HL Deb 17 May 1984 vol 451 cc1570-83

7.13 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

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 McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD WELLS-PESTELL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Extension of 1972 Act]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:

Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause:

("Extension of Local Government Act 1972..

1. After section 51 (Commission's reports and their implementation) of the Local Government Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following section:— 51 A. Notwithstanding any provisions contained in any part of this Act other than sections 1A (Constitution of parishes following petitions) and 61A (Savings for petitions for constitutions of parishes) of this Act and Part VI of Schedule 1 to this Act the council of a London Borough, or the English Commission may, pursuant to the provisions of the said section 1A and of the said Part VI of Schedule 1, report to the Secretary of State that a parish should be constituted for an area included in a London Borough and thereupon all the provisions of this Act shall have effect with respect to that report as if it had been a report by the English Commission to the Secretary of State under section 51 above making a proposal for the creation of the said parish.".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes to take out entirely Clause 1 of the Bill as read a second time and to replace it by a new clause. In the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred at some length to the issue of the inclusion of London in the urban parish procedures proposed under this Bill and did not appear satisfied with the methods that are proposed under Clause 1. In looking again at Clause 1, it is clear that to rely on Section 1(8) of the 1972 Local Government Act would not have been satisfactory because that section refers to a part of the Act which by 1974 had achieved its purpose.

The noble Lord then said that if it were desired to extend the Bill to London, the logical way to go about it would be by extending to the London boroughs the provisions in the Local Government Act for the review of parish arrangements which apply already in districts outside London".—[Official Report, 25/4/84; col. 91.] That is what this amendment seeks to do. I believe that in wording and in effect it is more satisfactory than the original clause and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord Mottistone

I should like to support this amendment and I wish to apologise to your Lordships for not having been here at Second Reading. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech; what I say will be very brief. I have to declare an interest as president of the Isle of Wight Association of Town and Parish Councils and as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils; so I have a little experience in this area.

It is disappointing that with regard to the areas outside London my noble friend was saying, in effect, that the present arrangements were adequate, that successive governments saw no need for it in London and that there has been no demand. That was a very negative approach to the whole problem. I honestly believe that the whole difficulty arises over one particular area. At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, inter alia, that no doubt they will be created as time goes on. He went on: They are in areas where the people want them, the district council accept them and the local government boundary commission has approved them and made proposals accordingly for the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, 25/4/84; col. 92.] My experience of this with parish councils in the Isle of Wight is that one may have the people wanting them and the boundary commission may have been as helpful as they possibly can be, with the tremendous backlog of the work that they have to do, not only relating to this matter. The difficulty is that the district council accept them. It is my experience that if the district council is a sympathetic one, that is fine. If it is not, all sorts of arguments are put up, some of them bureaucratic and some of them by people who feel, "I'm a district councillor; they ought not to need to have another body". This is the kind of proudness of themselves which is always suspicious. Then of course there is the argument, "Well, it's going to add to our costs, because it will mean an extra bit of rate to deal with the expense of the parish council".

It is this question of people's pride which means that the existing law is not good enough. We need to improve it only marginally. Lord McIntosh and I have talked about this and I think he is being a little tough about his local petition. He is making it very high and I should like to see it lower. That is as it may be; perhaps in time we will come to do that. The fact is that if there were this facility for a local petition then one could have councils being set up, and what is more people would think they could set them up and then one would get people in London, for example, making the applications that my noble friend says he never gets. There is not much point in making an application if one does not think it is going to be received.

It is very sad that the Government, as one imagines, have been advised against this from the existing local government structure and have accepted the advice. They have gobbled it up just like a wholesome meal. I know there are arguments to say that local government must be extremely independent and not be directed by us, but there are occasions when we have to legislate to encourage local government not to be over-proud. It is in this area that we need a Bill of this sort.

I very much hope, particularly in relation to London, that my noble friend will not only accept Amendment No. 1 but will very rapidly accept all the other amendments, which seem to me to be tidying-up ones just to improve the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will give encouragement to their friends in another place to make sure that this Bill gets into law as quickly as possible.

