes a quarter of a million at a time. I spend it on a great network of parks and open spaces, many thousands of acres of them. In particular, I spend it on two brand-new parks—I say "brand-new": they have now been going for 10 years and more; they were designed in 1943—at Burgess and Mile End. These parks regularly have within them contracts of this size. They have been supported over all this time by all political parties and generally applauded as something vitally necessary for London—as, indeed, are the rest of the parks. I should say that I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would not find any of my parks anything except respectable. He will not be able to put them into his next list to read out to your Lordships' House.
However, no doubt I shall be assured that if everything is as respectable as I make it out to be, and as worthwhile and as generally admired, I have nothing to fear. But the truth is that everything I do in this direction will now be swept, quite unnecessarily, into this dustpan of legislation.
It seems to me that this is basically shotgun legislation of such a width and spread of fire-power as to encompass almost everything that could possibly be encompassed. I cannot believe that legislation so swift and so absolutely general as this should come before your Lordships' House so rapidly. I hope that your Lordships will think very carefully before agreeing to it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to try to respond to the points that have been made. First, I point out to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne that of course we shall want to look very carefully at what he has said because clearly that could be of much importance. But for the moment let me just say that the new clause—and I am also talking to Amendment No. 38, which is being discussed in general—precludes a council from entering into a legally binding contract without consent, and consent may be applied for at any time beforehand—for example, before or after tenders are considered. Clearly, we shall want to consider very carefully what my noble friend said, and I assure him as to that.
To take up the points made by individual noble Lords, clearly I do not know the particular circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred. I shall certainly want to look at them and try to give him—if I can—the assurance for which he calls. Whether or not I would be able to do so would, I presume, depend upon the facts. However, the basic intentions of what I have been saying are not unsympathetic to the type of scene which he has
1304
described. But I am sure that the noble Lord will understand if I say no more than that for the moment. I undertake to come back to him quickly with a response.
Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, was absolutely right when he anticipated what I would say, because I do say it. As regards good schemes and good projects, it is not the intention of what we propose here in any way to interfere with the proper working of an authority. As long as that is the case, he certainly, as he anticipated, can smile and I am glad that he is able to do so.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, of course I do not take offence at his reference to the word "gerrymandering". He has perhaps sometimes been known to be slightly intemperate. I do not like what he said and I disgree with it, but we shall not get further if I say more than that about it. I certainly do not take his point that political colleagues of mine on the GLC talk about resigning. I was at a meeting with them the other night when they said now bitterly they resented the fact that people said this about them. If any of them wish to do so, then they will declare themselves. Hitherto I have not heard such declarations.
There are only two other points that I want to make about this matter. First, subsection (2) of Amendment No. 37—and this should be said slowly and clearly so that everyone absolutely understands—empowers the Secretary of State to issue specific or general consents and these can either be conditional or unconditional. The Government are considering what categories of disposal might be suitable for general consents. We intend that as many consents as are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the authorities' affairs should be granted immediately upon enactment of the Bill.
The objections missed two essential points. The first is that if the authorities concerned do not choose to try to make life difficult for their successors, then they have absolutely nothing to fear at all. It is only if they seize the opportunity to make mischief that the schemes will be affected.
The second point is that if the Government did not seek the means of protecting successor authorities and ratepayers in this way, then we should, quite rightly, be strongly criticised. If there are any lingering doubts in your Lordships' minds, then let me refer your Lordships to the typically distorted and excessive advertisements which have appeared over the weekend, because they may have helped to dispel them.
I have listened to what has been said. I repeat as regards both these amendments and new clauses that it is not the Government's intention to interfere with proper working. We shall not do so. There will be consents to make sure that there is not the whole conglomeration of difficulty which has been referred to. I am satisfied that, as a consequence of the early decision which your Lordships took the other week, this is a proper safeguard for people and that it will be recognised as such by the people.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
11.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 70.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hanson, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hastings, L.

Avon, E.

Henley, L.

Barber, L.

Hindlip, L.

Bauer, L.

Hires, L.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Beloff, L.

Inchcape, E.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Biddulph, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kemsley, V.

Boardman, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kitchener, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Camoys, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Molson, L.

Cathcart, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Coleraine, L.

Moyola, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cowlev, L.

Northesk, E.

Cox, B.

Peel, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Craigton, L.

Perth, E.

Crathorne, L.

Pike, B.

Croft, L.

Plummerof St. Marylebone, L.

De Freyne, L.

Radnor, E.

De La Warr, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Digby, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donegall, M.

Remnant, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Savile, L.

Erne, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Southborough, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swansea, L.

Fisher, L.

Terrington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Torphichen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Townshend, M.

Geddes, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Trenchard, V.

Glanusk, L.

Trumpington, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Tryon, L.

Gowrie, L.

Ullswater, V.

Gray, L.

Vickers, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Gridley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Haig, E.

Windlesham, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L.

Wynford, L.

Yarborough, E.

Halsbury, E.

1306

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bernstein, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birkett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mar, C.

Bowden, L.

Mountevans, L.

