Lords Sitting of 28 June 1984

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
The Earl of Gosford—Took the Oath.

EEC: Consumer Affairs
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 a statement on the third meeting of the EEC consumer Ministers indicating what further progress was made on the draft directives dealing with unfair and misleading advertising, product liability and doorstep selling and, in view of the Government's answer on 29th March last (col. 336), whether they will indicate current business outstanding for the next meeting of the Ministers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my honourable friend Mr. Alexander Fletcher attended the Consumer Affairs Council on 5th June. Progress towards agreement was made on the proposal for a directive on misleading advertising. The directive is not yet ready for adoption, but Community work since 5th June, on the basis of new options identified at the Council meeting, has resolved the main outstanding problems of substance.
Consideration of the proposal for a directive on product liability again centred on the question of whether there should be a financial limit to a producer's liability. There was a wide range of views on this, and compromise proposals for further study by the Committee of Permanent Representatives were identified.
The proposal for a directive on doorstop selling was briefly discussed. There is now general agreement on the text, but adoption is not yet possible because one member state continues to retain its general reserve on this directive.
The Commission has a number of other proposals which it expects to bring before the Council of Ministers in due course, but the only additional item of current Council business outstanding is the completion of consideration of draft directives on the price indication of foodstuffs and of non-food products.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister realise how difficult it is not only for him but also for me when we have Answers that seem to be continually unsatisfactory? Is he aware that my information is that the last meeting of the Council of Ministers made no progress at all on the three matters outstanding, despite the fact that they have been up for discussion on the three occasions that the Council of
1026
Ministers has met during the past year? Can the Minister say whether or not, in the current business outstanding, those three matters—unfair and misleading advertising, product liability and doorstep selling—still have to be discussed or has he told me, and I misheard, that some at least of them have been settled?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is being perhaps a little less than fair in saying that progress has not been made. The noble Baroness will remember that at the last Council meeting, on which I reported in response to a Question of the noble Baroness, agreement was reached and a Council directive was adopted on the early warning system on dangerous consumer products.
I turn to the three particular directives about which the noble Baroness is again questioning me. With regard to misleading advertising, we are in the situation where the draft directive as it now stands would enable us to legislate to reinforce the system of the Advertising Standards Authority on broadly the basis proposed by the Burgh Report in 1980. But this is a matter that needs to be reported back to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry will certainly be doing that.
On product liability, the situation is as I reported it to your Lordships just now in my original Answer. The matter is turning really on the question of financial limits. There are some compromise proposals that have been worked out. They are being looked at in the Committee of Permanent Representatives and I hope very much that this will put the Council in a position to make more progress next time.
So far as doorstep selling is concerned, we should like to see the directive as it is now drafted put into effect without delay, but there is a reserve from one member state.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these draft directives have been under discussion since the mid-1970s? Does he feel that the time of civil servants and others spent on these directives has been justified?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that these directives, when they are finally approved, become enforceable under the European Communities Act 1972, would it not be wise for the Government to consider publishing from time to time the progress being made in connection with these various objectives and also to define from time to time the points of difference that have arisen and the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the directives? In that event they might occasionally extend their support for their arguments to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, says. It is important, and probably wise, advice. There are two things that I should say. One of the advantages that

1027
have resulted from meetings of the Consumer Affairs Council is that a flow of information has come to both Houses of Parliament in this country, not least as a result of the questions asked by the noble Baroness. I cannot tell the House today of the date of the next Council, but I understand that there is a possible date agreed for next December.
Of course, we must not forget that the Scrutiny Committees of both your Lordships' House and of another place have a very close interest in these matters. There is no question at all but that what has now very nearly been agreed on misleading advertising has to come back to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses, which hold very trenchant views on that directive, going back a few years, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, reminded us. I have no doubt also that when agreement is reached on product liability, that, too, will have to come back to the Scrutiny Committees.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, since the Minister says that the one outstanding point on product liability is the financial ceiling, does this imply that there has been agreement on the state of the art defence?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no final agreement on the product liability directive as yet. The noble Lord knows, of course, the view of Her Majesty's Government about the state of the art defence.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, it was difficult to hear. Did the Minister say that the next meeting of the Council of Ministers would be in September. or December? Following from that, does he think that it would he more helpful if, instead of taking up the time of the House, I were to put down a Question for Written Answer, inquiring as to the progress that has been made in various meetings this year? Does the noble Lord feel that that report, which could be circulated in Hansard, would be of much greater benefit to everyone in the House? If so, is it any use putting it down before December, if it was indeed to December that he referred?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, December was the month that I stated. This would fall within the term of the presidency of the Republic of Ireland. The reason that it is still only provisional is that until, I think, tomorrow, we do not have the Republic of Ireland in the presidency. It will be for the Republic of Ireland to decide whether the next Council meeting will be held then. The noble Baroness asks me whether it would be helpful all round for a Question to be put down for Written Answer. Far be it from me to suggest that I would prefer a Question for Written Answer rather than for oral answer. If the noble Baroness feels that it would be a good thing to put down a Question, I suggest that she should do so after we know when the next Council meeting is to be held. I can perhaps keep in touch with the noble Baroness on this point and let her know when there is a definite date for the next Council meeting.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister may not know it, but I am appreciative of the way in which he tries to help. It is not his fault. I lay the fault at other doors.

NHS Management Inquiry
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy had given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received regarding the National Health Service Management Inquiry (the Griffiths Report).
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I have permission to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Molloy?

Redundant Miners: Alternative Employment
3.10 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: 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 why the Coal Board in conjunction with other agencies have not yet announced their proposals to train redundant miners in new skills and to attract suitable industries to the principal mining areas affected: how many men are likely to be involved, area by area: what the approximate annual cost will be: and what the role of the Government will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the National Coal Board have agreed to set up a company, provisionally to be called NCB Enterprises Limited, to support work in the coalfields in easing any problems that might be caused where men choose to accept redundancy, particularly in the case of younger men. As a first step, a task force has been set up to examine ways of co-operating with other agencies in order to support efforts to bring new businesses and new employment to the coalfields. The task force is to report to an early meeting of the board, after which we should be better able to answer the detailed points on which my noble friend is seeking information.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, does my noble friend feel that he has gone far enough? Can he not bring a little more comfort, hope and encouragement to miners, many of whom undoubtedly in increasing numbers are thinking of going back to work? Is not 55—I think it is my noble friend's age—very young to retire with very little prospect of finding another job, and will not the problem be accentuated in the next few years—which my noble friend has hinted at—by much younger miners opting for redundancy pay and looking for other work? So can my noble friend perhaps assure the House that the Government have a real sense of urgency about this question?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think we would all welcome what the NCB are doing. Of course, the Government already have their training opportunities schemes. Also, we should pay a compliment to the NCB, who for many years have provided a counselling service for men who are considering taking redundancy. We shall see that the present scheme is pursued as fast as possible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the action by the NCB literally a matter of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted? Would it not have been far better, before the Coal Board announced their closure programme, to have had consultations with the miners about bringing alternative employment to the area and agreeing not to go ahead with pit closures unless and until such employment had been brought forward? Also, may I ask the Minister to prevail upon the chairman of the National Coal Board, and point out to him that instead of announcing—as is apparent from the press this morning—that he would prefer the dispute to go on, apparently until it suits him, he should get down to retaining and returning confidence among the miners that the Coal Board really are interested in the future of miners and mining areas?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government's policy is directed towards the basic objective of the Plan for Coal, as is the Coal Board's. That objective is to have an efficient, competitive coal industry, with a secure long-term future. That is what the chairman is working towards. The chairman has made it abundantly clear that his door is open at any time for discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers on the subject of the present dispute.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in view of the last supplementary question, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there is not such a thing as a compulsorily redundant miner? It is only voluntary redundancy, and jobs are on offer for any who want to move from one pit to another. To give the impression that there is compulsory redundancy is not to state correctly the case as it stands at the moment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for underlining the fact that at the moment all the redundancies have indeed been voluntary. It might interest the House to know the statistics in relation to pit closures last year. Some 75 per cent. of those miners were found jobs elsewhere.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he does not give any sense of that urgency for which his noble friend Lord Chelwood asked? Is he further aware that this is not a question of redundancy payments or finding jobs elsewhere? If the noble Earl goes to those areas, as I did this last week, he will find that those men talk about the community. It is not just a question of getting an individual job, or redundancy pay. They want a viable community; and to have a viable community one has to bring some new businesses into the area.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am aware of that; and the Government, together with the Coal Board, work towards helping in the community area as well.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that, at this critical juncture in the coal dispute, speedy and imaginative action of the kind referred to in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, might prove a decisive factor in encouraging a return to work by many miners who may now be wavering in their support for this strike?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not wish to be drawn into the larger issues here. One of the problems is the fact that at the moment the miners who want to go to work are being impeded from so doing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that under previous administrations, when unemployment was a fraction of what it is now, potential pit closures were referred to the Welsh Economic Council and similar bodies in England and Wales? These bodies considered very carefully the position of the communities and the industries concerned, and possible future industries, and then reported to Ministers. Is there not a very strong case now for setting up an independent inquiry to consider a return to this system, and also to consider other urgent matters connected with the mining industry?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and his wisdom for that intervention. So far as I know, the sort of things that he has mentioned are still available and still happen, and discussions do take place. I will bear in mind what the noble Lord said.
Lord Airedale My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Supposing a pit closes, a village is deserted and no ancillary industry can be brought in, what happens to the ancillary industries in the village, like the village shop, which is likely to suddenly find ruin staring it in the face?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a fairly hypothetical question. If he wants to ask me a specific question I shall be happy to get the statistics for him.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, am I right in thinking that I have a wrong impression when I say that my noble friend's reply did not give me the feeling that the Government have a real sense of urgency about this matter, which surely there should be? If I were to put down this Question again before we rise for the Summer Recess, could I then have a full reply to it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is being completely fair. I said to him in my reply that the task force is to report to an early meeting of the board, after which we should be better able to answer the detailed points of my noble friend's Question. Certainly I will offer to do that.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is quite wrong for any community in this

1031
land to be left without hope, and that unless there is greater urgency shown in telling these mining communities that they are on the conscience of this House, of the other House and of the Government, then we can continue to expect trouble? But if hope is held out, that there is greater action along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, asked for, then we can expect a decent response from those good, loyal communities.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, what I have been trying to convey to the House this afternoon is that there is already a number of schemes in existence, operated both by the Government and the MSC, and new ideas are coming forward. I hope this offers a positive future to the mining communities.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that miners know from past experience that what happens in such circumstances is that work is found, not for them but for their womenfolk?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord produces an interesting sideline on which I do not wish to comment.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall the success of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas in generating new activity in run-down areas from which traditional industries have departed? Has he further considered the possiblity of trying a similar organisation in the run-down mining areas—the so-called COSIURBA idea? Does he recall mentioning within the past couple of months that this idea would be considered. and has any conclusion been reached?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the NCB are encouraging new jobs in the mining areas; and the Manpower Services Commission and other agencies, in order to support these efforts, are trying to bring in new business and new employment. This is most welcome. I believe it is further evidence that the board are concerned to ensure that, where men leave the industry, they are given every possible assistance.

Seat Belts
3.20 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in improving and extending the application of seat-belts, especially in relation to long-distance coaches.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the design and performance of seat-belts is under constant development and some potential improvements are being investigated by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The Government are considering possible requirements for the fitting of
1032
seat-belts to the rear seats of new passenger cars and to the front seats of coaches.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that one of the reasons that I put down this Question for a second time was so that I could apologise to him and, indeed, the House, which I now do, for not being in my place when it was arranged the first time, notwithstanding the fact that for the previous half-hour my eyes had been glued to a large clock on the wall which was some 14 minutes slow? I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the precise form of the indications from his department with regard to manufacturers and their production of coaches in anticipation of any possible development along the lines that he has indicated? For example, would it not now be wise not to bring in legislation, but to indicate to manufacturers that there is considerable feeling about the dangers which are unnecessarily incurred by those in coaches without seat-belts and that they might, for example, be encouraged to include in their specification seat-belt couplings and other points such as that which would help the matter forward?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, so far as coaches are concerned, there are a number of very great technical difficulties involved in fitting either lap, or lap and diagonal, seat-belts in all the seating. Her Majesty's Government have placed accent on the encouragement of further research with regard to the construction of coaches, because the majority of accidents occur as a result of the roof crushing in. Within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe the United Kingdom has taken a lead in pressing for international agreements for new standards. We are represented on that commission by my department's chief mechanical engineer. Some agreement has been reached and so results may be expected over the years in the course of new manufacture.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to give us some details of accidents that have occurred with coaches and, bearing in mind the Question of the noble Lord opposite, perhaps he can also give us details of fatalities which have arisen out of those accidents, which is even worse?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, mercifully there are very few coach accidents in this country and, indeed, abroad. In 1983, regretfully 38 people were killed on buses or coaches and that total comprised 3 drivers, 22 passenger occupants, and 13 passengers boarding or alighting from either a coach or a bus. In the last five years the average fatality rate has been 31 a year, against 75 in the previous five years. So the record, while nothing to be complacent about, is not demonstrably very high.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Lord do what he can to expedite the application of seat-belt regulations to the rear seats of motor cars to protect not only the passengers in the rear seats, but often those occupying the front seats as well? In that connection, is the noble Lord aware that I ask that

1033
question as one who was originally reluctant to support the compulsory application of the seat-belt regulations but who now, in the light of the recent evidence, freely accepts his error?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, my honourable friend the Minister of State in the Department of Transport is giving consideration to possible requirements for the fitting of rear seat-belts. I think that noble Lords will accept that it would be unwise for us to draw any particular conclusion since the compulsory wearing of seat-belts in the front of cars is only 18 months through the trial period. It is being monitored and it would be unwise to draw any conclusions until the experimental period is completed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Second Reading of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill and the Third Reading of the Cycle Tracks Bill will be taken.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I foreshadowed this amendment yesterday when I was dealing with the precedence in the judicial sittings of the House. The amendment is designed to ensure that the arrangements are the same for the Appellate and Appeal Committees respectively. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 82
Leave out paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert:—
"(4) In any Appellate or Appeal Committee the Chair shall be taken by the Lord Chancellor or, in his absence, by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary present, such seniority being determined in accordance with the Commission for the time being appointing Speakers for the purpose of the hearing and determination of Appeals."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Juries (Disqualification) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
3.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): The Question is, That the Title be postponed?
Lord Grimond: I do not want to delay the proceedings on this Bill, and perhaps I am really rising on a point of information. Do I understand that a Motion to postpone discussion of the Title means that the Government are going to amend the Long Title, and that they are going to amend the Long Title after this Bill has passed all its stages in the House of Commons in such a way that it will cease to be a paving Bill and that important changes will be made in the powers of local authorities? If that is the case, then surely it is a somewhat unusual procedure. I do not for one moment allege that it is an abuse of parliamentary procedure, but surely it is stretching parliamentary procedure rather far to amend the Long Title of the Bill at this stage to make it really a rather different type of Bill?
Lord Denham: If the noble Lord looks into this matter, I think he will find that it is the standard procedure in your Lordships' House as regards every Bill that is taken in this House that the Title is always postponed. I understand that the reason for it is that in this House we are able to amend the Long Title, which I believe is not possible to that extent in another place. This always happens in case your Lordships make an amendment to a Bill during the course of its Committee stage which thereafter entails an amendment to the Long Title. There is nothing sinister in this at all.
Lord Grimond: I did not imply that there was anything sinister about it, and of course I am most grateful to the noble Lord, I fully understand that I am a novice as regards the procedure of your Lordships' House. But this is a very important constitutional Bill and a paving Bill. I just raise the point: is it really the custom not to make minor amendments to the Bill and therefore change the Title, but really to change the nature of the Bill? As I understand it, it is to enable that to be done that this Motion is being moved.
Lord Denham: I have been a Member of this House for a very long time and since I have been a Member of this House it has always been the practice that consideration of the Title be postponed. If the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, thinks that it is wrong—and, of course, it may be—then I suggest that he takes it up with the Procedure Committee, which is the right forum in which to deal with a suggestion of this kind.
On Question, Title postponed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Commencement of Parts I and II.
. Parts I and II of this Act shall not come into force until a decision by Parliament has been taken on the continued existence

1035
of the Greater London Council and Metropolitan County Councils, and such decision shall not he deemed to have taken place until Royal Assent has been given to an Act dealing with those matters.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 1, which is an all-party amendment which, if it is approved by your Lordships, will, until Parliament has approved, if it so wills, the main abolition Bill, prevent the Secretary of State from ordering the cancellation of elections to the Greater London Council and to the six metropolitan county councils.
It is common ground that the abolition Bill will have no prospect of obtaining Royal Assent in terms of time (indeed, if it ever does obtain Royal Assent) before the May 1985 elections for the county councils which I have mentioned are due to take place. The aim of the first amendment is to ensure that the elections do take place unless and until Parliament—and I say Parliament, not one Chamber of the Parliament —until both Houses of Parliament, decide what is to take the place of the existing councils.
I believe that the amendment will protect the proper constitutional position of your Lordships' House and, additionally, it will ensure the proper parliamentary scrutiny —indeed, in the Commons as well—of controversial legislation. If the amendment is agreed, it will also protect democracy and the rights of electors to local authorities.
Since Second Reading, on which we had a full and, if I may say so, informed and important debate on the Bill, several amendments to Clause I have appeared on the Marshalled List. It may be helpful if I endeavour to identify the differences between the amendments. If I do not do so accurately. I have little doubt that the noble Lords whose amendments they are will put me right when it comes to their time to speak to the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 are in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Subsection (1) of section 2").
Amendment No. 7: Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 2 and sections 3 to 5 of this Act shall not come into force until a decision by Parliament has been taken on the continued existence of the Greater London Council and Metropolitan County Councils, and such decision shall not be deemed to have taken place until Royal Assent has been given to an Act dealing with those matters.").
These two amendments suspend until after Royal Assent to the main abolition Bill the setting up of the interim councils, which are to take the place of the present county councils. The amendments do not stop the Secretary of State from cancelling the May 1985 council elections as soon as the paving Bill becomes law and before Parliament has dealt with the main abolition Bill. They still allow the power in the councils to pass from the elected councillors to nominated councillors.
Amendment No. 10A is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy.
Amendment No. 10A: Page 2, line 9, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section").
This amendment provides that the order to be made
1036
by the Secretary of State cancelling elections shall be subject to the affirmative order procedures of both Houses. This would at least mean that both Lords and Commons would have a chance to debate the Secretary of State's order. However, I submit that that is in no way a major concession. It would still allow the elections to be cancelled and nominated councils to take office, and in addition, in any event, by long-established convention, this House does not vote on affirmative orders coming before it—not at any rate as a general practice.
What I submit is clear is that Amendment No. 1, which I move, is the only amendment that keeps the county council elections alive. I submit that that is a crucial issue in regard to the running of our democracy. The other amendments have the effect of killing those council elections and denying the electors the right to exercise the vote.
We submit that the Bill as it stands raises major constitutional issues. The Secretary of State has announced that he will not make the order cancelling the elections to the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils until the House of Commons has agreed the Second Reading of the main abolition Bill. When that happens he will make the order.
In my submission, what is proposed is based on wholly unacceptable assumptions. No true parliamentarian, no true believer in the parliamentary process, would take it for granted (as the Government apparently do) that both Houses of Parliament, whatever the majority of the Government party may be, will necessarily pass a measure in the future on the strength only of a Second Reading in the House of Commons—unless, of course, there is all-party agreement to what is proposed, and that is certainly not suggested here. Indeed, we are in the presence of highly contentious matters, and the Committee may think that least of all should the easy assumption which the Government make of parliamentary compliance take place or arise when what is in issue in this amendment above all others is the threatened abolition of local government elections to major local authorities.
I want to make it clear at the outset that, in considering Amendment No. 1, we are not debating in the slightest degree whether the present GLC is a good GLC or whether the six county councils are admirable or bad county councils. That is not the issue which we are discussing. On this amendment we are not discussing whether any of those councils deserve to be abolished or what merits would arise from that. I hope, if I may say so in anxious anticipation, that the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply will not treat us to what he did on Second Reading: namely, a long discussion on a Bill which we have not seen—the abolition Bill—without identifying his usually alert and courteous mind to what we are really talking about.
The difficulty which we would of course, in any event, have if we were tempted to discuss the merits of the abolition Bill is that we have not seen it: maybe it has not yet seen the light of day; maybe it is being nourished in some ministerial bosom ready for production at some date, I know not when, I know not

1037
where. We are in the presence of the great unseen, the great unknown. We have no knowledge of what will be in that Bill or of what is to take the place of these great councils. Indeed, this is why my noble friend Lady Fisher called this the "crazy-paving" Bill: a way is being paved, but to what destination? I am reminded of the famous exchange between counsel and a judge. Counsel said, "My Lord, I hope that your Lordship is following me", and the judge said "I am following you very closely, but where are we going?" That is a question which could well be asked in the consideration of this so oddly called paving Bill—paving the way to an unknown destination.
The only relevant issue that we are discussing in this amendment is whether Clause 1 is tolerable and acceptable within our parliamentary system. My submission is that it is a negation of our proud parliamentary tradition and that it undermines the pillars on which our unwritten constitution stands. It refuses, and indeed rejects, the right of millions of electors in the county council areas to pronounce in due time upon the councillors seeking election, and on whom they wish to elect or not to elect as their local government representatives.
It gives to the Government the power to impose upon local governments and their electorates nominees of different councils, differing in functions and duties from the county councils, elected for a different purpose, and, significantly, of a different political persuasion; different from that which the electorate has seen fit to choose in electing its existing county councils. Indeed, one distinguished Conservative Privy Counsellor and former Cabinet Minister in another place has described, and I think rightly, what is proposed as a flagrant piece of gerrymandering, only he has put it in rather more extreme terms than that.
The right of the electors to the county councils, conferred upon them by laws passed by the Parliament of this country, to choose their councillors will, by this clause, if it is not amended, be swept away. And why? Because the present Government fear that if those electors are allowed genuine choice in elections freely held, their choice will be to reject the Government's policies on these local government issues.
I submit that what is sought to be done in this Bill is setting up a dangerous precedent for our parliamentary system. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said on Second Reading:
"If a Government of one party can suspend elections for great areas of Britain by an interim provisions Bill, why could not a Government of another party suspend elections for Great Britain as a whole?" —[Official Report, 11/6/84; col. 964]
We are treading on dangerous ground, my Lords.
What the Government are trying to do is rendering a great disservice to Parliament, and this at a time when parliamentary institutions are losing the certainty they once had, and fears are growing that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are becoming ciphers and that political power has wholly passed into the hands of the Executive. What the Government have done, or seek to do, will increase those fears. It will do so by anticipating the House of Commons supineness in the Session 1984 to 1985 in dealing with the abolition Bill. They have done so by
1038
contemptuously dismissing the role and function of your Lordships' House in our parliamentary system. They leave it out entirely.
The Long Title of the Bill refers in the first few lines to what is proposed as,
"An Act to make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence"—
not a decision by the House of Commons. What is proposed is in flagrant violation of what is contemplated in the very Long Title of the Bill. I submit—and we shall be discussing these amendments in due course—that the amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and indeed the three other noble Lords, do nothing adequate to remedy the mischief in Clause 1 of the Bill, and what is the best protection for the democratic and parliamentary system is the passing of this amendment.
In a democracy a government must rule by consent, and must have regard to the proper limits of their own power. Those limits have been far exceeded in Clause 1 of this Bill. Acceptance of the amendment will reaffirm those limits. We need in our parliamentary proceedings to ensure and exert—we from this House in particular —proper scrutiny of legislation. The only amendment to ensure this on Clause 1 is the amendment which I have the honour to move.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Molson: The case for this amendment has been so cogently and clearly put by the noble and learned Lord opposite that what I say on the merits must necessarily be repetition. They, however, are in opposition, whereas I am a supporter of the Government—although a discriminating one. I must therefore explain why I am now supporting not the Government but this amendment.
When we come to the main Bill to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils I shall vote for the Second Reading. We shall however be deeply concerned as to what is to be put in their place. So far as Streamlining the Cities, the White Paper, is concerned, I think some fairly drastic amendments will be needed, and certainly your Lordships will want to have a rigorous Committee stage on that. The trouble arises out of this paving Bill to authorise the abolition of the councils before we have decided what to put in their place. It is in fact a case of putting the cart before the horse.
I regard it as an uprecedented and unconstitutional procedure for this Bill to come into operation to abolish democratic elections due to take place in May 1985 simply on the passing of the Second Reading in another place of the main Bill. The legislature of this realm is the Queen in Parliament, and this Bill should only come into operation, as this amendment provides, after the main Bill has passed all its stages in both Houses and receives the Royal Assent.
The fact that we have no written constitution imposes on this House a special responsibility and duty. We not only operate within the statutory limits of the Parliament Acts but also respectfully observe those self-denying conventions laid down by the late Lord Salisbury and by my noble friend Lord

1039
Carrington. But that emphasises our duty to safeguard the constitution as it is. That duty we should discharge even against a whipped majority in another place and, let me add, particularly conscientiously should we do so when that is a Tory majority. This amendment will do so.
The main argument against it will probably be based on the timetable and the urgent need to cope with what I agree is inefficiency, extravagance and the misuse of power and money on the other side of the river. The considerations of expediency and convenience should not be allowed to outweigh constitutional principles. The end does not justify the means.
It is wrong that your Lordships' House should, by implication, be deemed not to exist. The assumption is that the unassailable Tory majority in the Commons will act, in the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. as an "elected dictatorship". I was very glad when the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to his writings and lectures when in Opposition. They were familiar to me. I have a great respect for everything that he writes and says.
I quote the political philosophy in Opposition of my noble and learned friend against the Lord Chancellor in office. I am reminded of a story of a High Court judge who was trying a case and counsel said, "I am fortunate, my Lord, in being able to quote your words in a previous case that you tried some years ago". He quoted them. The learned judge said incredulously, "Did I really say that?". "Yes, my Lord, they are in the Law Reports." "Ah", said the learned judge, "They are? Well, with the greatest respect to myself, I think I was wrong".
There might be, if it ever came, as it could not, to a case in the courts, a case called Hailsham v. Hailsham—Hailsham, the political philosopher in Opposition, and Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor in office. I hope that he will show more consistency and more obduracy if his writings are quoted against him. I hope he will say to his colleagues in the Government, "I have so great a respect for Lord Hailsham the political philosopher that I think we ought respectfully to follow his advice".
On the same slightly light note, I should like to quote the quizzical remark of another Member of your Lordships' House of even greater distinction than the Lord Chancellor. I happened recently to meet my noble friend Lord Stockton in that sanctum of Toryism, the Carlton Club. I told him that, largely as a result of his invention when Prime Minister of the Life Peerage, the Government had sustained three defeats on the Housing Bill, but I added that I did not know what would happen to our amendments when they went to the Commons. My noble friend replied, "Ah! The problem used to be the built-in Tory majority in the Lords. The problem now is the elected majority in the Commons".
That anecdote is strictly relevant to my argument in support of this amendment. Words from my noble friend Lord Stockton, even spoken in jest, very often embody great wisdom and experience. The Government have brought these problems on themselves and, let me add, on us who are their well-wishers. It is obvious that neither has the whole
1040
strategy of these reforms been adequately thought through, nor has an integrated parliamentary timetable been prepared in advance. The Government excuse this precipitate and unco-ordinated programme of legislation because the last election was held as recently as 1983, but they had been in power for four years before that.
In answer to the complaint that this extensive programme of local government reform was a hurriedly improvised scheme at the last general election, we had the statement from my noble friend Lord Bellwin at Second Reading that it had been under discussion for years past. Those discussions for those years do not appear to have been very fruitful.
When I was in Government a generation ago we had in addition to the legislation committee a future legislation committee. It planned several Sessions ahead and considered applications by departments for a place for their Bills in the future legislative programme. It planned ahead for the future. I wonder whether that committee thought out the timing, the integration and the co-ordination of this policy with its two separate Bills, or was it bypassed?
I argued at Second Reading that it was wrong to use parliamentary power to replace, in the case of London, a Labour majority with a Conservative one. It will no doubt be said that the present Labour majority on the Greater London Council, which has so abused its power and spent the ratepayers' money irresponsibly, would do so in that extra 11 months of life. Much of the harm it can do has already been done and the rate capping Bill will then be in operation and, I hope, will be drastically applied.
It would appear that the Greater London Council has not used any money unlawfully. It has been used on hairbrained schemes, but it cannot have been unlawful otherwise the district auditors would have taken action. In relation to abuse of its power in general, Parliament can at any time impose restraints by rapid legislation and possibly by this Bill if suitable amendments were made.
I remember what was called, if I remember, the National Economy Act which in 1931 enabled the Government to take wide powers to deal with the economic and financial crises of that time. It passed through all its stages in both Houses in a matter of days. I cannot believe that it is impossible to draft measures well within the constitution which Parliament would pass rapidly without infringing, as I think this Bill does, the spirit and conventions of the constitution. I believe that that pragmatical and constitutional approach would not arouse the public dismay that this Bill in its unamended form has done and which will manifest itself in elections. Can we not have an arrangement which would be acceptable at any rate to Tory Peers who cannot go along with the Government as this Bill is at present drafted but who support the main objective, as I do? But I repeat that the end does not justify the means.
When I agreed to add my name to this amendment, I did not commit myself to all my co-signatories' views. It is only confined to this amendment. On the main issue they, we know, oppose the abolition of the top tier of local authorities while I support it. We are agreed, however, that, as drafted, this Bill deems your