Lord Young of Dartington

I, too, should like to support the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. This clause, as amended, is perhaps the most important clause in the whole of the Bill. If nothing else were accepted in this Committee, at least it would be a considerable achievement to give to London the same opportunity of having urban parishes as is given to the rest of the country, even though the procedures need to be improved elsewhere. The Abercrombie Report of long ago—some noble Lords may remember that it came out just after the war—referred to London as a city of urban villages. Those who live in London today can, I think, say that, to a large extent, that is still, rather miraculously, the case. Even inside London the patriotism of the parish still matters. If this clause were passed, it would give some framework for the patriotism of the parish to express itself in a practical way. So I hope that the amendment can be accepted.

It was argued by the noble Lord on Second Reading that, in effect, the rest of the country had an excellent system and it was only London that was left out. If it is excellent—and I do not think that it is excellent, but at least it is better elsewhere than in London—then surely London should not be deprived of the advantages which other parts of the country have, including the metropolitan conurbations.

It is perhaps worth pointing out before I sit down that what we are asking for has been the law and practice in Scotland for getting on for a decade. People who know about local government, for instance, in Glasgow—which is another great conurbation of this country—know of the value that community councils (that is, urban parish councils) have been in Glasgow. That has been testified to in two reports which have come out of the Scottish Office, one report on Community Councils in the Strathclyde Region and the other on Community Councils in the Tayside and Fife Regions, The type of benefits that have been found to follow in Scottish cities from the introduction of community councils in the last 10 years would, in my view, also follow in London if this Bill ever becomes law, as I hope it will.

Baroness White

I should like, very briefly, and as usual, to raise the voice of Wales, since Scotland has already been mentioned. We have a system of community councils in Wales which, on the whole, works satisfactorily. I might claim to be a Londoner as well as a Welsh woman and I would entirely support the patriotism of the parish. Only Londonders fully appreciate the gradations, but they are there. Anyone who has lived in, for example, Hampstead, where I lived for some years, knows that there are there social areas, social distinctions and social gradations to which only someone who lives in Hampstead is fully sensitive. One would find it very difficult to get one's aspirations fulfilled if the London borough in which one happens to live—however active and imaginative it may be—is too big for some of the things that one wants to have done.

So I hope very much that the noble Lord the Minister, in replying to this proposed amendment, will not just accept the official advice hook, line and sinker—to use slightly different metaphors from those of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. There is a real case here and we should all be very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for having pursued the matter. It is a matter of the social structure, the social fabric of our urban areas, not least the cities which are large and whose subdivisions, like those of the London boroughs, are very large. We need something more intimate and more domestic, so that ordinary men or women who have an idea or a grievance will feel that they can cope with it within their own capacity and will not feel that they have to spend half of their waking lives trying to persuade a larger organisation at some distance to take their point on board. This is a serious matter and it will be extremely disappointing if the Government are not willing to accept what seems to most of us, who have looked at this question at all, to be a highly desirable amendment in a highly desirable Bill.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Let me just complete not only the geographical, but also the partisan, unity. That ought to encourage the Minister to be less bleak in his response than he was at Second Reading. We have now reached a different stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, he is genuinely trying to take on board the Minister's reservations expressed at Second Reading.

It is a question of the chicken and the egg—which comes first? The Minister argues that there is no need for the Bill because opportunities are provided. But as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said, we are concerned with encouraging people to take risks. They are going to give a lot of their time. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, quite rightly pointed out, there will be some stiff hurdles before public money is actually spent, and it will be a question of public money being spent very much on the margin. In small areas and villages—for example, there are some around where I live in Enfield—it is quite clear that the railway line literally divides two parts of what appears to be a cohesive community. If the people on one side or the other—not necessarily both—want to go to the trouble of agitating, in the best sense of the word, to be given a little veneer of democratic involvement, it may be laughable to some other people, but to those involved it is very real. In 1984 people are very well aware of the enormous power of centralisation—centralisation of government and centralisation of councils.