Briggs, L.

Nicol, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Denington, B.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Serota, B.

Falkender, B.

Stallard, L.

Falkland, V.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gifford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gosford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underbill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kagan, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 38:
[Printed earlier: col. 1182.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
11.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents 71.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ampthill, L.

Camoys, L.

Avon, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Barber, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bauer, L.

Carnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cathcart, E.

Belstead, L.

Chelwood, L.

Biddulph, L.

Cockfield, L.

Birdwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Boardman, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cowley, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Cox, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Craigton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Crathorne, L.

1307

Croft, L.

Lyell, L.

De Freyne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Digby, L.

Donegall, M.

Merrivale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Molson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Enniskillen, E.

Moyola, L.

Erne, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Fisher, L.

Peel, E.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Gainford, L.

Perth, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pike, B.

Geddes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Gisborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Glanusk, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gray, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Haig, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Savile, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Southborough, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Terrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Townshend, M.

Hindlip, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trumpington, B.

Inchcape, E.

Tryon, L.

Ingrow, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vickers, B.

Kemsley, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kitchener, E.

Windlesham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Yarborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Attlee, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Barnett, L.

Jacques, L.

Bernstein, L.

Jeger, B.

Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Birkett, L.

Kagan, L.

Blease, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Briggs, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Collison, L.

Mar, C.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Denington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L,

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gifford, L.

Seear, B.

Gosford, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

1308

Stallard, L.

Underhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:—
("Disqualification for contravention of sections (Control of disposals of land) and (Control of contracts).
.—(1) If, on the application of a constituent council or a local government elector for the area of a constituent council, it appears to the High Court that the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council has made a disposal in contravention of section (Control of disposals of land) above or entered into a contract in contravention of section (Control of contracts) above, the court may order any person responsible for authorising the disposal or contract who is, or was at the time of the conduct in question, a member of the council to be disqualified for being a member of that council and to be qualified for a specified period for being a member of any other local authority.
(2) In sections 80(1)(e), 86(b) and 87(1)(d) of the principal Act references to Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall include references to this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, without this new clause there would be no specific penalty for contravening the new controls which your Lordships have just agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption when acting as education authority.
Nothing in sections (Control of disposals of land) or (Control of contracts) shall apply to the Greater London Council when acting as an education authority for the Inner London area pursuant to section 30 of the London Government Act 1963.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I would be justified in saying that the concern which many of my noble friends and I have felt about the Government proposals in this and in the related Bill which will come to us next year has been based upon two considerations. First, the general tendency to devalue local government and those who serve in it; and, secondly, the apprehension that the upheaval which will result from the measures which are proposed or prospective will lead not to greater efficiency and economy but to administrative confusion and additional expense.
So far as London education is concerned, the two new clauses—Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 which we have just passed—will have both these latter consequences. These clauses will have a direct effect on the day-to-day running of the education service in London in three areas: the disposal of building sites; building work; and the supply of goods and services. The ILEA has been encouraged by successive governments to dispose of land and buildings that it no longer requires, and the funds derived from these are used to improve other schools. In the present year disposals will total £4.750.000. The new clauses would

