Lords Sitting of 18 June 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 Norwich.

UK Oil and Gas Developments: Orders
The Earl of Lauderdale: 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 percentage of orders for oil and gas development work and supplies for the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1983 was placed with companies based in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, in 1983 the total value of orders reported by operators for oil and gas development work on the United Kingdom continental shelf was £2.61 billion. United Kingdom-based companies won 72 per cent. (worth £1.88 billion) of these orders.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that, on the whole, encouraging Answer? Would he not agree first of all that the Government are to be congratulated on the success of their arm-twisting of oil companies to the extent that sometimes the companies are forced to accept British tenders for jackets and platforms at prices 10 per cent. above that of unsubsidised continental competitors? Will he not also agree that many of the British companies are not showing sufficient initiative and zest in going after the orders that are available?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend that there is satisfaction, of which the Government take a percentage, on the
2
excellent results coming from the North Sea. But, as he rightly says in the second part of his supplementary question, there should be no holding back, and we should continue to persevere in this field.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not wish to belittle in any way the achievements of the British industry; but will the noble Earl confirm that over the next decade or so 50 per cent. of all oil discoveries are likely to be offshore, and therefore the British industry should be in a very good position to take advantage of all the export trade that will flow from that—£20 billion worth of it? Is he aware that in our view the United Kingdom industry will not be able to take advantage of it unless the Government give a real lead and not mere exhortation? Can I have the noble Earl's assurance that the Government will give that lead?
The Earl of Avon: I very much hope, my Lords, that the noble Lord will agree that the Government, particularly the offshore office—which, I think, does exceptionally well in this field—are already doing so. The United Kingdom share of the market represents the value of the contracts and the main sub-contracts stemming from them, and these are placed with companies which through employment, manufacturing and subcontracting make a substantial contribution to our economy. I should also like to agree with the noble Lord that there is a lot of further work which we call do abroad on this, and that this should become an export market as well.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that it is very sad that the United Kingdom proportion of the expenditure on development drilling is this year down 11 per cent. as against last year, and that the participation, exploration and appraisal drilling is down to something like 34 per cent? Is it not the case that the terrible scandal of the Scott Lithgow affair has cast a blight over the whole industry and foreigners' appraisal of what our industry can do?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I very much hope that what my noble friend says at the end of his supplementary question is not the case. I believe that our North Sea oil industry has a great reputation. We

3
are at the moment building a great number of platforms and suchlike to help our oil industry progress. I hope very much, too, that the industry will continue to do so. I have no confirmation of my noble friend's figures.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the light of the very encouraging report that the noble Earl gave us, would be agree, in view of the fact that the peak of our activities in the North Sea is likely to be reached very soon, that it should be the objective of the Government to see that this becomes one of the growth industries of Britain worldwide, that we do not limit ourselves purely to our own shores but that we go out for business on the basis of a very determined plan?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says which, in part, is what I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. In fact, both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in the Department of Energy have been abroad to China and India to promote our export trade in this field.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that it is disappointing that even the service aspect of our interest in the North Sea, such as the support of personnel offshore, is now at a relatively low ebb—I think it is at about 50 per cent—and that surely is something which ought to be higher than it is at the present time?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have no figures to substantiate what my noble friend has said. When I have been abroad I have been very impressed by the number of our own people working there in offshore industries.

Glue Sniffing
2.42 p.m.
Lord Gridley: 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 action they intend to take following recent evidence suggesting that the rate of glue sniffing among young people is growing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, it is difficult to obtain reliable evidence of the extent of solvent misuse. The Government's policy through education and persuastion, is to help parents and the relevant services use existing skills, resources and powers to co-operate more effectively to discourage the habit of solvent misuse. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health announced on 15th December 1983 a package of measures designed to tackle the problem, including the funding of a post at the National Children's Bureau to collate and disseminate good practice, the production of training
4
materials for professionals and the preparation of a leaflet for parents, teachers and others; and the commissioning of research, and further consultations on guidelines on voluntary restraint on retail sales. My right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary has issued guidance to the police and has announced support in principle—subject to consultations—for the creation of an offence in England and Wales of knowingly selling substances to under-16s when they are likely to be inhaled to achieve intoxication.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very full Answer, which is appreciated and is reassuring. Has my noble friend any evidence of addiction with regard to glue sniffing, and, if so, is any action contemplated by the Government to deal with this problem?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the extent of the problem in terms of addiction is difficult to measure. It is not actually addictive in the same way as drugs or cigarette smoking are; it is more of a dependency. We have no firm information on numbers, but all the indications are that, of all those who sniff, 95 per cent. give it up and only 5 per cent. require special help.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the Government will undoubtedly be aware of the recent case in Scotland in which, without legislation, the High Court of Justiciary held that it was a crime at common law to sell glue sniffing kits to children. One notes from the Minister's reply the intention to introduce legislation covering England and Wales, but do the Government not think that it is somewhat unsatisfactory that in Scotland there is such a crime, the penalties for which might indeed be two, three or five years' imprisonment, whereas in England, no doubt, the legislation would introduce much smaller penalties? Do the Government not think it desirable that any such legislation should apply uniformly throughout the United Kingdom, so that the courts on both sides of the border are given guidance as to penalties which is to the same effect?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be more familiar than I am with the differences between Scottish law and English law, but the fact is that the common law in Scotland does allow the imposition of a penalty in the way that he described. But so far as legislation is concerned, the Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Act 1983 states that the misuse of volatile substances is grounds for a referral for compulsory care, whereas in England and Wales the existing legislative framework under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 allows for a child or young person below the age of 17 to be detained in a place of safety if his health is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or if he is being mistreated.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, on that point may I just say that in asking my question I am not concerned about the children—though, of course. I am very concerned about the children—but about the penalties on the suppliers, which should be uniform on both sides of the border?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that in his consultation my right honourable friend will take note of that point.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, so far as smoking and glue sniffing are concerned, young people are more likely to indulge in both of these to the extent that it might become a habit if the Government tell them that they should not?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend may have a point. That is why I think it is important that these things are tackled gently, and not in too harsh a fashion in the way suggested by those who say that immediate legislation might solve the problem.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, to offset the case mentioned by my noble friend, is the Minister aware that an informal campaign initiated by the National Chambers of Trade has issued notices to very many shops? This is an entirely voluntary action on behalf of shopkeepers which I think should be applauded.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware of that but I think it sounds an excellent idea and I certainly commend it.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that it is not only glue which is highly dangerous and may be lethal? Has my noble friend's attention been drawn to a recent survey which includes petrol and other solvents? Will he really take notice of the very disturbing figures which are constantly published?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, there are a great many substances of which we are aware which have the same effect, and we shall certainly note what my noble friend has said.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that the principle enunciated by his noble friend Lady Macleod, who usually voices very welcome principles in this House, is a little dangerous? Does he agree that, if we are dealing with things which can harm young people, to keep silent upon them because young people might wish to be rather difficult and do just the opposite would lead us to no action at all? In the circumstances, does he think that to encourage some programmes on the media pointing out how dangerous this habit can be to young people might be a useful addition to the measures which he has announced to the House?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that the media can help in this respect, but I think we have to await the results of the initiative which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health announced last December.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the Government are doing any research into a possible correlation between the glue sniffing problem among young people and the availability of cheap heroin among young people? Will he tell us whether it is becoming clear that the linkage
6
of those two together relates to the ports of our country and the big cities close to the ports? Is there any research on this particular aspect of glue sniffing and cheap heroin and the areas near the ports where there is some evidence that this is going on? Are the Government looking at that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know specifically whether any direct correlation between the two has been investigated. I am sure there is merit in looking at it, and shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to what has been said.
Lord John-MackieMy Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, had a very good point, but, if she will excuse me for saying so, I think she put it badly. It is not saying "No" to it: it is the publicity it gets which makes children inquisitive.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may well be true.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, could the Minister inform me whether a record is kept of fatalities due to solvent abuse, including glue sniffing, and, if so, whether he has figures available?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes. The information is that deaths totalled 80 in 1983 as against 60 in 1982, but the increase should not necessarily be interpreted as an increase in the practice because there are all sorts of compounding variables. For example, it may be that more deaths are reported because of a greater awareness of the practice which has been brought about through media coverage.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government, in their propaganda on this subject, might not merely take the negative attitude of saying, "Don't sniff glue", but take the positive attitude of saying, "If you want to sniff something, sniff snuff, which is less harmful"?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we debated snuff and smoking last week, and I am sure that noble Lords had an opportunity then to discuss this matter.

Dr. and Mrs. Sakharov
2.51 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 make representations to the Soviet Government, and encourage other governments to do likewise, concerning their treatment of Andrei Sakharov, the Nobel prize-winner, and his wife Yelena Bonner.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have repeatedly made clear to the Soviet authorities our concern at the treatment of Dr. Sakharov and his wife, Mrs Yelena Bonner. My right honourable and learned friend raised the question with Mr. Gromyko in

7
January. On his recent visit to Moscow, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Trade spoke to a senior Soviet Minister of British concern about the latest disturbing developments. We remain in close contact with other like-minded governments. Following an initiative of the United Kingdom, in the Ten, the Presidency made a démarche to Mr. Gromyko in May. We will continue to seek ways of helping Dr. and Mrs. Sakharov.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that is a most welcome and encouraging response to the Question that I put down, which will give great encouragement not only to Dr. Sakharov and his wife but to all decent people thoughout the world? Is she further aware that Dr. Sakharov at this moment in time is being forcibly fed, and that his wife, who has a serious heart condition, is being refused medicament from the people other than Russians? This attitude of the Soviet Union is devoid of any sense of compassion and, what is more, is bereft of any civilised behaviour of ordinary people throughout the world. Would she not agree it is right that our Government should progress and make further representations so that this appalling situation and treatment of these two human beings—one being a Nobel prize-winner—should be brought to an end, and that they should be afforded normal, civilised attitudes.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer to the noble Lord, we have repeatedly made clear to the Soviet authorities our concern about the treatment of Dr. Sakharov. As I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, it would not he appropriate for me to disclose any particular points of an agenda which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary might raise when he visits Moscow in July; but clearly my right honourable friend will have these developments in mind.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, as she has said, any abuse of human rights is to be condemned wherever it occurs? But is it not the case that it is even more offensive when it occurs in parts of the so-called free world? Would she not agree that the gross abuse of human rights in Turkey, a NATO country, is equally strongly to be condemned? Are the Government taking similar action in these cases?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have made clear in your Lordships' House on several occasions that Her Majesty's Government condemn the violation of human rights wherever this may occur.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her last remark will be welcomed very much indeed, and that one cannot claim to be a standard-bearer of civilised behaviour if it only applies to one particular part of the world and not to others? Is she further aware that if her right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary can make representations to the Soviet Union on behalf of these two people, of all those millions in the world, then perhaps they will make representation in other parts of
8
the world whenever civilised human behaviour is threatened, abused and savaged?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not absolutely clear that I followed the precise question the noble Lord has asked; but we have, in the case of Dr. Sakharov and Mrs. Bonner, followed events very closely and we have repeatedly made our views known to the Soviet authorities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it would be welcome if the Foreign Secretary were to make representations to the Soviet Union on behalf of these two human beings, and then later, if necessary, to any other part of the world which denies its people the standards which we enjoy in Great Britain?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question I think that I did make clear that although it would not be appropriate to disclose the detailed points of an agenda in advance of the visit to Moscow by my right honourable friend, I have no doubt that he will have in mind the developments that have been raised by the noble Lord.

Unemployment Figures
2.56 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 what are the latest unemployment figures, and what conclusions can be drawn from them.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment increased by 18,000 to 3,029.000 in May, following a fall of 1,000 in April and a rise of 7,000 in March. These increases must be considered in the context of recent productivity improvements, demographic factors and the encouraging growth in employment in the last nine months of 1983.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply, but is it not a fact that one conclusion transcends any other in these figures—namely, that the plight of the long-term unemployed continues to increase both in depth and numbers? Is it not a fact that, apart from the young people employed in youth employment training schemes, anybody at present being made unemployed has a far greater chance of joining those long-term unemployed figures than was the case 12 months ago?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not sure whether the latter conclusion could be drawn, particularly as we do have an encouraging sign in the very significant increase in employment. About 200,000 more people are now likely to be in jobs this year than last year. The labour market is also growing. However, I agree strongly that the plight of the long-term

9
unemployed, now over one million, is very serious indeed, and of course the big structural and technical changes in industry are largely responsible for this.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, when the noble Earl talks about the growth of employment, would be not agree that in fact there has been a growth in the labour force and that therefore the greater employment is not necessarily going to narrow the gap between those in employment and those who are unemployed?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very grateful the the noble Lord. That was my very point: it is certainly gratifying and encouraging that there has been a growth in the numbers of people working as well as in the growth of the labour force.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the quarterly report of the Manpower Services Commission, which was published over the last few days, reveals some extremely disturbing figures? In addition to the figure he has just quoted of over a million people out of work for over 12 months, is it not the case that the number of those who are employed in manufacturing jobs is reduced and that full-time employment is continuing to fall seriously? Is he aware that what the whole House wants to know is what specific steps the Government are proposing to take to help? Are they proposing now to invest in capital schemes so as to provide work in road building, bridge building, school building and hospital building, which many economists say would not necessarily affect the Government's policy with regard to inflation? Is it not high time that the Government took some concrete steps to help these people, especially the young school-leavers, who are out of work?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, on help for young school-leavers, as the House will be aware from recent debates and from some of the answers that I have given lately, the Government are spending nearly £2.000 million in total this year. We are currently bringing direct help through special schemes to nearly three-quarters of a million young people and we are seeing some encouraging signs that this policy is bearing fruit. On the point about capital projects, as I know from my experience in Northern Ireland, there is no evidence whatsoever that intensive expenditure on capital projects brings about a sustained growth in employment.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the noble Earl be good enough to give us the Government's estimate of what the number to be added on to the figures he gave in his first answer is in respect of those available for work, in addition to those whom he has already described? If he does not have that estimate, can he tell us when these figures will be available?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I should have to take advice on both of those points and could then, either in correspondence or by a separate Question, answer the noble Lord. But I could add—which might be helpful—that there is also an increase in the seasonally adjusted level of vacancies. We have had the third
10
successive monthly rise and the level in May was no less than 15 per cent. above the May 1983 position. So that is another encouraging factor.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the figures he gave in regard to the increase in employment are statistically suspect; that they have been the subject of some adjustment that remains still to be detailed and explained? Is he aware that, of the total unemployed at this time, over 1,400,000 have been out of work for over a year, that, of that total, 310,000 have been out of work for over three years and that that total of 1,400,000 includes 330,000 people of under 25? Does the noble Earl agree that the time has now come really to take some positive and concrete action in order to break the whole figure of long-term unemployment which at the moment appears to be absolutely intractable?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, what is in no sense suspect is the encouraging sign that, though the workforce has been growing in this country, so has the number of people going into real and sustained employment. The noble Lord must be aware that the United Kingdom has a large workforce relative to our continental competitors. We have 66.2 per cent. of our working age population in work, as against some 45 per cent. in Spain, 54 per cent. in Italy, 55 per cent. in Ireland, 60 per cent. in France and 61 per cent. in Germany. So, while we have a larger scale of problem on the one hand, you could put it that we have greater success on the other.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Earl the Minister not recall telling me last week that political decisions do not make jobs and employment? Will he have regard to what has taken place since last Thursday in this country, bearing in mind that most responsible people accept the view that 50 per cent. of present unemployment in this country is a direct result of Government policies? Is it not time for the Government to review their policies in their own interests, in view of the election results that are now coming through?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I would point out to the House that the party of the Government remains by far the largest victor in the recent European elections. But, on the point connected with employment which the noble Lord raised, I urge him and all of your Lordships to be very responsible in this respect. Any politician who says that policies rather than customers can create sustained employment is misleading people.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, since the advance of technology now seems to show that full employment in the old sense is unlikely to be attained—certainly not in the immediate future—is any thought being given to a world in which we may be living in a post-full employment situation, and in which different moral considerations and different methods of financing this world might exist? Is any thought being given to this?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, thought is, of course, given by my department on these issues. But as I said in answer to a previous supplementary question, the fact that we have 66.2 per cent. of our working age population in work is encouraging, and my firm belief is that, if we can go on increasing our competitiveness, and if we can maintain a stable financial climate, we can improve greatly on that figure.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment, the Report stage of the Video Recordings Bill will be continued. If the Report stage is not completed within the hour, it will be resumed at the end of today's business at approximately 10.30 p.m.
London Transport (Tower Hill) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

London Regional Transport Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Provision of passenger transport services for Greater London]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert ("and, where necessary, including the provisions of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the problems of meeting the needs of disabled people under the new authority. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, tabled an amendment at Report stage which was warmly welcomed not only by myself but, I believe, by the whole House, in that it clearly placed a responsibility upon London Regional Transport, and he set out his explanation of the implication of his amendment. He said:
"It makes it absolutely clear that LRT's general duty extends to disabled people, and this point is important in relation to some of the other amendments which we are discussing today."
He then went on to say that the term "public passenger transport services" covers,
"those people who are slightly disabled or who have some difficulty in using the buses and the Underground…the term also applies to those who need wheelchairs and ramps in order to travel; in other words those who cannot use the usual public transport services at all. So LRT will have a general duty to have due regard to the needs of all those people, including those who depend on special services such as dial-a-ride." [Official Report, 7/6/84; cols. 797–798.]
The reason I am quoting from the noble Earl, and will do so again, is that when I moved an amendment in identical terms at Report stage he gave these assurances and a number of others and suggested that we should see whether, in the light of what he had said and what the Bill contained, we were satisfied not with the Government's position on those who could use buses and Tubes, but on those who could not use buses and Tubes. He went on to say, (still in col. 798):
"The Government are quite satisfied… that Amendment No. 6"—
that is, the Government's amendment—
"backed up by provisions of Clause 34, which requires LRT to include in its annual report to the Secretary of State a specific statement of the action it has taken in relation to public transport provision for disabled people, will ensure not only that needs of disabled people are not overlooked but, much more positively, that LRT will have a clear remit to work towards developing and improving those services."
That was a very important statement. It was the kind of assurance that one wanted to hear—particularly those of us who are concerned with those who have special disabilities, some of which are being met by dial-a-ride and other organisations like it, to which very warm tribute was paid, quite rightly, from all parts of the House at the Report stage. It is fair to say that there are tens of thousands of disabled people who are dependent upon such schemes and who, without them, would be housebound—unable to visit their relatives, unable to go to any forms of entertainment, tied to their houses. We have a responsibility to ensure that schemes like this. which are now steadily expanding and which will, it is hoped. eventually expand to all parts of London, will be absolutely safe.
The noble Earl asked that we should, as I said, read his assurances in order to see just how things were going to work out. But later in his speech, at col. 802, the noble Earl said something totally different. When I read it again it concerned me greatly. I consulted widely to see whether others who are involved were or were not satisfied. It is for this reason, after consultation, that I have tabled this amendment. At col. 802 the noble Lord said:
"…we did not believe it appropriate to impose a duty. on LRT either to prepare proposals or, in point of fact, to give effect to them".
At that point we were referring to those severely disabled people who are unable to use normal bus and Underground services. The noble Earl went on to say:
"… it is the local authorities who should have the responsibility for identifying the need for such services and for organising and financing them as part of a more general provision which they make to help severely disabled people. It is not a duty which the Government believe we should place on a body charged with providing public transport services for the capital".
I believe that any fair noble Lords—and we are all fair—would accept that that statement is totally different from the assurance that had been given by the noble Earl. I fully accept that he went on to say:
"I fully accept that LRT may be able to assist with technical and other expertise".
I hope that they will do so hut, frankly, that is not enough. It does not provide any guarantee that the funds will be made available. The assumption that paying for this is a responsibility which will fall upon the local authorities does not stand up to examination. I have the exact figures of the commitments for this

13
year from the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides. The GLC has approved funding of £1,603,469. The sum available from local authorities will be £120,435. That is, 6.8 per cent. of the total will come from local London authorities and the remainder from the GLC.
When one looks at which authorities have paid, there are only three. At least two of them are supposed to be on the hit list for rate capping. It is very interesting that the largest contributions come from Islington and from Lambeth. They make up about 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the whole modest total from local authorities. If that be the situation, the noble Earl has not given an assurance. If he is confident that London Regional Transport should fulfil this responsibility, as he said in the passages which I quoted, it is very difficult to understand why that commitment should not be written into the legislation. Simply to leave it to chance when we are talking about the needs of severely disabled people is not good enough.
I received a letter only this morning from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, in which they say:
"Great support was given to the amendment during the debate".
The association were referring to the amendment which I moved.
"It is doing no more than writing into the Bill the continuing verbal commitments made by Government Ministers throughout the passage of the Bill. Unless this is done, disabled people will not have protection of the law in maintaining special transport services in future. We do not underestimate the present Government commitment to continuing such services but without the amendment, disabled people will continue to be entirely dependent on the goodwill of successive governments. Able-bodied people will not be in this invidious position and it is quite unreasonable that disabled people should be."
I say, in conclusion, in moving the amendment that, however welcome the noble Earl's assurances are, unless something is written into the Bill which ensures that London Regional Transport have a responsibility, many of us will feel that this House and this Parliament have let down those who need transport most; namely, disabled people and especially those who are confined to their wheelchairs. I hope the amendment will be accepted by the Government Front Bench but, if not, I hope the House will accept the amendment, because that is our responsibility to disabled people in this country. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment. I have put my name to it because I feel it is essential that something about special transport services should be clearly stated in the Bill, despite the noble Earl's assurances. My noble friend Lady Masham of Ilion, who cannot be here today, says that she feels the same. I should like to make two points. The first is from the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who has had to leave the Chamber. He very much wants to have assurances about the future of the taxis of the new, accessible design when, in two years' time, they start to come into operation. He seeks only the simple Government assurance that the London Regional Transport authority will use its powers to subsidise disabled people's journeys by taxi. He makes the point that this would give London the best, most flexible and, in public expenditure terms, the cheapest system of public transport for disabled
14
people anywhere in the world. The noble Lord says that there is already a lot of interest in other countries in the new British design of taxi which makes this possible.
I was also going to quote a good deal from col. 802 which contains the noble Earl's words. However, I should like to refer to the last quotation from the noble Earl by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. The noble Earl said:
"It is not a duty which the Government believe we should place on a body charged with providing public transport services for the capital".
I find that statement amazing, because LRT is precisely the right body to deal with transport services, whether special or otherwise, for the disabled inhabitants of London. We must move away from what is a very old-fashioned attitude; namely, that the local authority knows best. This is a very "nannying" point of view.
We should listen to what the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides say on this point. They know best; they are the experts. They say:
"London-wide services are the only way of providing us with the special services that many of us need and with the integration that all of us need, and on the basis of a lower overall cost than fragmented borough services. We need public transport services at public transport fares, not an approach which regards us as social service cases".
If LRT does not accept responsibility for special transport services, they may well founder. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, disabled people will he left stranded in their homes without any means of transport. The amendment is mild and is very reasonable. It is only to "have due regard to", and I feel that it is necessary. I hope that the noble Earl may even agree.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We have here, surely, one of the problems that invariably arise when one breaks up an organisation that has been responsible for certain activities and then expects that responsibility to be accepted without question by a whole group of smaller organisations which, in fact, may or may not accept it. There is nothing to compel them to do so; and, therefore, this is what happens. One cannot expect matters to run as smoothly as they have in the past—though I am not holding for a moment that the GLC is without its sins, as none of us is. But in breaking up such an organisation one has to realise that, somehow, the various responsibilities which it has had have to be firmly fixed elsewhere, so that those who are without any kind of defence will not suffer.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if I may I would join in from these Benches in the absence of my noble friend Lord Banks, who was active during the earlier stages of the Bill on this issue. The amendment has our strong support. In a sense it is the price that the Government have to pay for the way in which they have gone about organising London Regional Transport. I shall say more about that generally at a later stage this afternoon. It cannot be left to chance, and I detect that it is the mood of your Lordships' House that it cannot be left to chance in the hands of this great patchwork of local authorities in London. With the best will in the world they cannot put together in present

15
circumstances the same sort of cohesive practice which London Regional Transport ought to be putting together in the absence of the umbrella of the GLC.
The Government tell us that they are to remove the GLC. We shall see about that later. In the meantime, they have gone down this road of London Regional Transport, which, as I have said many times, is the road of fragmentation. I believe that this issue, among all the other issues, is one where there should not be fragmentation and where the disabled should be properly catered for in the Bill and not merely by assurances from the Government Front Bench, however attractive they may be.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, briefly. I should also like to support this amendment. The dial-a-ride services are vital and ought to be provided on a London-wide basis, and not by each individual local authority.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I said at Report stage that if any anxiety still remained after the assurance I gave I would be happy to look at the matter again. I have now had discussions with my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, as, indeed, has my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox. We have thought seriously since then about how best we could ensure that we were not leaving disabled people with doubts and worries. After due consideration we believe that our proposal is the right solution, and I shall now try to persuade the House to agree.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the rational way in which he put his views, and I shall try to do the same. I believe that I have made it clear that in substance there is nothing between us. We all want dial-a-ride and other things to continue progressing, as things are progressing now, and we hope they will progress in the future. I should like to make clear that the words "public passenger transport services" as used in the Bill cover special transport services for the disabled. That is already on record, but I am happy to put it on record again.
I fully appreciate the concern expressed about the future of funding the services like dial-a-ride. We do not want to leave anything to chance, any more than the rest of the House. We should not lose sight of the fact that the money the GLC is using to fund these services currently has been obtained from the boroughs through the GLC precept. If the GLC, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested, ceases to exist, that money will be available to the individual boroughs to allocate on the basis of their own assessment of need or priorities. It is clear that if such services are to have a long-term future they must have the same regard to efficiency and cost as every other part of the public transport system. I believe it is right that in future boroughs will be able to look across the full range of their priorities and to allocate funding as they think best within those priorities.
The Government have already made their contribution to help dial-a-ride achieve a sounder basis for the future through the announcement of the setting-up of a London branch of the National Advisory Unit for Community Transport. As I told the House at an earlier stage in our discussions, the
16
Government will be setting-up and funding this branch as an off-shoot of the national advisory unit, whose excellent work in the community transport field will already be well known to many in the House. The London branch should be coming into operation within a matter of weeks now, and will be concerned specifically to work with local schemes to ensure that they are developing along sensible and cost-effective lines. They will be giving guidance and advice on a wide range of financial and operational issues to all those in London who are concerned with the provision of transport for the disabled.
I have already told the House at an earlier stage of the clear undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, on the provisions to be made for disabled people. She said very clearly that instructions would be given to LRT by the Secretary of State to work towards improving their own vehicles and infrastructure with the needs of the disabled in mind. It has also been made absolutely clear that the London Regional Passengers' Committee, the consumer body for LRT, will include at least one person specifically to represent the needs of the disabled, and that that person would also be invited to join the Minister of State's panel of advisers on disability at the Department of Transport.
I appreciate that none of this alters the strongly-held view of the Government that those best placed to identify the particular needs of the disabled are those closest to them; that is, the local authorities. I hope that the House will recognise this point. We must never forget that we are not concerned here only with the articulate disabled, who might well be able to make their demands known to a London-wide organisation. We are most concerned with the majority of disabled people, who are not so articulate, such as the frail and the elderly. Unless they are looked after by someone with the closest possible local knowledge and understanding, they will, quite simply, be overlooked.
I believe that it would be counter-productive to refer to the provision of special services in this Bill. There is a real risk that the intentions of the Bill will be misinterpreted. People will inevitably infer that LRT would then be responsible for identifying, and funding, these special needs. What we want LRT to do is to co-operate at a practical level with those who are much better placed to identify the real needs. As has been said many times during the passage of this Bill, that is what we propose for LRT and that is what we intend to see happen. What we want LRT to do is to co-operate at a practical level with those who are much better placed to identify the real needs. As has been said many times during the passage of this Bill, that is what we propose for LRT and that is what we recommend to the House.
We have devoted much time today, and in previous debates, to discussing the merits of services like dial-a-ride and the subsidised taxi scheme. I endorse their value. These services have undoubtedly opened up opportunities to disabled and elderly people which they have never had before. Steps taken over recent years are to be applauded. It is equally important to ensure that such schemes are not simply a temporary phenomenon. We need to ensure that they have a sound basis in economic reality. I hope that noble

17
Lords will feel that the way we provide is the right way forward, and, with the assurances I have given, the best of the options which are open to us. Our reluctance over this amendment stems not from any lack of concern or understanding but, on the contrary, from the the belief that we are doing the best we can in this way to ensure that disabled people's needs are not overlooked.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I rise to make one brief point, and that is to support and underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. All this amendment seeks to do is to include in the duty of the authority a duty to "have due regard to" the needs for these facilities. That is all it is. It merely says that, in law one should not take a responsible decision without having regard to these needs. If the Government cannot accept that, one will be left in the greatest doubt about the sincerity of the words which the noble Earl, himself certainly sincere, has just uttered.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am very disappointed in the reply given by the noble Earl. I do not for one moment doubt his sincerity. He has been kind enough to consult his colleagues and he has told us the conclusion, which is that our proposal is the right way. He has consulted his colleagues. May I ask him what consultation there has been with those organisations which exist for the sole purpose of representing disabled people, and which know the interests of disabled people on a day-by-day basis? What consultation has there been with bodies such as RADAR, and the joint committee on mobility for the disabled? I would guarantee that if the noble Earl had had consultation with any of them—the Spastics Society, or the rest—they would also have said that they need not just a ministerial assurance, or two ministerial assurances, as he has said; they need it written into the Bill. It is not good enough simply to say, "We will leave it to the London boroughs".
At the Report stage the noble Earl at column 803 of Hansard said:
"We believe that services such as Dial-a-Ride, which, as the House well knows, we welcome, fall properly within the responsibility of local authorities in a general context; and we believe that that is where they should remain".
In the light of the record so far of the performance of local authorities in financing schemes such as Dial-a-Ride, where they have paid only 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. over the years and have not pledged more for the future, bearing in mind that many of them will, rightly or wrongly, have their expenditure heavily restricted, how can the noble Earl be satisfied that the needs of disabled people who cannot use London Transport will be met? He referred to Clause 2(7) which is about public passenger transport services. Nowhere does it state that the special needs of disabled people need to be even considered, let alone met.
If this amendment is not put into the Bill, it could well be that there will be no way in which the noble Earl can give an assurance that London Regional Transport will carry the burden which until now has been carried by the GLC. We should then be faced with the possibility either that the scheme, which is growing well and is giving a marvellous service, would fall apart, or that we should have to go around with
18
collecting boxes, as all the other societies which are represented on RADAR and the other bodies have to do, collecting money voluntarily. If the Minister believes that London Regional Transport has a responsibility in this regard, there can be no logical reason why that commitment should not be written into the Bill. I believe that we must press the Minister, or rather, since he has not made any concession, that we must press this matter to a vote.
3.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships' divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 101.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Longford, E.

Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McCluskey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brockway, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Munster, E.

Chitnis, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Plant, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Reilly, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Roberthall, L.

Denington, B.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Somers, L.

Ezra, L.

Spens, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stallard, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stamp, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howard of Troon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Reivaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cairns, L.

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Avon, E.

Cockfield, L.

Bauer, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Craigton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

19

Denham, L, [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denning, L.

Molson, L.

Derwent, L.

Mottistone. L.

Donegall, M.

Moyne, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles, V.

Northchurch, B.

Effingham, E.

Norwich, Bp.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Glanusk, L.

Polwarth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodney, L.

Gowrie, E.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Savile, L.

Halsbury, E.

Semphill, Ly.

Hayter, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Kilmany, L.

Swinton, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Terrington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Lovat, L.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Vickers, B.