I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The Minister relied on a lack of take-up of the present position, largely because there has been a negative attitude. We are concerned with encouraging councillors not be be afraid of any challenge. If at the end of the day we have a tier or a hierarchy involving people who aspire to be community councillors (that is, parish councillors), then urban district councillors, and then district councillors, it is all right. The Government may have their way in chopping off a big tier of government higher up, but that remains to be seen. We are trying to give people an opportunity to do little things which are very precious to them. So I hope that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is encouraged by the geographical and partisan unity in the Committee. I cannot believe that the Minister will say anything unkind about this amendment.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

In this virtually unique atmosphere of perfect political and almost international unity I cannot resist the temptation to say a few words, I was particularly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I thought that the information he gave us was very valuable indeed. There is one matter on which I do differ from him very considerably. When the noble Lord referred to his interest in this matter as regards the Isle of Wight he said that he had little experience there. I know from my own contacts on the Isle of Wight what a great amount of work he has done for the community on the Isle of Wight, and I am also aware of the great respect in which he is held on that island, which I know so well. I add my support to this amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale

I thought that I had made the Government's reaction to this Bill quite clear on Second Reading. However, from the comments that I have just been listening to, perhaps I ought to have another small go, though I had not intended to do so. Before I do that, perhaps I should say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has bent over backwards to take up many of the points that I made on Second Reading and has put down amendments to ameliorate the deficiencies which I saw in his Bill. But the fundamental objections of principle remain.

As I said on Second Reading, we already have a procedure for the creation of parishes in urban areas, and that procedure works. In those areas where there is a genuine local demand for parishes, from a sufficient number of those affected, parishes are, indeed, coming into being. That is what democracy is all about. Several noble Lords have mentioned the position of London, which is not referred to in the 1972 Act. I am perfectly prepared to say that if there was a genuine need, I would look at the position of London again. But the obvious question to ask me is: how would I see evidence of a genuine need? Noble Lords have pointed out the bias in this connection of borough councillors and other councillors. In the last four years in the department we have received precisely one letter on this subject from Londoners. That does not show me, anyway, the need for parishes in London. If there was a sensible number of letters, we should have to look at the matter again. However, at the moment I remain of the opinion that I held on Second Reading: that there is no need for parish councils in London.

Of course, I accept that the pace of parish reviews in metropolitan districts is not a fast one, but to attempt to force the pace in areas where parishes are an innovation would simply cause local dissension. Under the procedure in the noble Lord's Bill, if a parish is to come into being, its protagonists will need to canvass a lot of support from the electors of the area concerned. My noble friend Lord Mottistone has just adverted to that.

How does that differ from the present position? Anyone who can persuade enough of his neighbours to kick up a sufficiently loud fuss can influence his local district council representative and, through him, the district council, so that a proper parish review can be initiated. In the event, however, that the council as a whole is unwilling to accept that there is sufficient desire for the creation of a parish, for whatever reason—perhaps the reasons mentioned this evening—its protagonists can still turn to the Local Government Boundary Commission. Some have, indeed, done so. If the commission is convinced of the existence of a genuine and sufficient desire for parishing, they will, I am sure, use their best offices to persuade the council concerned to initiate a review. But there is a further safeguard. If persuasion fails, the commission could ask the Secretary of State to direct the council to undertake a review. That would be an extreme step for the Secretary of State to take, and would clearly be taken only in extreme circumstances. But the possibility is there.

With the greatest respect, I still do not think that the cumbersome procedure in this Bill is the right one to take. Having said that, nonetheless I recognise that all the noble Lord's amendments, with I think one exception, improve his Bill and, of course, I would not dream of standing in their way.

7.33 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

In case there is not another opportunity to speak, I just want to say "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for his very kind remarks about me and the Isle of Wight. As I am on my feet, I should like to make one point to my noble friend. Whatever happens to this Bill, I believe that the Government ought to regard this as a matter which needs progressing. My noble friend said that this was a cumbersome way in which to proceed. Perhaps there is a better way. Perhaps the Government could come up with a better way. But the fact is that the need for parishes locally throughout the country is growing.