1309
inevitably involve the delay of essential decisions with regard to these disposals and will have serious financial effects. The requirement that all contracts of more than £100,000 on maintenance and £250,000 on improvements should be referred to the Department of the Environment will lead to inevitable and damaging delays. There will be loss of income to the authority, and continued maintenance charges on buildings which should be sold and disposed of speedily will add further to the financial burdens of the authority.
At an earlier stage this evening my noble friend Lord Broxbourne explained from his very long experience the technicalities of the problems of contracts of this sort and the problems which will be involved not only for the authority but for those who tender for the contract. What will happen is that the Department of the Environment will refer each proposal to the Department of Education and Science—and this despite the undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin that approval will be given in certain cases.
We in this House have a wealth of experience of the working of Government departments. There are sometimes delays within the department and often these are inevitable. But consider the possibilities of delay when two departments are involved; one concerned with the financial implications of the proposal, and the other with educational needs. Who will arbitrate if there is a deadlock between the two? Will it be my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet? In the coming 12 months there will be 80 building and maintenance contracts carefully timed to coincide with school holidays and school reorganisation, and sometimes of a very urgent nature—for instance, dealing with asbestos removal. Delay in tendering and over-running of time limits will inevitably involve additional cost, and all will require central authorisation. Here, again, I would refer to the advice given to your Lordships by the noble Lord. Lord Broxbourne, earlier this evening.
The great bulk of the ILEA purchasing is done through the GLC's supplies department, which places large-scale contracts on the basis of London-wide heads and charges the ILEA for the goods supplied to it. Bulk purchase of this kind has advantages pricewise, as those of us who shop regularly at Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury's, or the Co-op know. And it is worth recording that this month the Audit Commission named the GLC's supplies department as the most efficient local authority purchasing organisation in England and Wales. At any time there are outstanding 120 contracts, valued at more than £100,000, almost all of which include goods for the ILEA and other education authorities in Greater London. These cover everything from books and school paper to sports gear, furniture, computers and food. Twenty-five million pounds a year is spent on behalf of the ILEA by the GLC's supplies department at a level of cost, on a bulk basis, greatly to the advantage of the public purse.
The control procedures now to be incorporated in this Bill will inevitably involve delay in the placing of large contracts, leading to shortage of stock, disruption of the educational process and increased cost by the placing of smaller contracts, which will result in a
1310
higher unit cost and then increased charge to overheads. Contracts will be placed during the next 12 months to run for two or three years, and even longer, and many of these will be over £100,000.
As there will be an elected ILEA, this will presumably have to operate a central supplies organisation of its own in due course. It will have to take over all the current contracts, and there will be a strong incentive, in this particular case of the education field, to ensure that contracts entered into by the present ILEA are prudent and economical. The fears of irresponsibility which lie behind the Government's two new clauses, therefore, even if well founded, do not apply to contracts for the educational buildings and supplies. There is, therefore, no reason why they should be subject to central control, with all the delays, complications and bureaucracy which would be involved.
My Lords, I must confess to you that the more I examine the consequences of the Government's legislation in so far as it affects London, the greater is my apprehension about the administrative confusion and additional expense which will flow from them. I fear that this will have some very undesirable consequences for the Government and for the Conservative interest in London between 1986 and the next general election.
Although this amendment is intended to ensure administrative continuity and efficiency in only one part of the local government field in our capital city, it is a very important field—the most important field of all. I therefore recommend this amendment to your Lordships and I earnestly hope that my noble friend, when he replies, will do so in a way which is favourable to the amendment and, if not, that the House will support any Division that takes place.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in this amendment. I think he has said everything that is necessary to be said. No doubt noble Lords opposite who are constant readers of the Financial Times will have read an article which appeared in that newspaper last Thursday, 12th July. The first paragraph of the article, which is headed,
"GLC tops list of efficient local authority purchasers",
reads:
"The Greater London Council tops the list of local authorities which run the most efficient purchasing divisions, according to a report by the independent Audit Commission, published today".
I should like to say that I chaired a committee which looked into the supply of books to schools. It was concerned not with how many books were sent to each school, but with how they got there, and with which were the most efficient organisations. When I and my committee visited the GLC's warehouse at South fields, where they dealt with all the orders, I was very much impressed by their efficiency. If they have to cope with all these contract demands which the clause which, unfortunately, has just been passed brings about, all this efficiency will be lost. The schools will be the losers, because they will get their goods, books and everything they want at a very much slower rate; and it is not only the GLC that they serve, but a good many counties and other authorities around

1311
London. So I hope very much that the House will support this amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Alport. We come back to ILEA, again, which, under the Government's proposals, is to be accorded exactly the same treatment as the GLC, although the Government have very different aims for both these bodies. So that is the first inconsistency. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, pointed out, all ILEA land and buildings are vested in the GLC and many large education service contracts are entered into by the GLC departments on behalf of ILEA.
As the noble Lord has already said, ILEA has been encouraged by central Government to dispose of buildings released by falling rolls, but the effect on the disposal programme of these new clauses which the Government have introduced into the Bill is likely to be a slowing down of the rate of disposals by adding another tier of approval, thus inhibiting ILEA's chances of achieving its budget target. There will also be a discouraging effect on private sector buyers in making bids on the open market for surplus property, because they know that they will be faced with unspecified delays in addition to those already suffered, because of waits for planning consent and so on. It seems to me that in relation to ILEA these clauses will be distinctly counter-productive.
There is one other point, which is that the amendments propose ceilings of £100,000 on maintenance contracts and £250,000 on main or capital contracts. But it really must be borne in mind that ILEA has heavier building maintenance programmes than average, by virtue of its much higher proportion of pre-1900 school buildings. So that again means that practically every ILEA building or maintenance contract will have to go before the Secretary of State, and the mind boggles at the tremendous build-up of applications in the department.
The final point is the question of contracts for goods and services, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned. I think I am right in saying that this is not really covered by his amendment, but it is another consideration which the Government ought to bear in mind. The GLC supplies department currently lets for ILEA approximately 120 contracts, valued at more than £100,000 each, almost all of which include goods and services required by ILEA and other education authorities in Greater London. We are not talking now only of contracts for new buildings or for maintenance. We are talking about exercise books, papers, text books, desks, chairs, school furniture, sports goods, protective clothing, floor coverings and so on. At this late hour, I shall not read the whole of my long list.
Many of these supplies of multifarious goods required for the proper running of schools can be achieved at a cheaper price on a larger contract, such as one over £100,000, but under the Government's proposals all these large contracts for this multiplicity of items are likely also to be caught in the net and will have to go to the Secretary of State. I am not making any ideological or political point, but is this practical,
1312
is it a sensible way to go about things and should not the Government think again about this?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am afraid that it is simply not possible to draw a clear distinction between the GLC in its role as a local authority generally and the GLC in its role as an education authority. The fact that we propose to reconstitute the ILEA as a separate corporate body after the abolition of the GLC does not mean that there can be no risk in the education field of the kind of abuse with which the Government's new clauses are designed to deal. The fact that the ILEA has not itself, so far as we are aware, committed this kind of abuse is not a sufficient reason for trying to distinguish it from the GLC in this context.
I accept without question the argument that it is important not to impede or disrupt the education service or any other service which the GLC and the MCCs now operate. The Government will obviously be seeking to process the applications for consent as speedily as possible and we shall be studying as a matter of urgency the possibility that general consents, for which the Bill provides, may be applicable to some of the transactions which the GLC undertakes as an education authority. What I cannot do at this stage is to give my noble friend a commitment that that will be so. I would emphasise once again that nobody who acts responsibly, prudently and reasonably has anything to fear from these new powers. It will be our prime objective to ensure that such responsible actions are not impeded by the consent procedures, and those procedures are emphatically not intended to allow the Government to exercise detailed control over matters which are essentially for local decision.
A practical difficulty arises both with the new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Alport and with any attempt to distinguish the operations of the ILEA from those of the GLC. Your Lordships will by now be familiar with the constitutional position that the GLC is the ILEA, acting through a special committee of the council, and that the ILEA has no separate corporate personality of its own. Thus, the GLC is a party to the contracts concerned, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to operate the distinction implied by my noble friend's new clause. In some cases it might be possible to say that the GLC was acting as an education authority, but in other areas where the eventual user or beneficiary was the ILEA the connection would be more tenuous and hard to disentangle. It is even possible that attempts to operate such a distinction could lead to delays in the handling of applications for consent and create more of a burden on the GLC.
Therefore on grounds at least of practicality, let alone principle, I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his new clause upon the absolute assurance, which I give him, that the Government will be taking steps to ensure that neither the education service of Inner London nor any of the other services which stand to be affected by the counter-obstruction measures will be unnecessarily impeded by the operation of these new but essential controls. I am absolutely in accord with my noble friend's concern about the working of these controls, and I ask him to accept that we shall look particularly closely at the position as regards the ILEA in terms of the consent