1041
Lordships' House to be non-existent. That is unconstitutional and wrong. I hope that your Lordships will not be unduly swayed by arguments of expediency or convenience but will regard this amendment as a matter of principle and support it.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: Before my noble friend sits down, I believe I am right in having heard him say that the rate capping Bill could deal with it. Surely the rate capping Bill can only deal with boroughs who raise the rates and the GLC uses the precept from the boroughs. I should like to know how under the Bill when they do not raise the direct rates the rate capping Bill can have any effect on the expenditure or the precept levied on the boroughs?
Lord Molson: I spoke about the general principle raised by this amendment. I suggested that an arrangement might be made. I cannot now go into details.
Lord Hayter: Speaking from this particular section of your Lordships' House, there is a phrase that I cannot use: "We on these Benches…"because we on these Benches never know what our colleagues are going either to say or to do. Indeed, I have been bombarded with notes today because this was talked about as an all-party amendment, which it is indeed; but, as far as the Cross-Benchers are concerned, we have to speak for ourselves. I would say, however, that at the Second Reading quite a number of Cross-Benchers voted for the Government—they did not like the reasoned amendment—but the majority voted for that amendment. I conducted a small, private Gallup poll of my own to find out what was the reasoning behind my colleagues' attitude.
Some had very understandable constitutional scruples about a reasoned amendment on a Bill which came from the Commons. I understand that. Others misunderstood entirely the Minister's final speech in the winding up of that Second Reading debate. I will come to that in a minute. Let us talk about what this amendment is not concerned with. So far as I am concerned, it is not about the GLC personalities, it is not about the abolition of councils, it is not about interim measures—although an analogy did occur to me when we were talking about these interim measures, that, as an elected member of my local, Ashtead, cricket club, one day I might become an appointed member of the MCC! There are occasions when new blood is needed there.
But we can argue about this amendment on a constitutional or a procedural point and, as has been emphasised previously, the phrase used in the Explanatory Memorandum is "pending a decision by Parliament". I learned at school, having done some constitutional history, and I learned even more in your Lordships' House, that a decision by Parliament involves eleven stages—a first reading, a second reading, a committee, a report and a third reading in the House and in the other House as well, and then finally Royal Assent.
This short cut of a Second Reading in the House of Commons is presented by some people as being a presentation of a wrecking amendment. But we did not put those words in. They were put there purposely
1042
and, for my part, I think they meant what they said. It is supposed to be a Government timing problem. Again, we, as individual Members of your Lordships' House, have nothing to do with the timing problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has said, they have apparently been thinking about it for years. So, for my part, "pending a decision by Parliament" means those eleven stages.
Now I come to the other muddle which caused some confusion in the minds of some of my colleagues. When the noble Lord the Minister in his final speech quite correctly said that the main abolition Bill will have to be passed through all its stages in both Houses before the main abolition Bill can become law—precisely so! Well done! Then he went on to say that the passing of this interim Bill in no way changes or diminishes the need for that approval (that is to say, of the main abolition Bill) line by line in both Houses. I agree entirely. It is precisely because I am with the noble Minister in saying that a Bill has got to go through all those stages, that it has got to go through a Committee and be examined line by line, that I feel that this amendment has a great deal to commend itself to your Lordships.
What a curious situation it is that sometimes, year after year. we chide the Government of this side or the Government of that side—and here I am speaking for my colleagues on the Cross-Benches—for passing retrospective legislation. But here we are groaning because they are passing prospective legislation. And there are straws in the wind that perhaps that Second Reading will not go quite so well as they think. But let us get it clear. The Government timing problem is "pending a decision by Parliament". I was reminding myself the other day of Through the Looking Glass, where Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". So far as I am concerned, I hope that the Minister's words will mean more than he said when he talked about pending a decision by Parliament; so I, for my part, individually, support this amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I wonder if I might interject at this stage. I think I would be right in saying that if this amendment were to be passed, all the other amendments that have been put down relating to this particular subject would fall. Therefore, it might perhaps be appropriate if I were to ask leave of the House to speak to my two amendments which are on the Marshalled List today. My noble friend Lord Molson said that he put his name to an all-party amendment, which has been so ably moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I can hardly think that in the closing remarks of his speech he could really be deemed to be supporting the amendment as strongly as others who put their names to it would have liked. He seemed to be on the verge of wavering somewhat—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Mountgarret: I think that perhaps if your Lordships read Hansard you will find that is what he did indicate. But do not let us digress too much on that point.

1043
The other thing that I should like to say is that I regret very much indeed the manner in which this amendment has in fact been moved; because a wrecking amendment is one thing but a total wrecking amendment of a complete Bill is another. I should have thought that we had had a very long, very interesting and very good Second Reading on this whole subject and on this particular point as well; and that this had been passed—admittedly by only a small majority in your Lordships' House. But, having so done, I should have thought that a completely, total, wrecking so-called amendment to the entire principle of the Bill which has already been passed by your Lordships' House was really not quite the right way of going about things.
The purpose of my amendments is to try to find a way—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If the noble Viscount will be kind enough to give way I would be most grateful. I am afraid I thought that the noble Viscount was referring to somebody else when he said that at the end of his speech he seemed to be wavering. I am astonished that the noble Viscount was referring to me. I stand firm; I do not waver at all.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am very sorry. I do not think I indicated that the noble and learned Lord was wavering in any way. I do not think so.
The purpose of my amendments is to try to find a way in which some compromise might be reached between those who wish. quite rightly, to have this paving Bill on the statute book in such a way that will make the transitional period from May 1985 until such time as the GLC and the metropolitan councils are probably abolished more workable, and those who feel, also quite rightly, that the way the Government have proposed that this should be done is somewhat unconstitutional, to say the least.
The Government do have a mandate for the abolition of these councils and we were told quite clearly on Second Reading that for all sorts of reasons—be they good or bad. which is, if I may say so, at the present moment rather irrelevant to the point at issue—the timetable for such an abolition Bill would take effect from about April 1986. If this point is accepted, which I believe it really should be—one has got to try to look at things in a rational way; it is reasonable for us to assume that this abolition Bill will take place—it cannot in any way make sense to hold elections which in normal circumstances would be due in May 1985. Not only would it be a total waste of money to go through an electoral procedure for councillors to serve a mere 11 months, but bearing in mind the manner in which many of the existing councillors—on the GLC in particular—have reacted to this whole matter, it must be as plain as a pikestaff that the holding of elections, in the true sense of the word, would be meaningless as the platforms for those elections would be used only to stir up emotion against the wider issues and would be ostensibly used to attempt to undermine the Government's case and probably even the will of Parliament.
Therefore, I feel it is a prerequisite that the elections proposed for May 1985 should be suspended by this
1044
Bill, notwithstanding the fact that a Bill to abolish the councils has not even been laid before Parliament. I do not believe that this is unconstitutional; nor do I believe that it could be deemed in any way to deny the people of London or the metropolitan areas their right to elected representation, provided that my second amendment can be taken in conjunction with the first.
The second amendment really tries to deal with what I believe to be the real kernel of your Lordships' great disquiet and unease in this matter; certainly that of noble Lords opposite and, I feel, of a number of my noble friends on this side of the Committee. I do not accept that it can be right in any way for this Government or any other government to be responsible for arbitrarily replacing a body of elected councillors of one political party holding a majority by a nominated body giving a majority of another political party; this particularly when the new majority would be the same political colour as that of the Government in power; especially when there is no Act on the statute book to abolish the councils in question. Having said that, I entirely accept and appreciate that it would make sense to provide for nominated councillors from the boroughs which will eventually have the responsibility for running the affairs of the abolished councils to take charge of those affairs to smooth the transitional path. but only after a Bill to abolish has been passed.
As I said on Second Reading, I am more particularly concerned about the public image of your Lordships' House in this matter. A vitally important reason for our existence is to continue to contain an enthusiastic and very strong Government in power in another place. If matters are brought before us which can be shown quite clearly to be either unconstitutional or gerrymandering—call it what you will—we have. I believe, an absolute, imperative duty to require the Government to think again. We attempted to do so at Second Reading, and although the reasoned amendment was defeated by only a very few votes—which I certainly would not call decisive by any manner or means, although I believe it has been called decisive by others—it was clear that there was widespread unrest and unease in your Lordships' House.
The Government. very understandably, and indeed I would say I myself too, are concerned about what might happen if the existing councillors have their term of office extended for any length of time. It is felt, quite understandably, that a considerable amount of damage could be done by the squandering of large sums of money in a policy of non-co-operation and continued bitterness. But as has been mentioned, the ratecapping Bill, which has been passed or almost passed, should to a considerable degree take care of that; and indeed I think I am right in saying that Amendment No. 67 of my noble friend Lord Bellwin also goes a long way to putting an effective stop to any such monkey business.
We have seen something of the behaviour that might come by Mr. Livingstone attempting to make a nonsense of this whole business by having an arbitrary interim election by resigning his position and then standing for election again in September. All I can say is that I hope very much that the Government will take

1045
note of that one and put down an amendment on Report stage to squash any such nonsense—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Mountgarret: because it is not right for people who hold office and are blessed with power to abuse that power but they must use it in a responsible fashion; and if they do otherwise they must expect what is coming to them.
It can be argued that the measure before us is not as unconstitutional as it might seem because the councillors will have ended their four-year term of office in May and that they are not actually going to be removed. But the point is that they are going to be replaced on the GLC by a majority of the Conservative party rather than what is there at present. I believe that that must be wrong but I should like to suggest a route which the Government might consider taking to try to get out of creating such a rather unpleasant mess. They have been running around for the past week or so trying to find various holes down which to bolt and unfortunately the rabbit seems to have put up the net.
But we have to find one hole that is available to escape down. That I suggest might be this. If the Government were prepared to suggest a scheme—I do not know how they are going to do it and I do not know how it would work, but somebody must think of it—whereby nominated councillors from the boroughs might be appointed to the GLC—the short-term. the interim GLC—who reflect the same political representation as is there now, then I do not think that the objections would be quite so great. This would be more reasonable and might make it more possible for your Lordships to accept. But if that is not possible for one reason or another. I cannot see that we can allow this Bill to go forward in the way that it stands.
Without reiterating all the arguments that were rehearsed on Second Reading, which we all know very well, I hope perhaps that your Lordships will bear in mind the points I have tried to make and, in the light of that, that your Lordships' Committee might feel it right not to support the amendment so admirably moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. If the Government can give some assurance that on Report stage they might be able to adopt the alternative route that I have suggested, I should be very happy to withdraw my amendments. I really do not like my amendments very much. I do not like them, but I positively dislike the Bill as it stands. You have to do the best you can in the circumstances.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The speeches that we have heard so far on this amendment have all been very clearly anti-Government and of course to kill the Bill is their intention; but I do not think the position as it stands justifies the kind of criticism we have heard or that which is contained in the amendments which have been put forward with that as their main intention. The noble and learned Lord, in moving the amendment—and he always does it in such a plausible way that even when he is wrong he frightens me to death because he sounds so effective—said that this was nothing whatever to do with the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan boroughs. We all know it
1046
has everything to do with them. We all know it is part and parcel of that main argument. Without that there would not be an argument. And I feel that while it is very pleasurable, in this Chamber particularly, to approach these matters on the high level of what is a good quality debating club, we happen also to be part of a Parliament that has to do practical things and has to face up to practical things which could be obscured by quoting what has been said by High Court judges in the past, and theorists of that sort.
What is the practical situation? It is this: the Greater London Council and the metropolitan councils (which I know more about than the Greater London Council) were made the subject of the last election in a very big way. At the election, when the whole of the nation were paying attention to all the ingredients and the whole of the atmosphere that surrounded it, they came to the conclusion (and showed it by their vote) that this was an unnecessary tier of government which caused expense, which caused delays and which disrupted business and slowed down general development designed to deal with such things as unemployment, and the electorate felt the time had come, short though its life had been, for such impediments to be removed.
I was prejudiced on that because I thought the extra tier never should have been instigated, and when it was instigated in another place I both voted and spoke against that instigation. All that has happened since has confirmed the fears that I held then; that it was unnecessary, that it would be expensive, that it would put extra obstacles in the way of people running businesses and industries by imposing delay and the consequent costs upon them. All that has been confirmed, and it impressed itself upon the nation to such an extent that at the general election, where this was one of the most important parts of the manifesto, the decision was given that the nation wanted it to be abolished.
Lord Diamond: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have only just started. The Government since then
Lord Diamond: Will the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful to him. Could he refresh our minds with regard to the simple figures? Would he give the figures of the electorate which could be held to support the proposition he is putting forward and the total figures of the electorate that could be held not to support it?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord ought to drag his mind away from proportional representation sometimes, and I believe that this is an issue which is far enough away from that to be judged on its merits. There is no doubt anywhere—and I think it is accepted on the other side of this Chamber—that the nation by its vote instructed the Government of the day to abolish this tier of government, and they have set about doing it. They have made it very clear how they are going to do it, recognising, as anyone who has played any part in government knows, that these things have to be started very early in the life of a Government, otherwise they cannot be brought to fruition as was intended when the manifesto was brought forward. It is the duty of the Government,

1047
having decided to implement their election pledge, not to allow themselves to be frustrated by parliamentary tacticians, not to allow their intentions to be arrested by perhaps over-presenting what is supposed to be the constitutional position, when in point of fact there is no constitutional principle being breached in this at all.
Nothing is being done without Parliament's approval. Nothing is being asked to be put into operation without both Houses having given their decision. That is the constitutional way of government. And just because we are in the process of getting to the point where we are asking one part of Parliament to give its support does not make it unconstitutional. I believe—and here I am talking particularly to my noble friends who may have had doubts particularly over the way it has been presented—that it is not a bad thing to be practical, impressed though one may be by high-level and sometimes highfalutin' speeches, we must keep our feet on the ground and recognise this amendment for what it is. This is an attempt to prevent the Government of the day carrying out a promise they gave to the electors and for which they had permission.
As regards its being democratic, perhaps I might claim to be in a position to have a view on this. I doubt whether there is any one in this Chamber who has fought more elections than I have. The last was the 19th. I fought parliamentary, local government, European and county council elections, and I have had some sort of contact with the actual carrying out of these things called parliamentary elections and parliamentary approvals. I am not prepared to accept that people who have been elected to a borough council and who are asked to take over the functions of a joint responsibility with other authorities in doing that are being undemocratically appointed. Indeed, for a number of years I was chairman of a joint health service committee which incorporated something like 10 or 12 authorities, although I was only elected by one of the authorities concerned. There is no question of democracy being impinged when the people in a position to carry this out are people who themselves have been elected.
I make no appeal to the opposite side because this is a party tactic and I do not expect them to move away from a party tactic to which they have given a lot of thought. There has been talk about a whipped majority in the other place; but I doubt whether that Whip would be any stronger than the Whip of loyalty that was applied to noble Lords opposite on this issue. But I do appeal to my noble friends that if we keep our feet on the ground we shall perhaps be reflecting the views of the nation much better than these highfalutin' speeches that we have heard where it is being suggested, without any proof and without any real support, that we are breaching some constitutional point, when we are not.
I believe that the people of this country will forgive governments almost anything. They will forgive them adultery, embezzlement—almost murder—but they will not forgive them deliberate stupidity; and the one thing that would be deliberately stupid would be for this Government, having obtained the authority of the
1048
nation to abolish this tier of government, to allow themselves to be frustrated by putting back in office people who have not only said they will set out to frustrate the will of the nation but who have boasted it is their joy that they should do it, and that they will spend the ratepayers' money to do it. For a government deliberately to put a group of people who have made their position so crystal clear in a position to carry out that intention would be dubbed by the nation as being deliberately stupid. That is one thing for which they would not be forgiven. I remember vividly when Mr. Callaghan did not carry out the recommendations on redistribution because it was thought that it would affect the strength of his party by 17 to 18 seats. He did not do it, because it did not suit his book. He thought that it would frustrate what he felt he had the authority of the nation to do and it was not held against him. But it would have been held against him if he had been weak enough or stupid enough, on the arguments of phoney principle and so on, which could not be supported. to move away from something that was perfectly right
Lord Mishcon: Will the noble Lord give way for one moment? I intervene only to encourage him to go on with his speech at greater length, because the longer he speaks, the more I feel that the Committee will welcome the first amendment. But having said that, may I ask him whether he will kindly deal, just for one moment,with his refusal to accept the possibility of an election in which the voters will be able to express their point of view, instead of listening to his eloquence?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord opened with his typical show of smooth arrogance. There was no need for that. We have to listen to quite a lot of what he considers to be the truth, put in his way. If my style is not one that he finds acceptable, that is a pity. But it is the argument that I am concerned with and not the way in which it is presented. I am saying that what is being done now in asking the Committee to approve this paving Bill is in accordance with the Government doing their duty, by carrying out what they told the nation they would carry out and what the nation gave them authority to carry out.
The Earl of Onslow: May I
The Earl of Halsbury: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to slot in at this point, because the amendment in the name of myself and my noble friends is a third alternative between that proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and that proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. May I just make a brief comment on its description in today's copy of TheTimes as, "tabled by Cross-Benchers"? Here I have the same point to make as my noble friend Lord Hayter. It is perfectly correct that all three names on this amendment are those of Cross-Benchers, but more than that must not be read into it. Cross-Benchers generally are in no way involved in it; nor have I discussed it with them as though they were a party whose support I was lobbying.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Spens cannot be here to move his own amendment when the time

1049
comes, for he was its principal architect, but he is—only temporarily, I hope— on the sick list. I am sure that I shall be speaking for the whole Committee if on its behalf I wish him a speedy recovery and express the hope that we shall enjoy his genial and always helpful presence in his usual place in due course.
The amendment that I propose is a modest attempt to be helpful by transferring the powers in Clause 1(4), which apply to part only of the activation process, to that whole process, so that it becomes uniformly subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. The amended Clause 1(4) would then cover the whole of what will be the future Section 1. It will I think have no incalculable side effects and its immediate effects will he transparent.
Its intention is to be helpful and to smooth feathers that were visibly ruffled during Second Reading by the proposal to make the activation process dependent on events in the other place, without reference to your Lordships' wishes here. If our amendment finds favour in your Lordships' eyes, then you will have a second chance to make your wishes known.
I do not want to make a long speech, but I should like to make some very brief comments on the matters which have tended to bulk rather large in people's feelings: and these are two in number. One is the constitutional position and the other is the democratic position. I have to confess that I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor am I a barrack-room lawyer, either; and I think between these two extremes there is a grey area which can be occupied by wishful thinking. The precedents are few and their analogical resemblances are not very similar. I am reminded somewhat of Bradley's dictum about metaphysics, that it is finding had reasons for what you believe by instinct. He added the rider that it is nonetheless instinctive to go looking for such reasons.
I rather feel that on the constitutional issue people have allowed their emotional involvement with local government theory and practice to justify their feelings by reference to constitutional arguments. To some extent I feel the same about the issue of democracy. Local government in our age wears two hats. With one on, it is the agent of democratically elected central government with responsibility for distributing central government largess on behalf of the welfare state. As such, it is appointed, not elected. I do not think that a rebellious agent can defend himself on the grounds that, wearing a different hat altogether, he was elected and not appointed.
Let me come to the democratic aspect of that second hat that it wears. The total failure of all governments to reform local government taxation has worn it rather thin. The electorate consists of those who receive largess from the welfare state, and can be relied on to support any authority which dishes it out generously, however improperly. Those who supply the wherewithal to add to it from the rates are grossly under-represented on the electoral rolls.
I shall not pursue these points further; otherwise, shall make a Second Reading speech. I am content to note that, from the standpoint of this amendment, neither the consititutional nor the democratic issues strike me as having very great dialectical binding
1050
power in the rather "grotty" situation where we find ourselves with rebellious councils on our hands.
I should like to say a last word, if I may, on affirmative instruments. They are not bound by the Parliament Act, so that we here can exercise a wrecking effect on any process governed by them. For this reason, it is common practice to ensure that we know the wishes of the other place before we agree to affirmative instruments. It is none of our business to wreck. But I am advised—and here, again, I have to take advice—that this is more a matter of convenience than of necessity and that, from time to time, to suit the business managers of both Houses, we occasionally consider affirmative instruments here first. There is no reason why we could not do so by arrangement in the context of an amended paving Bill.
Your Lordships therefore do not have to be thought of as rubber stamps. You can get a free vote in case of real need. You might be asked to reconsider it later, but we are used to deferring to the other place in such cases, and nothing new would be involved. It has been done before on the Rhodesian issue. That is what I want to say about my amendments and in due course, if the opportunity arises, I shall move them.
Lord Bellwin: May I just make a very quick intervention and say on that point—of course, I shall he speaking later—that I am glad to confirm, if there should be any doubt, that it is the Government's intention to accept the amendment relating to the affirmative resolution procedure. But I shall refer to it again when I speak a little later on.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: It is perhaps worth making the point that we are not speaking only about the Greater London Council this afternoon. We are concerned for the other metropolitan counties, and perhaps I may speak especially from what I know in Merseyside. It is said that the paving Bill is simply a necessary way of making practical arrangements to tide us over a short interim period. The Secretary of State knows that this next year or two will be a very anxious and important time for Merseyside, and indeed for the other metropolitan counties, and I want to set what I say in the context of this next year or two.
The seriousness with which the democratic process is taken during the next year or two is crucial. We face great anxieties at this moment in Liverpool over making a rate—anxieties which other urban authorities are very likely to be facing next year. We sometimes use the word "alienation" to describe the underlying feelings of many people in Merseyside. We use it rightly, with the sense that they feel that they have no serious part in making the decisions which affect their lives.
Every time the democratic process is weakened or discredited, that alienation is deepened. Talk of commissioners being put in to take over the functions of Liverpool City Council rightly makes us shudder. With all my heart I hope that a legal rate will be fixed in the next fortnight and all the fears of bankruptcy for Liverpool and disqualification of councillors will be ended. We do not want a further shift in the direction of centralised control.

1051
In 1985, the Merseyside Development Corporation comes up for renewal. Personally, I trust that it will be renewed. It is doing excellent work. But I make the same point about the shift of power from locally elected authorities. Merseyside Development Corporation, wielding a great deal of power, is a government-appointed quango.
The Government rightly recognise the reality of Merseyside as a place, its needs and opportunities. There is a Merseyside task force, established three years ago by Michael Heseltine as Minister for Merseyside. There is inner city partnership, as in other urban areas with great human needs. I am very glad that the Government have this involvement, but there need to be locally elected partners in the partnership. Perhaps I may say that I hope that Liverpool City Council will enter more deeply into that co-operation between central and local government which inner city partnership should be about.
It is in this context, where there is an urgent need for reconciliation, that the proposed abolition of Merseyside County Council seems to me to be nothing short of a tragedy. Alongside the bitter divisions of politics which have long dogged Liverpool City Council, the county council is a body in which there is that old and valuable habit of reaching out beyond the boundaries of one political party. It is significant that Merseyside County Council unanimously opposes these abolition proposals. There should be a full, public and independent inquiry into the structure and financing of local government in the metropolitan areas.
In the context that I have described, the way that the interim year is handled is extremely important and its connections with the democratic process are vital. The interim provisions Bill proposes that, instead of an election, county councils should be brought up to number by nominees of the district councils. I believe that there is no precedent in our constitutional history for suspending elections to a group of local authorities and then substituting nominees in the place of directly elected members. These nominees would be those who have been elected to district councils. They would have to squeeze their duties as members of the county councils into their already busy lives as district councillors.
I repeat my point about the importance of the next year or two. Inexperienced councillors, in this sense, in 1985-86 would quite likely be legally required to enforce cuts resulting from a budget which might well be rate capped. I have great anxieties about whether councillors who are accountable to their district councils would give their real commitment to a body which should address itself to the needs of the whole of a county. For example, a Sefton district councillor who came to the Merseyside Churches Ecumenical Council to argue the case for abolition of the Merseyside County Council said that he would not support the existence of a body which "doesn't benefit Sefton citizens within Sefton". But a county council is concerned with all the people in the county.
I notice that my notes repeatedly say "MCC"—Merseyside County Council. For much of my life the initials "MCC" could only have meant one
1052
thing—Marylebone Cricket Club—and for much of my life it would have been equally inconceivable that I should have come to London on this Thursday in June and come to your Lordships' House rather than going to Lord's Cricket Ground. Thinking of other anxious happenings at Lord's, a bishop who is a close friend of mine and an equally enthusiastic cricketer wrote to me last week about a bad event which affected us both and then mentioned at the end of his letter a good appointment he had been able to make. "Oh, well, you win some: you lose some", he wrote. Then, "With England you lose some". In the Cricketer magazine this month there is a cartoon of a group of boys, one black boy and some white boys. The black boy says, "You be England and I'll be Richards".
The MCC has come, for me, to mean quite as often Merseyside County Council. They are initials which mean something very important, for Merseyside is a reality. I chair the Manpower Services Commission's area manpower board for Merseyside—not, as was briefly considered, one of two boards to cover that area. The Department of Employment, like the Department of Industry, knows that economically Merseyside is an entity. If we are to bring about the expansion of industry and commerce which we so urgently need, there needs to be a unified package of information and a coherent process of planning. If the economic decline of the county sadly continues, we equally need such co-ordinated information and planning. The Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and Industry is among the many Merseyside bodies which oppose the proposals of Streamlining the Cities. The chamber of commerce says:
"To abolish the Merseyside County Council is the wrong approach, since it is right for economic, social, cultural and institutional reasons to retain our county council as the natural organ of local government".
We are talking about a very substantial shift of power from local government to Whitehall, and we are taking a significant step in that direction by means of an interim provisions Bill. I believe we need to take great care not to weaken the democratic process during these particularly sensitive years. Executive power should be kept within strict proportion to needs. We should beware of setting dangerous precedents for the future.
We are being asked to comprehend the interim measures in this Bill without proper consideration of what the main abolition Bill may contain. This interim provisions Bill seems to me to ride roughshod over Parliament. I believe it is a proper moment for this Committee to make the Government delay and pause for thought. The other amendments to come before the Committee still allow the elections to be cancelled. I support the amendment now before the Committee.
4.49 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps it might have been better, both for England and for the Government, if the right reverend Prelate had gone to Lord's and had not come this afternoon to your Lordships' House.
I find myself in considerable difficulty over this Bill. The reason is as follows. It has been established by the slightly doubtful doctrine of the mandate and it has been made quite clear that the Government are going

1053
to abolish the upper tier of local authorities. My noble friend Lord Marshall of Leeds set that out in a ruthlessly intellectual case during the Second Reading of the Bill.
I also happen to think that this Government are a very good government. Five years ago I had the great privilege of seconding the Address on the first term of this Government. I said, to hoots of ribald laughter from the Benches opposite, that I thought it looked as though the Government were going to be a thorough-bred government. This Government have shown very high qualities. During the past five years they have achieved many things which many of us thought they were not going to be able to achieve. So when it comes to the Government being caught with their hand in the till, as I suggest to your Lordships they are being caught, by changing the composition of one section of the governing body by what is, to all intents and purposes, a Czarist ukase, I get cross with them—much more than I would with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, or Mr. Callaghan, who did it quite happily and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, it did not seem to matter: they were being tough; they were not being stupid, but they were allowed to cheat, they were allowed to adulterate, and they were allowed to do this—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Onslow: I have a rather higher view of the standard of quality of the government of this country, and it is when it is caught cheating
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The noble Lord has made some remarks about my noble friend Lord Wilson and my right honourable friend Mr. Callaghan which he may wish to reconsider and withdraw.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that I was agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that when Mr. Callaghan did not do the redistribution, it was certainly regarded as something that was not of the highest standards of British parliamentary democracy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The noble Earl used words which I do not wish to repeat in this Committe. He knows perfectly well what he said. Will he now be good enough to withdraw those words without equivocation?
The Earl of Onslow: I would say that if I had made a comment that was wrong, impertinent or rude pertaining to somebody's personal honour, then of course I would withdraw it with no hesitation at all. What I would certainly go on to say is that there was justifiable criticism of the Callaghan Government for their behaviour over the boundaries distribution. It is that quality of behaviour, which this Government are exhibiting over the change from a Labour-controlled to a Conservative-controlled GLC, which worries me. It is that which seems to me to be cheating. Because ours is such a good Government, and because it is a Government which I am extremely proud to support as much as possible, I find that I am in grave danger of voting against them.
1054
I may not vote for this particular amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because it may well he that we would be involving ourselves in a referendum. As Burke said, one interferes with the English constitution at one's peril, and one does not tamper with it. A referendum has been, and is, the instrument of dictators. It is too easy to pose a certain question. I would not dream of supporting some of the antics up to which Mr. Livingstone gets—of course not. What I would certainly suggest is that we are here in danger of losing the quality which I hope that this Government and this country always support.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think it was fortunate that the right reverend Prelate decided to come to this Committee to deal with the metropolitan county councils rather than go to the somewhat similarly-named establishment in St. Marylebone. I would not be so ungenerous as to suggest that the fact that it is raining had anything to do with his decision. This House always listens to the right reverend Prelate with great attention. If he will allow me to say so, many of us listen with great admiration to the battle which he puts up continually for the interests of the people in his widespread and far from happy diocese. I am sure that his admirable speech added very much to the tone of our debate.
If I may return to the amendment which we are at least in form discussing, this is— and is intended to be—a wrecking amendment. It is a perfectly legitimate political ploy on the part of the Opposition; very much on the same lines of thought as the proposed reasoned amendment which the Opposition put forward on Second Reading and which the House decided to reject. Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment that, were it to be carried, it would create a situation involving inevitable and substantial delay in carrying out the policy which the Government were elected to carry out; that is to say, the policy of abolishing the Greater London Council. That is the amendment's intention.
I hope that we may consider this amendment with that practical consideration very much in mind. Our position and our decision has been made much easier by the amendment to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, spoke and which, as I understand it, my noble friend the Minister has said he will be advising your Lordshps to accept. I was suprised that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is usually such a master of the English language, referred to his proposal as "the third alternative". There is of course no such thing in our language. The third option—if the noble Earl will allow me, however impertintently, to seek to correct his grammar—does seem to offer a complete answer to one of the two points put by the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite.
The noble and learned Lord commented, and I noted down his words, that the proposal in the Bill as it stands was "contemptuously dismissing" the role of the House of Lords in our constitution. I could not help reflecting, when he said that, that he is a most distinguished member of a party which just over a year ago went to the polls seeking a mandate to abolish this House. There has been no conversion so rapid, and I hope so permanent, since St. Paul proceeded to Damascus. I welcome the noble and learned Lord to