McFadzean, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Margadale, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.41 p.m.
Clause 6 [Obligations to invite tenders]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) In carrying out their duties under subsection (3) above London Regional Transport shall have due regard to the general conditions of service and wages exercised by persons submitting tenders.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ask for a little more assurance from the Government that when work is subcontracted by London Regional Transport the conditions of employment shall be reasonable and fair to the employees and ultimately to LRT. In Committee I tabled an amendment in which I asked that work under a tender should be carried out in accordance with recognised wages and conditions—wording to which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, took exception because he felt that it was too firm, too strong, and too inhibiting on LRT. The noble Earl said that an attempt could be made to find slightly different words, and the words in the present amendment ask merely that LRT, when calling for tenders, have,
"due regard to the general conditions of service and wages".
20
of the people in the organisation which has been asked to tender.
The point was made previously that we do not want cowboy operators and that it is important to look at the general conditions of service and wages, rather than merely the wages because, as I pointed out, frequently cowboys are paid very high wages for doing a job but all the other conditions are missing such as the assurance of decent working conditions, or even insurance while working on a job. All these points are omitted. When a big job is to be put out to tender by organisations as responsible as LRT they make very sure of the background and the bona fides of the firm they are asking to tender. In fact, if the job is sufficiently big, there will be a special list of only two of three firms that will be acceptable. It is often difficult for sub-contractors to get on those lists because there are required contractors of which the firms have had experience and which the firms believe will be able to return an honest tender and, if selected, do a good job.
All this amendment asks is that for the medium to smaller jobs LRT makes itself aware of the status of the firm which it is asking to carry out the sub-contract work and that it shall have due regard to the general conditions of service and wages paid by the firm. It is a minimum requirement which does not tie down LRT in any way. We ask merely that LRT informs itself in a little detail of the type of firm it is dealing with and does more than just use the Yellow Pages—if ever LRT would do that.
It is asking very little. It would be wrong, on such a mild amendment for the Minister to say, "Of course LRT would do this", as he said on the previous amendment. We should like the words "due regard" to be inserted. I believe that the case is just as strong for this amendment and that the Minister should accept that London Regional Transport should have "due regard" to the type of firm it is dealing with as regards wages and service. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for again introducing us to this topic; I believe that it is the third time we have gone over it. I appreciate that the noble Lord has made an attempt to meet my earlier criticisms of the drafting, but I still do not think that he has made a case for the substance of the principle of the amendment.
In our earlier discussions I sought to emphasise that Clause 6 provides LRT with a discretion to determine what activities carried on by it might appropriately be put out to tender. Having identified such an activity, LRT is then required to invite other people to submit tenders to carry on those activities. The invitation to tender may specify the period during which the activity is to be carried on, and the basis on which it is to be carried on. LRT is then obliged to accept a tender where the result would be to have the activity carried on in a satisfactory manner and at less cost. Those duties are equally applied to LRT's subsidiaries.
The noble Lord's amendment seeks to add a further rider. LRT would be obliged to,
"have due regard to the general conditions of service and wages exercised by persons submitting tenders".

21
I hesitate to comment on the noble Lord's drafting, but I must say that I find his reference to "general conditions of service" somewhat imprecise; and I am not sure that either conditions of employment, which I think is his meaning, or wages can in themselves be "exercised".
Be that as it may, as the noble Lord said, the thinking behind the amendment is clear. It is aimed at securing fair competition on equal terms. I believe that I, in my turn, made the Government's position clear in our earlier debates. We are keen to encourage competition. We believe that it holds the key to obtaining a better service. We are not anxious to insert unnecessary obstacles.
I sympathise with some of the noble Lord's remarks, but as I have said before (in particular in response to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, at an earlier stage) we do not believe that Clause 6, as drafted, will in any way encourage cowboy operators. LRT must be satisfied that the activity in question will be carried out both in a satisfactory manner and at less cost. It will be in its own interests to ensure that it does not enter into contracts with disreputable or unscrupulous employers. It will be in its own interests to ensure that the person submitting the tender can be relied upon—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Earl makes the point that LRT should not grant tenders to unscrupulous employers. If there is no obligation written into the Bill how will LRT know whether they are unscrupulous?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me in mid-flow of a marvellous sentence. But to go hack to where we were before, I should say that equally "general conditions of service" is so imprecise in itself. How would you identify that? What would that mean? As I was saying, it would be in LRT's own interests that the persons submitting the tender could be relied upon to provide continuity of supply and a satisfactory level of service throughout the period of the tender. We simply do not believe that LRT should be under a statutory duty to have regard to the conditions of employment, or the level of wages, of other employers. LRT must surely be allowed to exercise its own commercial judgment in these matters, subject to the constraints already written into Clause 6 to provide the impetus for contracting out. In fact, I do not think that it is very flattering to LRT's future mangement to suggest that it would do otherwise than what I have said.
I can only repeat that in our view the amendment would tend to frustrate, rather than to encourage, competition. LRT must be prepared to measure itself against the commercial market. It ought not to be shielded from outside competition if that would help to bring down its costs.
Finally, I reiterate that Clause 6 is not new. It simply follows the provisions which already apply to London Transport and the passenger transport executives by virtue of the Transport Act 1983. We have no evidence, and no evidence has been produced, that this has caused problems in practice. We therefore cannot see any need to depart from the framework laid down in that Act.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Earl will not be surprised if I say that his reply is disappointing. We are not concerned with trying to stop competion; we are concerned with stopping unfair competition. After all I said in earlier discussions on the subject, I had hoped that he would realise that it is perfectly possible to have a cheaper, but satisfactory, job done and—he may not like the phrase "general conditions of service"—one which is, nevertheless, carried out by people who are bad employers. I would think that there are legal precedents for the use of the definition, "good employer". I need to check on that, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is a classification of what are considered legally to be good employers.
It may be asked why we have produced the proposal now; the provision was in the 1983 and earlier Acts. As a party, we have always tried to have competition, but based on decent conditions of service and wages. Undoubtedly—and this is a political point, particularly in the present year—there has been great expansion of subcontract work for local authorities and hospitals, and especially the hospital laundry service. A great deal of it has been unsatisfactory. Many of the contractors are now proving themselves not to be good employers. The picture is now becoming sharper partly because bad conditions and poor wages are showing up in areas where they never occurred before. Local authorities and other public bodies always dealt with reliable people. I am not by any means saying that all contractors who take on direct labour work now are bad employers, but there is great scope for that. There are instances where contracts have been taken away from people because of the totally unsatisfactory nature of their work and also because it was discovered that their employees had not been treated fairly.
I am very disappointed in the Minister. After what has been said today I hope that he will take the opportunity to refer this to his department, and perhaps some change may be made in the other place when the Bill goes back there for consideration of our amendments. As the Minister is obviously unwilling to move on this point, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Regulation of London bus services under control of London Regional Transport]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 41, line 32, leave out ("the route") and insert ("any part of the route in question or (as the case may be) the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be convenient for the House if in moving Amendment No. 3 I also discussed Amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 4: Page 41, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("London") in line 46 and insert—
("(b) London Regional Transport propose not to renew any agreement entered into by them by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act for the provision by any other person of any bus service which is being so operated or to agree to the discontinuance of any such bus service currently provided in pursuance of any such agreement;
Then, before any decision is taken to that effect,").
Both these amendments correct minor errors. The first brings the wording of subsections (4) and (5) into

23
line in their treatment of parts of routes in order to put beyond doubt that every local authority affected by any proposal will be consulted, even if only part of the route in question runs through its area. The second amendment revises subparagraph (b) of subsection (5) in order to reflect more accurately what will happen in practice if the question arises of discontinuing a bus service which is being provided by another operator under a Clause 3(2) agreement with LRT. The substance remains exactly the same. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 4: [Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Application of Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in relation to services in Greater London]:
3.56 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 42, line 33, leave out ("they apply") and insert ("well as").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if in moving Amendment No. 5 I also discuss the related amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 (which is a new clause to be inserted after Clause 44), 17 and 18.
Amendment No. 7: After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Excursions and tours with stopping places in Greater London
.—(1) The following section shall be inserted in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 immediately after section 35 (grant of road service licences for certain excursions or tours)—
"Excursions and tours with stopping places in Greater London
35A.—(1) If, in the case of any application for a road service licence made to the traffic commissioners for the Metropolitan Traffic Area—

(a) the traffic commissioners are satisfied as mentioned in section 35(1) of this Act; and

(b) they are also satisfied that the proposed service involves the use of any place in Greater London as a stopping place;

the following provisions of this section shall apply in relation to the application and to any licence granted on it instead of section 35(1).
(2) In this section "stopping place" means, in relation to any service, a point at which passengers are taken up or set down in the course of that service.
(3) Section 33 of this act shall not apply in relation to any application for a road service licence to which this section applies or in relation to any licence granted on any such application, and sections 31 and 32 of this Act shall so apply subject to the modifications provided by the following provisions of this section.
(4) The interests of the public falling to be considered under any provision of section 31 or 32, as that provision applies by virtue of this section, shall be confined to the interests of the public in securing that only places which are suitable for use as such are used as stopping places for the service in question in Greater London.
The reference above in this subsection to the service in question is a reference to the proposed service or the service provided under any road service licence granted on an application to which this section applies (as the case may require).
(5) For the purposes of this section a place is to be regarded as not being suitable for use as a stopping place for any service if the traffic commissioners are satisfied that its use as such would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public.
24
(6) Section 31 shall apply with the omission of—

(a) paragraphs (a and (b) of subsection (3); and

(b) subsection (4);

and subsection (3)(c) of that section shall apply only in relation to objections or representations made by the commissioner or commissioners of police concerned or by any of the local authorities affected.
(7) In subsection (6) above "commissioner of police" means—

(a) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the commissioner of police of the metropolis; and

(b) in relation to the City of London, the commissioner of police for the City of London; and for the purposes of that subsection the local authorities affected are the Greater London Council and any of the following councils, that is to say, the councils of the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London, in whose area any stopping place for the proposed service is situated.

(8) Section 32 shall apply with the omission of subsections (1) and (2), but the traffic commissioners in granting a licence on any application to which this section applies may attach to the licence such conditions of a description within section 32(1)(c) as they think fit, having regard to any objections or other representations that fall to be considered in relation to that application by virtue of section 31(3)(c) as it applies by virtue of this section, for securing that only places which are suitable for use as such are used as stopping places for the proposed service in Greater London.
(9) Any condition attached to a road service licence under subsection (8) above shall be treated for the purposes of the references in section 30(7) and 32(5) of this Act to a condition attached under section 32 as having been attached to the licence under that section.
(10) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 35 of this Act shall apply in relation to a road service licence granted in pursuance of section 31, as section 31 applies by virtue of this section, as those subsections apply in relation to a road service licence granted in pursuance of section 35."
(2) In section 35(1) of that act, at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 35A of this Act".
(3) In section 54(4) of that Act (procedure of the traffic commissioners in certain cases)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "or (as the case may be) as mentioned in section 35(1) of this Act and also as mentioned in section 35A(1)(b) of this Act"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "so satisfied" there shall be substituted the words "satisfied as mentioned in section 34(1) or 35(1), other than an application in the case of which they have determined that they are also satisfied as mentioned in section 35A(1)(b)".

(4) Nothing in this section shall apply in relation to an application for a road service licence made before this section comes into force.")
Amendment No. 17: Clause 71, page 71, line 23, leave out ("subsections (3) to (5) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section").
Amendment No. 18: Clause 71, page 71, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) Section (Excursions and tours with stopping places in Greater London) of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.").
I shall concentrate on the new clause, but I will deal with the other amendments towards the end of my remarks. It would be difficult to improve on the advocacy of my noble friend Lord Teviot in introducing at Committee stage the amendment on which our own new clause is based; indeed, it would be difficult to improve on his description of the proposals themselves. But I should like to comment on the problem with which the new clause seeks to deal and to describe the new clause itself. Copies of the department's note on the clause have of course been made available in the usual way, which I hope has been helpful to noble Lords.
The purpose of the clause is to give the metropolitan traffic commissioners power to control the use by vehicles operating excursion and tour services of stopping places in Greater London. These services are one of the three types of bus service defined for licensing purposes in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, and they are dealt with by Section 35 of the 1981 Act. At present, the traffic commissioners have very limited powers under that section to refuse a road service licence for an excursion or tour.
Over the last two years, the growth in the number of sight-seeing tours which pick up and set down passengers in London has caused traffic management problems at a few central London locations, in particular Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square and Victoria. The reason, as my noble friend explained, is that there is already heavy traffic at these places and very limited scope to provide bus standing facilities. As I made clear at Committee stage, the Government agree that these traffic management problems are sufficiently serious and that the licensing system should he able to take them into account in considering applications for road service licences to operate excursions and tours.
We have, therefore, provided in the new clause that, where the service which the applicant proposes to provide would involve picking up or setting down passengers in Greater London, the metropolitan traffic commissioners must judge whether the application is against the interests of the public. This test is not imposed on applications under the existing Section 35. In order to judge whether the application under the new clause is against the interests of the public, the traffic commissioners must consider only whether the proposed stopping places for the service are suitable; and a stopping place is not to be regarded as suitable if they are satisfied that its use for that purpose would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public.
The new clause gives local authorities and the police for the areas to be covered by any new service the right to make objections or representations on grounds of prejudice to the safety or convenience of the public. It gives the traffic commissioners power, in granting a licence to which the new clause applies, to attach such conditions as they think fit, having regard to the objections or representations, in order to ensure that passengers are picked up or set down only at specified points, or are not picked up or set down between specified points. It also gives the traffic commissioners power to alter, remove or attach additional conditions.
I should make it clear that the new clause is not intended to undermine our commitment to competition under the 1981 Act. The traffic commissioners will not have power to consider whether there is a need for a service, nor will existing operators he able to object to applications for new services. We are merely responding to representations from the police and from highway authorities on grounds of safety and of disruption to traffic, including buses.
Finally, perhaps I may say a few words about the amendments to Clauses 44 and 71, which have been grouped here for discussion with the new clause. The amendment to Clause 44 simply modifies the
26
declaratory statement in sub-section (1) of that clause in order to take account of the fact that the new clause introduces another difference between Greater London and the rest of the country.
The amendments to Clause 71 provide for the new clause to come into effect two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is in order to give all concerned a suitable opportunity to prepare themselves for the new system.
I am sorry if I have taken rather a long time to explain this series of amendments, but I hope it will be welcomed, not only in order to meet a promise given at Report stage to my noble friend Lord Teviot, but as a practical measure to deal with the traffic problems caused at a very few places in central London by excursion and tour services. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks about myself and for his detailed explanation of the new amendments, from which the whole House has benefited. I am sure that they are absolutely justified. I have nothing to add. I shall read the proposals very carefully. I am quite sure that the whole industry—not only London Transport, but also the existing competitors—will benefit.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I just ask the Minister to clarify one point on this matter. I know that when London Transport was asked to allow stops to be used by the privately run yellow culture bus, which we see going around town at the moment, there was great resistance for a long time, but in the end they agreed and they are allowing their stops to be so used. The Minister made the point that what is proposed is not intended to oppose any competition, but will he assure me that it will not be so prejudiced in favour of London Transport as to be at the expense of other operators? I am strongly in favour of London Transport, but not if there is any risk to other operators.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am quite happy to give my noble friend the reassurance she seeks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 42, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (2) of section 31 (grant of road service licences) the following sub-paragraph shall be added before paragraph (a)
(a) shall, in respect of any application for a licence to operate a London bus service as defined by section 43(6) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, send copies of that application and supporting information to the London Regional Passengers Committee;"
( ) In subsection (3) of section 31 (grant of road service licences) the following sub-paragraph shall be added after paragraph (c): "and
(d) in respect of any application for a licence to operate a London bus service, any representations made by the London Regional Passengers Committee.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will recall that a similar amendment was introduced at Report stage. That was the first occasion when this particular

27
principle had been considered in this House. I would remind noble Lords of what I said on that occasion—that the principle of the amendment had the full support of the National Consumer Council. The consumer council take the view that the passengers committee should be in a position to represent users of all public transport and that they cannot carry out this responsibility effectively if bus services provided by independent operators are not fully included in the scope of the passengers committee's responsibilities.
Whereas those who are operating under agreement with LRT will come within the scope of the passengers committee, other services licensed by the traffic commissioners are to be excluded by the Bill as at present worded. The amendment seeks to amend the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to provide that when an application is made to the traffic commissioners for a licence to operate a bus service, details of that application shall be sent to the passengers committee to be set up under the Bill and that the passengers committee shall have a statutory right to make representations.
When this principle was considered on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed the view that the Government saw no grounds for giving the passengers committee a particular role in relation to independent operators. He argued that the committee's role is to represent the views of services provided by a nationalised industry. The noble Lord added that it would be quite wrong to put the passengers committee in a privileged position is so far as traffic commissioners should be required to have particular regard to representations that may be made involving the passengers committee.
On that occasion I said that I would seek further advice and would no doubt come back at Third Reading, and, accordingly, I withdrew the amendment. Since then I have again consulted the National Consumer Council. Their view is still that they consider. it essential that the passengers committee should be able to act for all transport users. Services provided by the operators under road service licences could certainly affect the pattern of services provided by London Regional Transport. Should that lead to LRT withdrawing from certain routes, it would mean that passengers on some routes would not be represented only because the service was being run by a different operator.
The passengers committee should not be hindered in its representations on behalf of users of all bus services. Whether the services be public or independent surely is irrelevnat. The commissioners have powers to grant road service licences in Greater London. From various debates on this Bill, it is clear that the Government wish to encourage the maximum position—as they call competition—in regard to independent operators. Recent reports indicating the attitude of the Secretary of State in wishing to move towards scrapping local bus controls suggest that we could be faced with a greater number of independent operators in Greater London. If the Bill says that that should be the position, then surely the passengers
28
committee must have a statutory right to consider matters relating to independent operators as well as to LRT itself.
I hope that the Minister will see that the Bill will not restrict the passengers committee in carrying out their duties. The amendment I have moved will ensure that that will not he the case. Although we discussed this at Report, I hope the Minister will now see fit to accept this amendment because, without it, the work of the passengers committee will be severely restricted.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am not going to use the forbidden word, but I shall talk about co-ordination. It seems to me that this is one of the last backstops of co-ordination in the patchwork of transport which we shall have when independent operators become more usual in London. I believe that if we have regard to the needs of the passengers in Greater London, then the passengers committee should he put into a position where they have a statutory right to look at the whole of this patchwork and not just that part of it which is controlled by London Transport.
It may be that I have the picture distorted in some way, but it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has a very important point here and that the passengers committee could be the last remaining mortar between the bricks, as it were, in this edifice which is going to grow over the next few years. So certainly on the basis of what I have heard so far this amendment has our very full support.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, we debated an identical amendment at Report stage. I thought that I had then explained the Government's position quite clearly. We have now had a number of debates in which wet have explained why we see no grounds for giving the passengers committee a particular role in relation to independent operators.
My noble friend Lord Avon has also written to the noble Lord on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says it is an important matter. I quite agree. But we take a fundamentally different viewpoint on the merits of the argument. As I have said before, the passenger committee's role is to represent the interests of the users of services provided by LRT, or provided under their control. It is not intended as a consumer watchdog to comment on passenger transport provision at large in the London area. If we accepted the spirit of this amendment, we would run the risk of diverting the passengers committee from their main task. I make no apologies for repeating this. We would then be encouraging them to consider, and comment on, matters which are essentially for the judgment of the traffic commissioners. We would be giving them a role in discussion of matters such as the relative sizes of the publicly and privately owned bus transport industries, and this surely is a matter for political judgment.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place, there is no reason why public transport must be provided by a publicly owned body. Where services are provided by public sector bodies in a relatively closed market, it is surely right for users to be given a means by which they can make their views

29
known or air their grievances. The consumer often does not have a real choice in the sense that he can take his custom elsewhere. That is the real reason for the nationalised industry consumer councils.
It is, I suggest, an entirely different matter when we are talking about operators applying for a road service licence to operate independently of LRT or even in competition with them. They are choosing the rigours of the open market on the basis of their ability to deliver a service that the public want and are willing to pay for. If they do not provide the right service, the traveller will make his choice accordingly. He does not need a consumer body to make his views known. He can take the direct and positive action of withdrawing his custom. It makes no difference whether the alternative service is being provided by a private operator or by a publicly owned body such as the National Bus Company.
I would emphasise again that the passengers committee will be able to keep themselves informed of applications to the traffic commissioners for road service licences by, as I have already said, subscribing to "Notices and Proceedings" in the usual way. They will be able to make representations where they feel that there are issues relevant to LRT's services. Those representations will have to be given due regard by the commissioners if they are made in the prescribed manner.
The amendment in itself may not look too unreasonable but what it really represents is a completely different approach. It would put the passengers committee in a privileged position where they, uniquely, are to be sent copies of applications for road service licences together with all supporting information. What possible grounds can exist for favouring them in this way? Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, it would further remove the traffic commissioners' discretion to determine whether any representations received from the passengers committee were relevant. The traffic commissioners would be obliged to have regard to their representations in any event. That cannot be right. We believe that it would be quite wrong to give the committee such powers. I invite the House not to agree to the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I must confess that I am somewhat amazed that the Government are not moving at all on this issue. The Minister has simply repeated that the amendment would direct the committee from its main task. But what is its main task? Surely, as the Bill lays down, the main task is to look after the interests of users of London's transport. That cannot be separated into one operator that they can look into and another operator that they cannot look into. We are not arguing that the committee should be able to deal with the political issue of whether there should be more public transport or more independent operators. That is not the argument: it is the argument that the Government put forward. It is not an argument that I have ever advanced. Nor do I do so in this amendment.
To propose that the passengers committee should only deal with nationalised bodies and not with other bodies suggests that you could have imperfect services in one area. The Minister has not dealt with the case
30
that I put forward. The position could arise where, because of the restrictions placed upon them, and the financial restrictions, LRT might find it necessary to withdraw from certain routes. If that meant that there was only an independent operator, it is no good the Minister saying that the user can decide not to use that transport. There is no other service. There is only the independent operator. This means that there are no grounds at all for the passengers committee to make representations in that case.
We considered this matter last time at about twenty minutes past ten at night, and for that reason we did not divide the House. There is so much business before the House today—not just on this Bill but on other Bills—that, again, we do not propose to divide the House. But there is a deep principle here. I should like to ask that the Minister, between now and the Bill going hack to the other place—it has to go back because there are a number of amendments to various clauses—will consult with the National Consumer Council in order that the council may amplify the views that I have advanced. The Minister might also consult with the present passengers committee. I believe that the committee would emphasise the view that I have put.
I am afraid that the Government are taking very much the political angle. We are not. We are looking into the interests of the transport users. There should be an organisation that can look into all representations, whether in regard to the publicly-owned body or the independent body. Having put our case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 46 [Orders for transfer of functions, etc., within London Regional Transport group and between that group and Railways Board group]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 45, line 42, at end insert—

"(a) any reference to a transfer by or a vesting by virtue of that Act shall be read as a reference to a transfer by or a vesting by virtue of the order in question; and

(b) ")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment which remedies a small omission in subsection (9) of Clause 46. The clause is concerned with orders transferring functions between London Regional Transport and British Rail. An order can also provide for the transfer and vesting of property associated with the functions. Subsection (8) of the clause applies Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1968 to any such property transfer. The schedule provides the powers which are necessary to ensure that detailed arrangements for the allocation of property can be made as necessary. The amendment simply provides that wherever Schedule 4 refers to a transfer by or vesting by virtue of the Transport Act 1968, it is to be read for our purposes as a reference to a transfer by or vesting by virtue of the Clause 46 order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 50, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) It shall he the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements made for travel concessions under this section enable persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (7) above to travel, as a minimum standard, during identical hours of the day as are provided for the reserve free travel scheme under section 50 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the travelling hours in connection with concessionary fares. It may be recalled that at Report stage I proposed an amendment seeking that as a minimum standard travelling hours in relation to concessionary fares should be identical to those hours in any scheme that may be in being prior to the appointed day. We had in mind that the hours should be those in the amendment agreed to in Committee for the reserve scheme. On that occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that a scheme should be flexible, it must preserve the discretion of local authorities as to what travel concessions should be provided and that the boroughs must agree on the uniform scheme. If they did not, the statutory reserve scheme would come into effect. The noble Earl said that it would still be possible for local authorities to provide benefits on top of any statutory reserve scheme.
I should like to recount the history of this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on a previous occasion—I am pleased that she is here again today—agreed that a minimum standard was needed but said that she would give definite support to the amendment that had been moved in connection with the reserve scheme by my noble friend Lord Pitt. The noble Baroness said that the wording of the amendment brought forward on that occasion would mean accepting the additional half hour on buses in the early morning contained in the present GLC scheme. I agreed with that criticism. I gave notice that I would bring forward an amendment at Third Reading which would provide that the hours for any borough scheme should be identical to those that the House had agreed for the reserve scheme.
I hope that the Government's attitude will not necessitate a Division on this matter. The House has said what should be the travelling hours for the Government's own reserve scheme if a reserve scheme should be required. It will only be required if there is not a uniform borough scheme. We are saying that any borough scheme must surely have the same travelling hours as this House has said that it wants for the Government's own reserve scheme. I need not argue the case. It was put so well by my noble friend Lord Pitt on the occasion of the reserve scheme. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, on first reading the amendment I thought that it only applied to paragraph (c) of subsection (7). Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will clarify this as I think now he is saying that it would apply to the total concessionary' fares scheme. Is that correct?
Lord Underhill: If I may, my Lords. The purpose of the amendment is that it would come under any
32
borough scheme, any local authority scheme, because we have already made the decision on the reserve scheme.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I did not mean that. I meant that, as it is worded, the amendment says:
"Page 50, line 23, at end insert—".
Therefore, I thought it was a continuation of paragraph (c) of subsection (7), but really it is a new paragraph to go in there. Therefore. I shall speak to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
I do not support the noble Lord in this amendment, although I can see that we agree on many things about concessionary travel. The reason I do not support it is that the whole purpose of this House agreeing a reserve scheme was to have a means whereby we could produce a minimum, but it was not to take over the situation which the boroughs already operate or would wish to operate. They operated in the past, in the days when the boroughs operated concessionary fares directly.
Under this new arrangement, as I understood it, it was for the boroughs first to come up with a scheme, which we hoped would be every bit as good or better but which would give the boroughs the freedom of making that decision. If instead we accept this amendment, as I understand it, the reserve scheme would be completely pointless because we should already have taken the reserve scheme and inserted it here as a mandatory scheme. I cannot quite understand that.
In regard to blind persons, I understand that it is the boroughs that operate the concessions for blind persons. They are not operated by the Greater London Council; they have always been operated by the boroughs, and I believe that that is still the case. I think their hours of travel are considerably better than the reserve scheme would offer to other people such as those covered in paragraph (a). As I understand it, this amendment is either unnecessary or an attempt to take away any power from the boroughs, if we are insisting upon what they should do: whereas the other way, if the boroughs do not agree, as the noble Lord has said, we have the fall-hack position of our reserve scheme. On those grounds I do not consider this amendment to be necessary.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, will respond at the end, but, if I may say so. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is wrong on this. The reserve scheme is there if the boroughs fall down. What this amendment is saying is that there should be certain minimum standards within any scheme that the boroughs put together, and that one of the minima that should be included in the boroughs' scheme which we all hope will be put together (although I think some of us are less sanguine than others about the possibility) is a criterion in relation to hours that is the same as in the reserve scheme. I believe that is all it is saying.
It is not taking away from the boroughs the right to get together and put together a scheme which one would hope would be better than the reserve powers, but is saying that in this particular case there should be a minimum standard, which the boroughs should be

33
obliged to adopt, in relation to the hours for which these schemes operate. That is my understanding. I see the Labour Party Front Bench agreeing with that. On that basis, certainly I would support the amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, can reconsider.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would allow me to say this. Is it not possible that if any one borough insists on a standard not less than the minimum in the reserve scheme, then, automatically, the situation would exist where the boroughs did not agree? It requires only one in disagreement for the boroughs not to be agreeing, and therefore we should be back to the reserve scheme.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, since the noble Lady addresses me before I have sat down, perhaps I had better remain standing and say a word. It seems to me that, if a borough wishes to have a better standard, then it would be up to it to persuade the other boroughs to adopt that better standard. With this written into the Bill, as I see it, one borough standing out for a better standard would not wreck the whole scheme. This would be the minimum which Parliament had agreed was the acceptable minimum, around which the boroughs could agree. As I say, there may be a chance of having better provisions in the voluntary scheme, as it were. But at least within the voluntary scheme there would be a fall-back position which at the moment does not exist.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I have emphasised throughout the debate on this subject, it has been the policy of successive Governments that local authorities should have discretion over the provision of concessionary fares schemes. That is why Clause 49 basically re-enacts the existing law, enabling local authorities in and around Greater London to make their own voluntary arrangements with LRT, British Rail and other operators in their area, as they wish. In these circumstances, we think it would be wrong to impose on local authorities a particular form of scheme.
I recognise that the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, differs slightly from the one we discussed at Report stage, but I do not believe that that should affect our general view. Nevertheless, for reasons of which I am sure the House is fully aware, at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, we have provided in the Bill, to come into operation in Greater London, a compulsory reserve scheme which includes this particular time-scale. As we all know, if the London boroughs fail to agree on a uniform scheme to replace the GLC-operated scheme, this reserve scheme will come into operation.
As I have said before, for the first time the Government are embodying in statute a specific concessionary fares scheme which the local authorities in London will be obliged to finance if the conditions are such that the scheme automatically comes into operation. We have had very much in mind the need to balance the interests of, on the one hand, pensioners and disabled people in London, and, on the other hand, the ratepayers. We simply do not think it right
34
to impose on the boroughs the cost of financing concessionary travel on the same basis as the reserve scheme unless it is absolutely clear that they cannot agree to a voluntary scheme of their own.
We continue to take the view that the best approach is to maintain the right of local authorities to decide the scope of the travel concessions they provide. Under the Bill, they must agree on a uniform scheme. If they do not, the statutory scheme will automatically come into effect. But even if that happens, it will still be possible for local authorities to provide additional benefits to residents of their area, on top of the statutory scheme. In this way we acknowledge that local authorities are in the best position to judge what provision, if any, should be made to suit special local needs over and above any uniform scheme agreed for all boroughs.
I repeat that the Government accept the decision of this House on the amendments agreed to at Committee stage. I should like to point out just one other thing. I believe that an unacceptable consequence of the amendment for the areas around Greater London would be as follows. The enabling powers under Clause 49 to arrange concessionary travel on LRT's services are not limited to local authorities within Greater London. Therefore, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be that if any local authority outside Greater London wished to make arrangements with LRT for concessionary travel it would be required to do so in accordance with the benefits envisaged under the reserve scheme in Clauses 50 to 52.
Thus, for instance, Hertfordshire County Council, which currently provides for the elderly in its area concessionary travel at child fare rates on London Transport services, would be obliged to provide free travel on LRT services. We believe that that would be a quite unreasonable imposition on the authorities outside Greater London; and it could discriminate in statute between the concessions to be provided on LRT's services and those which can be provided on the services of other, and sometimes more extensive, operators in the country.
I have been over this ground before with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I hope he does not feel he has to press his amendment. There is little between us, because what he actually wants is in the reserve scheme, anyway. I do not think we really need it in this general scheme.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to deal first with the last point which the noble Earl raised and which referred to the question of outside bodies. We are not dealing in this amendment with what charges shall be made. We are not dealing with whether or not an authority wants free fares or fares at the children's rate. We are dealing with a minimum standard as regards identical hours. That is what the amendment is dealing with. It deals with that and with nothing else, and I hope that the House will treat it on that basis.
It is suggested that we are going to take away freedom from the boroughs. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said—and I am again grateful to the noble Lord for his support, which I expected on this matter—we are discussing minimum standards. I do

35
not want to go into all the arguments as regards the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Pitt, but your Lordships realised that what he was saying had great force. We do not want to have a situation where old people have to start their journeys before 4.30 and where they have to keep looking at the clock. It is no good the noble Earl shaking his head; that is the argument put forward.
The amendment carried by your Lordships in Committee was that journeys will be able to start during the period 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. That is what your Lordships agreed upon. We say that such a provision should apply to any other scheme. We must always remember that journeys do not stop at borough boundaries and that most people who travel cross boundaries. I suggest that it would be wrong if we had one borough with certain hours, because it is prepared to "go additional" and because we have not laid the hours down in a general borough scheme, and another borough with contrary hours. Surely that would make nonsense of the decision which your Lordships made in Committee, when your Lordships agreed that it was absolutely vital that the reserve scheme should have the hours that are now laid down in the Bill. All we are saying is that, if that is right for the reserve scheme, then common sense suggests that those hours must he right for a general scheme. That must be one of the points of uniformity upon which this House must insist.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Surely the noble Lord is slightly wrong about that. If there were a common voluntary scheme, then there would have to be the same hours across the board. In other words, it would not be possible—would it?—to work a system where people who were benefiting from a voluntary scheme in one borough were given different times from people in another borough. The result of that—and this is where I support the noble Lord—is that we should get the lowest common denominator and, therefore, that the scheme which was brought in could well be below the minimum standards that we have suggested are required in the back-up scheme.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is correct. I referred to the possibility of different borough schemes because the Minister said that, even if there were a uniform scheme, a borough authority must be free to buy in extra time if it wished to do so. It may be that an authority will want to buy in the extra travelling period. I do not know. The travelling period which applies in my outer London district is totally different from that which applies elsewhere. I come back to the argument. We should insist on minimum standards for a borough scheme in the interests not of LRT, but of the travelling public—in this case, aged persons. I hope that the House will agree that, having made a decision on the reserve scheme, it is common sense that we should make the same decision on a minimum standard, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.
4.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79: Not-Contents. 118.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amherst, E.