1313
position. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend's argument that it is impossible to divorce the ILEA, even though it is associated with the GLC, from the GLC proper. The fact of the matter is that contracts are agreed by the ILEA and then passed to the supplies department of the GLC. There is an operative and administrative division between the two bodies. There is no difficulty in practice in that being carried out, whatever may be the imposition of controls over the GLC for matters other than those relating to both the building needs and the supply needs of the ILEA.
I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend's assurance. I know that it is given in good faith and that my noble friend will do his best in the Ministry to expedite decisions, but there are bound to be delays because there will be differences of opinion on many occasions between his department and the department of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This is inherent in the Government's administration. Although my noble friend will, I am sure, extend every kind of goodwill, the fact of the matter is that this will harm education and make it more difficult for the Inner London Education Authority to carry out its functions properly, economically and efficiently. I am afraid that I cannot withdraw this amendment. Therefore, I hope that the House will divide over it.
11.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Alport, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mountevans, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gosford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Avon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bauer, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Belstead, L.

Camoys, L.

Biddulph, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Boardman, L.

Camnock, L.

1314

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kemsley, V.

Chelwood, L.

Kitchener, E.

Coleraine, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cowley, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cox, B.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Croft, L.

De Freyne, L.

Molson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Donegall, M.

Norfolk, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Perth, E.

Elton, L.

Pike, B.

Enniskillen, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Erne, E.

Radnor, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fisher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Romney, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Sandford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Savile, L.

Gray, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Southborough, L.

Haig, E.

Torphichen, L.

Hanson, L.

Townshend, M.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Trenchard, V.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hindlip, L.

Vickers, B.

Hives, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Inchcape, E.

Wynford, L.

Ingrow, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.7 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 10, insert the following clause:
("Boundary Commission special review.
.—(1) Within 14 days of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall instruct the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to carry out a special review and to report to the Secretary of State within four months of receipt of that instruction.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a special review shall consider only the areas of the metropolitan counties and Greater London and shall consist of a review of the boundaries of each district or borough in relation to their likely population and such allocation of functions as appears to the Commission to be proposed in the event of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council.
(3) In their report to the Secretary of State following a special review the Commission shall state what changes in local government areas appear necessary in the light of the special review including the alteration of the number of metropolitan districts within a metropolitan county or London boroughs within Greater London.
(4) The Secretary of State shall, within 28 days of receipt of a report from the Commission, lay the report before the House of Commons.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to require the Local Government Boundary Commission to conduct a review of districts and borough areas in the light of the abolition