1055
the ranks of those—of whom I can claim modestly to be one, at least for my part in the 1968 Bill—who seek to defend the position and rights of this House.
The amendment of noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, seems completely to deal with that argument. The position will be that each House on the same basis will have an opportunity to pronounce on whether this Bill will be put into operation at an early stage in the discussions on the main and substantive Bill. I for my part find that argument wholly satisfying as far as the status and position of this House is concerned, and that is a matter which has always been of very great imporance to me.
The other argument which the noble and learned Lord presented to the Committee was a slightly different one. He referred to the proposals as being unconstitutional. Indeed, he used one of those elegantly-polished phrases of his about the pillars on which the constitution rests. I have often wondered whether they are any more substantial than the supports on which the roof of your Lordships' Chamber rests. I fail to follow the noble and learned Lord as to why a proposal not to allow the members of an elected body to serve out the full term for which they were elected—because it is the intention to substitute a totally different form of organization—and not to go through what would basically be the farce and mockery of an election should be regarded as unconstitutional.
An election held in May of next year,with the main Bill almost certainly in this House by then. would be a waste of money. I am told that one is talking in terms of £3 million or £4 million. It would be a waste of time because what could the ladies and gentlemen who put themselves forward as candidates offer to the electorate as policies, knowing that in a matter of months their term of office would be over?
Moreover, it could be a great deal more than a waste of time; it could be be a very wasteful process—and I hope that the right reverend Prelate does not mind that I am speaking about London—because it has been made abundantly clear by Mr. Livingstone and his colleagues that so long as they are in office, they will forbid their officials to have any contact with the successor authorities, to supply them with information or to give them any help. What useful purpose would be served by deliberately prolonging for a number of months—and I am told it would be something like 11 months—that wasteful, useless period of time?
And what is the agrument for it? The argument for it seems to be that there is something unconstitutional at the end of an elected body's term of office, when you are making changes in ceasing to go through what would be. frankly, the farce of another election. On the question of what is unconstitutional, I differ from the noble and learned Lord with real diffidence—and he knows I mean this—since I have the highest regard for him, not only because he held the office of Lord Chancellor, but also because he held what to him, and certainly to me I think was the even more important office of Recorder of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. But, with great respect, I utterly fail to see, I must confess, what is unconstitutional about
1056
taking this action as part of the general procedure for this fairly drastic re-organisation of local government.
Finally, may I come to my noble friend the noble Earl behind me, who used the evocative phrase "hands in the till"? I do not myself see that anybody is making any great profit out of this, but that may be the jaundiced view of a former Treasury Minister. As I understood my noble friend, he felt there was something morally wrong not in doing what is being done in the five other areas (including, of course. Liverpool) but in doing what is being done in London, because when done there in this way it would transform a Labour majority into a Conservative one. This simply reflects the fact that the elections in the boroughs which will be taking over from the GLC took place subsequent to those for the GLC, with the result that those of the London electors who had experienced the joys of Labour rule decided they would rather vote Conservative in greater measure, and personally I do not go out of my way to blame them for that decision. They are all properly elected persons, elected, I know the noble Lord will say, to another body, but properly elected to local government in London. The fact, which is purely coincidental, that a majority of them look like being Conservative, whereas the other five areas will be Labour, does not seem to me to justify a phrase such as "hands in the till".
As one who has some knowledge of our present administration I can in all seriousness say that the fact that this transfer would take place must have caused the Government to give the matter very considerable thought because it is such an obvious line of attack upon them. But if it is intended, as it is, that the London boroughs shall take over the administrative functions of the GLC, there can really be no more sensible proposal than to put them in charge during the interim period. They have then every motive for getting things straight as quickly as possible, for achieving economies. for clearing up the very considerable mess which Mr. Livingstone and his friends will have left behind; and that practical event, with its advantages for the London ratepayers, seems to me to outweigh enormously what many argue could be a political embarrassment—that in one of the six cases there would be a choice of political control.
Perhaps once again I may say that I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Minister state that he would accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. If your Lordships so decide, I think it would be a very satisfactory outcome to these discussions. I am quite sure that if your Lordships do so decide, the ingenuity of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will enable them to think up some other ploy for later stages of the Bill.
Lord Somers: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 1, which is the one which is technically before us, and which has been described as a wrecking amendment. I cannot see that it is anything of the sort. I am not for a moment implying that the third option which will eventually be proposed by my noble friend Lord Halsbury is not a better one, but to call this present amendment a wrecking amendment seems to me to be absolute nonsense. All it is doing is seeking to delay the legislation until a suitable time when it will work harmoniously.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord would allow me, I would point out that he has challenged what I said in this respect. Of course, he is right in saying that the amendment's main effect would be to cause very considerable delay and result in a long period during which the Government in London would be left in expensive confusion, with thereby much damage being done to the Government's proposals for a more economical and efficient system. There are occasions—and this is one of them—when delay can be exceedingly damaging, and I stick to the word "wrecking".
Lord Somers: In that case, I can say only that the amount of wrecking which various Governments must have done during the course of their existence must be very considerable.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Oh, it is.
Lord Somers: However, I dare say that this amendment will disappear into nothingness eventually, but I should not like it to go with that label attached to it.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: I intervene for a very brief moment to make a short point arising out of the speech of the noble and learned Lord who moved this amendment. In former (I shall not say happier) days, when the noble and learned Lord was so formidable a forensic opponent, I used to exercise my ingenuity to try to find him in a point of false logic. I did not often succeed, but I think today I have. It is a point which has been referred to already in characteristically forceful and witty terms by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The central point of the noble and learned Lord's submission to the Committee was, of course, a constitutional one. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is one of the virtues of having an unwritten constitution that almost anything can be said regarding any particular point without its being proved wrong.
But the noble and learned Lord today made as his central point the constitutional impropriety, as he put it, of truncating the legislative powers of Parliament and in effect depriving this House of its second chamber function. To many that might seem a grave and serious charge indeed, but hardly, one should think, to anybody of the noble and learned Lord's political persuasion. I find it difficult to reconcile his warm enthusiasm of today for the principle of second chamber government with the opinions and policies in regard to this matter of the party of which he is so distinguished an ornament.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, or, alternatively, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is to reply to this debate, may I invite whichever of them we have the good fortune to hear to address himself to the following point. I speak of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with equal respect because, although not ever a forensic opponent, he was kind enough to instruct me professionally from time to time, and that is perhaps an even closer bond. The point is this. It is perhaps an unwelcome, but not wholly improbable, hypothesis that the Labour Party might win an election, having gone to the country on a manifesto
1058
which included the proposition or undertaking to abolish the House of Lords. Let us assume that they introduce that Bill in another place and, with their majority, they carry it. It then comes to your Lordships' House, where the position, as I understand it, is governed by the constitutional convention that the Bill, having secured a Second Reading in the other place and there being a manifesto commitment to which it gives effect, your Lordships' House would be denied the opportunity to refuse it a Second Reading here. Of course, the powers of the Parliament Act would, in any case, enable them to get their way in due course.
How does the noble and learned Lord, or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reconcile that position with what they are saying today? Do they give an undertaking to your Lordships' Committee that in those circumstances—hypothetical, unwelcome, but not impossible—they would then from the Front Bench say that they would have none of this unconstitutional procedure and that they would insist that this House retain its powers which they so eloquently argue in favour of today?
Lord Hooson: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene on this point, If the Government proceed with this Bill and establish the Second Reading in the House of Commons as the proper constitutional decision, as it were, has the noble Lord reflected on what a precedent that would be for a Government such as he describes?
Lord Broxbourne: As always, the noble Lord makes an interesting point in an effective way, but, if I may respectfully say so, nothing that he said in any way answers the point I am making. It may be that an unscrupulous Government would seek to use as a precedent for different and inferior purposes what is set up in this Bill; but that is a far cry from saying that the position in regard to second chamber government can be altered in the way that the noble and learned Lord appears to envisage, according to circumstances.
Of course, if he, or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will say, without any qualification, that it is no longer part of the policy of the Labour Party to introduce single chamber government, and if they will solemnly renounce, and for ever, the heretical doctrine of the abolition of this place and the introduction of single chamber government, I would certainly think that this debate has been far from in vain.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has challenged me by a question. May I first thank him for his courteous reference to me which, if I may say so, was rather more acceptable than the description of me which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, gave to the Committee. Whenever I had the privilege of instructing the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, he always dealt with the facts of the case with remarkable clarity and did not put before the court any hypothesis which was unnecessary. Unfortunately, he has done that today. We are not dealing with this matter at all, but if he asks me a straight question, I give him the answer.
The Opposition are not challenging at all, and my noble and learned friend did not
Challenge at all the

1059
ability of the lower House to pass an abolition Bill relating to the Greater London Council and the six metropolitan county councils. If they did that and it went through this House, the normal traditions would be followed in this House. Therefore, the noble Lord's point appears to me—and I say this with the utmost deference and kindliness—an irrelevance.
Lord Broxbourne: The—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Broxbourne: I thought that was an intervention in my speech.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Broxbourne: I am sorry, but I cannot let that go wholly unanswered. The question on which I invited the noble Lord to give an undertaking was in regard to second chamber government in principle and the policy of the Labour Party in regard to it. That was the point I addressed to him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: That will be the subject of an excellent debate on a future occasion. I am sorry that the noble Lord has embarked upon what is a total irrelevance to this serious debate.
Lord Ingrow: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to raise one point which does not seem to have had the attention which it might have had. The debate has seemed very much London centred. It might be unfortunate if that was the impression to go out from this Chamber. There is a unique sourness, as it were, in relations in London, but that sourness does not exist in the metropolitan counties and districts. The arguments there are on the merits of the case as seen by the different parties. I believe I am right in saying that, if the Bill were carried through, no control of a metropolitan county would change as a result of having representatives from metropolitan districts. There is no bitter feeling against the leaders of the councils—certainly not in my part of the world.
Moreover, the leaders who run the great city councils—those of all the parties—would never, for one second, accept that they are inferior in ability to those who have been elected to run the county councils. In fact. the general trend in my part of the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, knows, was that the First XI generally batted for the city and the Second XI went to the counties. They are well capable of doing the job.
I add merely one point. For a long time we had what were called aldermen who were elected by the councillors. They were very similar to what is being proposed in the Bill. It was hallowed for a long time. They were not elected by the people. Sometimes they were defeated candidates in an election, and they were promptly put on the council. There seems to be very little difference in principle. I should hate to think that although in the belief of many people, changes are urgently needed in the metropolitan districts of counties, that should have foundered under the general ill-will of the Greater London Council.
Lord Birkett: Since I see that I am invited from the Government Benches to speak, I shall keep what I have to say as short as it is conceivable to do. I have a practical point to make. It has been suggested that interim administrations will be no more than caretaker administrations. I refer not to the great debate on whether there should or should not be elections, but only to caretaker administrations. I say simply that from my experience of London it will not be the case that they will be merely caretaker administrations paving the way for abolition, whether it comes or it does not. They will have an incredible amount of work to do, ongoing from decades before. Please be under no illusion that any 1985 administration will simply be a paving administration.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I feel I must rise to speak at this point. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, declare an interest as an employee of the Greater London Council. I think that would have been in order. I also declare an interest as an elected member of the Greater London Council.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble Lord indicated his interest on Second Reading.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I thought that perhaps many people here today who had not been present on the previous occasion would not know of that and might have though differently about it.
I wish to comment briefly on another reason why today there is such concern about London compared with the other metropolitan counties. It is because £6 million is being spent on the publicity campaign. It seems that in our debate the discussion has ranged in two ways between those who wish to abolish the cancellation of the elections and those who do not wish to abolish the cancellation of the elections but are concerned about the change in political control. I should like to comment briefly on those two points.
First of all. I was concerned about the change of political control, but when I looked into it more carefully I noticed that the local London councils had all been elected much more recently than had the GLC and had gone much more Conservative. Then only last year the London Members of Parliament were elected, and again they had gone very much more Conservative. Therefore I think that it is really quite by chance that the proportion of people who would represent those boroughs would come forward and be more Conservative than Labour. We must not be misled by that point. I think that to create artificially, as my noble friend Lord Onslow suggested, a situation where we would produce an unelected Labour majority would be to reject the views that have already been cast through the ballot box in London in 1982 and 1983.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in particular should appreciate that, if the Halsbury amendment is better, then if he votes for this one he has lost the Halsbury one. If this amendment were passed, we should not be able to have the Halsbury amendment, and I think that it is a much better amendment because it would bring the matter back to this House again for further consideration. That, I must say,

1061
would satisfy me. I want to see an affirmative resolution in both Houses.
5.20 p.m
Lord Bellwin: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in opening said that he hoped that the debate would not widen too much on aspects other than the specific amendment. I think that he would concede that it has done so rather more than he might have hoped. I shall endeavour not to take it wider than is strictly necessary.
The amendment seeks to hold up the election provisions until Royal Assent has been given to the main abolition Bill. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I would point out that, whatever the amendment is or is not, no one, least of all the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would deny that its effect is to undermine the paving Bill—indeed, I think that he actually said this. I think that it is necessary for me to explain a little more as to why that is.
It is essential that the basis on which the Government are proposing to proceed is clearly understood, and also why it is just not possible to adopt the proposal in the amendment. This requires me—and I shall do it as briefly as I can—carefully to explain the relationship between this Bill and the main abolition Bill. I suspect that even now that may require further clarification.
This amendment is about the time when a commencement order to bring the election's provisions into force will be made. The Government have made it absolutely clear that the timing of such a commencement order will depend upon the progress of the main abolition Bill. Categorical undertakings have been given that the order will not be made unless and until that main Bill is given a Second Reading in another place. But, as I explained on 21st June in reply to a Written Question by my noble friend Lord Nugent, the making of a commencement order will not in any way pre-empt detailed examination by your Lordships of every line of the main Bill. For this paving Bill to come into irreversible effect, the main Bill will still have to go through all the usual stages, both here and in another place, and to be enacted. Every opportunity will be given to your Lordships to consider in detail all the proposals in the main abolition Bill. I cannot emphasise this too strongly.
I have also explained that if at any stage the main Bill were to fall, then this paving Bill itself already contains the means of restoring the status quo. The mechanisms for this are clearly set out in Clause 1(2). My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given an undertaking, which I gladly repeat, that if the main Bill fails, he will make an order under this provision to restore the GLC and MCC elections without delay. This means that if the main Bill were to fail at an early stage, it would be possible to restore the May 1985 elections. If it failed at a later stage—that is some time in the spring or summer of next year—the May elections would already have been cancelled, of course, but new elections would be held as soon as practicable later in 1985. Thus the provisions of the paving Bill would in effect then have been nullified. I hope that that clarifies the relationship between the paving Bill and the main abolition Bill.
1062
Nevertheless, the Government are fully conscious of the concern that has been expressed that even the careful arrangement that I have just explained may not provide your Lordships with sufficient assurance that their views will be taken adequately into account before the commencement order activating Part II of this Bill is made. There is some feeling—which I understand—that it would be preferable if a commencement order were not to be made without allowing your Lordships' House another opportunity to express a later view on the cancellation of elections—even if there is by then a decision in another place in favour of the principle of abolition of the GLC and the MCCs. It is therefore timely that an amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. That amendment provides that the commencement order bringing Part II of the Act into force must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I should like to confirm—as I said in a brief interruption earlier, and as I have indicated to those who tabled the amendment—that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment. That means that both Houses will have a further opportunity to sanction the cancellation of the elections and the creation of transitional councils.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said—and I jotted it down as he said it—that this is in no way a major concession. I believe that those were his very words. I read in the newspapers that it has even been suggested that this amendment is a minimal change and even that it is purely cosmetic. That I do not accept. It is an important and major modification to the Government's proposals. It has been made in response to the concerns expressed by noble Lords in many parts of the House. How often have I been pressed in recent years to make the implementation of legislation subject to the affirmative resolution procedure! To say now that that procedure is not a major change, or to imply that it does not matter, is surely less than fair, and it makes no sense of the continued attempts that are so often made here to have the affirmative procedure written into legislation. We cannot have it both ways.
It has been said that the Government's proposals are unprecedented. But then never before have a Government abolished an entire tier of local government and replaced it with either a number of existing, wholly-elected bodies, or with members of boards appointed directly by and from those elected bodies. However, what is fully precedented is the cancellation of local elections in anticipation of a major reorganisation of local authorities. This happened in the 1963 and 1972 Acts. The reason for this step is very clear in the present case.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put it so well. Would it not be an absurdity to allow the May 1985 elections to proceed at the very moment when the main abolition Bill is going through Parliament? It seems to be suggested that it would be desirable for elections to be held at the very time when this issue is being considered by Parliament. Would it not be a still greater absurdity if the electors were being asked to vote for an 11-month transitional council after the main abolition Bill had been given a Second Reading

1063
in both Houses, as could most probably be the case? Of course there are those who would wish to turn the elections into a referendum about abolition; but would that be a proper purpose of local elections? Where would be the precedent for that?
To respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, the choice before the Government was not whether the present memberships of the GLC and the MCCs, having run for their full four-year terms, the elections should be cancelled. Rather it was whether those councillors should be given a further 11-month term of office, or whether they should be replaced by representatives of the local councils who will inherit the upper-tier functions. This choice was available to us because—and this is why arguments based on past precedents are inappropriate and badly founded—uniquely on this occasion, the successor authorities already exist. As to my noble friend's other proposals, perhaps I can refer to them when we come to debate later amendments.
There is a critical, vital and practical reason for the Government to resist this amendment. There has to be some weeks' notice of the cancellation of elections in May. The present timetable provides for the introduction in another place of the main abolition Bill in November followed by Second Reading in December. Allowing for full consideration of such a substantial piece of legislation means that the Bill is unlikely to reach this House for its Second Reading before early April, probably less than a month before the elections would be due to be held. My noble friend Lord Molson said that it is not good enough to pray in aid timetable considerations as justification for the Government's proposals. But such considerations are critical.
I need hardly repeat that the commitment to abolish the upper-tier metropolitan authorities was there for all to see in the Conservative Party election manifesto. The Government proposals are consistent with the manifesto undertaking. They are carefully thought through. The Government are fully entitled to establish a timescale within which, subject of course to the approval of Parliament, their proposals shall be implemented. The timetable for abolition is entirely sensible, practicable and justifiable.
It should now be clear why the cancellation of the elections cannot be tied to the main Bill receiving Royal Assent. The proposers of the amendment surely realise that it would be impossible to complete the detailed consideration of the Bill with the thorough-ness that it merits in time to cancel the May 1985 elections. The only way in which the main abolition Bill could be enacted in time to allow a sensible decision to be taken on the cancellation of the May elections would be to cut short consideration of the main Bill. I am sure that that is not something that anyone is proposing.
The amendment seeks to stop a commencement order being made until the main abolition Bill has received Royal Assent. It is said that this represents merely a prudent means of ensuring that the paving provisions do not prejudge the principle of abolition. In fact, the election provisions do not prejudge the principle of abolition. In spite of what has been said, the movers of the amendment know that the main Bill
1064
will be long, complex and detailed, and that a Bill of that nature could not possibly come to Royal Assent or even to your Lordships' House in time to cancel the May elections.
I do not think that I need to speak at great length or to widen the matter more than necessary. In conclusion, therefore, let me say this. In no way are the Government making what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. referred to as "an easy assumption of parliamentary compliance". To refer to our proposals as a contemptuous dismissal of your Lordships' House is less than the reasonable and fair comment that we have come to know, and which I have always received, from the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have such a great personal regard and respect.
There is nothing in the Bill before us today, there will be nothing in the main abolition Bill when it is presented. which will prevent both Houses of Parliament from scrutinising, debating, and, if that is their will, approving every clause, every line and every word of each Bill before it receives Royal Assent. Nothing—I repeat, nothing—that is enacted in this paving Bill is irreversible. The Government do take the democratic processes seriously. Nothing that we are proposing will weaken that.
Let it be clearly understood beyond all doubt by everyone that this paving Bill contains within itself now the means of self-destruction if it is the will of Parliament that abolition should not proceed. There is nothing in either this Bill, nor will there be in the main abolition Bill, that will preclude the necessity for both Houses to go through and approve the Government's abolition proposals—the noble Lord, Lord Hayter said it, and I repeat it (I said so on Second Reading)—line by line and word by word. It is on this basis that I invite your Lordships to recognise how misguided is the effect of this amendment. I ask you with all the conviction at my command to reject it in the Division Lobby.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Hooson: On behalf of the proposers of the amendment, I have undertaken to reply to the debate. Your Lordships are rightly troubled about this Bill because it does create a very difficult constitutional precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, posed the question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as to what a Labour Government would do or might not do. I have no brief for a Labour Government. I think that I would be in order in quoting what the Conservative Party said in its manifesto about the supremacy of Parliament. It said:
"The British Constitution has outlasted most of the alternatives which have been offered as replacements. It is because we stand firm for the supremacy of Parliament that we are determined to keep its rules and procedures in good repair".
It goes on to say:
"Labour want to abolish the House of Lords. We will ensure that it has a secure and effective future. A strong Second Chamber is a vital safeguard for democracy and contributes to good government".
I wish to dwell on the words "a vital safeguard for democracy". The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in a typical contribution, which we all enjoyed very

1065
much, referred to the farce of an election. Those are very dangerous words. When we talk of elections, it is so easy to ridicule them and to talk of them as being farcical. Once we embark on that road, we do not know where it would lead us. I know that the noble Lord spoke of the farce of an election in the context of elections to the GLC and the MCCs when the ensuing body elected might only have power for 11 months. I suggest that in practice every indication is that they would have power for longer. There would be need for an enabling Bill because of the difficulties of the administrative change-over—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I used the word "farce" deliberately because, unlike the noble Lord, I am quite clear that if these elections were to take place, those elected would serve for no more than 11 months. I would have thought that the noble Lord, as one who believes in democratic government, would think that to go through the process of elections with a policy and proposals put to the electors, knowing that the chopper comes down in 11 months, is a situation to which I could apply a stronger word than "farce", but that would not be parliamentary.
Lord Hooson: All that I can say is that I strongly disagree with the noble Lord. It seems to me that we have in our debate today wandered again from the main issue. We have discussed the merits or the demerits of abolishing the GLC and the MCCs. We are not considering that. We are considering this paving Bill. I stated on Second Reading—I do not want to repeat it—that the use of the phrase "a decision of Parliament", and I had drawn attention to it in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, was, so far as I knew, fairly unprecedented. I noticed, too, although I did not refer to this on Second Reading, that the Long Title of the Bill—the Government must have drawn up the Long Title—deliberately and with the greatest care refers to
"pending a decision by Parliament".
With the aid of our excellent Library service, I have carried out a search to find out if that term has ever been used in legislation before. I find that it has—on one occasion. I find that the occasion it was used, believe it or not, was the Solomon Islands Indepen-dence Order. Section 71 of that Order reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in Parliament shall be determined by a majority"
of the people. That is a decision of the Solomon Islands Parliament. However, it is absolutely unprece-dented in the history of the Parliament of this country to use the term "a decision of Parliament" in any enactment.
Let me remind your Lordships that in another place the Minister responsible gave an undertaking that he would not introduce an order under subsection (1) until there had been a Second Reading of the main Bill in that House. This was surely tantamount to saying, in the context of this Bill, that the Second Reading in another place was a decision of Parliament. That, surely, is a completely unacceptable proposition. It is quite right that no steps should be taken with regard to this Bill before a decision of Parliament has been taken, but surely that decision is taken only when Royal Assent has been given to the major Bill.
1066
Let me come to the basic principles which seem to have escaped many of your Lordships in the contributions some of your Lordships have made today. Let me quote from Erskine May, the current edition:
"Parliament … is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons; these several powers collectively form the legislature".
Of course, it was the great jurist, Lord Hale, who said that when the Royal Assent has been given to Bills agreed to by both Houses, that resulted in
"the compliment and perfection of a law".
A decision is not a technical term. But it is a term that is clearly understood in its normal use. In Stroud a definition that is suggested is, "a concluded opinion". I would commend that term to your Lordships. A concluded opinion of Parliament is obtained when the Royal Assent has been given and when it is no longer possible to amend the opinion of Parliament. It can be superseded, but it cannot then be amended.
In my submission it is totally unacceptable to the House and to the people of this country that a decision of Parliament could be regarded as anything less than that. There are, however, abundant precedents in the courts for the use of the term, "decision of Parliament". For example, one finds in this decade courts constantly referring to it. A decision in the Court of Appeal said:
"Having regard to the recent decision of Parliament to make effective the provisions of a certain Act …".
In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, for example, it was stated that,
"It could be said there is an anomaly in the decision of Parliament to exclude certain classes of people".
On a number of occasions it has been referred to in the Court of Appeal.
I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sitting opposite, not in his customary position. Earlier today noble and learned Lords have referred to his contributions to our political life. If I may say so. he has contributed by bell, book and candle. I will not recall the bell, and I quoted from the book last time. Indeed, I think the book might be his greatest contribution to our political life. But let me now turn to the candle: when he has sought to illumine our law when sitting in his judicial capacity in the famous case of Hyam and The Director of Public Prosecutions in 1975. When he was delivering a judgment of the court he said this, at page 71:
"Such at least is the proper inference to be drawn from the decision of Parliament to enact the first, and the failure of Parliament to enact the second of two draft clauses in the law commissioners' recommendation".
Clearly he used the term, "decision of Parliament", quite rightly, to refer to an enactment. Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that the term, "decision of Parliament", in this Bill, imported as it is into the Long Title, imported as it is into the Explanatory Memorandum, can mean only what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to it as, in his judgment in Hyam. A decision of Parliament is taken when an enactment is completed.
This amendment is not a wrecking amendment at all. It is an amendment that is couched deliberately out of the terms in which the Bill itself is couched. It is not

1067
a wrecking amendment. It is a significant amendment, because it restores what I believe is the proper constitutional position. In my Second Reading speech I quoted the observations made in 1975 by the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. May I quote again from his speech on that occasion? It might be of great importance, in view of what has been said about what a Labour Government do and what a Conservative Government do.
I quote from column 1741 of Hansard of 11th November 1975:
"Mr. Foot talks about the impropriety of an unelected House challenging the Commons, but he and others who feel like him must make up their mind what they want. Do they want a single Chamber Government? If they do, I, for one, would view that with the gravest possible misgivings. Nor do I think it possible that a single Chamber could adequately manage the legislation brought forward by any Government. I am quite sure that Mr. Foot and those others do not want an elected Second Chamber. Nor do I think that many other Members of another place would wish it, for an elected Second Chamber would have to be given more power and not less, and that increased power would be at the expense of the House of Commons".
It seems to me that the crisis before your Lordships' House is this. When there has been a Labour Government, on occasions your Lordships have passed what have been called wrecking amendments. I can give noble Lords chapter and verse for it; I did so on Second Reading. On the other hand, when there is a Conservative Government, what this House has relied on is, as it were, transmitting the feeling of the House through the usual channels; that is, the Leader of the House has, I think, interpreted to the Cabinet of the day how this House has felt—not, as it were, how it voted. Because of its traditional Conservative majority, this House has always voted with a Conservative Government; but, in fact, the Leader of the House has transmitted to the Cabinet the feelings of the House, although perhaps not reflected in the vote. I doubt whether that process is effective today. I think that probably it is necessary for your Lordships to pass an amendment like this to bring home to the Government exactly how your Lordships feel on this matter.
I want to deal now with the effect of the Halsbury amendment. I think it is quite misleading. I understand perfectly the reasons why the noble Earl and his colleagues put it down. just as I understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, put down his amendment. Clearly they are embarrassed by the position in which the Government find themselves and they have tried to find for them an easy way out. There are no easy ways out in this situation, because the effect of the amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would be to require the Government to bring in an affirmative resolution.
Let me remind your Lordships of the view of the Leader of this House about affirmative instruments. On 14th May this year, at col. 1268 of Hansard, one finds this Question asked by the noble Lord. Lord Chelwood:
"whether they would regard the rejection by the House of Lords of an affirmative instrument activating Part II of the Rates Bill as consistent with constitutional propriety as well as politically acceptable; and what precedents there are since 1945 for the rejection of an affirmative instrument by the House of Lords".
1068
The Lord President of the Council, Viscount Whitelaw, said:
"There is a well established convention that the House of Lords does not vote against the Second Reading of a mandated Government Bill. Since the House has always exercised restraint in the use of its powers in relation to subordinate legislation, it might be regarded as inconsistent with this convention if the House were to reject an affirmative instrument to implement Part II of the Rates Bill, for which the Government have a specific electoral mandate.
"Since 1945 only one affirmative instrument has been rejected in the House of Lords, namely, the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968. The order was subsequently re-laid and agreed to".
Therefore, what is being suggested, and of course what the Government grasp with both hands, is really a cosmetic amendment. It will have no effect. If they are right about the constitutional propriety of opposing an affirmative order, it means nothing. Therefore, they simply make a concession which is not real in practical terms.
The amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, would extend the life of the present councils. I should have thought that that was objectionable on the grounds stated by the Prime Minister herself in the House of Commons. On 12th June, 1984 at column 768 of Hansard for the other place, the Prime Minister said:
"The issue was not whether the elections should be cancelled. The issue was whether GLC councillors should continue [in Office] for a further year or whether others should continue for a further year. As the hon. Member for South Shields … said from the Opposition Front Bench … he could sympathise with the Government's belief that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. The question was whether we should prolong the mandate of GLC councillors after that mandate had been exhausted, which would have been a wrong precedent which could have been used to prolong the mandate, for example, of the House. That would have been constitutionally wrong".
If the Prime Minister addressed her mind to this Bill and imagined how this Bill could be used as a constitutional precedent for the future, then I think she would be serving the interests of this country better.
To my mind this is not an issue to be fudged and to be dealt with by means of a compromise based on no principles whatever, and which will merely have a cosmetic effect. The attitude of your Lordships' House to what is constitutionally objectionable in this Bill will govern for years the view that is taken of your Lordships' House throughout the country. It is fair to say that especially since the broadcasting of Parliament the public esteem for your Lordships' House has risen and the public esteem for the other place has fallen. That is regrettable, but it is not your Lordships' fault.
Moreover, it is fair to say that the really constructive opposition to the Government has been more manifest in this House and that is because of the workings of "the elective dictatorship" which the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently described in his works. If I may say so to him—because he has been commenting sotto voce on my speech throughout—I wish that he had entered this debate in the light of his writings, because it seems to me that when he is in Opposition he sees the problem of the elective dictatorship crystal clear, but when he is on the Woolsack or sitting opposite he sees it as though through a glass darkly. The truth is that what he has pointed out in his book and the problems he

1069
highlighted in his lecture are coming to fruition through his own Government.
Mention has been made of what Labour Governments do. The Labour Government have never tried to ignore the House of Lords. They have never suggested that a decision—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hooson: With great respect, I have no mandate for a Labour Government; I would oppose them as much as I would oppose this Government. But let me say this. There is no precedent for a Labour Government trying to ignore the House of Lords by saying that a decision of Parliament is a decision of the House of Commons only.
Lord Boothby: May I ask the noble Lord a question: in the interests of the whole Committee would he now shut up?
Lord Hooson: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord. in his interests I might be prepared to do so, but of course it is not in the interests of the Committee as a whole, save that we are all anxious now to take a decision on this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: With those words I heartily concur. The Committee I am sure now wants to come to a decision.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 191; Not-Contents. 143.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chitnis, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Alport, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Amherst, E.