John-Mackie. L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Bernstein, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCluskey, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Denington, B.

Diamond, L.

Reilly, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stallard, L.

Ezra, L.

Stamp, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell. L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denning, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Allerton. L.

Donegall, M.

Ampthill, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Avon, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Elles, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beloff L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Glanusk, L.

Cairns, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Caithness, E.

Gormanston, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gowrie, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cockfield, L.

Gridley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Craigton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Croft, L.

Cullen of Ashhourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Daventry, V.

Hemphill, L.

Davidson, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

37

Hood, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Inglewood, L.

Polwarth, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Porritt, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renwick, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Rodney, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Romney, E.

Long, V.

St. Davids, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Lyell, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Sandford, L.

McFadzean, L.

Savile, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Mancroft, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Margadale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marsh, L.

Spens, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Molson, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Teviot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Munster, E.

Trenchard, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Norfolk, D.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vaizey, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vickers, B.

Onslow, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Orkney, E.

Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Pender, L.

Wynford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.42 p.m.
Clause 51 [Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 53, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Each issuing authority shall he obliged to make arrangements with the Post Office for permits to be issued from each Post Office or sub-Post Office in the area of that authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be recalled that at the Report stage an amendment was moved which was in two parts. One part dealt with the fact that permits for concessionary fares should be issued without charge, terms, limitations or conditions; the second part suggested that arrangements be made for permits to be issued from post offices. Because of the arguments advanced at that stage I withdrew the amendment, and it will be noted that on this occasion the amendment before the House deals only with the one item—that the issuing authority should issue permits through post offices or sub-post offices in the area of that authority. I had hoped that there would be no need to argue the case, but I think that I had better put forward one or two points.
Under the GLC scheme post offices are used for the issue of permits. It was argued at the Report stage that authorities may wish to use council offices. On that occasion I put forward what happens in my own district council area, which is outside Greater London, where a council sub-office is used. Even from where I live, which is not the distance which many people have to travel, it means that my wife has a long walk. She is very able-bodied and can walk, but others cannot make the journey and have to wait for transport
38
facilities. Very few boroughs will have an adequate number of offices or sub-offices. Often the person has to walk quite a distance, and frequently some mode of transport is involved. Also, because of the limited number of council offices in an area, there could be quite a waiting time for the issue of a permit. That is what happens in my own area; because there is a substantial number of aged people in the area, there is always a fair wait at the council sub-office for the issue of a permit. We want to avoid that wait.
Post offices and sub-post offices are manned every day of the week except Sundays. They provide reasonable access for the great majority of people. They are a great help to pensioners, because the majority still use post offices to collect their pensions and therefore pensioners could apply for permits at the same time as they get their pensions. The staff of the post office know the procedure and are well used to it, As I mentioned on Report, many of the staff often know the applicants personally.
This is a common-sense provision. If it is not included in the Bill and if we have separate authority schemes, some authorities may not use post offices. I believe that it is essential that we lay down, as we do in this amendment, that:
"Each issuing authority shall he obliged to make arrangements with the Post Office for permits to be issued from each Post Office or sub-Post Office".
I hope that we shall not be told again—as we were when we discussed the last amendment—that this procedure should be flexible, that each council should be able to decide for itself. Some councils are mean-minded and we must always remember that. We want to ensure that particularly the aged person receives fair treatment, and that means that he or she ought to be entitled to use post offices. Post offices are a public institution and there should be this co-operative effort between local authorities giving concessionary schemes and the public institution of the post office. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, again—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will expect it of me—I rise to oppose this amendment. I do not think that there should be a compulsion on local authorities to use the post office. When we talk about that we imagine that we can use post office services for nothing. However, that is not so. There is a charge for using the post office. As time goes by we have no way of knowing how the post office might vary that charge. Councils may find that to use the post office might involve them in very major expense. The fact that they have a choice means that they are in a stronger position to negotiate favourable terms with the post office than if, under this amendment they are obliged to use the post office.
Again, a council might think it preferable in terms of social services to be able to see the people who are applying for the passes and to make a social services contact with them at the time. We have no way of knowing how the councils will think. I believe that many councils would use the post office. They would negotiate a good price with the post office and would use it because it is a convenient and efficient way of providing this service. But if we write this into the Bill,

39
it puts the post office in a monopoly situation where it can demand anything it wants for the issuing of these passes. When we hear—as we did during the previous stage—about the noble Lord's own difficulty with his pass outside the London area, we tend to be carried away by the thought that one applies for something like this once a week. At a maximum it would be applied for only once a year. Like the issuing of driving licences, there is a tendency to issue such passes for longer and longer periods. If the post office charges a high price or it costs a great deal to issue these permits, then I believe that as time goes by they will be valid for longer periods.
I do not think there is a case for writing into the Bill the compulsion to make arrangements with the post office. I am putting aside entirely the fact that post offices are not always open. I know that in the last couple of weeks a number of them have been closed in some sort of protest, and this can be extremely inconvenient to the public. However, putting that point aside (because I do not think it is important) I believe that councils should have a choice as to how to go about this matter so that they can consider the economics of it. One man's mean-minded council is another man's careful, thrifty council, and they will have to weigh up one social service expense against another, because this concessionary fares scheme is a very major social service. I should not like to see this amendment written into the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, it is important that when older people apply for concessionary fares they should be able to do so with the greatest degree of dignity. I find it abhorrent to see older people lining up to have their photographs taken, because this condition has now been imposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, stressed that it would be a monopoly if the issuing of these passes was left to the post office. It would equally be a monopoly if only local authority establishments were allowed to issue them because establishments are few in number, are usually centralised and are much larger buildings. It is mainly the elderly who apply for permits for concessionary fares, and they are easily confused. They know their local post office and. as my noble friend has said, they are used to going there for their pensions. In particular, sub-post offices are very friendly and helpful to these older people. We must recognise that this is not a question of money. If we are going to save money, let us not be saving money at the expense of the older people among the population.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, felt the need to oppose this amendment. We have to think of the convenience of the elderly people getting their passes. They have been going to the post office for the last eight years, proving their identity, proving their address, and getting their permits. I should have thought that we would want them to be able to continue to do just that.
Whatever slightly increased cost there might be—and I am not doubting that there might be some increased cost—it is outweighed by the convenience of allowing them to use their local post office, as they are
40
now accustomed to doing. I stress that point because it is important in this context. I hope we shall not have to troop through the Lobbies. I hope the Government will accept this. It is a sensible and useful addition. It is not even an addition, because these people already have it. It is merely safeguarding a privilege that the old people now have. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner and with the reasons that she gave. Some time ago I had to deal with gas, when people wanted to get stamps for gas through the post office. They were not able to afford it: it was so expensive. It is not a small sum at all that the post office will charge. As the noble Baroness said, they might charge increasing amounts for giving out these passes. As she rightly said, if it is open-ended and left to the local council they will know what their local people want and the most convenient place for the people concerned. I would rather leave it to them.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my two noble friends for their support. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I have taken out my little sentence about flexibility, as he obviously did not want me to read it again. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that it is not a question of money here: and may I say to the noble Lord. Lord Pitt, that it is not a question of changing the custom. We are not against this idea at all, but purely of making it a statutory imposition and imposing it on the boroughs.
As I said in our previous debate, I appreciate the convenience for all concerned of travel permits being issued by the post office. As I said at that stage, it is our understanding that the London Boroughs Association have this possibility very much in mind in seeking to devise a workable uniform voluntary scheme. Just as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said. I am sure that they will want to adopt the best possible arrangements. I also had to say then that it would be difficult in practice to make such an arrangement work in some cases, because if some boroughs choose to impose different terms and conditions on the issue of travel permits, as they would be free to do, it could cause difficulties. I am sure that the House would recognise this. In the circumstances, I do not think that it would be helpful to pre-empt the outcome of further discussions by the boroughs and to fix a particular arrangement rigidly in the statute.
I am rather surprised that the noble Lord is so opposed to giving the local authorities discretion in this matter. We simply see no benefit in imposing a particular arrangement on all the boroughs before they have had an opportunity to devise their own arrangements. We are not saying that there will be any change. All we say is that surely the London boroughs can be left to adopt the best arrangement in the circumstances, and we should not prescribe this in the Bill. There is no difference between us that the post offices are very useful. The difference between us is that we should like to leave it to the boroughs to make up their minds.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, thanked his two noble Baronesses for their support, but it is clear that there is a difference of opinion on his side of the House. The noble Earl said that it is not a question of money, His two supporters advocated particularly the possible saving of money, and said that that was why we should not commit ourselves to the use of post offices. It was emphasised that they are in a monopoly situation and could make charges; in other words that they could take the boroughs "to the cleaners". Therefore, I am surprised that the noble Earl is grateful for their support on this and then says that it is not a question of money.
The noble Earl said that there is no way of knowing how the councils will think on this. We want to be assured, irrespective of what the councils may think, that the scheme is in the interests of the pensioners. If it is not going to be the post offices, where else could it be? The number of councils which have a sufficient number of council sub-offices with trained staff available at proper hours will be limited. We want the post offices because the post offices are fairly accessible in most areas, and particularly in Greater London.
I should like to think that in this matter we are considering not merely what the borough councils feel they ought to do. We must remember that the borough councils are going to be pushed on the question of money in relation to a Bill we shall be discussing shortly after we have finished this Bill this evening. We want to ensure that somebody is going to ask what the pensioners want. You will find that the pensioners will opt overwhelmingly for collecting their permits from the post offices.
We are in a difficult situation here. Those of us who feel strongly on this feel that we ought to divide the House. But may I be completely honest: if noble Lords will not go into the Lobbies to support proper travelling hours for aged persons, then they will not go into the Lobbies to support us on post offices. It is regrettable, but that is the position. Therefore, if there is to be a borough scheme I can only hope that the Secretary of State will use all his good offices and ensure that he urges, or his staff urge, that the post office system should apply and continue as at present. We believe that that is essential in the interests of the pensioners. It is only because of the result of the last vote that I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, because I do not believe that noble Lords will be prepared to support it in view of their vote on the previous amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Penalty fares]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 57, line 26, leave out ("lower than the fare properly payable") and insert ("appropriate in the case of another category of traveller but lower than the fare properly payable by the person in question").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 11 may I remind your Lordships that this is one of a short series of amendments to Clause 53 and is in accordance with the undertaking I gave on 12th June at Report stage, when I said that if
42
any of the matters contained in what is now Clause 53 could be improved I would give your Lordships an assurance of my determination that this would be done. This is such an amendment, as are a number of others that I shall seek to move.
This is a technical amendment designed to clarify the situation as regards an adult who over-rides. Subsection (9) of Clause 53 sets out what fare has to be taken to be multiplied by 10 to arrive at the penalty fare. Paragraph (b) of that subsection is intended to cover a person who over-rides. In that case the penalty fare is 10 times the excess distance travelled, treating the excess distance as a separate journey. Paragraph (c) of that subsection is intended to cover a young adult who travels on a child's ticket. In that case the penalty fare is 10 times the difference between the adult's ticket and the child's ticket.
In view of the present wording of paragraph (c), it might be possible for a person who over-rides to claim that he comes within that paragraph rather than paragraph (b). In that event he would be liable only to a penalty fare calculated on the difference between the fare which he should have paid and the fare which he has paid. This would probably be lower than the fare calculated under paragraph (b). It is obviously unsatisfactory that there should be any lack of precision in the subsection. The effect of the amendment will be that paragraph (c) will clearly be relevant only to the young adult who travels on a child's ticket.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is essential that we reduce the risk of dispute between the inspector—the "authorised person", as we have hitherto called him—and the passenger as to the amount of the penalty fare. This amendment seeks to do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 12.
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Information as to liability
At the time an authorised person requests the payment of a penalty fare under section 53 of this Act the authorised person shall have the duty to inform the person who has become liable under section 53 of this Act to pay a penalty fare of his obligations under the Bill and, in particular,

(a) that the penalty fare shall be payable within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day following the date on which the journey was completed,

(b) that the payment of a penalty fare is not, of itself, an admission of intent to avoid payment of the correct fare,

(c) that the person shall not be liable to pay the penalty fare in a case that falls within subsection (4) or (6) of section 53 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if, in moving Amendment No. 12, I speak also to Amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 13: After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Interpretation of payment
. Any payment of a penalty fare under section 53 of this Act shall not be deemed to be an admission of intent to avoid payment of the correct fare.").
I reflected on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he introduced the new clauses for the penalty fares provisions and also the various points raised in the useful debate on that occasion.
Although from these Benches we echoed the view throughout the House of general support to these provisions, it will be recognised that we must ensure that they operate fairly and with full regard for the rights of individuals. All that the amendment seeks is that when an authorised person requests payment of a penalty fare, at the same time the traveller should have the right to be informed of all his obligations. These are listed under heads (a), (b) and (c) in the amendment. Amendment No. 13 lays down that the payment of a penalty fare is not to be regarded as an admission of that person's intent to avoid payment. We think that it is in the interests of the person that that should be done. I ought to thank the noble Lord the Minister for kindly writing to me on this and putting his point of view. I believe it is important that we should have the views expressed to the House so that they can be on the record. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I say a word on this because these penalty fares are a new introduction into our English law. There still remains the old law of 1889, with which I was familiar: that a person is guilty of a criminal offence if he travels on the railway without having previously paid his fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof. If he did not give his name and address he was liable to be arrested. That is the law still; that Act still remains on the statute book. This concept of a penalty fare is in no way criminal, it is only obtainable either on demand if the traveller admits his liability or by an action in the civil court if he is proved to be liable.
The position is this. If a ticket collector goes up to him and asks him for his ticket and he has not got one and he has not paid his fare, there is a danger that the ticket collector may then just say to him: "I must ask you for the penalty fare. I must ask you to pay the £5 or 10 times the multiplier"; whereas the man has a perfectly good defence if he says, "1 did not have the chance of getting my ticket, I was rushing for the train". Or he might say that the booking office was closed. This is a perfectly good answer and he is not liable for the penalty fare. Indeed, the ticket collector ought to know that: But ought he not also to ask the traveller, before he demands the penalty fare, "Did you have a chance of getting a ticket?" If the man says "I did not", then that is a perfectly good defence.
It is interesting to see that there is an amendment on this coming along at Amendment No. 16, where the Government are saying, quite rightly, that it is for the plaintiff—the company or the board who are claiming the penalty fare—to prove that the traveller did have the opportunity of getting a ticket. They recognise that the burden is on the claimant to prove that he did have that opportunity. It seems to me in fairness to the individual traveller that when the ticket collector goes up to him and asks him (as he may well do) for the penalty of £5, the man should be told, "You are not liable to pay if you did not have a chance of getting the ticket". He ought to be told the legal position. Although this amendment is a little bit elaborate—I would not think it necessary to go into all the detail about it—I think that the substance of it should be told to the traveller by the ticket collector or by whoever is collecting the penalty fare so that the man knows what
44
his rights are. I would support the amendment in principle, so that the traveller should be told what his position is. If he has a good answer, that he did not have a reasonable opportunity of getting a ticket, then he is not liable for the penalty fare. On the whole, I would support this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I try to get clear one small point which may be clearer to others. The "authorised person" is referred to in this amendment but I am not quite sure who is the authorised person. Presumably, every constable would be an authorised person. May he be also a constable of a force other than the British Transport Police? Again, there are members of the staff of the railways who, I believe, have limited powers of arrest outside the powers of an ordinary citizen. Unless it is made really clear in this Bill who are or are not the authorised people, then we can have quite a lot of unnecessary ill-feeling and argument at the end.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like the benefit of the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on the words under paragraph (b) of the amendment and also on the similar words in Amendment No. 13. In the situation of a civil matter—and I understand that this would be a civil contract, whether you bought a standard ticket or a penalty ticket—I thought it unusual that someone should say to you that in paying the penalty fare you were not admitting an intent to avoid payment of the correct fare. As a lay person, I am not clear how often someone who is not committing any form of criminal offence is told that they are not committing it. Surely, in the course of doing ordinary things in ordinary life we would not expect everyone to be saying to us such things as: "By crossing the road here you are not committing a criminal offence".
So I am slightly puzzled by paragraph (b) and also by its repetition in Amendment No. 13. I wondered whether, instead, it would be more practical on the ticket or receipt that the person is given to have printed something to the effect that payment of this amount discharges the full liability for the travel—or whether there is some other way to cover it rather than what seems to me this very unusual method. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to comment before I sit down—which I suppose is the procedure at this stage because he is not allowed to speak again.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think it would help my noble friend if she understood that in practice the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, who is moving the amendment, has the right of response at the end of the debate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, it was Lord Denning's legal view on this matter that I was seeking. It was not a point that he went into in his contribution.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I hesitate to step into the shoes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but I think that the noble and learned Lord might offer the explanation which I would humbly offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes:

45
that although the new system substitutes strict civil liability for a potential criminal liability, it does not do so entirely in respect that, under Clause 56 of the Bill, certain offences survive, and therefore it is conceivable that a person not only fails to pay the correct fare—and so becomes liable to pay the penalty fare—but is a person who deliberately intended not to pay. If he commits the offence, it looks to me, subject to what the Minister will say to the House, that a person could face a criminal prosecution under the surviving criminal provisions which are kept in force, I think, by Clause 56.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it would seem to me that we are moving into a number of amendments all at once. I think it might be better if I dealt just with this particular one at this stage. As I made plain at the outset of the debate, we are sympathetic to the underlying purpose. The Government accept that when a person becomes liable to a penalty fare he must be provided with information as to his rights and obligations. The Government have every intention of ensuring that this will be done.
Unfortunately, the amendment of the noble Lord poses a number of problems because in the first place it does not make clear how such information should be provided. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be most unsatisfactory for this to be done by word of mouth alone, because this would leave too much scope for discretion or for matters to be left out inadvertently. Then, as I am sure the House will also appreciate, if the requirement to provide certain information were to be written into the Bill in this way, it could well open up an area of potential dispute as to whether the information had been provided; as to how, where, when and by whom it was provided; I do not think I need elaborate further on that point.
A further point to bear in mind is that, while being well intentioned, the amendment may leave out a number of matters which should perhaps form part of the information to be provided. As I said in my opening remarks, we have every intention of ensuring that information as to rights and obligations is provided to those who become liable to a penalty fare. What the Government propose is that the form of notice issued by the authorised person will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State under his general powers in relation to London Regional Transport. In this respect I think the House can accept my assurance that the points which noble Lords may make, and certainly have made, will be taken care of in the framing of that particular notice.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood will see on page 58, Clause 54(3), that an
" 'authorised person' means a person authorised by the person providing the service in question".
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, will my noble friend help me? I did not get the reference.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is page 58, Clause 54(3). The "authorised person" is defined there. It means that only one of these authorised persons who is a special inspector specially trained will have the authority of the provider of the service to
46
make an alleged fare dodger liable to a penalty fare. So I do not think the question of constables of any force arises.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also spoke to his Amendment No. 13, the purpose of which was to ensure that,
"Any payment of a penalty fare under section 53...shall not be deemed to be an admission of intent to avoid payment of the correct fare".
I understand the purpose of the noble Lord in wishing to place the point beyond any doubt, but I do not think the amendment is going to be necessary and I do not think in any case it would be very helpful to those whom he is seeking to protect. I have made clear throughout the discussions on these clauses that their purpose is to introduce a new civil liability, the point which both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, sought to underline in their interventions. As such, there can be no suggestion that in discharging the civil debt incurred any admission of intention to avoid paying the proper fare is involved. As I think the House is aware, the purpose of penalty fare provisions is largely to stand in
I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that these clauses have been drafted in such a way as to avoid any suggestion of intent to avoid payment. What is involved here is a simple arrangement where a passenger either pays the ordinary fare, or, if he cannot show that he has done so, he pays the higher penalty fare. The reasons for him not having paid the ordinary fare do not enter into it at all.
I hope the House will agree that in these circumstances to insert a reference to an admission of intent to avoid payment, albeit in the negative, would draw attention to a possibility which the clauses are, by definition, framed to avoid. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will not find it necessary to move either of these two amendments.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I hesitate to come in here but I think there is one point which has not been covered in this wide-ranging discussion. What we are talking about especially is the train side of it. The train side of it will not be started until the Minister of State is convinced that London Regional Transport has everything correct for it to go forward. One point has arisen: where the passenger was unable to get a ticket at a particular station. We did not mention it, I am afraid to report, but it has to be mentioned now and if I am wrong my noble friend will interrupt me. The point is that, at each of the stations, if for any reason the booking office is closed there will be opportunities for passengers to obtain a ticket, or for a machine to provide a ticket, to prove the station where the journey started. I do feel that explaining this should alleviate doubts in some people's minds as to the fairness of this whole proposal.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I thank both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, for generous support in principle. When as a layman one is dealing with legal matters one needs to have support of that kind. I am very grateful to the Minister for the general

47
sympathy he has given to the points of the amendment and I readily recognise the deficiencies in the amendments to which he has referred.
I am particularly pleased that in his sympathetic response he said there is every intention that persons shall be informed of their rights and obligations, and that the Secretary of State will have to approve the forward notice which will have to be prepared in connection with these new clauses. We are prepared to accept those assurances and we are grateful for them; and it is very good that we have had this short debate and placed those statements on record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Supplementary provisions with respect to penalty fares]:
5.18 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 59, line 34, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14 I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 15:
Page 59, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
These two amendments arise directly from a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, during our debate last week at Report stage. I have written to the noble and learned Lord about the matter he raised, and indeed so seized was he of the urgency of the matter that he has in fact responded to me.
The point of the noble and learned Lord was that, since the penalty fare provisions are a new civil liability, it was wrong in principle to extend the powers of arrest which currently apply to contravention of regulations carrying a criminal sanction—the point which I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has made on two occasions. Having considered the matter, we concluded that this point is quite justified, and in the spirit in which I introduced the provisions I have accordingly tabled these two amendments.
Your Lordships will appreciate that our original purpose in including the subsections was to ensure that adequate means were available for obtaining the name and address of people liable to a penalty fare. In practice it is likely that people who are liable to a penalty fare may be in contravention of the existing regulations governing the conduct of passengers. Nonetheless, it is important that sanctions which apply to matters involving a criminal sanction should not appear to extend to civil liabilities. I therefore think it right for the avoidance of doubt that these two subsections should be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords. I am certainly grateful to the Minister for the promptness with which he has considered the matter and for the readiness with which he decided to change the provision, and in particular also for his courtesy in advising not only myself but my
48
noble friend Lord Underhill and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, of the changes he proposed to make. I think the change is wise and the action taken is right. For myself, I thoroughly approve it. I do not think the Government are entirely out of the wood in this respect—and your Lordships may wonder what a Scots lawyer is doing in the Bill at all—but having gone into the field I wonder whether or not Part III of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (and in particular Clause 25) is apt. No doubt those in the Box will be passing views on to the Home Office that they ought to be looking at Part III of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. If that is not done, I shall certainly raise the matter at an appropriate occasion some other time: but in the meantime I would express my thanks to the noble Lord.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I, too, would agree very much that it is a very good thing to omit these subsections.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 60, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("( ) In any action for the recovery of a penalty fare payable under section 53 of this Act it shall be for the plaintiff to show that any relevant exception provided by subsection (4) or (6) of that section does not apply.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to reverse the effect of the existing provision. Subsection (3) of Clause 55, as it appears in the Bill, places the onus of proof on the passenger to show that he had no reasonable opportunity to pay the fare or buy a ticket. That was a point which interested a number of your Lordships throughout our discussions on these clauses, and my noble friend Lord Teviot also raised it when we were discussing an earlier amendment this afternoon.
Our original purpose in including this provision was that if a passenger wished to claim exception to the payment of a penalty fare on the grounds that he could not buy a ticket, then it was not unreasonable for him to have to prove that that was the case. Having reflected further on this point, we now consider that since London Regional Transport will be the plaintiff in any civil action for the recovery of a penalty fare, the more reasonable course is for the LRT to have to show if a passenger chooses this line of defence, that the exception provided of being unable to buy a ticket does not apply. As I think your Lordships will appreciate, the effect of this amendment is to restore certain rights to the individual, and as such I trust that it will meet with the House's approval.
This is not to suggest in any way that London Regional Transport will not be required to satisfy my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that adequate machinery and adequate facilities are placed at the disposal of travellers so that they can pay the proper fare or a deferred authority ticket can be

49
obtained before a journey is undertaken. Nevertheless, we think, as I say, that this restores the rights of the individual, which I am sure the House would agree with. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, again I would support this amendment. It really puts the burden on the right place—it is on the railway company to prove and to get its penalty fare. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciated what was said, that there will be proper training of the authorised officers, and further that there will be a proper record of instruction and notice given so that the individuals themselves will know what their rights are. In particular, I should imagine there will be a question on it: "Did you have an opportunity of getting your fare or not?"—because this is part of the record which I gather is going to be prepared for the sake of the authorised officers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Operating powers of London Regional Transport]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 79, line 18, after ("may") insert ("manufacture and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 and I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to Amendment No. 20 as well as to Amendment No. 19.
Amendment No. 20: Page 79, line 20, after ("of') insert ("manufacturing or").
These amendments may seem familiar, but there are good reasons why they are brought forward again at the Third Reading stage. Your Lordships will recall that at the Report stage I dealt with the Ministerial reply at the Committee stage, and particularly the statement made that the London Transport Executive accepted the restriction written into the Bill of their present manufacturing powers. At the Report stage I quoted from a letter sent by the solicitor to the London Transport Executive to the Department of Transport as recently as the 5th June, a copy of which the Board had asked the solicitor to send to me. I shall not weary the House by reading that again, but the letter makes clear two points. London Transport Executive as such had never been of the view that London Regional Transport should not have manufacturing powers and that the LRT should have such powers, subject to constraints. That was a unanimous confirmation of the view taken by the board meeting of London Transport on 5th June.
Having read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in comment on that letter, particularly regarding the discussions between London Transport officials and the Department during the preparation of the Bill—it is stated quite clearly in Hansard in column 1039 on 12th June, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas:
"London Transport was able to tell us that the proposals as they appear in the Bill would not cause any serious problems".
The solicitor to London Transport was asked to write to me further because he has seen that reply. It is so important to get the matter right that I shall not attempt to paraphrase the further letter, but I will quote extracts from it. These are as follows, from the solicitor to London Transport in a letter dated 18th June, a copy of which I understand has been sent to the Department of Transport.
"While the Bill was in draft form the Executive was told that it was intended that L.R.T. would have very restricted powers to repair and no powers to manufacture. We explained to the Department that rather wider powers were needed and persuaded them to put into the Bill the provisions which now appear in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2. It is true that we did say that we could live with that formulation, and indeed we can since the amount of use we make of the repairing power for third parties is very limited. It was against the background of a determination by the Government to restrict our manufacturing powers that we made the comments we did.
It remains true that the Executive would like to have wider manufacturing powers (subject of course to restrictions currently imposed on us—consent to engage in the activities and the certainty that public money would not be needed) but it has to be admitted that it is unlikely that any vast amount of manufacturing for third parties would take place if the power was available."
In conclusion, if I might just mention a few brief points, the view of London Transport is now clearly set out. They would like to have the powers which are proposed in the two amendments which I have put forward. LRT, under the Bill, is to be permitted to manufacuture for itself. The obvious question is: why not also manufacture for third parties if there is available capacity? Under the Bill LRT may undertake repairs for third parties and supply parts and components. The obvious question again is: why not extend to manufacture for those same parties?
As I said at the Report state—and this was supported by a number of noble Lords—there is only a very thin line between manufacture and repairs. If LRT has spare engineering capacity it is surely in the best interests both of LRT and of third parties that we should make the maximum use of that capacity.
I close by saying that, in the words of the Government, we are going to have a managerial board. Surely it should be left to the managerial and common-sense decisions of the board. It is wrong to lay down in advance that the board shall not have these powers. Your Lordships have heard from the letters I have quoted that the London Transport Executive believes that these powers should be given to LRT. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State has reserve power to approve any such proposals, to modify such proposals or to tell LRT to discontinue any such activities. Therefore, if at any time the board of LRT wished to extend manufacture on behalf of third parties, the board would have the opportunity to put the justification for its managerial and commercial decisions before the Secretary of State. That seems the right approach to make. The decision whether or not

51
to approve would rest finally with the Secretary of State. That is what the amendment would still continue. What the amendment suggests is what the London Transport Executive has said ought to be put into the Bill and I hope, despite the previous discussion we have had, that the Government will now recognise that this is a common-sense managerial and commercial matter and that these proposals in the amendment should be agreed to. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not very surprised to see that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has returned to this point. However, we have discussed it twice already in the House and I am just a little disappointed that he felt it necessary to raise it again, particularly as he was not able to advance any new argument in support of his amendment. Therefore, he will not be at all surprised to hear me say that our position remains completely unchanged. We do not believe that LRT should have wide manufacturing powers either for themselves or for outsiders, as these amendments propose. I repeat what I have said on two, if not three, previous occasions. The job of LRT is to run buses and trains and not to make them for themselves or for anybody else.
The noble Lord made great play in our earlier discussions— and he reminded us of it today— with the recent letter which London Transport had sent to the department. That letter was written on 5th June. It conveyed the unanimous view of the executive that they, the executive, had never accepted that they should not be able to manufacture for third parties. The Bill was published on 2nd December last year. Both London Transport and the GLC have had over six months to consider the Bill in detail and at no time have we received representations from them on this matter. They now come forward at this very late stage with a protest, almost as if some major injustice had been done to them. I am afraid that their protest is not at all convincing at this late stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, read out most of the letter of 18th June which was addressed to himself and signed by the solicitor to the executive. He did not, however, read out the last paragraph, which states:
"I should also explain that this letter is not written as a result of any Board decision but merely as an explanation of the background of the present wording of the Bill".
So I do not think that that is tremendously helpful in support of the amendment.
The fact of the matter is that London Transport's wide powers of manufacture have been little used in recent years. We sought a reassurance well before the Bill was published with regard to there being, or not being, any significant difficulty if we draw the powers, as we have done, more narrowly. Recent discussions with London Transport have not changed that view, which was expressed then and which we understand is the real view at this time.
Of course the executive's view was unanimous, but I may say that not even the professional members of the executive make Government policy. I might draw your Lordships' attention to the disclaimer which the chairman of London Transport felt obliged to write with regard to the three-year plan which the board set
52
down a short while ago. There are fundamental differences between us and I do not see any possibility of bridging that gap. Our very firm view is that London Regional Transport do not need, and should not have, powers to set up a manufacturing base for themselves or for outside bodies. The powers in the Bill will enable them to manufacture spare parts and components for their own operations and for their own servicing, where necessary, and to make sensible use of their resources to carry out this kind of repair and manufacture for other people. We do not believe that those are unreasonable constraints on a nationalised industry, supported by public funds, whose prime function is to provide a public transport service. Therefore, we shall have to reject the amendment and I invite the House so to do.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that there are no new arguments in support of this amendment. There are no new arguments in support of the principle, but I advanced new arguments to justify bringing the amendment forward again this afternoon. The noble Lord implied that he could not understand why these points of London Transport should be made at this late stage, but let us see what the history is. The letter which I quoted at Report stage was dated 5th June. It was the unanimous view of the board that these restrictions should not be placed on London Transport. It was the unanimous view of the board that these manufacturing powers should he given to LRT. Because of the comments made at Report stage, the solicitor wrote to me again and pointed out exactly what took place during the discussions. I read the letter in full, so that I could not be accused of paraphrasing it.
I am certain that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will agree that it is not good enough to say that this letter of 18th June was not written because of any board decision. It was written by the chief executive because he felt that he ought to explain exactly what took place during the discussions between the officials and the Department of Transport. That is what he set out to do, as any competent official would do, so as to put the matter right, and I believe that we have put the matter right by mentioning these points tonight.
The Minister said that there are fundamental differences and I regret that that appears to be so. He rightly pointed out that under the Bill LRT will have power to manufacture for themselves components and certain other items of equipment. The amendment would make it possible to say, "Right. There is spare capacity. Let us manufacture those same items, if necessary for third parties." It is commercial and business common sense, but there are these fundamental differences. We have put the position of London Transport quite clearly. It is a decision taken not only by politicians but by professional men, who believe that this is an essential power. I shall not put the issue to a vote, having made the position quite clear for the record. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Operation of enactments relating to former London Board functions]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.21:
Page 90, line 30, leave Out from second ("to") to second ("of") in line 31 and insert ("any wholly owned subsidiary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment to paragraph 6(4) of Schedule 4, and it corrects an error in the description of paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 16 to the Transport Act 1968. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
5.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 99, line 13, after ("to") insert ("any service or services provided in pursance of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 23.
Amendment No. 23: Page 99, line 15, leave out from ("40(4)(b)") to ("of") and insert ("and 50(3)(e)")
Both these amendments affect paragraph 11(4) of Schedule 5, which makes arrangements for bus services provided under existing London bus agreements or consents. The amendments correct two small mistakes. The first ensures that the references to which the Bill applies are references to bus services rather than to the agreements under which they are provided. The second amendment omits an incorrect reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 23:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 108, line 7, leave out from ("(i)") to ("any") in line 10 and insert ("after the word "include" there shall be inserted the words "in the case of those mentioned in paragraph (a)" and at the end there shall be added the words "and in the case of London Regional Transport,"")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical drafting amendment, in that section 38 of and Schedule 4 to the Animal Health Act 1981 provide that the London Transport Executive and wholly owned subsidiaries must, if directed by the Minister of Agriculture, provide food and water at stations. It goes on to say when the food and water must be supplied and who must pay for it. The Bill as drafted makes the necessary consequential amendment to Section 38 of the Animal Health Act so as to refer to LRT and any subsidiary of theirs, but it does not make clear the
54
application of the related Schedule 4 to that Act. The amendment remedies this defect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 109, line 14, at end insert—
("The Food Act 1984
30.—(1) In section 11(4)(a) of the Food Act 1984 (vehicles whose detention by an officer of a council is not authorised under that section), for the words from "Boards" to "subsidiaries" there shall be substituted the words "transport authorities mentioned in subsection (4A)".
(2) the following subsection shall be inserted after section 11(4)—
"(4A) The transport authorities referred to in subsection (4)(a) are—

(a) the Boards established by the Transport Act 1962 and any wholly owned subsidiary of any of those Boards; and

(b) London Regional Transport and any subsidiary (whether wholly owned or not) of London Regional Transport (within the meaning of the London Regional Transport Act 1984).".