1315
proposals. Under the Local Government Act 1972 the Local Government Boundary Commission is charged with making proposals to the Secretary of State for the Environment for effecting changes desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.
The boundaries of the existing metropolitan districts were drawn in 1972 in the context of an upper tier strategic county authority, and reflected the functions which were then conferred upon the lower tier councils. Under the Streamlining the Cities proposals, the districts are to inherit some services of a strategic nature currently undertaken by the metropolitan county councils.
There was much argument before the 1972 Act that the areas of some of the districts were too small. Clearly these arguments are bound to be revived with greater force if the current proposals become law. The Boundary Commission should now be considering whether the existing district boundaries will properly reflect their enhanced powers in 1986 to enable Parliament to be fully aware of the implications of the abolition proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, in formulating proposals for devolving the functions of the GLC and metropolitan county councils, the Government had to choose between preceding the changes by a review of the metropolitan districts and London boroughs and implementing any changes found necessary, or devolving the functions first and deferring the review until afterwards, so that they could then take account of the changes actually made and of experience gained in handling the devolved functions.
We chose the latter course, both for its practicality and for the very good reason that the commission's review would necessarily take some time, and we did not wish to delay one moment longer than we could avoid bringing relief to ratepayers from having to support the unnecessary expense of the upper tier authorities. It was an assumption implicit in our decision that the metropolitan districts and London boroughs are capable of carrying out the functions to be devolved to them. I'm fully confident that they are.
This amendment would in effect reverse our decision. It would require the commission to undertake reviews of 68 authorities in double quick time, based on assumptions about the precise delegation of functions in legislation that the House has not yet considered. I am certain that our decision to defer the commission's reviews until abolition and devolution of functions have been effected was the correct one. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment; but, in my view, the Minister—all too blithely—is making assumptions about the speed, if not the ease, with which the transfer will take place. For instance, may I draw his attention to the situation in West Yorkshire? An examination of the current size of the five districts in West Yorkshire reveals that it may be necessary to redraw the district boundaries to reflect the enhanced functions envisaged after 1986. Many options would be available. Should Calderdale and Bradford be combined, and also Leeds and Wakefield, to make more viable units, with
1316
Kirklees joined to one or other of those larger units? The Minister will have his own store of knowledge, ambition and aspiration in respect of those things. Those are matters which could be affected by the devolution of the powers.
Let us take Merseyside. Will the two smaller Merseyside districts of Wirral and Sefton be considered viable units to cope with the enhanced functions proposed for them? Should the current boundaries of Liverpool City be extended, if the city is to cope with the problems and fulfil its role as a regional centre? I have been given other illustrations.
The Minister may be satisfied that the manner in which the Government are proceeding is fully capable of taking account of the enormity of the upheaval. We suggest that there is a way to ask the Boundary Commission very quickly to see whether there is need for change in the way that we suggest in the areas within the metropolitan counties which are to be abolished. That of course is part of a continuing argument, which will not be resolved until after the event. I am prepared to wait and see. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Accounts and financial consultation]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 25, at beginning insert—
(" () This section shall come into force when an enactment has been passed by Parliament which provides for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and the transfer of their functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is on the theme that we have deployed more than once previously today and at other times. Quite frankly, it is designed to delay the operation of Clause 11, in this instance, until Parliament has approved the main abolition Bill. Like the earlier clauses in the Bill, Clause 11 makes the assumption that abolition will take place in the manner and to the timetable proposed in the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities.
Clause 11, which will come into force as soon as the Bill is passed, will give special privileges to the boroughs and districts to challenge GLC and MCC expenditure and to be consulted on their proposed budgets. Those special privileges can be explained only if the GLC and MCC functions are to be taken over by boroughs and districts. That is a decision yet to be made by Parliament when it considers an abolition Bill. On the basis of the plan so far revealed, however, only 46 per cent. of GLC spending and 30 per cent. of MCC spending will be inherited by the boroughs and the districts.
Historically, the Local Government Acts of 1933 and 1972, and the Local Government Finance Act of 1982, provide that, "any person interested" is entitled to inspect a local authority's accounts, and a "local government elector" for the area to which the accounts relate may challenge them and pursue his challenge, if he thinks fit, through the courts. It is important that the right to challenge the accounts has been given only to local government electors of the area in question; in other words, those persons to