Collison, L.

Ardwick, L.

Congleton, L.

Arran, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Aylestone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Balogh, L.

David, B.

Banks, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bernstein, L.

Denington, B.

Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Birdwood, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Birkett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blease, L.

Elysian-Morgan, L.

Boothby, L.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bowden, L.

Ezra, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Falkender, B.

Brimelow, L.

Falkland, V.

Brockway, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

Fitt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Flowers, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Foot, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Fulton, L.

Caradon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Chandos, V.

Galpern, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Gardiner, L.

1070

George-Brown, L.

Minto, E.

Gifford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Molloy, L.

Glenconner, L.

Molson, L.

Gosford, E.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Mountevans, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Mulley, L.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Ogmore, L.

Grimond, L.

Oram, L.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Hampden, V.

Peart, L.

Hampton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Plant, L.

Hayter, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Head, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Henniker, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Prys-Davies, L.

Heycock, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Reilly, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Roberthall, L.

Ilchester, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ingleby, V.

Rochester, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jacobson, L.

Scanlon, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

James of Rusholme, L.

Segal, L.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sharp, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Simon, V.

Kagan, L.

Soper, L.

Kahn, L.

Stallard, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Kearton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Stone, L.

Kissin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strauss, L.

Leatherland, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lever of Manchester, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Tordoff, L.

Lewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wade, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Longford, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McCarthy, L.

Whaddon, L.

McCluskey, L.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Willis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mais, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mar, C.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Mayhew, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brookes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Avon, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Bauer. L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom. L.

Bellwin, L.

Cayzer, L.

Beloff, L.

Charteris of Amisfield. L.

Belstead, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bessborough, E.

Coleraine, L.

Boardman, L.

Colwyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

1071

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cowley, E.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Milne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Daventry, V.

Morris,

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dormer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne. L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dudley, E.

Northchurch. B.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Northesk, E.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford. L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Porritt, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Portland, D.

Foley, L.

Radnor, E.

Forte, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gainsborough, E

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodney, L.

Gowrie, E.

Romney, E.

Gray, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rugby, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint

Sandford, L.

Marylebone, L.

Selborne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Selkirk, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hood, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Soames, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Ingrow, L.

Stamp, L.

Ironside, L.

Strathspey, L.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Killearn, L.

Terrington. L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Vaizey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Luke, L.

Vickers, B.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Mancroft, L.

Windlesham, L.

Marley, L.

Wise, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
Clause 1 [Commencement and termination of interim provisions]:
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
[Printed earlier: col. 1035.]
The noble Viscount said: I am a little uncertain as to where we go from here—nowhere! May I ask noble Lords for some guidance? I do not believe that I now have an amendment to move. Therefore, I should like to ask for guidance.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Perhaps I may venture a few words of what may not on first sight appear to be impartial guidance. In the circumstances, perhaps the noble Viscount will think of withdrawing his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I did not ask for partial or impartial guidance. Perhaps I should have guidance from my own Front Bench.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): Perhaps I shall fail on this occasion, as I failed on the last, because I understand that it is a somewhat complex procedure. However, I think that technically the truth is that the amendment really falls, and therefore it is probably correct that my noble friend should withdraw it at this stage.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Noble Lords: Not moved!
Viscount Whitelaw: I ought to say that I have put it exactly the opposite way round; it should be exactly the reverse of what I said! It is like one of those great things in life which is always so good—it comes to exactly the same conclusion in the end. But my noble friend should withdraw his amendment.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 10, after "may" insert ("and in the event that a Bill for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and for the transfer of their functions does not receive Royal Assent, shall").
The noble Baroness said: I think that this amendment still stands. I believe that we are all a little confused after that tremendous victory. This amendment seeks to insert a guarantee into the Bill that an order will be made to rescind Parts II to IV if the main abolition Bill is not passed. Clause 1(2), as at present drafted, gives the Secretary of State a power to make an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. which would repeal the provisions of Parts II to IV of the Bill.
There is however nothing in the Bill which would compel the Secretary of State to make such an order. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, stated that it was the Government's intention to use this power if the main Bill failed in the course of its passage. However, as for the undertaking not to introduce immediately the order to cancel elections, no safeguard exists in the Bill to give force to this ministerial statement. The amendment that has now been passed acts partially as a safeguard.
If the Government resist this amendment I believe they will further undermine confidence in the purposes behind the Bill. The situation could arise where the main Bill could still be under discussion at the time when the interim councillors take over their functions. I am not sure whether this amendment is redundant in view of the amendment that has been passed.
Lord Bellwin: It is a different point.
Baroness Birk: What this amendment seeks to ensure is that the provisions of the paving Bill, including those dealing with the staff commissions and the provisions of Clauses 7 to 9, cease if the main Bill is not passed—this is the core of the amendment—and that the status quo is restored as soon as possible. This procedure would reinstate proper control by Parliament over the actions of the Secretary of State and it would remove any possibility that interim councillors could he appointed or remain in office if the main Bill were to fail. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I assume that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We feel that the amendments would confuse the position. Without going into a great deal of discussion (which I shall do if the noble Baroness would like me to do so), we feel that the arguments and considerations on behalf of these amendments are somewhat academic. Amendment No. 8 is probably unworkable. How can we define when a Bill has not received Royal Assent? We could say that the main Bill has not received Royal Assent today. We could say that the day the paving Bill receives Royal Assent. the main Bill has not received Royal Assent. So the day the paving Bill receives Royal Assent is the day that the Secretary of State must, according to this amendment, repeal it. Even if we are a little more lenient in our interpretation of the amendment, it is still not clear as to what stage a Bill can be deemed to have failed to receive Royal Assent.
What if a Bill simply runs out of time and then has to be reintroduced in the next Session? Of course all these considerations are academic: but the simple fact is that should the main abolition Bill fail, the paving Bill will no longer be necessary, useful, or relevant. These amendments would simply serve to confuse the position, and in those circumstances perhaps the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Did I understand the Minister to say that he is taking Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together? In that case it would be appropriate to indicate our views on Amendment 9.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I ought to say a little more about Amendment No. 9 because there seems to be some confusion as to what it is.
Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("and") to ("including") in line 3 and insert ("supplementary and consequential provisions as are necessary for the purposes of the order").
This appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of subsection (3) of Clause 1. Subsection (3) is there to help in restoring elections should abolition not go ahead. It is the means by which elections could be reintroduced to the electoral cycle. For example, if abolition failed at some point after May 1985, it would be necessary to restore elections but with those elected serving less than the normal four-year period of office. For they would serve until May 1989, when ordinary elections to the upper tier would again be due. That is the sort of transitional arrangement envisaged by Clause 1(3).
There is no question of the clause applying outside the metropolitan areas. The transitional arrangements
1074
relate to an order made under Clause 1(2). That clause applies only to the metropolitan areas. The powers under subsection (3) are not unfettered: they can only be used to make such modifications or provisions as are necessary or expedient to achieve two effects: to repeal the Act, and to restore the original situation. Again, I have greater clarification if the noble Lord wishes; but that is the gist of the point as to why I said earlier that we felt that it would simply serve to confuse, and that is why we do not wish to accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Minister is speaking to a situation which has been radically changed by the decision of the first vote this evening. I can well understand when a Minister talks about confusion that the confusion is shared by all noble Lords as to precisely the effect on Clause 1. We are satisfied and delighted that our amendment received the approbation of the Committee. An Opposition needs to anticipate situations, and the Minister in saying that these amendments are not acceptable is speaking from the position that he first of all does not like our actions in respect of Amendment No. 1, and as a consequence these follow.
So far as we are concerned quite clearly not only have the Government and the Minister to reflect and to react to the decision that was taken, but the Government have also to come to a view on other matters. It may be that at the end of this debate on this side of the Committee we shall not press these amendments at this stage to a vote, but we are certainly not minded simply to make speedy progress on these amendments at this stage. The points that we raise—I speak particularly in respect of Amendment No. 9—are real and valid.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to strike out of Clause 1(3) the words:
"supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient".
It is the words "thinks necessary or expedient" to which we take exception. In practice these matters will have to go to court. It is clear that at every stage at which this particular piece of legislation makes progress—even though it may limpingly make progress—there is likely to be a challenge. We believe that it would be intolerable to give the Secretary of State any further powers than would be necessary to, what he terms, "clear up the mess" of his own interim arrangements.
We would want to consider carefully before we give extensive powers to the Secretary of State to amend other legislation in a Bill designed to deal with interim provisions. Clause 1(3) says:
"An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972 (in this Act referred to as 'the principal Act') or the Representation of the People Act 1983."
The Committee should seriously reflect on this.
I am not saying that the Government are trying to do anything underhanded. By spelling out precisely what they want on the face of the Bill they give me my case. The Committee needs to reflect seriously on what the Government have said all along is an interim relationship. The part to which we take exception says:
"provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient".

1075
We think that that is enormously wide, and we want to challenge and resist making progress in passing Clause 1(3) as quickly—and I do not want to be offensive—as the Minister may have felt unnecessary.
In the course of the interim appointment arrangements, the dismantling of the staff commission and a great many other things. we say there is no certainty in any interpretation which the Minister may care to believe he has regarding the words:
"as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient".
We believe that that is far too sweeping a power to give to any Secretary of State, particularly in relation to this matter at this time in the circumstances of the failure of the main legislation. Recognising what happened here 10 or 15 minutes ago, and recognising what another place may do at the behest of the Government in relation to what happened, we are saying that if there is a failure of the main legislation the Government would have to move quickly to reinstate the elections and to cancel the interim provisions.
I did not hear all that the Minister said, but he certainly said that that would be the Government's intention if the main purport of the legislation was negatived—that is the main Bill, not this Bill—and they would act immediately to put the matter right.
We want to make it quite clear that the supplementary provisions would only be intra vires if they were necessary for the purposes of an order under Clause 1(2). Amendment No. 9 seeks to insert the crucial word "consequential". In other words, they should only be matters which can be seen to be directly related to and which flow from (that is consequential to) the provisions and subject to the following tests: they need to be transitional; they need to be supplementary and they need to be consequential. Amendment No. 9 introduces a safeguard to the order-making powers of the Secretary of State.
I appreciate that conversations are taking place about the best way to make progress in this matter. These are arguments that we have come here tonight prepared to make and which we believe are valid and sensible. We are not satisfied that the Minister has fully assured us either of their invalidity or as to the manner in which the details inside Clause 1 stand, remain and are capable of being activated, or not, in the light of the decision that we have made.
In the ordinary course of events—tonight events have not been ordinary—there are strong reasons why we on these Benches and others in other places would want to be absolutely certain that the Secretary of State has the powers he wants, but we do not want him to have even those. If he has powers in these matters we must ensure that they are circumscribed as tightly as possible and certainly as tightly as Amendment No. 9 seeks to impose.
Lord Monson: Is it not the case that Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 deal with quite separate matters? It is possible to disagree with the first, as I do, and to agree with the second. Is it not therefore extremely confusing to have to deal with both at the same time?
Lord Bellwin: Of course one can always do that, although as always I assume through the normal
1076
procedures that this is an agreed basis for discussion and debate beforehand. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, makes. I understand his difficulty which I think is regrettable. Clearly it is up to him, if he wishes, to make his observations known; he will have to come to a conclusion on that.
As a response to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, there is not a great deal that I want to add at this stage about this. I made the observation earlier and obviously I will want to read what the noble Lord has said, but for the time being, subject to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, may wish to say, presumably he will have to make his own decision about how he proceeds from here.
Baroness Birk: On Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 I think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right. In the excitement of the moment when I saw the grouping I had meant to ask to have them dealt with separately. If one does ask Ministers, they are always very agreeable about this, but we did not and as we did not know what effect the amendment that has now been passed would have on it, it made our task difficult. Having said that, we now withdraw Amendment No. 8. If it is necessary when we have all had a chance to go into this matter we will come back with both amendments at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 10 and I understand that it is convenient to discuss Amendment No. 10A with it.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("under subsection (2) above").
Amendment No. 10A: printed earlier.
The noble Baroness said: This is a different amendment. It is true that when the noble Earl spoke to Amendment No. 10A—they are identical, except for one word in the drafting—the Minister chose Amendment No. 10A. At that time it was put forward (although we do not see it in that way) as an alternative to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. This is entirely different. I think I am right—if not, the Minister will tell me—in saying that this has not fallen as a result of what happened on Amendment No. 1.
As the noble Earl explained earlier, the purpose is the setting up of provisions where interim control is to be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Under Clause 1(1) the order to implement Part II requires the approval of neither House of Parliament. The Secretary of State has stated that it would be his intention that the order should not be made until after Second Reading of the main Bill in the House of Commons. That has been changed, as of this moment, and is different now.
Lord Bellwin: I think it would be helpful both to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl if I repeated that what I said on the previous amendment still applies. The Government feel that the amendment in the

1077
name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and his supporters is marginally preferable. We think it achieves that which is desired and the Government are prepared to accept it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I wonder if I may be allowed to intervene. I think we are in the same slight state of "chassis and confusion", speaking for us on this side at any rate. It is now half-past six and I wondered whether we might adjourn the discussion of these matters? There is some intervening business in the dinner hour as I understand it. I am sure the noble Lord knows me well enough not to think that I am making a tactical manoeuvre, but we are in a state of uncertainty about how we proceed. If it is thought that that would be a sensible course to take, I venture to think it would be.
Lord Broxbourne: Before my noble friend replies to that suggestion, may I suggest another course? That is that we pass to Amendment No. 15 which would just nicely occupy the time to a more conventional hour. This amendment deals, uncontroversially, with the City of London and does not touch upon all these difficult and controversial topics.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My point is simple and valid. We have embarked on these amendments; we are in the course of debating them. It would be quite unusual to break off now. My noble friend the Minister has suggested what seems to be a reasonable course: that we should accept these amendments. The Bill, in any event, will have to be looked at during later stages and in another place, in view of what happened earlier this evening. It would, in my view, be very much improved if the noble Earl's amendment goes in. I would suggest, with respect, that whether or not we adjourn when this has been dealt with, we at least finish work we have started on these particular amendments. I cannot see any reason why we should break off at this stage.
Lord Mottistone: May I support my noble friend. It seems to me that what people are forgetting is that there is a Report stage to come. As has been said, there is a lot of room for not moving amendments at this stage (unless they are clearly going to be useful) and bringing them in at Report. I should have thought that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was one which would be valuable, anyhow, but that some of the other amendments might well he not moved at this stage.
Lord George-Brown: Here I am supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. We are now—and I am glad that the noble Viscount has returned—in a state of real confusion here. What happened was not a minor matter, but quite a major thing. Here I am calling into account my experience in the other place, and a lot of us have had that. The obvious point now would be for the Minister to rise and say, in whatever words are used in this place, the equivalent of what would have been said in the other place, which would be that he would move progress and ask leave to sit again. In this Chamber, presumably, we have a different set of words.
1078
As I understood it, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has said, "We will now take supper and then we shall come back". But at the moment we are dealing with things which have been tremendously affected by what has gone before. It would be rather ridiculous to go on with these amendments. We do not know whether the Bill will be the same. May I sincerely ask the noble Viscount whether it would not really be sensible now to let us all take a little break, let the Government consider what they now want to do in the light of what happened earlier, and then let us come back? Personally I should have thought that the best thing would be to come back another day, not to return later this evening. But we cannot go on sensibly
Several Lords: Oh!
Lord George-Brown: One keeps on getting interrupted here. That does not really help, either. If you really want to make enemies out of friends, this is a good way of doing it. Would it not be sensible now to say that that was a watershed, that something significant happened? The Government may want to fight, but they have to think how they will do it. I really suggest that it would be more sensible, in whatever sense is right in this Chamber, to do what I know we would do in the other House, which would be to break off for a while, to let the Government think what they want to do, and then to resume it from there on. I do not know quite how we do it, but I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. At least let us take supper, go away for a short while, and then let the Government consult. The Minister here can, presumably, consult other Ministers, possibly take the thing away for a day or two and bring it back to us when they have made up their minds. But if they really want to fight it—and they are going to lose—then let them do it. We cannot go on like this in a piecemeal way, taking amendments which make no sense in the light of what we have just done.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am most anxious to help and. naturally, I accept that the Government lost a major amendment. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and his noble friends strongly argued a short time ago that their amendment was in no sense a wrecking amendment. If they argued that—which they did argue—I am entitled to say that they are not wrecking the Bill. Therefore, we should continue with our discussion. The logic of that to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, must be complete. I must say to the noble and learned Lord that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, wishes to proceed with his amendment. There are other amendments which noble Lords may wish to proceed with. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I have to say that he must do that because the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, wants to move his amendment. I think we should proceed. The loss of that amendment did not affect every other amendment that we are discussng now. If the Front Bench opposite were to say that it did, they would be nullifying much of what they were saying earlier. They are not saying it; and that is why we should continue discussing the Bill in the normal way.
Baroness Birk: May I say, in answer to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, that he is absolutely right and it is not what we thought at all. But it means that there are certain amendments which are linked to that particular one. I was anxious, not having had a chance to go through the amendment, to make sure that we were not wasting the time of the Committee and going off on the wrong limb by moving amendments which had been overtaken by that. I do not consider that Amendments Nos. 10 and 10A have been overtaken. I was in the middle of moving No. 10, which is the same as that of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. As I was going to say before Amendment No.1, I was slightly upset and felt rather distressed that the Minister had not accepted my amendment (which. in fact, was first on the list) but took the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, from the Cross-Benches. That is a very small point, but in substance it is exactly the same amendment. There is the slight difference of an added word in the drafting.
This amendment would give both Houses of Parliament a chance to discuss affirmative resolutions. I do not go as far as did the noble Earl to believe that this House would turn down, on an affirmative resolution, something which in substance had been passed by the other House. But I still think it is something which ought to be in the Bill because it enables the House to discuss this. The noble Earl said when moving it—and I did not interrupt him, so as to save time—something about the possibiity of some changes in the procedure of the House which would enable us to turn down, or vote against, an affirmative resolution. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, and I would suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the noble Earl now spoke to his amendment because we are speaking to virtually the same thing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): We are on Amendment No. 10. Amendment proposed:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("under subsection (2) above")
Let us proceed from there.
The Earl of Halsbury: I did not put down Amendment No. 10A to get the Government out of a hole. I put it down because I thought the Bill would be better with the amendment in it. Perhaps I may finish a little bit of unfinished business which arose between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, at an earlier stage on the Bill. I have the authority of Mills' Political Economy to quote the following:
"The three alternatives seem to be: death"—
that is, to drop the amendment—
"or to be permanently supported by other people"—
that is, to pass the buck to the Front Bench—
"or a radical change in the economical arrangements".
I do not quite know what that means. But the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, evidently had something of that kind in mind. On the other hand, with the authority of Mr. Gladstone's Oxford essays, his decided preference, he said,
"is for the fourth and last of these alternatives",
which is evidently represented by the manifest wish of the noble and learned Lord to adjourn for dinner.
1080
Placed between these inescapable and multiple alternatives, I think the best thing to do is to go ahead as planned and say, with respect to Amendment No. 10A, I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: As I was trying to indicate a little earlier, the Government are happy to accept the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): We have not disposed of Amendment No. 10.
Lord Bellwin: In that case, perhaps the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that, as I indicated earlier, if an explanation is required I shall be glad to make it.
Baroness Birk: I shall be very happy to withdraw Amendment No. 10, because the substance is the same as Amendment No. 10A. I should like to know from the Minister why he chose the amendment of the noble Earl over mine.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: As I indicated in the debate on the amendment which we were discussing earlier, the Government fully recognise the concerns which have prompted the two amendments which we are now discussing. We accept that both Houses should have a further opportunity to debate the cancellation of the elections before a commencement order bringing Part II into operation is made. In principle, therefore, the Government are wholly sympathetic to the intention which lies behind both amendments. In practice, I have to say that the amendment of the noble Earl is preferred. I am advised that the drafting of the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is the most appropriate means of providing for the commencement order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. If the noble Baroness wishes to have a debate on the word that is missing, no doubt we can try to do so. But that is the advice which I am given and at the end of the day it really makes very little difference.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We accept the spirit of the words but the Minister ought to note very carefully that these amendments have been needed in order to clarify. The Minister has said that there was no need to clarify and that what had been said by the Government earlier was quite clear. The fact that these amendments were not only required but actually have the approval of the Minister clearly indicates the care with which all members of the House must look at not a confusing situation but a complicated one. We must be prepared not merely to accept—I say this with no disrespect—what is said to us by Ministers but to study with care what precisely are the implications.
The noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, who I see in his place, said on 1lth June at column 960 of the Official Report:
"My Lords, if I may make a very quick point, before any order is laid under this Bill under Clause 4(4) there must be an affirmative instrument of both Houses of Parliament".
I say that with respect—not confusion, but uncertainty as to precisely what was meant by the Bill making it

1081
clear that all that was required to trigger this off was the approval in another place at Second Reading.
We understand that we are not going to divide or be in dispute over the passage of Amendment No. 10A. The simple point I am making is that we have to recognise the need to look at every nuance of the clauses and their implications. It is all very well for noble Lords to say that there are other stages of the Bill; that there is Report stage and Third Reading; but if one can get it right at the earlier stages of the Bill one seeks to do so. Certainly, the Government did not get it right in their first writing of the Bill. They certainly did not get it right in the passage of the Bill in another place, because it has needed these amendments which have appeared tonight in order to clarify the position.
Lord Bellwin: We really are making much of this. I do not accept that the Government did not get it right. What the Government have done is to accept certain representations made as improving and clarifying and making it easier for your Lordships to give consideration to matters. That we do accept, but that is not to say that what was there before was wrong. What we now have is something that we accept is better. I always understood that to be the purpose of this as a revising Chamber. But for the noble Lord to say that by accepting amendments that make the Bill clearer in whatever way is in some way going back or whatever, I think is a very dangerous thing.
Lord Diamond: I apologise for delaying the Committee but I am unhappy about this amendment and I shall explain why. I hope that those on the Labour Front Bench will be good enough to listen to the cause of my anxiety because it may be that they will have some anxiety themselves.
This amendment suggests that provided a matter—a very important matter—has the consent of both Houses, separately taken on an affirmative resolution, this will be adequate to meet the present circumstances. The present circumstances have changed. I myself would have thought that the Minister—the business of the House is in his charge, not in mine—would be well advised to consider at some length whether it was right to go on to this amendment in the light of what has happened earlier or to reconsider the position. I should have thought that he would have wanted to reconsider it because some of us may be in some confusion about it.
I have two main grounds for being anxious about this. First, I have not the slightest doubt that the right which the Minister says he is conferring on your Lordships' House is meaningless—totally meaningless. We have established, I hope, beyond any question that where a statutory instrument is passed by another place, this House has no right to vote in an opposite direction. It is frightfully important that we should be clear about this. Certainly it is a convention but it is important that we should be clear about it because, as everybody who has studied it knows, it is not a matter which is included in the Parliament Acts. It is not a matter which the other place, if it did not like what we were doing, could put right after some delay. If a statutory instrument does not pass through both Houses it falls, and what the other House has done becomes of no value at all. For that reason, if we were
1082
to vote against a statutory instrument passed by the other place, we would be in immediate and direct conflict with the other House.
The Earl of Halsbury: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Diamond: Certainly.
The Earl of Halsbury: I did make the point in my speech that there is no statutory reason why it should be moved in the other place first. It could be moved here first.
Lord Diamond: I heard the noble Earl say that, but with the greatest respect to him I cannot see that it makes the slightest difference, because it must be carried in both places. The convention is not merely as it is in other matters—that we do not vote against a Second Reading of a Government Bill coming from the other place; it is not that. The convention on this has to be different because it is not covered by the Parliament Act and if we did not vote in the same way as the other House, we would be in total conflict with it immediately. Therefore I say that what this amendment is giving your Lordships is words only. Whoever said it was cosmetic was using the precise description of what the position is. That is the first reason for my anxiety.
The second reason for my anxiety about this is that we have to consider the future and what will now happen. A major amendment has been made to a Bill which has passed through the other place. The other place will naturally want to consider this amendment very carefully indeed. I have no knowledge whatever of what decision the other place will take about it. It may want to come back here; it may not. If it does come back we may have to reconsider the matter. I am anxious that the other place is not misled—I use that term deliberately—into thinking that your Lordships passed this amendment because it would be satisfied with this as an alternative to the amendment which has just passed. The whole of the Government's statement earlier on was that these were alternative methods of approaching the matter and that this was a better alternative than the alternative which your Lordshps have just passed by a very substantial majority indeed.
I am as confused and ignorant on what is next to be done as are any of your Lordships. I claim no knowledge of this except that I have taken a very strong view with my own colleagues. I have been accused of being the guru of propriety so far as these matters are concerned; for example, I took a very strong view when it came to the question of sex discrimination. There was a statutory order there, and I insisted that we could not vote against it in spite of the fact that all the ladies all over the country wanted us to vote against it. We could not vote against it because we should be going in direct conflict with the elected Chamber in the other place. And who was I supported by?—the Government Chief Whip. I am sorry he is not here because I wanted to say it in his presence. He is taking this view himself very strongly.
He takes the view that this Chamber must not vote against the other place on a statutory instrument. Therefore it would be totally misleading to the other