31. In Schedule 11 to that Act (repeals and revocations), after the entry relating to the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 there shall be inserted the following words—

1968 c. 73.

Transport Act 1968.

In Schedule 16, paragraph 7(2)(d)."")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 25 I believe that it would be helpful to the House if I spoke also to Amendment No. 27.
Amendment No. 27: Page 115, line 58, at end insert—

("1984 c. 00.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

In Schedule 13, paragraph 8.

1984 c. 00.

The Food Act 1984.

In schedule 10, paragraph 16.")

My Lords, both these amendments are technical amendments to take account of consolidation Bills. They involve no change in the law. The first amendment refers to the Food Bill. This is a consolidation Bill which is expected to receive Royal Assent with the London Regional Transport Bill. It consolidates and repeals, among other things, Section 11(4) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955. We are also repealing, by means of the second amendment, a provision in the Road Traffic Regulation Act which makes a textual amendment to Section 1 of the 1969 Act. That section is of course repealed in this Bill, so the amending provision becomes redundant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Enactments repealed]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 113, line 38, column 3, at end insert—
("the Common Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a minor error in the Bill. The Bill as drafted mistakenly repeals the definition of "the Common Council" in the 1969 Act. That definition is still needed for Section 30 of the 1969 Act, which deals with development control on metropolitan roads and which is not repealed by this Bill or by the Road Traffic Regulation Bill. The amendment therefore saves it from repeal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 27:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. We now approach the end of our deliberations on a very important Bill. First, I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Avon and Lord Trefgarne for the very great contribution they have made to these debates on behalf of the Government. May I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for the very courteous and constructive way in which they have spoken for the Opposition parties. Let me not forget, either, the very substantial contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, who I believe was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench for the very first time on transport matters. May I thank, too, all other noble Lords and noble Baronesses on all sides of the House who have taken part in our debates. Thirty-three of them have taken part in those debates during the last few weeks. I am glad that we have been able to accept the spirit of at least some of their proposed changes, and have thus improved the Bill.
When my noble friend Lord Trefgarne introduced the Bill at Second Reading on 1st May be dealt with two major points of principle. The first was the importance, for reasons of transport policy, of bringing the organisation of bus, Underground and rail services in London more closely together. In the Government's view, this on its own justified the need for a Bill of this kind. The other major area discussed by my noble friend was that of accountability. Opposition parties, both here and in another place, have consistently argued that the new arrangements will adversely affect local democratic accountability.
I do not expect to convert at this late stage those who remain unconverted to the Government's point of view on these matters. If the debate on these aspects of the Bill has been a little sterile at times, this may perhaps reflect the somewhat abstract nature of the ideas and (dare I say it?) the way in which they have been affected by other topical aspects of local government reform. But if there has been an unexpected but welcome feature of the Bill it is the way in which a good deal of the debate has focused on issues at a more personal and humane level. Much time has been spent on the transport problems faced by the disadvantaged: those who are elderly, frail or disabled. I think all noble Lords will be grateful, both to my noble friend Lord Avon particularly for the sympathetic and understanding manner in which he dealt with these clauses, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, whose input was of such importance.
We have introduced, very largely at the instigation of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, some innovative and, I believe, generally welcomed clauses dealing with measures to combat fraudulent travel. I am most appreciative of the expeditious manner in which these clauses have been dealt with, introduced
56
as they were at such a late stage in the Bill. In these two particular areas I believe that the Bill has been substantially improved in its passage through Parliament.
I wish to take up the rest of this very short speech by dealing with one of the other pervasive themes of our debates. It concerns finance. Noble Lords opposite have criticised the way in which the Bill emphasises the primacy of LRT's financial duty. The Government have never argued that in setting financial targets for London Regional Transport people's needs for public transport will be ignored. Indeed, we have established in the Bill a regime for planning and consultation quite unparalleled in nationalised industry legislation. We have done this precisely to ensure that the financial targets and constraints within which LRT will have to operate do take proper account of London's needs. The primacy of the financial duty simply means that once financial targets have been set on the basis of all the relevant considerations then LRT must live within them. There is nothing draconian or sinister in this. It is no more than the good husbandry proper to any major corporation, just as it is to every family household.
But there is more to it than that. London Transport has for many years now been run on the principle of high subsidies and low fares. There is nothing wrong with low fares per se. There is nothing wrong with low prices generally, provided that they are not achieved at the expense of massive amounts of ratepayers' money. If low prices are the results of efficient production, that is fine; but as has been shown time and time again when public subsidy is freely available, especially when it is available to monopolistic suppliers, efficiency suffers and costs rise. That leads to ever higher subsidy, and so the vicious circle continues.
I believe that with this Bill we now have a new chance to break out of this circle. We shall achieve it by encouraging competition where that is possible and by introducing stronger financial and management disciplines. That will be to the benefit of those who travel and those who provide the finance. This is a Bill which I believe spells new hope for those who live and work in London, the capital city, and also those who visit London, I believe it merits your Lordships' support, and I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his kind references, particularly to my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, who, as the Minister rightly said, has been dealing with a transport Bill with me for the first time. I am also grateful to my colleagues and noble friends who moved amendments and made contributions during the passage of this Bill.
I should also like to reciprocate, not just formally but meaningfully, to thank the three noble Ministers— Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Avon— for the courteous way in which they have handled all the debates during the passage of this Bill through its various stages. I also thank them for the attention they have given when they have promised to take matters back to look at them. They

57
have done so, and have written to a number of noble Lords to show that they have carried out their undertakings. It is unfortunate that those kindly attitudes did not have a better Bill on which to be exercised.
Although we have made some useful amendments to the Bill, it still remains a Bill in which London Regional Transport will be isolated from other highway matters, traffic management and planning, and. frankly, isolated from all the other services which a local authority has to provide and which should be considered while discussing transport matters.
As the Minister said, there are fundamental differences. There is a difference of attitude to public transport. The main criterion is to be financial primacy. We have not said that we shall not take account of financial matters. Of course we have to do so; but the question is how we approach it. The Government have refused at all stages to write into the Bill a duty to meet needs. There has been a refusal to write into the Bill social benefits. That is the same sort of opposition we had throughout consideration of the Transport Act 1983, when none of this was written into the Bill at all. One cannot have an efficient transport system unless regard is paid to needs; otherwise, there will be minimum standards and the financial primacy will be the thing that matters.
I shall not go into the argument on the benefits of low fares, although the noble Lord the Minister referred to it. Figures show that low fares not only benefit the passengers but also affect non-travellers; they affect commercial undertakings because they affect staff getting to work; and they affect the big stores in city centres because they affect people travelling there. These are the social benefits that must be considered. They were rejected on this Bill as they were on the 1983 Bill.
We regret, too, that there is no local authority input into the work of the new LRT board. That is unique in any nationalised undertaking: that two-thirds of the costs of work in which the local authorities have no input has to be met by the local authorities. No reference was made to that when the Minister moved the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
The board will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and we have been told quite clearly that he will have who he wishes. It is to be managerial and commercial, yet we have shown in amendments that this managerial and commercial board will not be allowed to decide its own attitude to establishing separate companies for buses and separate companies for the Underground, and will not be able to take its own decisions on tendering or on manufacturing. These have been written into the Bill in advance. A self-respecting managerial board might query having to undertake them, but this is laid down and the Bill does not give them freedom to take decisions.
There are too many indications in this Bill and in speeches made by the Ministers to encourage independent operators on road service licences. These are in line with reports of further deregulation from the statements made by the Secretary of State and reported in the press. We should remember that London Regional Transport has a duty to operate on principles that will be determined by the Secretary of
58
State. With his declared intention to encourage further deregulation, naturally we are worried about the effects on London Regional Transport. That is reflected also in the refusal, as we had this afternoon in an amendment, to permit the passengers' committee to look at the whole of London Transport services— those provided by LRT or bodies with which it is in agreement, and those which are promoted by independent operators.
We are grateful for the assurances given by Ministers on various matters, but I must repeat what I have said before: that it would be far better if assurances were written into the Bill. Present Ministers may not be in their present posts— I hope they will not be there too long— and a different attitude might prevail upon even other Conservative Government Ministers. We must reckon— and I am certain that any noble and learned Lords here will agree— that the courts will always say, "We do not care what Ministers have said: we do not care what Hansard has said; what matters are the words written into the Bill". While we appreciate the statements and assurances given on many matters by the Ministers, they are not good enough. That is why we went to the vote today on the question of the disabled. I am only, sorry that the amendment was not carried.
We agree with the Minister that it is good that we have had the penalty fares amendments brought forward. Fortunately, it has worked out all right, but the introduction of those seven pages of amendments at Report stage could have presented problems. Fortunately, the wording was such that there is general acceptance for them. That shows the value of a second Chamber, that after having gone all the way through the other House we have seven pages of amendments on a really important matter and on which we are all agreed.
On these Benches we are worried about the future development of LRT to meet transport needs. Of course we want efficiency, but needs have to be met and what we have to do as citizens is to decide how much we are prepared to pay so that the needs shall be met. We should not decide in advance before we know what the needs are.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that there is much heavy business for noble Lords to deal with later, but I feel I must say a word or two at this stage. May I join in the thanks to the Government Front Bench for the extremely courteous way in which they have handled this Bill, The quantity of their response, as well as the quality, has been impressive. I do not mean that in any cynical way at all. I remember a year ago, when we were dealing with the 1983 Bill. Because of other pressures upon the Government Front Bench at that time, such as a pending general election, there was a tendency for them to have to press things through against an unspoken timetable.
The contrast this time has been very impressive. We are all grateful to the three Ministers who have dealt with the Bill and who have given the House the courtesy of their attention. Perhaps it is a pity that the Back-Benches are fuller at this time than they have been at any time during the discussions on the Bill. I suspect that if noble Lords had had a chance to listen to the arguments we have had on some of the

59
amendments we might have come somewhat closer to winning one or two of those we should like to have won. We have, however, improved this Bill only very slightly. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is to be congratulated on raising the whole question of stopping places. It was a very important point to raise and I am glad that the Government were able to deal with it.
We have made progress on cheap fares for the elderly and disabled in relation to the reserve provisions within the Bill, and the House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for the work he put in on those amendments.
The penalty clauses came, as everybody has said, at a very late stage. I hope that, thanks to interventions by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and others, we have now got them right. It is worrying that on a subject as important as that, where individual rights are concerned, we perhaps have not had as much time as we should have liked to deal with those matters, and perhaps people outside your Lordships' House have not yet had their eyes turned towards some of the problems that could occur within the penalty clauses. However, I think we have given them as clear a scrutiny as we could, and so far as one can see, they are as right as we can make them. Certainly I think we all agree on the need for the penalty clauses and I consider the Government have been wise to introduce them into the Bill.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and his noble colleague Lord Carmichael on the amount of work that they have put into all stages of this Bill. It has been a marathon task. I think that he has perhaps deserved better on some of the amendments that were put down. Nevertheless the amount of work that they have put into this Bill, as the noble Lord himself said, supports the need for a second Chamber, as does the fact that, after a long period in another place, there is still a need for 65 amendments at the Committee stage, all of them carefully debated and carefully responded to.
But we have not, I am afraid, had much movement. We have had assurances on the dial-a-ride. I sincerely hope that in practice those assurances will provide the degree of support needed for the disabled sectors of our community in Greater London. I am afraid that I really have my doubts, since I think something should definitely have gone into the Bill there.
We have had no movement on the dreaded integration question, and that saddens me because it is worrying that, underlying this Bill—as I have said so many times, and I say again now—is a tendency towards fragmentation. I referred to it as disintegration of London Transport. That is perhaps a little strong; but there is a danger of fragmentation when the private sector is to be allowed to tender in respect of various parts of the undertaking where there is separation of the bus and Underground management. All these things seem to me to move away from the ideal of having a properly integrated London passenger transport system which, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill said, is also integrated into other facets of local government activity in Greater London.
60
We have had no movement at all on the question of duties which should be written into the Bill. I was unable to get any movement on the question of bringing the National Bus Company into various clauses of the Bill. I am extremely worried about the Government's attitude to that because I fear that coming events may be casting shadows before them and that before we are very much older the National Bus Company might be before the court of privatisation to a greater degree that it is at the moment. I think that would be extremely sad in terms of the integration of the activities of the London country bus services with London Transport.
We were unable to move the Government on the question of enforceability before the courts. On the questions of planning and co-ordination, we obtained very little movement. On the passengers committee I fear that, as I said at Second Reading, it will be a toothless watchdog not able even to watch over the whole of the London Transport area, as we saw with the amendment that was defeated earlier this afternoon.
Of course, if you accept the Government's concept of London passenger transport, these things are inevitable. I think that that concept has become much clearer as we have gone through the Committee, Report, and now Third Reading stages of the Bill. It is a concept which is totally foreign to the one we have on these Benches and, similarly, to the one that is held in the Labour Party, though at the end of the day we should probably put up different models. Very frequently, I have spoken in this Chamber in support of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. That does not mean to say that at the end of the day the model for London Transport which would be produced by him and the one that would be produced by my party would be identical: they would not. But I think that they would have in common a belief that the services of a public passenger transport system should not be totally dictated from the Treasury, in terms of finance.
I believe that the picture which the Government see is not a pretty view. Certainly we all have a belief in having a more efficient public transport system. I do not think anybody, in any part of the House, would suggest that at the moment London Transport is as efficient as it could be. Introducing a degree of competition is something with which I would not quarrel. What we want at the end of the day, because of the relationship between public transport and the whole quality of life in London, is a public transport system which will encourage the maximum number of people to use it so as to get them out of their motor cars and so reduce the congestion on the streets of Greater London. Instead of that, the Government have made it clear that they regard cost as the overriding criterion, despite the fact that they must know that the level of subsidy in London, though not insignificant— it is a very large amount of money— is nothing like as high as subsidies in other capital cities of the world.
I suppose the point which will astonish supporters of the Government outside is that in order to create efficiency in London Transport they have gone down the road of nationalisation. It seems to me there is something a little ironic about that. But it is due to going down that road of nationalisation that the

61
checks and balances that we had in the 1983 Act will not apply to this Bill when it becomes an Act. Because of that the access of the public to facts will be more restricted than it would have been had one of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, been carried. We are retaining the myth that somehow members of another place are going to provide a reasonable check on what is happening regarding London Transport. Frankly, I do not think that that will happen. The number of London MPs are overwhelmed by people from outside London and, on a practical basis, the amount of time that is needed to challenge the power of the Secretary of State in this matter is simply not available in the House of Commons.
The Government are obviously using this as a route to further privatisation and, as I have already said, the problem of fragmentation immediately comes to mind. I fear the disintegration of London Transport. I fear failure of co-ordination. I fear rises in fares which will make London passenger transport increasingly unattractive to the travelling public, and that, in turn, will mean more cars, more congestion. This Bill is an opportunity missed, and I am sad to see it go on its way in this state.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words. When I was Leader of the GLC I took London Transport into the reluctant arms of the GLC, but I never felt that it was absolutely right that it should be kept there. I believe that in the end this Bill will make an improvement to London Transport and that the staff of London Transport, together with the managerial staff, who have been constantly interfered with over a number of years, will now have the opportunity to see that the undertaking runs in the right way. Now that the Government have the responsibility for public transport I hope that it will be accompanied by improvements to the road system in London. I congratulate the Ministers on the way in which this Bill has gone through.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Rates Bill
6.10 p.m.
Read a Third time.
Clause 1 [Power to prescribe maximum rates and precepts]:
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, after first ("to ") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to refer also to Amendments Nos. 2, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
(b) a levy made on the rating authority under section 13 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.").
Amendment No. 25: Schedule 1, page 15, line 41, leave out ("the London Transport Executive") and insert ("London Regional Transport").
Amendment No. 26: Schedule 1, page 16, line 45, leave out ("exercise by a transport Board") and insert ("exercise—
(i) by the British Railways Board or the British Waterways Board").
Amendment No. 27: Schedule 1, page 16, line 47, at end insert—
("; or
(ii) by London Regional Transport of any powers conferred by paragraph 9(2) or 12(1) of Schedule 2 to the London Regional Transport Act 1984.").
Amendment No. 28: Schedule 1, page 19, line 16, leave out ("and").
Amendment No. 29: Schedule 1, page 19, line 18, at end insert—("; and
(c) paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the London Regional Transport Act 1984.").
I must ask for the indulgence of the House, since all these amendments assume that the London Regional Transport Bill has been enacted. Since that Bill has now had its Third Reading and now been passed by your Lordships' House, I trust that I am not presuming too much.
The purpose of the two amendments to Clause 1 is to regularise the position concerning London boroughs as regards the levy to be imposed under that Bill by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As your Lordships will know from the debate we had earlier, LRT is to be funded partly by Exchequer grant and partly by a levy issued to all the rating authorities in London: that is, all the London boroughs.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would not be right to expect the LRT levy to be funded from within a rate limited authority's expenditure level or rate limit, and these amendments to Clause I will allow that levy to be excluded from any maximum, thus putting it on a par with the precepts of the major precepting authorities and the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police.
The other amendments (all to Schedule 1) are consequential upon the setting up of London Regional Transport in place of the London Transport Executive and do not, therefore, need further explanation. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am rather worried about one of the comments made by the Minister. The second amendment refers to,
"a levy made on the rating authority under section 13 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984".
I know that the Bill has now been passed by this House, but it appears to me that this amendment is already assuming Royal Assent, which the Bill certainly has not yet received.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that is why, in introducing the amendments, I asked for the indulgence of the House in the obvious interest of not presuming Royal Assent, but on the basis that the Bill had received a Third Reading and had now been passed.
Baroness Birk: Yes, my Lords, I heard and understood what the Minister said. It seems to me that it is a very dangerous precedent which is probably occurring more and more. The fact that there is a tremendous Government majority in the Commons which takes all this for granted is rather disturbing. The Minister explained it— and I am not blaming him for it— but I think it is a worry that it should be so

63
assumed. Asking for indulgence is not the same thing as assuming that the Bill has received Royal Assent, or that it will receive Royal Assent, but I still maintain that the Bill has not received Royal Assent. This should have been managed in a different way and, if necessary, the amendment should have been put in when the Commons consider the Lords' amendments. That is the place for it, not here in this House.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I understand that the Public Bills Office would not have admitted this if there was anything improper. I say again that I put the matter to your Lordships in what I hope was a proper way. It is on that basis that I ask your Lordships to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Designation of authorities]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 37, leave out front beginning to ("subject") in line 39 and insert—
(" (3) If the total of relevant expenditure as estimated for the purposes of the Rate Support Grant Report for any financial year (other than the first) in which this section is in force is greater or smaller than the total of relevant expenditure as estimated for the purposes of the Rate Support Grant Report for the previous financial year, the Secretary of State shall by order substitute for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (2)(a) above (whether £l0 million or an amount previously substituted under this subsection) an amount which is proportionately greater or smaller except that any substituted amount may be rounded to the nearest £100,000.
(3A) The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords in speaking to this amendment I should like to link it to Amendment No. 24, which is consequential.
Amendment No. 24: Clause 19, page 13, line 10, after ("1980") insert ("and "relevant expenditure" has the meaning given in section 54 of that Act").
The amendments provide for the £10 million cut-off level for exclusion from the selective scheme to be updated annually. Your Lordships may remember we discussed a similar amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandford, at Report stage. I said at the time that although I accepted the principle, I could not accept my noble friend's amendment because I believed that the timing implicit in that amendment was wrong, and also because the formula proposed to calculate the amount of the updating would be dependent upon the continuation of expenditure targets.
This present amendment, Amendment No. 3, is the result of the undertaking I gave to my noble friend Lord Sandford to bring forward an amendment which met his objective of providing for the routine updating of the £10 million limit that is both workable and is based on expenditure definitions which are intrinsic to
64
the rate support grant arrangements in the 1980 Act. This amendment provides that after the first year of operation when the limit will be £10 million, thereafter that limit would be adjusted annually in proportion to the increase or decrease in the total of relevant expenditure as detailed in succeeding rate support grant reports. The increase or decrease would be rounded to the nearest £100,000, thus preserving a feature of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford, to avoid unnecessary precision in setting the cut-off level.
By accepting this amendment the value of the present value of the £10 million exemption will be maintained. The large number of smaller authorities will therefore continue to be excluded from rate limitation. This will meet the Government's objective of continuing to ensure that scarce resources are not devoted to rate limiting authorities which made only a tiny impact on the total overspending of local government. And we shall reassure those authorities who were concerned that the value of the £10 million exemption would be eroded by inflation.
Amendment No. 24 is consequential and provides that the definition of relevant expenditure is included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for these two amendments. They are the last in a series of amendments which we have considered and debated at each of the previous stages of the Bill. My original amendment was designed to have the effect of ensuring that the £10 million threshold continued to have the same effect on the smaller local authorities after the passage of the Bill as it had when the Bill was presented to Parliament. I think that is the effect it now has.
If I may say so, the result is that the great majority of the district councils will be exempted from the operation of Part I, which is welcome in itself. It is also welcome because, as my noble friend says, it will have the effect of not wasting a lot of the officials' time in the Department of the Environment and in local government by going over the affairs of these smaller authorities.
Perhaps I may correct something which my noble friend said. The spending of the Association of District Councils has no effect, or has not for the last two years, on the economic policies of the Government because in aggregate they are not overspending at all.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an example of an authority which will come into this category: and how many will come into it? Can be give us one or two names so that we know what it is all about? It is a little bit woolly. When we are talking about the metropolitan counties, everbody knows who they are. But may we have an instance of districts to which it might apply, and also how many he thinks that it will apply to?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness gives me quite a task! I understand that it is all the shire districts in the country, apart from 21. As the song says, "Where do I begin?" I think that is really the point the noble Baroness is seeking: it is all but 21. If

65
my memory serves me right, the total is 296, and it is all but 21 of those; so it affects a great number of authorities. If the noble Baroness would like me to, I can have a shot at reeling off the names of some of the shire districts; but I think that she is probably satisfied with what I have said.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, may I ask the noble Lord to name some of the 21?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that it not too hard. They include authorities such as Leicester, Nottingham— dare I say it?— Portsmouth and Plymouth. It is that kind of authority.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I congratulate my noble friend? That is a very good effort.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out line 4 and insert ("the subject of an order under section 4 of this Act specifying a maximum rate for the financial year in which a report is laid under subsection (1) of this section").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 7 deal with aspects of Amendments Nos. 4 and 13 tabled by the Government on Report.
Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 31, leave out from ("been") to end of line 32 and insert ("the subject of an order under section 4 of this Act specifying a maximum rate for the financial year preceding that in which a maximum determined under subsection (1) of this section is to have effect").
The House will remember that on Report I drew attention to the fact that these were very important and substantial amendments, although they had been put down rather late on the Marshalled List. The most important thing was the effect of them. The Minister apologised for the lateness of their being put down. He said that he would rather have the provision in the Bill and then, if he felt that there was any change he could make, he would do so and let me know. That put me in the position of not being able to do much more about it at that stage, although, as I am afraid I rightly suspected, no joy came from the very polite letter that he then wrote to me.
The whole Bill is so complicated that it is difficult to make anything appear easy or clear. The position now is that if an authority has been designated in the previous year, special rules may apply to it for the purposes of designation the following year and for determining its expenditure limit. On Report, where the provision arrived very late, I expressed concern which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, from the Alliance Benches.
This enlargement in the number of sets of principles available to the Secretary of State to designate authorities gives him powers even wider than the Bill already contained before the amendments were introduced. Unfortunately, the amendments are now part of the Bill. The new situation is undesirable, as the previous panoply of powers open to the Secretary of State had already been the subject of a great deal of criticism and concern from all sides. What those changes do is to facilitate a permanent hit list by the
66
extension of discretion. Whatever an authority does, it cannot escape the Government's shackles. Any loophole has now been closed.
Even if the Government were correct in saying that equity demanded that different rules should apply to those authorities which had reduced expenditure because they were forced to do so, the criterion to adopt should not be designation, as the amendment moved on Report stipulated, but final rate limitation. These amendments deal only with this last point. The question is whether it should be designation or forced rate limitation that makes an authority subject to special rules in the following year. We believe that it should be the enforced rate limitation.
When he wrote to me on 11th June, the Minister said:
"Whilst designation is the first step in the process of rate limitation, it is the point at which it becomes clear that an authority will be required to reduce its spending".
The point is that it is not clear at that stage, because designation is the first step in rate limitation. At that stage the Secretary of State will use principles to determine those authorities whose expenditure appears to him,
"to be excessive having regard to general economic conditions".
which are stated in the Bill. One safeguard— perhaps the only safeguard— of acting in accordance with principles is that the Secretary of State will have to use only the information available to him in budget returns, and so on, to arrive at the conclusion that an authority's spending is prima facie excessive.
The Bill recognises that designation is very much a first shot by establishing the process of redetermination in Clause 3, under which a designated authority may put to the Secretary of State its case for a higher expenditure limit. The Secretary of State may then take into account the peculiar circumstances of that authority; for instance, why it is that the City of London, if it were to be designated, spends at 247 per cent. above GREA compared with neighbouring Hackney and Islington which can provide services at only 79 per cent. and 50 per cent. above GREA.
As a result of derogation, the Secretary of State may give an authority a higher expenditure limit— perhaps one involving no reduction in expenditure at all. But even if a designated authority were to be let off, it must still be the subject of a rate limitation notice. The only way then of defining those authorities against which the case for overspending is more than prima facie is by reference to the authorities which would be the subject of a rate limitation order under Clause 4. That is why the power to redesignate in accordance with special principles should be not according to whether or not the authority has been designated but according to whether or not the authority has been the subject of a rate limitation order.
I apologise to the House for that rather lengthy explanation, but it really is the fault of the way the Bill is drafted and also of the amendments which were put in on Report and which many of us find so objectionable. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, these two amendments seek to modify the changes we made at Report stage of the Bill, as the noble Baroness said. At that time we

67
argued that, where authorities had been designated for rate limitation in one year, the Secretary of State should be able to use different principles in the following year to decide whether to designate those authorities and to decide on how to set an expenditure level for them. The problem for which we were providing was that in the second or subsequent year of the selective rate limitation scheme, authorities which had been limited in the previous year would have had their expenditure restrained as a result of having been rate limited. For example, we would expect them to spend at or close to their expenditure target; and, if we wanted to have regard to spending against targets as one of the criteria of selection in the next year, those authorities might then evade rate limitation because of a short-term improvement in their performance which had been forced on them rather than because their spending had been reduced to a significantly lower level or because they were making efforts on their own account to improve their performance.
We do not think it would be sensible to remove from rate limitation those authorities simply because of the evidence of a single year when, on the evidence of the GRE test, for example, it remained a high spender or it had a recent history of systematically increasing its spending over a run of years.
The case for having a power to use different principles in setting expenditure levels for previously designated authorities was slightly different. If reselected, authorities would enter rate limitation with a history of having made some economies. Those authorities may, therefore, find it more difficult to achieve further savings than authorities selected for the first time.
We wanted to be able to take account of that when setting the expenditure level. The amendments now before us would allow the use of different principles only in cases where a designated authority had been set a rate or precept maximum by order under Clause 4(4). This would be the circumstance where, after considerable discussion, the Secretary of State and the authority cannot agree on the final rate limit and it has to be put to the House of Commons to be determined in a statutory instrument.
The argument is that where the authority acquiesces in the limit proposed by the Secretary of State it should be treated as if it was the same as all other authorities which have not been rate limited. I do not accept that argument. It is not the way in which the rate limit is imposed which sets such authorities apart from other authorities, but the fact that a limit has been set. It is, of course, possible that not all the designated authorities will have a rate limit imposed on them by order. Indeed, once any discussions between the authority and the Secretary of State about the expenditure level have been settled, it may be possible for many of the designated authorities to accept a conversion of that expenditure figure into a rate figure, since that would be largely mechanical. The operative decision which will affect the way in which selection for a subsequent year is approached will be the setting of the expenditure level.
I have listened to the noble Baroness and her argument that designation in itself should not be sufficient to justify the use of different principles. That
68
argument rests on the fact that the designation reports will not be approved by the House of Commons. We have debated at length the question of whether the decisions of the Secretary of State should be subjected to some specific statutory approval or whether— as I have argued throughout— the procedures of the other place to oversee the actions of the Executive are adequate for this purpose. The act of designation is a first step in the process of rate limitation. Once designated authorities have a rate limit set for them, it is that fact which will set them apart in considering their expenditure performance in the future.
It has been argued that only authorities which have had a rate limit set by order are actually being forced to make savings— other authorities in acquiescing in the Secretary of State's rate limit, should be entitled to take credit for the savings which result. I do not agree with that and I have explained why.
I cannot accept these amendments. I think that, in resting on the designation procedures, we have chosen a clear and unambiguous point of reference for deciding when it is appropriate to treat one group of authorities as substantially different from another for these purposes. With that explanation, I hope that your Lordships will understand why we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords. I found the Minister's reply very unsatisfactory. To say that this is clear and unambiguous I thought was really using way out language to describe any part of this Bill and certainly these amendments. When they were moved on Report and I saw them on the Order Paper. I was extremely concerned about them. When the Minister said he had looked at them. I hoped, as I said earlier— although without much hope— that he might do something about them, but he has not. As I said before, what this has done is shackled authorities with an ever tighter noose. Therefore I shall do what, in order to enable the Minister to have another chance, I did not do on Report: I will press this to a Division.
6.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Amherst, E.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Attlee, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Gladwyn, L.