1317
whom the authority is responsible through the ballot box. No other type of person or body of persons has such a right. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment would remove much of the point of Clause 11. Clause 11 is an important provision. This Bill is, after all, designed to allow the successor authorities every opportunity to prepare for the transfer of functions if and when abolition goes ahead. In order to be able to do so, they need some influence over the financial situation which they will eventually take over.
That is why we have included Clause 11 in this Bill. It in no way prejudges the main Bill; it is part of the paving process. The clause does not, therefore, confer undue power on the constituent councils. It gives them the same rights as local electors to object at audit; and it gives them an opportunity to influence decisions about expenditure and financing which will affect them. That is a perfectly reasonable and modest interest to confer on the constituent councils.
But if we were to accept this amendment, these provisions would be of little use. Waiting until summer 1985 would mean that it would be impossible for the constituent councils to be consulted before the GLC and MCC expenditure and financing were determined for 1985–86. It would be too late; and it might also be too late to challenge at audit of the 1983–84 accounts.
So Clause 11 gives the constituent councils the right degree of involvement in decisions which will affect them if abolition goes ahead. It will ensure that the GLC and MCCs must at least listen to the successor authorities before making decisions. To be effective, it has to come into operation as soon as this Bill is enacted. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate this point.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 25, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 43 has the purpose of removing the proposal to give districts and boroughs the right to challenge metropolitan county and GLC expenditure. The Minister will appreciate that these are all part of a piece with the earlier amendments, but nevertheless they deal with different parts of the Bill. Therefore, we have to attack the Bill whenever something that gives us offence takes place.
The right to challenge the accounts of a local authority has hitherto been given to the electors of the area of that authority, the people who can vote in elections to that authority and on whom its councillors ultimately depend for their seats. That principle has been repeated in the Local Government Acts 1933 and 1972, and the Finance Act 1982. The Bill proposes to extend that right to metropolitan district councils and to London boroughs. The Bill does not seek to extend the right to shire district councils but merely to create an entirely anomalous situation in Greater London and the metropolitan counties. The existing rights enable a local government elector to challenge first the auditor and then later, if necessary
1318
in the courts, the accounts and expenditure of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC.
The Government do not claim that local electors are unwilling or unable to exercise that right, nor do they show that there is any need for it to be extended. The amendment seeks to leave metropolitan county councils and the GLC on the same footing regarding financial responsibility as all other local authorities in the country. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the constituent councils will have a particular interest in the accounts for the years in question. They are accounts which relate to expenditure incurred in financial years in which the abolition proposals will have been very much in the minds of the authorities concerned. It is surely, therefore, entirely equitable and indeed necessary that the constituent councils have access and the right to object to the audit of the accounts of all three of these financial years, as any one of them might contain attempts to frustrate the task of the successor authorities.
There is no reason to think that constituent councils will abuse these rights. But if they did, the courts already have the power to award legal costs. They have a general power to award legal costs from any of the parties concerned. That discretion is important. There could be cases where, although the upper-tier authority was not found to be at fault, the constituent council have been perfectly justified in bringing the case to appeal—for example, because the upper tier had failed to give them all the facts. In such a case, the court might decide that it would be inequitable to lay all costs on the constituent council. I am advised that the normal principle of "costs follow the event" would ensure that constituent councils would have to pay all legal costs if they were in the wrong. That is surely sufficient safeguard against spurious challenges.
The Government are convinced that this is a necessary provision and one which extends to the successor authorities the same rights as individual electors already have. I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps be satisfied with that explanation.
On Question, amendment negatived.
12.21 a.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 8, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 since they roughly refer to the same area, and this will also save time.
Amendment No. 45: Page 9, line 3, leave out from ("consultation") to end of line 7.
Amendment No. 46: Page 9, line 9, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 11, and insert ("and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament")
Amendment No. 47: Page 9, line 11, at end insert—
(" () Before giving any such guidance as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above or making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council.")
Amendment No. 45 is to remove the general power of the Secretary of State to prescribe what information

1319
of past or future expenditure is to be provided by the metropolitan councils and the Greater London Council. Subsection (3) will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties to make available to constituent councils financial information of their past or proposed expenditure of a totally unspecified nature. It appears fairly obvious that the Secretary of State has no idea at this stage what sort of information he has in mind that he may require and is seeking some kind of blanket power to compel the local authorities to make available all kinds of information regardless of whether it is relevant or irrelevant, important or unimportant, and what its utility may be to the constituent councils.
The Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties are major elected organisations having contractual and other responsibilities to a large number of organisations and individuals. The disclosure of expenditure proposals in the blanket manner envisaged in paragraph (c) at present might well be prejudicial to the interests and rights of such organisations and such individuals. No clear requirement has been envisaged for power to be couched in such broad and unrestricted terms. Amendment No. 47 seeks to require the Secretary of State to have prior consultation with the authorities affected before giving guidance about consultation on budgets.
The power to give guidance is very wide. The courts have held that guidance can be perfectly proper even though it might result in a council being in breach of its statutory duties. It is important to ensure that the consequences of any guidance the Secretary of State proposed to give should be clearly understood on all sides before it is actually given. This amendment, following the previous one, requires prior consultation with the relevant local authorities. This duty to consult is already well precedented under Section 3(12) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which provides for consultation with the Secretary of State before he issues a code of practice or makes regulations relating to the publication of information.
It seems to me that these amendments would require the Secretary of State to be more precise in the already wide powers that he seeks to exercise and would limit his freedom to go on "fishing expeditions" that might cause difficulties, inconvenience or problems to a variety of organisations and private individuals. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 seeks to remove the subsection which requires the GLC and each of the metropolitan county councils to consult the borough or district councils in its area about its 1985–86 budget. These are the last budgets which will be implemented by the upper-tier authorities, and they will be important matters in the immediate run up to abolition. Therefore, the boroughs and districts have a reasonable and direct interest in them. It does not give them unreasonable powers. It does not give them any veto powers. But this provision will give the boroughs and districts an opportunity to influence decisions which will affect the state of affairs that they will inherit. I should have thought that was entirely
1320
reasonable. Subsection (2) is an important and necessary provision which will help towards a smooth transition.
Amendment No. 45 would remove the Secretary of State's discretionary power to make regulations prescribing what financial information the GLC and the MCCs shall make available to their constituent councils. It may help if I explain the circumstances in which we envisage that the power to make regulations would be exercised. It would be used only where upper-tier authorities were withholding information which the constituent councils needed as successor authorities. It is necessary as a safeguard. Provided all concerned behave responsibly, the power need never be used. But only by including it can there be a guarantee that constituent councils will get the information they need.
I had intended to speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. and if the noble Lord will bear with me, perhaps I may make a comment on them.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am obliged. Amendment No. 46 makes any regulations prescribing what information on expenditure the GLC and MCCs must make available to the constituent councils subject to affirmative resolution, instead of negative resolution. I have said already that regulations under subsection (3)(c) would need to be made only if upper-tier authorities were being unto-operative in letting constituent councils have necessary financial information. If it proved necessary, the Secretary of State would be exercising a power recently conferred upon him by Parliament in order to ensure that the objects of the Bill were being met. In such a case, negative resolution is the appropriate and adequate safeguard. Affirmative resolution would merely lead to unnecessary delay.
Amendment No. 47 would require the Secretary of State to consult the GLC and the MCCs. May I say that I recognise there are precedents for imposing such requirements on Ministers? But surely each case has to be judged on its merits. In the present case the Government do not believe that it would be right to require the Secretary of State to consult the abolition authorities before acting under subsection (3)(b) and (c). I want to make it perfectly clear that there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from consulting them, if that seemed necessary or desirable. However, to make it a requirement so to do would make the procedure less flexible and more protracted. It would be necessary to give the authorities a minimum amount of time to respond, and, if the first round led to substantial differences of opinion, a further round of formal consultations would be necessary. That really would lead to delay. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, and, broadly speaking, I am reasonably satisfied with the explanation he has given. I am a little taken aback that he does not seem willing to extend the consultation procedures provided already under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act—I