1083
place if they got the impression that this is an alternative way of dealing with an amendment. We have passed an amendment in your Lordships' Chamber by a very substantial majority, notwithstanding the efforts of the Chief Whip, which we well appreciate, quite rightly, to get as many people to support his point of view as he could. Therefore, I am in very great anxiety about this amendment and I do not think it ought to be pursued.
Lord Bellwin: I think the underlying tenor of what the noble Lord says is extremely far-reaching. I said when speaking earlier that to say that an affirmative resolution procedure is "cosmetic", as the noble Lord himself has just repeated. I assume means that he and his colleagues will no longer in the future attach the importance to it that I have attached to it in connection with the 25 Bills that I have been debating these last five years. Time and time again, I have either had to resist or agree to that procedure going into legislation: and how to be told that it is only "cosmetic" I think is a very startling observation to be made. It is not one to which, in the context of this legislation, I can give the kind of reply which I think would satisfy the noble Lord. But perhaps that is something which will be taken up on another occasion outside this Chamber. Certainly his observations merit that, and I hope it will happen.
But to suggest therefore that we should not proceed with the amendments that we have in front of us now because in some way it is suggested that this is something the Government might see as an alternative—I know no more than does the noble Lord what will be the line to be taken following the earlier vote on the amendment, but I do know that, as we felt before, we still feel that to have this provision in the legislation is something that everyone has considered desirable, other than the noble Lord who has now spoken. Very well then—not as everyone feels desirable, but as I assume most people do, anyway. Certainly it was not a gesture by the Government, as was said earlier, to try somehow to fudge the issues.
I think it does less than justice to the noble Earl and his colleagues to suggest that we brought that forward—not at all. It was a response to an approach made from all sides of the Chamber. There is nothing sinister, tricky or clever in this at all, and I suggest it is up to the noble Earl to decide whether he wishes to pursue it. If he does so wish, the Government have said that we will accept it. I do not think that in any way affects adversely or disadvantages what might happen later as regards the earlier amendment.
Baroness Birk: I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made some points of great importance to this Chamber. It seems to me that we all ought to have the chance to have a look at what has been said and to think about it. It is impossible to divorce any amendment of this type from the amendment which was passed originally. It is also true that, whatever the Minister, with great respect, might say, the noble Earl himself in the debate on Amendment No. 1 put this forward as an alternative. Earlier I was going to interrupt and say that this was really not the same sort of option, but other noble Lords, including, I think,
1084
the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did treat it in this way. I do not think anything can be lost. It may be that we shall all come to a conclusion by the Report stage. I have already withdrawn Amendment No. 10, and I think that if the noble Earl at this point will withdraw Amendment No. 10A nothing will be lost, because it would give us all a chance to look at it again. It can always be brought back and discussed on Report.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the amendment is put into the Bill—and I hope that the noble Earl will press for it to be put in—that does not exclude the opportunity to look at it again at the next stage of the Bill. There will be a Report stage and there will be a Third Reading: and if the noble Baroness thinks it necessary to look at it again there will be ample opportunity. Indeed, it will be somewhat easier to do if it is already in the Bill. I therefore express the hope that the noble Earl will put in what everyone, on the merits—with one or two exceptions over there—regards as a sensible improvement to the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If in fact we are faced with the proposition that there is something not in the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sees no harm in putting it in, with the prospect of taking it out, why put it in in the first place?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord asks that question, I would not be in favour of taking it out. I think only people with rather limited understanding would want to take it out, but there might be people of limited understanding in this Chamber.
The Earl of Halsbury: I think really the only option open to me is to allow the Committee to decide whether it wants the amendment in the Bill or out of the Bill. If the Government, who are in charge of the Bill, besought me to withdraw it, that would be another matter, but they seem to be quite content that I should proceed with it and so I shall.
Lord George-Brown: Before the Question is put, let us be quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. has made it perfectly plain that he wants it in so that when it gets considered elsewhere there is an alternative to consider. With great respect, an amendment has just been carried by this Committee by 48 votes: that is no mean majority. Let us not kid ourselves, the Chief Whip on the other side did his utmost. and the arguments I heard deployed were very convincing on both sides. The Committee took a very, very strong view—an unusually strong view—by a large majority. Why should we now mislead the other place, mislead the public or mislead anybody by putting in, with great respect to the noble Earl, something which—let us face it, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has been quite honest about it—will then be put up as a possible alternative? I do ask your Lordships to realise what we are being asked to do. We are in fact being asked, by a subterfuge, to undo
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Denham: I hope the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, will not call it a subterfuge. If the noble Lord

1085
will give way, it is perfectly open. It is on the Marshalled List. The noble Earl says that he wishes to stick to it, and if the noble Earl wishes to ask the Committee's opinion he is perfectly in order. There is nothing wrong about it in any way whatsoever.
Lord George-Brown: I do not know what other word to use except "subterfuge"; but, with great respect, there are noble Lords on the other side of the Committee who do see it in that light. There must be a better word than "subterfuge" and, if there is, I will obviously use it. But it will be put as though we took one decision; we then took another one—if it were to be carried, and I hope that it will not be carried—and then the other place have got an alternative to consider. I do not know that "subterfuge" is a non-parliamentary expression. It is a normally good word. It is a
The Earl of Halsbury: It is an act in which I do not deal.
Lord George-Brown: I am not used to being interrupted this many times. May I put my own point of view, and will the Committee be kind enough to listen to it? It is my point of view—and, with all the background of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I still have a background as well—that this will be seen in this way. It would be better not to move it. After all, it began as an alternative to the amendment. Do not let us kid ourselves—it did begin as an alternative. It was originally put forward as an alternative, so let us be quite clear. If we now go putting it in, we are putting in the alternative to the one we have already carried and we are offering other people a chance of considering two alternatives. If that is not a subterfuge, I do not know what is.
If the noble Earl wants to press it, then obviously he will press it—I am not terribly impressed with him—but I hope that the Committee rejects it, on the grounds that a majority of 48 in favour of the original amendment must rule this one out. If anybody anywhere else thinks that we are carrying an alternative, let one of us, even if it has to be me, declare that that did not in any way reduce the determination of this Committee by an unusually large majority to carry the original amendment. This one has absolutely no status or standing at all. It is more than a face-saver for the Government. It is intended to mislead other people elsewhere who will have to consider our affairs.
The Earl of Halsbury: If the noble Lord will give way, I do not mislead. This is an amendment by my noble friend Lord Spens and Lord Shaughnessy and myself to—as I said in my own words when introducing it—help smooth some rather ruffled feathers left over from Second Reading. We did it on our own initiative, and the noble Lord is really going too far in suggesting that I am misleading people. I do not indulge in that sort of thing.
Baroness Birk: May I say right away that I do not for one moment think that the noble Earl wanted—and he has never done so for all the time I have known him—to mislead anybody. As he has said, he and his noble friends put it down to smooth ruffled feathers
1086
and he was doing that in a completely honest, sincere and helpful way in order to assist the Committee. As he will agree, there has been a great change since then, owing to the winning of Amendment No. 1 which has altered the whole picture. I wonder whether in view of that—if he will ignore for the moment the way things were put, which he did not quite like—he will withdraw it. He will have another chance and he can then look at it.
His own words were that there is no need any more for what he was intending to do. He was trying to find a middle course, which was a most worthy thing to do. Now that is no longer necessary, because Amendment No. 1 has been won by a very sizeable majority and I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said on that point makes great sense. So I ask the noble Earl whether in these circumstances he will give us all another chance to think about it again, when we are not in this rather difficult atmosphere.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Earl responds to that invitation, there are two issues here. One is—as has been very properly exposed by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord George-Brown—the political issue; the question of what political message goes back to another place from having two amendments carried which may or may not be in conflict, which could be our political judgment, or may or may not lead to another political conclusion. We all have to make up our own minds on that political issue. I would not expect to alter the carefully thought-out view of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
But quite apart from our political judgment, there is surely the issue of whether it is proper for this House to send back to another place conflicting signals, and that is a matter on which the Government themselves must state in terms whether or not there are conflicting signals. It must come in words of one syllable from the noble Lord the Minister who is in charge of this Bill. He must say to this Committee, without any equivocation whatsoever, that there is no conflict between Amendment No. 10A and Amendment No. 1, and that the Government would, in terms of the drafting of the legislation, accept with equanimity the passage of a Bill which contained both of those amendments. I know that the Government are not happy with the political import of Amendment No. 1, but we are entitled to have the advice of the Government on the drafting matter and to know whether they would be unequivocally happy with legislation which went on to the statute book with both of those amendments.
Lord Denham: I wonder whether I may make a suggestion. We are at the moment discussing the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I think that is the one
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Denham: That was withdrawn?
Lord Evans of Claughton: May I very briefly say virtually one word to the noble Earl? I am not suggesting that he has misled the Committee or

1087
anything of that nature. In fact, the noble Baroness and I had an amendment down in very similar terms. But would he not concede—and would the noble Lord, the Minister, not concede—that if we pass this amendment now immediately after passing Amendment No. 1 it will be seen as a watering down of the decision made then and that we should have time to consider that before speaking in two voices. As the noble Lord said, surely the noble Earl will concede that it will be seen in another place and outside both Houses as a considerable watering-down of a very clear decision made earlier this evening.
Lord Denham: I am advised that the noble Baroness has not yet withdrawn her amendment. We are on Amendment No. 10. The suggestion which I should like to make to the Committee is that if the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment No. 10, which I understand she intends to do, we could then take the dinner adjournment and have a look at this. My advice at the moment is that Amendments Nos. 1 and 10A are not conflicting, but I should like to be absolutely certain of that. I know that the noble Earl considers that they do not conflict, but I should like to be absolutely certain of that. My noble friend would like to give the right advice to the Committee. So I suggest that if the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. we can then take the dinner adjournment and the adjournment business, which will leave the noble Earl's amendment as the first business afterwards, by which time advice can have been taken as to whether they conflict.
Baroness Birk: I appreciate what the Chief Whip has said and I am withdrawing Amendment No. 10. But perhaps, in order to save time after the dinner recess, the noble Earl—there were other interventions and he did not have a chance to answer the invitation made by myself, which was followed-up by my noble friend Lord McIntosh—will, like me, withdraw his amendment, instead of having a rushed discussion during the dinner time. Then, if necessary, it can be put down at the next stage. With great respect, I do not think that the noble Earl has had a chance to say what he wants to do.
Lord Denham: My suggestion was that my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill was asked to make a pronouncement of what the Government consider to be the case. The suggestion which I was making to the Committee was that the dinner adjournment would allow my noble friend to consult with his officials—not to consult with everybody around here—as to the correct advice to give to the Committee. I think that that is a perfectly proper course and if the noble Baroness will accept that then, when she has withdrawn her amendment, I will, with the noble Earl's leave, move the dinner adjournment of this Committee. We can then come back to this point when my noble friend has been able to look at the various things that have been said, to see whether he can properly advise the Committee to accept the noble Earl's amendment, Amendment No. 1 having been accepted.
Baroness Birk: I beg to withdraw Amendment No, 10. but I still say that the noble Earl has not had a chance to say whether at this stage he wants to withdraw Amendment No. 10A.
Lord Denham: If the noble Baroness will forgive me, the noble Earl will have his chance immediately we resume after dinner.
Baroness Birk: Let him speak now.
Lord Denham: The noble Earl was speaking to the noble Baroness's amendment. He has not yet spoken to his own amendment. The noble Earl will have his chance later. This is a fair offer.
In moving that this House do now resume and that our other business should be taken during the dinner adjournment, perhaps it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that we shall not resume the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill before eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): Before I put the Motion, may I remind the Committee that when it does resume it will be on Amendment No. 10.
Lord Denham: No, on Amendment No. 10A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 10 has not been put to the Committee.
Lord Denham: It has been withdrawn.
Baroness Birk: I have withdrawn Amendment No. 10.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My noble friend has already put one Motion to the House: that it should resume. He has not withdrawn it. With great respect, I do not see how we can have a question upon another Motion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The confusion has arisen because we have been speaking to Amendment Nos. 10 and 10A. I now have a clear indication that the mover of Amendment No. 10 wishes to withdraw it. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill
7.12 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
After such a momentous late afternoon and early evening, it may seem strange and be something of an anticlimax to have to deal with a Bill such as the one I have just moved. However, despite the fact that we have been dealing with great constitutional issues, we must realise that a large number of people will be very greatly affected by the Bill which I am in the process of moving.
First, may I welcome the new Lord Advocate for Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, to the Front Bench for the first time. I hope, as all of us do, that his sojourn here will be helpful and enjoyable and that his guidance to the House, particularly on Scottish affairs, will bear the same relationship to Scottish law as that of the many distinguished Lord Advocates who have preceded him. I should also like to thank my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Alec Eadie, the Member for Midlothian. He asked me if I would introduce the Bill to this House on his behalf after he had secured its passage through another place. I am honoured to have been asked by him to do so. Mr. Eadie was high in the ballot and chose to take this Bill, which was one of the Bills prepared by the Scottish Law Commission on Industrial Injuries.
The title of the Bill may be somewhat forbidding to laymen like myself. Therefore, I am comforted when I look round the Chamber and see that no fewer than two previous Lord Advocates and the new Lord Advocate are present. Although the substance of the Bill is not technical, its wording and our understanding of the Bill call for a great deal of legal expertise.
In introducing his Bill my honourable friend spoke at great length and very movingly on the problems of pneumoconiosis, of which he had very close and personal experience as a mining agent in the Fife coalfield. Other Members who spoke in that debate paid tribute to the great work that is done by miners. It may seem strange, in the situation we are now in, that on 2nd December 1983 Members on both sides of the House said that miners and their families are "the salt of the earth". At times like this, when there are ruffled feathers, we should remember the kind of job which miners do.
Pneumoconiosis is an industrial disease that is very closely associated with mining. The Bill deals with other personal injuries. Asbestosis is an obvious one, but there are many others. One of the interesting points that was made by my honourable friend in another place was that a noisy atmosphere can result in personal injury. Not only a noisy atmosphere, because of the thumping of machinery or other loud noise, causes personal injury. Mr. Eadie said that evidence is emerging from the industrial scene in America that even people who play in symphony orchestras have to bear a level of sound which is well beyond what is permissible.
Because of the distinguished legal company in which I find myself this evening, may I very briefly put on
1090
record the effect of the Bill, as I understand it and as I have been able to follow it from the words of my honourable friend in another place. A prescription is a principle of law that extinguishes completely some claims or rights after a fixed period. There are two forms of prescription. The first is the prescription of heritable rights where, after 10 years, an apparently valid title to heritable property becomes unchallengeable. There are also prescriptions which, after the appropriate period of five or 20 years has expired completely, extinguish the rights and obligations to which they apply.
The word "limitation" also appears in the title of the Bill and may well cause difficulties for lay members. The principle of limitation is that the expiry of a stated period bars the raising of an action to enforce a claim. It is a rule of procedure that does not extinguish the claim but simply prevents it from being enforced. Since 1954 the most important general rule of limitation has been that actions for damages for personal injuries or for death arising from those injuries must be raised within three years. The rule was set out in the Law Reform (Limitations of Actions, etc.) Act 1954.
The need for such rules can be summarised as follows. First, there is the need to protect the defender from being subject to possible claims over a long period. In all fairness, there must come a time when it would be wrong to continue to allow a possible claim to hang over somebody. In other words, there must come a time when the books are closed. Secondly, there is the need to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. The longer the delay, the less reliable the evidence on both sides, particularly when, very frequently, the evidence is eyewitness evidence. We all know what can happen when, after several months or perhaps years have elapsed, people have to try to recall an incident.
The Bill proceeds by way of amending the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Sections 17 to 19 of the 1973 Act deal with the limitation of actions and I propose in the Bill to substitute new Clauses 17 and 18, which are incorporated in Clause 2 of the Bill, for those provisions. Clause 17 of the Bill restates the basic principle but perhaps more clearly. It provides that no actions in respect of personal injuries may be brought after three years from the injury being sustained or the date at which the claimant becomes aware that he is suffering from an injury. The date of the claimant becoming aware that he is suffering from an injury is a substantial definition and an instruction to the courts.
The Scottish Law Commission considered that the expression "act, neglect or default" in the existing legislation was too indicative of a suggestion of fault or blame. The Bill therefore refers simply to an "act or omission" giving rise to an injury. I am advised and assured that this covers all possibilities and is a more acceptable term. The Bill retains the requirement that if the act or omission giving rise to the injury is a continuing one, the relevant date for calculating the three-year period should be:
"the date on which the act or omission ceased".
Noble Lords will appreciate that it is impossible for legislation to take account of each and every

1091
circumstance. The formula adopted will enable the courts, which are best placed to make decisions, to take account of the differing circumstances of claimants and the differing nature of their injuries.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that, although the Bill itself is couched in rather technical, legal terms, it deals with real issues. In clarifying the law and seeeking to remove doubts in an important area of the law, it will be of real benefit. The Scottish Law Commission report made it clear that, while the law is generally satisfactory, there are areas where it can be improved for the benefit of all. That is what I am trying to do on behalf of my honourable friend in another place. I am convinced that we should take the opportunity to effect these improvements and I hope that your Lordships' House will give the Bill the support that I believe it thoroughly deserves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
7.22 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has said, this little Bill is the latest contribution to the development of that chapter of the law which started with the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act 1954. The House is much in debt to the noble Lord for his presentation and explanation of the Bill, as was the other place in debt as far as the contribution of Mr. Eadie, who presented the Bill there, was concerned.
The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to detain your Lordships with a detailed exposition of this branch of the law over the past 30 years. Suffice it to say that, as almost invariably happens when sensible, desirable, and welcome reforms are made, from time to time unforeseen problems present themselves. One is sometimes surprised that the original reformers failed to foresee the changes which might be required. In any event, there is no doubt, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has explained, that if and when this Bill is approved by your Lordships—as I am sure it will be—this chapter of the law will be in a better state than it was before.
The Bill proceeds on the report of the Scottish Law Commission. Occasionally, rude things are said about the commission and occasionally the commission says rude things about politicians who are too slow to give effect to the commission's proposed reforms. But the House is in debt to the commission, and in due course so will be those who are to benefit—because there will be real benefits flowing from these changes. That is all I really want to say from these Benches, in confirming that we welcome this Bill.
The only other comment I should like to make—and I say this most warmly—is that like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I welcome the new noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It is true that at my age I possibly knew his father a little better than I know him. But there is general agreement at the Scottish Bar and among those who know him. There is not always general agreement at the Scottish Bar, any more than there is anywhere else and it sometimes
1092
disagrees about people and affairs. But I have heard no words of disagreement, and it is anticipated that the Government and this House will greatly benefit from the noble and learned Lord's advice and contribution to their affairs. He combines great charm with dignity and integrity, as we all know, and we must all look forward to his contribution to the work of this Parliament, which it is anticipated will last as long as another four years—although I hope occasionally that it might be shorter than that.
7.26 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, although my name is not on the list of speakers, I hope that the House will allow me to make a short contribution to this debate from the Front Bench. I will begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove for introducing this Bill, and by correcting something that he said. My noble friend informed the House that there were two former Lord Advocates in the Chamber. There is only one, and he is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who has just spoken. I was a mere Solicitor General—a handmaiden of, and a tool wielded by,another—Mr. Ronald King Murray, as he then was. I want also to acknowledge the contribution made by Mr. Alec Eadie in another place in introducing this Bill and by the Scottish Law Commission—which in effect drafted the Bill which is to become legislation. if it is indeed passed.
From the Front Bench, we support this Bill. We do not seek and would not seek to make any inroads into the principle of prescription which was introduced into Scots law some 30 years ago. What we do, however, is welcome the clarification of the law which is to be found in this particular Bill. It also relieves to some extent the burden upon those whose personal injuries are not of a clear-cut kind sustained on one occasion but are personal injuries, sometimes of an extremely grave character, sustained over a long period of time in one of the ways mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.
I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate comes to reply, he may mention Section 19A of the 1973 Act, which was introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980. That is a measure which also gives some opportuntiy for those who are beyond the period of three years to raise an action. I hope that Section 19A and the new sections introduced by this Bill can work together in order to improve the lot of those who sustain unjury and who have not had a proper opportunity to raise a claim.
Finally, I join with others in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. He may wonder what curious fate has caused him to make his maiden speech on the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill during the dinner hour. I remind the House that in October 1976 I made my maiden speech on the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill during the dinner hour. After I had sat down, my speech was greeted with such enthusiasm and warm praise by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. that I wondered whether I had by mistake delivered the Gettysburg Address or even the Sermon

1093
on the Mount. I cannot speak after the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate; I must speak before him. I hope he discovers in this House—and I am sure that he will—the same courtesty and kindness which I have always found from all sides of the House, not least from his most distinguished predecessor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I commend this Bill to the House.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I should first of all like to express my thanks for the most generous words which have been said already by noble Lords. I particularly take to heart what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about speaking in the dinner hour. I know that he frequently speaks in the dinner hour and gives a very sparkling performance. It is nice to think that it was electricity which made him speak in this House on the first occasion.
Moving to more serious matters, I should say at the outset that I am glad to take this opportunity to confirm the Government's support for this Bill. In our view, this is a valuable Bill and we should give it a fair wind and calm waters on which to be launched. I am therefore most grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Camichael of Kelvingrove, for introducing the Bill. The Bill is, as those of your Lordships who have read it will see, what might be called "lawyers' law" and it may not appear as the most exciting legislative measure which your Lordships have been asked to consider—certainly not today. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has made the point very forcefully, and indeed properly, that this Bill is an important measure of law reform. It will benefit those who are involved in personal injury claims by providing a clearer exposition of the time limits applying to such actions.
It also contains within it two other clauses, the first of which deals with expressing in perhaps more proper form from the point of view of Scots lawyers the extention of a right to recover damages from other wrongdoers at the hand of a wrongdoer if he has already been found liable for them. That is Clause 1. Secondly, so far as Clause 4 is concerned, it provides that where a Scottish court is obliged to apply foreign law to any particular situation the foreign rules of prescription limitation should also be applied to the exclusion of Scots law rules. This is a perfectly straight-forward way of dealing with what otherwise might be a complicated situation.
The Scottish Law Commission undertook consultative and very detailed consideration of this area of law before formulating their recommendation. If I may say so, the honourable Member for Midlothian very wisely chose to follow closely upon those recommendations when promoting the Bill in another place. What your Lordships have before you, therefore, is a Bill which does not attempt to tamper with the basic principles of the existing law but which carries out necessary modifications to make those principles more readily understood and workable in practice.
1094
The provisions of the Bill leave untouched the discretionary power of the court to override the time limits if it seems equitable to do so: that is to say, the provision which is contained within Section 19A of the existing statute. Such clarification as is proposed in this Bill is of undoubted benefit to those who might become involved in personal injury claims whether as a pursuer or as a defender.
Conscious of the criticisms which have been levelled against the existing statutory provisions from my own experience in the courts, I am particularly grateful to have this opportunity to commend a Bill which is attempting to clarify (and I trust will) the rules of limitation which apply where an injured person does not become aware of his injuries, or of what caused them, until some time after they first occur. This is a situation to which noble Lords have already referred and which can often arise in cases of respiratory disease such as pneumoconiosis or asbestosis where the onset of the disease may never be exactly fixed and its diagnosis may initially be uncertain.
As the noble Lord mentioned in his opening remarks, there is a need to balance the interests of all parties. The Government are satisfied that the Bill will be of real practical benefit to those concerned in actions to recover damages for personal injuries and to those on the receiving end of such claims. The Bill makes changes in the law which seek to meet the criticisms of the present state of the law made to the Scottish Law Commission during their consultations, and we must be very thankful to them for the care which they have taken in their consultations.
The noble Lord has already explained the main provisions of the Bill and I consider it may be unnecessary for me to go any further on that score. I shall simply assure the noble Lord of continuing Government support for this very useful Bill and, if I may take up the nautical metaphor I used earlier, I wish it a speedy voyage onto the statute hook. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships for its Second Reading.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, may I briefly thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his reception of the Bill. He said that the Law Commission had taken great care when they formulated their report and published the draft Bill. I think that the House should be grateful to him in his maiden speech for having taken such care and courtesy in replying to the Bill and clarifying one or two of the points which certainly I, as a non-lawyer, am finding out more about every time I read the Bill and every time I listen to my own noble and learned friends in the House here.
I do hope—and I say this in no empty way—that we hear a great deal from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the future, and I hope we can always be as pleased and happy with the decisions he makes as we are with the one he made tonight.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Cycle Tracks Bill
7.38 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Conversion of footpaths into cycle tracks]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 41, after ("highway") insert ("which for the purposes of the 1980 Act is a highway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to all three amendments at the same time.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 41, after ("expense") insert ("and").
Amendment No. 3: Page 4, line 40, at end insert ("or a part of a footpath (as the case may be) and, as such, it shall only be maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the 1980 Act if, prior to the original order taking effect, it constituted a highway so maintainable or, on the order under this subsection taking effect, it forms part of a highway so maintainable.").
When we accepted the amendments to Clause 3(1) moved at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I said that we would need to consider a number of consequential technical amendments. These are the three amendments to which I referred. My first two amendments tie the responsibility under subsection (1) to maintain a cycle track at public expense to the responsibility given in the Highways Act 1980. These are purely technical amendments to meet the requirements of the definition for highways maintaintable at the public expense which appears at Section 329 of the 1980 Highways Act.
My third amendment deals with revocation of footpath conversion orders. When a footpath conversion order is revoked under subsection (9) and the cycle track reverts to being a footpath, it is appropriate that the footpath should be only maintainable by the local highway authority if they previously maintained it. This is what my amendment seeks to do. It also clarifies the position where a revocation involves part of a footpath. I beg to move.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, and I can assure him that the Government accept the need for these amendments and support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley 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.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 3. Again, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that their Royal Highnesses,
1096
having been informed of the purport of the Cycle Tracks Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—[Lord Henley.]
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 until 8 p.m.]