Beswick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Birk, B.

Blyton, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Denington, L

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L

Hirshfield, L.

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Denington, B.

Jeger, B.

Diamond, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

John-Mackie, L.

69

Kilmarnock, L.

Rochester, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

McCarthy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stallard, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Mayhew, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Meston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stone, L.

Molloy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Oram, L.

Tordoff L.

Peart, L.

Underhill, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rea, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Rhodes, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Roberthall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lyell, L.

Allerton, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, F.

Auckland, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Avon, E.

McFadzean, L.

Bauer, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara. L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Minto, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Molson, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cockfield, L.

Morton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L..

Crathorne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Croft, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Saint Oswald, L

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Savile, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Shannon, E.

Glanusk, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Spens, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tranmire, L.

Hankey, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hayter, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vickers, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Ingrow, L.

Westbury, L.

Kitchener, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Windlesham, L

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [Expenditure levels]:
6.43 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 27, after ("State") insert ("which shall include a Statement exempting from calculation any expenditure on social services to those groups which the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services shall define from time to time as priority groups, but which shall include people with mental disorder, as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and elderly people over 75").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if, together with this amendment we take Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12.
Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 14, after ("requirements") insert ("including the expenditure on priority groups as set out in subsection (9) below.").
Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In making a decision under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the extent (if any) to which the authority's proposed expenditure is to consist of contributions to charities registered, or excepted from registration, under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960. ").
Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall exempt from calculations all expenditure by a local authority on social services to the priority groups, including services provided by registered charities as its agents. The local authority shall raise the rate as agreed with the Secretary of State under subsection (I) above and in addition a rate at the local authority's own discretion to cover its expenditure on the priority groups.").
Amendment No. 11 is a Government amendment, and Amendment No. 9 is linked with Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 12 is a little different. I want to concentrate on Amendment No. 5 and examine the two subjects of the amendment, which are closely linked.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I intervene only to ask whether all those amendments are being taken together, because I did not catch the numbers.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make it absolutely clear. The four amendments being taken together are Amendment No. 5, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock; Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 also standing in the names of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock: and Amendment No. 11, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Obviously, I shall not move Amendment No. 11; the noble Lord will do that himself. It is, however, part of the same debate.
It will be recalled that at the Report stage the noble Baroness. Lady Faithfull, on behalf of herself, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and myself, moved an amendment that sought to protect charities in the rate-capping operation. In her very first sentence at column 518 on 5th June, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said:
"this amendment means that voluntary organisations registered with the Charity Commission would be outside local authority rate-capping".
I shall not take the quotation further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was extremely responsive to an excellent speech made by the noble Baroness and said that he accepted the principle, that he would take the issue back and that he would come back with an amendment. That appears as Amendment No. 11,

71
which he will, of course, explain himself. This brought some joy to the House. All of us appreciate the work of charitable organisations; and all of us recognise the deep fear of some charities that their work in the community, and particularly in the social services and the information field— by "information" I refer to the Citizens Advice Bureaux— might suffer unless there is some sort of exemption for them. I was therefore delighted, as I know were my colleagues, that the noble Lord. Lord Bellwin, decided to table Amendment No. 11. I must say that I do not absolutely understand the implications of it. I think that I do, but I would prefer to have the noble Lord's interpretation of exactly what the amendment means, and its implications, rather than put my own gloss on it.
The amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is identical to an amendment that we proposed at Report stage. I was then tremendously encouraged when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said at column 529 on 5th June, in debating the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull:
"When the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, comes to the amendment, he will know that he does not have to press the case very hard".
The noble Lord said later:
"I shall accept that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the reason I have given, to the extent that I shall want to take it away and see what I can come back with, hoping that it will be satisfactory".
My hope was, of course, as great as his, but it turned out to be frustrated. Although the noble Lord was generous enough to have consultations with me, he was not able to bring back any amendment at all in relation to the amendment which I had withdrawn because of the assurance given by the noble Lord.
The purpose of this amendment, which is identical to the amendment on the Marshalled List at Report stage, is to discount expenditure on priority groups in the social services set by the Secretary of State for Social Services. That means the elderly. I was going to say the very elderly but you do not have to be very elderly to be 75 and over. Some of the brightest Members of your Lordships' House are aged 75 and over. But there are some people of that age who cannot be so described. They are considered by the Secretary of State for Social Services, in his wisdom, to be priority cases together with the mentally disordered; namely, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. This is not an amendment linked specifically with charitable organisations. We recognised that it would be impossible for local authorities to push on to charities all the work connected with the care and welfare of these priority groups— the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, and the elderly needing a great deal of assistance.
Even recognising the keenness, the enthusiasm and the mental ability of those aged over 75 in this House, nevertheless, in the country, the demands made on the health service by those over 75 are now of the order of eight times these applying to the rest of the population. All of us recognise that with an ageing population there is a need for more work to be done, particularly in the context of health and social services policy, to keep people in the community for as long as possible, to discharge them into the community as early as
72
possible if they have been in hospital and to develop care in the community rather than having people subjected excessively to hospital treatment.
Last week, in a Starred Question, we looked at the possible closure of a psychiatric hospital, with several hundred beds, and of a geriatric hospital. Both closures would impose enormous burdens upon one local authority, namely, Lambeth, which is one of those that one understands is on the hit list; one should be surprised if it were not on the Minister's hit list of 12 or so.
We believe that the priorities which have been set by the Secretary of State for Social Services, namely, these two categories, are ones that your Lordships would not wish to undermine in any way. No one could disagree that, wherever we can, we must give priority to community needs, but it cannot be done simply by the charitable organisations. Very often skills and training as well as professional staffs are needed to assist with these particular groups.
As I have said, before the time came to move the amendment on the last occasion the noble Lord gave me the good news that he was going to take it away, and so I did not press my arguments at all. I was delighted, because I thought we were going to have two victories, and not simply one. We are now talking about what we would have been talking about at Report stage; that is, to ensure protection for the social service provision for the priority groups of the very elderly and the mentally disordered. Even though the Minister did not understand my two amendments, he is certainly not a hard-hearted man; no one could say that of him. I hope that he has had time to reflect, since we had the opportunity of meeting, and will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, obviously I should like to support this amendment, to which my name has been added. At the last stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, spelt out some of his objections to what, in shorthand, I may call the priority groups amendment; they were mainly financial objections. But those objections do not help us to know how the Government's own policy of care in the community is to be carried out. I have said before, and. at the risk of boring your Lordships, I repeat, that there is a contradiction between the Government's policy to return suitable long-stay patients to the community, thus making it possible to close uneconomic, old hospitals, and the constraints imposed on local authorities, who have a large role to play in the implementation of this policy. As I see it, that is an essential contradiction between two branches, or prongs, of the Government's policy.
We are very glad to see on the Marshalled List the noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 11, to which he will shortly be speaking, and in which he has gone some way to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in her plea for the exemption of all genuine charities from rate capping under this Bill. But it seems to me that there are still going to be quite considerable hurdles for voluntary bodies and local authorities to surmount. I understand they will have to use the redetermination procedure to apply under the Government's new proposal.

73
What I should like to put to the noble Lord is that, if he is not happy about the main priority groups amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has moved, when he comes to speak to his own amendment, Amendment No. 11, he should give local authorities and voluntary organisations some clear signals as to the types of bid which might expect some success under the new procedure, which we welcome, that he is proposing to bring into the Bill.
I would argue with him— I think he would partly accept my argument; at least, I hope he would— that the Government should make a substantial exception in favour of charities aiding local authorities to carry out their responsibilities for care in the community. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, explained, these are the groups which are identified in the Government's own consultation document on this subject and subsequently referred to again in the DHSS circular suggesting how local authorities should proceed as regards the groups. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, they are the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, and the elderly— in his amendment, people over 75, which is the age at which the National Health Service costs for elderly people begin to escalate to an enormous extent.
If the Government are not happy and do not want to accept the group of amendments of the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, then I think that the least the noble Lord the Minister can do is put on record that the Government will look favourably on bids for these purposes; that is to say, the purposes mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, and actually backed by the Government in their own care in the community policy.
It would be a great help to voluntary organisations to know more or less where they stand on this front. After all, during the course of the last Administration, as well as during the time of this Administration, the Government have encouraged voluntary organisations actually to expand on a county-wide basis in order to carry out some of these responsibilities. Some of them are very unhappy about the uncertain ground on which they now stand. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to help them a great deal when he comes to speak to his own amendment.
I would say, finally, that though the age of 75 is specified in this amendment, the problems really begin at 65, which is what one might call the official age at which these elderly long-stay patients begin to become a charge on the National Health Service. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to help us when he comes to make his own speech.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I hope I can help. I am well aware that throughout the attempts I have made to meet your Lordships on this question I have not been able to go as far as has been wished. But let me see whether I can develop the points, as quickly as I can, though at the same time it is important that the record should be complete. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I know it is the view also of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record the Government's thinking on the implications of this Bill for local funding for charities. We have discussed the matter
74
several times, and, as I say, I am grateful to all who have brought this forward.
We have before us a group of amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Kilmarnock, and also the Government amendment. I should like again to put on record the Government's recognition of the valuable work done by voluntary bodies, complementing and supplementing statutory services across the whole spectrum. That support runs throughout the Government, from the top down. The Government's own support of the voluntary sector— grants to the tune of £150 million in 1982– 83, and a massive collaboration through MSC programmes— is perhaps the most tangible evidence of our commitment, but we value also the partnership of local authorities and the voluntary sector, which underpins so much of the work of voluntary and charitable organisations locally.
I should like also to register the Government's understanding of the importance of the work which local authorities themselves do in the field of local social services. Our own expenditure plans have provided for a 39 per cent, increase in spending on local personal social services since 1981– 82. That compares with a 22 per cent. increase for local authority spending generally. I hope that demonstrates the extent of the financial backing which underlies the various Government policy intiatives in the field, such as care in the community.
There are two basic principles which underlie this legislation. First, our objective is to control the spending and the rating of the minority of the highest spending authorities. We are not, therefore, talking about authorities who are already strapped for cash, as the saying goes. Secondly, it would be wrong for this legislation to encroach on the freedom of local authorities to decide their own priorities locally for spending within their overall limits. I am sure that those in your Lordships' House who have personal knowledge of local government would support us strongly in this objective.
It is against this background that I have looked at the very fair arguments put forward by noble Lords. Let me explain the problems that I see in some of their proposals and say why those considerations have led me to the solution proposed in my amendment, Amendment No. 11. Much of the concern that underlies the amendments put forward by others is that authorities will be so restricted in their expenditure level that they will be unable, or possibly unwilling, to fund properly voluntary organisations or charities, or their own social services. I have already pointed out that we are here talking about only the most excessive spending authorities; no more than 12 to 20. As I have said so many times before, the expenditure levels we set must be reasonable and cannot seek unattainable cuts.
Given those two factors, I think that it is wrong for voluntary organisations— whose work is generally valued in the local community— to be pessimistic. Grant giving is a tiny proportion of the cost of the main local authority services. Social services grants, for example, were some £50 million in 1981– 82 against social services spending of £2,321 million. So all the evidence of variations in the cost of main line

75
services suggests that local authorities which find themselves rate capped will have scope for the necessary savings elsewhere without slashing their support for worthwhile voluntary sector activities.
We must keep a sense of perspective. Of course it may be possible for an authority to decide to cut back on its support for these organisations. But I repeat that we are talking only of the 12 to 20 highest spending councils, and it is inconceivable that all of those would take that same negative attitude. The maximum extent of the problem envisaged may be no more than two or three authorities. But I accept at once that the concern expressed by charities and voluntary bodies is genuinely felt.
Two solutions have been put forward. First, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull at Report stage sought to leave spending on charities out of account when fixing the expenditure level. But such an amendment would have the perverse effect of reducing the amount of money available to the authority and would make it more difficult for it to maintain its support for charities. Unfortunately therefore I do not think that there is a solution down this road, and I am confident that on reflection my noble friend will agree.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, have pursued a different road by suggesting a split in the rate of an authority. One rate would be limited and the other rate, for defined priority services, would be unlimited. I have difficulty with that approach. Without power to direct what authorities spend their money on— which I do not believe your Lordships would want— it would be possible for an authority to levy a substantial rate nominally for priority group spending, but in reality to spend it in whatever way it wished. And frankly that would drive a coach and horses through the legislation.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, also goes wider than charities and refers to spending on priority services, some of which would be provided by the authority itself. The distinction is not between for whom the service is provided, but who is providing the service. Grant aid to charitable organisations is in a different category. Because grants are often small and short term they may seem easy to cut; but to the organisations which rely on them, and whose scope for savings may be very limited, they can be far more damaging than cuts in larger services.
That brings me conveniently to the amendment which I have tabled. In thinking about what we ought to do, it seemed clear that what was needed was some way of giving special prominence to local authorities' funding of charitable organisations, but which stopped short of central direction of the authority's spending. For the reasons I have given, it is not possible to achieve this objective through changes in the expenditure level system. But it is possible to do something at the later stage at which an authority applies for a redetermination of its expenditure level. That is the stage at which the authority makes its case to the Minister for a higher level of expenditure to be allowed. At that stage the Minister is allowed to depart from general principles in order to take account of the authority's particular circumstances.
76
At present the Bill does not give any guidance to the Secretary of State on how he should decide applications for redetermination. The Government's amendment proposes that in making decisions he should
"have regard to the extent (if any) to which the authorty's proposed expenditure is to consist of contributions to charities registered, or excepted from registration under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960".
I think this is an important step forward. I was very glad to see from the newspapers that the NCVO have welcomed it. The amendment would have the effect of giving charitable organisations a clear status on the face of the statute. The words, "shall have regard" are unambiguous. There can be no doubt that the Secretary of State will have to do that when considering applications and could be challenged in the courts if he did not. Moreover, in order to fulfil the requirement, the Secretary of State will specifically have to ensure that he has the necessary information from authorities about their proposals in relation to charities.
I should perhaps stress here— because we have not discussed in this House how the Secretary of State will consider applications— that of course his decision will be taken in the light of advice from his service colleagues about the issues raised and how they are related to the priorities of the Government generally, say for services to mentally handicapped people or, in another field, to support for work among the ethnic minorities.
It may also be asked what would happen if' the authority made no application for a redetermination. Of course that would be a matter for them. But I put it to your Lordships that where an authority was considering cutting its support to charities because of the pressures of the expenditure level, the charities concerned would be in a strong position to press the council to apply for a redetermination simply because of this amendment. And if the authority should then apply for a redetermination, it would be possible for the charities in that area to write to the Secretary of State to support their case, or, to make an independent case if the authority was proposing to reduce their support. The Secretary of State would have to take these representations into account.
It might also be asked why the amendment is limited to registered charities. I think that I have already explained why I do not believe that local authorities' own services ought to be covered by any special arrangements. In our earlier debate we noted that talk about voluntary bodies at large would cast our net too wide. I think that there was a large measure of agreement on that. That is why we have tightened up on the proposition which was originally put to us by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I think that is helpful and it is right, when we are establishing a specially advantageous position in the legislation to be confident that it does not extend too widely.
I have to be frank however that there is no way in which we could force local authorities to spend money in a particular way. The amendment will not therefore compel any particular level of support to charities in any area. That of course is the existing position. Having said that, I find it difficult to believe that authorities— once we are past what I would call the

77
sabre rattling stage— would want to cut off funds to charities, knowing that a case could be made to the Secretary of State under the terms of this amendment.
I have spoken at length and I do not want to say any more except to raise one matter. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, refers to "people with mental disorder", and to the elderly. Those groups will be covered by the Government amendment in so far as they are provided for by registered charities of which leading examples are MENCAP, MIND and Age Concern. I have also explained that applications for redetermination will be taken in the light of advice from those Ministers responsible for particular services who will want to ensure that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the Government's priorities for particular items of spending.
I do not want to say any more. I apologise for the length of my explanation; but I think that everyone felt that it was important that the record should show the Government's thinking on this matter so that those concerned can look at and understand clearly where we stand. I hope that the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Faith full will feel that we have gone, if not all the way— and I know that they would have wanted us to go further— at least a long way to try to recognise the great concern which they have very fairly expressed.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords. I should like to speak to both Amendments Nos. 5 and 11. As regards Amendment No. 5, naturally I have the deepest sympathy for the amendment for the reasons that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. However, a number of us in the social work field did not altogether agree with the priority groups that were noted in the circular that went out to the local authorities. In different parts of the country there are different problems. For instance, many of us at that time were very worried about the problems of the single parent family; the homeless; and families with children. There was also the question of the citizens advice bureaux. Therefore, as regards Amendment No. 5 I would be a little unhappy if priority were to go into the Bill. That is not to say that I am not very sympathetic to and very understanding of the reasons why the two noble Lords have tabled this amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 11, which is the Government's amendment in response to the general amendment. First, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the great care and consideration that he has given to the amendment which we put forward last time. I am particularly grateful to him. I met with him and then the three of us whose names were down to the amendment met him. We are very grateful for his thoughtfulness and kindness, and for his very deep appreciation and understanding of the great value of the voluntary organisations with charitable status.
I should like to ask the Minister about two matters. They concern the question of administration. If a local authority turns down the application of a charitable organisation, and the charitable organisation then applies to the Minister (and I understood the Minister
78
to say that that would be the procedure), will this be dealt with expeditiously? Local authorities and voluntary organisations must plan ahead financially; they must know a good 12 months in advance what will happen— first, in order to formulate their policies; secondly, in order to know what they can spend the money on; and, thirdly (and this is very important from the point of view of the morale of staff) the staff must know whether or not they are to continue with the work. This is a vitally important situation.
Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it would be possible for his department to issue guidelines, both to local authorities and to voluntary organizations, enjoining both to act expeditiously and not least of all his own department when the applications come in, so that there is not a time lag which makes for very great inefficiency and difficulty over the administration of the voluntary organisations. Having said that, again I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment and for his consideration of the great value of the voluntary organisations.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said. One of the problems affecting housing associations, which was raised when we dealt with housing benefits, was the debts that have accrued because the money is not forthcoming when it is needed. So I fully sympathise with the point that the noble Baroness. Lady Faithfull, makes about making quite sure that payment is made as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord the Minister spoke about redetermination. I am concerned because at present the paving Bill for the abolition of the metropolitan councils and the GLC is before the House. A tremendous amount of money is being spent by the GLC in particular on many charities— many of them the same charities as have been mentioned this afternoon. It is very difficult for us to discuss redetermination when we know very well of the great bulk of the money— I think it even runs into millions of pounds— which the GLC donates to charities. Will the redetermination be in the boroughs; will they have the money which the GLC now give out? Many of those authorities are now the high-spending authorities which spend a tremendous amount on services and charities. Will they have to apply for a redetermination or will they be excluded because they are a rate-capping authority?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House and very quickly— my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether the department would issue guidelines. I should like to look into that to see whether that can be done. I should also want to consider the other points that she made. I take her point that the staff need to know. That is very important. Perhaps I may respond to her by saying that I should like to take a close look at that matter, and of course I shall come back to her on it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was concerned whether the boroughs would receive the money that at present goes to the GLC. The position regarding the money for these various causes that goes to the GLC through the various processes would be the same.

79
They will have the money. It will be for them to decide what to do with it. Concern is being expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals, Lord Kilmarnock, and others, because they say that one authority may have one policy and others might have a different policy. This is why the Government take the line that they are taking about registered charities. We do not want them to be disadvantaged in any way. We are putting them in a special position: we are writing them onto the face of the Bill. We do not want them to be worse off, and I am confident that they will not be.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I did not make myself clear. Will some of these authorities which are already on the rate-capping list be able to apply for a redetermination?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the answer to that is: absolutely. They will be able to bring forward their expenditure on the registered charities when they apply for a redetermination, and that will be taken into special consideration.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in winding up this debate and as the mover of the amendment, I should like to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said. I thank the Minister very sincerely for the trouble that he has taken, and I greatly appreciate the amendment which he has tabled. We may still find that discussion about its application may be helpful later on. I also agree that guidelines will be necessary, not only for local authorities but for voluntary organisations. Until they are told exactly what this will mean, I do not think that they will be at all clear about the situation. As citizens advice bureaux are registered charities, I presume that they will be included, and are not omitted from the Minister's amendment.
On these Benches we feel deeply about the need to protect the two priority groups— the elderly in our population and the mentally disordered. The Minister has not been able to give us anything in this respect at all (and he admitted this), and I honestly do not think it would be right for me to withdraw the amendment.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Collison, L.

Attlee, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Aylestone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Barnett, L.

Diamond, L.

Beswick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Birk, B.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brockway, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove. L.

Grey, E.

80

Hampton, L.

Peart, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rhodes, L.

Ingleby, V.

Rochester, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

McCluskey, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Meston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Molloy, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Ogmore, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bauer, L.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bellwin, L.

McFadzean, L.

Beloff, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Minto, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Chelwood, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Pender, L.

Croft, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Reading, M.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Sandford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Savile, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gowrie, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Tranmire, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hankey, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Vickers, B.

Henley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Inglewood, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wynford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("section 2(5)") and insert ("subsection (5) of section 2").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 I shall not detain your Lordships for very long.
Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 31, leave out ("section 2 above") and insert ("that section").
These are technical amendments and merely seek to improve the wording of an amendment which your Lordships accepted during Report stage on principles applying to authorities previously selected. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed above]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
("and within 28 days of the date of such service as aforesaid he shall cause an abstract of such notice as aforesaid to be published on at least one occasion in a newspaper circulating in the area of the authority concerned and in the London Gazette").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to Amendment No. 10. The Minister will quickly tell us, quite rightly, that this is not the first time that words relating to this particular amendment have been discussed in this place, and indeed they were also discussed in another place. I need, for the benefit of your Lordships, to turn not to the words on the Marshalled List but to the main clause from which they stem, which is Clause 3 on page 3. The House will be aware that this relates to expenditure levels.
Under Clause 3(2) the Secretary of State has power on these matters in respect of a designated authority, which,
"shall be exercised in accordance with principles determined by the Secretary of State".
The words "principles determined by the Secretary of State", are the first point I wish your Lordships to bear in mind. Then we turn to page 4, Clause 3(5). In the middle of subsection (5) there are the words:
"either confirm his original determination or re-determine the level at a greater or smaller amount".
I stress the words, "at a greater or smaller amount".
Then we come to subsection (8). It is at the end of that subsection that the words I have moved are to be added. Subsection (8) is important.
"The Secretary of State's decision under subsection (5) and any requirements imposed by him under subsection (6) above shall he stated in a notice served by him on the authority concerned."
When my noble friend Lady Nicol moved this amendment at an earlier stage, the Minister promised, when it was not proceeded with on a vote, to write to her. May I say that throughout the stages of this Bill, and all others the Minister has been prolific in writing to Members of the House to whom he promised that
82
would write. I am grateful for the care he has taken to make sure that anything that was left unresolved at Committee stage was, to the best of his ability, cleared up by letter.
The terminology that he uses in the letter to my noble friend Lady Nicol helps, in my view, to make the case for our amendment. In the second paragraph of the letter of 11th June, the Minister writes:
"You were suggesting that unless the report were to be laid before the House of Commons giving details of redetermined expenditure levels, the considerations underlying them and any requirements imposed on selected authorities, the Secretary of State could show undue favour"—
and I want to stress the words "undue favour"—
"to an authority without Parliament being aware of what was being done".
The Minister said:
"I am afraid I do not accept that line of argument. Secretaries of State do not act in that way. I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by Lord Harmar-Nicholls, when he said in Official Report Col. 501– 502. 'We have to have confidence in those who attain the position of Minister of State. We cannot frame every piece of legislation on the basis that any Minister might want to abuse a position of trust'."
I want the Minister to understand fully that no one from these Benches is accusing any Minister of either abusing his powers or certainly abusing a position of trust. But we are politicians, and we have Ministers with a broad remit— that is, to make the Bill work. What we are concerned about deeply here is what happened in another place when, for instance, the Bill relating to the rates went through that House and the five authorities were in effect designated and listed and the order-making process and the procedures that we are involved in now went through.
In fact we do not need to look into a crystal ball as to what will happen with this Bill in the future: we can actually read the book. The book that we are concerned about is the matters which have happened here, when, in fact, a comparable situation took place in respect of Scotland. The Minister is aware that what we are doing in this Bill relates to a great deal of what has already taken place in respect of Scottish legislation. May I remind the Minister and the House that, at column 576 on 21st July 1983, the Minister said that five authorities were involved and had received their letters. Those authorities were Lothian Regional Council, Shetland Islands Council— I stress that— Kirkcaldy, Stirling and Glasgow. Those authorities were invited to make representations to him.
The quite extraordinary thing is that the Minister was then able to tell the House that the Shetland Islands authority apparently were able to bring to him at that stage certain facts that were unknown, or failed to be taken into account, when drawing up the guidelines. For instance, this is in fact what Mr. Younger, the Secretary of State, told the other place at column 577. Appreciate the scenario, my Lords: We now have a Government which have issued not only designations and guidelines but have actually said that here is an authority that is going to be designated because it has failed to carry out the legal requirements; and one assumes that the Ministry and the civil servants are fully aware of all the factors that need to be taken into account.
As I have mentioned, Mr. Younger said this in another place at column 577:
"There are a large number of unique circumstances arising from North Sea oil which carry with them special financial consequences".
So we were asked to believe that the incidence of North Sea oil and the special consequences from North Sea oil were things that needed to be brought to the attention of the Minister and the civil servants at that particular time. The Minister said that as a special item heavy lorries involved in the construction of oil facilities had to be taken into account. There was almost a unique expansion of the population of about 20 per cent. between 1978 and 1981.
My Lords, it is stretching credulity to the limits to believe that the Minister was actually listening for the first time to special reasons as to why Shetland Islands ought to be excluded and that these were factors that had to be taken into account. My honourable friend in another place, Mr. Bruce Millan, said in column 585 on 21st July 1983:
"Shetland is unique because it has been budgeted further beyond the guidelines—46 per cent.—than any other authority in Scotland".
Then he goes on to say:
"I never expected the Secretary of State to implement the Shetland penalty. He knows that if that were to happen, the Shetland authority could make life difficult for him in respect of oil development".
We are very uneasy on this side of the Chamber that, apparently, in what I consider a capricious manner, the interpretation by the Secretary of State can be applied in situations of this kind. Our amendment is simply asking the Minister, once he has decided that there are special reasons why he is going to increase or decrease the figure, that he should publish on one occasion in a newspaper circulated in the area the precise reasons why. They may be laughed at; they may be ridiculed; they may be held in disrepute. But at least if they are circulated that allows those who wish to challenge them and to make publicity out of them to bring them to the attention of people in your Lordships' House and another place.
The Minister has given very little in the realm of publicity. Consultation, yes; he told us about consultation. What we are about here is not to rely on the Adjournment Debates and the Early Day Motions and other things. What we want is the publication in a local place of the reason why that local council is going to have its limits increased or decreased. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am well aware of the argument that the Secretary of State should be as accountable as possible for his decisions, and we would not want to shirk the responsibility for decisions taken under rate limitations—quite the contrary. What we are opposed to is the provision of over-elaborate safeguards which we have considered at various stages. Let us be realistic. When an authority has been designated, when the Secretary of State has prescribed an expenditure level for them, and if the authority has applied for a redetermination, can we really believe that all this would happen without comment and press coverage? Certainly it would not happen where I come from: I give an absolute
84
assurance of that. I am certain that all these issues will be followed very closely by local reporters. The level of local rates is a constant source of local newspaper stories. Sometimes I wonder what they would do without that kind of publicity. I do not agree that a formal notice placed by the Government in a local newspaper is necessary at all.
The details of the Secretary of State's decisions and any requirements imposed would be communicated to the authorities. We have accepted that this is necessary; and that the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Gardner improved the Bill. It is the authority which needs to know the formal details. What local people will need to know in a formalised way is the validity of the rate finally levied by the council. This is what Clause 7 provides, when it requires the local authority to publish a certificate stating in a local newspaper that its rate is valid.
While I would expect a stong case to be made for any amendment tabled in your Lordships' House, I think it goes too far to suggest that we shall require the Government to publish decisions in a newspaper because we think they would act dishonourably otherwise. If a future Secretary of State were to act in such a way, he would be found out soon enough. It is not a contingency for which we feel there is a need to make any special provision. All of us who have worked in local government know that, whatever else you get or do not get, publicity is almost the life blood of the publications in the area. In all large authorities there is a full-time civic reporter on muncipal affairs. I understand the points that are being made and indeed the Scottish experience to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred. Of all the many fears which have been expressed, I should have thought that in practical terms this is the one which should least concern your Lordships.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate the care that the Minister has taken but no one here is imputing ulterior motives to the Government. I believe that the Minister used a term which could have implied that we felt that something could be hidden. What we are saying is, "Publish and be dammed". If the Minister and his colleagues take a decision in the light of representations to reduce or increase the limitation, what we are saying—we are talking about not more than 21 authorities or up to 12, 15 or 20—is that there are literally hundreds of provisions on the statute hook which cause governments and departments to publish statements and notices. Although the Minister is quite right, all we are saying is that local people will be very interested in the story, the editorial, and the statement by the leader of the council and so on, and that this will go some way to publishing the matter immediately to a wider audience than the council. The Minister will know about the Shetlands. Very few people know the precise reason why the Minister took his actions in the Shetlands. We know the action that he took—to take them off the list—but there has been very little publicity as to why. That is what we are asking for. But we can see that we shall make no progress, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving the dinner adjournment, I think I had better make a brief business statement because the proceedings are very complicated indeed. I only just understand them and after I have explained them to your Lordships, I very much doubt whether your Lordships will.
The difficulty we have tonight is that it was expected that by this time we should have reached the Trade Union Bill and so therefore the order of the business on the Order Paper enabled the dinner hour business, which is the Video Recordings Bill, to come at some point within the Trade Union Bill. The only way that we can keep within the rules of order and still get the dinner adjournment during the Bill before— the Rates Bill— is to adjourn the Third Reading of the Rates Bill until after the Video Recordings Bill. The House will then go into Committee on the Trade Union Bill and will immediately he adjourned until after the Third Reading of the Rates Bill. This will have the effect of bringing the dinner hour business into the earlier business.
I beg to move that further proceedings on the Third Reading of the Rates Bill he adjourned until after the Video Recordings Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could at the same time indicate that we would not return to the Rates Bill until 8.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. I am so sorry, not earlier than 8.30 p.m. I am most grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): The Question is that this debate be adjourned. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"?… To the contrary, "Not-Content"?… The "Contents" have it.

Trade Union Bill
Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gowrie, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
The Deputy Speaker: The Question is that this debate be adjourned and taken later this day. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"?… To the contrary, "Not-Content"?… The "Contents" have it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, could the Chief Whip help us? Two different Questions appear to have been put. The Motion was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and apparently a different issue was put to the House a few moments ago. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Denham, can help us.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. It has been done in a slightly different way to the way that I prognosticated, but I am assured by the Table that it has the same effect.

Video Recordings Bill
7.46 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 21 [Forfeiture.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 15, line 35, at end insert ("and destroyed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be glad to know that I do not intend to complicate matters further. I sincerely hope that we can complete the Report stage of this Bill within the next 45 minutes or an hour. I have certainly no intention of having it further considered later on tonight.
In moving Amendment No. 48, however, perhaps I may for the convenience of the House indicate what my plans are. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 50, which is an amendment of substance. I will defer that to the Third Reading where I think it is more appropriate because it proposes to limit the tenure of the Bill. I think it is better taken then than now, especially as I attach quite a lot of importance to it. The next thing is that I do not have to do anything with Amendment No. 51 because that was dealt with previously, and the schedule has already been printed in the Official Report, so I will take any guidance that is available as to how to deal with that one.
So I come back to the only amendment for which I shall be responsible in this debate; Amendment No. 48, which is really exploratory. I could not be more benign upon it than I am at this moment. It is however a matter of some importance. Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has provision for obscene publications to be seized and held by the police without necessarily being the subject of any charge under that Act, but submitted for the consideration of a court as to whether the material seized should be forfeited. So there can be a forfeiture of alleged obscene material which is not the subject of a charge, as well as material seized that could be or would be the subject of a charge. As I understand it, there is no such provision in this Bill.
Clause 21 states:
"Where a person is convicted of any offence under this Act, a court may order any video recording—

(a) produced to the court, and

(b) shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the offence, to be forfeited".

That suggests to me that only if there is a conviction under this Bill would an order be made for forfeiture of the recordings held by the police. In that respect this Bill differs from the main substance of the Obscene Publications Act to which I have referred. If that is clear then the question I ask is: what happens to them when they are forfeited? I have not been able to do all the research necessary to find out what happens to things that are forfeited under the order of a court. I presume that they are disposed of in some appropriate manner, which usually would be destruction. But there are aspects of this material which I think contain distinctive potentialities for difficulty. One is that they are all standard in size, in shape. They are easily put in the pocket; they have an acknowledged exchange

87
value of roughly the same amount; they are almost currency in a world of their own.
Some people will allege that those responsible for affairs at times cannot resist anything except temptation, and I am anxious to be satisfied that the videos that are forfeited do not get into the wrong hands. I am not going to be associated with a lot of wanton criticisms of the police, reflecting upon their integrity and so on, but I hear far too much about what is going on at the present moment to feel comfortable. One wonders what actually happens to videos that are forfeited, apparently without any order of the court as to what is to happen to them. That may be another of the matters that are more relevant to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill than to this one. But here we are; we are dealing in this Bill with a special material and, as I say, it can be of some special importance.
There is the risk of planted evidence. There is the problem of how long a person who has been raided has to wait before he gets a list of what has been taken, so that he can check it against his stock or his possessions in order to feel satisfied that it is a true and correct list. There is the question of the length of time these things are retained, and all the rest of it. I think that in regard to this material, when the court has decided that it should be forfeited, and when all the appropriate periods of time have expired during which an appeal might he lodged, then the finality of the matter should be that the material is destroyed.
I omitted to mention one thing; that is, of course, that this prohibited material is easily reproduced, and that adds to the danger, because copies can be made quite easily. I just do not know. All I can say is that, having served with some noble friends in this House on the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, we were very concerned indeed regarding what we heard about the vice squad in London and elsewhere. There was a good clean-up operation carried out at that time. I have often said— and I firmly believe it— that pornography has corrupted more police than it has citizens; and that is a danger we have to guard against. If the stuff is destroyed, that does at least minimise the risk of abuse.
That is really my case. I am addressing myself to the Minister because, though I do not care who replies, with great respect, I should have thought that the Minister would know more about this than would the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. After all, he cannot be an expert on everything in this Bill, much as I respect his capacity for research into and exposition of the obscurities of the Bill: but there we are.
I hope I shall be content to receive an answer about the treatment of forfeited material under this Bill, or under any other enactment, which will enable me to be satisfied that goods forfeited are not put into circulation and sold on the side, and that there is no other misuse of material of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, while I do not claim to be an expert on this, or indeed any, aspect of the Bill— though I am bound to say that during the course of its passage I am becoming much better informed— I think I know enough about this particular problem to be able to answer the noble Lord. First, I
88
would say that I am 100 per cent. with him, for once, that the right thing to do with these tapes is to destroy them. I am glad to be able to assure him that the power already exists in Section 140 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, which requires that upon a conviction any article forfeited shall be sold or otherwise disposed of as the court may direct.
One thing we can be quite sure of is that they would not be selling this material, and therefore I would think in most circumstances the court would order it to be destroyed. So the powers are available, and it is not necessary to amend the Bill in this respect in order to ensure the very splendid end which the noble Lord requires. I hope that he will feel completely reassured by that answer.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not the case that the powers are not compulsory but are optional?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, that is so. I think it is desirable for them to be optional because one does not know for how long material is to be held, and in what circumstances. As long as the powers are there, I think we can leave it with some confidence to the courts to see that destruction follows where appropriate.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords. I want to be satisfied about that reply. Perhaps the noble Lord will answer just one question. The powers are there. Does this mean that if the powers are not exercised, then forfeited material remains, as it were, in the air? Is there a finality to it, or has there to be a positive decision on destruction? That is the point.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him to be a little more explicit as to what would be the disadvantage of accepting these two words?
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief reference to the discretionary matter. I think the amendment is ill drawn, because in Clause 21, on page 15, at line 31, it says only that the court "may". So it is a discretionary clause, and even if we added the words of the amendment, it would still not make it other than discretionary. So although I also have sympathy with the tenor of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the amendment he suggests would not in fact strengthen the position all that much, because we are told that the court "may" order, not that the court "shall" order.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, perhaps it may be best if I reply to this point because the conventions of the Report stage suggest that my noble friend should not longer be drawn into the fray. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, first of all that the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. His own amendment is just as permissive as the Bill, as it now stands. However, may I address myself to the point he intended to make; namely, that it should not be permissive. The fact is that the power exists in law for the court to dispose of these undesirable objects by

89
either destruction or other means. I should say that the power to dispose of them otherwise exists in another Act which, as my noble friend says, is the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, which applies to anything which the magistrates may confiscate, if that is the term. If we put in a requirement that they should so do in this Bill, I am given to understand that it would cast doubt on other legislation where the power remains permissive. The assumption is I think warranted that the courts, which have this material under their direct control, will not allow it either to gather dust or to be disseminated among the public for the profit of the employees of the court.
I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with my explanation, and that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will accept that to put this amendment into this Bill would cast doubt on the vires, or the correctness, of other Acts already on the statute book.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the last thing in the world I want to do is to interfere with the pious intention of my noble friend Lord Houghton that this stage of the Bill should be completed during this dinner hour. But, in sheer frankness, I must rise because I do not think that the right reverend Prelate has quite got the point, nor do I believe that the Minister has.
I thought what was being suggested by my noble friend was that there was a permissive power in the court to forefeit; that if the court exercised that permissive power it was saying, "Please, at the same time, see that it is destroyed". The court would not just have the right to decide that it should be forfeited; the court would have also to say if it decided to forfeit, that it should be destroyed. If I may say so— I may be wrong, and it would not by any means be the first time— the answer to that is that there would be many occasions when the court would want to forfeit quite properly but would not want an article destroyed because further inquiries might have to be made as to the source of that article, when further inquiries might have to be made as to its distribution, and without the exhibit, as it were, those inquiries might be very difficult. That is why it is wrong to link the power to forefeit with the injunction that, if you do exercise that power, then you must destroy as well.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, surely, as my noble friend the Minister has said it is left to each individual court and each individual case. When things which are highly obnoxious have been put before me on my desk—things like long sheath knives which have done a great deal of damage to young people—I order them to be confiscated and destroyed. That is within the power of the court, and I do not think it should be written into the Bill. I do not think that that is a necessary part of it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sure that the matter has gone as far as is possible now, and I am as content as one can be in this difficult problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 23 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
8.3 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 16, line 32, after ("Recordings") insert ("(Regulation)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to change the Short Title of the Bill so that it read Video Recordings (Regulation) Bill. I am certain that I need not emphasise that this is in no sense a wrecking amendment, nor will it in any way weaken the Bill if it is accepted. Your Lordships may recall that at Committee stage I moved an amendment, with the able assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to change the Title of the Bill so that it would read Video Recordings Censorship Bill. That amendment was opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and others, chiefly on the grounds that there was no censorship involved in this Bill. Frankly, I found that assertion difficult, indeed impossible, to accept. However, I took the point, which was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that censorship forms only a part of what this Bill does and that only a minority of videos submitted for classification will be banned outright or required to have bits snipped out of them, so naturally we withdrew the amendment.
The same objection can hardly be made to this amendment. I have lost count of the number of times that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and others have said that the purpose of this Bill is to regulate the sale and hire of video recordings. Indeed, the Daily Telegraph today revealed that distributors of old Walt Disney films like Donald Duck will have to pay between £400 and £600 to get a classification for their films, even if they swear on oath that the films have not been tampered with since they were first made 30 or 40 years ago, upon pain of a fine of up to £20,000. Incidentally, the Long Title of the Bill, which is an unusually short Long Title, describes it as:
"An act to make provision for regulating the distribution of video recordings and for connected purposes".
What would the existing cryptic Short Title, Video Recordings Bill (or, as it will be, Video Recordings Act), mean to the average individual who has not been following these debates in the same way as your Lordships have, either now or even more so in two, three, four or five years' time? Somebody coming across the existing Title for the first time might easily suppose that it refers to video copyright; to the fire resistance qualities, or the absence of fire resistance qualities, of the cassettes in which the recordings are contained; to whether such cassettes have jagged edges which might cut children's hands; to resale price maintenance or the abolition of resale price maintenance where video recordings are concerned; or to any number of other things.
In Committee, I suggested that if at some future date the popular press became agitated about what they might well term "folio nasties", and if, in consequence, some latter-day Lord Nugent of Guildford were to introduce a Bill to control the sale and hire of explicit or violent material featuring the printed word, it is inconceivable that he would entitle it the Books and Magazines Bill, or, I might now add, the Books, Periodicals and Posters Bill. Needless to say, I was not contradicted, for obvious reasons.
I submit that in a participatory democracy the Short Title of an Act of Parliament should never be vague or ambiguous. Members of the legal profession often complain to me about the difficulty of finding their way through the mass of legislation which has cascaded out of the Palace of Westminster in recent years, but it is not only lawyers that we should be concerned about. Any member of the public, whatever his level of education, should be able to walk into a public library at any time in the future and say, "I should like to see that law about video nasties which they brought in three or four years ago", and the librarian should be able to run her finger down a list of self-explanatory titles and pick out the right one with the minimum of fuss and bother.
The sponsors of this Bill are obviously proud of it and what it sets out to do. In consequence, they should not wish its light to be hidden under a bushel. If the noble Lord is in two minds about accepting this amendment, may I suggest to him that another place ought at least to be allowed to have a look at it? If they were then to reject it, there would be absolutely no question of your Lordships insisting upon it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly said, this is a subject which we have debated before at Committee stage, when we had an interesting debate on the point as to whether the word "censorship" should be introduced into the Short Title. I recollect, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said, that we had a difference of opinion. but he accepted the point then that "censorship" was inappropriate because it would apply to only a very small part of the total material. But we had quite a range over the whole subject: and I recollect the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as well. But the contribution which impressed me most was from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has played such a splendid part in these debates, when he said:
"This is the Short Title of a Bill of Parliament. It is not suggested that any Short Title encompasses all the things that a Bill is supposed to do. What the Short Title does is to give an indication of what the Bill is about, and this Bill is about video recordings. Therefore, it is an extremely accurate and uncontroversial title".—[Official Report; 18/5/84; col. 1658.]
Pretty well everything else that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said would be relevant if there were other video Bills. But there are not. This is the only one, so anyone who is interested in video legislation either now or in the future has only got to look at the alphabetical index for "V" to find "video", and they will come straight upon it. So it really is a completely adequate title to describe what the Bill is about so that anybody who wishes to know can find it without any difficulty.
It is a mistake to add words to any Short Title. This goes for all the parliamentary Bills which I have seen during the past 30 to 40 years. The shorter the title the better. It is convenient for everybody, so long as it adequately describes what the Bill is about. Other explanatory words are needed only when there are other Bills on the same subject. I am sure it is better parliamentary practice not to put further words of any
92
kind into the Short Title of the Bill. It is a mistake to add anything to the Short Title of a Bill that is not absolutely essential. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Monson, and the noble Lord. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who have put their names to this amendment will withdraw it. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with his very long parliamentary experience, will be as aware as I am that the principle which I am enunciating is the basic principle for all short titles. They are kept as short as they can be. Extra words are needed only when there are other Bills on the same subject. I hope that the noble Lord will be convinced by these arguments.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I listened to the brief debate at the Committee stage on the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he sought to insert the word "censorship" into the Long Title. I understood the arguments against it. Therefore I thought the noble Lord was right to withdraw the amendment. Having studied this amendment— which I did most carefully before I came here— I wondered whether this amendment was necessary: but having heard the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I am bound to say that I think perhaps it is. I find it difficult to understand why he should be so suspicious of the mere interpolation of this single word which seeks to demonstrate more clearly precisely what it is that the Bill seeks to do. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said that this is the only Video Bill and that there will never be another Video Bill.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I said nothing of the kind. I said that if there is another Video Bill, that will be the time to add additional words, if they are needed, to describe the nature of it. However, when there is only one Bill of this kind, the word "video" is sufficient to describe it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I withdraw what I said if I misunderstood him. However, I understood the noble Lord to say that at the moment it is unnecessary to have this amendment because there is no other Video Bill. I believe it is absolutely certain, as sure as night follows day, that there will have to be other Bills. There will have to be another Bill to deal with the copyright of video films. There will have to be another Bill dealing with the pirating of videos. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said, it is quite right that when that time comes we can put in words and have legislation to alter the Title of the Bill or, indeed, the other Bill. But since this simple word which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seeks to insert merely makes clear what is the purpose of the Bill, I find it very difficult to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, should oppose it.
On the last occasion when this matter was discussed it was pointed out that it would be inappropriate to insert the word "censorship" because there would be many occasions on which video recordings would be regulated without in any true sense being censored. If the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, objects to the word "regulation" being inserted, one wonders whether his intention is perhaps a little different from

93
the mere regulating of videos. Perhaps the noble Lord does want them to be censored. I do not know. I find it difficult to understand why he does not accept this very simple amendment which makes the Short Title of the Bill infinitely clearer than it would otherwise be. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, asked the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to withdraw the amendment. I hope they will not.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, are reasonable men. Although the corpse of Caesar is not before us, may I make it clear that they are also honourable men. I wonder whether I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in a sentence or two. It would not be an accurate description. This Bill in no way regulates video recordings. This Bill regulates the distribution of video recordings. Therefore it would be a completely inaccurate and misleading title.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, perhaps a little more research is desirable into the pedigree of titles of Bills so as to get at the truth of the matter. I started this the other day when I asked the Library if I could see the Licensing Act 1662. No one would suspect, from the title of that Act, that it was an Act for preventing the frequent abuses in printing seditious, treasonable and unlicensed books and pamphlets and for the regulating of printing and printing presses. On the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said, I suppose that the time to bring "books" into the Title would be if there were another licensing Act to follow the Act of 1662 that did something else with books. Then it would be the Licensing (Regulation of Books) Act.
This is a fascinating topic. I am sure that there ought to be a book about it. Then we should probably wonder why we were a little more explicit in 1955 when there was a Bill entitled Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will also remember the Protection of Children Act 1978. In both of those cases there was a moral purpose to get into the Title: to convey to somebody that this was a good thing to do. It was not neutral. It was purposeful; it was moral; it was almost divine. But here we are hiding it all under this neutral title.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, there was nothing moral about the Protection of Children Act. The main purpose of the Bill was to safeguard the well-being of children.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, so we could go on! But I promise not to go on. My little bit of entertainment can finish here and now.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that we shall view that with a certain poignant regret. I of course see the attractions which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, sees in the amendment standing in the name of both noble Lords, in that they feel it directs the attention to something in the Bill which they regard as of paramount importance. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has very ably told your Lordships, that
94
is not actually what the Bill is about. Therefore it would be more misleading than not to give a narrower definition.
There is another aspect. We have here the child of whom the parents are in another place. It has been christened the Video Recordings Bill and it is widely known as the Video Recordings Bill. There would be a certain discourtesy in giving it at this late stage a new name, as it were, by deed poll without discussing it with the parents, when that name is entirely misleading as to the character of the child. So I hope noble Lords will not think that my noble friend is being pernickety or splitting hairs when he asks your Lordships not to pass this apparently innocuous amendment, because in fact it would be misleading and just faintly discourteous.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, theologically, the Minister is right, because once a child is christened he is never re-christened. So I agree with the Minister.
Lord Monson: My Lords, theology apart, I think the other place should have a chance to consider our suggestion, which may not have occurred to them. I am disappointed with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said. I do not believe that the Title gives a true indication of what the Bill is all about. I do not believe that members of the general public will get a true impression, either, particularly in a few years' time when, as the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, (for whose support I am most grateful), has said, there may be many other Bills with titles involving the word "video". The noble Lord has suggested that it will make the Title clumsy to add the word "Regulation", a 10-letter word. I am sure that he cannot be seriously suggesting that it would have that effect. The noble Lord is surely carrying to unusual lengths his distaste for that which is explicit when he apparently wants a fig-leaf to mask the essential purpose of the Bill.
I have not moved this amendment in any lighthearted manner. I am strongly convinced that acceptance of the amendment would be to the public benefit in the short-term and, particularly, in the long-term. Although I do not intend to ask anybody to march through the Division Lobbies after this long afternoon that your Lordships have had, I shall adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and ask your Lordships to indicate verbally what you feel about this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand that consideration of amendments on the Third Reading of the Rates Bill was adjourned until 8.30 p.m. Therefore, I beg to move that the House be now adjourned during pleasure until that time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we accept with pleasure anything which the noble Baroness moves.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.30 p.m.]

Rates Bill
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 11:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to this amendment in the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Determination of maximum rate or precept]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 20, insert—
("Provided that such an order does not—

(i) relate to authorities in more than one of the classes set out in section 2(5) of this Act; and

(ii) relate both to authorities which respectively have and have not been designated under section 2 of this Act in the previous financial year.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, what I am attempting to do in this amendment is to ensure greater parliamentary invigilation of the final stage of rate limitation. Unfortunately, previous attempts to get separate reports for authorities have failed. The last time we voted on this at Report stage the amendment was lost by six votes only and it had tremendous support from all sides of the House.
This amendment which I am bringing forward tonight requires separate reports by class of authority. In this context class means those classes listed in Clause 2(5) of the Bill: councils of metropolitan counties, non-metropolitan counties, metropolitan districts, inner London boroughs, and outer London boroughs. This means that the classes will be listed, plus dividing each class according to whether or not the authorities have been designated in the previous year. Therefore separate reports will be made, for example, for previously designated metropolitan counties, non-metropolitan counties, and so on. This would mean that there would be 12 categories plus separate reports for the GLC, ILEA, the City of London, and the Isle of Scilly. It also takes account of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said on 5th June, at columns 557– 8 when we were discussing the previous amendment. He said:
"There will be no basis of comparison. It will not be possible to say, for example, that the GLC has been badly treated compared with South Yorkshire, or whatever example one may give, because one will not have the South Yorkshire figures for comparison."
This amendment would allow comparisons within the different classes. My argument is that at each step of designating authorities and determining their expenditure limits the Government may have recourse to 16 different sets of principles. Those I have worked out. They are the six which you double between non-designated and designated, and the four others. These principles are not required to be approved by Parliament when they are used. The Government have restricted parliamentary approval to only one state of rate limitation: the final step.
Given the misgivings expressed in the House about principles and the potential abuses of them they should require parliamentary control. This amendment, if accepted, would ensure that the different sets of principles used by the Government to discriminate against previously designated authorities would be subject to scrutiny. It would also enable the other place to accept or reject the case for the rate limitations against each class of authority, and thus it would provide for a little more discretion than the present approach of an omnibus report.
I should have thought that this would have been a more attractive proposition to the Government than the original amendment on a separate report for each authority which, as I pointed out, was lost by only a very slim margin. I hope, therefore, that in reply the Minister will be able to say, just briefly, that, yes, the Government accept this. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, Hope springs eternal. In considering this amendment it is only fair, I think, to point out that this is well trampled ground. We have debated several times the parliamentary procedures for imposing rate limits on authorities with which the Secretary of State cannot come to an agreement. I believe that earlier amendments at successive stages on this particular point have been withdrawn without debate.
This amendment would require rate limits to be specified in separate orders for separate classes of authorities under both the selective and the general scheme. It would also require separate orders for authorities which had been designated in the preceding year and for those which had not.
I recognise the argument that the disagreed rate limit order is the point in the procedure at which Parliament has its principal opportunity to scrutinise the Government's proposals. But I believe that this can be done adequately within a composite order procedure. Although the Secretary of State will be looking at authorities' individual circumstances in considering applications for derogations, he will nevertheless have to take all his decisions on a basis that is generally consistent for all authorities. If two authorities had the same individual circumstance in some particular respect, the Secretary of State could hardly allow for that circumstance in different ways. I am sure that Parliament will be concerned especially with scrutinising this aspect of the handling of the procedures. In other words, the Secretary of State would otherwise be in trouble. The other place will want to ensure that there has been fair and balanced treatment between authorities. It seems to me this is the proper supervisory role of the other place, rather than the substitution of their individual judgments for those of the Secretary of State.
The procedures of the other place provide that orders must be approved or negatived as a whole. But I am not convinced that the procedure under Clause 4 would prevent proper discussions. As my noble friend has previously noted, that is certainly not the experience on the rate support grant report debates in the other place. That covers a far larger number of authorities than the 12 to 20 that could at most be

97
involved under the selective scheme which is what we are talking about here. Yet individual views are able to come through clearly. Often debate is concerned with general principles, as illustrated by the case of particular authorities, rather than with the detailed circumstances of those authorities.
I recognise, naturally, that this is a compromise proposal. The supporters of the amendment have accepted that it would be impractical to have separate orders for each authority. They seek, nevertheless, to provide for some limit on the number of authorities covered by each order. But it is an unsatisfactory compromise. It increases the number of orders to be considered; but to what end? It does not allow individual circumstances to be separately considered; and there is no more reason to believe that the circumstances of all authorities in the same class will be identical to the extent that their rate limits should stand or fall together.
The order-making power allows the other House the opportunity to consider the circumstances and the decisions of the Secretary of State as a whole and to satisfy themselves that he has acted reasonably, consistently and fairly in exercising his statutory discretion. Erskine May describes the affirmative order procedure as being intended to be used where "special scrutiny" of subordinate legislation is appropriate. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State is not required to make composite affirmative orders, but I believe that, if he does, the procedure as it stands is an adequate safeguard. I hope that the noble Baroness will see that my noble friend and I have studied this with enormous care but still regret being unable to suggest that your Lordships accept the amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is not really very much comfort to know that the noble Lord and his noble friend have discussed this and considered it with great care. When replying, the noble Lord said that I and my supporters recognised that to have a report for each authority was not satisfactory. That is absolutely not true. I will reiterate that we consider that that is by far the best, most important and safest way to have parliamentary scrutiny. That was entirely supported by the very large vote and the very near miss when we put this to a Division on Report. The only reason I have not put it hack is, partly, the convention that one does not put down exactly the same amendment when it has been voted on at a previous stage and partly because it is clear from the size of the House at the moment that I should not win it if I did so.
The compromise was also intended to meet some of the Government's objections. I thought that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which I brought in aid, was very much on the lines of the amendment I put forward. It is clear that once again the Government have no intention of increasing the amount of parliamentary scrutiny that is essential if these rather dreadful propositions are put into practice. Therefore, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Power to introduce general control]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 13A:
Page 8, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the first of the amendments on Third Reading to Part II of the Bill. My Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B are extremely simple and I can explain their purpose briefly.
Amendment No. 13B: Page 8, line 18, at end insert—
("; and
(b) after such consultation, lay before Parliament in a White Paper the text of the draft Order which he proposes to lay under subsection (3) below, in sufficient time for both Houses of Parliament to take it into consideration and to suggest amendments thereto.").
However, before doing so I should like, if I may, to thank the Secretary of State, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for giving me the time to talk over with them an earlier amendment which I had in mind; a time limiting amendment designed to give a greater degree of parliamentary control over Part II, but which they found unacceptable. I should like to say that the Secretary of State himself voluntarily explored another way of strengthening the affirmative resolution procedure— a way which I had not thought of and he did— but found that that would be too complicated a change at this stage of the Bill.
It is those consultations for which I believe the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, should receive credit, if I may say so, but which have caused a delay in my tabling these amendments for which I apologise to the House. These amendments have now come forward and, as I said, they are simple and uncomplicated and I hope that the House will understand the reason why they are so late.
I should also like to say that I put these forward from an entirely non-party political stance and I ask that there be a party political truce while they are considered— if such a thing is possible. I will refrain from all consideration of the merits of Part II and I shall be delighted if others who follow me on this amendment will refrain likewise.
My amendment seeks to amend Clause 9 so that, after the consultations by the Secretary of State with the local authority associations, as mentioned in subsection (2), and before the Secretary of State lays a draft order for affirmative resolution to activate Clauses 10 and 11, there shall be interposed an extra requirement on the Secretary of State so that there is an opportunity for both Houses to consider the text of the draft order which he proposes to lay under subsection (3) in sufficient time for both Houses to consider that text and, if they feel it desirable, to suggest amendments to it. My submission is that, unless this is done, Parliament will be presented with an order which it will have very little time to consider and no power to amend, or even to suggest amendments.
I think that it is indisputably the case that the local authority budget cycle is such that, when an order is presented to Parliament for approval under Clause 9, for all practical purposes it would be impossible to reject such an order. It would be impossible for the Government even to make any adjustments to the order in the light of parliamentary debate. The local authority budget cycle is such that most major decisions are taken between late December and mid-March; perhaps earlier in the case of county councils. I am sure the House is full of experts on local

99
government and if I say anything wrong about the budgetary cycle I shall no doubt be corrected at once. This timing arises because final decisions cannot be made until the rate support grant settlement is made in December. The process for settling the maximum rate level for a year under Part II may not be completed in time for an authority to set its rate or precept. In that case there is provision for an interim maximum rate and I believe that is to be set under Clause 5. At a later date, after 1st March, a final maximum rate would be set.
Only when all the final maximum rates or precepts have been set could an order be laid under subsection (3) of Clause 9. If there is even one straggler, as in the case of Liverpool this year, that could cause delay in the laying of the order until after the start of the financial year. If the order were to be laid even as early as late March— and, as I have already explained, the Secretary of State may well find it difficult to be able to do so that early— it would be impossible for the Government to accept any adjustments whatever to the order without throwing the budgets of the local authorities into uncertainty, to say the least.
I draw a distinction between orders under Clause 9 and the rate support grant process, which is well established, where there is sufficient time for adjustments after the annual debate in another place in January each year and the beginning of the ensuing financial year.
Thus, for all practical purposes, Clause 9 as drafted would box Parliament in and make it impossible for either House to comment effectively, if only because the financial year to which the order relates will already have started. For that reason, the purpose of my amendments is to allow both Houses an early opportunity to discuss what the Government propose to do after they have consulted with local authorities, and thus to give both Houses, if they so wish— not to require them— time in which to debate the text of the order and to suggest amendments.
I would ask the House to note that my amendments place no obligation on Parliament whatsoever. It is nearly always undesirable for an Act of Parliament to lay down parliamentary procedures other than those that are well known and follow prescribed forms. What another place would do if it had the kind of opportunity which I hope these amendments would present to it by the White Paper procedure is entirely a matter for that House. Equally, this House might just decide, if it was satisfied with the text of the proposals in the White Paper, that it might be prepared just to look at it and not to take it into consideration. But if it wished to take it into consideration, it could well have a debate on it; and it might even, if it wished, invoke Standing Order No. 60, whereby this House can go into Committee on a Motion, and that would give an opportunity for amendments to be suggested.
Just in case there are those who think that suggested amendments are a new concept unknown to Parliament, I remind the House of Section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911, where there is a suggested amendments procedure. It is in a proviso. It is highly complicated— far too complicated for me to attempt to explain it to the House in a short time, let alone at
100
this hour of the night. I may say straight away that my proposals contain no such complications as exist in that proviso.
I have argued the case for these amendments on purely parliamentary, procedural and practical grounds, and, I hope your Lordships will agree, in a low key and without discussing the merits of Part II of the Bill at all. I hope that the amendments are acceptable to individual Members of the House on all sides and not least to Her Majesty's Government. I cannot see any reasonable arguments against them. No doubt the Minister will attempt to adduce such arguments: but, if he could agree to these amendments, or perhaps send them to the House of Commons, where they might be slightly modified if there were some technical detail which was wrong in them (which the House of Commons would be perfectly capable of doing), well, then, I think that in this year of what the Speaker calls "The Frustration Parliament" this Parliament would, at least for the remainder of the Session, be a little less frustrated than it has been hitherto. I beg to move.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, are an extremely ingenious way to deal with a problem that has been troubling us all. He is quite right when he says that they are purely non-party amendments. Obviously what they seek to do is to improve parliamentary invigilation of the implementation of the general scheme of rate limitation. The noble Lord is absolutely right. He explained the position thoroughly, so it does not need very much more explanation from me or from anyone else.
Although the affirmative resolution of both Houses, which is at present in the Bill, is a major step, it does not offer very much opportunity for Parliament to change the Government's mind when it wishes to do so. The noble Lord's amendment introduces a White Paper stage, and that would mean that things could be more easily changed if Parliament were to express the view that the general scheme was wrong. That proposal seems to me to be a more than adequate halfway house towards what we have been trying to get from the Government and the Government have been totally resisting. It would enable discussion to take place and opinions to be given. It would be a very much more flexible procedure. Another place would also be able to comment on the scheme generally if it felt that amendment was necessary or the Government had gone wrong. I and my noble friends would certainly support these amendments.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has put some powerful arguments to the House. I, for one, strongly support his amendments. I hope that he will not feel I am breaking the party-political truce in any way by supporting him. I think that Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B march pretty obviously with Amendment No. 13C, because they deal with the question of parliamentary control and influence over Part II of the Bill. I see these amendments, therefore, as a last line of defence to try to avoid a breach of long-standing and widely accepted parliamentary practices.

101
Part II of the Bill is of course a very different kettle of fish from Part I. The attempt to delete Clause 9 during the Committee stage failed only rather narrowly. I think that the vote was 140 to 130, so the Government had a narrow squeak. Part II, as your Lordships know, can be activated only by affirmative orders which cannot be amended, which would not be negatived in present circumstances in another place and which should not be negatived in the Upper House— although it seems to me where this last point is concerned that we have been put in a false position by the Government.
At the very least, therefore, I feel that the Government ought to accept these two amendments and the following one. If they are not passed, I feel that we shall be forging a weapon that could all too easily be fired by a Government with extreme views, who were not sufficiently interested in democratic niceties, at targets for which it was never intended. Therefore, I feel that, without these amendments, Part II is setting a dangerous and bad precedent. The classic excuse for shooting the wrong person has always been, "I didn't know it was loaded". But Part II, unamended, I think, is heavily loaded. I feel very strongly indeed— and I believe that many noble Lords in all parts of the House would agree with me— that loaded weapons should not be left lying around indefinitely.
There was a very important all-party committee which reported to Parliament in 1932. It was the Scott Committee, of which Lord Donoughmore was a distinguished member. Its view was that discretionary powers given to Ministers through delegated legislation can all too easily threaten the sovereignty of Parliament and the jurisidiction of the courts. The committee recommended that a time limit of one year should be the limit for what it called— and what have often been called before and since— "Henry VIII clauses". Clause 9 is surely a "Henry VIII clause". I should be very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Bellwin when he comes to reply if he would comment on that point.
After all, the following amendment, which marches with these two, is asking only that Parliament should review those powers in five years and, if it does not pass affirmative orders, that those powers should lapse. That is not asking very much. It is asking only for a review after five years and not one year. If the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, will forgive me for saying so, Amendments Nos. 13A and 13B are a device, but Parliament perhaps has to resort to falling back on devices when normal procedures seem to be being short-circuited.
The noble Lord said in moving these amendments, and I want to emphasise, that there could be no rush to activate Part II if Part I had failed or looked likely to fail during the next four years, or perhaps it might be seen to be failing in three years. There would be ample time, in either the 12 months or the two years available, for consultation to take place on the widest possible scale. That is something about which I am sure my noble friend will be telling us more, because some of us are anxious about the scale of it and how it would take place. There would be ample time for a White Paper to be published, as is suggested, on which both Houses could express their views and suggest amendments; and there would also be ample time for the laying of affirmative orders.
102
So, rather than speak too long at this hour of the night, I shall skip some other remarks I had thought of making and come to my conclusion. When the White Paper was presented on 1st August last year we were told by the Secretary of State that it had green edges. There was something in that, because where Part II is concerned there have been two valuable smallish concessions made— not all that smallish, but valuable concessions— one with regard to charities, which today is something that I think noble Lords in all parts of the House welcomed, and one about low-spending councils, a promise being made, as far as that is concerned, in another place. Surely now is the time for another minor concession; in other words, the acceptance of these three amendments.
Throughout part II my noble friend Lord Bellwin has put up a doughty defence for what I frankly regard as the indefensible. No one could have done it better than he has, and I admire him for what he has done. I cannot quite see it from here, but if his brief says "Resist" I am going to ask him to take it out of that red file and tear it up, now that he has heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and is about to hear the arguments of my noble friend Lord Sandford on the next amendment. I ask him to tear it up and to agree to these minor procedural suggestions, which I think are very important. I therefore beg the Government to treat parliament with the respect that it deserves by accepting these three amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I might briefly intervene to say that the principle of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson— and I am not talking about the third one— seems to me to be very necessary to this House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I am not talking about principles: I am talking on an all-party basis as far as I can. However, I think we have all found it most frustrating that you cannot amend orders. I think there should be an intervening stage at which it can be. wherever it is introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is seeking to introduce it in this Bill, but I am not particularly arguing for that. I think it is worth all of us giving encouragement to the thought that there is a way of resenting an order so that it can be amended. It does not happen all that frequently. I have felt it very strongly, and so have several of my noble friends, when we have been in opposition, let alone when we are in Government on the Back-Benches.
I think it is very important to have, as it were, an intervening stage which enables one to amend an order. I think we should encourage that. Whether my noble friend will produce a good argument against not encouraging it in this particular Bill, I am not sure; but I think the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, with his great knowledge and experience, has introduced is absolutely splendid. I hope we shall have other opportunities for including it in Bills in appropriate places.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, before I go any further, may I say to my noble friend Lord Chelwood that a Henry VIII clause is generally understood to provide a general power by subordinate legislation to amend primary legislation. Part II of this Bill is not, therefore, a Henry VIII clause. Before I comment specifically on

103
the amendments, perhaps I should say one or two words about the policy thinking behind Part II and the safeguards that are built into it. I want first to make it clear that this Bill represents a single Government policy. The selective and general schemes on rate limitation are complementary. They represent a single policy for combating excessive local authority spending and rating. That policy was included explicitly in the manifesto on which we were elected.
The Government have always acknowledged that the implementation of the powers in Part II would be a significant change in the balance between central and local government. That is why we have always said that we would much rather never implement those powers. We would far prefer it if the operation of selective rate limitation on the small number of the highest spenders, together with the pressures which are already exerted on spending through the grant system and through targets, were adequate to ensure that our public spending policies were achieved.
There is not a case at present for introducing the general scheme. Nevertheless, as I have said in earlier debates, there are scenarios in which we could need the general powers in Part II, and need them quickly. In those circumstances we could not afford the time that it would take to process fresh legislation and then implement the scheme. While we were going through those steps, local authority spending might again be going out of control. That is the basic reason why we have thought it right to include Part II in the Bill and to discuss it in Parliament together with the powers in Part I. That is the straightforward thing to do. The powers are then on the statute book as a reserve basis, available if needed. Furthermore, they act as an influence on local authorities which might otherwise start spending.
We are not here talking about powers that impose penalties in retrospect on people who do not behave as desired. What we are talking about here are powers held ready in reserve in case the situation changes. There is a good analogy with the default powers included in many pieces of legislation but rarely used. They are there as an essential long stop in case the basic policy proves inadequate or is ignored by those concerned. For example, in the housing or education field there are general default powers that enable the Secretary of State to step in and carry out certain functions if a local authority itself fails to carry them out.
Of course, no Government would want to use such powers. Indeed, they are only rarely used; but it is generally recognised that any prudent and far-sighted Government should take steps within the statute, to cater for the situation where the law is not obeyed. That is really what we are about here. We hope that selective limitation will prove adequate, and under present circumstances we believe that it will. But circumstances might change and other authorities might begin to spend. We need reserve powers in order to be able to cater for that situation.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has, I know, severe reservations about it, I want to stress the safeguard of the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. I know that there is at the present time
104
a large majority in the other place, and that your Lordships do not by convention vote against subordinate legislation agreed by another place. Nevertheless, I am sufficiently old-fashioned, if you like, to believe that a debate and vote in either House of Parliament is a genuine way of measuring opinion on an issue and that if the powers sought are thought not to be justified either House might well find ways of making that position clear. Surely, the effectiveness of this check on the Government does not actually rely on the determination of the House to vote an order down but in the fact that the Government must bring the order to the House in the first place.
I think I can also say not unreasonably that there is nothing unparliamentary or undemocratic about a large majority in another place. It represents the will of the people. That is part of our democratic system. That is why we abide by that decision. All this convinces me, first, that the powers in Part II are not unparliamentary, and, secondly, that they are thoroughly hedged about with suitable safeguards which, I believe, in practice. would be meaningful. To argue that the safeguards are not meaningful is in a sense to argue against our whole system. There is nothing unprecedented about reserve powers. All this explains why I am satisfied with the safeguards in the Bill regarding the introduction of Part II.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as I would have expected, put his case extremely fairly and reasonably. But his amendments would appear to add a further safeguard, as I think he would be the first to say, by requiring the Government to issue a White Paper incorporating the draft order under Clause 9(3). I am not sure whether such a provision, which at least would be unusual, would add to the accountability within the Bill. I have already explained that I believe that the affirmative resolution procedure represents a very real safeguard. Certainly, consultation with the associations is a further safeguard, but since such consultation could hardly be held in private it amounts to ensuring a degree of public debate about any intention to make the major move of introducing Part II.
I can assure the House, and do, that the Government would not seek to conduct such consultation in a secret way; so there would be opportunity to discuss publicly the principle of introducing Part II without the amendment. Let me clarify the timing problem. There is a practical concern about the amendment. We would not know in a given year until we had the budget of authorities for that year whether or not there were signs of major overspending. If there were, and we therefore needed to introduce the general scheme for the next year, we would need to move quickly in order to be able to announce proposed expenditure levels before the summer holidays. There is time to consult the associations, but I doubt whether there is time to issue a White Paper and hold a more formal consultation exercise. There is therefore a danger of missing a whole year of rate limitation, during which spending could get further out of control.
It is further the case that the draft order required under Clause 9(3) would not contain anything surprising. It is, in effect, a commencement order for Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. In itself, therefore, the

105
draft order does not contain important material. It is unlikely that amendments would be appropriate. Its importance is that it is the trigger for the affirmative resolution procedure debates on the principle. Those are the real parliamentary safeguards and the source of accountability on this issue.
I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, about a possible precedent for other Bills. As I have said, I believe that these provisions are like the default powers, for which there are already many precedents. I do not think that the amendment which the noble Lord has moved would in practice increase the degree of accountability that is already povided for within the Bill, or the degree to which the Secretary of State would have to convince both Houses of Parliament of the wisdom of his proposal to implement the general scheme.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said both today and during the discussions to which he has again, typically and fairly, referred. I have also listened to my noble friends who have spoken on the issue. I respect their views as well in the matter. However, to interpose at this stage yet a further step in the proceedings would have a disadvantageous effect which, I know, is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I feel, though, that it would have that effect. I feel also that there is scope for debate. After all, what are we actually talking about? We are talking here about the possibility of the implementation of Part II— a general scheme. We have said again and again that this would be a most major measure which would have a significant effect on the change in the relationships between central Government and local government. We would not embark upon that without the most careful and exhaustive of debates and consultations. It would be a major measure.
While most certainly I understand and respect the concern and vehemence with which my noble friend Lord Chelwood put it, I believe that here we have a situation where in those circumstances— and that is what this amendment is about— the whole issue would be such that the requirement here would not be necessary, but if we had it in this way it could have a really disadvantageous effect. It is not because of what it says on the paper in front of me, but because of those arguments, that I feel unable to accept the amendments.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will be answer one question? Albeit perhaps unknowingly, he has raised a very important constitutional matter. He has referred repeatedly to the affirmative resolution procedure through both Houses as being a safeguard. On at least two occasions he has said that it would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Are we to take it that if we on these Benches, together with noble Lords on all sides of the House, were to vote against an affirmative resolution, it would be acceptable to the Government and would not be regarded by them as a breach of the ordinary rules by which the House is governed?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think it is important for me, as Leader of this House, to answer that particular question. We had this question which came up once
106
before on another order. I answered it then and I shall answer it now. It has been the case, I understand— I am a novice in these matters, as I consistently say, and it is important for me to say it— that normally your Lordships have decided not to vote directly against orders. That has been a convention which is thought to be right. Therefore, in answer to the noble Lord, I have to say that normally that would be regarded to be the position.
Both parties have accepted this over a period of time, and there are considerable problems if that were to be changed. So I would hope that it would be regarded that, while this House is totally entitled, I understand, to do so, nevertheless, as a matter of convention, it has not done so. If it has thought to do so, it has done it by expressing an opinion on the order, without actually going any further. I understand that has been the position and I think that, probably on both sides of your Lordships' House, it would be thought that was a reasonable position for us to be in.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I must confess to being disappointed with the Minister's answer. I do not really believe— and I doubt whether the House believes— that he really addressed himself to my important point about the local authority budget cycle and the constraints which it imposes upon the parliamentary time table. Under this procedure I fully recognise that in ordinary circumstances, the affirmative resolution procedure for bringing Part II of the Bill into operation is quite formidable; but in this particular case it suffers from the very grave disadvantage that it is constrained by the local authority budgetary cycle. That may mean, especially under the provisions of this Bill, that the affirmative resolutions cannot come before either House of Parliament until either just before or immediately after the beginning of the new financial year. In those circumstances, the affirmative resolution procedure has no value whatsoever. If either House chose to vote against it or had any kind of delaying tactic it would be pretty well tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the Government, and local authority finances would be in a state of chaos. It is that which makes me regard this as of special importance in this particular case.
I value very much the support which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. He used arguments which I would not care to deploy, because they have a party political connotation. He is worried about long-term considerations of one sort and another. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for what he said. I am not asking for any kind of general power for an amendment to be introduced for affirmative resolutions or delegated legislation as a generality. But in this particular instance, because of the local authority budgetary cycle, I think there is a special case for the interposition of a White Paper consultative stage for Parliament. On those special grounds I would ask the House to support me in this amendment, irrespective of where Members of the House may sit.
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Attlee, E.

Jeger, B.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bernstein, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McCluskey, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Onslow, E.

Chelwood, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonhy of Shulbrede, L.

Collison, L.

Rochester, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Sandford, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Denning, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Vickers, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.[Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beloff, L.

Avon, E.

Belstead, L.

Bauer, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

108

Broxbourne, L.

Hood, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Inglewood, L.

Caithness, E.

Ingrow, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kitchener, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Carnock, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Craigavon, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Croft, L.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Elles, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Fisher, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharpies, B.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Tranmire, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.29 p.m.
[Amendment No. 13B not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 13C:
Page 8, line 21. at end insert—
("( ) This Part of this Act shall continue in force until the end of the period of 5 years from the passing of this Act and shall then expire but at any time before the expiry of this Part the Secretary of State may by order, to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, direct that it shall continue in force for another period of one year.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13C. Your Lordships will see from the text of this amendment that it is the last in a long series of amendments of many different kinds moved from many different parts of the House, all of which have been designed to set some limits on the duration or the operation of this part of the Bill. I should have much preferred this amendment to be an amendment moved by Her Majesty's Government. During the whole of the period between Report stage and this stage I had some reason for hope and expectation that it would turn out to be that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has indicated to your Lordships some of the discussions that were going on last week which gave grounds for that hope. It was only last Thursday that my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench spoke to me on the telephone and explained that although he and his colleagues—the Secretary of State and others—had been searching for a formula of this sort, they had not been able to arrive at one. In those circumstances, I felt obliged to put down this amendment. Your Lordships will see that it is in the mildest possible terms. It is far milder than anything that has been moved hitherto. It allows this part of the Bill— which the House has already agreed is necessary— to operate for a full period of five years, and even then to be extendable by reference to Parliament.
There are two separate sets of argument that can be advanced in favour of this amendment. One is the kind of argument which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, used to support his amendment just now; namely, the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the executive asking for, and Parliament giving to the executive, powers as extensive, unlimited, unfettered and untrammelled as the ones for which they are asking. The House has already agreed that they should have these powers and I do not want to go over the arguments for that at all. What I suggest is that there are arguments for setting some limits to them.
Those arguments are not ones that I am going to advance. I believe there are others of your Lordships' House who will want to do so. The other set of arguments are that these powers in the whole of this Bill— and in Part II in particular— are needed because the state of local government finance has sunk to such a low ebb that powers of this sort are required in order to prevent anything worse going wrong and until such time as local government finance can be properly reformed.
Everybody can see that it is the lack of accountability of the councillor to his electorate, the lack of responsibility among the electorate who can vote for all sorts of expensive schemes without having to pay
110
for them (thanks to a whole variety of situations in local government finance, which again we need not go into) which make it necessary for that reform to be carried out, and if it is carried out properly none of this legislation in Part II will be needed, and that is why I am moving this amendment. It is to give the Government time to introduce those reforms and then, after that lapse of time, to take what will then be a redundant piece of legislation off the statute book.
It is possible to argue that five years will not be enough. If it is not enough then this amendment provides for the Secretary of State to come back to Parliament and explain why it has not been long enough and to ask for more time. I do not think I need say any more. All the subsidiary arguments have been rehearsed over and over again at different stages of the Bill. It is for those two main reasons— and particularly from the latter point of view— that I want to move this amendment. My noble friend Lord Ridley, who is president of the Association of County Councils and who would wish to have been here, has asked me to say that this amendment has his strong support also from his position as president of that association. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, knows that I have not been hostile to this Bill. Indeed, as he knows, I firmly recognise the problems which the Government have with certain high-spending local authorities. At Second Reading I ventured to suggest that any Government would have had to rein back the expectations that we had built up in the 1970s about local government activity and local government spending. I suggested that I was shocked that many of these high spenders have not used LAMSAC, the local authority management body, to get their costs under control. I said that I could not find that the rate capping of 12 authorities out of 450 was some kind of constitutional scandal.
But while I said that, I also said— and perhaps the noble Lord will recall this— that I thought that we needed a clearer understanding about the powers, duties and finances of local government to take us on to the next stage. When at the Report stage we looked at the issue of limitation I pointed out that in a Legislature we need some prodding of the Government to get on with the business of reviewing these matters and getting them right. I shall come to that in a moment.
Secondly, I said at Second Reading that I found it unacceptable to have this kind of legislation in Part II permanently on the statute book since, while it is not exactly unconstitutional, it upsets the understanding underlying our constitution, it upsets the balance and the dispersal of power— and the noble Lord said that himself in his speech replying to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson— and it would be wrong, in my view, to see that kind of power on the statute book, available in the future to wrong hands, to be misused. That is the important point that I want to make.
It is a power that we could perhaps trust for the moment. I am not trying to say that I particularly trust

111
any Government at any time, but it certainly ought not to remain a power way into the distant future when there exists any kind of elective dictatorship, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor called it. We must look at this issue rather carefully.
After we had exchanged some views about this at the Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, wrote to me, and I know that he will not mind if I quote what he said in parts of his letter. He said that he regards Part II as reserve powers and— and I go on to quote him:
"this is important as a deterrent to the sort of behaviour which might make their use necessary. A time limit on the duration of those reserve powers would simply undermine the credibility as a deterrent and that is at the heart of our resistance to the idea of time limitation".
My Lords, we answer that point very simply. It is a deterrent because the Government can continue to renew the power. It is no longer, under this amendment, a power that automatically and finally lapses. They would have the power by order to continue the Bill for a further period. So I hope that we have scuppered that argument which the noble Lord put to me in his letter.
In his second and third paragraphs, the noble Lord wrote:
"I understand the argument you make that time limiting of the powers might hasten a broader review of the rating system. But I do not accept this. I have acknowledged that the possibility of a full review of local government finance cannot be ruled out for all time.".
If I may say so, those of us who have been in Whitehall for a long time would recognise the phrase, "Cannot be ruled out for all time" as meaning, "We've not the slightest intention of doing anything about it for quite a long time". With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, that phrase almost betrays the remainder of the letter. It indicates no sense of urgency on the part of Government on this issue and it must arouse fears in all parts of the House.
I come back to the second point that I made at Second Reading; namely, that we need something to prod the Government. If the Government continuously came forward under this amendment to renew the legislation, it would be for Parliament in both Houses to say, "Well, what are you doing about the reform of local government powers and local government finance?" That is the importance of it— not for the Government, but for Parliament to have the opportunity to say, "We shall not continue to renew these powers unless within a reasonable time you come forward with a real reform."
My last point is that I regard Part II as emergency legislation, and I think it should be regarded as such. It is not right to leave on the statute book for all time a Bill which in effect gives civil servants wide powers over the fixing of rates and thus the powers, the duties and the activities of local authorities. That is what would begin to happen. The balance of power, the shift from the pluralistic society that we have in these matters, would be more marked than ever if it got into dangerous hands. For all these three reasons— that we can meet the point of the noble Lord about its being a
112
deterrent because it can be renewed; that we do need to be able to prod by refusing or debating each year if the Government do not bring forward the reform that is needed; and because it really is emergency legislation— I support this amendment.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I feel very strongly that this amendment and the previous one are of crucial importance, even for people who broadly agree with the thrust of the legislation, in trying to put it in a more acceptable form; a form which will enable people in local government to have some hope that their future so far as finance is concerned will not be governed by Whitehall civil servants. That is what is happening at the moment, with the fixing of GRE, with the fixing of targets, and so on. Decisions are being made by central Government in Whitehall of a kind which up to now have been made and should be made by local authority councillors, aided and advised by their treasurers and directors of finance. It is significant that the local government accountants are totally opposed to this legislation.
I am speaking as one who is totally opposed to Part II of the Bill. I think it is an outrage. But it is important to realise that even people who have admitted that they are not totally opposed to Part II still feel that there should be some restraint, and some carrot, as it were, to the Government to do something about the legislation. As long as local government finance is dependent on rates, so long will local government be dependent on hand-outs and grants from central Government. Consideration has been given to this for many years. and if one takes the number of years that the reform of local government finance has been considered and add five years to it, one has had something like 20 to 25 years for civil servants and Ministers to come up with some kind of additional revenue for local government.
As I have said frequently in your Lordships' House, I have been on working parties and on other bodies of my own party, aided by the advice of experts. and we have had indicated to us that there is no reason at all, if there is the will, why a form of local income tax coupled with rates should not be the main way of financing local government in the future, thereby reducing local government dependence on central Government grants to a manageable and healthy 30 per cent. or even less. They manage these things on the continent; and I have always taken the fairly chauvinistic view that we should be able to manage our finances at least as well as foreign countries, and should be able to set them an example. In countries such as Denmark, tiny little local authorities the size of parishes have a local income tax to assist them in financing themselves.
This amendment is moderately worded and is put forward with great moderation; it is supported by the noble Lord. Lord Northfield, with great moderation; and it is put forward by the president of one local authority association supported, in his absence, by the president of another local authority association,

113
neither of which is famous for its dominance by the extreme Left-wing but are broadly speaking representative of Conservative-led authorities. Why in heaven's name are the Government proposing to do this? Perhaps they are not; I may be speaking too soon. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is smiling happily there, and perhaps he is about to give way to the entreaties of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. But on the assumption that he is not and will not— and I think I am entitled to make that assumption from the way he has behaved up until now; I was almost going to say "the pigheaded way", but I will not; I will keep that for my speech at the end, on the Motion, "That the Bill do now pass"— in the belief that perhaps he may be willing to consider this last opportunity to do something to moderate the effect of Part II of the Bill, I hope that the entreaties he has already heard and those that he will hear in the next few minutes will enable the Government to give serious consideration to this very modest but very useful and important amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just said, I should also like to stress that this is an extremely moderate and mild amendment which has been very moderately moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and my noble friend, Lord Northfield. Personally I prefer the amendment in the names of myself and my noble friends that I moved on Report, which covered a time limit for both parts of the Bill, because I think there is a strong argument for Part I also having a time limit, just to see how it works out, especially as we have been unable to get from the Government any idea of the numbers that they consider will be among those in the first part of the selective scheme.
I would also be rather happier with a three-year trial rather than with five years. Nevertheless, any amendment that limits part of what could become an extremely damaging course which is being pursued by this Bill and which has been opposed by many people all over the House, and in particular Part II, which has been opposed quite strongly by many Members opposite, is better than none. Therefore the time-limiting of any part of the Bill must be a "good thing", so to speak, in what is a not very happy Bill (to put it at its mildest and being very mild and moderate myself at this moment) or indeed a good Bill at all.
Also, I think the time-limiting factor would be an incentive for the Government to think about the longer-term review of local government finance, which was mentioned in one particular context by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. Therefore this amendment, I should have thought, ought to have all-round support. It is something on which I fear I rather take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that the Minister does not look as though he is going to accept it— on the basis that, if he were, he would have jumped up rather quickly or indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, before hand.
This is something which I think really is not a very great concession for the Government to make. It is restricted to Part II of the Bill and does not interfere with Part I, which they evidently consider to be sacred. It gives them another two years, compared with the three years suggested in the amendments which have
114
been moved during the passage of this Bill, which have come from all over the House and not just from these Benches. I think it is a generally held feeling, that the Government really must get down to considering once again the whole question of local government finance, and this will act as an incentive. My noble friends and I certainly support this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this amendment. In dealing with Amendment No. 11, moved by my noble friend, Lord Bellwin, he said that there were two aims underlying this Bill: the restraint of high spenders and at the same time the retention of local authority freedom of decision. The present world recession has forced the Government to restrain high spenders, but we sincerely hope that the world recession and the need to enforce rate capping will, in the years to come, diminish and perhaps disappear. Therefore it seems to me that we should have written into this Bill a review of the situation, so that ultimately local authorities will be given back their freedom of decision.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may speak before the noble Lord the Minister replies. I would not have spoken if my amendments had been successful, but I feel compelled to do so as they were not. I attempted to have a time limit put on to this Part II for many of the reasons— but, in addition, some others— adduced by the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Northfield. I must say that if this general scheme in Part II had been, as seemed to have been envisaged at the time of the White Paper, activated more or less forthwith in the event of the selective scheme not working, that would have been in accordance with precedent— the sort of thing one would have expected and that one is perhaps used to.
But what I find unprecedented and find very difficult to accept, except in times of emergency, is this extraordinary business of legislating for cold storage. You put this on ice and then, suddenly, at some time in the future you take it out of the ice box and warm it up by statutory instrument, perhaps years later when the circumstances might have changed remarkably. That really goes against the Donoughmore Committee's Report of 1932 which should be required reading for everyone nowadays, as it used to be.
Here there is no time limit of any sort, and as I think has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, this represents a very dangerous precedent, which, in the hands of an extreme government, could be a most convenient instrument. I regard this Administration as very moderate. Let me say that I am not speaking in qualitative terms; I am speaking in terms of the political spectrum and I regard them as fairly near the middle.
Another point that I should like to make at this stage is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on my previous amendment. He said that Part II is the equivalent of a default power. I think that that is stretching the concept of a default power beyond what is commonly accepted in ordinary parliamentary parlance. This is a far more far reaching and searching reserve power than anything I have known as a default power. If he can give me examples of an equivalent,

115
then I should be very happy to hear of them in one sense, though not happy in another. As I say, I know of no substantial piece of legislation of a non-emergency nature— and Ministers have gone out of their way to stress that this is not an emergency piece of legislation and therefore not suitable for time limitation— that is expressed to come into operation at an indeterminable date in the indeterminate future and in circumstances which cannot be foreseen. I would be very unhappy that this should go on the statute book without any form of time limitation, and for that reason I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Northfield.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if we are talking on the broader front— and it seems as if we are— may I just say that we ought to consider how we reached this position in the first place. We reached this position because, despite the attempts by not just this Government but previous governments to exhort local government for years and years to say— remember, was it Crosland?— "The party's over", the fact is that current spending in local government has been running out of control; quite the opposite to the capital spending side. It is a question of what can be afforded, and local government simply refused from 1979 to do anything about it. I am talking not of the majority of people in it— quite the contrary. I am talking of perhaps 20 per cent., but as it happens that 20 per cent. are among the largest spenders and the impact of what they do tells for all. Did we not say many times during the debates we have had that, perhaps, 16 authorities have accounted for—
Baroness Birk: My Lords. I am sorry, but it does not seem to us that this has anything to do with the amendment that is before us. The amendment that is before us is a time limitation on Part II of the Bill. It is not to do with the selective scheme or rate capping generally.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I sit for hours and hours and days and days and virtually never interrupt anyone. My fate seems always to be interrupted. The fact is that it was not I who started talking about the background to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, spoke about it. I wrote down what he said. He talked about the future not being governed by Whitehall and about handouts and grants from central government. I was doing the very same thing and commenting on that. I do not see why I should be taken to task for trying to do that when presenting my reasons for not being able to accept the amendments. That is a perfectly proper thing to do.
We are talking about the time— that is the purpose of the amendment— when this legislation will not be required. Therefore I am entitled to say that just how we got into this position in the first place is a clue as to how we shall get out of it. That is a perfectly proper point to make. We got into this position because there was overspending to an extent which, it was felt, could not be afforded. It was felt to be an imposition upon the ratepayers of very many authorities. The way to get out of it in future may well be, as the Secretary of State said, if we never say never. That is right. However, we have to get to the situation where the totality of
116
spending by local government is within the bounds of what can be afforded. One way to do that would be through the selective scheme. That tackles the very authorities which have got us into this position. It is not wrong to make that point. It is perfectly proper.
Turning to the amendments, I have to resort basically to the same arguments as I used when responding to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The fact is, as has been made clear throughout the passage of the legislation, the Government recognise the very wide-ranging implications of the general powers. As I said before, to introduce them would bring about a change in relationships. That is why we have made it clear that we hope they will never have to be introduced. But the Government are also aware that their hopes in the past for achieving their objectives in respect of local government spending have not been realised. We tried the grants system. We tried targets. We tried a whole new panoply of names. I never heard such names in the years that I was in local government. Now we have it all. The only way to get out of it will be when we get onside— to the level which can be afforded and where spending is at reasonable levels, and rates likewise.
Therefore, the general powers which are included in the Bill are emergency ones justifying a time limit. They are there to guard against overspending on a wider scale and therefore to provide a deterrent against such a change in the behaviour of local authorities. They form a kind of default power. However, these powers will be of no use unless they are available. It is for that reason that the powers are included in the Bill. If they were not on the statute book and ready for use, there would be a substantial time delay before they could be introduced. This would give time for substantial overspending and for the exploitation of ratepayers.
For the same reason the Government have resisted any form of time limitation on the powers either before their introduction or on their duration. Any such limitation would substantially weaken the effects of the powers by giving local authorities a clear indication either that the powers are not available for use or that in two, three or five years' time the Government will no longer have the powers available, so local government need only wait for that period of time before they begin to spend up.
The degree of overspending by some authorities is such that it is bound to take several years to retrieve the situation. One cannot return to reasonable levels of spending in some of these authorities within a year, or even two. Their spending is so way above what any similar authority spends that to expect them to do it in the short term is not practicable. We could be challenged in the courts if we were to give them targets that were unattainable. That is why it is so hard to try to impose time limits. Even if the five-year period were capable of being extended, as has been suggested, by affirmative resolution, such a provision must cast doubt on the long-term need for the availability of the general powers and would give an indication that the Government are not full-hearted in their desire to maintain the downward pressure on spending and rates.
The Government are clear that their basic strategy requires the presence of these powers on the statute

117
book. Their use will be greatest if they never have to be employed. In our view, to put any kind of time limit on the power will, paradoxically, increase the likelihood of its being used. These are the reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. I say that not without some reluctance because I understand exactly what my noble friend is trying to do. I am not without sympathy as to where, at the end of the day, he wishes to be. I would want to be in the same position, but I feel that we have more likelihood of being there if the provision remains in the Bill without a time limit. Let us earn the point where we can say that we are entitled to look at something else.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if, briefly, I make one or two comments on the reply that he has just given. The Government have persuaded themselves and many of their supporters, including me, that because some local authorities persistently break the rules, they must resort to some extraordinary measures. I accept that. But I also find it very difficult to disagree with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that this is emergency legislation in some shape or form.
The assumption that some local authorities, no matter what the circumstances are, will continue to break the rules is, I believe, unacceptable pessimism. We must try to improve upon that by one of two ways. The first way is by introducing, at long last, some more satisfactory ways in which local government can be financed. In all the years that I have been in Parliament I cannot recall any sortie into the area of local government by central government which has been particularly helpful to the common weal, or indeed, has forwarded the cause that the Government of the day had in mind.
The second alternative— and one which is offered by this amendment— is that this temporary provision should have its life extended by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That seems to me to remove so much of the force which would otherwise have been behind the arguments of my noble friend who, as a Minister, has spoken on behalf of the Government.
I hope that he will think again about this question. I speak as one who has little sympathy with that minority of local authorities which have thoroughly misbehaved, which have outraged both the rules and the basis of consent on which, in a free country, all our affairs have to be conducted. I believe that a Government with a very substantial majority ought still to show some restraint and care before they behave in the same way to those who outrage every canon of democracy.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief comment on my noble friend's reply, which I found extremely disappointing. All that the amendment is seeking is something quite simple— that the Government of the day should come to Parliament in five years' time if they wish to renew these powers; nothing more, and nothing less. Assuming that these powers are necessary— I do not think they are, and I have explained why during the committee stage, and again today— why are Her Majesty's Government not willing to accept an amendment which asks simply that they should be renewed in five years' time if they
118
are still needed? My noble friend has not answered that point; he did not address himself to the amendment. I shall vote for it without any hesitation at all.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, my noble friend said at the beginning of his remarks that local government finance was running out of control; and so it is. One of the reasons is that there are certain units of local government which are being led by irresponsible, defiant and extravagant leaders. Another of the reasons is that successive governments, ever since 1974, have failed to keep local government financial arrangements a match for the situation with which they have to deal. We are now in the position where the local electorates— who are the right people to control local government finance— do not have the mechanisms available with which to do so. It is that which has to be put right.
I agree with my noble friend, Lord Peyton when he says that to enact legislation on the assumption that it is impossible to put power hack into the hands of the local electorate is really to sink to depths of pessimism which are not justified. It will be difficult to reform local government finance. It is not going to be impossible. But I believe it is necessary for Parliament to introduce some mild spur, on government, central government, whichever party it might be, to get on with the task and make a proper job of it.
The second point that my noble friend makes is that it is necessary for him, and other Ministers in the Government, central government, to have an essential longstop to operate behind Part I of this Bill; to have some sort of nuclear deterrent— those were the words he used at Committee stage— to have an ultimate sanction which can be brought out from cold storage and into action. I think all those phrases are unfortunate because in a democracy there is surely only one ultimate sanction, only one nuclear deterrent, only one essential longstop: that is the ballot box. We are introducing the ballot box for the control of industrial relations. We rely on the ballot box to decide which Government will be elected, and we ought to be relying on the ballot box to decide how the finances of local government should be controlled.
It is because my noble friend gives no hope that the Government are in earnest in getting on with this essential reform, and because I have had nothing but support from the entire House, that I feel I must press this amendment to a Division.
10.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 66.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Collison, L.

Aylestone, L.

David, B.

Bernstein, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Birk, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Grey, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

119

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodney, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sandford, L. [Teller]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Sharples, B.

John-Mackie, L. [Teller]

Shaughnessy, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Onslow, E.

Vickers, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Grantchester, L.

Avon, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bauer, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bellwin, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Belstead, L.

Hornsby Smith, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ingrow, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Margadale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Croft, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

De La Warr, E.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Saltoun, Ly.

Denning, L.

Savile, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elles, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Fisher, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Trumpington, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glanusk, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Gowrie, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before we take the next amendment, I wonder whether the Government Chief Whip could make a statement as to whether it is proposed to commence the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill this evening.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I think that it has been generally agreed, having consulted various channels outside that it would probably be inappropriate to proceed to the Trade Union Bill this evening, as we have a full day for it tomorrow. We shall of course be finishing the business that we are on at the moment, but after this present item of business is over, we shall be adjourning the House for the evening.
Clause 10 [Authorities subject to general control]:
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert—
("Provided that where, in any financial year, the Secretary of State has, pursuant to sections 57(1) and 61(3) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, made two or more determinations of an authority's grant-related expenditure, for the purposes of this subsection account shall only be taken of the higher or highest amount so determined.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like in considering this amendment also to consider Amendment No. 15, as they are on the same problems.
Amendment No. 15: Page 9, line 9, at end insert—
("disregarding any expenditure by that authority, which, by virtue of section 8(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 is to be disregarded for the purposes of the said section 59(6)(cc) of the said Act of 1980 and section 8(3)(c) of the said Act of 1982.")
The first amendment seeks to provide that, of the number of GREs issued to an authority in respect of any year, the highest GRE shall count as the only one for the purpose of deciding whether an authority's expenditure is within its GRE and thus whether an authority becomes eligible for exemption from the general scheme of rate limitation. For the year 1981– 82, it is possible that an authority would have had five different GREs. I shall not bore your Lordships by going through them, because, with my sensitive ear to your Lordships' House, I feel that noble Lords are now anxious to be getting home after all the earlier excitements and disappointments.
There are very good reasons for there being possibly five different bases for a GRE. Some depend upon actual expenditure data— education poolings; others depend upon interest rate charges, and so on— contributions to the housing revenue account, amended supplementary reports to reflect boundary changes, and so forth. In our submission, it is right for the purpose of grant distribution that GRE should continue to be updated for some time after the end of the year to which it refers. Local authority treasurers can at least anticipate those changes and account for them accordingly.
But the point at issue in the first amendment comes from the fact that, among all those changes, there will be gainers and there will be losers. Some authorities will find that they end up with a higher GRE and others with a lower one. Without this amendment, an authority could find itself in the position of planning to spend just below its GRE, or even closing its expenditure accounts on the basis of spending just below it, and then being presented in a late supplementary report from the Government with a lower GRE which had turned it into an overspender, as it were, overnight. That does not seem equitable.
There is a precedent for adopting that approach. For 1982– 83 an authority which spent above target but below GRE was, as the noble Lord the Minister knows, not penalised. In defining GRE for that purpose, the Government used the highest of any GRE given in a main or supplementary report. Therefore, it is a precedented use for resolving what count be extremely unfortunate circumstances, impossible 'to predict, for some local authorities which are doing

121
their best to comply with the Government's targets, and so on. The second amendment which I said I would speak to relates to the concession granted by the present Government in respect of the general scheme of rate limitation. That concession means that either a four-year run of complying with the expenditure target; or a four-year run of complying with grant related expenditure, would secure an exemption from the general scheme or rate limitation.
Therefore the point of this amendment is to make it clear that disregards— a very unpleasant non-word which relates to items of expenditure on which local authorities are not penalised— are taken into account when determining compliance with the target for the purposes of this Bill. The Government say, and I think the noble Minister has said, that disregards will be taken into account, but this has not been made clear in the Bill itself. It is for this purpose that the second amendment has been put down.
I hope, with that optimism which keeps Liberals going over the years, that on this occasion the Minister will gracefully say how much he admires the superb way in which I have delivered this very boring speech, and that he will give way and incorporate my proposal in legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, before the Minister replies I think this is a good occasion on which to raise the whole question of the grant-related expenditure assessment. Most noble Lords will remember that during consideration of the 1980 Bill I expressed concern about the grant related expenditure assessment. Everything that has happened since has worried me more.
Yesterday I picked up the Observer and I saw on the front page that there were 15 suggested authorities for possible rate capping. Eight of them were in London, in addition to the GLC and the ILEA. What is more, six of those authorities I well know are in very deprived areas. It seems to me quite incredible that authorities in very deprived areas should be accused of spending too much in order to look after their areas. Therefore I wonder about the criteria that are used for the grant-related expenditure assessment.
We have not yet reached the stage of passing this Bill, but it will in fact give much greater authority in regard to GREA than was first proposed when it was merely intended to be a rough guide for the rate support grant award. I want to hear what the noble Lord the Minister has to say about this. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government will look again at the criteria that are used for determining grant related expenditure assessments.
I notice that another of the boroughs that I regard as being very deprived was also named as a possible rate capping area. So if seven of the most deprived areas are being rate capped, there must be something wrong. I should be glad if in his reply the Minister would take this point on board.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will promise not to question my speaking so off the subject, I should be very glad to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has said. But first I must have at least a nod of acquiescence from her that
122
indicates that this is all right, because I should like nothing better than to respond to the last points made.
But, before I do so perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who earlier referred to me in a certain way, that I rather liken him to General Custer at this stage, because it looks to me as if this is his last stand on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, is of course right to raise the question of GREs. The fact is that what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, refers to as the deprived areas, those in the greatest need, are exactly those that have the highest GREs. As I pointed out in debating the Bill in Committee, the personal social services GRE factor, for example, in Hackney is four times higher than in like authorities. It is, I think, the highest in the whole country. That is exactly why it has the highest GRE.
As to the complaint about why such authorities come to be within the rate capping areas, the reason is that, despite the extra amount they receive through having the highest GREs, their spending is still way above that of like authorities. To find out why it is so high you have to be willing to examine what they spend their money on. Then you begin to get the answers to your own question. It is at that time that you find things that no one in this House would try to justify.
Among authorities that are short of resources, where are the priorities? Are the priorities in the large personnel departments and in the public relations departments? Or are they with people who need better housing, repairs and improvements? That is what the noble Lord should be concerning himself with, not the system. The system is all right. Perfect, it is not. There has never been a perfect way to distribute ₣ 12 billion or ₣ 13 billion of grant in order to equalise payment among like authorities. At least, however, it is a darned sight better than anything we had before. The noble Lord will know that there is the option at any time within the grants working group to make those GREs better, You can lay them out, the 63 or so that there are, and improve them. I am for that, by all means. But do not blame the system because there are people who work outside it and abuse it. That is where matters go wrong.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: All right, you have given them four times the GRE for personal services—
Noble Lords: Third Reading!
Lord Denham: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? It is not in order for any noble Lord to speak more than once on a Third Reading Motion.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am not speaking, my Lords. I am putting a question to the noble Lord. What is wrong with that?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will use the formula "Before the noble Lord sits down" he will then be in order.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, he was not sitting down: I am sorry. I am not accepting that; he had not finished. He was in the middle of his speech. I was asking a question.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if that is the case, I can only beg the noble Lord's pardon for misunderstanding him.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I was merely asking a question. The noble Lord said that he has given Hackney— he chose Hackney— four times the GRE for its personal social services that he has given other territories. I am saying that he should have possibly given it six times more. That is all that I am saying.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, clearly, I should love to debate this issue, but your Lordships will expect me to answer some of the other points, so I cannot do so tonight. I must deal with amendments, specifically despite the latitude that the noble Baroness gave me. These amendments are designed to stretch the benefit of the concessions that we have made.
I do not wish to detain the House with some of the finer points of the RSG system. One really needs to look at why GREs may change after the year has started. There are three principal reasons. First, the GREs include an element which is intended to reflect the cost of financing the allocation of capital expenditure made to each authority in relation to that year. In practice, it has always proved impossible because of timing difficulties to incorporate into the RSG settlement the figures for actual capital expenditure. It has been the practice, therefore, to make the settlement on the basis of estimated allocations and to update those at a suitable later date in a supplementary report. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, is aware of this. He has known the system for long enough.
The second reason why GREs change is that the grant system still allows for the fact that interest rates vary throughout the course of the year. GREs and grant go up if interest rates increase, and vice versa. Again, these changes are made from time to time in supplementary reports. The third reason for some changes lies in simple computational errors made either by the department or by local authorities themselves. That is quite a mixture of reasons, and each has different implications. Unless the noble Lord wishes me to do so, I will not go into depth on each of those: I do not think they call for that.
In my view, Amendment No. 14 is too heavily conditioned by the uncertainties which arose in the early stages of the new grants system. The later record is much more stable and should give no difficulty to an authority which keeps a close watch on its spending. The real answer to the problem of variability in GREs is to find ways to further reduce the scope for mid-year variation. We are very interested in such possibilities, and would welcome discussions with the associations. That is something to which we might look forward.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to ensure that any expenditure disregarded for the purposes of expenditure targets under the 1982 Act should also be disregarded for the purposes of deciding whether or not an authority has complied with its expenditure target, and thus is entitled to exemption from rate limitation under the terms of Clause 10. I think the noble Lord will be interested when I say that this amendment is unnecessary. My advice is that Clause
124
10, as drafted, already provides for disregarded expenditure to be allowed for in decidng whether or not an authority has complied with its expenditure target for these purposes. The amendment is unnecessary because it would only duplicate an existing provision in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, with practically any explanation I would probably not proceed any further with these amendments at this hour of the night. I must say that I think they are both important points. What the Minister said about the second amendment, Amendment No. 15, will cover the matter adequately, because we can wave his Ilansard speech at him in future if he tries to go back on it. He said— I hope he is right— that it is already covered in the Bill.
On the first point, I understand why there are different GREs. As I said, there were up to five in 1981– 82. All I was trying to persuade the Minister to agree was that it is fairer, more equitable and more understandable if the local authority knows that it is going to have only one of those— the highest— upon which it has to rely, and does not continually find itself having a different GRE against which it has to make its target.
I consider that, on the whole, the purpose of moving the amendments— to find out the views of the Government, and particularly their belief that the second one is covered— has been met and is sufficient ground to enable me to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Provision of information to ratepayers]:
10.33 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 13, after ("to") insert ("or levy imposed upon")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lads' Birk I rise to move Amendment No. 16, which is supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. It will be convenient for the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 to 22.
Amendment No. 17: Page 11, line 16, after ("to") insert ("or levies imposed upon")
Amendment No. 18: Page 11, line 18, after ("precepts") insert ("or impose levies")
Amendment No. 19: Page 11, line 22, after ("issued") insert ("or levies imposed")
Amemhnent No. 20: Page 11, line 28, after second ("to") insert ("or impose levies upon")
Amendment No. 21: Page 11, line 33, after second ("to") insert ("or impose levies upon")
Amendment No. 22: Page 11, line 34, after ("precepting") insert ("or levying")
Clause 14 was added to the Bill in Committee by Government amendment. The clause extends the Secretary of State's power to make rules governing what shall be contained in the rate demand note. The clause provides that the demand note shall include clear information as to how the rate bill is apportioned between the rating and precepting authorities. It will also cover information relating to expenditure,

125
financing and changes in the rate or precepting levels. To the extent that this increases accountability, this clause is to be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that this kind of information on the demand note will be particularly useful in ensuring accountability of the proposed new joint hoards. He said on 8th May, at col. 896, that this is important,
"because ratepayers will be less well acquainted with the role of these upper tier authorities".
I hope that that will be kept in mind when we are considering the purpose of the amendment. That led my noble friend Lady Birk to inquire whether the relevant Ministers will provide similar information on the Metropolitan Police and the London Regional Transport precepts for inclusion in the rate demand notes. It has become very clear from subsequent correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and my noble friend that the new levy from London Regional Transport will not be included in the ambit of the information to be given to ratepayers. In fact, the Minister stated in his letter that the clause did not apply to that:
"because it is a levy and not a precept".
It is surely only right for London ratepayers to be given the same information in respect of their payments towards public transport, as is given to ratepayers in the rest of the country. If the Government's proposals for abolition are approved it will include joint boards acting as public transport authorities in those particular conurbations.
It will not be good enough for the Government to argue that London Regional Transport will be a nationalised undertaking. As we have debated for many hours on the London Regional Transport Bill, up to two-thirds of the cost will fall upon the ratepayers of London. Therefore, there is no reason why this information should not be given in the rate demand note.
The Minister also argues that the order for the London Regional Transport levy will be the subject of an affirmative resolution in both Houses and therefore the Government do not consider it appropriate to include the LRT levy within the scope of Clause 14. That is no argument for not giving ratepayers information. I ask your Lordships to remember the quotation that I gave regarding what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said at the last stage of the Bill. The noble Lord said that ratepayers will have little information on these top tier authorities. It can also be said that ratepayers will have little information about the expenditure and financing of London Regional Transport as regards which they will be meeting up to a maximum of two-thirds of the cost. The same argument could be advanced for the rate determination of authorities designated under Part I. There is an order for the maximum rate, which will also be the subject of affirmative procedure. Therefore, one can argue— using the Minister's argument— that there is no need therefore to give that information on the rate demand note.
We want the maximum information. The inclusion of the London Regional Transport levy will be in keeping with the spirit in which the Government have put forward Clause 14. The amendment will require
126
that the rate demand notes to ratepayers shall include information on levies, such as that as regards LRT, as well as precepts. I hope that the Minister will feel that this is a simple, common-sense amendment which does not touch on party politics at all. It gives the ratepayers the maximum possible information, which is something that we all want. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this is indeed a question of accountability. Under the LRT Bill my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is seeking powers to recover from London's ratepayers, by means of a levy, up to two-thirds of the grant which he will pay each year to LRT to support London's public transport services. Certainly— and I make no hones about it— he must be required to account for that levy, and there is nothing between us in that respect. The question is: to whom?
Constitutionally, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. Clause 13 of the London Regional Transport Bill requires him to lay an order each year in another place specifying the amount in the pound to be levied, the factors which he has taken into acount in fixing the levy, and the means by which it has been calculated. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, rightly mentioned, I referred to the fact that this annual order is subject to an affirmative resolution. So there is likely to be a full debate on all aspects of the ratepayers' levy, including the policies which underlie it. This means that my right honourable friend will have to account to Parliament fully and specifically for this levy each year.
Clause 14 of the Rates Bill is intended to apply to rating and precepting authorities, which are accountable to ratepayers and not directly to Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the constitutional position of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is quite different and that appropriate provision is being made for him to account for the levy for LRT in another place. For this reason I do not consider that it would be appropriate to extend the provisions of Clause 14 to enable my right honourable friend to make rules about the provision to ratepayers of information on levies, a power which, for the reasons that I have outlined, he would not in any case wish to use.
Here we must be sure that we are getting accountability. The type of accountability that we are discussing through this levy and through the parliamentary proceedings is a far greater and more exposed kind than anything we get in any of the other procedures that pertain. Although I entirely accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, makes as to desirability (I am all for it and with him on that), I believe that in this case the amount of accountability will be much more— and there is no harm in that— than anything we might have had under any other method.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. He puts the question: to whom shall the Secretary of State be accountable? He argues the case that the affirmative resolution procedure is sufficient. But surely under Clause 14, when we talk

127
about accountability we mean accountability to the ratepayers, bearing in mind that the ratepayers are to meet two-thirds of the cost of LRT. Therefore, they should have information as to how that money is being spent. That is all we are asking for. Bearing in mind what I said in my opening remarks, the maximum rate to be determined by the Secretary of State under Part I is also the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure.
However, that information is to be given on the rate demand note. Why should not that apply as regards LRT? Obviously, at 10.40 at night I shall not divide the House on an amendment of this kind; but I believe that common sense is on the side of the amendments. There is no other stage in this House when we can debate this matter; but I hope that the Government will recognise that we are not just putting forward amendments for the sake of putting them forward. We are concerned that the maximum amount of informamation should be given to ratepayers. In the circumstances, I have no alternative other than to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause:—
Hereditaments for storage.
(" . There shall be inserted after paragraph 2(f) in Schedule 1 of the principal Act—
"(g) the hereditament is held for the purpose of being available for the storage in the course of any trade—

(i) of goods or materials which are to be used in the manufacture of other goods or materials, or

(ii) of goods or materials which are to be subjected, in the course of a trade, to any process, or

(iii) of goods or materials which, having been manufactured or produced or subjected, in the course of a trade. to any process, have not vet been delivered to any purchases. or

(iv) of goods or materials on their arrival by sea or air into any part of the United Kingdom.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to remove from a local authority the right to levy rates on empty warehouses. As your Lordships know, I am advised on this point by the CBI. I welcome the recent order which has removed the right of local authorities to charge rates on empty industrial premises. However, I do not believe that this goes far enough to alleviate the burden on business. Rates can continue to be required to be paid on empty warehouses, which is contrary to that basic concept of rates as a tax on beneficial occupation.
The rating of empty warehouses, even at the present maximum of 50 per cent. of the full rate, has caused considerable financial hardship for many businesses, particularly those in areas hardest hit by recession. On average, rates represent about 10 per cent. of the total cost of running a warehouse; but in some cases they are as much as 30 per cent. This is a heavy burden to face at a time when the ability of firms to pay rates has been reduced and at the same time the demand for premises has fallen and it has become increasingly difficult for warehouses to be let or sold.
I believe that perhaps the major consideration that influenced the Government to limit suspending empty property rating to industrial premises alone was concern at the loss of revenue that was caused for local authorities. It is difficult to know what the loss would be if the suspension was extended to cover warehouses, because it is estimated that it could be as little as ₣ 10 to ₣ 15 million in terms of actual lost revenue, given that about half the local authorities— and I think that includes my noble friend's late local authority of Leeds, as he has told us in the past— already exercise their discretion not to levy empty-property rate. Compared with the total local authority income of ₣ 25 billion, this loss of revenue to councils will be tiny, under 0.05 per cent., yet the benefit to the businesses concerned in the jobs they do, and could provide, would be considerable.
The amount that the Government or local authorities will lose is tiny, but the important thing is that the benefit to individual businesses, particularly ones which may be hard hit or ones which may be in areas where they are being rated in such a way, can be proportionately very high. It is the unfairness of the spread, and the amount that it may hit the individual company as compared with the amount that the Government as a whole might forfeit, which makes it seem to me reasonable that this amendment should be accepted.
It is unfortunate that it is late in the stages of the Bill and that the wording may not be perfect, but I hope that perhaps my noble friend might have some way in which he can sort this out and work in my direction. Unfortunately it is so late that it may be that I cannot have the support from all sides of the House that I was hoping for, but perhaps I may get a little just to show my noble friend that it is a point which is widely accepted as being reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, very briefly, I should like to support the amendment set down in Lord Mottistone's name and in my own name. In his excellent speech he has said nearly all that needs to be said. All I need to do, I suppose, is to declare an interest in that I am president of the National Association of Warehouse Keepers, and they are completely, 100 per cent., in support of this amendment.
I think that the noble Earl. Lord De La Warr, and possibly one or two other noble Lords, may wish to speak on this debate, and all that I need to add is that in addition to the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, described, many warehouses and hereditaments of this kind are in areas adjacent to the new free ports and the enterprise zones, where they are being confronted by competitors having rate-free occupation while they have to pay a rate, which seems unfair in view of the Government's generosity to industrial premises generally.
In view of the small cost it would be to the Government and of the great benefit it would be to the hard-pressed owners and tenants of these buildings, I should have thought that it would be in the Government's interests to encourage the industries to embark on a more prosperous period again by giving them the same kind of benefits as their competitors

129
often enjoy just across the road. I support the amendment.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend's amendment. Today, when manufacturing industry is still heavily pressed, there is a great need for increased profits and, more than that, for increased capital formation so that industry may do its best to reinvest, particularly in places where it is needed. It is for that reason that I am interested in this amendment.
If it be true— and I have no doubt that it is— that on average the cost of warehousing can be 10 per cent. of the costs and sometimes up to 30 per cent., that cost is part of industry's prices. That is what they have to charge the customers, and that is why it would be a good thing, in view of the minimal cost to the country, if my noble friend could accept this modest but important little proposition.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has asked for support, and if the House will forgive me, as I have not once spoken during the course of this Bill until this almost last moment of the Third Reading, I should like to say just a word in support. I am sure that it is true that in some cases the cost to individual businesses of the rating of these warehouses can be crippling. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my noble friend have said, the loss of revenue to the Government is relatively small, and I should like to add my voice to those who have urged the Government, even at this late stage, to accept this amendment, if they possibly can.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, certainly, I am in considerable sympathy with the point that has been raised. The warehouse industry, in particular, in circumstances such as those described by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has had problems and has been making overtures for a long time. The amendment, as such, is seriously defective because the definition of the property to be covered seems to be likely to be unworkable. I could say much more about this, but the hour is late.
However, in all the circumstances, because the Government sympathise with the case in point, what I can do is to undertake to consider again whether we can do anything to help by way of extending our 1984 regulations to cover also those properties which are concerned, perhaps in the next rating year. I think this is a way in which I could make a move which would be helpful. I gladly undertake to have a look at that matter in that way and, perhaps, with that, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful that at this late hour my noble friend should be concessionary and should be prepared to take us a long way. I hope that he is successful with his inquiries and will get the matter in question into his order for next year. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 24:
[Printed earlier: col. 63.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Miscellaneous amendments and repeals]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 25:
[Printed earlier: col. 61.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 26:
[Printed earlier: col. 62.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 27:
[Printed earlier: col. 62.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 28:
[Printed earlier: col. 62.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 29:
[Printed earlier: col. 62.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. It is a controversial measure which has raised strong feelings, but I am glad to say that, despite the controversy, the debates have been very much up to the highest standards of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may say to our opponents that I suppose this is one issue on which we shall certainly have to differ. But I beleive that over the next two years the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. There is no doubt that a small minority of authorities have oppressed their ratepayers, and the object of this Bill is to protect them through limiting the rates, in regard to that small number. I do not want to make a long speech, but I think it would be wrong to let the Bill leave this House without, very briefly saying, a word of thanks to my noble friends Lord Avon and Lord Skelmersdale for their help in sharing the burden of presenting the Bill to your Lordships' House. I have benefited greatly, as always, from their help and advice. Perhaps I may also thank noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, who have been fair minded, while they have presented their arguments in a telling and eloquent way. It would be an understatement to say that this is not the first time I have been opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whose efforts have brought zest, enthusiasm and not inconsiderable skill to the presentation of her arguments— and, one day, she will let me conclude mine, I am sure. Nevertheless, I am grateful to her.

131
Also, I would thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Graham, for their own brand of opposition. They have, as always, been persistent and doughty opponents, and yet their mixture of insight and courtesy has done much to enable us to pilot through the Bill.
There are others I should mention: there is my noble friend Lord Sandford, with whom I never seem to get through a Bill on local government matters, without at least one or two Divisions. He and my noble friend Lord Ridley always put their cases extremely well. Lucky indeed are the associations to have them as advocates. I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Gardner, who always helps me, for her many interventions in the Bill. I should like also to thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who also at times feels obliged not to let me go through with everything that I do. But she is never less than helpful and it is always a pleasure, if I may put it this way, to do business with her. I should like to thank in his absence my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for his legal expertise and, as always, my noble friend Lord Mottistonc. I am glad that at the very last gasp it looks as though we might be able to do something to help him.
I should like also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and also, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I am sorry that I have not been able to be more helpful to them. On the Cross-Benches, of course, I should like to thank in his absence the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who was a great support to us. I was appreciative of that. Finally, I am grateful to all who have taken part in what has not been an easy Bill to take through your Lordships' House. I say again that I am sure that in the course of time it will do all that we hope of it. While I recognise the concern that has been expressed, I think that we now have to see what the Bill produces at the end of the day.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Bellwin.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, at this late stage— today it has certainly seemed as though we were spending all day on rate capping, and indeed I think we were— I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his cheerfulness and courtesy and even his long suffering when I tried— this time it was on only one occasion— helpfully to keep him to his point. I thought I was helping him and enabling him to undress what he was trying to save from the clothing that had been supplied, no doubt, by the department— I am sure not by himself. I am also very grateful for the help of the Front Bench team over here and for the help of other noble Lords who have supported us in our opposition to the Bill.
As we come to the end of its passage through the House, I really must express great disappointment and frustration in our having achieved practically nothing right across the House, despite the unity of the three local authority associations and their dislike of the Bill, despite the criticism not only from these Benches, from the Alliance and from the Cross-Benches, but also from the many Tories whose loyalty to their party has never been in doubt but who obviously felt very strongly about the Bill.
132
Very little in it has been changed. Indeed, when the Minister starts off by saying, "I am in considerable sympathy", my heart sinks because I know that that is another turn down and he is saying it with courtesy. I hope that sometimes he is saying it with regret because I should like to feel that there are parts of the Bill which he has disliked perhaps as much as we have. Indeed, the more we have examined the Bill in detail, the more seriously we are worried about one unhappy aspect of it: the accretion of power to the Secretary of State. Our concern is not just with the power being given to the Secretary of State at the expense of local councillors, although that is worrying enough, but with the lack of accountability of the Secretary of State in the exercising of his power. One theme running through very many of the hundred or so amendments which we have unsuccessfully tried to make to the Bill is that very accountability. It ill befits the Government to berate local authorities for lack of accountability when the Government themselves resist all attempts to increase the Secretary of State's accountability.
Time and again the Government have refused amendments which would have inserted more parliamentary approval and more explicit reporting to Parliament into the Bill without in any way cutting across their own objectives, even though those might be objectives with which we do not agree. This evening we had two outstanding examples. First, there was the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, which was a clever, careful and moderate way to deal with supervision by Parliament of the Bill. Then there was the amendment— there was a Division upon it— moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and supported by my noble friend Lord Northfield. Again, there was this very moderate amendment which received a response of very great feeling and some passion from many Peers opposite, which was reflected in the voting figures.
Furthermore, we have not managed to improve the drafting, which on the whole I must say is absolutely ghastly, but having been a Minister myself I know that Ministers are not responsible for the drafting and often have to mouth the un-understandable for the incomprehensible muddle— anyhow, it is very, very bad indeed. For example, I need not remind the House of the mental gymnastics we have had to perform to understand what is meant by "principles" and the logical paradox of how many different "principles"' are needed to ensure equal treatment. I use the word "principle" with quotation marks, since this Bill really debases the hitherto accepted meaning of that word.
Another leit-motif has been the need to do something about local government finance. No one is happy with the present mess, which will be exacerbated rather than helped by this Bill. In the space of four years the Government have prescribed three different spending reforms for a local authority: GREA, target and expenditure limit. How many councillors, let alone electors and ratepayers, will be able to understand these?
This Bill is a child of the Treasury, nurtured by the Department of the Environment and not, in this context, a very healthy heritage: yet the Government have resisted all attempts to establish a review of local government finance or the rating system. The

133
argument used was that a further review would impede the progress of this Bill. If it had, what a good thing that would have been, even though our amendments scrupulously avoided any element of delay. I have said enough at this time of night, so I will just finish by saying that the Bill is ill-judged, hugely unpopular, probably unworkable and a disgrace to parliamentary and local democracy.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, may I be associated briefly with the remarks that have been made. The thing that pleased me most about the debates during the various stages of the Bill was that I was able to go away for a holiday to Ireland in the middle of it all, which I could not get out of. I am very glad that they did move the dates for the debates on part of the Bill to a date on which I had already arranged to be away— because one feels that this has been going on for ever and I must say, with all seriousness, that I have been very heavy-hearted over many parts of the Bill. I have had a very great deal of support from my noble friends here, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who is now away and also from many other noble friends. I think we have worked constructively with the main Opposition party and with many Cross-Benchers. One has felt at times that, however rational and reasonable was the proposal one was making, it was falling on deaf ears.
I do not blame the noble Lord the Minister for that. He has a job to do and I think that within the limitations of his remit he has done it very fairly and reasonably and as kindlily as he can. I have to say this in view of the concession that we have enjoyed in the last minutes. I suppose it is only a coincidence that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State is our guest of honour at the National Association of Workhouse Keepers annual luncheon this year? I was going to withdraw it if he had not made some kind of concession there. To be fair, there have been one or two other concessions made— but very, very few. Even people who are used to accepting crumbs, like Members from these Benches, have been virtually starved during the course of the past few weeks. What concerns us are the matters which other noble Lords and Peeresses have mentioned— for example, the appalling nature of the withdrawal of responsibility from local authorities.
I am not one of those who believe that the high-spending local authorities are without blame. I am a ratepayer in Liverpool, and I know the kind of problems there. The cleansing services in Liverpool cost 29 per cent. more than the same services cost in Sheffield— another Labour-controlled authority. So I am not unaware of the position. But as the noble Lord the Minister will know, I think that the way they have gone about it has done what I fear is irreversible harm to the balance between central Government and local government, and I hope that some future Government (perhaps of the complexion of my party: who knows?) will do something to undo many of the worst features of this legislation.
I wish it well in one respect. I wish it well in the respect that I hope it creates a sense of responsibility among some of the less responsible local authorities; but I feel that this could have been done in a more constructive and less brutal way. I only wish that I
134
could be more warm in my good wishes to the Ministers. I wish them well for the way they have presented the Bill and for the way they have tried not to answer our questions. But I really cannot give an ounce of support to the general tenor or philosophy of the Bill, and I fear that Her Majesty's Government will in the future regret the damage and the injury that they have done to local government.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the Minister has done his best throughout the passage of this Bill, but I think, so far as the two Conservative presidents of the Associations of District Councils and County Councils are concerned, the less said about the Bill the better. The Secretary of State is coming to our annual conference next week, and I think I shall leave it till then.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I say a final word about Part II of the Bill, which has agitated Members of both Houses of Parliament during its passage? There were two notable speeches during the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons, one by a former Prime Minister and one by a former Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon. They both expressed extreme unease as to the parliamentary propriety of proceeding by way of Part II for the general scheme. That unease has been echoed in this House and re-echoed right to the very last stage, and the Government have not seen fit to agree to any of the many alternative proposals which have been put forward. That is regrettable. But I must once again express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the Secretary of State himself, for at least considering carefully all the suggestions which have been put before them.
I wonder whether I might make a last plea to the Secretary of State, in view of all the criticisms which have been made from start to finish, not against the Bill itself but about parliamentary impropriety— I put it no higher than that; I do not use grand words like "unconstitutional"— and the dangers of proceeding as the Government are proposing in Part II of this Bill. If it is necessary in the future to bring in general limitation, will be consider bringing it in by fresh legislation, instead of by activating Part II of this Bill? This would show strength, not weakness, on the part of the Administration, and it would not in any way go against the Government's commitment in their manifesto.
If you read that manifesto commitment, and if you read the speech of Mr. Tom King, which he made in Bridgwater soon after the manifesto was published, and which was put out officially by the party, you will see that it could well be taken that it is the Government's intention to legislate, first, for selective limitation and, secondly, when the time comes, if necessary, for general limitation.
So if the Government could be big enough to accept that there is parliamentary impropriety in proceeding as they are now proposing to do by way of Part II, they could retrieve it, if unfortunately it is necessary to bring in general limitation, by legislating afresh instead of activating Part II.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Trade Union Bill
Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gowrie, I beg to move that the debate on the Motion, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill be further adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Regulation Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Food Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment.

Mental Health (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.