There is all kinds of evidence of that and the matter needs to be accelerated. Whatever happens in the next few months, the Government should not go away, as they appear to be doing now, with their feet firmly keeping the door shut. They need to look at this matter much more sympathetically, because there is a greater demand for it.

Lord Skelmersdale

I think that my noble friend is being a little unfair. I did say that if I had evidence, I would look at the matter.

Baroness White

How many letters does the noble Lord the Minister wish us to write to him before he is convinced?

Lord Skelmersdale

That might be giving the game away.

Lord Young of Dartington

The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has put the point very well already. But I hope that the Minister will bear fully in mind the fact that this Bill clearly has support from all parts of the Committee. That is of some significance. One of the real values of parish councils is that they bring into civic life people who do not necessarily want to belong to a political party or serve as a political party representative. They are non-party political bodies. London, like other cities in other parts of the country, would benefit from bringing into civic life some excellent people—perhaps many excellent people—as rural parish councils have done, who would not come into ordinary councils which are so much dominated by ordinary party politics. When considering further what might be the reaction to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I hope that that point will also be borne fully in mind.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am very grateful to all noble Lords—except one—who have spoken on this amendment. It has been extremely helpful to have this support from all parties and from all parts of the kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lady White have said, it was necessary for the Committee to be reminded of the fact that this is not a great innovation; these community councils exist on the same basis in Scotland and Wales, and have existed almost from time immemorial in the rural areas of England. It is only the cities and towns of England—the conurbations of England—which are deprived of the right to associate together and to decide for themselves that they want to associate together in their local communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made a just point when he said that the 20 per cent, petition was a tough hurdle for people to overcome in starting a petition procedure; and I agree with him. It is possibly true that we are erring on the side of caution, but at this stage it is probably better to err on the side of caution and make it more difficult than to run the risk that a small minority of enthusiasts might impose their view on a larger number of people.

That is not for a moment to say that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was right in suggesting that this was a recipe for dissension. On Second Reading he thought that it might lead to "heartburn"; I do not think he meant that it had anything to do with indigestion. The noble Lord referred to a petition being got up by a large number of people in a local area who want the right to local self-government to a limited extent. That is not dissension; it is the first stage of civic activity in the exercise of democratic rights.

My noble friend Lady White referred to the social gradations in Hampstead. I hope that they will not quite be social gradations; I hope that these will be mixed social communities and not just social gradations. My noble friend Lord Graham referred to another tier of local government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that this ought not to be another tier of local government, and I do not necessarily think that it will be a breeding ground for metropolitan or district councillors. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the important thing is to bring more people to a feeling that they can affect the lives of their community.

In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, appeared to repeat all the misapprehensions which he had about the Bill on Second Reading. In looking at the parish review procedure he reminded me of nothing so much as Dean Hewlett Johnson before the war looking at the Soviet Union and saying: I have seen the future and it works". The parish review procedure started with Circular 121 in 1977. and the kindest thing that can be said about it is that the final result has been extraordinarily disappointing after a period of seven years. I understand that there are a few urban parishes on Merseyside and virtually nowhere else. It is true that the procedure is in its early stages in a large number of districts, but, as many noble Lords have said, it all suffers from the undoubted fact that many district councils distrust the idea of local people having any command over their own destiny. Where that is the case they will either not have the review procedure at all or they will spin it out in such a way as to make sure that there are no urban parish councils resulting.

That is virtually the situation that we have today. It is not true to say that we are forcing the pace and it is not true to say that the power of the English commission to overturn a negative parish review is a satisfactory alternative. I understand that there is only one example of that in Solihull, where the English commission stepped in after the borough council had started the review procedure and then stopped it. But it is not reasonable, surely, to expect the English commission to be aware of the strength of local feeling in every one of the urban villages in our cities and towns. It must be for people themselves, not the Boundary Commission, to take the first step.

The final misapprehension of the noble Lord is that this is a cumbersome procedure. The cumbersome procedure is the cumbersome procedure of his own Government. So far as is humanly possible we have followed in this Bill the procedures of the parish review and the methods of dealing with the outcomes of the parish review as proposed under the Local Government Act 1972. If some easier and less cumbersome way can be found, I should be delighted to have it shown and I should be delighted for the Government to move suitable amendments at Report stage. At the moment we are stuck with procedures as they are in the legislation and we have to follow them.

To return to the point of the amendment, the case for denying London the basic opportunity for local rights has certainly not been made and the words of the Minister have effectively been denied by many noble Lords. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Constitution of parishes following petitions]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 17, leave out ("boroughs in Greater London") and insert ("the London Boroughs").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to fit in with normal wording. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 19, after second ("a") insert ("proposed").

The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment. If the amendment is accepted, and if your Lordships agree, I should also like to move Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 8:

Page 2, line 2, after ("period") insert ("for a proposed parish").

Page 2, line 2, leave out ("a") and insert ("the English").

Page 2, line 3, after ("action") insert ("on a petition").

Page 2, line 4, leave out ("area") and insert ("proposed parish").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 5, after ("ends") insert ("either")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 10 and I should like to speak to the two together.

Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("or with the day upon which either the English Commission or, if the petition has not been referred to that Commission, the council of a district or of a London Borough, rejects that petition.").

The purpose of the amendments is to provide a better definition of the closed period; that is, the period in which parish review procedure is under way and during which the procedures proposed in this Bill would not take place. In other words, the intention is to make absolutely clear that the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on Second Reading that we have a parallel procedure, a "confusing procedure", I believe was the phrase he used, is not true. Either one has a district council initiating a parish review—in which case this Bill does not have any effect—or one does not because it has failed to do its duty under Section 121. In that case the procedures in the Bill take effect. There is no question of any particu-lar area being faced by two different procedures. The procedures take place only at different times and in different areas. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:

[Printed above.]

The noble said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 12, after ("writing") insert ("to the council of a district or of a London Borough").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is simply seeking to bring greater precision to the duty of the Commission to notify the outside world of its decisions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Savings for petitions for constitutions of parishes]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("and in the said sections 60 and 61 the words 'district council' shall be construed as including, for the purposes of the said section 1A, the council of a London Borough.".").

The noble Lord said: This is slightly more than a drafting amendment. It is necessary to explain what is intended. The problem is that in the wording, as we have it in the Bill from Second Reading, it is not absolutely explicit that London borough councils will have the same powers to create parishes as district councils in urban areas outside London. The purpose of this amendment is to correct that position. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [New Part VI of 1972 Act]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 2, line 28, after first ("area") insert ("(herein called 'the proposed parish')").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment comparable to Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14: Page 2, line 28, after ("is") insert ("wholly").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 28, at end insert ("or areas").

The purpose of these two amendments is something which we ought to have realised when we first drew up the Bill. It clearly would be extraordinarily disconcerting and administratively inconvenient if a parish were to be set up which straddled the boundary of any of the new districts, be they metropolitan districts or London borough councils, for this parish would then have the responsibility of seeking to raise money on precept from more than one local authority. The intention of the amendments is to make sure that although a parish may cross old boundaries, which no longer have any legal significance, after the passing of the Local Government Act, a parish cannot straddle a new boundary. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 15:

[Printed above. ]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("a parish or").

The noble Lord said: Again, this is a minor amendment designed to ensure that an existing parish is not interfered with without variation in the boundary by the procedure proposed in the legislation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 39, leave out ("the area of).

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18: Page 3, line 7, after ("months") insert ("of the receipt of the petition").

The noble Lord said: If it pleases your Lordships I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 23: Page 3, line 25, after ("days") insert ("of the rejection of the petition by the council").

Both these amendments are clarifications of what is meant by a period of 12 months. The whole purpose of the Bill here, as the Committee will recognise, is to ensure that there are no unfair and unnecessary delaying tactics in the procedure. There is nothing worse than to have something continuing without any indication of when it might come to an end. Thus we are here seeking to clarify the definition of the starting date of the deadline proposed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.50 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19: Page 3, line 7, leave out ("by order constitute the parish") and insert ("report to the Secretary of State that a parish should be constituted")

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 20: page 3, line 8, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State may give effect to that report by an order made under section 51 of this Act.") The purpose of this amendment—and I would hope the Government would think it a reasonable one—is to assimilate the procedure proposed under the Bill into the procedure under the 1972 Local Government Act which takes place after a favourable review has been completed. The position is that the Secretary of State has to make a formal order for the creation of a parish because he also has the responsibility for such things as coroners' districts and county electoral divisions; and it would not be satisfactory that the constitution should be left to anyone but the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:

[Primed above. ]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21: Page 3, line 12, leave out ("the area of)

The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22: Page 3, line 24, after second ("if") insert ("a majority of)

The noble Lord said: This is slightly more important because it is apparent, on reflection, that if you have the possibility that a petition is rejected by a council the Bill as drafted says that the petitioners should require in writing that the English commission should do this or that. If a single petitioner had moved or died it would no longer be possible for that to happen. We are proposing that the majority of the petitioners should be sufficient to set that process in motion. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24. Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("forthwith") to end of line 29 and insert ("cause a local inquiry to be held under section 61 of this Act as if the petition were a review under Part IV of this Act.")

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Amendment No. 27: page 3, line 35, leave out ("paragraphs 7 or") and insert ("paragraph") Amendment No. 28: page 3, line 43, leave out from ("by") to end of line 45 and insert ("the Commission or by the council in a case in which the petition had not been referred to the Commission ")

The purpose here is to assimilate the procedure into that of the Local Government Act as if an unfavourable review had taken place and the process had been completed. The fact is that there is no provision for a local inquiry in the 1972 Act so that it has to be carried out as a review under Part IV of the Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25: Page 3, line 29, at end insert— ("7A. If a council has made no decision within 12 months of the receipt of a petition the English Commission shall either make proposals to the Secretary' of State for the constitution by order under section 51 of this Act of a parish in accordance with the petition or shall proceed as if the petition had been referred to the Commission by the petitioners under paragraph 7 above.").

The noble Lord said: This exactly the kind of case that a number of noble Lords were speaking about when they spoke on Amendment No. 1. This is the case where, as often happens, the district council drags its feet on the review procedure under Circular 121/1977 and makes no decision. I understand there have been a number of cases of that. If the Minister has in front of him his list of the progress that he claims has been made. I am sure that he will find a list of those who have come to no decision after initiating the procedure some time ago. What is proposed here is that no decision shall, after 12 months, take the districts out of the closed period and enable the local people to make up their own minds about what sort of a local council they want. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26: Page 2, line 33, at end insert— ("8A. Where any petition is being considered by the Commission under paragraphs 7 or 7A above the Commission shall at the same time and in the same manner consider any other petition which is an opposed petition by reason of paragraph 6 above, whether or not any decision has been made on such opposed petition by the council, and in such case the council shall not appoint a commissioner under paragraph 8 above, but if one has already been appointed he shall not act.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to deal with what perhaps might seem to be a rather remote circumstance, but I think that it is as well to have all these matters cleared up. Let us suppose that there is more than one overlapping petition for a particular area or group of areas. That could well happen because, although in many cases there is a keen sense of local community in our councils and cities, not everybody is going to be agreed about what the exact boundary should be.

There may be people who, as my noble friend Lord Graham said on Second Reading, will want to keep the people on the wrong side of the tracks at Bush Hill Park in or out of a particular area. If the council rejects these overlapping petitions and only one of the groups of petitioners appeals, the commissioners could find themselves dealing with something other than the whole area and denied the opportunity to take a broad view. To avoid that possibility and to increase the powers of the commissioners to take a broad view, we propose to insert this new paragraph 8A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:

[Printed earlier.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Short title, citation and commencement]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29: Page 4, line 4, at end insert— ("( ) In this Act '1972 Act' means the Local Government Act 1972.").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 7.58 until 8 p.m.]