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Before the Committee proceeds may I ask the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, whether they have had an opportunity to consider all the implications of the vote on the first amendment? The result of the Division on the first amendment has substantial implications for the Bill. As was said from this Front Bench, and I repeat it now, it is not a wrecking amendment, but it certainly has important implications for the Bill. For example, there is a need for clarification as between the first amendment and Amendment No. 10A, and there are a number of other considerations which need to be taken into account. If I may suggest this, it would not be unusual for the Committee to adjourn at this stage in order to give the Government and the Opposition parties the opportunity to consider all the implications to which I have referred and in order that we may all clarify our minds as to the full effect of the result of the Division on Amendment No. 1.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is a parliamentarian who I, and I know all other noble Lords, respect. With his long experience in both Houses. I am sure that he would agree that in circumstances of this nature Governments have been known to defer Bills of this importance for a short period in order that all parties who are interested in the Bill may have an opportunity to think again. I wonder whether in those circumstances the noble Viscount will give us the benefit of his thoughts on this now that he has had time to consider the matter during the dinner adjournment.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the points that he has put. I think that it is important to seek to proceed in the way that will suit your Lordships best in the particular situation with which we are concerned. First of all, it is true, as he has said, and I accept, that the amendment that has been passed is not a wrecking amendment. I think that it is important to recognise that particular point, because otherwise we shall get into a lot of difficulties. Therefore for me to say at this

1097
stage that it would be right for the House to adjourn altogether for the evening and for the Committee not to consider some of the other amendments (which my noble friend Lord Bellwin is very prepared to deal with) would I think be to admit that; and I think that that would not be good for this House, and I do not wish to do that.
But what I would of course say at the same time is that there is a particular difficulty, and I think that this concerns the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and accepted by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. The Government in no way wish to resile from their acceptance of the amendment from the noble Earl because they believe that the amendment is right. However, there is a question mark as to whether that amendment, Amendment No. 10A, is compatible with the amendment which has been passed, Amendment No. 1.
Therefore, if that was felt to be reasonable, I would suggest to the Committee that, without any prejudice at all to what might be decided later, the noble Earl should not move that amendment, and that we will come back and report at a later stage to the House as to how that should be proceeded with; but that on the general principle of proceeding with the other amendments in the Bill, I think that, for the reasons I have given, it would be reasonable for the Committee to proceed with them. I feel very much indebted to the noble Earl in this position and very much owe to him that we have accepted the amendment that he proposed, but if he would agree not to move the amendment for the reasons that I have stated, it would be reasonable to proceed with other arguments and other amendments on the Bill as they are on the Marshalled List.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am sure that it would be the wish of the Committee that I should fall into line with the views expressed by our noble leader, while reserving the position of my noble friends for a later stage in the Bill, with the possibility of bringing the amendment forward on another occasion.
Baroness Birk: May I thank the noble Viscount for what he said? When we adjourned the Committee for the other business to be considered, the debate on this amendment had reached a slightly frenetic stage. If I may say so, I think that he has given the right advice, and I am delighted that the noble Earl has accepted it. Nothing can he lost by delaying something and thinking about it again.
Lord Alport: Before the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition speaks, I wonder whether I may ask the advice of my noble friend with regard to Amendment No. 18, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I, and I think the noble Lord, too, regard it as a very important amendment, but of course whether it should be proceeded with depends very largely on the Government's eventual decision with regard to acceptance of the decision of the Committee on Amendment No. 1. I understand that almost in the last few minutes it has been stated in the House of Commons, or, at any rate, if not in the House, certainly by the Minister concerned, that it is the Government's intention to accept their Lordships'
1098
view. I am asking for advice and help. If that is the case, my amendment would no longer apply, but if it is not the case, then I would wish to proceed with it. Any advice that my noble friend can give me would be of great help.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: In the first place, I wish to thank the noble Viscount for his response to my initial remarks, and especially for what he said about Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 10A. I understand the Government's difficulties at this stage. Of course we will proceed with the Bill if that is the noble Viscount's wish, though I am bound to say that in circumstances of this kind I would think very carefully about that. There is a strong case for enabling the Committee to have further thoughts about it.
I was also proposing to make the point which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has just made; namely, there is a report which we have heard that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment has indicated in the Lobby that it is the Government's proposal now to drop Part II of the Bill. If there is any truth in that rumour—and I can call it no more at this stage: but I think that it is my duty to the Committee to indicate that there is a very strong rumour that that statement is being made to the Lobby—may I ask the noble Viscount whether he will find out whether there is any validity in it and subsequently make a further statement to the Committee?
Viscount Whitelaw: I would wish to say to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Alport that I have spoken (and I think that it is reasonable for me to say this) to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; and I can say categorically to this Committee with all the authority that I command—and I suppose that I command a certain amount—that in fact no decision has been taken as to the future at all. If I may say so, I should have thought that any noble Lord who thinks that I would consent in any way to take a decision about something which was going to happen in the future about an hour after an event such as this would undermine whatever confidence anybody ever had in me. No Government could take such a decision at such a time. Any such suggestion must therefore be perfectly absurd. I have to say that in fact no decision whatever has been taken. On that basis—I understand of course the position of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—I suggest that it would he right to proceed to see how we get on, in a famous phrase. If, as we proceed, there are further difficulties, the usual channels can properly discuss these matters and see how we get on.
To any suggestion that we stop now, without proceeding to some of the other amendments that are coming forward, I have to say, again in view of the categorical assurance that I have given, that it must be obvious to any noble Lord, who has ever been in any government at any time, that a decision taken now, an hour or two after an amendment of that sort has been carried, over what exactly is to happen in the future is, I would have thought, clearly not possible. I can repudiate it totally. On that basis, I would have hoped it was reasonable to see how we get on. If there are further difficulties, no doubt they can be looked at

1099
through the usual channels. But to give up now, I suggest to the noble Lord, would not serve any of us properly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. May I say first that I accept without question—I am sure that the rest of the House agrees—the categorical asssurance that he has given. I am sure however that he will understand, in view of the report that was received, it was necessary that the matter should be raised in order that the House could be quite clear on the basis on which we proceed. In those circumstances, my noble friends and I are quite prepared to proceed with the Bill. If there is any change, I am sure that the noble Viscount will let us know.
Lord Tordoff: From this corner of the House, as one who has never served in any government but who still has hopes, may I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. One ought to say from this side of the House that the withdrawal of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, must be without prejudice to his future position. We respect that, and we shall support it.
As to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, which also appears in the name of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, to a certain extent I think we have, as a distinguished Liberal once said, to wait and see. But we agree from these Benches that the Bill can proceed into those areas that are not associated with the amendment that was passed earlier. It is only in the areas where there is an overlap that we have problems. Certainly, from this corner of the Committee, we accept that we should proceed. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House.
Lord George-Brown: As one who has served in many governments but who no longer has any hopes and who fell foul of the noble Viscount over the language that I was alleged to have used, may I say how much I believe that he has done the right thing. I am grateful to him.
[Amendment No. 10A not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause I insert the following new clause:
("Consequence of failure to issue precept.
. No breach of the duty upon a metropolitan county council or the Greater London Council to issue a precept under section 11 of the General Rate Act 1967 shall be held to occur if that council does not issue a precept for the financial year 1985-86 until after the date of an election of councillors to that authority following the making of an order under subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: After the exciting times in the Committee over the past couple of hours. I suppose that this amendment may seem an anti-climax. Whether or not that is the case and whatever view is taken of the result of passing Amendment No. 1, the amendment that I am now moving is still relevant to the Bill. It would enable the metropolitan county councils or the Greater London Council to delay issuing a rate precept for 1985-86 until after the 1985 elections if they are reinstated by the Secretary of State
1100
or if they are continued with. under the terms of Amendment No. 1.
The paving Bill sets a curious timetable for the authorities presumed to be facing abolition. The outgoing councils will be required to fix a precept and to determine a budget for the year 1985-86 for the incoming nominated councillors who would then be responsible for managing the budget. If the main Bill fails—many of us, I suppose, hope that it will—then, between the date of fixing the precept and the introduction of the interim councils, an unacceptable situation could possibly arise. Elections would be reinstated at a subsequent date. The newly elected councillors would then be forced to run the councils within a budget previously determined for the interim councils.
The range of activities likely to be undertaken by democratically elected councils would clearly be very different in many ways from the functions of interim councils whose only brief was to dismantle the operation of which they were now in charge. The new clause would ensure that should this situation arise—after what has happened today almost any situation, I believe, could arise—the making of a precept could be delayed until after elections have taken place to enable the new council to determine budgets that would reflect the policies on which they had been elected and not the policies of an interim unelected council. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: This new clause appears to be intended to waive the GLC and MCCs' duty to issue a precept sufficient to meet their expenditure for 1985-86 by 11th March 1985 should an order repealing this Bill be made and elections held. They will presumably wish to issue a precept after the elections, and I am advised that the amendment as drafted could be interpreted to mean that unless elections were held after the making of such an order under the Bill, there would be no duty on the GLC and the MCCs to issue a precept at all for 1985–86.
The new clause appears to be technically defective, but that is not the primary reason for rejecting it. Frankly, I see no reason for such an amendment. In the normal course of events, authorities frequently have to budget and to issue precepts and rates in advance of elections. If an order was to be made repealing the Bill, we would expect the 1985 elections to go ahead as soon as practicable. But in the normal course of events they would not have taken place until May. The precept would have had to be set by early March. This has never caused problems in the past. Authorities have always managed to make their precepts on time despite uncertainties about the future.
I see no justification for waiving the important duty on the upper tier metropolitan authorities to produce valid precepts for 1985-86 and in good time, whether or not elections have been suspended and reinstated. I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that the procedure that the new clause seeks to introduce into the Bill is not appropriate. The noble Lord. with his experience, will know that what I say about the facility and the ability of authorities to do this is so. I wonder therefore whether he will not agree with what I say.
Baroness Birk: This is in the context of a different situation to the whole Bill. Nevertheless, the new clause, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, will ensure that should that situation arise, the making of a precept could be delayed until after elections had taken place to enable the new councils to determine budgets that reflect the policies on which they have been elected. We are in a new ball game here. For that reason, it is important that we should have this amendment. The fact that, as the Minister said, it might he flawed in drafting is not the point, as he said himself. As of this moment, I do not feel convinced by his arguments against the substance of it.
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, with his great experience of local government, made a perfectly valid point when he said that outgoing councils which do not know the political complexion of their successors commonly make rates for those successors; there is no doubt about that. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, intended to deny that point; it is very valid.
The point that I understood to be made by the amendment is a rather different one. It is not that the political complexion of the incoming council, whether nominated or elected, might be different—we have to allow for all of those possibilities—but is to allow for the possibility that there could be a difference between a lame-duck council, there deliberately only to run down the activities of the metropolitan county council or the Greater London Council, and, in the event of the main Bill—the abolition Bill—not going through, a council which is intended to carry on its activities, presumably indefinitely.
That is the real difference, and it is not a matter of political complexion, not a matter of the personalities involved. But there must be a huge difference in the kind of budget that is required to run down a council, compared with the budget that is required for a council which Parliament has decided is to continue. If I may say so, I believe that is the point which the Minister has not answered adequately.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should like to reinforce what clearly is a crucial point. The Minister recognises that, in the light of the decision taken earlier tonight, there is literally no certainty about the Government's intentions. We respect completely what has been said. The Government are looking afresh at the situation. We do not know what the Government are going to come up with next week, in the light of the decision. We do not know what will happen if any changes in the Government's present intentions are tested in another place and a parliamentary majority in that place is successful, quite properly and democratically, and the matter comes back here. In the light of the earlier decisions the whole situation, up to and beyond the rate-fixing time in all local authorities, is in a state of flux.
What the Minister is saying is that, regardless of what happens, the councils in situ at the proper rate-making time shall make a rate. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the other powers that the Government took in earlier provisions, that is, in respect of the
1102
Local Government Finance Bill, which abolishes the opportunity of producing supplementary rates. What a council has got to do in February of next year is this. It has got to make a calculation, which it is entitled to do, as to whether or not the main Bill will be passed. The Minister may say that councils should put that out of their minds, but as a politician he realises that that is not possible. When a council makes its decisions next February it is invited, in the light of the hiatus—there will be a hiatus until it is all resolved—to decide the amount of money it is going to ask its ratepayers to pay, and, in the metropolitan situations, the precept upon its paying authorities.
Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who is an officer of the GLC and a Member of your Lordships' House, issued a clear and, in my view, acceptable premise: that if what one is looking forward to in the interim period, however long it might be, is a period of quiescence, and, as the Government would hope, acquiescence, then one is living in cloud cuckoo land. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. What this amendment is seeking to do is to make special provisions, in the light of a month or two months—it might be a little longer, but it will be a short period—to lift from councillors the responsibility of making a rate in the circumstances. They know that, whatever the circumstances are, they are going to change because it is the Government's intention to change them.
If the Government are thwarted, as I hope they will be, that itself is a changed circumstance. Really, what we are saying to the Minister is, "Please, in the light of what you are intending to do, don't make it more awkward for councillors in having to look forward". That, of course, is the responsibility of councillors. They have their plans, their dreams, their programmes and their ambitions, and the Government have their own measuring rods and yardsticks to say they can or cannot do something. That is all known. But what the Government really are saying is that in the light of a possibility of changed political control, or even changed economic circumstances, they want the authority in situ in February—that is about the time; there may be variations, but February is when the rate is made—to make its rate in that circumstance.
I am quite certain that, whatever happens with the intentions of the Government and the progress of the main Bill, and the triggering-off of this Bill, if that is happening, there is going to be a period of uncertainty. What this amendment is asking for is the flexibility which the Government have said they are willing to introduce. I am very seized of the words of the Leader of the House. Quite clearly, there is to be a period of reflection. We are asking the Government to reflect on this very important point. Councillors are responsible people. Whatever their politics, they will be wanting to do what is best for their people, that is, their local ratepayers.
This amendment is providing the Government with the opportunity to stretch the normal period until the dust dies down—we hope that will happen as quickly as possible—after the elections have taken place. The elections will take place on a date to be determined. We are saying, "Why don't we take this opportunity of removing one of the anxieties and one of the frustrations?" In my view it would he helpful to the

1103
Government, and certainly it would be helpful to the "political" climate—I mean, "political" in inverted commas—if the Government indicated that they were not prepared to burden councillors with the difficult task of having to try to forecast what the rate has got to be, at a time when the reality is going to change, perhaps in two or three months.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I can see quite a problem developing if this attitude is going to be pursued. As I understand the argument—I see the point of it—noble Lords opposite are suggesting that because of what happened an hour and a half ago the thing is completely altered and we have got to pursue all the other amendments on the basis that this will not go forward as the Government intended originally. If that is the way they are going to deal with the other amendments, then I think we shall get nowhere at all. There are many stages through which this has got to pass before we can say whether or not the message of the first amendment's defeat of the Government is going to remain in that form.
From the exchange that took place a few minutes ago between the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the Leader of the House I understood that we were going to proceed on the basis that the Government would be getting their general aim, and in the meantime we could deal with the other amendments which were not connected specifically with that particular decision. But if we are going to presume that that decision means the end of that matter then I do not think we will get anywhere. I think my noble friend's explanation was the correct one, under all the circumstances. Which mood are we going to proceed with—that we are likely to have what the Government had in mind, or something like it, or something completely different, as was reflected in the vote of an hour and a half ago?
Baroness Birk: That seems to be an extraordinary contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He cannot ignore what happened a couple of hours ago. We have to deal with the Bill as it is now. The Bill is now as amended, and this is how we are dealing with it. We are going on and trying to deal with the amendments that are not incompatible with what happened when Amendment No. I was passed. This does not mean to say that we do not take that into account. It would be absolutely ludicrous to expect us to assume that the amendment that was won by 48 votes is just going to disappear. We are dealing with the Bill as amended.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is just as ludicrous to suggest that the Bill as amended at this minute is as it will be if it becomes an Act. I thought that the arrangement made by the two Front Benches was that we should act on the assumption that more or less what the Bill contains is likely to be the ultimate end. But to work on the opposite basis can only be dangerous.
Baroness Birk: Nothing of the sort was agreed. What was agreed was that where there were amendments which had no relevance to the original amendment, we would go ahead. But even as regards
1104
those amendments with which we can go ahead, my noble friends are absolutely entitled—so am I and so is anybody else—to take into account, where it is relevant, what happened to Amendment No. 1. That is the normal way in which we proceed. We do not pretend in this House or in another place that something has not happened on the basis that maybe it will be changed. I am very surprised. The noble Lord is an old enough hand as a parliamentarian to know that.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I, too, should like to join in the debate on the ground of anxiety, which has also been referred to by my noble friend Lord Graham on the Front Bench. Although the GLC is often quoted in this House. the Bill has to do with the metropolitan counties and the very many millions of people who are living in the metropolitan counties who seem to be completely forgotten. Perhaps they are forgotten because they are all in deprived areas of this country and areas where there is severe deprivation and very high unemployment.
It is important if one is fixing a rate that one takes into consideration the very substantial role played by the metropolitan county councils in the areas outside London—and I think particularly of the areas which are known to me—as regards economic development. I speak with a great deal of experience of the West Midlands. I was born in the West Midlands and I have lived in the West Midlands the whole of my life. I can see quite clearly the impact of a rate upon trying to create further employment prospects in those areas. It devolves upon the fixing of a rate. Anything that will improve the employment prospects in these parts of the country is vitally important.
If we consider unemployment in the metropolitan counties, we find that in 1974 there were 156,000 unemployed and in 1983 the figure had increased to 800,000 in the metropolitan counties. Therefore, anything that affects the rate and that might detract from anything that the metropolitan counties do with regard to development and with regard to increasing employment, must be considered.
Lord Bellwin: Let me say how much I welcome the conversion of the noble Baroness. I remember so well that when we discussed a certain Bill—and I will look it up in Hansard and send the appropriate passage to her—she argued passionately how unimportant rates were, what a low percentage they were of each company's business, and that they just did not matter. Therefore, I am so pleased that now she agrees, as we have said all along, that rates play a very large part indeed. If the noble Baroness doubts me I promise to send her the quotation from Hansard.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With all due respect, that was a complete exaggeration of what I said previously.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Baroness will know whether it is an exaggeration when she receives a letter from me with the quotation.
Meanwhile, so far as this amendment is concerned, I should like to repeat what I said previously. I wonder whether it is really understood that the existing

1105
authorities—the GLC and the metropolitan counties—in any event, regardless of what happens, will have to make the next rate for the year in question. They will have to do that anyway, regardless of what takes place.
I should like also to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, to what happened in the Rates Bill, because the noble Lord may have overlooked this point. The Government were pressed at the time as regards the position of a rating authority with an invalid precept from a rate limit set previously, and powers were sought for the authority to raise it to meet a later valid precept. We said that we would consider the situation and we did so at the Report stage in your Lordships' House. We passed an amendment that enables a rating authority in receipt of a valid precept after it has made its rate to make a higher substituted rate to cover the precept and to pass on administrative expenses to the precepting authority. Of course this will provide a remedy in any case of a precept made after the relevant rate has been issued. I believe that that point and the other point about what has to take place are really a complete answer to the noble Lord, but he may not have known that was the case.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I do not think that any politician would ever admit that he did not know what was going on. He merely pretends, by speaking round the subject for ages, that he knows more about it than those putting it forward. However, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, made the point that this is a Bill about the metropolitan counties in addition to Greater London. Either consciously or unconsciously the noble Lord the Minister has stirred up those behind him in the belief that they can cock a snook at "Red Ken"; whereas in fact there are many other councils with which this Bill deals, but which perhaps have less high profiles than the Greater London Council. That is a very important point. We must remember that this Bill deals with six metropolitan counties in addition to Greater London.
I do not need to be told that the rates that a council has to implement are very often settled by a previous Administration. Part of the trouble that they are having in Liverpool at the moment is that the Labour Party is having to implement an unworkable—they claim—Liberal budget which, of couse, is a matter with which I totally disagree. So it is not always all sweetness and light between these two Benches; there is quite a wide river at times.
I must say that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is a most important one. Clearly a council that is there to do a job as a caretaker in winding up an authority will have a different budgetary outlook from a council that intends to go on doing things it believes—perhaps wrongly—to be right; for example, taking action to help people suffering from unemployment. Indeed, I am concerned to see what the Government will be proposing later in these amendments as regards Section 137 and the two penny rate. There is a difference between the philosophy of a council that is hoping to go on to ameliorate the conditions of the people in the area who elected it and the philosophy of a council which is nominated purely to wind itself up. That is the basic point of the amendment.
1106
However, having said that, I am more than willing to be reasonable, to look carefully at what the noble Lord has said and to reconsider the matter to see whether, in the light of what he says and the advice that I take, this amendment may be unnecessary. On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No.12:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Responsibility for paying election expenses.
. All the expenses of any elections of councillors to the Greater London Council or any metropolitan county council held after the making of an Order under subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act shall be born by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a little more difficult in that it deals with the responsibility for payment of election expenses if elections are reinstated following the failure of the main abolition Bill. In the light of Amendment No. 1 which was agreed earlier this evening I must confess that I am not sure at this stage whether this particular new clause still applies. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, must realise that these clauses were put down long before, or some time before, we knew what would happen today. We tabled this clause because we felt that the Government, in a very persistent kind of way, were forcing the cancellation of elections before the decision had been made whether the local authorities, which were to be elected, were to be abolished. That is the gravamen of our objection to this: that the cart has been put before the horse; that we are abolishing elections before we have abolished the bodies to which the elections are taking place.
Therefore, the practical effect would be that elections which would normally be due in May 1985 would not take place, although the possibility would remain (and I submit that that possibility is very much greater than it was when this amendment was tabled) that those elections could be reinstated at a later date—perhaps in October or November—if abolition had not been approved; in other words, if the main Bill had not been carried.
In administrative terms, this is a lot of nonsense and would probably lead to increased costs in every direction within the local authorities concerned. Therefore, because, in my submission the Secretary of State seeks to make changes to the electoral process before that has arisen, he should bear the cost of that proposal if his policies are subsequently reversed and the elections take place. That is the basis upon which I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, would explain what his amendment means. It says:
"All the expenses of any elections of councillors to the Greater London Council".
Is he referring there solely to the administrative expenses which would in the normal way fall on the council, or to what, in the strict sense, one might call the election expenses of the councillors? As he has drafted this amendment, it looks as though it would include both. I can see no conceivable reason why the

1107
Secretary of State should finance the expenses of those people who, rightly or wrongly, put themselves forward for election to the council. Secondly, on the broader point, if the elections, having been previously abolished, are restored as a result of subsequent developments, I can see no reason why their cost should not fall exactly where it would have fallen anyhow; that is to say, on the local authorities concerned. If the local authorities concerned are so anxious to have elections, I should have thought that they should pay for them.
Lord Bellwin: As he always does, my noble friend makes very well the point that I want to make. I am bound to say that I am advised that the new clause as drafted is defective. It could well be interpreted as meaning that the Government would have to pay for every election to the GLC or MCCs from the repeal of the Bill thereafter—no doubt there are some who might find that an attractive prospect, but few would argue that it was equitable. Furthermore, it would make the Government liable even if the May 1985 elections were never suspended—by a commencement order—and went ahead as normal after the Bill was repealed.
However, the intention of the new clause is clear. As has been said, it is to make the Government liable for costs of the elections to the GLC and MCCs which would follow failure of the main abolition proposals.
The timing, form and terms of such elections would depend on when abolition failed and when the order to repeal the paving Bill was made. It may be that elections to these authorities could be held normally. In such a case, I can see no justification for laying the costs of the elections on the Government. The whole purpose of an order under subsection (2) of Clause 1 is to reinstate the former situation as soon as practicable. Part of that former situation is that local authorities pay for their own elections.
It may be that circumstances lead to abnormal costs. It is open to the Secretary of State, under subsection (3) of Clause 1, to include in the repeal order special arrangements to deal with such abnormal costs as there may be. And I remind the Committee that this order is subject—dare I say it?—to affirmative resolution of both Houses. That, quite clearly, is the sensible time for Parliament to decide whether there is a case, given exceptional circumstances, for the Government to pay some or all of the costs of an election.
I shall not go over the points that we were making in the original debate on the first amendment about abolition, the repeal and the opportunities to restore. I do not think that we need to do that again tonight.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister seeks to reassure us that in the circumstances that could well arise and in the circumstances for which this new clause is designed, there is no need to do that. That may very well be so. I have listened with care to the references which the Minister has made to the possibility that when the repeal orders are put forward it will be within the power of the Secretary of State to take into account representations that he has received
1108
from authorities which have been thwarted in holding their elections, say, six months earlier than they otherwise would have.
The Minister quite rightly points out that he cannot govern the parliamentary timetable, although earlier this evening he gave some indication of a possible scenario of time, which clearly indicated that the main Bill could be with us certainly into next spring/summer. Therefore, we are talking in terms of being unable to make arrangements for elections until the end of July, as both Houses have to affirm that. Therefore, we are talking of September or October. So the main Bill will be perhaps six or seven months later.
Furthermore, the cost of inflation is a factor to be borne in mind. The cost of holding elections later will, on the margin, inevitably be more expensive. In addition, certain preparations have to be made. Although it may be only on a provisional basis, one has to book rooms, prepare papers, and so on; and all this takes up time. The Minister may say that those are abortive costs and could be taken into account. If that is the case, this short debate will reassure people.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, makes that one does not want to have a free election simply because the Government have been thwarted by the will of Parliament. The cost of an election that takes place early in 1985 would be borne by the council administratively and by the councillors politically. If that election takes place six months later, the council ought to carry the administrative costs and the councillors and their parties the political costs. In my view there is no intention of seeking to get an election on the cheap or free of charge.
The noble Lord. Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised the premise upon which we shall proceed: we proceed on the premise that, having won the first major vote, it is possible that we shall win other major votes. There is no certainty at all about that, just as there is no certainty of the Government being defeated on other votes or of winning them, especially in another place, although that is perhaps more likely in another place than in your Lordships' House.
Therefore, if one has to clutch at a straw in the wind as to the final form of the Bill, it is likely to be in line with the will of this House as expressed on the first amendment. That was a free-standing amendment. We know that the independent Members of your Lordships' Committee can take a view which some Members on this side would think is eminently preferable. But they may very well vote the other way. The point of this amendment and others is to try to anticipate the most likely eventuality. It is possible that the orders are made, the elections are cancelled, the Government fail to get their main Bill, and therefore there have to be orders to reinstate.
We have never for a moment on this side questioned the Minister's integrity or his constitutional propriety. He has been fair in spelling out what he would want to do on the face of the Bill, and where we are uncertain he has spelt out particularly the timetable. All this amendment seeks to do is to anticipate the possibility of an additional cost to be borne by the council.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and picked up by the Minister. If the amendment is defective because of ambiguities and

1109
provides the opportunity of taking things two ways, clearly the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will seek time to reflect. This is a continuing drama to the extent that we shall be engaged in this place until the House rises, whenever that may be, in a changing scenario. I take from the Leader of the House that, while he recognised what had taken place here, he was not prepared to give anything away in advance of mature thought, or mature reflection over all the circumstances.
He reserved the right to try, try, and try again if that was the will and wish of the Cabinet and the Government, and he is entitled to do that. We on this side are entitled to recognise that if that is the nature of the situation, well the Government are entitled seek to get their will democratically, constitutionally, and fairly, and I have said nothing against that at any stage of this matter. But in the circumstances we are even more entitled to move this amendment than before the passing of Amendment No. 1 this evening.
Anything can happen, and what we have tried to do is to anticipate the possibility of councils being in hard pressed situations where they are bereft of additional funds, particularly if they have made their budgets earlier and cautiously, and been counselled to he cautious. Now the Minister has spoken and pointed out that it is in the gift of the Secretary of State to take into account any additional burden which they have had to bear because of the delay. In those circumstances I think the Minister has served the Committee well, but I shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has to say.
Lord Evans of Claughton: As I sat listening to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I was thinking that I had been far too conservative in the amendment that I had put down. I should have been more radical and suggested all elections, all costs, administrative and political, and that it should be retrospective for the last 30 years. During that period I fought 18 elections and it would help my budget somewhat if one were to carry such an amendment. Of course, I concede that the chances of carrying such an amendment would be remote.
To deal with the remarks made by he noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am reminded of a passage in one of the more famous P. G. Wodehouse novels where Bertie Wooster says to Jeeves, "Rem acu tetigisti"—you hit it with a needle—and he is absolutely right. The amendment should have stated that this is administrative expenses and not the political expenses of an election.
As your Lordships will know, local authorities plan ahead and say there will be an election on 5th May 1981, or 7th May 1982, 9th May 1983, and so on. They make arrangements for the administration of those elections well in advance. If there is this uncertainty, which is inevitable with the legislation before us, they will have to make provisional arrangements for elections on the appropriate date in 1985—May the something—if the county council elections are to continue. They may well have to cancel those arrangements and possibly introduce new arrangements at short notice, which would be an additional administrative expense.
1110
It is against that kind of eventuality that I was seeking to protect the local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, it is important that this should be aired, because we are in an unknown area of human activity at the moment. We do not know what is going to happen. Local authorities, councillors, and those involved in local government are entitled to know that the matter has been considered somewhere, and debated.
I take the points that have been made that if local authorities are so anxious to continue elections they should pay for them, but the local authorities have always been anxious to continue elections. There is no anxiety among the metropolitan councils or the GLC to stop elections. It is because of the Government's decision that elections should be abolished that the Government should have faced any additional administrative costs that local authorities have to face.
As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, predicted, in all the circumstances I shall ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the amendment so that I can look at it and perhaps take further advice and see whether an amendment which more accurately reflects our wishes can be put down at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Suspension of elections and appointment of councillors]:
8.56 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("before that date").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the issue of by-elections; the situations which occur after the main elections have been held. Clause 2(1) says:
"No election of—

(a) councillors of the Greater London Council; or

(b) councillors for a metropolitan county, shall be held on or after the date on which this Part of this Act comes into force"—

that is most important—
"except an election to fill a casual vacancy in an office where before that date the office has been declared to be vacant or notice of the vacancy has been given under section 89(1) of the principal Act".
The words that this amendment seeks to strike out are "before that date".
The amendment, which seeks to remove the barrier in Clause 2(1) where a vacancy occurs after the date of the order made by the Secretary of State, is clearly contentious. This is particularly so in the context of the Government's determination not merely to avoid by-elections but also to cancel whole elections. It is not possible to view the intention of the subsection without looking carefully at the intention—which the Government have never hidden—to deny to the electors of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC that which they were entitled to look forward to, which was an opportunity to express a political view on the complexion of their council in May 1985.
This provision could have serious implications for the representation of electors in the areas of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. The Secretary of