1321
mentioned Section 3(12)—to the metropolitan councils and the Greater London Council, which are coming to an end. Since the precedent has been established for the provision of information generally, it seems to me a pity that it is not being followed in this particular case. In view of the lateness of the hour, and the broadly satisfactory answer I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 48:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 49.
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
These are technical amendments which are consequential to the amendments on elections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 49:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Number of councillors to be appointed by constituent councils]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 51:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51, and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53.
[Printed earlier: col. 1181.]
These three amendments are consequential upon the changes which have been made to Part II of the Bill by Government amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments.]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
[Printed earlier: col. 1181 ]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 54:
In the Title: Line 12, after ("or) insert (", and disposals of land and contracts made by,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I must ask the Minister about this amendment. I cannot work out where it fits in and I am not sure whether there is a mistake and it should be inserted after the "or' or before. Can the Minister tell us where it goes?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, as I have said, this amendment is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 and introduces controls on the disposals of land and contracts made by the GLC and the MCCs. Although the phrase:
"to control the general expenditure powers of those authorities",
which already forms part of the Long Title of the Bill, could probably encompass these additional provisions, it would be helpful and more accurate to describe them explicitly in the Long Title.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the Minister know exactly where it goes? On what line does it go? The amendment reads incorrectly. There is something the matter with it, apart from its content.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I cannot see anything wrong with it, but I do not have a copy, so perhaps that is understandable.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I can help because I also was slightly puzzled. But as I understand it, it would read:
"to control the general expenditure powers of, and disposals of land and contracts made by, those authorities".
That is where the words should be inserted according to the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it goes in as marked and it is correct.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it goes in at line 12 of the Long Title.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before one o'clock.

Written Answers

  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY FROM SHOPLIFTING CHARGES
  Baroness Phillips Baroness Phillips asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many prosecutions for shoplifting have been prevented by diplomatic immunity.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): In the period from 1st January 1974 to 31st May 1984 we received from the police 214 reports of incidents in which property was alleged to have been stolen from shops by persons who were immune from prosecution because of an entitlement to diplomatic immunity.

  MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
  Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps they have taken to implement health circulars HC(81)13/LAC(81)9 and HC(83)21/LAC(83)15 concerning children in long-stay abnormality hospitals; and

  1323
  When they expect to be able to announce a timetable for the closure of all children's wards in long-stay abnormality hospitals.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): Arrangements for alternative care for children who are in long-stay mental handicap hospitals in England, and the timetables for change, are for the health authorities concerned in consultation with the relevant local authorities. We made it clear in the two circulars that mental handicap hospitals do not provide a suitable environment for children to grow up in. Circular HC(81)13/LAC(81)9 asked health authorities to identify mentally handicapped children in their care and to review their needs jointly with the relevant local authority to decide the best way to make more suitable provision for those unsuitably located. The circular gave details of the £ for £ scheme, by which £1 million was made available for voluntary bodies to match funds raised for alternative provision for children in mental handicap hospitals. The follow-up circular HC(83)21/LAC(83)15 asked regional health authorities to monitor the progress their districts were making in ensuring the most appropriate provision for mentally handicapped children outside hospital and to be prepared to report progress in the run-up to the annual review meetings with Ministers. It offered the National Development Team's advice to authorities on their plans for mentally handicapped children and indicated that on all visits to mental handicap hospitals the team would be taking a special look at the children using these. The circular also gave details of the additional £9 million being made available to authorities with special problems for projects to provide small homely units for mentally handicapped children in hospital who will continue to need care in a health setting.
  Authorities have made considerable progress in planning and four projects under the £ for £ scheme and 30 under the £9 million scheme will help bring nearly 300 children out of hospital.

  CORONARY ARTERY BY-PASS SURGERY
  Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many patients are currently waiting to undergo coronary artery by-pass surgery:

  (a) within the National Health Service;

  (b) under private arrangement.

  Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur: We do not collect numbers centrally on the numbers of patients waiting for particular operations.

  BANKS' ANNUAL ACCOUNTS: EEC DRAFT DIRECTIVE
  Lord O'Brien of Lothbury Lord O'Brien of Lothbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is their present position in negotiations on the European Commission draft directive (5692/81+Rev) on the Annual Accounts of Banks
  1324
  etc. taking into account the conclusions of the European Communities Committee 4th Report, Session 1981–82 (H.L. 42) and the subsequent debate (H.L. debates 8th February 1982).
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): The Commission issued a revision of its proposal for a directive on this subject on 14th March; an explanatory memorandum was submitted to Parliament on 13th April (5902/84). Discussions at expert level then began in Brussels in May; the Government expect these to continue for some time before recommendations can be made to the Council.
  We are taking full account of your Lordships' debate on the Select Committee's valuable report. But substantive discussion in Brussels of the coverage of the proposed directive has so far barely begun. On undisclosed reserves, the Government consider that the present proposal in principle runs counter to the trend towards the transparency and comparability of accounts established in other Community legislation.

  TRADE WITH IRAN
  Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is their policy on the promotion of trade with Iran.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead: It is the Government's policy, subject to export licensing regulations, to encourage British companies to trade with all countries where there is a market for their goods unless an internationally recognised embargo is in force. There is no such embargo on trade with Iran.

  SPECIAL QUOTA VOUCHERS: APPLICATION DATES
  Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  On what dates the applications for special quota vouchers were originally submitted of those United Kingdom passport holders who were invited for interview in July, August, September and October 1984 respectively.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): Details are as follows:

  Invited for Interview

  Ordinary Queue Application Date

  Priority Queue (Compassionate Cases and Dependants aged 65+) Application Date

  July 1984

  Mid/Late November 1976

  Late December 1976 (Applicants who applied in 1976 but only attained the age of 65 in 1984) and February 1984

  August 1984

  Late November/Mid December 1976

  Early April 1984/Early May 1984

  September 1984

  Mid/Late December 1976

  Early/Mid May 1984

  October 1984

  Late December 1976/Mid January 1977

  Applications now being received are given three months' notice of interview date

  THE SINGLE HOMELESS: FUNDING
  Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will make a statement about the funding after the abolition of the GLC of voluntary organisations concerned with the single homeless and currently funded by that council.
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 11th April [Vol. 58: col. 406–7] our decision that the main abolition legislation should include provision for a statutory basis for the collective funding by London boroughs and the Common Council of voluntary bodies serving London as a whole or an area wider than that of individual authorities. We have recently received a letter from the London Boroughs Association which records the Association's decision to support the proposal that these arrangements should, in principle, apply to projects forming part of the programme to replace the hostels previously owned by Rowton Hotels PLC. The association also envisages that the great majority of the projects now funded by the GLC and directly providing services for the single homeless will be recommended for grants under those arrangements; individual projects are to be assessed during the current year. We welcome this clear willingness by the members of the LBA to support the view that the London Boroughs should collectively assume responsibility for the funding of worthwhile voluntary activity in the housing field. This offers great reassurance to those organisations concerned about the arrangements for London-wide grants once the GLC is abolished. I am placing a copy of the association's letter in the Library of the House.

  EEC: UK FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION
  Lord Diamond Lord Diamond asked Her Majesty's Government:
  If the new system for the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the EEC agreed at Fontainebleau had been in effect ab initio, what effect (in sterling terms) would that have had on the net payments actually made in respect of the past four years.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield)The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): During the past four years the Government had to negotiate ad hoc refunds each year. These were becoming progressively more difficult to negotiate. As a result, our refunds were on a declining trend. The agreement at Fontainebleau gives us a fairer and more soundly based system for the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the Community. The system is both lasting and automatic in its operation. It gives the United Kingdom from 1985 onwards a rebate of 66 per cent. of the gap between our share of VAT payments and our share of expenditure from the Community's "allocated budget".
  The table below shows the net refunds we would have received had the Fontainbleau system applied to the period 1980 to 1983 compared with those we actually secured:

  Net Refunds received

  Net Refunds if Fontainbleau system had applied

  £ million

  1980

  645

  388

  1981

  783

  392

  1982

  624

  679

  1983

  441

  629