1111
State is expected to make an order after the Second Reading of the main Bill. That order will name a date in the House of Commons, which could be several months before 7th May 1985, when the interim councils are due to begin. We forget entirely the possibilities which emerge from the decisions made earlier this year.
If the Secretary of State names a date several months before 7th May 1985 he is making sterile the election-making processes for something like 18 million people where there is a death, a serious illness, or where for any reason a councillor who has been democratically elected decides he no longer wishes, for party or personal reasons, to continue.
The purpose of this amendment, besides being probing, is also serious. It is to ask the Minister whether it is correct that if a vacancy occurs for whichever of the reasons I have given, including the death of a member, or serious illness. it could not be filled after the implemention of the order? In other words, if that is the situation we are faced with, we have to ask the Minister why, in no circumstances, will there be the odd opportunity for the electors to declare a view? We recognise that it is not possible to remove entirely the context of the abolition issue from such by-elections, but why are the Government so afraid to provide opportunities, which will not be very frequent, and to allow those electors to have that opportunity? They would prefer to see the electors of a metropolitan authority to be represented by councillors who had not been elected to that metropolitan authority.
As we see it. the subsection will prevent by-elections caused by resignations after the introduction of Part II. We await the decision of the Cabinet and the Government and the announcements of the Minister about the full purport of the decision taken here tonight. The Minister will not be surprised if I say that, faced with the cancellation of elections, it is likely that a number of councillors on metropolitan authorities and the GLC could conclude that by-elections represent the only democratic option left by the Government to allow metropolitan electors to make their own judgment on their councils. These decisions will be taken in the full knowledge that clearly they are purposeful. They are designed for testing not only the will of the people who will be standing, but also the view of the Government that their decisions and their legislative programme has the full support of the people who the Government say they represent.
I am not remotely pleading in aid the mandate which was obtained in 1981 as being more valid than one obtained in 1983. I am talking simply in terms of people having the opportunity at some time late in 1984 to express their will.
Not only will the elections in May be cancelled unless this amendment is agreed, but so will all pending by-elections. Electors will have no opportunity to vote in elections of any kind after the activation of Part II at a time when it is likely that the main Bill will hardly have begun to be considered by Parliament. In other words, we are talking in terms of an order-making date which cancels the possibility of by-elections coming into effect some time in October, November, December, January, February, March,
1112
April and May of next year. We are asking what on earth the Government are doing running away from the occasional test of their view that what they are proposing has the full support of the people of the Midlands, Merseyside, and other areas, never mind, as has been said more than once, the support of the people of London.
The Government may be right. I am one of those who acknowledge, whatever the circumstances and whatever the height of the poll—whether it is as low as for the European Parliament, or as high as for a general election—that if the people are given the opportunity to express their will, we must accept it, warts and all, as their view on that day, in those circumstances. We are saying that if the Government are not prepared to tighten up—not for party political purposes, as some of the forced by-elections may be seen to be, but for genuine reasons such as a death or an illness, which are clearly seen not to be politically inspired—why are they not prepared to allow that possibility to exist within the Bill?
I hope that the Government have some convincing reasons why they are not prepared to strike out the words "before that date". Otherwise, we shall be entitled to the view that the Government are denying not only the opportunity next May, but also the opportunity if it happens in the normal course of events. I have done no research on how often a by-election is caused. The last series of by-elections have not been to the benefit of the Government in political terms in the Greater London area; but that can change. I am simply asking why we deny this opportunity whenever a proper by-election occurs? Why do we not take the opportunity for testing the water? I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Let me say at once that what is proposed is entirely consistent with precedents of earlier reorganisations when by-elections were stopped after Royal Assent to the reorganisation legislation. This amendment seeks to remove by-elections from the provisions suspending elections to the abolition authorities. The Local Government Act 1972 requires a by-election to be held within six weeks of a vacancy arising, except in the six months leading up to the ordinary elections to a council. During those six months no by-elections are held, except those for vacancies arising before the beginning of the period or, if more than one-third of a council's seats are vacant. In the normal course of events those circumstances are likely to arise quite rarely. One would expect, therefore, that no by-elections to abolition authorities would be held after early December 1984. That seems sensible, given the fairly short period of office that would be served by anyone elected at a later by-election.
However, it will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that some councillors in the abolition authorities have talked about resignations to force by-elections within the six-months period leading to May 1985. One can have a view about that. If the people concerned are determined to resign, we cannot—and would—not wish to stop them from so doing. But I think it would be seen clearly to be what it is. We have had no shortage of gimmickry and distortion in the massive campaigns. Certainly, money will be no

1113
object. The millions that are being spent on these things will be just another part of the whole of this unhappy scenario. I do not see that the Government should try to facilitate beyond that period at present laid down. I hope that the Committee will feel likewise and, if the noble Lord pushes it, reject this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister indicated the normal situation. We are not in the normal situation. Normally, we would know that elections would take place in May 1985. We do not know whether elections will or will not take place in 1985. We know that it is the Government's intention that they shall not take place in May 1985 but we do not know the situation. The Minister takes us very carefully, properly and sincerely backwards. He points out that in the normal course of events, the latest date for a by-election would be December of this year. That is on the premise that the elections, if they had been held. would have been held in May of next year. But we know from the situation, both from the determination of the Government and from the determination of those who oppose the Government, that there is no certainty as to when the elections, if they are to be held, will be held.
To be fair, the Government have made the provision if they fail to get their main legislation, if, in fact, there is that failure to get legislation literally—and, certainly, the opponents would be entitled to make that at the very last possible moment. When is the last possible moment? Do they talk in terms of the end of the next Session? We know what can happen with obdurate governments and obdurate oppositions. There is literally no certainty as to when the elections will take place. What we are saying is that the Minister intends to make an order that no by-election shall take place. It could very well be—it is possible—that it is December. But, suppose that eventually when the Government are beaten (if they are eventually beaten) we are not talking in terms of a delay of six months but we are talking of a possibility that there would be no by-election held or authorised for not just five months from December till May, but 10 months.
It could very well go beyond next summer. The Minister is telling us with certainty that a resolution one way or the other will need to be taken—and, with respect, there are parliamentary opportunities which will be seized upon by the proponents of the Bill (and there are many of those) and opponents of the Bill. I am asking this of the Ministers. Can he not take on board the possibilities? Forget the gimmickry and forget the allusions to the intentions I would have said they were forced to do it to test the water. They are anxious and they make no hesitation about it. The people who oppose the Bill in the metropolitan areas
1114
believe that they have the people on their side. The Government believe that they have the people on their side.
The Government plead in aid a mandate which is now more than 12 months old. That is the general election. We are saying that they could very well have been right then; but we believe that they would be wrong now; that is, in the next four, five or six months. The Government have been very free in suspending, in cancelling, in putting out of court, all sorts of legislation which is not directly related but is germane. We are simply saying in the special circumstances in which (as we would certainly say) without adequate preparations or consultation the Government are doing this, can they not merely (on the basis of tolerating the possibility) understand that a proper by-election would fall to take place after the order-making process?
We are not saying that we have got a right. We think that by taking out these words we are allowing by-elections to take place in January, February, March, April, May if they properly occur. We are really saying to the Government that we are in the business of trying to avoid gimmicks, and we are in the business of trying to provide people, when it properly occurs, with the opportunity of indicating their view on the main intentions of the Government. I should like to hear from the Minister once more.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord makes one point to which I feel I currently do not have an adequate answer. His point about an extension of time beyond May in certain circumstances seems on the face of it to be something to which I feel my own response is not adequate. For the other reasons that I gave earlier, I do not like the basic thrust of the amendment as such. I just feel that I ought to and would want to give a better answer than I am able to give at the moment. I would therefore certainly want to study this and come back on the point later. What I will do, if the noble Lord agrees, is to write to him and if I can be satisfied, then at least I will explain to him where the Government stand and he can then perhaps decide what to do. But I do feel that what I have here is not adequate on that very fair point that he makes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is most gracious of the Minister, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In the temporary absence from the Chamber of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I have been asked by him to say that Amendment No. 14 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
9.16 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved Amendment No, 15:
Page 2, line 29, after ("councils") insert ("and the Common Council").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Renton. This is the first and key amendment of a fasciculus of amendments extending over Clause 9 and the first two schedules. The other amendments are consequential and designed only to give appropriate mechanical effect to the first and key amendment which contains the pith and purpose of this fasciculus of amendments. This purpose is to add the Common Council of the City of London to the constituent councils which, as your Lordships know, are entrusted with the duty of appointment of councillors for the transitional period.
This is, I hope, an uncontroversial amendment. which is refreshing after all the storms of the afternoon. It is certainly an ecumenical amendment. An amendment was put forward in another place which would have had the same effect of adding a representative of the City of London to the constituent council. That amendment was moved by a Liberal Member of Parliament. It is true that, like so much of Liberal practice and philosophy, the intention was good but the means of implementing it fell a little short. Consequently the amendment as put by him did not commend itself to the Minister, but its purpose and effect was similar to that which I am moving now, even though I am putting it forward on a basis which I think and hope is more likely to commend itself to Ministers and to the House.
While on the subject of Liberal attitudes, I was going to say that I have a kind message of support from the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who. I was informed, was unable to grace our proceedings today and bring to us his sage counsel and wise guidance —my words, I hasten to say, rather than his. I am very glad to see that he seems to have overcome his difficulties and he is in his place hopefully to speak for himself: and who better?—for though this House is accustomed to Queen's Counsel, an eminent patent silk is still quite something. and hopefully he will testify his support himself.
I put this amendment forward primarily on the basis that the City of London should have a representative on the transitional council on the grounds that it is a successor authority for some of the functions to be carried on. This is a basis which the Minister in another place conceded; or, if that sounds rather a churlish term, proclaimed to be an appropriate basis.
The position in regard to the specific functions of the Greater London Council. which may be taken over and exercised by the City in whole or in part, is not yet definitive in that discussions on this subject are still taking place with Ministers. The City has, however. already agreed in principle to take over responsibility for the Greater London Record Office. Further discussions continue concerning Thames' bridges and tunnels; the Historic Buildings Board: the London History Library; the Scientific Services Branch, including the public analyst service; the Research Library and the London Intelligence Section.
As your Lordships know, the City Corporation also has major responsibilities for the arts in the Barbican
1116
Centre; the London Museum; and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. There is, therefore, a very clear case for the inclusion of the City in the transitional council in the capacity of successor authority and in compliance with the principle approved by Ministers.
That case is strongly reinforced on financial grounds by the size of the City's contribution both to the Greater London Council and to the Inner London Education Authority. I am sure that your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that that is very substantial indeed. I have to be rather careful here because these astronomical figures are not my everyday thinking, but my understanding is that in 1984-85 the Greater London Council precept and that of ILEA together have risen in total to a staggering £345 million. To put it into more easily comprehensible terms, nearly 90 per cent. of the total levy made by the City Corporation on its ratepayers is exported for the benefit of Londoners as a whole. The precept of the GLC in fact comes to no less than 13 per cent. of that authority's total expenditure. and that of ILEA to a still greater 22½ per cent.
So it is clear on these two important criteria—that of successor functions and the size and scope of financial contributions—that the City should have a representa-tive on the council. There is. however, if I may just add this in conclusion, a more general reason for the inclusion of the City among those authorities entitled to have representation in the Constituent Council for Greater London. That derives from the high standing, the great experience and the unique position of the City of London, combining, as it does. in its small square mile, long history and imperishable tradition as well as being one of the world's major financial centres, with earnings of foreign exchange amounting to about £4,000 million a year.
During the life of the Constituency Council major decisions are likely to be taken on the future adminis-tration of our capital city. It is surely unthinkable that such decisions should be denied, in their preparation and formulation, the unique expertise and informed guidance of the City of London. I will not perhaps go so far as to say it would be a case of playing "Hamlet" without the Prince of Denmark, but it would indeed be a surprising omission from a cast in which all 32 London boroughs figure.
Hopefully. some of your Lordships may find it opportune to express brief testimony in support of this amendment. And outside this Chamber there is support from the great and the good in the City of London itself. These include leading institutions such as the Stock Exchange, the London Chamber of Commerce. the General Council of British Shipping, the British Insurance Association and the Committee of London Clearing Bankers. I will not dilate on the importance and significance of such support. If I were to do so, your Lordships would weary not of their excellence but of my reiteration.
In summary, therefore, I submit to your Lordships that the case is clear. I respectfully submit it to your Lordships, and I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Renton: I should like briefly to support the powerful plea made by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne with, if I may say so, his usual lucidity and persuasion. I think there is only one important fact that I need add to what he has said, and that is this: if your Lordships will turn to Amendment No. 90 on the Marshalled List you will see that we are asking for only one more member to be added to the Constituent Council.
Amendment No. 90: Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("The Common Council .. .. .. .. .. 1").
For the great City of London to be represented by one councillor is indeed, I suggest, a modest plea. May I just add this: the City has for generations been the workplace, the showpiece, a focus of activity and interest, and sometimes, I think, of loyalty for millions of people living in the London boroughs. Therefore, as my noble friend says, it is unthinkable that the City of London should be excluded from the important discussions which will take place during the interim period and the preparations which will call for achieving a degree of consistency among the future bodies which will govern London, and indeed a degree of liaison in those matters, especially, which my noble friend mentioned. Therefore, we hope for a most encouraging reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like very briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for the very kind way in which he referred to me in moving this amendment. There is another group of persons who are strongly in favour of this amendment and that is the liverymen and the various livery companies in the City of London. I must declare an interest in giving my support to this amendment. I have been very strongly pressed by my livery company, of which I am a past-master, to support this strong amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne—and according to the traditions of this House I cannot refer to him, as I often do in another context, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Broxbourne—for being kind enough to say that it was a Liberal Member of Parliament who raised this theme, albeit unsuccessfully, in another place.
When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, strongly supporting this amendment, with which I heartily agree, I feel that it would be a novel departure for this Government to decide to penalise the City of London or its individual electors in this way. I have wondered what was the explanation. Perhaps, after hearing those two powerful speeches, the most likely explanation is that the Government have completely misunderstood this Bill in at least one respect. I beg strongly to support this amendment.
Baroness Birk: I find it very strange and somewhat amusing that this Government appear to have forgotten about the City of London. The City of London, with its powerful interests, and with the amount of money that it spends, and which comes to it, is extremely small so far as residents are concerned.
1118
It is also one of the biggest closed shops that I know, particularly when it comes to the election of aldermen. I can only think that the Government must have forgotten about it, because no reason has been given for what is an extraordinary anomaly. It will receive functions from the GLC under the abolition proposals, in a way similar to the London borough councils.
There may have been a Freudian explanation for this. Maybe the Government, underneath the subliminals, wanted to abolish the City of London, but I would not have thought that that would come from this Government. The City contains but 4,500 electors, so it is very small in voting personnel, and they will even be deprived of the right of direct representation on the GLC that is conferred by the Bill on all other Londoners.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that it would be a novel departure for this Government to decide to penalise the City of London or its individual electors. I was rather surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the schedule, which allows only one seat on the council. With 4,500 voters, that is certainly not ungenerous—
Lord Renton: Is the noble Baroness ignoring entirely the vast numbers of people who go from the London boroughs to work in the City every day?
Baroness Birk: No. I am not ignoring them, but that happens in many other urban centres. Unless people are living there and have voting rights they are not considered to be residents and are not electors. We all know that the number of electors is very small indeed. Some of my best friends are electors in the City of London. They are only a small group, but they wield very great power. Perhaps the explanation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, is that the Government have misunderstood their own Bill, because since the GLC boundaries coincide exactly with the parliamentary constituencies of London, as a unit the City of London with Westminster South is represented by a single GLC member. The department must have been under the impression that this arrangement would he carried over into the interim arrangements under Schedule 1, but it was pointed out during the Committee stage in another place that the effect of the Bill would he that City electors would be represented by one of the Westminster appointees, much as under the present arrangement. This arose because Schedule 1 is based on borough rather than parliamentary boundaries.
The Government seem to have misled themselves on this point. What makes it even more amusing is that at Third Reading in another place my honourable friend Dr. Cunningham drew the attention of the Speaker to this anomaly and to two opinions from counsel which the GLC had received. Then they got into the area of possible hybridity. However, the Speaker ruled that the Bill was not prima facie hybrid. However, the issue clearly appears to be embarrassing to the Government. They have consistently argued that the abolition of the elections represents an insubstantial issue because they are to be replaced by indirect representation through constituent councils: yet the Bill fails to accord such representation to a

1119
small but well identified group of electors whose opinions are largely of very considerable interest to Conservative governments. I wonder why, having realised that point, either in another place or here, the Government did not bring forward amendments?
It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, or turn them down, and whether, if they are turned down, the noble Lord decides to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Boardman: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is in favour of, or opposed to, the amendment. I most strongly support my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. I welcome, too, the support of the Liberal Benches. I speak with a declared interest, as the chairman of the largest contributor to the £345 million of City rates. I would correct my noble friend on one other figure. In referring to the contribution made by the City as a whole to our industrial prosperity by invisible earnings, my noble friend referred to the figure of £4,000 million. I believe he will find, after research, that that is the net figure, after taking off the Government "invisibles". The contribution of the City to our economy is even greater than he implied.
Lord Broxbourne: I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to thank him for that very helpful correction. Like Clive of old, I stand astonished at my own moderation.
Lord Boardman: Be that as it may, the point is that the City is a tremendously important part of our national economy. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is a question not of the number of electors who are within the City, but of the number of people who go to work there and the people who depend upon the City for their livelihood throughout very large parts of our economy. It would be regrettable and unfortunate if. in the re-formed organisation which is now before the Committee, the City were not to be represented. I shall not go into the arguments, which have been very well put by my noble friends and others. All I would say is that I hope very strongly that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. If it were rejected, that would be very harshly felt by the City and by those who play such an important part in our economy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find this to be a strange amendment and I cannot support it. I consider that it is almost a case of reinstating the business ratepayer. Surely we have always based all local government, ever since the elimination of the vote for the business person, upon a resident population. There is a very small resident population in the City. I am very impressed by the way that the amendment has been moved and I have every respect for the City institutions, but the amendment would throw out the whole pattern of this interim provisions Bill. I spoke earlier this afternoon on the point that it was just by chance that there would be more Conservative people than Labour people on the council, because of the representation in the parliamentary constituencies.
1120
This pattern would be completely destroyed if one extra person were to be included. If we include one extra person, why can we not include whatever number are required to retain the present Labour control?—a point which has been made by other speakers.
At the moment, the Cities of London and Westminster are represented jointly by one particular person on the Greater London Council. This same person is also an elected member of Westminster City Council. and he is very likely to be one of the two people who will be appointed from Westminster City Council to the interim authority. Therefore, if he is capable of representing the City perfectly well now, as he has done for a number of years, I see no reason why he cannot continue to do so after the interim stage—particularly since it is only an interim stage.
The point has been made in this debate that various duties and responsibilities would pass to the City corporation in the normal way. We are only talking about a period of 11 months. Despite the fact that this amendment has been superbly moved, the danger is that it will destroy completely the argument that we were proposing one person for every parliamentary constituency in London. For those reasons I oppose this amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she will bear in mind that this is an exceptional case, in that although there are only 4,500 voters resident in the City, nevertheless the people who go to work there earn the rates which enable no less than £345 million to be paid to Londoners in general.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I accept that point, and I know also (although it is a much lesser number) that there is a similarly huge influx of people every day into the City of Westminster. But still it will be only those who are resident in Westminister who will be able to vote and have elected their Member of Parliament. The same is true in the City. The City member has been elected for the Cities of London and Westminster.
9.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In purely rational terms. my former GLC colleague, the noble Baroness, has cut the ground completely from under her noble friends—there can be no doubt about that. Unless this House, with all its notable representative status, is going to say that the City of London should be the precursor of the return of the business vote, and that rateable values should be the criterion rather than one person/one vote in local government, then, as the noble Baroness has said, there is no justification whatsoever for including the Common Council. It is proposed in this amendment that the Common Council should be represented on the new council.
The noble Baroness has not completely told the story about the City of London in London government. It is true, as she says, that the representa-tive on the Greater London Council is of the City of Westminster and the City of London. But on the Inner London Education Authority, there is a direct representative of the Common Council from a constit-

1121
uency which contains, as she has said, 4,500 electors and possibly no more than two or three schools, if that; I doubt whether there are many more.
The noble Baroness has destroyed the case for this amendment in rational terms; but there are reasons for being sympathetic towards the intentions of the movers of this amendment. The first is that the whole of the Common Council is elected for one year only—a 100 per cent. election each year. That is exactly the objection which the Government have had to the proposition that there should be an election in May 1985 for one year only—and yet the City of London, which is perhaps the most venerable of our local government institutions, exhibits exactly that anomaly which the Government consider to be so impossible in respect of London and the metropolitan counties.
The other reason why, emotionally, I am not totally unsympathetic to the City of London stems from my own experience as a member of the Greater London Council. There were times—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone, will sympathise when I say this—when many of us who have positions of responsibility there, and while accepting that there has to be a city government in London, questioned whether it really had to start at County Hall. Is it really possible to chain that huge bureaucracy? Is it possible to turn it around, like a tanker, to fit the needs of the last part of the twentieth century? There were times when I was tempted to believe that a real city government for London ought not to start from the GLC. Needless to say, I returned to the defence of the GLC when it was attacked in such a ruthless and unrepresentative way by the Government who wishes to abolish city government in London; but I did wonder whether County Hall was the starting place. It occurred to me also to think that the ancient traditions of the City of London, the vast wealth of the City of London, its magnificent municipal buildings and its fine banqueting traditions may be a better starting place for proper city government for London. If these wicked Bills go through and we have to start again under a more enlightened regime, perhaps there may be an opportunity for the Corporation of the City of London to play its part in reviving democratic local government for the whole of Greater London.
Lord Bellwin: May I first of all make clear that in addition to Amendment No. 15 we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 86, 89, 90, 92 and 102. I am sure my noble friend Lord Broxbourne is in agreement with that.
Amendment No. 86: Page 8, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 29.
Amendment No. 89: Schedule I, page 9, line 9, column leave out ("Londo borough") and insert ("Constituent councils").
Amendment No. 90: Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("The Common Council … … … … … … 1").
Amendment No. 92: Page 10, line 8, column 2, leave out ("10") and insert ("9").
Amendment No. 102: Schedule 2, page 14, line 31, after ("borough") insert ("or the Common Council").
Just before I come to the amendment itself, perhaps I can deal with the digressions. Starting at the back and working upwards. can I say to the noble Lord, Lord
1122
McIntosh, who said that we would wish to abolish city government in London, if by that he means the GLC I certainly do not consider that is city government in London, whatever else it may be; but that is for another day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the Government had possibly misled themselves or maybe we were now embarrassed. Let me hasten to say that we have not misled ourselves and we are not in the least embarrassed about this; there is a perfectly proper explanation. The fact is that the City is a small part in area and population—though certainly not in stature—of the constituency represented by my honourable friend Mr. Peter Brooke. As the noble Baroness reminded us, my figure is about 5,000 (but I would not quarrel) of the 68,000 electors of the constituency who live in the City of London, and the remaining electors of the Westminster City Council area are part of the constituency of my honourable friend Mr. John Wheeler. It was against that background of the preponderance of Westminster voters that it seemed right to allocate both the GLC seats to the City of Westminster.
I have to say that I am sympathetic to the arguments. I congratulate my noble friend on the extremely fine way in which he presented his case. The fact is that of course the City is an authority in its own right. For all purposes of the Bill the City is treated on a par with the boroughs. It will have the power to require information; it will have the right to object to the auditor of the GLC accounts and to be consulted on the GLC's budget, and to be involved with the staff commission. So certainly it is an authority in its own right. We feel on reflection that as the Bill stands the City of London is the only successor local authority not to be represented separately on the transitional council. The arguments which have been put forward are—to say the least—very persuasive, and I am really very pleased to say that we are happy to accept these amendments.
Lord Broxbourne: In view of what my noble friend the Minister has so graciously said, I need only take up 30 seconds of your Lordships' time in replying to thank him for his co-operative attitude, and to thank my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boardman and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their powerful speeches in support.
Regarding the two speeches in opposition. I am a very charitable person, so I shall make a very charitable comment upon them. I find it remarkable that both of them should have addressed the Committee and not referred for a single second to the main point in which I put forward this proposition of the successor authority exercising functions, the criterion expressly defined by the Minister in another place. But perhaps when they have thought about it a little longer they will join in the general gratification that this amendment is to be accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord sits down, in justice he ought to pay tribute to the very serious speech of his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rather than appear to think that the opposition comes only from my noble friend and myself.
Lord Broxbourne: I appreciate that in this case, contrary to the norm, my noble friend's reasoning was less persuasive than it normally is when she is good enough to address us.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Again before the noble Lord sits down, and to keep him busy, I presume that he is suggesting that in the usual City tradition this member would be an Independent and, therefore, it would not change the political complexion. As I mentioned earlier, this is one of the difficulties of attacking the argument that the way the representatives appeared was fortuitous.
Lord Broxbourne: I claim no expertise on the political complexion of the Common Council of the City of London. My understanding is that, whatever views they may cherish as thinking citizens, they do, in fact, sit as Independents. If I am wrong, no doubt I shall be corrected by someone with much more experience in these matters than I.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2. line 33, leave out ("1st April 1985") and insert ("one month after the date on which this Part of this Act comes into force").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to bring forward the date by which the constituent councils—the boroughs and the districts—must appoint the people who are to serve as GLC and MCC councillors from 7th May 1985. I emphasise that last point—this amendment does not affect in any way the date on which the borough/district appointees take office. That remains 7th May 1985, when the present GLC/MCC councillors' term of office expires.
Under subsection (4) as it stands, the constituent councils must make their appointments by 1st April 1985, although they can, of course, do so earlier. But that is the date by which they must have complied with the duty to appoint. It will be important that the appointees to the transitional councils are identified as quickly as practicable. The sooner that happens, the longer the time those people will have to familiarise themselves with the responsibilities which they will acquire on 7th May 1985.
We recognise that it would not be proper to require this to happen in advance of the order bringing Part II into operation. As a result of the helpful debates which we had earlier, but which have been overtaken by events, I would have referred again to the affirmative resolution. However, in view of what transpired, clearly I cannot do so now. Nevertheless, if an order, under whatever ultimately is the statutory instrument, is approved we think it right to ask the constituent councils straight away to make their appointments if they have not already started to do so of their own volition. We therefore propose in this amendment to require the appointments to be made within one month of the making of the commencement order. That would mean that all the transitional councillors would have been appointed by early next year—some two months earlier than under the present terms of subsection (4).
This amendment is intended to be of practical assistance to the people who are to serve as GLC/MCC
1124
councillors in the transitional period. It will help by giving them more time in which to prepare themselves for that role. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to agree the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am very surprised that, in the circumstances, the Minister moved this amendment because it was tabled before the change in the Bill when the first amendment was passed this evening. The Minister talks as though the Bill will be out of the Lords by April 1985, or May at the latest, but there is nothing to substantiate that at all. There is a very great chance that the Bill will still be going through Parliament at the time.
I find this amendment quite out of tune with what we have now done. I invite the Minister to withdraw it at this stage, in the same way as it was agreed to withdraw Amendments Nos. 10 and 10A. The proposal would squeeze the date even earlier. It does not seem to have any validity, except to make things even more difficult for the councils. We are going into quite a different area from the area that existed when the Minister put down the amendment. We are now getting into the area of not just interim councils, but also shadow councils, and it seems absolutely wrong.
On these Benches we feel that this amendment must be opposed. I hope that the Minister will accept the views that we hold and deal with the amendment in the only way that I think is possible; namely, withdraw it for the time being and look at it again, in the same way as with Amendments Nos. 10 and 10A.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I hope that my noble friend will take that advice. It seems that the timetable about which he was speaking just now is most unlikely to be that which is accomplished. I cannot see why, in the light of the provisions of Amendment No. 1, which was passed, and the consequences of working out what the parliamentary timetable might be as a result of that, we have to take a decision upon this matter this evening. As the noble Baroness said, the provisions in this amendment seem to me exactly in line with some of the other matters that have been postponed. I am afraid to say that if my noble friend insists upon this, I shall certainly not support him. It seems to me to be another of the matters that ought to be reconsidered in the light of the earlier decision.
Lord Bellwin: We were bound to move this evening into some areas which would be confusing in terms of what did and did not apply and what is separate from the earlier decison. I think that the key words are:
"leave out ('1st April 1985')".
In the circumstances I think that it would be right for me at least to consider what has been said. If, as I think at the moment, this amendment stands on its own, we can bring it back at another stage. But in view of the concern expressed, not least by my noble friend, I think that it would probably be proper that we should take it away for the time being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 2, line 38, after ("in") insert (", in the case of the Greater London Council, Part I, and, in the case of a metropolitan county Part II of').
The noble Baroness said: This clause sets out the number of councillors to be appointed by each district to the interim metropolitan county councils. The Bill proposes that representation for each district should be cut to half the existing number of county councillors, rounded up to the next whole number. For some reason this same principle is not applied to the GLC, and so in this area there is differentiation between the MCCs and the GLC.
In the White Paper there was no reference to the size of transitional councils. As I understand it, the only argument to be put forward so far by the Government as to why there should be an arbitrary reduction of 50 per cent. in county council membership is that, during its 11 months' existence, the transitional council will not be preparing a budget, as that will have been done by the outgoing elected council. But this proposal appears to ignore a great number of very important factors.
First, there is the workload. The full range of functions will still have to be administered by the transitional councils. That point was made earlier this afternoon when we were discussing the first amendment. Then, additional work will have to be done by the transitional councils on the arrangements to transfer their county council services to joint boards, joint committees, Government departments, district councils, adjacent local authorities and outside organisations.
For district councillors appointed to the transitional councils the county council duties will be additional to their already existing district council workload, and so they will have a very heavy workload indeed. In many areas there is very little relationship between district council wards and county council electoral divisions. District councils will have to produce new groupings of wards with each appointee to the county council representing two or three district wards. It seems a very wide spread.
There is no consistency between county councils in the number of people represented by each district council appointee. This cannot accurately be described as the electorate, as at that point, in the Government's mind, there would be no election. But now, of course, the situation has changed. The average number of people of voting age would be 38,206 in the West Midlands, 37,072 in Greater Manchester, 34,486 in West Yorkshire 23,624 in Merseyside, 20,019 in South Yorkshire and 17,339 in Tyne and Wear. Halving the number of county councillors would cause enormous problems for committee structures with wholesale revision required in many cases. It should not be a straightforward case of halving committee membership because of the inter-relationships between committees—on the basis that many members serve on more than one committee—standing order and financial regulation requirements, and appointments to outside bodies.
What this amendment does is to retain the existing number of councillors. The benefits are that the
1126
number of councillors is as approved by Parliament, that there will be no change required to county electoral divisions, and that committee structures will be unchanged and workload problems eased. This is the reason for the amendment which seems very much fairer to the metropolitan county councils. Unless this amendment, or something along the same lines, is accepted, these councils will be put in a rather invidious position compared with the GLC. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I have some difficulty with these two amendments. My difficulty with the first amendment, Amendment No. 16A, is that I do not see what useful purpose it would serve. My difficulty with the second amendment—I assume that we are speaking also to Amendment No. 91—is that I see all too clearly what its purpose is. It is one that the Government cannot support. Dealing first with Amendment No. 16A, I wonder whether it is designed to ensure that membership of transitional councils shall be set out in Schedule 1. If that is the case, I have to say that it is an unnecessary provision. Subsection (4) already makes clear that the numbers of members of those councils will be as set out in Schedule 1.
It is also, I fear, an amendment that is technically defective. It would prescribe the membership of the transitional MCCs as being that set out in Part II of Schedule 1, but Part II relates only to Greater Manchester. The other metropolitan county councils are each the subject of separate parts of that schedule. So the amendment is unnecessary and, I respectfully suggest, technically defective.
The effect of Amendment No. 91 would be to double the size of the transitional MCCs. They would revert to their present size. We oppose the amend-ment. It may help if I explain why we believe that the size of the transitional metropolitan county councils should be less than at present. Schedule 1 as it stands allocates one member to the transitional GLC for each parliamentary constituency. This gives a total number of councillors approximately the same as at present. However, a different approach has to be adopted for the transitional metropolitan county councils. In the metropolitan counties, several parliamentary constitu-encies cross metropolitan district boundaries. It would be difficult in practice to allocate transitional council seats in these cases.
Furthermore, the district councils have smaller populations and far fewer constituent authorities. The biggest, Greater Manchester, has 10 districts. My own former council, Leeds, has only five. This compares with 32 London boroughs. So smaller transitional councils still give each district a reasonable number of representatives without being unwieldy.
This amendment would lead to unnecessarily large transitional councils—huge ones. I would remind your Lordships that the main purpose of transitional or interim councils—call them what you will—is to prepare for a smooth transfer of functions, and an over-large membership would only hinder this task. So it seems to me that the schedule, as it stands, strikes the right balance between adequate representation and efficiency. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that there is merit in the real difference that I have explained, and that it is relevant to the amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Speaking as one who was a district councillor and a metropolitan county councillor at the same time and found the workload too much, particularly after I came up to your Lordships' House, I want to say—this is the crux of my support for the noble Baroness's amendment—that the workload, even on an interim, closing basis, that is being imposed on people who are elected as district councillors to look after all the multifarious duties which metropolitan boroughs and district councils have, and at the same time to be representing huge areas on a county council, which in the interim period will still have duties, is requiring people who really are not elected for that purpose at all to carry out duties that are almost impossible to perform if they are to retain their efficiency as councillors.
I was one who objected very much, on the reorganisation in 1972, to the huge increase in the size of wards and electoral areas. I was much happier representing 4,000 or 5,000 people than I was representing 18,000, 19,000 or 24,000 people, because I felt that the contact between the county, local or district councillor and the elector was that much more effective. While I am sure that the figures the noble Baroness's amendment put forward are not perfect, any more than the figures that the Government put forward are perfect, we should be thinking of larger numbers, so that the strain will not be too great, rather than smaller numbers.
I suspect that if one puts a tremendous strain on councillors, in terms of time and so on, one may often find them coming to wrong and silly decisions because of the stresses and strains upon them. Sometimes I think that with the amount of work we are expected to do in this House—it is supposed to be a part-time House—the stress and strain on us may occasionally bring us to make the wrong decisions; although I am comforted, by what happened earlier today, that we are on the right tracks. The Government ought to consider the terrible burden they are imposing on the interim councillors in Greater London and the metropolitan councils.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I feel it is unfortunate that metropolitan districts will not have the same representation on the interim councils as they have on the present councils. I see no real points in any of the arguments that the noble Lord brought forward. The point about the workload has been expressed very well by other noble Lords who have spoken. It is not only the actual workload. The fitting in of the meetings is going to be terribly difficult. In the various district councils of which I am aware, I have made extensive inquiries about this. The question of conflicting afternoon and evening meetings has been well thought of by the districts and the county, so that there is not a conflict of things taking place in different areas.
If one looks at the workload that will be thrown upon the county councils, one sees that it is going to be a bigger workload than in London. We assume that much of the workload is going to be passed over to statutory boards. At present the police are part and parcel of the county councils. That matter has to be decided. We do not know what will happen with the fire brigades. Again, they might have to go to statutory boards.
1128
There are more complications as regards who will take over the responsibilities in the metropolitan counties than there are in regard to the GLC for the very reason that the district councils in the metropolitan authorities are already taking over education and other services because they were the services which they had previously. For example, Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley in the West Midlands area already have education functions at district level. So there is not the ILEA type of example to use.
One must also take into consideration, especially in certain parts of the country—not necessarily the West Midlands—the travelling time involved. In Yorkshire considerable travelling time will be involved for some of the respresentatives on the interim councils. I see no reason why there should be distinction. If the GLC needs the exact number that they have at present to put into operation the passing on of the powers to other bodies or to local authorities, then why is not the same applicable to the metropolitan councils? I cannot see any argument for saying that there should be a difference in the total numbers.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend has said. West Yorkshire is certainly going to be a difficult problem. The Minister knows the geographical area very well, and some of the districts cover a very wide geographical area. So on top of the travel involved and their responsibilities within their own districts, the representatives will have the added problem of responsibility for the metropolitan county services, and on top of that again, as my noble friend has just said, they will have to work out how they will transfer the functions to the joint bodies. So they really have three responsibilities and we are expecting people who were elected for one purpose within a district to take over the whole of those three functions. In my view that is asking too much.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I explained in some detail exactly why it was that we were proposing this "apportionment"—if that is the right word, which it probably is not. The fact is that there is a tremendous difference between the electorial situations in the two sets of areas that we are considering—namely: the GLC and the MCCs. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, mentioned Yorkshire. She said that the areas for travelling are wide. They are wide, but then those who are on the councils will themselves apportion who will do what. Whatever else may be said, anyone who has served on a large council, as I have, for many years would not say that, for example, out of the 99 councillors on the authority that I worked with—at different times it was 96 and 120—there was not a workload for certain key people.
There are many members of councils who do far less and many who would dearly like to do much more and they aspire to get on to committees which have greater amounts of work to do. In my view they will welcome the opportunity—the opportunity to do what? It is the opportunity to serve for 11 months, at the most, on a transitional council. What will be the role of that

1129
council? I keep coming back to this question again and again. It will not be to make a budget—and that is a big part of being on a council; it will not be to decide new policies; it will be to run down, to hand over, and to keep going.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, earlier on in the day referred to what he considered would be an immense burden. I am the last person ever to belittle either the importance or the volume of work that goes to any councillor. But I respectfully submit that for them it will be a new situation of which none of us has any experience, but which it is not unreasonable for me to point out will be of a different nature from what we have had hitherto. Therefore, although I am not unsympathetic to the point about the workload—far from it—in practical terms I do not think it will give rise to the concern which your Lordships have expressed.
If we then apply that to the other points I have made about the logicality of the representation itself, we reach a situation which I think we have about right. As an aside, those who would support the point of view in this amendment have made no representations on this point. They refuse to discuss the matter. Therefore, they must not complain if matters are decided without their input when they have abdicated the opportunity to make that input.
Having said that, I believe that the balance is about right. I think that it is very proper that the concerns should be expressed. I take them in the constructive spirit in which they were made. I think that this is one situation where the fears which have been expressed by your Lordships will not materialise.
Baroness Birk: I am not at all happy with the Minister's answer on this point. As he has more or less said, he has relied on guesswork because this has never happened. He said that this was a new situation of which none of us had had experience. In a new situation of which one has not had experience, it is always much safer to underdo things rather than to overdo them. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, with his particularly large realm of experience in local government, my noble friend Lady Fisher from the Midlands and my noble friend Lady Lockwood from South Yorkshire all said the same thing. They all spoke from great experience.
In addition, in the areas about which we are talking there are often far greater distances to travel—a point which I did not mention when I listed the heavy workloads there would be. There is no guarantee—certainly not now—that it will be eleven months at the most. It could be considerably longer. Even if it were not, to push this quite different type of workload on to people who are not used to it, and who are not necessarily prepared for it, would be very wrong. It would not only be wrong for the individuals because it could result in a great deal of stress and overwork for them, but it would be wrong and bad for the running of local government.
I must confess that I do not think that the Minister made out a very good case for resisting the amendment. I would suggest that as we are all pretty tired, he should take it back and have another look at it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The noble Lord extended the number of representatives on the GLC interim body by generously including the City of London. Would he do the same for the counties? He has made an exception in an exceptional case. Those of us who come from the counties are saying tonight that there is an exceptional case and we should like him to look at this again.
As I mentioned previously, the unemployment problem in the areas concerned will affect men and women getting extra time off work. Although they will be in a run-down situation, I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister would not want run-down councillors. He will want the type of councillor who, at the end of the day, will come to the right conclusions. Therefore, it is important that we do not have councillors who have time on their hands, but that we have good representatives, and I am sure that he would want that.
Employers these days are very loath to give more time off work because of their capital situation. If this debars men and women from participating, I would ask the noble Lord to give as good considerations to this matter as he did to the London situation on a previous amendment.
Lord Bellwin: I give consideration to everything that is mentioned and raised. I think that today after the somewhat traumatic earlier happening it cannot be said, all else apart, other than that I have been willing to consider, to take away, to postpone, such matters as I thought were proper. I am not without sympathy to the underlying theme of what is being said, but I feel that the fears that have been expressed will not turn out in practice to be justified. I understand why they are expressed. The noble Baroness in referring to the bona fides of her colleagues who have spoken on this, I am sure would not take away from me my bona fides in terms of knowledge and experience of exactly the kind of situation.
If I felt that this was going to be an intolerable burden upon them, I would have to be concerned. I really do not feel that that is the case. I will read carefully what has been said and talk with colleagues, but I could not undertake, as I stand here now, to do anything about that. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will know, if I say I will read something you know that I will do that: but I certainly cannot give an undertaking.
Baroness Birk: I hope that when the Minister takes it back he will look at it all again, and not necessarily accept this amendment but see that there is a big problem here which could be exacerbated and become a much bigger problem. We have got to the stage where the noble Lord says, "I think it will be all right", and we are saying, "No, it will not be all right". There is a limit to how long one can go on like that. In the circumstances, in the hope that the Minister will come back with something that is more realistic and practical for the metropolitan county councils, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 16B:
Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the gerrymandering subsection in the Bill. For the benefit of the Committee I shall read what we consider is the offending Clause 2(5):
"Each constituent council shall, so far as practicable, exercise its power to make or terminate appointments under this Part of this Act so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in that council is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the Greater London Council or of the relevant metropolitan county council and for whose appointment the constituent council is responsible".
In London, the net effect of this would be to change the Labour control of London affairs from a majority of four to a Conservative majority of between 12 and 18. There is no way in which the Minister or the Government can justify that on democratic grounds. Although the metropolitan counties are not likely to change political control, it is a fact that the current Labour majorities would be drastically reduced, in some cases in political terms down to dangerous levels.
The Government have argued that in the GLC case the situation is an accidental outcome of the interim provisions. Some of the borough elections in 1982 produced a majority of Conservative controlled councils. In our view that argument is disingenuous. It ignores two facts. First, that the interim structure which the Government have created is an unprecedented one in local government. There was nothing to prevent the Government from allowing the 1985 elections to proceeed and limiting the terms of elected councillors in the main abolition Bill if necessary. Secondly, the 1982 borough elections which the Government rest upon as an argument, took place in the shadow of the Falklands war at a time of high Conservative popularity. Without in any way denying the validity of the results that took place at that time, we would maintain that the elections in London would produce vastly different results. If one studied the results of the local elections throughout the country less than two months ago one would find that there had been a remarkable turn-round between 1982 and 1984. The Conservative manifesto contained no reference either to the transfer of political control or to the abolition of elections. In these circumstances, the validity of any claimed mandate is considerably reduced.
Briefly, I should like the Committee to understand some of the circumstances which, in our view, reveal the nonsense of the situation. In my own London borough of Enfield, for example, at the moment there are three councillors, one Conservative and two Labour. The current intention is that that be altered to two Conservative and one Labour. If there is any argument it is resting on the 1982 election results which, in my experience, without forecasting too much, would be different if the election were held now. In Ealing the situation is that one Conservative and two Labour would be changed to two Conservative and one Labour. In Hillingdon there are two Conservative and one Labour: that would be three Conservative. In London we see that this is a grave attack upon the intentions of the people of London when they elected their councillors some four years ago. We are looking forward with great interest to the
1132
Government justifying Clause 2(5) which this amendment seeks to delete. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to add significantly to what my noble friend has said, but as a non-lawyer I have one or two questions to put to the Government. Am I right in thinking that this is the first time in legislation that the word "parties" referring to political parties has appeared? If so, what definition is given for "political parties"? My noble friend referred to the London borough of Hillingdon. He referred only to the balance between the Conservative and the Labour Party, but a significant part of the council of the London borough of Hillingdon is the ratepayers' association. It does not call itself a political party. Is subsection (5) supposed to permit representations to the Hillingdon ratepayers who would deny the existence of a political party? What happens to independents? They may not be common in the GLC or in metropolitan counties, but I wonder whether we are not enshrining into legislation, almost by the back door, a concept which we all recognise of political parties. Many of us would not be here unless we did: I say that carefully. But is it right in this way, without recognition of all the implications of the constitution of political parties, to introduce this now into this legislation for a period of only 11 months?
10.24 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder whether the noble Lord opposite has fully appreciated the effect of his amendment. As I read it, if subsection (5) is taken out it would be free to every local authority concerned to choose, completely freely, its own representatives from the new central body. There would therefore be nothing to prevent any council with a small majority of one party or another confining its representation to representatives from that party. As in the case about which the noble Lord is complaining, that of the GLC, the majority of the boroughs have a Conservative representation, the effect of that would be a much larger Conservative representation on the new authority than there would be under this clause. Therefore, it seems to me that the noble Lord has misapprehended the effect of his own amendment and it also makes even more unjustifiable the phrase which personally I very much resented—though I am sure it was used lightheartedly—that this was a "gerrymandering clause".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I quickly say that I was echoing the words of former Cabinet Ministers of his own party in another place who used the word "gerrymander". As far as the noble Lord—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Lord will not expect me necessarily to respect the utterances of one or two of those gentlemen.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am quite certain that they would disclaim the utterances of the noble Lord in the same context. The Minister tempts me to say that I ought to accept the fairness of the Government's gerrymander as opposed to the possible gerrymander of Conservative councils. In other words, the

1133
Government are trying to be fair. It is fairer, for instance, in allocating the representation for London than, for instance, would be the collective views of Conservative councils. I think the noble Lord is right that councils certainly would be not as fair as the Government in numerical terms. But our objection, frankly, is to the whole Bill. Our objection is to the intention of the Government to seek to change. The issue is not whether the Government's option is a better option than the other one. We are opposed to the Government's option.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has given away the whole case for his amendment. He admits that the effect of the subsection is, to his point of view, better than leaving it to the councils, yet he proposes to delete the subsection. He really has made a nonsense of his own amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: If I may interrupt what has become a dialogue, I think it would be churlish of me as a Liberal who has bored your Lordships over many months and years in talking about proportionality—which I shall go on doing so long as I have breath to do so until eventually we get proportional representation—to say that this is the first attempt I know of in legislation to introduce an element of proportionality, however ineffective or rough it might be. My worry is that the proportionality will be proportionality related to the number of councillors in each London borough rather than the numbers of votes acquired by the political parties in that area.
My second concern would be the minority parties—and the minority parties are not always the Liberals or the Social Democratic Party; I am happy to say that in many areas of this country the Labour or Conservative parties are the minority parties. But whichever is the minority party will be in some difficulty and would be likely to suffer in almost all the arithmetical calculations that are made. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned two Conservatives and one Labour. Very often there is the case where there are, say, 40 Conservatives, 41 Labour and 4 Alliance. How many councillors on the new authority are the Alliance Party going to get? There are no prizes for guessing. The answer is zero. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that Clasue 2(5) is better than nothing; because I remember the good old days when they had joint boards on the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee where the party in control just took all the seats. There would be, say, 23 Labour councillors, 18 Conservatives, one Liberal. There would be five Labour representatives on the board and zero for everyone else. It is an improvement in that sense. But I still think that this Government, with all the talent available to them, could have done a better job in arranging proportionality than this clause has done. I think they ought to have another try at it.
Lord Bellwin: Of all the people who should have been opposing this, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, is one, as he made out rightly in his latter remarks. His party has probably suffered more on this than most. I am frankly amazed at the attitude of noble Lords about this. Here the Government set out genuinely to
1134
give an opportunity for there to be a proper and fair balance in relation to the prevailing balance of the constituent councils, and they do not like what is proposed. I entirely agree with my noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I, too, object to the use of the word "gerrymander." If you want to gerrymander, you do not go about it in this way. The noble Lord knows very well what that is all about. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, no, it is not the first time that there is a reference in legislation to "party". I would have to remind him that the Labour Government brought in the Scotland Act in 1976 which of course referred to the word "party".
One has to look carefully at what is proposed. It calls for the appointing council to appoint only those who are required in applying this subsection who are members of the constituent councils so far as is practicable. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to Hillingdon where he said there are two Conservatives and one Labour and henceforth there will be three Conservatives. I am not quite sure to what he was referring there but certainly that is not the kind of situation that will pertain.
This Bill sets out to do exactly what it says; to enable all parties to have a representation even when they are minorities. The Government could very easily have turned their back on this point. I object very strongly to the accusation of trying to manoeuvre something, because the intention is exactly the opposite. The intention is to give to the minorities a chance to have at least a word, a say, a person present to represent their point of view—something they have not had in the past mostly where Labour authorities have dominated, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, rightly pointed out. They have much to answer for in this respect. It is not wrong that we should try to give the minority parties a voice. It is right and I would defend this and fight it all the way.
Baroness Birk: I think my noble friend made clear at the beginning of the debate that in any case this is meant to be a probing amendment, so I do not think the Minister need exercise too much passion on it. I do not think that he has as yet answered the points put by my noble friend Lord McIntosh about groups which would not be called or recognised as political parties—groups of ratepayers or other groups of people who would not consider themselves politically minded.
Lord Bellwin: This is not an easy area. We have had to think very carefully about this. Because the authorities concerned deemed that they did not wish to talk, they themselves have had no imput into this. So they must not complain if they do not like what is finally decided for them because they do not want to have any part in deciding it with anybody else. It is not an easy area to try to get right. I think that I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the particular point that he raised. We have talked about it but I think I should like to dilate on it and give him a chance to consider what I say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. I wonder whether he would try to do it so that it could be considered before Report stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do intend to withdraw the amendment but certainly not the charge of gerrymandering. It is a proper word. It may be objectionable. It may be refuted by noble Lords opposite. They make the charge about members of my party in certain circumstances and we would deny it as well. My interpretation of the word "gerrymander" is that, by a non-elective process, the electoral control of an authority is changed. If the Minister is telling me that there is no intention that the collective government of London will have other than a Labour majority after the provisions of the Bill become law, I shall be very surprised. From all that we have seen and read it is intended that the present majority of four for Labour will be changed to a minority for Labour. The Minister is entitled to say that he has tried to do this in the fairest possible way; it may well be the fairest possible way, but, in trying to do it in the fairest possible way, one has to come up against the position that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and others.
Let me give the Minister the illustration of Hammersmith and Fulham, where one is going to try to apportion three seats in the fairest possible way. The Conservatives at Hammersmith and Fulham, jointly with the Liberals, control the council with a total of half the seats. Labour also has precisely half the seats. How does the Minister intend by promulgation to divide those three fairly in a case like that? However he does it (and it is his intention to do it, not ours) there is bound to be somebody who—does the Minister wish to intervene?
Lord Bellwin: It will be the authority, the people, who will do it. I quoted the words of the legislation: "so far as is practicable". If there is a situation such as the noble Lord describes, the authority themselves will decide how to do it. I can think of ways in which I would deal with a situation such as that. I would say: "Right: we will toss a coin for the spare seat that exists". But I suspect that may not be what others would do. I shall make one more comment after the noble Lord has finished, since at the moment I am only intervening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate that the political reality is that where there is an alliance such as that in Hammersmith, and the council collectively is able to determine the situation, although the Minister might say it is one to Labour and one to the rest, and then he would spin a coin, in fact you might very well consider giving one to the Conservatives, one to the Liberals, and one to Labour. That in fact would not be fair because there would not then be an equality of seats among the three parties. All I am pointing out is that in trying to give effect to what the Government intend to do one comes up against a situation of that kind.
Let me give another example to the Minister; it is that of Waltham Forest. Labour and Conservative each have 44 per cent. of the seats on the council, but there are three seats to be filled. If the Alliance were allocated a seat, they would have only 12 per cent. of council seats. However that is resolved, there will be unfairness. If either one of the two major parties takes two seats, that will be unfair to the other, and if there
1136
is a division of one to each, in effect 44 per cent. will be made to equate to 12 per cent.
At Brent the Conservatives control the council with 49 per cent. of the seats, but Labour have 47 per cent. and the Alliance 4 per cent. There are three seats to be divided. Whatever happens there, there is going to be a squeezing out of the tiny party, and the party which has just an odd percentage point more than the other will get the opportunity of taking two seats
So far as we are concerned, we do not like the Bill and we certainly do not like the intention to change the political control, for however short a period, of the affairs of London in a manner other than by the views and the decisions of local people. If I used a word which is offensive to noble Lords opposite, I recognise the import of it and I plead in aid no former Cabinet Minister. I indicated simply not the genesis of the word, but the free use of the word in another place by someone whose views I share at the moment. but on other occasions I do not. I use it because it suits my purpose at this particular time. No doubt the Minister has a word comparable to "gerrymandering" to describe my principles in that situation. But so far as I am concerned, it is quite clear that in the totality of the Bill this is a part of a package which we do not like. As my noble friend Lady Birk has said. this is a matter which, particularly at this time of night, we should not wish to press. Before I conclude, I believe that the Minister wants to say a word. after which I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: I am not sure that I shall say anything further because I suspect that when we come to the next amendment, when we shall be discussing not totally dissimilar matters (although it will not be tonight) we shall be going round this track again. So maybe I ought to keep some of my powder dry. I have a great deal of it, mark you, but I think I shall keep it dry for that occasion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
(" ( ) Any question which may arise under subsection (5) above as to whether in any case the balance of parties has been reflected shall be determined by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: I shall try to move this amendment briefly. I am aware of the lateness of the hour. I should like to say at the beginning of my remarks that the word "gerrymander", which has caused so much offence, is not a word of disapprobation in the United States of America. but is a great compliment. I would beg your Lordships to remember that the successful gerrymanderer wins the elections there.
This amendment, taking into account those subjects which were discussed on the last amendment, seeks to give the noble Lord the Minister's right honourable friend additional power. I should have thought he

1137
would have welcomed this amendment, if for no other reason than that it seeks to place a responsibility for resolving the disputes that will inevitably arise under Clause 2(5) in his hands.
There is no proper procedure under the Bill for resolving the political difficulties which are bound to arise as a result of this subsection. The difficulties will be caused by the desirability of achieving a political balance, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned in the last debate. As anyone who looks at the results in the counties or in Greater London will see, there will be areas of dispute and dissatisfaction, mostly, but not entirely, from among the minority parties, as again the noble Lord has indicated. But the minority parties will inevitably feel on many occasions that they are being under represented or not represented at all. The noble Lord the Minister says that the local authority must make the decision, but the noble Lord has perhaps never been a member of a minority in a large council, very exposed to nasty bullying tactics by the noble Lord's party and the Opposition party.
I gather that right honourable friends of the noble Lord the Minister have said in another place that the recourse of minorities who feel badly done by is to go to the courts. But I do not think that the courts are the right place to resolve what will essentially be political disputes, because the courts are not equipped to deal with political disputes. The very purpose and the whole foundation of our legal system is that it is not political. In spite of the belief of many members of the party opposite the noble Lord the Minister, it is not a political organisation and heaven forfend that it ever should be. Therefore, it is difficult to envisage how any court could consider overturning a decision of a council, unless it was totally capricious and against natural justice, and yet a decision could be made by such a council which was not capricious but was still unfair.
Again, I do not wish to tire your Lordships' Committee by detailing a whole list of areas where such an unfairness could happen. I hope noble Lords will accept that there are many metropolitan counties and London boroughs where such an outcome is almost inevitable. Therefore, since the Secretary of State is imposing a system which on those terms is unworkable, or, if not unworkable, unpopular, and which will leave unhappiness and great areas of dispute, it seems to me that these being political differences the Secretary of State should take upon himself the responsibility for resolving those disputes, and should not opt out in what I believe to be a rather irresponsible way, saying that the courts must settle them, because the courts are certainly not equipped for that. The Secretary of State being a political figure, and taking into account all the problems of the political parties of this country, is the right person to settle such a dispute. I should have thought the noble Lord would welcome such an additional responsibility on behalf of his right honourable friend. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: May I put the record straight at once? I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that I have indeed been a member of a minority in opposition. I have been through all the four permutations. I have
1138
been in control, I have been in opposition, I have been in minority control and I have been in minority opposition. You cannot have any more permutations than that. So I know exactly what it is all about and what it is like. In fact, one of the factors that led us to the present situation is precisely that I have been in those positions, and precisely that I know how difficult it is for the minorities to have a say and how easy it is for them to be blocked out totally and completely. It is that very fact which has led us to the point where we want to give the minority parties a voice and a say.
We are making a big meal of this and missing the underlying point: what is it that these transitional councils are going to do? We know for how long they will do it. It will not be for a year. They will not be making policy. They will not be making budgets. They will be ticking over and handing over. If one wanted to gerrymander—what a term to use, despite what the noble Lord says—would one take the situation of seven authorities and allow six of them to continue to be Labour controlled, with one of them not Labour controlled?
What will they be doing for this period of 11 months? They will be doing what I have just said. This is overlooked again and again. There have been accusations of juggling and of manoeuvring in some way, when all that we are suggesting is that the authorities should appoint their own people, so far as is practicable. There cannot be more flexibility than that. We are attempting to give to minority groups the chance to have a say and an appearance. If we are making all this fuss about that, I can only say that I am surprised.
This amendment will not do, either, because it would be quite wrong to involve Ministers who, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, pointed out, are politicians. Therefore, they should not be asked to adjudicate upon what should be the political balance of other politicians. That is the last thing one would want them to do. I understand why the noble Lord is anxious not to have a court requirement but if, at the end of the day, when it comes to appointing representatives for 11 months to the transitional councils, the councils cannot sort out a reasonable representation, they are not very worthy, in the way in which I happen to think that they are.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I am not suggesting, and I have not suggested at any stage, that I regard the proposals as grotesquely unfair. All I am suggesting is that they could be made fairer in the way that I have suggested. The noble Lord the Minister gave us a moving description of the various capacities in which he has served in local government, but he has never been in the position in which I have spent most of my political life: that of 47 Conservatives, 42 Labour and 3 Liberals. That is the kind of situation I am concerned about. I am sure I could bring tears to the eyes of your Lordships in considering the treatment which has been meted out to us over the years. I would rather have the fate of a minority party in the hands of the Secretary of State than in the hands of a provincial Labour or

1139
Conservative party. I say that with some bitter experience.
Having said that, I concede that the Bill as drafted will take much of the bullying out of it. However, in those peripheral cases where a difficulty is left, either because there is almost equality between two parties or because a third party has got a significant number of councillors but not a large enough number to justify a place, there may be disputes. I would rather have the fate of the position left in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is a politician and who knows about these things, than left in the hands of the courts, which essentially and by definition do not know about these things. However, the hour is late and it is time, in the circumstances, for me to say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. with much reluctance and a great deal of sadness.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: We have reached the point at which it was agreed that we should adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: May I make one short, personal comment in order to keep a friendship outside the House, if it is at all possible. I believe in robust debate but I certainly do not believe in personal attacks which make for unpleasantness. Earlier in the debate when I was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I interpreted part of his remarks as suggesting, rather snidely, something about my eloquence. As a riposte I said that he exhibited a "smooth arrogance". It has been brought to my attention that the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, feels that there could be an interpretation put on the word "smooth" which is not pleasant.
All that I wanted to make perfectly clear was that while I will cross swords in as robust a fashion as you like on the merits of any case, there is certainly no question of my wanting to introduce personal remarks of an unpleasant kind; certainly not in this case and certainly not so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned.
I wanted that on the record because it has been drawn to my attention that the noble Lord has those feelings, and I wanted to dispel them. That is not my mood and I do not think that in the long term it is the mood of the noble Lord. I would not have liked the debate to end without that being made perfectly clear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock.