Lords Sitting of 29 April 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Lord Nunbumholme—Took the Oath.

London Traffic Delays: Coaches and Lorries
Lord Boothby: 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 take steps to impose restrictions on coaches and heavy lorries in London in order to prevent inordinate traffic delays.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, coaches and heavy lorries are already subject to a number of local authority traffic regulations in London. Urgent consideration is being given, with the authorities concerned, as to the scope for action over increased volumes of coaches in London this summer.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, is the noble Lord aware that unless something really drastic is done by somebody to stop or to limit the parking of these juggernauts all over central London, traffic will gradually grind to a standstill?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are of course concerned. That is why we are examining the situation to see how we might assist the authorities more directly in resolving the problems.
Lord Granville of Eye: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of the continental day coaches come to the centre of London, put down their passengers and then cruise around empty for two or three hours, and that this in itself is causing serious traffic delays?
2
Furthermore, has he seen the Embankment, which has now been turned into a very large coach station, which is also causing serious traffic delays?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the problem is the difficulty in finding places in which to park these coaches in London when they have disgorged their tourists. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the tourist industry is of great importance to London and the economy, and that we should not try to prevent tourists from coming here.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the intense and growing concentration of coach traffic in the Victoria area around the coach station? Is he further aware that in recent tests carried out the emissions of smoke and sulphur dioxide in Ebury Street (which is a residential area) were in excess of the EC limits? What are the Government going to do about this threat to health and the environment in this important part of central London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the Ebury Street area and Victoria Coach Station. I was not aware that the smoke was in excess of the limits allowed. I can say that it is primarily a matter for the GLC, which is the traffic authority, and of course Westminster City Council. However, I hope that that will not long remain so. I would say that I believe that there are certain plans in hand which might alleviate the situation in Ebury Street.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, will the noble Lord accordingly support us when we come to the appropriate amendment in the Bill?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly not, my Lords.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to say a little more about the examination which is being conducted. Can he tell us what are the terms of reference of the examination, who and how many are conducting the examination, and when the Government will be in a position to announce the result of it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is early days at the moment. The noble Lord may well be aware that the GLC is currently conducting its own investigation, and I believe submissions have to be in by 31st March. We shall be interested to see the conclusions. As for our own investigations, we are discussing the situation with the local authorities concerned, the operators and so forth.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the GLC or whatever other body, at least to see that juggernauts unload their heavy loads into smaller lorries before coming into the very centre of London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord may be aware, there is already a ban in certain areas of central London on lorries of over 40 feet—and I believe that the area is bounded by Vauxhall, Blackfriars, King's Cross and the Edgware Road—for those not requiring access to central London. As to larger lorries transferring their loads to smaller lorries, I am not sure that that would have the desired effect as it would result in more lorries and not fewer.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in view of the basically unsatisfactory answer of the noble Lord the Minister to my noble friend Lord Ezra, can the noble Lord give an undertaking that the pollution difficulties to which my noble friend referred, and of which the noble Lord the Minister had no knowledge, will be looked into in the near future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise if my answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was unsatisfactory. I shall look into the question which he has raised and see what conclusions we come to.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, has my noble friend an estimate of the degree to which the problems that are being complained about will be alleviated when the M.25 is completed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that the problems of lorries using London as through traffic will be very considerably alleviated when the M.25 is completed. In regard to tourist coaches, etc., I do not think there will be any difference.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that adjacent to St. Margaret's in Parliament Square there is a private hire coach parked every day of the week advertising the three trips which it does round the London sights? Will he look into the matter, because it is causing extreme congestion in Parliament Square itself?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware of the particular matter to which the noble Baroness refers. I would point out that under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 licences for local excursions and tours can be refused if the traffic commissioners consider that the proposed stopping places would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public. I shall draw the noble
4
Baroness's remarks to the attention of the appropriate quarter.

EMS Exchange Rate Mechanism
2.45 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government have no objection in principle to joining the EMS exchange rate mechanism, but the question of participation requires assessment of a wide range of factors. For instance, recent experience has shown that sterling responds very differently from other EMS currencies to dollar and oil market developments.
Lord Reay: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply? Would he agree that in recent months the movements of the pound against the dollar have been greater than the movements of continental currencies against the dollar? Also, would he agree that this is probably at least in part due to the fact that currencies within the EMS are less attractive to speculators than currencies outside the EMS and that therefore if this country were to join fully the EMS this should give some stability for the currency and be of help to British manufacturers as well as those responsible for making Government forecasts?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy, as I think my noble friend is aware, with the desire of manufacturers and exporters to have greater certainty; but this is not a world in which certainty about exchange rate movements, whether within the EMS or outside it, is very easy to achieve. The fluctuations mentioned by my noble friend, had they taken place within the exchange rate mechanism, would not have been very material because as a second reserve currency linked to oil factors there would have been volatility for sterling in any case.
On the question of speculation, when a fluctuation is not containable, even though it might take place within the exchange rate mechanism, the slowing down of the adjustment process through the ERM is an invitation to virtually risk-free speculation, and the Government of course would be highly criticised if we promoted that.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, what is the point of the noble Earl rehearsing the arguments against the principle of joining when he has already told us that he is in favour of joining? He is one of the principal members of the Government. Is the noble Earl aware that there is a huge body of expert opinion, including the Governor of the Bank of England, which has recommended that we should be joining the EMS now? What is the reason for further delay?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I was not rehearsing an objection to joining in principle. Indeed, in my original Answer to my noble friend I said that the Government had no objection in principle. I said that it was not as easy, given petro-currency fluctuations, as many people thought. As to the Governor of the Bank of England, he has been prayed in aid on this subject before so I took the precaution of looking up what he actually said. It is somewhat equivocal support because the Governor said that joining would produce other problems. If I may quote him, he said:
"You see, our membership might change the actual working of the system itself".
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, would my noble friend agree or not agree that if the primary purpose of Government policies is the abatement of inflation by the application of monetary discipline at home, then membership of the EMS would be contra-indicated? But if on the other hand the Government's primary purpose has been the achievement of an exchange rate level, whether disclosed or not, then logically it would follow that membership of the EMS would be indicated.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in logic I think my noble friend is quite right. This is why the Government have no objection in principle to joining. The trouble is that movements of oil prices round the world are not dictated by logic and we are uniquely affected by them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that this petro-currency argument is being overdone? It was not so long ago that the Government were saying that only 6 per cent. of our national product was due to oil. We cannot keep on using this argument in opposite directions. The sooner we strengthen the European monetary system, the sooner we can bring some stability to world currencies.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, if I may respectfully say so to the noble Lord, he is wholly wrong. Even if only three per cent. of our economy were affected by oil price movements, that would have a very considerable effect on the movements of sterling.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Opposition understand the difficulties which the Government have in this matter? Would he agree that, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said about sterling as a petro-currency, the fact is that the world sees sterling as a petrocurrency and reacts accordingly? Is it not a fact that if we at this present time go into the EMS the divergence limits will have to be very high indeed, perhaps as high as 25 per cent.? Would he also say what he thinks the rate against the ecu would have to be if we entered the EMS? Would it not have to be much lower than the present rate of 1.82 ecus to the pound?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not believe that I can comment on the noble Lord's latter point because, as I have said, we would remain subject to petro-currency regulations and fluctuations even within the EMS. As to the noble Lord's former point, I am glad if somewhat surprised to be rescued by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I think
6
that what he says on this occasion has considerable merit.

Argentina: Commercial Links
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards stabilising commercial links with Argentina.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Argentine Government could take a major step towards the normalisation of our bilateral relations by agreeing to the reciprocal lifting of trade restrictions. We have made a number of proposals to achieve this.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she not agree that the Answer itself indicates that very little progress has been made? I believe that the new rulers of Argentina, who were opposed to the attack on the Falkland Islands, want to have a solid relationship with us. It might be well worth our while appointing a commission, perhaps under the Lord Privy Seal, to go to the Argentine to sort out the real problems there and overcome them in the interests of both countries.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have tried on a number of occasions to achieve better bilateral relations with Argentina. One area where we believe we could make progress to the benefit of both ourselves and Argentina is that of trade and commercial relations. Unfortunately, Argentina has been unwilling to discuss this matter unless the issue of sovereignty is also discussed—which is unacceptable to us.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any progress has been made, in respect of trade relations with Argentina, about the 200-mile exclusion fishing zone for our country and for the Argentine?
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is a very interesting point, but it is wide of the original Question. However, if my noble friend would care to put down a Question on this subject, I shall be happy to answer it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the Government lift the absurd ban on the import by British booksellers of books from the Argentine? This ban has absolutely no effect other than to prejudice the British book trade.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government recognise that special considerations apply to books. Indeed, we have repeatedly urged the Argentine Government to lift reciprocally all remaining commercial and economic restrictions between our two countries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, last week the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said in the debate on the Falklands that the Government were taking a constructive approach towards the rescheduling of the Argentine debt. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what form that constructive approach is taking?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the agreement reached at the Paris club meeting on 15th and 16th January on the rescheduling of Argentina's official debt is an important contribution to the economic adjustment programme of this third largest international debtor.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether one of the Government's proposals to the Argentine Government is that they now officially declare, at last, cessation of hostilities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government of Argentina have not yet officially declared a cessation of hostilities—but we have still said that we would like to have better bilateral relations, including trade relations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while the argument she submits apropos sovereignty of the Falklands is a very real one, that should be no reason or obstacle in the way of seeking to establish the kind of relationship for which I asked in my original Question?
Is the noble Baroness aware also that preliminary steps were taken by the British chairman of the IPU and many of his colleagues just under a year ago? It seemed to us then that if there could be something like a trade mission the very agreement to that by the Argentine would help to improve our relationship—which would be very beneficial to Great Britain and to the Argentine itself, and would therefore mean that both nations would gain something.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government have raised on five occasions, through the presidency of the European Community, the possibility of lifting trade restrictions. We tried in our long, complex negotiations leading up to Berne to do so again; and we have tried again subsequently. But for the reason I have already given, nothing, unfortunately, has come of these.

Civil Defence: Public Shelters
2.54 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: 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 by what date they will issue guidance to local authorities to enable them to identify suitable public shelters for civil defence purposes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we plan to issue this guidance as a supplementary handbook to the
8
consolidated guidance on emergency planning in the next few weeks.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Has any study been made of the practice adopted by the Swedish and Swiss Governments, whereby they incorporate in new structures—in both commercial and industrial buildings—public shelters?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1984 require local authorities to make plans for utilising existing structures, and indeed natural features, as shelters for the public. The Government have also published advice on various kinds of contingency and purpose-built domestic shelters. I am sure that the kind of consideration to which my noble friend referred will have been taken into account.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both the Swedish and Swiss Governments, given as an example by his noble friend, have no nuclear weapons upon their soil? Is he aware also that it is a condition of effective civil defence to get rid of the nuclear weapon? Will he take a lesson from the suggestion of his noble friend?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I suggest that the best way to meet the kind of concern which he often expresses is to rely on our policy of deterrence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that the shelter policy is co-ordinated with the Government's crisis relocation plans?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that it is one of the many factors taken into account.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lyell will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the use of medical cards as proof of identity in Northern Ireland local elections.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period, and that during this adjournment the Eumestat (Legal Capacities) Order 1985 and the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1985 will be taken.

Royal Bank of Scotland Bill
Read a second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This and the second Motion both put into effect the recommendations of the First Report from the Procedure Committee to which your Lordships agreed on 18th April last—although your Lordships spent rather more time discussing our recommendations on Starred Questions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 33
Leave out the words "unless the House so order".—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, notwithstanding the terms of Standing Order 37, business may be postponed without notice with the unanimous leave of the House until further order, as recommended in the First Report of the Procedure Committee, agreed to on 18th April 1985.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): 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 Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Commitee of Inquiry.
.—(1) Not later than one month after the passing of this Act there shall be established a committee of inquiry ("the Committee") which shall inquire into and report on the best means for securing the future provision of services undertaken by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils before 1st April 1986.
(2) The Committee shall make its report no later than 1st February 1986.
(3) Schedule (Independent Committee of Inquiry) shall have effect with respect to the membership and powers of the Committee.")
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment which stands in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Claughton and Lord Kissin, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. If the Committee agree, with Amendment No. 1 I shall
10
speak to Amendments Nos. 24 and 141, which are consequential.
Amendment No. 24: Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule:
("Independent Committee of Inquiry
1. In preparing its report the Committee of Inquiry ("the Committee") established by section (Committee of Inquiry) of this Act shall consider such matters as it thinks appropriate.
2. The Secretary of State shall assist the Committee by making available to it such information and documents as the Committee considers relevant to the preparation of its report.
3. The Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils shall assist the Committee by making available to it such information and documents as the Committee considers relevant to the preparation of its reports.
4. The Committee shall consist of members appointed by the Secretary of State, in such a manner that—

(a) the Committee consists of such number of members as the Secretary of State thinks fit;

(b) the members of the Committee are suitably qualified to undertake the inquiry mentioned in section (Committee of Inquiry) above by virtue of experience of, or capacity in.local government or related or relevant fields;

(c) the members of the Committee include persons representative of bodies representative of local authorities in England;

(d) no member of the Committee is —

(i) a member of Parliament:

(ii) a Crown servant;

(iii) a member or employee of any body to which functions, property, rights or liabilities will be transferred by or under this Act;

(iv) a member or employee of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council;

(v) a member of the staff commission.")

Amendment No. 141: Clause 98, Page 71, line 33, at end insert —
("(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, an Order under this section may include provisions to implement recommendations of the report of the Committee of inquiry referred to in section (Committee of Inquiry) of this Act, and no Order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
Two weeks ago the House approved the Second Reading of this Bill. The amendment seeks in no way to challenge that decision or to delay the timetable for abolition set out in the Bill. The amendment calls for an independent inquiry to report on the best means of securing the future provision of those services currently undertaken by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I appreciate that this is an unusual request at this time. It is very strange and unique to ask for an inquiry during the passage of a Bill, but this is a very strange and very unique Bill, as I hope the noble Earl will take into account. Therefore, one must find a way of trying to improve on what at the moment is a completely chaotic situation.
The Government have not held an inquiry and, without going into the details of the various commissions and inquiries, it has certainly never been known in recent times for a major reorganisation of this sort to take place without an inquiry or a Royal Commission preceding it. That has not happened. What has happened is that informed opinion, be it professional, academic, political, from local government, or even from industry and commerce, has been critical of the proposals and has informed the Government of the doubts and criticisms but has so far made no headway at all.
Under the amendment there would be no delay. The Secretary of State would be able to choose to act, or not to act, on the findings. Parliament would also have a chance to vote, before abolition became effective, on any order which the Secretary of State may decide to lay before it. A complete lack of consensus has arisen

11
during the Bill. Although there is always a certain amount of conflict and disagreement on any legislation, particularly this sort of legislation which is changing the structure of local government, I do not think I have ever known a situation quite like this—and I am not referring to my own direct experience but to my reading and a knowledge of the history of local and central Government. Inquiries in the past did not in any way support the type of proposals contained in the Bill; in fact, they were highly critical of them. The Marshall Inquiry, the Herbert Commission and the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission all overwhelmingly opposed what is being done. The independent reports were critical not only because of their concern for the way the functions were to be carried out but also because of the higher cost and, as they saw it, the lower effectiveness and lower cost-efficiency—and that is an aspect for which the Government are always saying they have a great regard.
Moreover, the Bill does not meet the Government's objectives. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was kind enough in winding up at Second Reading, at col. 582, to remind us of those objectives. He said:
"For the avoidance of any doubt I shall repeat the relevant passage from our election manifesto:
'The metropolitan counties and the GLC have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of Government. We shall abolish them and return most of their functions to the boroughs and to the districts'."
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Baroness Birk: Yes, the noble Lord may say "Hear, hear", but that is not what is happening. Something entirely different is being done. The functions are not going to the boroughs and the districts. The boroughs and the districts will be handling much less of the expenditure of the services with which the metropolitan counties and the GLC are concerned than will the joint boards, joint committees and other quangos. In fact, 31 per cent. of expenditure of the GLC will go directly to the boroughs and 18 per cent. directly to the districts. Therefore, it will not be simpler and the services will not be closer to the voter, though that was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he opened the debate at Second Reading. Local democracy and accountability will be far less and not greater. That has been pointed out by numerous newspapers and various people who have commented on this.
The Bill is also quite upside down; it is the wrong way round. It is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. When an investigation is undertaken and a decision arrived at on legislation concerning the structure of local government it is normal to establish which functions are necessary, how best the services can be provided and what structure can ensure that, and to establish in what way services can be improved on what has happened in the past. But the Government have not done that. They have decided to change the structure first without analysing whether the functions were necessary, whether they could be improved, or whether some of them were needed at all.
12
Having started on that, the Government then decided that they were stuck with looking at the functions and receiving the comments from another place, from outside organisations and now, as the Bill goes through this House, from your Lordships. Having started on abolition, they then set up some inquiries into matters fundamental to local government. There is an internal inquirv on finance which is under the aegis of the Department of the Environment, and there is the inquiry headed by Lord Widdicombe on accountability. But that, again, is the wrong way round. If the Government really want to benefit from these inquiries, they should, wait until they have the results; but they are not doing so.
One might ask: what can an inquiry in this short timescale achieve? I felt that it was important we should draft this amendment in such a way that it could not be accused of being a wrecking amendment. It is not a delaying amendment. It is a very practical and pragmatic amendment. There is no need for noble Lords to laugh about that. Nothing else has been put up in its place that is going to make any sense at all. If the noble Lord can come forward with something which would do this job even better and produce a better Bill, I am sure that we would listen with great attention and he would receive support if he came forward with a solution; but he knows that he cannot.
There is a short timetable, but there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from setting up the inquiry before the Bill is passed, if he wants to do so. First, there is a great deal of evidence already available taken from other inquiries and so a great deal does not have to be initiated. Secondly, it would be a means of damage limitation. It would stop the amount of damage which will result from the Bill if it continues in its present extraordinary and somersaulting style. It would be able to prescribe a proper timetable for what happens after 1st April 1986, and it would result in a greater certainty, which would facilitate the changeover.
It would also establish what will happen to services. For example, on the one hand, there are the voluntary organisations, about which there is a great deal of concern. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to them in winding up the debate. Things have not been settled in anything like a satisfactory way so far as they are concerned. Another example—and there are many—is the question of waste disposal.
The Government in their White Paper Streamlining the Cities have concentrated on a thread that has run all through the arguments for the Bill. They say that they are streamlining. The result is entirely the opposite. Every concession that they have been forced to make, even though it has been unsatisfactory, has cut down the streamlining. Even the unsatisfactory way in which they are now proposing to deal with the voluntary organisations means setting up various additional types of organisation, all of which makes the changes more costly, longer delayed and less efficient.
The arts funding, which is to be transferred to the equivalent of quangos, is suffering the same sort of fate and great fears have been expressed. The funds are now to be channelled through the Arts Council; so the borough influence has once again been eroded. Historic buildings are another example. There was a

13
great deal of uncertainty, concern and great pressure from the many organisations involved. It has now been announced that the main functions will be transferred to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission rather than to the boroughs. The boroughs do not come into many of the matters that arise.
Then there is the Inner London Education Authority. The only substantial concession made by the Government in the White Paper consultation was to announce that ILEA will not be abolished with the GLC but that it will be a strategic elected authority. I am pleased that the Government did that, but it is curious, as it is entirely contrary to what they are doing on everything else. ILEA has twice as many staff as the GLC and a high expenditure in comparison; so it is a peculiar juxtapositioning. It is yet another example of the way the proposals have not been thought out. It is a hand-to-mouth way of doing things and can hardly be described as good or even passable legislation.
ILEA again is in an extraordinary position. Although it is to have a different status from the GLC and the other bodies, it can still within five years be abolished by the Secretary of State, and so there is a double jeopardy. There are two forms of change. There is the change now and then the threat hanging over its head of reorganisation or abolition after 1986. That is another illustration of why it is necessary for us in this Chamber to do something, however minor, to make a Bill which many of us on this side of the Committee consider unnecessary and wrong in any case a bit better. But if it is to be passed, it must be improved.
3.15 p.m.
After all, I do not think that there is a difference of opinion. We on these Benches certainly do not think that the GLC or even the metropolitan counties are perfect. As in almost any organisation, it would be possible to cut costs and make them more efficient. But the Government do not have to throw all the babies out with all the bath water, which is exactly what the Bill is doing.
I immediately agree that the inquiry which we are proposing is limited, but it could still have an impact. It could look at the administrative, financial and managerial aspects of the change. On Second Reading the vast majority of speakers in this House, even those who supported the abolition proposals, had caveats. They agreed; but they were concerned about this or that. It may have been archives, voluntary organisations, waste disposal and a whole list of other functions. Those have not yet been worked out. Instead of jumping from one thing to another, it would be very much better for everyone to know that at the end of the day an independent inquiry would be sorting out the practical problems associated with the Bill. That would also have the advantages that have been pointed out and cover matters mentioned in other amendments.
In the Commons the Bill was guillotined at Clause 16 and so it is just not true that it has had a thorough going over in another place. Let me give one example—and I have a list of the hours and minutes spent on various important aspects of the Bill. For
14
example, only one-and-a-half hours were spent discussing the creation of joint boards. Is it really right that we should let a Bill go through largely unamended and on which in the elected Chamber only one-and-a -half hours were spent on such an important aspect? That provision would remove from an elected authority the power to carry out certain functions and give it to a completely indirectly elected body.
This legislation will not only affect the consumers of the services or the staff of the GLC and the metropolitan counties who are uncertain about their fate at the moment. Indeed, I understand that some of the better ones are resigning, since they do not know what will happen. I believe that it will also mean an increase in costs, a decrease in efficiency and a loss for the people of this country of the services which up to now they have received. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I have always said —
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is in doubt as to whether to give way. So am I. I was proposing to speak next. If he feels—
Lord Evans of Claughton: The noble Lord may go ahead.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think I take no advantage from this because he will be able to dismember what I have left on the table after I have sat down, though perhaps with less facility than the noises made by his friends and supporters would suggest.
It is, I suppose, understandable that the noble Baroness should have used this amendment as an opportunity to deploy the distaste which she feels for a great many of the matters within the Bill. I think that is a natural temptation. It falls, moreover, within the scope of the amendment, and so I do not take her to task for it. She proposes an inquiry which she hopes, I do not doubt, would take the same view of those matters as she does and would be able to deploy the same arguments with the added force of independence immediately before abolition. I do not propose—
Baroness Birk: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early on, but I think it would be a pity if we started off on the wrong foot. It would have been unfair of me not to have made it clear that I did not like the Bill, but I think that I also made it clear to the point of tedium that I was discussing a very narrow amendment and a limited inquiry in order to improve the Bill. That is what the amendment is about. It is no good the Minister trying to widen it.
Lord Elton: Whatever else the noble Baroness has said, it has not been tedious, particularly the last remark she made. The noble Baroness, speaking for the official Labour Party, has invited your Lordships to amend this Bill so that the Secretary of State shall appoint a committee of inquiry to report to him before the Bill becomes law. The committee would be required to consider almost exactly the same matters that the other place considered in Committee on the Bill, and those matters are almost exactly the ones that your Lordships will be considering for a great many

15
days to come, both in Committee and on Report, and, if I know the noble Baroness, at Third Reading as well. All those discussions will be before the Bill is on the statute book and will be capable therefore of altering the appearance of the Bill and its effect.
The inquiry over this well-trodden ground is to occupy the people appointed to carry it out until the 1st February next year. They must then report. The report would go to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who would consider it. When he had considered it, he would be empowered by the noble Baroness's amendment to return to the matters exhaustively considered by both Houses of Parliament and to draw up statutory instruments changing those matters which could both decide the detail of what Parliament had left general and the way in which Parliament had already disposed of these matters, and ask Parliament to agree to them. It is not merely the circularity of this procedure that I find odd; I find both the proposal and the grounds on which it is made odd in a number of ways.
The first oddity is this. The noble Baroness accuses us of legislation without public inquiry. She does so, I repeat, as the official spokesman of the Labour Party. But it was the Labour Party that was in government in the early part of 1979 and which then published a White Paper called Organic Change. That White Paper put forward firm proposals for reorganising local government; but there was no committee of inquiry set up before her party came to these conclusions and made that commitment. Your Lordships will say, "Well, the inquiry is the thing; it doesn't matter when you have it, provided you have it before it is too late, and they haven't mentioned it in the White Paper but they would have had it all the same".
I accept that they are not too fussy about timing, and you could not leave things much later than it is proposed to leave them in this amendment. It does not even start until the Act is on the statute book, but that does not affect the oddity of the case at all. The Organic Change and the Labour Party's plans were put into cold storage by the election in 1979 and your Lordships who have political affinities then moved to opposite sides of the House, although it is perfectly true that the Liberal Party remained firmly upon its ample seat and they were joined in a lateral move by a good number of socialists.
Our next glimpse of the process of the Labour Party evolving this policy was given to us shortly before the next general election campaign when the right honourable Member for Manchester (Gorton) said, "We shall set up no more inquiries; we shall legislate and we shall legislate so that these reforms will be in force during the lifetime of the next Parliament". No mention of time for an inquiry there.
There is another example of circularity because the reforms he was promising to bring in without further inquiry, which his party now tells us is essential, were designed, in his own words, to create unitary district authorities which shall be responsible for all the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake. That is exactly what we are now doing and exactly what he and his friends are expending such large amounts of political energy in trying to prevent.
16
I shall not dwell on this, we all have the right to change our mind, as the noble Baroness will no doubt shortly remind me. But let us accept that the noble Lords opposite have suddenly been struck with a revelation and now believe, mistakenly but genuinely, that an inquiry really is necessary after all. Again, I look for a precedent: how long should it take? The precedents appear to be the Herbert Commission and the commission presided over by my late noble friend Lord Redcliffe-Maud. The first was set up in 1957; it did not report until 1960. The second met for the first time in 1966 and did not report until 1970. Roughly three years therefore seems to be par for the course for this sort of work.
How long do the amendments give the committee for its work?—from August to February. Worse is to follow: every single recommendation they will make will have to be implemented between 1st February and 1st April. How often have we heard noble Lords and Baronesses opposite saying, "We will never get the Bill implemented in the eight months that we have allowed"? They will not be able to use that argument again because they are now proposing only eight weeks. The phrase that the noble Baroness aptly used was, "at the end of the day". It would not be eight weeks just for the changes recommended by the committee because the committee can touch on anything it wishes and none of the other arrangements could therefore be made until the committee had tabled its report. That I find particularly odd; after all, the Opposition obviously have given careful thought to timing; they have an amendment down on the Marshalled List to delay implementation by a year.
But the extraordinary thing is that change is not proposed in this amendment. The idea of delay to make this very odd proposal possible has been considered, it seems, and rejected. The result of this is that the proposal now before your Lordships is not only absurd, it is a recipe for total chaos and absolute breakdown. It is, in a word, a "wrecking" amendment designed to overturn the principle enshrined in this Bill which has been endorsed by your Lordships by a very substantial majority.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord the Minister is most courteous, but why does he assume in the course of a very lucid but, as far as I can see, bad argument so far that the committee of inquiry will find so much in this Bill that is wrong?
Lord Elton: I was simply going on the speech with which his noble friend introduced the amendment because that it is clearly her hope. I should not wish to disappoint her at this early stage of the argument. We have here a Bill that rests upon mature reflection of grounds so thoroughly covered by inquiries that even the Opposition's official spokesman on the environment said that no further inquiry was needed before his party did almost exactly what we now propose to do. The proposal was published in our manifesto. Even with a timetable Motion—and I come now to a point which the noble Baroness treated with some care—this Bill was discussed in a longer Committee stage than they have had in another place for at least the past 15 years. The Committee should know that it was debated for twice as long as the London Government Bill which brought in the GLC in 1963.

17
It is not the function of inquiries to intervene in legislation in the way here proposed. For the party opposite to complain at one moment that the Secretary of State has too many order-making powers and then to give him this battery of additional order-making opportunities makes a mockery of the logic with which the party opposite seeks to oppose this Bill. That must be the consideration on which your Lordships decide how to vote at the end of this debate. There are many issues which the noble Baroness has raised and which run off temptingly to be followed, not as red herrings—because they do not run!—but like hares which I disdain to hunt.
We shall be discussing, for instance, the proportion of the money now expended by the upper tier authorities that will be expended by the lower tier authorities. The noble Baroness has arrived at her remarkable percentages by treating anything which is spent collectively by the councils in the lower tier as though it were somehow outside local government, which it will not be. But we shall bandy words about that in the future. She can shake her head against me then if she wishes.
At the moment, all I ask is that your Lordships see this amendment in its true colours. It is put before your Lordships as an appropriate and emotive wrecking amendment to get the Opposition off to a flying start in opposing the Bill. It would make it impossible to implement the Act (as it will be) as it should be implemented. The inquiry will come too late to change the substance of the Act in any case. The Act itself will have been debated in detail for a record number of hours for legislation of this sort.
I ask the Committee to dismiss this amendment, so that we can get on with our proper job of seeing what improvements can be made to the Bill before it hits the statute book, rather than asking some appointed committee to wring its hands over lost opportunities when it is too late.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I shall not seek to demolish the argument of the noble Lord the Minister. I shall merely seek, I hope, to obfuscate some of the more outrageous things that he has said. Whatever else I regard this amendment as—and I certainly do not regard it as the greatest result of human enterprise and thought—I do not think it is a wrecking amendment. It is seeking, within the timetable of this Bill, to produce an opportunity for inquiries to be made in an objective way about the clauses in the Bill which we find objectionable, yet not to prevent the Bill becoming law on the appointed day. Thus, I do not think it is a wrecking amendment. The criticisms the noble Lord makes may be perfectly valid, but I do not think it is valid to say that it is a wrecking amendment.
As I said in the Second Reading debate, we on these Benches are not opposed to reform of local government. We do not think that the system under which we have been living since 1973, and in the case of London for longer than that, has been the most perfect form of local government to be devised. We certainly do not think that. The Committee will recall that the 1972 Act called for a review of its own legislation within a 10- to 15-year period after the
18
coming into operation of that Act. It really can be argued that this is in furtherance of that commitment contained in that Act.
Frankly, as I think has been said, however much I try to look at it and however fairminded and objective I try to be—and as the Committee knows, we on these Benches are always objective and fair-minded—what is being done by the Government in this legislation is a great leap in the dark. There has been no means by which to light the path to this legislation.
The noble Lord the Minister mentioned organic change. I remember the Labour Party's proposals to change the status of such great cities as Bristol, Leicester and so on. I cannot help feeling that legislation would hardly have followed the White Paper there. I am quite sure there would have been detailed examination and discussion. I should have thought that there was very broad all-party agreement that cities such as Bristol, Leicester, Nottingham and so on should have greater powers. Therefore, I do not think that that is a very serious comparison.
If we leave out the Liberal legislation of the 1900s and come rather more recently to various Conservative and Labour legislation for Greater London and the metropolitan areas, what always strikes me is this. The Herbert Commission itself proposed two tiers for London, which was legislated on. The inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, confirmed the need for a strengthened strategic authority for Greater London. The Redcliffe-Maud proposals, which the noble Lord the Minister mentioned, recommended a thorough re view for the rest of the country. That took over three years to carry out, as the noble Lord said, and concluded that planning, transport and major development services should be in the hands of one authority in urban areas, which should be big enough to encompass where people live, where they work, where they shop and where they find their recreation. I should have thought that that still largely applies in metropolitan areas. One might say that it applies even more now because of the serious problems of the inner urban areas in this country.
The Government White Paper, received. I think it is fair to say, an almost totally hostile response. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will challenge the fact that these studies were independent, but I believe that the organisations, such as the Institute of Local Government, P.A. Management, and Coopers and Lybrand, were objective in their studies. All those studies condemned the proposals. I ask the noble Lord the Minister to bear very much in mind that despite those reports from those various bodies, the Government themselves recognise the regional needs of various parts of the country outside the local government network. For instance, in Merseyside we have a Merseyside Task Force set up by this Government; we have a Merseyside Development Corporation, and so on. Yet, in spite of the recognition of regional needs accepted by the Government in these various bodies, this Bill seeks quite literally to disfranchise 11½ million electors without any serious attempt to justify the actions or to consider present public opinion.
I make no apology for mentioning Merseyside. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will talk much

19
more effectively about it than I. A MORI poll recently indicated that in Merseyside 73 per cent. of the people polled believed in the need for a single county authority and 62 per cent. disapproved of the Government's proposals.
It might be interesting to know about a similar poll—not the same one—in which people were asked whether the proposal to reorganise local government influenced them in their voting at the last General Election. Fewer than 1 per cent. said that they were influenced by local government reforms proposed in the Conservative manifesto. So much for manifestos. Indeed, the right honourable lady the Prime Minister has herself poured quite considerable scorn on the obsessive view of the importance of the manifesto.
I agree that if they wish, the Government can, and no doubt will, ride roughshod over the latest public opinion, quite apart from public opinion at the time of the General Election; public opinion as exposed by opinion polls very recently. They can ride roughshod over public opinion. However, if they intend to do that, surely they should be willing to provide some justification by being prepared to accept an objective, independent inquiry of some kind. Sometimes I think that the only reason they oppose this and other similar amendments is that they know only too well what the result of such an inquiry would be.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The inquiry proposed by this amendment—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Kissin: I have put my name to the noble Baroness's amendment because I want to express my disquiet at the way the Government have chosen to proceed in this matter. The inquiry should, in nomal circumstances, have preceded the Bill, but it is too late to alter this course. However, I am speaking in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, because I hope that the Government will reconsider some kind of procedure so that Parliament can exercise its function. It can exercise its function only if it is clear what are the Government's plans for future action and how clearly they are defined. Therefore, an assurance from the Government that some kind of inquiry will be promoted immediately after the Bill would relieve many anxieties.
I share the view of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that this is not a wrecking amendment in any shape or form. There are many parts of this Bill which I and many Members of the Committee welcome. However, the issue is one which I am sure attracts everybody's attention. We have been bombarded with correspondence from politically diverse sources. What clearly emerges from all the letters that I have received is that only an infinitesimal percentage is supporting the abolition of the metropolitan councils without qualification or reservations.
This shows to what extent the public has been confused by the changes that this Bill is proposing to bring about, It shows also to what extent much more detailed clarification is required in certain material
20
aspects of these changes before the inhabitants of London and the greater metropolitan areas will be satisfied that their requirements, and their specific situations, will receive a sensitive reaction from the authorities that in future will look after them.
It is clear from the Government's statement that no final decision has been taken as to what kind of strategic plan will be implemented. I am supporting the case for an inquiry because it deals with the reorganisation and the reconstruction of a complex business operation which is carried out at the moment by the metropolitan councils and other bodies. Many noble Lords have far greater experience than I of conducting large businesses and industries. I wonder how many of them would set about large-scale organisational change without a much clearer and much more defined view of the planning and budgetary implications of their decisions. I believe that very few people in commerce and industry would wind up departments and subsidiary companies, and their organic structures, without establishing beforehand the profitability and the rationality of their actions, and the consequences for employment problems, and the availability of alternatives, plus an evaluation of the financial and organisational effectiveness of their plans.
I repeat that it is not simply an abstract question of democracy. The real issue is for whose benefit the strategic planning is to be carried out. As an example, it is often believed that the construction of motorways within urban areas is detrimental to the inhabitants but beneficial to those living outside who wish to drive through these areas to work. The refusal of the GLC to build roads and the criticism of the noble and distinguished Leader of the House show that this is an issue of critical importance. One could give numerous examples of the unresolved problems in this area that the Bill creates, but I am sure that there are many noble Lords better qualified to point to examples in areas with which they are acquainted. If these problems cannot be resolved by the boroughs and the shires, the Secretary of State is now to be saddled with taking the decisions. It is not clear, therefore, where the savings which the Government hope for would be achieved if problems cannot be identified and quantified before the Bill is implemented. Has the Secretary of State a surplus capacity of manpower in his department to deal with this?
Many questions will be asked. I should like to raise one that is near to me. I live on Hampstead Heath. This is a leisure centre for the benefit of all Londoners. Its future is very uncertain. It is not clear at the present time whether the local authorities are willing to take up this responsibility. If a new authority is to be created, as indicated, to deal with such problems, does the Bill give any guidance as to the cost, and what powers it will have? The Bill creates controversial situations where certain planning functions will be centralised and thus less flexible to respond to local needs, while planning will still be the responsibility of the elected shires and boroughs. This is, I fear, a recipe for disaster. It will create serious resentment. Planning decisions on behalf of London, unless more precisely defined, will lack legitimacy and democratic approval.
I feel that we have reached the stage where a considerable number of noble Lords are of the opinion

21
that greater clarification is necessary. I feel, too, that other noble Lords are of the opinion that all is very clear and that everything will go through very smoothly. I believe that the Bill in its present form shows a lack of understanding of how cities grow and how local government and strategic planning need to be re-adapted as a consequence. The existing district boundaries were drawn up on the assumption of a two-tier structure. Boundaries that appear to be reasonable on that assumption appear much less reasonable when they become single-tier, all-purpose authorities. Thus, while the urban areas are expanding in size they will be governed by a large number of small authorities. London faces a serious and fundamental planning problem. Random examples are the de-population of some inner city areas, transport planning and the impact on employment patterns of the M.25 ring motorway. All these are problems which can be tackled only in a London-wide context.
The Royal Commission on Local Government of 1966–69, under Lord Redcliffe-Maud, recommended in its majority report a single-tier authority for all areas in England, with the exception of the West Midlands, Merseyside and the Greater Manchester areas. London was outside its terms of reference. For those areas it recommended a two-tier system (and I quote)—
3.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord will permit me, I am anxious to clear my mind on his argument. It seems to me that the Bill is constructed clearly on the basis of having one-tier government, which is a principle that we have accepted. The noble Lord is arguing in favour of an inquiry. The argument that he is now adducing appears to be that the inquiry should recommend a two-tier system. If I have misunderstood, I apologise and I should like to be put right, because, clearly, that is something that could not be accomplished in eight weeks after enactment.
Lord Kissin: I am not pleading one-tier or two-tier: I am reporting what the inquiry of 1966–69 under Lord Redcliffe-Maud said. It stated:
"Nowhere else in England did we find the circumstances found in these three metropolitan areas. To break up these three areas among unitary authorities with populations in the range of 250,000 to 1.000,000 would hopelessly fragment responsibility for planning and transportation".
Contrary to this recommendation, the Government are now proposing a two-tier system where the Royal Commission recommended a single-tier system, and single-tier all-purpose authorities for areas where the Royal Commission recommended a two-tier system. If it is a question of handing back functions to the boroughs, as the Government propose, all boundaries which were established in 1971 should be reexamined. I believe that if the Bill is to be effective, we now have the opportunity, were the Government to allow us to take it, of making a decision that in a historical perspective seems to be the best possible solution available at the present moment.
To summarise, I am not supporting the amendment in order to defend the actions or leaders of the GLC or the other metropolitan councils. My objective is to
22
make this Committee conscious that the alternatives being chosen can be defended and their effectiveness can be proved. For this purpose, it is essential to consider the creation of an entirely non-political body, without any vested interest in the issue, that will define the priorities, specify and quantify (in view of the very contradictory reports on expenditure and savings that have been made by accountants and Government) and recommend, in the light of its findings, the immediate and long-term solutions.
This is equally important, I believe, for the Government. I believe that the Government do not want to be reproached with the accusation that this Bill is introduced because of their dislike of certain established institutions and their personal leadership. Neither, I am sure, will the Government wish to be accused of introducing these measures to give the boroughs and shires, for political reasons, a different balance of political power. I trust the Government wish this Bill to be seen to be introduced for the benefit of the population that has to live with the consequences of this concept. It is for this reason, I believe, that this amendment should be fully considered and supported.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The inquiry proposed by this amendment, irrespective of whether or not it be preceded by a Royal Commission, would in effect defeat this Bill. Whatever has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, by the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, and by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, that would be the effect; and that would have the effect of a wrecking amendment. It invokes the delaying powers—notwithstanding that it was said to the contrary by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—not the revisory role to improve the Bill.
In those circumstances, to carry such an amendment as this would be contrary to the spirit of both the Salisbury and the Carrington Conventions—that resort to the delaying power should not be had to defeat a Bill which was passed in another place which reflects a manifesto commitment and which thwarts—these are the words of the Carrington Convention—the will of the electorate as expressed in another place. The facility—
Baroness Birk: I wonder if the noble Lord will give way for a moment. I am sorry, but I really cannot let him get away with saying that the amendment I moved is a wrecking amendment which would delay the Bill. It does not have to delay it at all. The arrangements would go on as the Government want them to go on while the inquiry sat. The inquiry would report; it would then be up to the Secretary of State—as the Minister pointed out, there is a problem, and I see it; but it is the only fair and right way to do it—to take action or not. It is quite wrong and totally unfair and inaccurate for the noble Lord to say, with all the magisterial authority at his command, that this is a wrecking amendment which would delay the Bill. It is not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have no authority whatever, magisterial or otherwise. As the noble Baroness knows, I never wilfully intended or sought to be unfair in your Lordships' House. I am saying what

23
I believe to be right. The noble Baroness is entitled to say what she believes to be right. I have heard her repeat three or four times this afternoon what she believes to be right; and all I am saying, with the greatest respect to her, is that I remain wholly unconvinced and that I regard this as a wrecking amendment.
Furthermore, the facility to carry such an amendment, to defeat the Bill in the exercise of the delaying power, must assume a very high order of self-restraint where, as I understand it, amendments to this effect have been moved and rejected in another place and where the Government, in their second term of office, have a very substantial overall working majority in that other place. Surely it is of importance that your Lordships' House, albeit in Committee, should not be seen to overreach its powers if there be any reasonable doubt at all about it, and so slight our own status and even perhaps impose reform.
As to the merits, what useful purpose could any such inquiry serve? Before the last election, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, the Labour Party pledged itself in effect to create what we are creating: unitary district authorities responsible for all functions in their area. It cannot be that, just because the Labour Party does not have its hand on the tiller of government, there should now be an inquiry if it was not necessary before. I refuse to believe that that can be the reason.
It is of vital consequence to any administration that local government should not continue to flout or confront the policies and authority of central Government in those matters which properly lie within the province of central Government. Such is the very exercise in political confrontation which as I see it lies very close, without any authority, to the heart of this matter. The traditions of local government as I understood them have been breached, and this has led to a very substantial and unacceptable abuse of the rating system. What is this voice for London? Who yet has ever spoken for London? Assuredly one presumes it is not Mr. Livingstone. It is said that such a body could offer workable solutions, co-ordinate effective execution of functions, afford machinery for rate equalisation, and even avoid re-instatement of the GLC. But really, apart from the propaganda of political confrontation, what has this voice to say? Why just London? Who shall speak to whom? By what authority and with what authority?
London's Conservative borough leaders who affirm total support for the abolition of the GLC do not wish to see that principle weakened. I support them, and I am a Conservative. London's Conservative borough leaders who affirm total support for the abolition of the GLC do not wish to see that principle weakened by an elected forum for Greater London imposed over the structure of borough government; and even the proponents of this body accept that it will not be an executive body, that it will not have discretionary powers, that precepting powers will be under constant review by Government.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder if the noble Lord would give way. I should like to take him back, because it seems to me that in some way or other he has drifted on to Amendment No. 8. I should like to challenge him on
24
his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. He repeated again that this amendment was in some way a delaying amendment, an amendment that would delay the provisions of the Bill. That cannot be correct within the terms of the amendment as it is laid down, and I should like the noble Lord to tell the Committee in what way he can point to this amendment as in any way delaying the action of the Bill. If that were the case, then his arguments about the Carrington and Salisbury conventions would have validity; but as I read it this makes no change whatsoever to the timing of the Bill or to its operation when it becomes enacted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: For the reasons given already by my noble friend Lord Elton, this clearly is going to delay the Bill. As to—
Lord Elton: It is not going to delay the Bill. If the findings of the committee are going to be so trivial that they can be done in four fortnights before implementation, it scarcely is worth having the inquiry.
Lord Tordoff: If the inquiry came up with that conclusion, that might delay the Bill; but then presumably the Government would have the good sense to take notice of the inquiry. This amendment does not delay the Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: To answer the noble Lord, not only does this amendment delay the Bill but the referendum amendment delays the Bill and the delaying amendment delays the Bill. All three are designed to use the delaying power, not the revisory power, which is quite contrary to the Salisbury and Carrington conventions. I stand by my assertion. I am sorry that I interrupted the noble Lord.
Lord Diamond: I rise, not to discuss the merits of the proposal—because there are many other noble Lords who are more capable of doing that than I and who, no doubt, will want their views to be heard—but because I am very interested in the continual allegation, unfortunately asserted in the first place by a Minister on the Front Bench, that this is a wrecking amendment. It is of little help to your Lordships' Committee that such a suggestion should have been made, and it shows little respect for the careful thought that has been given to this problem by all noble Lords concerned—Front Bench and Back Benches—for a considerable period.
Therefore, if the Committee will be good enough to allow me, I want to demonstrate why, in my opinion and in the opinion of all of us on these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was grievously at fault and causing harm to his own party and to what we are all trying to achieve for the future good conduct of business in your Lordships' House by alleging that this is a wrecking amendment. Let us go over the points one by one to get rid of those aspects that are not relevant.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I gave way to the noble Lord. Is this in order!
Lord Diamond: I thought that the noble Lord had completed his remarks. I apologise.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I gave way because I understood that the noble Lord wished to ask a question.
Lord Diamond: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I apologise.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, I had not finished my remarks; and, of course, I pay the greatest respect to the care taken by noble Lords—more so those on the Back Benches than on the Front Bench, but perhaps that is because I sit on the Back Benches.
However, before I return to this amendment, perhaps I may comment on the constitutional aspect. Surely noble Lords on all sides of the Committee would accept that the abolition of the GLC is the last logical step in a process of devolution of power that has gone on now for some 20 years. Today the GLC, in contrast to the old LCC, is responsible only for about one-tenth of services and about 11 per cent. of current expenditure on local services in London. The inevitable duplication of functions by erecting this two-tier system is wholly unacceptable and—and this leads me back to the constitutional issue—wholly contrary to the principle and spirit of the Bill. On the merits of this amendment, there is no justification for resort to the delaying power. In any event, this would conflict with the spirit of the unwritten constitution as expressed in those conventions.
Although it is of importance that the Government should be supported by a massive rejection of this amendment if it is taken to a Division, I suggest to the Committee that it is of far greater importance that the delaying power, which this is, should be exercised with restraint. It is not a question of procedure which falls within the remit of the Table or the Procedure Committee: it is a constitutional question which lies within the exclusive competence of your Lordships' Committee, as advised through the usual channels. In this matter, of course, I defer to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who have greater wisdom and experience than I in these matters. What I have said I have said because I believe it to be right.
Lord Somers: This amendment really seems to—
Lord Diamond: If I may—
Lord Somers: I think the noble Lord has had his say. This amendment seems to suggest a most unprecedented procedure. After all, in the past we have had many highly controversial Acts which have been passed by Parliament, but I do not recall a single instance in which a process such as this has been suggested. I believe that those who are so keen to preserve the electoral system that we have today, and who quote it whenever it is in their favour, should remember that this Bill now before us has been passed by the elected Government of this country and, therefore, I cannot see why it should be necessary or even possible to question whether it is, or even should be, the law of the land.
Lord Diamond: I regret that I cannot support the sentiments that have just been expressed and which would virtually reduce your Lordships' House to a nullity so far as this Committee stage is concerned. We all know that we have a duty to improve a Bill which has been passed by another place, and not to reject it. It is because of that that, when the Second Reading of this Bill recently came before your Lordships' House, we were all extremely careful that no word was put on the Order Paper which would have delayed the passing of this Bill by one moment. An additional view was expressed which had no impact and no legal or other kind of effect on the way in which, at the end of that day's debate, the Government could and would be able to proceed with getting this Bill on to the statute book.
It is because various allegations have been made that this is or is not a wrecking amendment that we are in a little difficulty over the use of our terms, and that is why I thought it would have been of some help, if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had been agreeable, to invite the appropriate committee to consider where we had reached on our various conventions. If we had then received such a report and had all agreed to it, there would then have been a written statement as to where we had reached with regard to those conventions. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House thought that that proposal was a little premature, which is no great criticism, and did not wish to proceed in that way. Therefore, it falls to me to say why those of us on these Benches who take a very clear and, if I may say so, purist view about the responsibilities of your Lordships' House in relation to another place—a very responsible view indeed; more responsible than some of the statements made by Ministers of this Government—have been most anxious not in any way to ally ourselves with wrecking amendments.
The normal form of a wrecking amendment occurs on Second Reading, where we have a clear convention, so far as we on these Benches interpret it, that we do not vote against a Bill which has been passed in another place, they being the elected Chamber and we not. We do not need anyone to suggest that the justification for that is that the Bill was preceded by a statement in the party's manifesto at election time. I think that too much can be made of manifestos. In so far as we interprete the situation, it matters not to us whether it was in the manifesto or not in the manifesto. We already know that a vast majority of people are totally unaffected by what is stated in the manifesto.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Diamond: In a moment, if I may just finish this part of my argument. If it is a minor point it goes with the rest, and the elector tends to vote for the leader, for the general principles, and for his understanding of the situation and not for a particular, detailed clause. Therefore, it remains our view that whether it is in the manifesto or not, we are still committed in your Lordships' House by convention—as indeed everything is by convention in your Lordships' House—not to support an amendment which would

27
have a wrecking effect; that is to say, delay the implementation of a Bill coming from the other place if it has been passed by that elected Chamber.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does the noble Lord agree that it is an integral part of the Salisbury convention that it was a commitment in the manifesto? It is expressly stated.
Lord Diamond: Of course I agree. It is on record that it is there. I am saying that we have gone further than that, and more to the noble Lord's liking if he follows my argument. We have gone beyond that. This House develops its procedure by convention, and in my view it has developed by now a clear convention, acceptable on both sides of the House, that it does not vote against Bills which have received a Second Reading in another place. I say further that that convention applies whether or not that Second Reading was preceded by, and therefore to a tiny extent supported by, a previous statement in the party's manifesto.
Now we have got to that point we have to consider whether this is a wrecking amendment; whether this delays the operation of the Bill if the Government see fit to carry out their undertaking, and if the Government consider that what they are doing is right and cannot be controverted by people ascertaining the facts. Presumably the Government do so think, and therefore this amendment starts with the words:
"Not later than one month after the passing of this Act".
I had nothing whatever to do with the drafting of this amendment. I have nevertheless nothing but admiration for an important amendment which comes No. 1 on the Marshalled List which says:
"Not later than one month after the passing of this Act".
The words contemplate the passing of this Act and nothing else. They do not contemplate the delaying of this Act.
I was unable to follow what the noble Lord who preceded me said in a single instance with regard to the delaying of the Act. The words here are as clear as a bell:
"Not later than one month after the passing of this Act".
Therefore, the Act is contemplated as passing in the normal way and there is nothing that we are doing to delay it.
4.15 p.m.
The amendment further goes on to say:
"The Committee shall make its report no later than 1st February 1986".
It is a great pity that somebody of the intelligence of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wilfully changes that into:
"The Committee shall make its report on 1 st February".
I do not know why he continually did that and based his argument on it. It does not say that, and we all know that it does not say that. It says no later than that.
If the Committee is able to report much earlier, so much the better. If the Committee divides itself, as many committees do when there is urgency, into five, six, seven or eight sub-committees in order to examine the different aspects and collate its views very fast, it
28
may indeed be able to report earlier. One does not know. If it reports on 1st February, on the latest date, and this poses a problem, what can the problem be? It is a problem entirely within the Government's discretion, and any problem within the Government's discretion with the present majority which the Government enjoy in the other House cannot be put forward as a wrecking amendment. The Government can do exactly as they want—some people would say "unfortunately"—in the other place, and we all know that.
The Government therefore can decide at the time whether they want to delay anything, or whether they do not want to delay anything, in the minor procedures of sorting things out consequential upon the coming into effect of this Bill. That is entirely within the Government's powers and discretion. There is nothing whatever that we can achieve, if we want to pass this amendment, which would delay in any way what the Government wish to do and are set on purpose to do. It contemplates the passing of the Act. It provides a date which is before the Act comes into effect, and there is a further amendment saying that if the Government have any real doubt as to whether they can now achieve that date, let it choose a date a year later, so letting them out of their difficulty in that way.
I apologise for delaying the Committee on a constitutional matter rather than on the substance of the amendment; but for these reasons we on these Benches must reject any suggestion, be it from the Front Bench or anywhere else, that this is a wrecking amendment. We do not regard it as such, and we think it much better that your Lordships should have regard to the substance of the argument rather than be diverted by an unsustainable claim that this is a wrecking amendment.
Lord Beloff: If we are to accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that this is not a wrecking amendment, we are left with only one alternative adjective to put to the amendment; namely, that it is a frivolous amendment, an amendment which may not delay the passing of the Bill but which will delay your Lordships' Committee in coming to grips with the various important issues of substance in the Bill which we have to discuss, and may indeed occasionally have to amend.
It is frivolous for these reasons. First, it is to put the thing on its head to have an inquiry about a measure which is already in the form of a voluminous Bill in which all the matters that the inquiry would look at are specified. It may well be that noble Lords would wish them to be dealt with differently, and that can be done by amendments to the substance of the Bill. The existence of an inquiry would only be justified either if there were no Bill before your Lordships, if this were a preliminary, or if it were possible to assume—which it is not—that after the campaign (and the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, mentioned the campaign, the amount of correspondence and propaganda that we have all received) it was seriously thought that there were any issues of substance which had not been ventilated in another place, or in the press, or in public meetings, or in any other way. There is nothing new that anyone could suggest that the inquiry could come up with.

29
If one has listened carefully, as I have, to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Claughton and Lord Kissin, they certainly produced criticisms of the substance of the Bill, some of which might indeed come within the purview of an ordinary amendment; but they at no point suggested anything novel. What is the point of an inquiry when we know the substance into which it is to inquire?
The second reason why I believe this to be frivolous is that one would have to assume that the Secretary of State, however impartial, however well informed, however desirous of meeting the wishes of your Lordships' House, supposing the Committee were to pass this amendment, could find a group of people who had been so cut off from the debates which have been going on in this country for the past 18 months that they would come to it uncommitted and with a fresh mind.
They certainly would not find it in the walk of life from which I come—academia—because various academics who have specialised in these subjects have taken sides for and against on most of these issues. They could hardly find it in public life where people are deeply divided over this. I suppose they might ask someone from Australia or some other distant country where little is known about our domestic affairs, but one cannot seriously suggest that the Secretary of State could, at this juncture, find people who would be universally accepted as knowledgeable and impartial on this inquiry. Therefore I say that perhaps it is not a wrecking amendment. Perhaps my noble friend went too far in calling it a wrecking amendment; but a frivolous amendment it certainly is and the sooner your Lordships dispose of it and allow us to get on with issues of substance, the better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, describes himself as coming from academia. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, described himself as a constitutionalist. I make neither claim. I am on these Benches because I take a political whip; I am a politician. I suggest that all of us who take a political whip are, when we are here, acting as politicians. It is the duty of politicians not to indulge in constitutional debate in the abstract but to consider the issues before the Committee and the way in which they have been tackled over the past two-and-a-half years. The conclusion one might draw after considering the powers of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and what has been proposed, is being proposed and will be proposed is to happen to those powers, is that the process of reform, as it is called, is by no means confined to debate either in another place or in this Chamber.
Before the Bill ever reached another place there were changes of mind by the Government on travel for old age pensioners. It was decided that it should be a statutory responsibility of the London boroughs to maintain that travel. There were changes of mind about the arts, where it was decided that the Arts Council should have a greater role and the borough councils a lesser role than had originally been intended. There were changes of mind about historic buildings and monuments, where it was decided that the borough councils should have a lesser role and the
30
Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission should have a greater role. There was a major change of mind about the ILEA, where it was decided that the Inner London Education Authority should be a directly-elected authority and not elected by the constituent borough councils.
I make no complaint about any of those changes. They have not taken place on either green or red Benches, but as part of a continuing process of public debate about matters of great importance to 114 million people. When I look at the Bill we have before us it is clear that the debate is by no means resolved either by the Bill or by amendments which will no doubt in due course be put forward or have been put forward in another place. There are huge gaps in the Bill. There is no reference to training or job creation or what happens to archives. There are amendments on these points but there is nothing in the Bill about them. There is no adequate reference to what happens to the green belt—I am thinking particularly of London; forgive me—or the role of the Greater London Council in its relations with the South-East England Regional Planning Authority. There is no particular reference to parks and sports provision. That is what is not in the Bill.
What is in the Bill—I believe it is mentioned 132 times—are reserve powers for the Secretary of State. What do those reserve powers mean? They mean that the Secretary of State and his civil servants will continue to be making decisions affecting the future of those who live in London and in the metropolitan counties after this Bill has reached the statute book. In other words, the debates have not concluded, the decision has not been concluded and there will be many issues both before and after the passing of this legislation which will require to be resolved. It is for that reason that I claim that the amendment which seeks an inquiry is simply bringing that process out into the open. It is giving independent people the responsibility for considering issues which will still have to be resolved; making those decisions in the open and not in the towers of Marsham Street and making the people concerned, the electorate of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, aware of what is happening. In that sense I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that this cannot be said to be a wrecking amendment. It is an amendment to redeem the deficiencies of the thinking processes which the Government have no doubt gone through. It accepts that the Bill will, in some form, reach the statute book. It merely tries to bring the debate out into the open.
Finally, I take some wry amusement from the claim that the Bill is justified because it appeared as a manifesto commitment. I took a major part in putting into the manifesto of the London Labour Party in the 1981 Greater London Council elections a policy which became known as, "Fares Fair". It was a moderate policy of reducing London passenger fares to the 1979 level. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and your Lordships' House, in its judicial capacity, who said that the fact that it was a manifesto commitment was neither here nor there; and they overturned that policy (which was clearly a major part of our election campaign) on those grounds.
I also take some wry amusement from the rejection by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the idea of inquiries.

31
We are not to have an inquiry into the whole of the Greater London Council and its future, but his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has insisted on an inquiry on the Greater London lorry ban proposed by the GLC after its manifesto commitment and after a lengthy and extensive inquiry of its own. I appreciate that the arguments for and against inquiries on precedent can work both ways, but it certainly does not work entirely in favour of the Minister's arguments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on one point in her speech when she said that this was an unusual request embodied in the amendment. Indeed it is. When a measure has been preceded by a paving Bill, has itself passed the House of Commons by large majorities and has already received a Second Reading by another large majority in this House, it is, as she would agree, unusual to say at this stage that one wants an inquiry. But the noble Baroness, and, to some extent, the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Tordoff, showed extreme sensitivity to the suggestion that this was intended as a delaying measure. I will not use the pejorative phrase "wrecking", because wrecking is a subjective impression; though I harbour a suspicion that were it to wreck the Bill the noble Baroness would not go into mourning about it.
That is a delaying amendment is the proposition that I should like to contest. It is a presumption in our courts of law that the sane man—I suppose that includes the sane woman—intends the natural consequences of his acts. I would ask the noble Baroness to contemplate what would happen if her amendment were carried. I concede at once that it does not directly amend the date of 1st April 1986 as the effective date of the Bill. I accept that at once. But perhaps the noble Baroness will go with me in working out what will happen.
It is likely, as far as one can speculate, that the measure will receive Royal Assent towards the end of July, late in the summer. Under this amendment, within a month of that—that is, during the month of August—an inquiry would have to be appointed. I leave aside the point that has already been made about where one would find impartial people who had lived so long in an ivory tower that they had escaped the deluge of propaganda to which your Lordships have been subjected on this issue and could approach the matter with a fresh mind. But they would not start work—and I stress this point—until well into August, or perhaps the end of it, right into the holiday season. This amendment requires that they shall report by 1st February. All of us who have experience of public inquiries into complex and important issues such as this know that that would be an almost unprecedentedly short time. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that it is highly unlikely that they would beat the 1st February date by more than a few days.
4.30 p.m.
Two things would then happen. Either their report would include substantial proposals which, in the view of the inquiry, would improve the Bill, or it would not. But take those two alternatives. Let us suppose that it
32
did. Would noble Lords opposite not press by every legitimate parliamentary means for the implementation of those substantial improvements in the Bill? And do they really believe that, if that were so, it would be possible to legislate an amending Bill through and put it into effect by 1st April, within a matter of eight weeks? Do they really think that? Or, alternatively, the recommendations would be trivial and unimportant, in which case have we not put some otherwise busy and, no doubt, significant people to a great deal of unnecessary work and imposed a certain additional public expenditure to no point whatever?
But obviously the noble Baroness believes—her whole speech was riddled with the contention—that this inquiry would come out with substantial proposals. In order to demonstrate that it would not therefore be her intention to delay the Bill, she will have to say on behalf of the Opposition that they would not press in any way for those recommendations to be implemented. Can she say that? Does she really think that that would be their attitude? Your Lordships know perfectly well that every parliamentary device that could be used would be used to press for further legislation and delay.
Therefore, while ingeniously the noble Baroness is not specifically seeking to amend the 1st April date—she does not come openly forward with that suggestion—yet the reality of what she is proposing, unless the whole exercise turns out, as it might well, to be a waste of time, is that very substantial delay, probably of a further year, would be involved. So I hope your Lordships will feel prepared to deal with this amendment on that basis.
Of course, noble Lords on the Bench opposite are fighting every inch of the way to delay the Bill. They want their friends across the river in County Hall to remain for another year or so in charge of the political patronage, in charge of the funds which can be used for political propaganda and which are being used, as every one of your Lordships knows, on a most lavish scale for political propaganda. They want to see that continued for a year. But, surely, it would be more open and more in accordance with debate in this Committee if the noble Baroness were to avow that and to say openly that she is fighting to try to delay this Bill. This is quite an ingenious device for doing it, but perhaps not quite ingenious enough.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I would certainly not have put my name to the amendment if I had believed it to be a wrecking amendment, nor if I had believed it to be a frivolous amendment. I support the noble Baroness in calling for a committee of inquiry—and I use the words on the Marshalled List, which show that there is an agenda with strict limits to it for such an inquiry—to
"report on the best means for securing the future provision of services".
That assumes that abolition has happened and that we are looking at how those services may best be provided.
I put my name down in this way because I believe that the Bill is something of a blunderbuss. It fires at a target and hits a great many passers-by at whom it was never meant to be aimed. There is no doubt that the elected Government of the day have to win their way.

33
That is not in question. But the debate on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House made it clear that there is much more complexity and much more very genuine anxiety about the future provision of services than had been supposed.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, made clear what a major exercise is needed to hand over the responsibilities of the Greater London Council. I hope that this Committee will improve the Bill and clarify and sharpen its aim in the next few days. But many matters are clarified only as we now look beyond the life of the metropolitan counties. I believe that the inquiry that we propose would make it possible for the Government to understand better some of the issues as they emerge in planning the handover. That is the very point that we want to make: that some of the ground is not well trodden, to quote the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, used. How many noble Lords knew that the issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, existed? Was there nothing new in what he told your Lordships? Was it all covered in the Bill? I thought not.
I turn to the issue of planning. The London Planning Commission and the voluntary planning conferences in the metropolitan counties are given neither the power nor the resources necessary to plan or to create the essential supports. Their ability to create the right conditions in which private investment will be attracted into economic regeneration will be small. I remind your Lordships of the very genuine fears expressed on all sides at Second Reading about the future of voluntary bodies. I am bound to say that I personally believe that there will need soon to be a whole new deal between the state and the voluntary movement.
The noble Baroness. Lady Faithful!, told us the truth about local government officers faced with painful cutbacks. They do provide for their own staff, and always have done, before deciding whether to give grants to voluntary bodies. A new deal between the state and the voluntary movement may be a little further into the future but the immediate needs of voluntary bodies on transition to new authorities cannot be met by the very modest block figure which the Secretary of State has promised so far.
I have spoken in another situation of comfortable Britain and the other Britain which is mostly to be found in our great cities. Many people in comfortable Britain have told me of their deep concern to understand better what life in big cities is about and to prevent the increase of divided Britain. May I say that I hope that noble Lords who do not experience the life of urban areas at first-hand will think twice before voting against this amendment or against other amendments. Especially, I think of those who seek to provide successor bodies to take the overall view in a great city, for great cities are both a collection of villages and are not a collection of villages. When it comes to information for would-be developers, for putting together a package of different resources, for getting transportation right and for the provision of effective services, great urban areas are not a collection of villages or towns. They are a common interest which reaches right across the sectional interests of boroughs or districts.
34
Whatever the Labour Party or the Conservative Party ever said when I was deeply a Londoner for many years, I always believed profoundly in the need for an overall authority with greater powers, and not less. The aim of this Bill needs to be much sharper than its hopeful wishes about joint boards. That is what I put my name down to hear something about through an inquiry. It is difficult to see how the proposals in the Bill would provide a more effective and less costly delivery of services.
The complex arrangements of joint boards,joint committees, voluntary joint arrangements, residuary bodies and greater Civil Service involvement in local matters will be confusing to the public and are likely to give rise to more conflict, more tension and more bureaucratic delay. With our experience (which your Lordships may not share) of Liverpool City Council, for example, and of Sefton Borough Council, this is something that we can do without. I believe that the committee of inquiry for which we ask would give a further chance to look at the realism of providing the services which have been offered by the metropolitan counties. Why has there been such reluctance for such an independent inquiry? The nearest we have come to an independent inquiry is that being carried out by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Science and Technology. Noble Lords pointed out at Second Reading that that Committee of the House warned of the waste of breaking up skills and proven teams.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I come back for a moment to Merseyside. Not for the first time the debate on this Bill has drifted away into being an argument about the Greater London Council. It is not seriously questioned by anyone known to me that Merseyside is a reality in social, economic and cultural terms; no unreal SELNEC was invented to deal with Merseyside. It is worth noting that over 40 years ago a Merseyside plan was produced which covered an area extending from the Ribble estuary in the north to the Mersey at Widnes and including the whole of the Wirral peninsula, an area greater than the present county of Merseyside.
Liverpool City Council recommended a similar area to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission in 1962 as the most appropriate area of operation for a new county authority. I very much regret, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is not able to be in his place because of the illness of his wife. I should like to suggest that our prayers and best wishes for her recovery are heard. He would have been able to speak with great authority about the overview which the city council, and then, subsequently, the county council, has been able to have. I make this point because at Second Reading noble Lords on the Government side of the House told us repeatedly that proud cities did not welcome the metropolitan counties. That may have been so in some cities; and I do not pretend metropolitan counties have always been popular. I want to suggest that some have been winning their way in a very real and genuine way.
In its evidence to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission Liverpool City Council concluded that the redeployment of Merseyside's population is of such a scale and demands such urgent solution that the responsibility for this solution and the power to

35
achieve it must rest with one authority. It also recommended that the employment pattern on Merseyside calls for a highly integrated transport system and recommended that the police, fire, civil defence and possibly (it said) main drainage, sewage disposal and further education should be responsibilities of the proposed county council.
Looking at Merseyside as a whole, establishing and reviewing the overall direction of policies and allocation of resources to the area are necessary now more than ever. I wish that your Lordships could have spent an evening last week with a group of directors of major companies in Merseyside, a group which Archbishop Warlock and I invited last year to come together. The group was trying to look at possible new areas of development for jobs in Merseyside. At several earlier meetings of our group it became clear that the Merseyside County Council has acted as a very important catalyst, providing information and bringing together public and private sector resources. Last week the chairman of the English Tourist Board came to meet with us. We had been taking a serious look at the possible development of tourism in Merseyside. Much credit was given at that meeting to Merseyside County Council for the progress made by it in promoting tourism. There was a promise of energetic support from the English Tourist Board when—and there came repeatedly this key phrase—"you've got your act together" after abolition of the body which all present agreed had got its act together.
We need a committee of inquiry to make sure that such a co-ordinating body comes into being in each necessary area of interest with the very different and particular needs and resources of each of the metropolitan counties. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House assured me during the Second Reading debate of his readiness to listen. I readily acknowledge his readiness to listen. That was not quite what I asked him. I asked him that the Government not only listen, but also enter into the debate on its merits.
This Bill is something of a blunderbuss. I hope that the Government and their critics in this matter will be willing to sharpen their aim as particular services are looked at. I hope that the Government might see a committee of inquiry as a useful tool to help make provision for services as some of these complex issues emerge more clearly.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there are many noble Lords on this side of the Committee and in other parts of the Chamber who support this amendment without being in any way interested in the powers of patronage on the other side of the river, nor necessarily supporting some of what he thought was the lavish public expenditure. I think that when the noble Lord reflects on the closing parts of his speech he will realise that he has been less than generous to many of his colleagues on this side of the Committee.
However, there was a more important part of his speech at the beginning when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that it was somewhat unusual
36
for an inquiry to be requested at such a late stage in the progress of a Bill through Parliament. He was, of course, right; it is unusual. And what is more unusual is that a piece of legislation of this nature and of this constitutional importance should have come forward without a public inquiry in the first place. It is only because, unusually, there was no public inquiry at the beginning that we are now asking, unusually, for a public inquiry at the end.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well said!
Lord Howie of Troon: I think that that is an important and crucial factor in the debate today.
There are only two other points to which I wish to refer which have been raised in the debate. One is that this amendment is a wrecking amendment and the other is that it is a frivolous one. The accusation that the amendment is a wrecking one has I think been totally demolished by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and I endorse every word he said in demolishing it. We should really hear no more of that argument today or at any other time in the future.
I turn to the argument that it is frivolous, which was raised first by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, opposite and I think was repeated a little later by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Both of them, I think, saw that part, at least, of the frivolity lay in the unlikelihood of the Government being able to appoint a committee who were unaware of the arguments and who had been, I think, protected from them in some way, almost as though they were a jury of some kind. But we know that that is not the reality of committees.
I would remind noble Lords that it is within the memory of your Lordships' House that not terribly long ago a committee of inquiry was set up into the Falklands war. It can hardly be said that the members of that committee did not know anything about the Falklands war; and most of them had been involved in the policies which led up to it. I do not want to talk here about the Falklands war as something in itself. I am saying merely that it was found possible to appoint a committee to deal with that highly contentious matter even though everybody in the country knew what was thought to be all about the Falklands war. But we know that as time has gone on more and more factors have appeared which we did not know about. The right reverend Prelate who spoke a moment ago said that the same thing is true in regard to this Bill. Why should we assume that nothing new can be found about this matter just because we have spoken about it and just because the Commons has been guillotined on it? I do not think that the wrecking accusation stands and I do not think that the accusation of frivolity stands.
To turn to the last element in the frivolity argument, which was the time available for the Committee, it will again be within the recollection of the Committee that the committee on the Falklands war was asked specifically to report quickly and it managed so to do. What was perfectly possible and what was done by that committee not so terribly long ago could certainly be done by the committee proposed here. This amendment is a sound and sensible one and ought to be supported.
Lord Hunt: I rise to—
Noble Lords: Lord Bellwin.
Lord Bellwin: I do not want to make a long speech, but there is one factor which has not been referred to. Whatever else the amendment is, whether it is wrecking, frivolous or whatever, it certainly is delaying, because it has already delayed us for almost two hours in our consideration of the Bill.
The one point I want to make is that this proposal for an inquiry is nothing new at all. It was put forward to us and was almost a major plank of the Opposition's proposals when we were debating this question under the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, the paving Bill, as it was then called. It was put forward, it was debated, it was voted upon at Second Reading and at various stages, and it was rejected. We have had exactly the same thing during the passage of this Bill. We had 11 hours of discussion under the reasoned amendment on Second Reading. Perhaps, as an aside, I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I wonder, with his great concern for the constitutional proprieties, how happy he is that we have these reasoned amendments which enable the Opposition not to vote against at Second Reading but to vote for something which at least has a major impact upon the thinking of those who then consider the Bill; but that is for another day.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord has challenged me. Perhaps I may say that, so far as all of us on these Benches are concerned, we have not once put our names to any amendment which would seek to delay the Second Reading of any Bill passed by the other place.
Lord Bellwin: I still say that that is for another day.
For the moment I would refer your Lordships' Committee to the 11 hours of the Second Reading debate, when every opportunity was given to everyone to raise everything. Inquiries were mentioned then as they have always been mentioned. It was overwhelmingly, disastrously, dramatically rejected by your Lordships' House at that time. So here we have it yet again, albeit in another form. That is what it is. We are now being asked to vote on exactly the same thing; only now it is not as part of something else but is on its own. That is my major objection to it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool was referring to other matters, arguably Second Reading matters. I do not want to do that. However, I must say to him with great respect—I think he knows that I have that for him—that I come from an urban background. I was brought up in such a background and as a boy saw conditions which were a darn sight worse than whatever applies today. When I see what has been done since then, not disallowing what still needs to be done—goodness knows, my job in the past two years took me in among that—I say that we have to keep this in proportion.
I maintain that whatever may be the case in Merseyside, certainly I do not accept that in West Yorkshire and in Leeds services are at all better now than they were before the reorganisation 10 years ago. I certainly acknowledge that there are some specialist
38
groups which do some very good cross-boundary work. I hope that within the Bill we will ensure that those are not lost, indeed, that they are enhanced, that they go to the right home and are dealt with properly. I certainly am all for that. But I do not accept that basic services, the ones which are going to be returned to the boroughs, are in any way better now than they were previously; on the contrary. When on Second Reading I said that there are many Labour leaders who privately cannot wait for the day when they get these services back into the metropolitan districts I knew exactly what I had in mind, and it is only out of my concern for their future political aspirations that I do not name them. That would be the last thing that they would want me to do.
As I said, I do not want to make a long speech. I wish to say only that I believe that this question of an inquiry is a matter which has been well debated, talked through and rejected several times. To me it would mean at the very least delay. I thought that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a most telling speech when he said what would be the practical effect of it. I was very convinced by that. I hope that your Lordships' Committee will also be convinced by it and will reject the amendment out of hand.
Lord Hunt: I rise to support this amendment and in doing so perhaps I may say that I had no part in the discussions leading to the framing of it, nor in the decision to put it down for discussion in this Committee. We have heard a great deal about whether it is a wrecking amendment. Perhaps I may say that had that been the intention, I would not have dreamt of coming to this Committee with the idea of supporting it; and nothing I have heard during this long to-ing and fro-ing about whether or not it is a wrecking amendment has persuaded me that it is. Nor—and I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, make the distinction—am I persuaded that the word "delay" equates with the words "wreck" or "destroy". If that is not so, we need to refer to the Oxford English Dictionary.
The purpose of this amendment does nothing to invalidate the main intention of the Bill; it seeks to improve it. That is why I am rising very briefly in support of it. We have heard most of the reasons in support of setting up a committee of inquiry to look into the provisions of services in the GLC area and the metropolitan counties. I wish to refer to the provision of services by the voluntary organisations and to a point that has not yet been raised. That is the only reason why I am speaking now. It is sometimes helpful to take a specific instance to illustrate a point. I make no apology for making a reference to an organisation, the Rainer Foundation, in which I have an interest to declare—a completely non-financial interest—simply to illustrate a point which I believe is, if not general to, shared by a great many other voluntary organisations working in London and in the metropolitan counties.
The Rainer Foundation provides services to young people mainly in the south of England and mainly in London. I shall touch on just four to make my point. We provide among many others two schemes in Lewisham, one scheme in Southwark and another scheme which spans three boroughs, Islington. Brent and Haringey. The kind of work that is being done

39
includes accommodation for homeless young people and community based schemes for young offenders and for others who are at risk of falling foul of the law; and in connection with those we operate YTS schemes Mode 2.
5 p.m.
I now come to my main point. It would be very difficult to describe to this Committee the degree of depression, the level of anxiety and the state of pessimism among staff working in these difficult and extremely important areas. It is difficult in terms of the areas in which they are working; it is extremely important in terms of the nature of their work. The work is not of a popular kind. It is not of a kind likely to win public sympathy and practical support and draw anything like sufficient compensating funds from the private sector; and yet it has a direct bearing on public order and on the prevention of crime.
There is no confidence among the workers to whom I am referring on those four specific cases—and they are only typical of a great many others—that this Bill as drafted will ensure the necessary on-going funding adequate for the job that they are doing; funding either from the boroughs in which they are working (either by individual boroughs or a collection of boroughs) or by the Government funds which will replace those at present provided by the GLC.
It is not too much to say that this uncertainty and anxiety has adversely affected the quality of the work which the social workers have been doing in those schemes for many months past. This is bound to persist under the present terms of the Bill, at least until late autumn—when the prospects or otherwise of funding by the boroughs and their share of Government funds are made known. An inquiry such as that advocated in this amendment would at least ensure in such schemes as these (apart from giving confidence to social workers) that the soundest and fairest alternative methods of funding voluntary-based services have been thoroughly examined by an independent and expert body. It would provide a breathing space during which morale among social workers could be restored. I join with others, such as my noble friend Lord Evans, who spoke of the tendency of the Government to rough-ride over public opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, called this a frivolous amendment. What can be more important than taking some account of the social workers working in these fields, and what is frivolous about taking their views into account?
Baroness White: I am sorry if I interfere with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie; the noble Earl is not by any chance making a statement now? If he is not doing so, then I will proceed.
I have had almost 40 years' experience in this Palace of Westminster and I can truthfully say that on no previous occasion have I known of a Bill which has been the subject of such universal concern expressed by those most closely concerned with the functions relevant to the proposed legislation. Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee have received a vast amount of
40
correspondence. We are accustomed to that but, as a rule, the quality of such correspondence is not that which has been seen on this occasion. In the past, very often, particular points of interest, pressure or emotion have arisen which meant that we received a large postbag. But even if such views are not expressed on identical postcards, we know very well that they are in effect propagating just one or two particular points of view.
This time the difference is that a vast range of persons in various areas of activity are deeply concerned, deeply puzzled and deeply apprehensive—if not actually distressed—about what is intended under the proposed legislation. I would ask noble Lords who are hesitating over this amendment whether they have encountered enthusiastic support for these proposals from any reputable professional organisation closely connected with local government functions. It is astonishing the way in which one profession after another has written to us expressing doubts, concerns, hesitation and apprehension. Those organisations have not been convinced. With great respect to noble Lords on the other side of the Committee who are opposing this amendment (and they are by no means unanimous), this situation is one which should cause us considerable concern. It causes me very great concern.
I do not profess to have specialised knowledge of all the areas about which I am now receiving correspondence. It is not easy to come to a measured judgment in areas in which one does not have expert knowledge. However, the people who have been writing are of a standing and experience which makes one regard their opinions with considerable respect.
This is indeed an unusual situation—to encounter such a wide range of concern. I would have thought that that in itself would surely have persuaded the Government that this is an occasion when further inquiry is necessary—even if they propose to get this measure through. I do not imagine that any of us dispute that this measure will reach the statute book in some shape or form. We are simply saying that the Government should do the minimum damage possible and not the maximum damage possible in implementing this legislation.
I call in aid an area with which I do have some acquaintance. It is exemplified in the report—most unusually, an interim report—of a Select Committee of our Lordships' House. It was the report so eloquently referred to on Second Reading by the chairman of the respective committee of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It is the interim report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, dealing with the provision of scientific and technical services as affected by the Local Government Bill we are now discussing.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin (who now has many preoccupations other than reading parliamentary papers), has had an opportunity of really studying the report, but it is a very serious document. I do not wish to go through the details of the report as that was done by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook; but I should like to remind the Committee of the conclusions unanimously reached by that all-

41
party committee of your Lordships' House, in which they stated, and I quote from the final paragraph of the report:
"The Committee repeat their conviction that the administration of local government in Greater London and the metropolitan counties depends for its effectiveness on preserving the integrity of many of the specialist services built up by the GLC and the county councils. … Further challenges lie ahead. The great conurbations require specialist staff and facilities to meet them. Economic, efficient and forward-looking services demand excellence, integration and continuity. The existing services should be improved, not by being dismembered but by being encouraged to progress. Centres of excellence are slow to develop but easy to destroy".
The committee made various detailed recommendations, with which I will not weary your Lordships, but it is perfectly clear that the committee, which went into these matters with great thoroughness and with a considerable degree of expertise at its disposal, recognised that there is virtually no chance of a satisfactory transfer of functions by the date of abolition. They also assumed that this Bill, in some shape or form, would reach the statute book.
The report argued that if arrangements had not been finalised the scientific and technical services, with staff, should be transferred initially to a residuary body. This would minimise disruption until longer-term arrangements could be made. Even this would lead to a period of inaction and loss of dynamism and the interim period should therefore be kept to a minimum.
If for no other reason, a committee of inquiry of the kind suggested by my noble friend should proceed forthwith to investigate the best way of making a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation at least better than it may otherwise be. That is the purpose of this amendment. And—mutatis mutandis—one could say the same of other areas. When it comes to strategic planning, transport, etc., no one knows how they will be handled. They are not being transferred to the boroughs.
We are all mature, intelligent people and we know what is going on. Those functions will not be transferred to the boroughs, except in part. There are considerable areas where nobody knows what really is the best way of coping with the situation if the GLC and the metropolitan counties are to be dismembered and destroyed. It is not for us to go into detail here and now, but there is a serious case to be made for the amendment which is now before the Committee. If we are to keep to the Government's proposals and timetable, then all the more reason why this amendment should be adopted and some proper, rational discussion undertaken on the methods by which this botched legislation can be improved.
The Earl of Perth: I came to this Committee stage this afternoon without any preconceived idea, one way or the other, on the amendment. However, the more I listened the more it struck me that, in a way, this amendment is something of a derogation of the powers of the House itself. What is it suggesting? It is suggesting that the House, in this Committee stage and in other stages, goes with the greatest care into all the various points raised by many of your Lordships and then assumes that the work must be done again by a committee. I find that some sort of reflection on your Lordships' House.
42
I believe it was the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who pointed out how in the past year or two the Government, under pressure, have considerably changed the Bill for the better. If that is right to date why should it not go on that way, because our Lordships will be trying to improve the Bill in one way or another? To suggest that after we pass the Bill we should then start all over again and legislate in eight weeks—because that is about the timetable, as your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—is, if not frivolous, certainly not a practical suggestion.
The only other point that has occurred to me in listening to your Lordships is that if this committee were to be set up it would be faced with an enormous amount of work. We all know of the representations that we have had. The right reverend Prelate said that we must consider, in particular, Merseyside. We must consider London and all the various metropolitan counties in that very short time and produce an answer by the beginning of February and finish the legislation by 1st April. Somehow, that date is one which I find totally appropriate. I do not think that this is an amendment which we should take seriously.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that no one in this House wants to extend the patronage of our friends on the other side of the river. What we wanted to do, and what the Government have prevented us from doing, was to ensure that they went to the electorate on Thursday of this week. That was the whole objective of our exercise last year. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that there is nothing frivolous in this amendment. It is not frivolous when we are investigating what I believe—and the noble Earl who is to wind up will correct me if I am wrong—is the first time since 1832 that any of the British people have been deliberately disenfranchised. That is not frivolous.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady White have all pointed to specific issues that should be the subject of an inquiry and to which the Government have given no answer and can give no answer at this stage. Nor can they give any answer to what will happen when the several million people (I shall not put a figure on it) whom we know are to be disenfranchised lose their votes. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said at the beginning of the Second Reading debate that democracy involves power coming as close as possible to the voters. Is that going to come through this Bill? If so, how? We are entitled to an answer; and not just a political answer but an answer as to what will happen to these powers. To what extent is this an increase in the power of the executive? To what extent, as the Government claim, is this going to save money? No one can give a specific answer. These are all matters for which an inquiry is necessary.
5.15 p.m.
The Bill contains proposals for a major constitutional change and it comes without precedent because no public inquiry has been carried out as a basis for it. That sentence should be quoted. It is not mine. It is a sentence of the right honourable Edward Heath speaking in another place on 4th December. I

43
suggest that he speaks for one kind of Conservative and that his words should be listened to by that kind of Conservative who is in this Committee this afternoon. I suggested that in my Second Reading speech. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House thought he was very clever in turning round my history on Joseph Chamberlain and his family. If he had known anything about the spirit of that history he would have known that if Joseph Chamberlain had been alive for the last decade he would have been leading not Birmingham but the West Midlands County Council. His whole effect was to spread the democracy of local government and to spread accountability, which this Bill is taking away.
What the noble Viscount the Leader of the House did not say, and did not answer when I specifically asked him was whether the logic of this Bill is to be applied to the shire counties. He never mentioned that in his winding-up speech. I suggest that an inquiry of this kind should look at the implications contained within the Bill for the shire counties. I asked the noble Viscount, quite deliberately and specifically, when he was sitting in his place: are we to take it that the shire county elections on Thursday of this week are to be the last? If not, where is the logic of the Government's argument? Are not those shire counties, the county councils, just as subject to the logic of the Government's argument as are the metropolitan counties and the GLC? If not, we should be told where the logic goes wrong. I suggest that this can only be done by looking objectively at the whole structure of local government.
I also suggest that those who have argued that the Bill has been put through the whole process of Parliament are using a very dubious argument. We know (and I said this at Second Reading) that when the guillotine fell in the other place there were 55 hours left to discuss nearly 70 clauses. I gave the time that was taken on important clauses. Surely that is not the kind of democracy which noble Lords opposite consider to be a substitute for an independent inquiry or an examination of the proposals put forward by the Government. So the Bill comes to us, the unelected House, without the elected House having had the opportunity of a thorough examination and we are put into the position of an inquiry. But what happened two weeks ago tonight? It was not noble Lords who are sitting on these Benches here who took part in that vote. It was amusing to see during that afternoon, that even the attendants did not know some of the noble Lords who were here. I sympathised even with the clerks, who had to consult Dod's to try to match pictures with faces they had never before seen.
The majority mentioned this afternoon was not a majority of the people who have been discussing the Bill. It was a majority of those whom the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip had been able to persuade or coerce to come here to cast their votes. When? It was at a quarter to two in the morning. Why? It was because the Government Chief Whip knew that his three-line whip would not continue on the Tuesday.
Surely, had we been serious and put ourselves in the position of being an impartial, objective inquiry into the issues of the Bill, the Government would not have
44
hesitated for a moment. When they saw the list of speakers—and they knew the list of speakers because we all knew it before the Easter Recess—they would have immediately agreed to a two-day debate. That would have been sensible, instead of forcing or coercing people. Some of my dearest colleagues on this side of the House—and I am sure that there were noble Lords on the other side of the House—risked their health to stay up until a quarter to two in the morning to cast their vote. Is that the way to conduct a serious inquiry and investigation into the Bill? I suggest that it is not.
I suggest that there is a case for an independent inquiry after the Bill has been passed to bring out the issues which the Government have not been able to answer authoritatively and to examine the repercussions of aspects that their own supporters—I have quoted Mr. Heath and I could quote others—have shown to be offensive to the concept and tradition of conservatism as they have known it. This inquiry would give the Government one further opportunity to avoid a clash with common sense as well as with democracy, and we are offering them that opportunity this evening.
The Earl of Gowrie: I sense that the Committee may wish now to come to a decision on this issue, and I shall simply try to respond to some of the specific points that have been made rather than rehearse all the arguments, which have been well put. Speaking for myself, I have found it an extraordinarily lively and interesting debate. I say that as something of a "rookie" in local government legislation.
However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that I am not such a "rookie" as to make the confusion with the shire counties. One reason why the Government are seeking your Lordships' assent to this legislation is because the shire counties carry out over 80 per cent. of the services in their areas, whereas the metropolitan counties carry out only 26 per cent. and the GLC 11 per cent. That is what we mean by a wasteful and expensive tier of bureaucracy.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that those of us on this side of the Committee who bear the affection and admiration for my right honourable friend Mr. Heath that I do would rather seek to protect him from the embraces of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I think that the Opposition could perhaps choose a more subtle figure to put up if that point is to be made.
I do not propose to deal with the argument as to whether this is a wrecking amendment. Let me give the noble Baroness the benefit of the doubt. Let me act the soft policeman, so to say, to my noble friend's hard cop and suggest that it may not be a wrecking amendment. But if it is not, it certainly does not seem to be an amendment of very great substance. I thought that that point was answered admirably from slightly different perspectives by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Beloff, and also, of course, by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He made the sensible point that many of the things that the inquiry might deal with could be perfectly wisely, legitimately and properly dealt with by your Lordships' House as the Bill proceeded on its way.
Let me say one quick personal thing about the whole issue of an inquiry. I am 45 years old, and I cannot

45
remember a time during my adult life when some inquiry or other into the workings of local government and its finances has not been taking place. There was the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London which was set up in 1957 under Sir Edwin Herbert and which reported in 1960. There was the London Government Act of 1963, which created the GLC and the 32 London boroughs. There was the Royal Commission into the workings of local government under Sir John Maud, later Lord Redcliffe-Maud, which was appointed in 1966 and reported in June 1969. There was the then Conservative Government's 1971 White Paper, Local Government in England. There was that Government's Local Government Act in 1972. In addition, under the Labour Government the GLC itself set up the Marshall Inquiry under the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, which reported in July 1978.
We have been deluged with inquiries, debate, knowledge and information. It would seem to me wholly redundant to go down that road again. The reason we are being urged to do so is simple. Those who are opposed, perfectly honourably, to our proposals and legislation believe that it will help them in their campaigns against them. That point could not have been put more clearly than it was by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
I was stung by one criticism. Happily, a Back-Bench Member of the party opposite came to my aid. I was stung by the noble Baroness when she said that no one was making any headway against the Government in respect of criticisms of this legislation. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with his great experience of local government, came to my rescue. The Government have consulted widely, as I know as a principal participant on the arts sides in this respect, and they have substantially modified some of their original propositions before the legislative process.
There is the very substantial modification of the ILEA proposals. There are the suggestions that boroughs and districts will prepare single unitary development plans instead of being responsible for separate structure and local plans—and I believe that that answers in some measure the criticisms made by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Also, in my own field there is the additional central Government funding—which will of course be partially distributed through regional arts authorities—to pick up some of the arts expenditure of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. That was a complete change of tack by the Government as a result of representations and consultations. There were the changes for the voluntary bodies. The Government will provide transitional funding of schemes to the total value of £10 million for the first four years following abolition, and the Bill provides for a scheme of joint funding by all boroughs and districts of countrywide projects. Previous to that change voluntary bodies supported by the GLC or the metropolitan county councils would in future have had to look to boroughs or districts for support.
5.30 p.m.
I, like the Committee, was moved and impressed very much, if I may say so, by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I hope that
46
the changes and modifications, of which perhaps he did not take sufficient account, will answer some of the points that he made. I think it is also important to say to the right reverend Prelate that you do not have to be a city or an inner city with a metropolitan county council to have great inner city problems or to make sterling attempts to tackle them. To say that would be rather rude, I think, to the difficulties of such great cities of ours as Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow and others.
When I think of an inner city area like central Birmingham, I must say that this debate was much too interesting for me to indulge in the fantasy of composing a speech in the style of the late Joe Chamberlain on what he would have thought of the West Midlands County Council. I have been enormously impressed, when I have been in Birmingham, by how little that city, which is not held in hands politically sympathetic to my own, think of the metropolitan county council. I am sharply aware that there are no proposals that I know of by the Labour Government to put those county councils back into being, should they win an election.
The noble Baroness also said there was no consensus of this issue. One of the puzzling things of contemporary politics is that the tone of debate and altercation has become much sharper in recent years. Yet I would suggest that some of the analyses or the problems have become much closer. It seems to me that the Alliance, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have been alike in their analysis that these structures (which were brought into being, as I fully acknowledge, by a Conservative Government) have not only been less than perfect but have actually aroused local government spokesmen of all opposition parties to declare that they would wish to see them at an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, I think rather let the side down by saying that he was not opposed to reform: with characteristic liberal invective, he was simply opposed to doing anything about it. I welcome the noble Lord. Lord Evans, to the reformists, and I hope that he will get off the fence on this issue.
I was also concerned—I did not seek to interrupt him because he made the point very quickly and passed over it—lest any of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, about Hampstead Heath should create anxiety in this Chamber or outside. The noble Lord said that Hampstead Heath's future was very uncertain, as if in some way this enormous acreage was going to be hived off or sold in some way. Whatever body ends up with formal responsibility for Hampstead Heath, what we all mind about is that it should continue to be Hampstead Heath, which is precisely what will happen. Under present arrangements, if anything sinister were to be done to it—and this applies to many areas covered by the Bill—the Secretary of State of the day could, of course, prevent it. I cannot imagine any Secretary of State of the day not doing so.
It was a particularly interesting debate, and I think that probably now is the time to take a decision on it. I believe it is not unfair of me to suggest that in this respect the Opposition—however sincere their opposition to the Bill generally—are being a little

47
cynical and a little opportunistic. They have, through the pronouncements of their spokemen, on many occasions in recent years, and even since the general election, attacked the structure of local government as covered by the MCCs and the GLC. They have now tried to climb on a bandwagon created, I would say, very temporarily and with unscrupulous use of public money by a handful of bright Labour politicians in these areas. They will find this a very expensive mistake, as it will land them with commitments at the next election which they will regret.
I do not think the noble Baroness has one of her elegant legs to stand on in respect of this amendment, and I ask the Committee not to fall for her.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the noble Earl ceases to share his random observations with us, I took particular note of his almost concluding sentence about the Opposition being cynical and opportunist. Would he say that his right honourable friend in another place, for whom he expressed so much affection, was being cynical or opportunist when he said (and I will repeat to the noble Earl the words of the right honourable gentlemen Mr. Edward Heath):
"The Bill contains proposals for a major constitutional change and it comes without precedent because no public inquiry has been carried out as a basis for it".
The Earl of Gowrie: I dealt with that point at the beginning of my remarks. What I had in mind was pronouncements like that of the then official Opposition spokesman on the environment, Mr. Kaufman, when he said as late as December last year:
"We should not regard the existence of the GLC as sacrosanct. In my view it is an enormous bureaucracy which has a dubious role to play".
Baroness Birk: We have had a long and lively debate, as the noble Earl said. If I may, I think I shall first take up some of the remarks of "the soft policeman", as he termed himself, before I get to "the hard cop". If this amendment and the debate are not something of substance, I am surprised that we have had a Cabinet Minister wheeled in to wind up on it. We have had our very distinguished Minister of State, who took it to himself to speak immediately after me, and we have had (I do not know how to describe them) all the noble Lords—Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Beloff and now Lord Bellwin—who are all highly qualified to speak and who all come to the aid of the party at a very high level. So I do not think one can talk of this as not being of any substance.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and his point about the Committee carrying out the work of any inquiry. The Committee would still carry on with discussing the Bill, moving amendments and hopefully winning some of them or getting some change of heart from the Government, even if the inquiry were set up. But an independent inquiry would not be subject to three-line whips. It would not be negating what had been decided in Committee and altering it on the way.
The noble Earl also referred again to the question: Why have an inquiry, particularly when legislation is going on? With the Herbert Commission we had a
48
commission of inquiry and then legislation; with Redcliffe-Maud we had a commission and then legislation. Now we have the legislation without an inquiry. That is the tremendous difference. I have never pretended for one moment—and I said this right from the beginning—that I thought it was very satisfactory to have to ask for a committee of inquiry during the passage of a Bill. But there is no alternative when there has not been any inquiry before the legislation; when it is something that affects so many people, so many areas, and so many lives that we have a duty to do what we can to try and improve it, even though it means a committee of inquiry which will be sitting, not for eight weeks but for something like six months. Surely it is not beyond the powers of this Parliament and of the Government that if there are proposals put forward which the Government genuinely think would improve this Bill they should then produce them and go forward with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was mainly taking me to task. I shall not go into that matter since my noble friend Lord Howie answered the point about it being an unusual Bill. However, the noble Lord asked me about pressing for the implementation of proposals. I should say that the boot or shoe is entirely on the other foot. This is entirely in the Government's hands. When the committee of inquiry, which I hope will be set up, is set up, the Government can get it to work very much earlier. Incidentally, there is no substance in the argument of not being able to find people who look at a matter independently. Everybody brings themselves and their own prejudices to other things they do, but when they have something in front of them to consider and terms of reference (and they will be fairly narrow) I do not think that will be a problem. That point was also dealt with.
However, if the committee then come forward with certain very specific proposals which they feel would greatly improve this legislation, it will be for the Government to decide what they will do. It does not rest with the Opposition. It is up to the Government to decide whether they want to go ahead with legislation which will not work out and has a great many faults in it. It is up to them to decide whether they will get the change through very quickly or whether they will, of their own volition, decide that they would rather present a better piece of legislation to the country (not just to the Houses of Parliament) and will therefore make up their own minds to have some delay if they think it is necessary. This is nothing at all to do with the Opposition parties; it is entirely up to the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, talked about the Second Reading debate. He seemed to imply that we were debating an inquiry. We were not. We were not debating an inquiry; but the question of an inquiry came in. It was mentioned by nearly a dozen people during that debate. The noble Lord also talked again about services being returned to the boroughs. One of the problems of the Bill is where the services are not returned to the boroughs and where they cannot be effectively given to the boroughs because they are services which cover a very much wider area.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he opened, referred to the manifesto of 1979 and made very much of the fact that there was no mention of an inquiry. As

49
to that, and as to his reference to my right honourable friend in another place and what he said at a party conference, I must say with great respect that that is rather scraping the barrel for arguments against the amendment and in favour of the Bill.
In relation to what my right honourable friend said about an inquiry, people say things at party conferences which either do not necessarily carry the weight of their party or which they do not necessarily stick to. I shall swop the noble Lord that one for a comment that was made at a party conference by the present Secretary of State for the Environment on 10th October 1983. He said:
"I am a Tory and I have been brought up as a Tory. I believe the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates change, and if he does not satisfy that burden of proof, then change should not be made."
He has obviously changed his mind about that, has he not? There we are. Thus, these are not very good precedents to follow.
The question whether or not we should go ahead with this amendment was, if I may say so, put succinctly and well by my noble friend Lady White, who is a member of the main Select Committee on Science and Technology, although not of the subcommittee which has reported. Her arguments on the need for this were on a completely apolitical basis—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Birk: Yes, they were, because she was quoting what had been said by the Sub-Committee on Science and Technology. One of the other points she made, which I should like to reinforce, is this. We are all aware of the amount of material we have received and of pressures and discontent from organisations of every kind. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by listing them, because we know them. However, I think there is something of which we should take note. It is that I am sure all of us have received and are continuing to receive more and more updated material since this Bill went through the House of Commons. It did not stop there. Thus the dissatisfaction is just the same, and in many cases is greater. Now it is being transferred to this Chamber, and we are being asked what we can do.
I would say only this in ending, before I test the feelings of the Committee on this matter. What are the Government afraid of? If the Government feel that they have this matter right and that any independent committee that is set up will reinforce it or may feel that it can make some suggestions which will help it along, then they have nothing to fear. As I have already argued, there is no question of delay in this amendment. It is entirely in the hands of the Government; it is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. I regret the fact that, as the Minister pointed out, it is giving him yet another power. However, as we were determined not to have an amendment which would incorporate delay or which would be in any way a wrecking amendment, this was the only way to do it.
Therefore, rather than consider that this amendment is ingenious, opportunist, cynical, devious or any of the other flattering remarks that have been made about it (and I do not think that that kind of flattery will get anyone anywhere) I should have
50
thought the Committee would have accepted it and would not have looked behind it and tried to find all kinds of sinister motives which are not there. I can see the Chief Whip grinning at me. I always like to grin back at him. However, I mean it. It is absolutely true.
I think many Members of the Committee and many people are extremely seriously concerned, including those who are in favour of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties but are concerned at the way in which it is being carried out by this Bill. I ask the Committee to support the only way we have at the moment of trying to come to grips with this very difficult problem.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 196.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gifford, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Attlee, E.

Gregson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Bacon, B.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Hanworth, V.

Barnett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hayter, L.

Beswick, L.

Henniker, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blyton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hunt, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ingleby, V.

Briginshaw, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jacobson, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Buckmaster, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kaldor, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kearton, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kennet, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Collison, L.

Kissin, L.

Croham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Leatherland, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Davies of Leek, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lockwood, B.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Denington, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Derby, Bp.

McNair, L.

Diamond, L.

Mais, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Melchett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkender, B.

Northfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Foot, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

George-Brown, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

51

Rea, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Reilly, L.

Stone, L.

Rhodes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Wade, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Walston, L.

Scanlon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Seear, B.

Whaddon, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Shinwell, L.

Willis, L.

Simon, V.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Soper, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stallard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fisher, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Foley, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Freyberg, L.

Allerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Barber, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bathurst, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Bellwin, L.

Grantchester, L.

Beloff, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bethell, L.

Greenway, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gridley, L.

Boardman, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bolton, L.

Haig, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Braye, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Harvington, L.

Caccia, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Caithness, E.

Henley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hertford, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hives, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carnock, L.

Hood, V.

Cayzer, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Chelmer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chelwood, L.

Ironside, L.

Clinton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kimberley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Cox, B.

Kintore, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Crathorne, L.

Layton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Loch, L.

Davidson, V.

Long, V.

De Freyne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

De La Warr, E.

Luke, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Digby, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

Dudley, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dundee, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mar, C.

Elibank, L.

Margadale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Elton, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Merrivale, L.

Erne, E.

Mersey, V.

Faithfull, B.

Middleton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Minto, E.

52

Molson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Moran, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Mottistone, L.

Sandford, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Sandys, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Savile, L.

Moyne, L.

Seebohm, L.

Munster, E.

Selkirk, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Sherfield, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norfolk, D.

Somers, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stamp, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Orkney, E.

Strathspey, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Suffield, L.

Pender, L.

Swinfen, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Perth, E.

Terrington, L.

Porritt, L.

Teviot, L.

Portland, D.

Teynham, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Radnor, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Torphichen, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trenchard, V.

Redesdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reigate, L.

Tryon, L.

Remnant, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renton, L.

Vickers, B.

Renwick, L.

Vinson, L.

Rochdale, V.

Vivian, L.

Rodney, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Romney, E.

Westbury, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rugby, L.

Young, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Motor-Cycle Crash-helmets (Restriction of Liability) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

NI Local Elections: Proof of Identity
5.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall repeat an Answer to a Private Notice Question on the validity of medical cards as evidence of a voter's identity at the

53
forthcoming local elections in Northern Ireland that has just been given in another place:
"Because of widespread concern in Northern Ireland about the growth of personation in elections Parliament has passed the Elections (Northern Ireland Act) 1985, and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 which applies the main provisions of the Act to local elections. The new legislative provisions include a requirement that a voter must produce a specified document to obtain a ballot paper. These documents are a current full driving licence issued in Great Britain or Northern Ireland; a current British or Irish passport; a current benefits, allowance or pension book issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland; a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services; and a certified copy, or extract, of an entry of marriage issued by a Registrar General, where the voter concerned is a woman married within the preceding two years.
"It has come to our attention that there may be some electors holding a medical card issued before 30th September 1973 by the Northern Ireland General Health Services Board, the predecessor of the present Central Services Agency. Some of these electors may believe that these are specified documents entitling them to vote. This is not the case. It is not possible to estimate with any accuracy how many electors hold these older cards and who do not have any of the other specified documents. However, the Chief Electoral Officer issued a statement on Friday 26th April pointing out that anyone who has no other specified document and did not have the appropriate kind of medical card should take steps now, if they had not already done so, to obtain a new medical card. Special arrange-merits have been made to ensure that anyone needing a new medical card can obtain one quickly and these arrangements will be kept under review.
"The Northern Ireland Information Services have published advertisements in the Belfast and local Northern Ireland press, on the radios and television, and distributed leaflets to households throughout Northern Ireland setting out clearly which documents will be needed. If people remain in doubt on this point, I suggest that they look at these leaflets or at the back of the polling cards which are now being issued and which have a list of the specified documents on the back.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of the understandable concern of Northern Ireland and other Members of another place about this matter, and this afternoon in Northern Ireland is reviewing the issues involved".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating a Statement made in another place, but I believe that your Lordships will find that it is a very regrettable Statement. The fact of the matter must be that the Government made a mistake in the drawing up of this order. It is a very important order because a ballot paper will not be issued to a voter who has taken the
54
trouble to go to a polling booth if the wrong kind of medical card, which is surely by the Government's error, is produced. I well understand that if an error has been made, not only is it right and proper to concentrate upon the error and to allot blame, because all of us are capable of making mistakes, even the distinguished Northern Ireland Office; it is also the duty of somebody, and especially an important Government department, in regard to the exercise of a democratic right which is so vital in Northern Ireland, where a mistake has been made, to take all appropriate measures to put it right.
The mere issuing of a notice, that may or may not be seen, stating that people are advised to try to change an old medical card for a new one, is really riot sufficient. It is not sufficient to say, as the noble Lard the Minister faithfully repeated as having been said in another place, that one cannot estimate the number of people involved. It may be a very great number, but even if it is two people who are wrongly affected by the Government error, to me and to my noble friends, if I may say so, that is a grave miscarriage of what ought to take place.
I do not understand at this moment why the Government cannot do a very sensible thing with two very sensible Houses of Parliament; that is, immediately to put an amending order before both Houses saying that the hospital card referred to does, indeed, cover those issued before September 1973. I am sure that this noble House will co-operate with the Government to put that right, and I hope that I am right in assuming that another place, for which this House has the greatest respect—I nearly said "the gravest respect"—will take exactly the same measures as this House would do.
It is therefore with regret that I have heard this Statement. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to deal satisfactorily with what I have just said on behalf of my noble friends.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I normally defend the Government against missiles from the Labour Party over the Northern Ireland situation, but I cannot on this occasion. It seems to me absolutely ridiculous that over 100,000 people, which I believe is the estimate, should be left with no medical card which is suitable. Clearly they may have other things—the medical card is only an alternative to five others—but these are very simple people and particularly in the backwoods, as it were, of Northern Ireland they will trot up to the polling booth and say, "I'm all right. I've got my medical card", but if it was issued before 1972, they will be turned away. There would very properly be a major scandal, and I do not think the Government would have a leg to stand on.
It cannot be impossible to put this right. I defy any Government to say that between now and 15th May they cannot make, in some ingenious way or another, the cards issued before 1972 as valid as those issued after 1972. I really do not think we can support them on this, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to persuade his friends that something more serious has to be done about it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful for the attention that has been paid to this Statement and especially for

55
the comments which have been made by the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out that an error had been made. Indeed, we have to admit that there is a lack of clarity in this particular leaflet that I have here. It refers to "a medical card" and in smaller print that seems perfectly legible to many of us it states,
"a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency".
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, both raised the question of various ingenious measures being available to attempt to rectify this error. Both noble Lords who have spoken considered the possibility of a change in the legislation. I am able to tell them both that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is urgently considering a number of possibilities, but legislative changes would be more difficult than might be imagined, even by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I say that because the present definitions were certainly in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships, and in another place during the passage of the Bill they were incorporated in the body of what is now the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. We would need to carry out various other amendments to other pieces of legislation. I would remind your Lordships that there are precisely 16 days, two weekends and a bank holiday to attempt to carry this legislation through both your Lordships' House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, another place. But I stress that my right honourable friend is considering a number of possibilities and I could not rule out anything at this stage. I should not want to say anything more on the legislation tonight.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for what he has said. He has gone as far as he possibly can with his limited remit, and I quite understand that, but I hope that this promise to do everything that is possible will be translated into practice. At the moment I do not have a reasonable explanation as to why amending legislation cannot be rushed through so that an error can be corrected. At the same time I am perfectly sure that the department can try to see to it that the new medical cards are substituted for the old in as many cases as possible so as to limit the amount of harm that is done. It really is incumbent upon the Secretary of State—I say this with all the emphasis that I can command—to do everything, however inconvenient it may be, to put right this wrong; otherwise we shall be seriously interfering with a very important democratic right in an area where we all want to see it properly exercised.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, briefly, may I say that I shall certainly convey the concern felt by your Lordships to my right honourable friend. However, I would stress to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to your Lordships that this particular problem has been in the headlines of both Northern Ireland daily newspapers and Sunday newspapers. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, saw them over the weekend, but I certainly did not, although I believe that they are generally available. I understand that the problem has been on the headlines of both channels of
56
Northern Ireland television as well as on both radio stations in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I hope that as I speak we are doing our best; but I shall certainly convey your Lordships' concern to my right honourable friend.

Local Government Bill
6.12 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Broadbridge Lord Broadbridge moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Referenda
.—(1) Before the 1st April 1986 a referendum shall be held in Greater London and each metropolitan county in accordance with Schedule (Referenda) to this Act on the question whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act as regards Greater London or the Metropolitan county, as the case may be.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in a referendum in any of the areas mentioned in subsection (1) above have voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule (Referenda) to this Act or that a majority of the answers given in any such referendum have said "No" he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the exclusion of Greater London or the metropolitan county, as the case may be, from the provisions of this Act.
(3) If a draft laid before Parliament under this section is approved by a resolution of each House, Her Majesty in Council may make an Order in the terms of the draft.").
The noble Lord said: As I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, I wish to put before noble Lords a proposal that provision should be made for a referendum in the GLC and the metropolitan counties before this Bill can become law. A schedule to the Bill detailing the exact wording of the proposed referendum is also presented to the Committee as Amendment No. 25, on page 12 of the Marshalled List which, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to now as it is consequential.
Amendment No. 25: Insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE
REFERENDA
Date of referendum
1. The referendum shall be held on such single day before the 1st April 1986 as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.
Persons eligible to vote
2. Those entitled to vote in the referenda shall be—

(a) the persons who, at the date of the referenda, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency in Greater London or the metropolitan county.

(b) peers who at that date would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Greater London or metropolitan county.

Question to be asked and form of ballot paper
3. The question to be asked for the referenda and the form of the ballot paper to be used for that purpose shall be in the form set out in the Appendix to this Schedule.
Conduct of referenda
4. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision as to the conduct of the referenda and apply in relation to it, with such modifications or exceptions as may be specified in the Order, any provision of the Representation of the People Acts, any provision of the enactments relating to returning officers and any provision made under any enactment.
5. An Order in Council under this Schedule shall not charge any sum on the Consolidated Fund but may provide for the expenses of the returning officers to be defrayed as administrative expenses of the Secretary of State.
6. The functions which, in relation to a parliamentary election, are conferred on returning officers by any provision applied by an Order in Council under this Schedule shall in

57
relation to the referendum be discharged by the persons who under section 41 of the Local Government Act 1972 are, or may discharge the functions of, returning officers at elections of councillors of London boroughs or metropolitan district councils.
7. The Secretary of State shall appoint a Counting Officer for each of the relevant areas.
8. The Counting Officer shall certify the number of ballot papers counted by him and the number of respective answers given by valid votes.
9. The Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for the relevant area, and if the Greater London Council or the metropolitan county council or the Counting officers for the relevant area so requests, the council of any London borough or metropolitan district shall place the services of its officers at the disposal of the counting officer for the relevant area.
Exclusion of legal proceedings
10. No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the numbers, as certified by the Counting Officer for the relevant area, of any ballot papers counted or answers given in any of the referenda.
Orders in Council
11. No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make any Order under this Schedule until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
12. In this Schedule "relevant area" means Greater London or a metropolitan county.

APPENDIX
Form of Ballot Paper
Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in (name of area in which referendum is held) as to whether effect is to be given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 as regards (name of area in which referendum is held).
DO YOU WANT THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985 TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT AS REGARDS (NAME OF AREA IN WHICH REFERENDUM IS HELD)?
Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box.

YES

NO

").
There is political precedent for a major constitutional Bill to allow for the holding of referenda. At the opening of the Second Reading debate in another place on the Scotland and Wales Bill in December 1976 a reasoned amendment was tabled requiring referenda to be held in Scotland and Wales before the Bill came into effect. The amendment was tabled by the Labour Member for Pontypool. On the opening day of the debate, the Speaker ruled that the amendment should not be moved that day, but the debate which followed demonstrated widespread inter-party support for the idea of referenda. The Conservative Member for Swansea-East expressed the views of many when he said:
"For a major constitutional change such as this, when the rules of the game are to be altered, one needs an endorsement greater than that provided by this House".
For "House" we might today read "Parliament". The Conservative Member for Milton Keynes admitted that since there had been a referendum on Europe, and because a major constitutional issue was in hand, he supposed that one could not logically oppose the holding of a referendum on that occasion, too.
Finally, in a long letter to The Times on 14th December, 1976, the noble Lord, Lord Home, said, also on that subject, that while Parliament and the country continued to be at sixes and sevens we will see how the present Bill fares, but is it not better to ascertain the true opinion of the people, and soon, and
58
to frame a Bill afresh with their expressed wishes in mind? By quoting the noble Lord, I hasten to add that I have no reason to suppose that he shares my views on this particular amendment.
One argument then held against the holding of referenda centred around doubts as to the dissemination of appropriate information to the potential electorate who might be unable to make an informed decision if asked to cast a vote. After the publicity given to the areas affected by this Bill, it is hardly credible that the same argument could be used now.
Therefore, for pan-European Government reorganisation we had a referendum about joining the EEC; for national Government reorganisation we were going to introduce referenda on an already published Bill, but the Bill failed on 22nd February 1977. So why not one for local government reorganisation legislation? In almost every other democracy this legislation would be subject to some constitutional check so that the evident misgivings of many of our Parliament and people could find expression. In Britain no such check exists, and furthermore our electoral system allows a party representing the largest minority to interpret its mandate in any way it pleases.
It is the false doctrine of the mandate which lies at the root of the trouble. Even if one ignores the fact that the Government's parliamentary majority rests on the support of just over two out of five voters, there is no way of determining whether or not even those who actually voted Conservative sought to authorise the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties as a specific issue.
Let us remember that when the Government proposed in their manifesto to abolish these bodies it was not apparent that no elected body would supersede them. The Government argue that devolution of powers is to elected district councils whose people will therefore get their own way, but that is not so. If we take the GLC as an example, then, as has already been said during the Second Reading debate, 66.8 per cent. of the current gross budget of £12 billion will go to 59 quangos, non-elected bodies or the Secretary of State. The amount over which the electorate have control falls from 100 per cent. to 33 per cent., the balance massively to strengthened non-elected centralised authorities. Because the voter cannot make his views known on specific issues, there is no way of preventing fundamental changes passing into law which the majority of those concerned do not desire.
In these circumstances, only one instrument exists which can determine whether electors approve a specific proposal, and that is the referendum. It alone offers a check upon Government which is truly popular and democratic. Although this House, through the so-called Salisbury Convention, lacks the constitutional authority to kill the Bill, it can nevertheless seek to make its coming into effect dependent upon popular approval. This would allow Conservative Peers to express their anxieties without openly opposing the Government too.
Last year opinion polls indicated a consistently rising opposition to abolition, now running at 74 per cent. From this one might deduce that a referendum

59
might not endorse abolition. But this could be deceptive.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord kindly tell us which opinion poll is running at 77 per cent.? The latest one I saw showed a considerably lower figure.
Lord Broadbridge: I believe that it may be 71 per cent.
Lord Elton: I think that it is 61 per cent.
Lord Broadbridge: As I understand it, the figures were as follows: in January 1984, 50 per cent; in June 1984, 66 per cent; and in October 1984, 71 per cent. I had understood that it was 74 per cent. now; but if I am wrong, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the noble Lord would allow me, he may perhaps find it more conducive to the argument to point out the very low percentage of those who were in favour of abolition.
Lord Broadbridge: Yes, that is the case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord by pointing out that in the same polls—
Lord Broadbridge: I believe it was 77 per cent. but perhaps we have now cleared up that point. From this one might deduce that a referendum might not endorse abolition but that could be deceptive. In a referendum campaign both sides would have to win over the uncommitted vote—for the referendum is a uniquely educative device requiring the citizen to offer a definite opinion upon a specific proposal. It is, as James Bryce noticed:
"unequalled as an instrument of practical instruction in politics".
Parliament therefore ought to vindicate its claim to be a check on Government by insisting that neither the GLC nor the metropolitan counties are consigned to the dustbin of history without the people being consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord for not having been in my place when the noble Lord started to move his amendment. Very briefly, surely the system is as follows. The noble Lord speaks about constitutional checks in other systems; but the other systems have written constitutions, and we have no written constitution. Our only checks are our unwritten constitution and the conventions by which we observe it. Surely it is not in accordance with the conventions or traditions to have a referendum other than on a national issue, and I would suggest that this does not qualify in that category.
Lastly, noble Lords, on this amendment at all events, cannot assert that this is some mere resort to the revisory role to improve the Bill—I use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her absence, as she is not in her place—
Noble Lords: She is!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful. I was just about to say that as the noble Baroness is not in her place there will be no amusement in carrying on the discussion on this matter; but as she is in her place I will say that this in fact is different in quality from the previous situation. Here it cannot be asserted—although I do not give at all on the point I made on the first amendment—on this amendment that this is a resort, using the word as the noble Baroness used it, to the revisory role to improve the Bill. Therefore it is a clear and unequivocal resort to the delaying power to delay the Bill, to defeat the Bill, if a referendum so decides. That, I would have suggested, is contrary to the ordinary constitutional conventions.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Perhaps I may speak in support of the noble Lord's amendment. I hasten to say that I speak in my personal capacity and not as a member of the Alliance parties. No doubt the terrible disciplinary actions taken against recalcitrant Tory Peers wil be visited on me for this stepping out of line.
I speak for this amendment because I feel strongly for once. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, detected a certain lack of enthusiasm about my earlier remarks. I would say that I do not regard all reforms as necessarily improvements, and I certainly do not regard this Bill as a reform nor as an improvement. Normally I, like my party, am opposed to the use of referenda in our system. But I do not regard the circumstances of this Bill as normal. They are unusual, if not unprecedented.
I am concerned, as I believe is the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, by the constitutional implications—not so much by what we are proposing in this amendment but the constitutional implications of the legislation. The Secretary of State is not just abolishing one tier of local government and returning the powers to the districts, as has been said. He is in fact destroying one elected level of local government and replacing it by nominated boards, or indirectly-elected boards. That is a different matter.
Sixty-seven per cent. of the total expenditure of metropolitan counties is on functions that will remain with statutory, county-wide, non-elected bodies. Therefore 67 per cent. of the functions of the metropolitan counties will be carried out not by elected district councils but by either indirectly-elected joint boards or by nominated bodies. A third of Greater London's total gross expenditure will go to non-elected London-wide bodies. Secondly, many of the powers that are being said to be returning to the districts are powers that they never previously had. I am not saying that that is a good or a bad thing, but just that many of the powers being given to the districts are not entirely powers that are being returned to them. Thirdly, as the noble Lord said, there is growing evidence that the electors are opposed to abolition.
A Mori poll in the Sunday Times this year still indicated 50 per cent. of the population were opposed to abolition in Great Britain as a whole. That is a figure that we might possibly guess would be higher in metropolitan areas. Local polls carried out in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands and West Yorkshire in 1983 and 1984 indicated then that the majority of those interviewed during the surveys were

61
in favour of retaining the county councils: the figures being 66 per cent. in Greater Manchester, 70 per cent. in Merseyside, 63 per cent. in West Midlands, and 70 per cent. in West Yorkshire. Supporters of abolition in these cases are respectively only 15 per cent., 17 per cent., 19 per cent., and 19 per cent.
There was another opportunity of the kind that several of your Lordships might have preferred—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned this during Second Reading—and that is the kind of election which takes place at ballot boxes. But you see, this Government chose to prevent us enjoying the privilege of having that vote on 2nd May this year by abolishing those elections. Therefore, I would say that such evidence as we have indicates—perhaps because of the propaganda (who knows?); but that is a good thing; it is an educative process—that more and more people feel that they are sorry, and regret the possibility of the disappearance of their county council.
What the Government are doing—and this is why it is a constitutional issue—is saying that an existing tier of local government should no longer be organised through direct elections but administered by joint boards, committees, Government appointees, and in far too many cases by the Minister himself. As the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said, the abolition of elections would be a constitutional matter in any country with a written constitution, and it sets a dangerous precendent in this country which has an unwritten constitution.
No form of impartial or objective inquiry has been made, nor now will be made. Nor has any chance been given by local elections being held on 2nd May this year. There is no authority in this country separate from Parliament which can ensure that traditional constitutional conventions are observed. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor has said, we can be, and are these days, subject to constitutional dictatorship. In these circumstances, and in the light of the constitutional position, but while being aware of the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and many others have made, I am of the opinion that the circumstances here are at least as unusual as the circumstances proposing to set up a Scottish and Welsh Parliament. In fact, Greater London has a much larger population, I am sorry to say, than Wales. It is an important matter. If it was good enough for the Welsh and the Scots to have a referendum which went against the wishes of the then Government, why should it not be good enough for the large number of electors in metropolitan areas—11½ million—to have the same opportunity of expressing their views?
Lord Wilson of Langside: I should like to support this amendment. There was a time when I took what I think was the traditional lawyer's view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that referenda were not appropriate to our constitutional arrangements. What converted me was the experience which some of your Lordships will recall in 1978 and 1979 with the legislation for legislative devolution to Wales and to Scotland. So far as Scotland was concerned this was, in the view of many of us, a piece of that Labour Government's legislative folly which was not largely removed in scale or conception from
62
the particular Bill which is under consideration now by your Lordships' Committee.
6.30 p.m.
The position in those years with regard to public opinion polls is of interest and relevance. In Scotland all the opinion polls showed a large majority in favour of what was then called a Scottish assembly. They ranged from percentages of 60 to 80. Even the polls taken by the Royal Commission on the Constitution in the mid-1970s showed overwhelming majorities in favour of this. I am sure that this coloured some of the findings or conclusions of that distinguished Royal Commission.
When it came to the bit, as your Lordships will remember, the people showed themselves wiser than the Government. In Wales the proposals were overwhelmingly defeated. In Scotland some 67 per cent. of the electorate either voted against the Bill or refrained from voting when it had been widely said that an abstention was the same as a no vote. This converted me to the possibility that when Governments were foolish perhaps ordinary people could avoid that kind of political folly. Of course there would have to be a properly conducted and financed campaign because when complex administrative and constitutional questions are brought before the people the people have to be properly instructed on the arguments. That was what took place then. It converted me to the view that when Governments are indulging in constitutional absurdities there is much to be said for putting one's trust in the people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have only one point that I should like to submit to your Lordships' Committee on this because I have no great general enthusiasm for referenda. My point relates specifically to Greater London. As I understand the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, the referendum for Greater London would apply only to those who are electors in Greater London; that is to say, in general, residents of the Greater London area. I observed on Second Reading that Greater London is a purely arbitrary division of the South-Eastern region and a large proportion of the rates in Greater London are paid by people who reside outside it but commute every day to do their work. They pay rates on their offices, their factories and their general places of work.
The question of the removal of a tier of local Government is relevant from a ratepayer's point of view. If one applied a referendum to Greater London, one would have an unfair situation in which those who contribute a large proportion of the rates would have no vote, while large numbers of people who benefit from the payments made by local authorities, but who do not contribute directly to the rates, would have a vote. That illustrates the awkwardness in the Greater London context of this referendum proposal.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is it not the case that the example that the noble Lord cites is exactly the same in relation to the electorate for local authorities? If he follows his logic through with regard to the referen-dum, he must therefore ask whether the people who live out of London and yet work in it, or in the areas of other local authorities, should have a vote in a local election? This is the same thing, is it not?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord would be so courteous as to consult my Second Reading speech, he would see that I am very much with him in that proposal. One of the arguments which I adduced for the abolition of the GLC was precisely that. It levies rates via the precept on a large number of people who do not have votes in its area. Consistency, with respect, is said to be a characteristic of little minds, but I am wholly consistent in this in supporting the abolition of the GLC and in raising the point that a fair referendum for Greater London would be possible only if one included the whole of the South-East region. It is from the South-East region that those who contribute a large proportion of the rates come.
I do not know enough of the situation in the other metropolitan authorities to be able to propound a view, though I would guess in the case of the West Midlands that there may be something of the same situation, as I have had some experience there. I base my argument on Greater London. This is what distinguishes this from the referenda in Scotland and Wales where we were dealing with identifiable and large sections of the United Kingdom with a substantial life of their own. Part of the problem with which the Government are struggling in the whole of the Bill is that the arbitrary drawing of a line around Greater London—a line in a part of the world with which I am familiar includes Kingston-upon-Thames in Greater London, but excludes Esher—creates these problems. What would make it worse would be to introduce a referendum limited only to Greater London electors.
As your Lordships will be well aware, Gallup polls, expressions of political opinion taken irrespective of what I call inner London, may produce a wholly different result from similar explorations of public opinion through Sussex, Kent, Surrey, Buckinghamshire and Essex. That illustrates the difficulty behind this proposal. I should, therefore, feel unhappy at the idea of these referenda taken in limited areas. I feel that in our unitary system of Government it is better to rely on elections to Parliament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Committee should be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, for giving us this opportunity of examining whether, in a complicated and complex situation, the use of the device of a referendum has any part to play in convincing either the Government or those who oppose the Government view that the proposals which the Government seem hell bent on proceeding with, come what may, are the wishes of the people who will be affected.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his contribution. He can see merit, if there is to be a referendum, for widening it beyond London to the South-East region because some people who live in the South-East region work in and pay rates in London. If he cares to move for a referendum in the South-East, I shall certainly second that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: In spite of that generous offer, I did, he may recall, express a certain lack of enthusiasm for referenda in general and therefore I do not think that the noble Lord will have to over-exert himself in supporting me on that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Like the noble Lord, I am not in favour of over-exerting myself. The dilemma faced by the Committee is that there is evidence produced by the opponents to the Bill that the Government do not attempt to deny. When we assert by the best means we can achieve that the people who live in the metropolitan areas do not want the legislation, or when we say that the people in Greater London do not want the abolition of the GLC, the Government do not answer the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, made his case about the percentages. The building across the road has had a sign up for some time saying, "74 per cent. say No". The Minister is entitled to question the manner in which that figure has been produced; I do not. Either you broadly agree that there is a place for the public opinion poll in testing public opinion, or you do not—
Lord Elton: I intervene because the figure that the noble Lord quoted was not 74 but 77, which I have never seen advanced anywhere; and I am told that it is wildly out of date.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may quote to the noble Lord a public opinion poll that was given three days ago on Thames Television. That poll, which was taken with a sample of 1,000 people, showed that 16 per cent. were in favour of the abolition. Seventy per cent. were against it. The Minister may say that instead of 78 the real figure was 74 and now it is down to 70. The point that I seek to make is that, whatever one says about a figure of around 70 per cent. who are against, the number who are persistently in favour remains at less than 20 per cent.
I am not arguing that that should be the sole criterion, because the Government will argue that there were other opportunities almost two years ago in a general election. Everyone in the country was given the opportunity of expressing his or her views. The Minister will know—because he will have looked very carefully at the figures and at the analyses that were produced—that in the metropolitan areas only 36 per cent. of the people supported the Government's case.
If we rest the case, as we do, upon the sanctity—and the Government have the authority—of the manifesto, let me quote two pieces of evidence for it. At Second Reading in another place the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said:
"the proposals … were put in nine days after the election was called against the wishes of the party policy committee. They were inserted without the general agreement of those who had been London Conservative Members".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/84; col. 191.]
Either the Minister will say that that is not the truth or he will simply ignore it and allow the words to have some significance in the debate. If, as I accept, it is the truth, then it is a damning indictment of the base from which the Government put that manifesto commitment before the country.
Even if we say that all the processes took place, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made a broad allusion to the sense and the place of the manifesto. Of course the noble Lord opposite raised in aid what one would call the Salisbury doctrine of the power of the manifesto. This is what the noble and

65
learned Lord, Lord Denning, a Member of this House who is highly respected, said in respect of the attempt by a political party to use a manifesto commitment to put through its policy—and that was the GLC in 1981. This is what the noble and learned Lord, whose views are every bit as worthy of being listened to with care as those of Lord Salisbury said in the case against Bromley:
"A manifesto issued by a political party in order to get votes is not to be taken as gospel. It is not to be regarded as a bond, signed, sealed and delivered. It may contain, and often does contain, promises or proposals that are quite unworkable or impossible of attainment. When a party gets into power it should consider any proposal or promise afresh on its merits, without any feelings of being obliged to honour it or being committed to it. It should then consider what is best to do in the circumstances of the case and to do it if it is practical and fair"—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Lord accept that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was saying was in relation to the legality of an administrative act and that what we were considering on the previous amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to some degree in another context are considering on this amendment, has nothing at all to do with that but with issues which relate to the unwritten constitution? I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that they are totally disparate issues.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am not as competent as the noble Lord to argue legal niceties and to differentiate. I simply look at the sanctity and the authority of a political body to pursue its manifesto commitments. I am quite happy to leave the record to be seen and read by those who are interested, but there is a contradiction in the attitude of noble Lords opposite. The Minister who will reply, and to whom we listen with great respect, must understand that those who are putting this forward are genuinely frustrated and are seeking to find means of convincing the Government that it is still not too late.
The Government may well be right. An indepen-dent survey may very well prove that all these public opinion polls have been somehow weighted or affected, that the wrong questions have been asked, etc. If it is to be a proper Government referendum, there may be some merit in it. I am not arguing the case for or against a referendum. I am saying that there are people who are frustrated and who are seeking to find a means of saying to the Government, "It may not be too late. It may be that you will be able by using the consultative process to strengthen your arguments and therefore to convince this House". We simply look at the 5,000 responses which have been made to Streamlining the Cities, which is the base from which this whole argument was launched. An overwhelming number of them were from individuals and small organisations. But very weighty and powerful bodies said, no. We scratch our heads and ask, "What will it take for the Government to believe that they may be wrong?" The Government are arrogant in refusing to believe that there is anyone, apart from themselves, who can interpret what has been said by the people. So that having rejected the inquiry and having, as I suspect, rejected this amendment, I believe that the
66
Minister ought to have better arguments to convince us that what the people have said is wrong.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope that noble Lords on the Front Bench will resist this amendment absolutely. Referenda are the instrument of dictators. They were Instruments of Hindenberg, of Napoleon and also, I believe, of Hitler. Referenda are easily fixed, the boundaries are easily moved and they undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. Referenda were introduced into this country's political being by the erstwhile second Viscount Stansgate, who thought that he could persuade the British people and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, to stay out of the Common Market, because that is what he wanted and he thought that he would pray in aid the advice of the British people, but they said "Nay". That is a very bad precedent for the use of a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that it is a bad precedent and I could not agree more with him.
We have a parliamentary democracy and it is that democracy that is supreme. The Sovereign in Parliament is supreme. Does a referendum stop at Esher, at Guildford, at Solihull or at Cornwall? Everybody in the United Kingdom is interested in the future of the metropolitan counties. Is it only the metropolitan counties that will have the vote or is it everybody? I suggest that if there is a referendum—which I would abhor, because it is a constitutional abortion—then it should be to the whole country.
If the referendum is to the whole country, where do we stop? Do we stop at Bills to abolish local authorities? Do we go on to Bills to abolish hare coursing, on to Bills which say how many chiropodists can operate on your big toe; or do we say that the referendum applies only to Bills to abolish metropolitan counties? I think that this is something up with which we should not put. I hope that my noble friend will resist it very strongly.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: There is a point that I should like to raise. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am involved in, and live in, the Greater London area—a part of the Greater London area which at one time was in the county of Kent. Now we have a London borough which has far greater powers than the magnificent city of Norwich, which has been reduced to the level of a district council. Those people who live on the outskirts of Greater London and who travel into London and sometimes pay rates in London have the benefit of the county councils; whereas, in my case, my county council will be removed and my local authority will have powers even greater than exist in such cities as Norwich.
This is where I think the Government have made a profound mistake. Instead of messing about with these little pieces of administration, mainly because of the political powers, possibly, why not follow what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said when, on the Local Government (No. 2) Bill, I tried to raise an amendment to restore to the city and other large councils the powers which had been removed? Lord Bellwin then said that at some time there must be a reform. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, did not support me then because he said that the time was not ripe. If the time is ripe now to abolish the GLC and the

67
metropolitan counties, why is the time not ripe now to have a proper reorganisation and to give to some of these councils the chance to have back the powers that have been lost to the county councils? Therefore, we in the Greater London area have an equal right to vote in a referendum. Those who are lucky enough to live in the county-governed area will keep it, and they should not worry about losing their chance to vote.
Lord Beloff: I think that the proposal for a referen-dum, if it is genuinely made, must be seriously considered. Reference has been made to the precedent of the referendum on staying in the European Communities. If I remember correctly, very great efforts were made to see that both sides in that argument had a full opportunity of presenting their case; that in no way was the accretion of funds to one or other side to influence voters; and that the whole thing took—as it should, if one takes a referendum seriously—a very long time. Therefore, I must presume that those who intend a referendum intend again a form of delay.
But there is another point. I do not think that it is proper, correct or very helpful for noble Lords opposite to justify their support for a referendum on the grounds of the showing in public opinion polls. Whether the figures are 70 per cent. or 74 per cent. seems to me to make no difference at all; because the public opinion polls to which reference has been made have not been conducted in the same impartial spirit, not in connection with the questions but in connection with the propaganda to vote in a particular direction. If I had had the money which has been available from the public purse to the GLC or the metropolitan counties to launch a campaign leading to success in a public opinion poll, there is almost nothing, I think, that I could not have persuaded the British electorate to agree to.
The Government, on the other hand, who support abolition, have not had access to such money. As everyone knows, there is a very considerable constitutional and legal inhibition on Governments using public money in order to promulgate partisan purposes. Frankly, we do not know what are the opinions of the ordinary citizen, whether in the metropolitan counties or in the nation at large on these issues.
The final point, if I may, is this. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, rather dismissed the view that possibly the issues are complicated and technical for the ordinary voter. I can only say that there have been some inquiries—and many of your Lordships may have seen the results on television—which suggest that most of the inhabitants in these areas could not tell you, if asked, which were the powers of districts and which were the powers of the upper tier. These are not matters which normally concern the citizen. Yet how can he decide on these proposals without that informa-tion? If we are to have a referendum, we cannot possibly have one in the time which is proposed to be allotted to it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Lord who has just sat down has again this afternoon, as have many of his colleagues, castigated the GLC for the amount of
68
money that they have spent on advertising. I did not hear any speaker from the other side of the Committee using the same argument when the National Coal Board was spending taxpayers' money day after day on advertising its case against the strike. I agree with the noble Lord that it takes time and takes education to organise a referendum. This could be a good thing: it could be educative. It could be educative provided that there are reasonable amounts of money available for those on both sides and if it were conducted in an orderly way.
But it is not enough to say that the figures which have been produced by my noble friend Lord Graham and by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, have been the result of a propaganda campaign. If you think that, all right—test it! There was an opportunity to test it this week, on Thursday, if you wanted it by ballot box. There is an opportunity, if you want it by direct vote, to accept this amendment for a referendum. But it really is not good enough to say, "We do not believe any of the figures and we are not going to find out".
The real problem here, as I see it, is that the Government have got themselves into a situation (whether or not deliberately) in which it appears to everybody that they are taking this action for party political purposes. Why did they not introduce this Bill before 1981? Why was it not introduced when Sir Horace Cutler was the leader? Why has there been this tremendous propaganda campaign against the GLC in particular, and to a lesser extent against the metropolitan counties, only after the electors had elected Labour majorities? If the Government are serious, they have the onus on them to show how they are going to meet the figures that have been given, as the Minister intervened during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I shall do so when I have finished this part of my speech. In addition to the figures that have already been given, I should like the Minister to answer both the figures which have been given by my noble friend Lord Graham and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on the poll that was taken by Thames Television last week, and, in addition to that, the figures—the 77 per cent.—given in the inquiry that was made on this poll. This is where the 77 per cent. of those who voted come in.
The Earl of Onslow: Now that the noble Lord has shut up—
7 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: No, I shall give way when I finish this section of my speech. The 77 per cent. voted in favour of the inquiry which we have now turned down, but only 12 per cent. voted against that. The figures have been given showing the very small number who are in favour of abolition either of the GLC or the metropolitan counties. Does this not put the onus on the Government to say who they are representing?
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow—I shall give way to him after I have made this point—suggested that any referendum should take place right across the country.

69
If he had been in the Chamber this afternoon—I do not think he was—he would have heard his noble friend Lord Gowrie partly answer the point when he responded to my challenge that the logic of the Government's case was to abolish the shire counties. It is not the electors in the shire counties who are being disfranchised; it is the electors in the area of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties. They are the people who are entitled to say whether or not they should be disfranchised; not the rest of the country. If the noble Earl would like to intervene now, I should be happy to give way to him.
The Earl of Onslow: Several sentences after the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said he would give way I shall now answer that one point about why it was decided to abolish the metropolitan authorities in 1981. It is just possible that they started behaving—especially the GLC—in a manner of quite extraordinary irresponsibility. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was elected as the leader of the GLC when they came to power. There was a putsch and Mr. Livingstone was put into place. They then proceeded to issue money as if it were printed by somebody else. They behaved in a manner of nearly criminal irresponsibility with other people's money. That is why it was decided to abolish them.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: So now we have it. We are not being asked to abolish the Greater London Council because it is inefficient; we are not being asked to abolish it because it is an unnecessary second tier; we are not being asked to abolish it because it is not doing its job; we are being asked to abolish it because the noble Earl, unelected, does not like what it is doing. That is what it comes to. That is precisely what it comes to—because he does not like what it does.
Why not allow the electors to decide? The noble Earl was talking about a referendum being a recipe for dictatorship. Is this the concept of democracy that the noble Earl has; the democracy which allows an unelected Member of this House to abolish the right of the electors to decide whether the members of the GLC are doing what they want—not what he wants, but what they want—and which allows them to decide on Thursday of this week that if they do not like what their members are doing, they turn them out? Is this not what we mean by democracy? Is not this the issue that all the time has lain between us?
I do not believe that it has lain simply between the two sides of this Chamber. I believe that there are members on the other side who are just as worried as we are. I quoted one of their leaders this afternoon in the previous debate. It is not all Conservatives who would abolish the democratic local government system in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would do.
We have had figures given on public opinion. What we have not had—I hope that the noble Lord the Minister who is to speak for the Government will give us them—are the responses to the submissions made regarding the Government's own paper. We have never had these published. I understand that there were at least 2,000 responses from very important institutions in this country. Why will the Government not tell us? Will they tell us tonight? Why have they not published them?
70
I cannot see how any member of the Government can say that they are representing anyone apart from the 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. who support them, as we have seen in the opinion polls. Apart from that tiny minority I cannot see that they are representing anyone in pursuing the Bill in the way they are doing. If they say, "Oh yes, we are", why have they turned down the opportunity of elections this week? Why is it that they are presumably opposed to a referendum? Why is it that they reject the opinion polls? The answer is quite simple. The opinion polls are against their. Every test that has been taken over the past two weeks has shown that if there were an election in the GLC this week, the Conservative Party would be almost swept out of County Hall.
But there is a more serious issue and it is one which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am sorry that he is not in his place because he raised an issue which we ought to take seriously. He raised the issue of the written and the unwritten constitution. He pointed out that we do not have a written constitution. No, we do not. I presume that most noble Lords do not want a written constitution. But an unwritten constitution depends upon the observance of conventions. I would suggest that in all the lead-up to this Bill those conventions have been flouted.
There is the convention that on a matter of constitutional importance—surely this is a matter of constitutional importance—the two sides get together, that there is an independent inquiry, that there are wide tests of opinion, and that they are all taken into consideration before any drastic change in the constitution is made. It was done, as has been mentioned, in the case of Wales and Scotland. It was done in the case of the European Community.
Personally I do not like the referendum. I think it should be used only as a matter of last resort when on a constitutional issue. I am frightened of the use of the referendum on single policy issues when opinion can very easily be swayed by the lowest common denominator in the media. But when it comes to a constitutional issue and when the conventions that govern our unwritten constitution have been flouted, then it seems to me that our constitutional rights and the protection which this Committee should afford to those whose constitutional rights are being removed are under threat. Therefore, while still disliking the referendum as a general rule, when it comes to a constitutional issue I think at least the Government have a serious question to answer. There is an onus on the Government to answer it.
They have to say why it is that they are flouting every test of public opinion, refusing the democratic process of elections, going against the advice of major institutions in this country and breaking the conventions on which our unwritten constitution depends. The consequence of that could very well be a campaign for a written constitution, which none of us would want. I would suggest that the onus is on the Government to answer why it is that they are pursuing this line in defiance of every expressed form of public opinion from individuals and organisations.
Lord Elton: The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, which he ably

71
introduced a little time ago, would provide for referendums—if that is the plural; there is a difference on that—in London and each of the metropolitan counties on whether the GLC and each metropolitan county council should be abolished. The electorate would be asked: do you want the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 to be put into effect as regards the area in which you live?
As the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, rightly said, this does raise a matter of important constitutional principle. A referendum on abolition would, I believe, breach the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. As I made clear when this Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the powers and duties of the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils have their origin in Parliament. It was from Parliament that they obtained their power to raise money and it was Parliament which gave them the power to spend it and the functions on which to spend it.
It is right that it should also be Parliament that decides—and by giving this Bill its Second Reading your Lordships already have decided—whether those powers and duties should be recalled and redistributed. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, and others have sought to argue that our proposals for abolition are in some way like the proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales. Indeed, I note that the terms of the amendments themselves draw very heavily on the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978.
I must tell your Lordships that the two cases are entirely different. The EC referendum is not a valid precedent. At the time of the EC and devolution referenda, it was argued that it was right to consult the people directly because both issues involved mimicking the powers of Parliament. This party did not accept that argument at the time but it was at least a reasonable point of view to advance. No such argument can be advanced in the case of abolition because this Bill will leave the powers of Parliament entirely undiminished. Indeed, it is that to which noble Lords opposite seem to take offence.
The argument has also been advanced that the reorganisation is somehow unique. The fact that there has been no recent inquiry into local government structure, it is suggested, justifies a referendum. But a referendum and an inquiry have entirely different purposes. An inquiry—as was made quite clear by noble Lords opposite during our latest debate on this Bill—would be held to decide how to implement the Bill and not to decide whether to implement it. When we suggested that there might be a thought in their minds that an inquiry might prevent implementation, we were castigated for advancing a fallacious argument.
This Government do not need a referendum because they know their own mind. That is more than can be said of Labour, because on the issues of both the EC and devolution for Scotland and Wales the Labour Government were split. The referenda were attempts to paper over the cracks. The Government of the time could not decide and so they handed over the responsibility for making the decisions to the electorate. On both occasions, as I have already reminded your Lordships, this party opposed the
72
referenda. We are no less opposed to them now than we were then.
Abolition is no different in principle from many other matters which Parliament is asked to decide during its five-year life span. If we held a referendum on this question, people would have a right to expect one on every other major item of legislation, regardless of the manifesto on which the Government were elected and regardless, I should add, of the party that was in power at the time. In my interventions earlier I had not sought to argue the relevance of the figures in the current polls; I merely begged that if figures were used, they should be accurate figures. I think that was a fair request to make. So much has been suggested outside this House that is entirely misleading that it would be a pity if that habit spread to your Lordships' Chamber.
One cannot govern by referenda. Between elections, the monitor of government is Parliament. This amendment is asking the electorate to do Parliament's job for it. That is, I repeat, a serious and unacceptable breach of our constitutional traditions. If the Labour Party does support this proposal—and I am surprised to hear that it proposes to do so—I expect it to say at once that its recent proposals to abolish mortgage interest tax relief should be subject to a referendum as well.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If I may intervene, I should like to make it clear, to remove any doubt, that I never argued that this side of the Committee would be supporting this proposal. I said that I was arguing neither for nor against. As a matter of fact, the Minister has given me an opportunity to say that I am advising my colleagues who seek advice to abstain.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has given as much pleasure to me as he has withdrawn comfort from those who support this amendment. I wonder whether it is necessary for me to adduce much more argument against it, because your Lordships are getting hungry. I will merely remind your Lordships again that the Bill carries out an undertaking that was in the manifesto on which this Government were elected. The electors are not being disenfranchised; they have already cast their votes.
There were interesting opinions quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, about the validity of a manifesto, but the plain fact is that everybody knows that under the constitution as we now have it any party is not only free but is expected—our party is certainly expected—to honour its election manifesto (I would not answer for the party opposite) during the life of the following Parliament. Noble Lords opposite are the first to complain if we look like failing to do that. The question which this amendment seeks to reopen is, in effect: should the Bill be implemented? Your Lordships have decided that question once and I suggest your Lordships decide it again quite unmistakably, by rejecting this amendment.
Lord Jacques: It is widely accepted throughout the world, and not just in this country, that there is a case for treating changes to the constitution differently from other changes to the law. The point that has been

73
made about whether this or that should be subject to a referendum is almost completely irrelevant. We are dealing here with constitutional changes. There is a widely-held opinion that the two should be treated differently because of the importance of constitutional changes, because of the need for stability, and because of the fact that it is well known that political parties use changes in the constitution to their advantage.
For example, there is very strong circumstantial evidence that the party opposite has used local government reform to its advantage during the whole of the post-war period. It first abolished the LCC because it thought that by having a wider area there would be a greater chance of there being a Conservative majority more frequently, and it sub-stituted the GLC. Now that that has not worked, the party opposite wants to abolish the GLC.
The party opposite almost completely ignored the report of the commission on local government in the early 1970s. Why? Because it wanted to take away the powers of the shires and substitute unitary government. We all know that the power of the party opposite is mainly in the shires. Therefore it wanted to keep the shires. Let none of us have any doubt at all that changes in local government have been used to party advantage. I believe that constitutional changes should be different from other changes to the law. A referendum is one way of making them different, and I shall support this amendment.
Lord Broadbridge: I should like to thank all speakers from both sides, whatever they have said. I shall be brief because I realise that the time is right for dinner. I said speakers from both sides and possibly I should have said those down the middle as well because the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was somewhat down the middle. He was much concerned with lines and I can really only draw to mind the well-known Motion at the Oxford Union:
"That in the opinion of this house the line must be drawn somewhere".
The noble Lord also implied that minds could be bent by spending. That is why I said that the results could well be deceptive and might not necessarily turn out as the opinion polls have indicated. Your Lordships will see that as an Independent I am not particularly interested in trying to defeat, delay or otherwise wreck the Government but more to find out what the electorate really thinks; for which we go back to our grass roots.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, thinks that I am a dictator. I said at Second Reading that I felt to some extent that opinion in this country—and these are the words I used—was that referenda were the province of banana republics and foreigners. Therefore, I am not entirely surprised that as an eminent member of this country's society he should view me as representing that point of view. However, I believe that people are coming over to them slightly more than in the past.
Finally, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. He mentioned that the amendment would be a breach of the sovereignty of Parliament; but presumably if Parliament were to vote for the principle of a referendum it would not be breaching its own sovereignty. There could only be a breach of
74
sovereignty if somehow one was to get a referendum through the back door and produce something which might reverberate to the detriment—to use a well-known expression—of Parliament without Parliament being able to counter it in any way. After all, we are masters of our fate this evening. If we do not want a referendum then we will not have one. The Government know their own mind but my view is that perhaps at the moment the Government do not know the electorate's mind.
However, perhaps because I am in a slightly statistic-cal mood this evening, having thought of a referendum all day and was well aware before the Committee stage began that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches were not in favour of the amendment and were not proposing to support me, I should like to find out what is the real opinion of the Committee. It is a little difficult to do so on a statistical sample of 10 or 15 people. Not every noble Lord who has been against the amendment has indicated that he would totally oppose it. I deliberately made a brief opening speech n order to allow a little extra time, and I should therefore like to press my amendment.
7.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 173.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Banks, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Broadbridge, L. [Teller.]

Ingleby, V.

Buckmaster, V.

Jacques, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Chichester, Bp.

McNair, L.

Evans of Claughton, L. [Teller.]

Mais, L.

Melchett, L.

Gifford, L.

Molloy, L.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allerton, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Chelwood, L.

Astor, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Atholl, D.

Coleraine, L.

Barber, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bathurst, E.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Beloff, L.

Cowley, E.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Craigavon, V.

Birdwood, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bolton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Bridgeman, V.

De Freyne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

De La Warr, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caccia, L.

Digby, L.

Caithness, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

75

Dudley, E.

Middleton, L.

Dundee, E.

Minto, E.

Elibank, L.

Molson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Moyne, L.

Erne, E.

Munster, E.

Faithfull, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newall, L.

Fisher, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Freyberg, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Geddes, L.

Pender, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Plummer of St, Marylebone, L.

Gowrie, E.

Gray, L.

Quinton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Grimond, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Haig, E.

Remnant, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton L.

Renwick, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rodney, L.

Harvington, L.

Romney, E.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hives, L.

Salisbury, M.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Ironside, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kemsley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Southwark, Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kintore, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Torphichen, L.

Loch, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Tryon, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vickers, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vinson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Mar, C.

Ward of Witley, V.

Margadale, L.

Westbury, L.

Marley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Windlesham, L.

Yarborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: In moving that the House do now resume it would be appropriate to tell your Lordships' Committee that we shall not return to this stage of the Bill until 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1985
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order be approved. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak at the same time to the draft Eumetsat (Legal Capacities) Order 1985.
The first draft order before your Lordships relates to the World Health Organisation. The order is very specific, conferring only exemptions in respect of social security contributions on officers of WHO who are neither United Kingdom nationals nor permanently resident in the United Kingdom. This order would enable effect to be given to an Exchange of Notes between Her Majesty's Government and WHO.
This draft order will have no effect on the Exchequer. WHO currently employs only one staff member in the United Kingdom and he is permanently resident here, and is therefore unaffected by this order. If in future there are in the United Kingdom officers of WHO not contributing to the national insurance scheme, they will, by the same token, be unable to claim from it; so again there will be no effect on the Exchequer. WHO currently enjoys other immunities and privileges under the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations Order 1974.
I am confident that the objectives of WHO are well known to your Lordships. It aims at the,
"attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health",
and its range of activities includes directing and co-ordinating the promotion of world health generally and working to eradicate disease and to maintain standards of medical training. It counts among its considerable achievements the virtual eradication of smallpox and significant progress in the containment and control of malaria, tuberculosis, trachoma and bilharzia. I believe that these are achievements worthy of congratulation and our continued support.
I now turn to the draft order concerning the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (Eumetsat). Under an international convention of 1983 its objective is to co-ordinate and develop European satellite systems for weather forecasting. The signatories to the convention include most Western European countries, including the United Kingdom.
Article 1 of the Eumetsat Convention provides that the organisation shall have legal personality, and that it shall in particular have the capacity to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property and to be a party to legal proceedings. That is the sole purpose of the draft order before your Lordships. It would confer no immunity from jurisdiction on the organisation or its staff.
Eumetsat is a new international organisation and its work will be essential to the future needs of European weather forecasts. Although Eumetsat is powerless to improve the weather, given our national preoccu-pation with it, I venture to guess that your Lordships would welcome any improvement in the accuracy of

77
the forecasts. I hope that your Lordships can show your support of the work not only of Eumetsat but of WHO by approving these draft orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Young.)
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the purposes of the two orders. Both deal with international immunities and privileges, so it is indeed appropriate to take them together. I hope that it will be no less acceptable to your Lordships if I say straight away that on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I am able to welcome the orders and need not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes.
I could not help noticing on one recent occasion when the House debated another order under the same general heading that the body being dealt with not only had a somewhat pretentious title—the World Intellectual Property Organisation—but also had what my noble friend Lord Cledwyn described as a somewhat frivolous acronym, WIPO. I am relieved to see tonight that at least one of the bodies with which we are dealing this evening, the World Health Organisation, has not only a happier acronym but also one which is perhaps, one might almost say, wildly popular in some quarters, especially with the young, for we are after all dealing here with "The Who".
Having begun on what I hope is that harmonious note, I may continue. As the noble Baroness indicated, the WHO is a thoroughly worthwhile organisation. It does admirable work and has some notable achievements to its credit. There are just two points that I should like to raise with the Minister, if I may. Can she give us any idea of the number of people likely to be affected under the terms of the order, and can she say whether those WHO officers who might be entitled to benefit under our social security system through some quite separate entitlement will not be precluded from benefiting under any entitlement of that kind? She has already explained that the order applies to officers of the WHO who are not British citizens, British dependent territories citizens or permanently resident in the United Kingdom. But it could be that an officer of the WHO who is not in one of those British citizen or resident categories might be a citizen of a country with which we have a reciprocal arrangement on social security matters; in which case, may we take it that a person such as that will continue to qualify for any benefits arising from that entitlement even though that person was ruled out as an exempt person for strictly WHO purposes?
I now turn to the Eumetsat order. The purposes of the organisation itself are clearly beneficial, as the noble Baroness indicated, serving the various needs associated with weather forecasting—farming, travel, warning of possible disasters, safety needs generally and presumably defence. Clearly it is necessary, as the Minister indicated, for the body to be granted legal capacity so as to function properly. That capacity would include power to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property, as we have heard. Presumably that would cover property in any of the member states.
78
We see from the convention that the body is provisionally based in Paris in premises of the European Space Agency. I am wondering whether the noble Baroness can say where it is likely to be based permanently and whether there is any present likelihood that Eumetsat would wish to acquire real property in this country. I wonder, too, whether it really needs to have separate premises of its own. Could it perhaps manage just as well, and so keep down costs, by continuing to share premises with a body like the European Space Agency or another international body?
In mentioning costs perhaps I could ask the Minister whether she is satisfied that there will be adequate machinery for keeping costs under control. It is known that there is a belief among some within the aerospace industry that high technology costs much more through international collaboration than if confined to one country, or even to one company, paradoxical though that might seem to some people. The Minister will know, for instance, that a committee under Sir John Kendrew is examining the organisation CERN to see whether we get value for money. I wonder whether there is a similar monitoring committee needed or contemplated for Eumetsat.
My only other point concerns the power to make contracts which are to be included among the legal capacities for Eumetsat. The convention itself provides for the organisation to conclude agreements with non-member states as well as with member states, or bodies in non-member states as well as those in member states. I am wondering whether, so far as the non-member states and bodies in those states are concerned, that means that if Eumetsat, say, provided services through contracts of that kind it would be able to charge for those services and so perhaps provide a useful source of revenue. Whether or not the Minister is able to provide answers tonight—and I appreciate that with these technical matters it might not be possible on this occasion—or indeed whatever answers the Minister is able to provide now or later, I can still join her in commending these orders to your Lordships.
Lord Walston: My Lords, from these Benches may I very briefly add our support for these two draft orders. They are not of enormous significance in themselves. They certainly do not involve this country in any awkward obligations. But I should like also to underline the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, concerning the entitlement to health services of those who otherwise would be entitled to them but who are not British nationals. That I believe to be an important minor point. Apart from that, I should like to support any activities of the kind to which these draft orders apply. Although we are not altogether happy, particularly at the present time, with some of the meteorological forecasting which we listen to, it cannot be the full fault of the forecasters. I wish they had recently been more often wrong than right, but they have been remarkably and uncomfortably accurate.
The advances that have been made in meteorological forecasting are really quite remarkable and of enormous benefit, not only to farmers (although to a certain extent they benefit from them), but to

79
many other people, private citizens, and undoubtedly to travel, aeronautics and aviation and in many other ways. Anything that this country can do by way of facilitating their work is undoubtedly worthwhile and to the benefit of all of us, particularly to us as a maritime nation and as a nation which is very much engaged in the aviation industry.
With regard to the World Health Organisation, here too the results are even more remarkable. They have been going very much longer. They certainly would not claim that the disappearance of smallpox from the world at large is due entirely to them, but they have undoubtedly played a very major role in ridding us of what used to be one of the great scourges of the world. There are many other cases where their activities have been of inestimable benefit, above all to the third world but also to those of us living in what is sometimes inaccurately called the developed world. There is still a great deal of work to be done.
The noble Baroness mentioned bilharzia; that is something which is well on its way to being conquered, due in large part to the activities of the World Health Organisation. It has for many years been a most debilitating disease in many tropical countries. The effect it had in the early days when it was first discovered in Egypt is well known to all your Lordships. But there are many other diseases, including malaria, which at one time we thought was well on the way to being conquered but which now appears to be having a very unfortunate recrudescence, as a result of the resistance of the organism to the various forms of quinine derivatives and synthetic treatments which have been evolved. There is still scope for an enormous amount of work for WHO to do in maintaining our control over existing known diseases and in discovering means of treating some of the new diseases which are now arising. So anything we can do in this country to facilitate their work deserves wholehearted support which we, from these Benches, certainly give.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Boston and Lord Walston, for saying they will support these two orders. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, has asked me a number of questions and I shall certainly do my best to answer them. On his point about acronyms, I agree with him: I think we have some rather strange ones. I cannot help thinking, in the case of WHO, that WHO knows; and that is perhaps why Dr. Who goes under that name. In regard to the number of people likely to be affected by the order, it is in fact one person to whom I referred in my opening remarks.
His second question, referred to also by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was: if an official of WHO comes from a country where we have reciprocal arrange-ments, would he retain that entitlement as a WHO official? The draft order would exempt the official from the United Kingdom system. What his position would be under his own national system would of course depend upon the law of his own country. On the various questions that the noble Lord —
Lord Walston: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness and ask for clarification of this point. The Minister tells us that in this matter the official would still be subject to the laws and regulations of his own country. Does that mean that if his country had reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom he would still be entitled to those facilities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding of the situation is that that is the case, but if there is any doubt about it I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
On the particular points which were raised about Eumetsat, first of all I can confirm that it has the power to acquire property in any of the member states. So far, no decision has been taken about where it might acquire property, but we do not expect it will be in the United Kingdom. On the question of whether there is any indication that Eumetsat is likely to acquire property in this country, the answer is that we do not have any indication of that nature. But we are required by the convention to give it the power to acquire property.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me a series of questions, one of which was whether or not we were satisfied with the machinery for keeping Eumetsat costs under review. To this I think I can only respond that this is a new body and that we would expect that the United Kingdom representative would try to keep costs to a minimum consistent with the proper functions of the organisation.
The noble Lord then asked me whether or not we needed a similar committee to that under Sir John Kendrew, which is looking into CERN. At this stage, the answer I think would be, no, because it is a new organisation; and that committee is doing something, which is having a review of an organisation which has been in existence for some little time. Thus the positions are not the same.
The noble Lord asked me whether or not the new organisation has power to make contracts. The answer is, yes it does. He then went on to ask whether or not it can charge for services of concluding agreements with non-member states and so bring in revenue to keep costs down. I think this is a very interesting suggestion, and if I may say so seems a very sensible one. I shall undertake to draw it to the attention of those who will be involved with this organisation.
I hope that that has covered all the points that have been raised this evening. As I say, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their support for these orders. I think we can further agree that we all hope that as a result of them the weather will improve. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Eumetsat (Legal Capacities) Order 1985
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.51 to 8.30 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 1[Abolition of GLC and metropolitan county councils]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Before the abolition date the Audit Commission shall report on the anticipated effect of the provisions of this Act on the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of local government in Greater London and the metropolitan counties.").
The noble Lord said: I have no doubt, unless the Government intend to accept the amendment (which, in all reasonable logic they should for their own advantage), that the same considerations are in their minds as applied to Amendment No. 1; that is to say, that this amendment is somehow a wrecking amendment calculated to delay the operation of the Bill. It is right therefore that I should say that the only circumstances in which there could be any delay in the implementation of some or all of the provisions of the Bill, as distinct from the Bill's enactment, would be those in which the Government themselves were persuaded by the report that this amendment envisages that they really ought to do some more thinking. It would, of course, be entirely open to the Government to take no notice at all of the report, in which case they could have no legitimate complaint.
If I may say so, I think that the Government today have been a little tetchy and rather nervous in their over-reaction to the proposals introduced by my noble friend Lady Birk. It is perhaps unfair of me to tackle the noble Lord in the absence of his three stalwarts who always appear on occasions where there is some difficulty. Oh, I observe that one of them is here—the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The two others are the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Their absence is perhaps a sign of contrition. Are the Government really saying, or will they say, that there are no facts at all that can emerge from any inquiry or from the compilation and submission to them of a report? Are they really saying that there are no circumstances in which they would be prepared to change their minds?
Let us say—I hazard the thought for a moment, but I can return to it if challenged—that a report of an independent body, let alone the Audit Commission, to which we shall return presently, reported after considerable research and inquiry to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, unbeknown to the Department of the Environment, the implementation of the abolition proposals would mean an increase of around £750 million to £1,000 million in the public sector borrowing requirement. What would happen, for example, if in the middle of the deliberations of
82
Cabinet Committee MISC 95, the Cabinet Committee presided over by the Prime Minister to see through to the bitter end the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came along and said: "Look, boys, you had better think again. On the information that I now have at my disposal, after due inquiry, the public sector borrowing requirement will rise astronomically"? What would happen? Would the noble Lord say: "I am terribly sorry. Our minds are made up. We promised the electorate. We are bound by the mandate. We shall simply have to do it and have to wear it".
Or, let us say that an independent body, between now and the coming into operation of the Act, on further detailed inquiry, properly documented—not trivial stuff, or not stuff that the noble Lord. Lord Beloff, would regard as trivial—came up with the information that, contrary to previous supposition, local authority expenditure far from decreasing (a figure has been mentioned of £100 million, to which I shall return presently) would actually increase by £250 million a year. I am not saying that this would happen. I shall not offer any opinion at all, the noble Lord will be relieved to hear. As yet, I have not all the information at my disposal to enable me to take on the noble Lord on the question of figures.
Let us say, however, that it did happen; let us say that it did occur. What would be the noble Lord's attitude? What would be the attitude of the DoE? What kind of discussion would take place in Cabinet? Is it to be imagined for one moment that if these eventualities were to be revealed authoritatively the Government would still stick precisely to the proposals (which, as we know, are far from complete) that are before us today? Or would they decide that, after all, government is to some extent a matter of prudence and public responsibility and that perhaps they ought to think again about certain matters? What is wrong with that?
The question of time has been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, objected earlier to the passage of ten hours as being a waste of time. I wonder whether, in ordinary practical terms, the time limit that the Government have set themselves has any relevance whatever to the real issues at stake; whether the mere effluxion of time has any relevance at all when it comes to consideration of individual people living their own lives up and down the country it the various metropolitan city areas; whether it has any relevance if the Government decided, for example, on the information at their disposal, that they should perhaps postpone certain matters. I am not saying that they should; I am merely hazarding the possibility that they should perhaps postpone certain things for six months because we do not have enough information on them yet.
What is sacrosanct about the time? Why the hurry, anyway? Some noble Lords have said: "It's in the manifesto. We said we'd do it, and therefore we've got to do it", and there is all this necessity for speed, for decisiveness, for action. They have been promising to abolish the rates for 10 years, and there does not seem to have been any particular urgency there, except perhaps recently, when it has evidently sunk into the head of the right honourable lady the Prime Minister

83
that there is some grave concern about the way in which all these local authority finance matters are being dealt with.
I do not know what motives the Government had for introducing the Bill at all. It has been said—unkindly, perhaps—that the motives were profoundly political. We know very well that the matter was not discussed at the ruling organ of the Conservative Party prior to the conference announcement itself. We have heard that today. As my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford put it: could it be political spleen that is the real reason? He quoted Mr. Norman Tebbit's utterance in 1983—I can put a more precise date to that if the noble Lord requires it—when he said: "The GLC is typical of this new, divisive form of socialism, so we shall abolish it". There was no question of any motive there other than the political motive.
Indeed, if the noble Lord challenges me I can be a little more lurid than that and quote from a speech that the right honourable gentleman made on 14th March, 1984, as reported in the Financial Times the next day—a speech which carries no hint of the honourable motives that have since adorned Government argument as justification for the Bill. Indeed, the Government have made their case fundamentally on the question of cost. In the early stages—I am talking now of October 1983—in the course of their document Streamlining the Cities, the White Paper said:
"It is not possible to put a figure on the savings arising from abolition or the transitional costs. These will depend largely on the way in which the transfer of functions is achieved and on decisions to be taken by the authorities concerned".
So at the stage of the White Paper they had not really made up their minds whether or not there was going to be any saving.
Quite clearly, that state of affairs could not last because the Government had already apprehended that the public at large were highly suspicious of what they conceived to be the political motive for abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties, their chief sin obviously being that they returned Labour majorities. They were getting a bit nervous about it. This has been quite evident in their utterances since. We now learn in the Bill that the savings are going to be of the order of £100 million. I shall return to that presently. That may or may not be so.
8.45 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the course of his Second Reading speech, delivered himself of the argument that put the question of financial saving and of costs quite squarely at the head of the reasons for abolition. The whole thing was wasteful and therefore considerable savings could be made, he said: I followed what the noble Lord said, and just to refresh his memory, during the Second Reading debate, he said:
"It will result in savings. There will be costs in the first year. Thereafter, savings will come to some £100 million a year from rationalisation alone. This does not include anything that can be saved by the successor authorities changing their policy."—[Official Report, 15/4/85; col. 446.)
Then, a little later on he said that the abolition would save money; and that view was reinforced by the noble
84
Lord, Lord Bellwin. In fact, in the debate on the ill-fated paving Bill, in which your Lordships ventured to exercise their considered wisdom and will to some little effect, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his inimitable style—and it is very difficult indeed to combat arguments presented with such charm and with such obvious sincerity—put his hand upon his heart and said that he was absolutely convinced that there could be great savings of money effected.
In many ways I regret that the Government should have put the saving of money as the central reason for the changes that they propose. There are many other considerations—considerations with which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool would be able to deal more effectively than I. There are considerations of (dare I mention it?) human wellbeing, serenity of mind, personal happiness and future prospects and purposes for individuals. There might be a whole number of other things on which any Government having the welfare of the people at heart could have staked their case, but they preferred cash. After all, the "naked cash nexus twixt man and man", referred to at one time by Marx, is the only language which the Golvernment really understand and care about. It is money, it is the till ringing, that calls the tune. So we shall take the Government on those lines.
It is not my intention to put before the Committee any evaluation as to whether these changes will produce savings or otherwise. I do not have the material and, as I shall show presently, the Government are evidently quite willing to provide what material they have themselves; but it did come under the purview of a distinguished firm of chartered accountants, Messrs Coopers and Lybrand, who produced a series of reports on these subjects and came to some conclusions, of which your Lordships perhaps would care to be made aware. I am not saying that I or my noble friends on this side of the Committee put ourselves behind these estimates. We merely say that they are estimates that ought to be taken into account. Coopers and Lybrand produced a detailed report, taking them some five months to accomplish working pretty intensively. As your Lordships know, they are one of the most distinguished firms of chartered accountants in the world, or certainly in the United Kingdom, and they said:
"With a uniformly high level of co-operation, we estimate … a total cost of change ranging from a saving of £4 million per annum to an extra cost of £9½ million per annum".
Then they say that with the more limited level of co-operation they estimate that the change in annual operating costs would range from an extra cost of £11 million per annum to an extra cost of £21 million.
However, that was not all. That report was published in February 1984, but they had an opportunity to up-date it, which they did, as recently as November 1984. They had another go at it. In the up-dated report they changed the figures slightly. The estimated savings on the basis of full co-operation were down from £4 million to £2 million, and the extra expenditure was up from £9·5 million to £14 million, which was the range of variations in costs that they apprehended. Without co-operation the figure in the first report of an extra £36 million was changed to £38 million, and the upper part of the bracket was changed from £61 million to £69 million. So they had a fair go at it.

85
It is only fair to say that Price Waterhouse, another firm of very eminent chartered accountants, also had a go at it and produced a slightly different report. They estimated that there would be a saving of some £35 million annually. They made no differentiation as to "with full co-operation" or "limited co-operation"; they merely put it at that figure. However, I have to say in fairness to Price Waterhouse, which is an equally eminent firm of accountants as Coopers and Lybrand, that the report took only a couple of weeks, which is not a very long time; that only a few of the metropolitan district councils were consulted; that their conclusions were based on a mathematical extrapolation of the results that they had found in the case of the limited number of metropolitan districts which they consulted; and that it ignored transition costs. In addition, as the Committee will observe if they have seen the Price Waterhouse report, their figure of £35 million was precise—a precision which is perhaps a little odd considering that they took only two weeks to prepare their document as against the wider parameters of Coopers and Lybrand.
Therefore, we have two conflicting opinions. It is not for me to arbitrate between them, except to illustrate that there is a degree of dubiety. There are two conflicting opinions: one based on a study of some five months, with an extra month for up-dating; and one based on a fortnight. I put it no higher than that.
The GLC Director-General, who I believe has a very high reputation in the City of London, put the matter very differently. I quote one or two of his remarks. He said:
"Amongst the claims and counter claims there is one inescapable fact. In the Government's own terms, the case has not been made. Surprisingly, even on the assertions made by Government, abolition would not be justified in financial cost/benefit terms".
Therefore, there is still some dispute about it. Noble Lords will be aware that among the other opinions canvassed were those relating to the debt of the GLC in particular and of the metropolitan counties. A very eminent firm of stockbrokers, Messrs. Fielding, Newson-Smith and Company, who are well known to Members of the Committee, came to the conclusion that:
"The abolition of the GLC and the six MCC's may have macroeconomic implications opposite to those intended.
A once-and-for-all reduction in the rates burden of the GLC and West Midlands ratepayers following the extinction of the Capital Fund may in time be reversed".
They go on to say:
"The GLC have been able to keep its interest costs relatively low. The incurring of additional external indebtedness by other London boroughs could lead to an increase in the average interest cost relative to what it would have been".
The Financial Times, in a feature to which I can draw the Committee's attention, was extremely alarmed about this and envisaged the increase in the public sector borrowing requirement as a result of the new arrangements so far announced for internal funding of debt and the relatively lower rates of interest that had been charged to the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and anticipated that there was a likelihood that the public sector borrowing requirement might have to increase by some £750 million.
There is a further matter. At the moment we are bedevilled by not really having the facts. Investigations have been made by two eminent firms of accountants;
86
investigations have been made within the GLC itself. But the GLC sought to obtain further and better particulars, and therefore one was very much alarmed—at least I was—to read in my professional weekly journal of 25th January that the GLC had instructed another very eminent firm of accountants, Touche Ross—Coopers and Lybrand and Price Waterhouse dealt with the metropolitan county situation. The report in Accountancy Age for 25th January says:
"Touche Ross's investigation of the government's case for abolishing the Greater London Council has been called off because the Government has refused the firm access to its figure".
May I ask, why? Why should the Government refuse an independent firm of accountants of very high repute in an investigation to ascertain where the truth really lies? In the same edition of the magazine this evident inability or unwillingness by the Government to provide facts receives adverse comment as follows:
"A report by a London School of Economics research team on the GLC abolition says: 'Central Government's failure to provide any estimate of the costs of the reorganisation process must cast doubt on the claim that abolition is a transparently cost-effective measure'".
I could go on if necessary and quote from The Times—despite the fact that The Times has rather tended to become a Conservative Party news sheet over the past eight or nine months, or since its new editorship—which casts equal doubts on the Government's ability, or willingness, to produce figures.
9 p.m.
I repeat that it is not for me, and certainly it is not for Her Majesty's Opposition or for members of the Alliance parties, to spend an enormous amount of time and indeed money—and your Lordships' House is not renowned for the excessive remuneration it pays to your Lordships for the services provided here—in order to make these detailed investigations. It is of course up to the Government. What are the Government afraid of?
The really independent body set up by the Government themselves is the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission is in many ways their own creature. It was set up under the Local Government Finance Act 1982. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, describing it in the most glowing terms. We have the opposition function to perform as Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in your Lordships' House, and speaking on behalf of my noble friends behind me I ventured to query a whole series of the suppositions on which the Government set up the Audit Commission. But it was to be an independent organisation, and they challenged any kind of suggestion that it was going to be dependent upon the whim of Government. It was a completely independent organisation upon which they set great store.
Its purpose was, among other things, aside from the district audit and the auditing of accounts of local authorities in the financial and statutory sense, to inquire into the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of local government. Indeed what better organisation has been devised? What have the Government to fear from it?
I have here some copies of the excellent reports which it has so far produced. I am well aware that your

87
Lordships regard accounting matters with a degree of boredom that is established by the somewhat uninteresting parameters of the subject it covers. But since the Government themselves have made costs and the saving of money their principal plank in the whole business, perhaps your Lordships would care to take more than a passing glance at the excellent reports which have been produced by the Audit Commission.
I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord too much because I am feeling in a benevolent frame of mind tonight. I have not said anything controversial at all. However, I am bound to point out that the investigation of the Audit Commission into capital expenditure controls in local government in England has shown that the Government are probably responsible for about £1,000 million waste in connection with their changes of mind as to what local authorities should be permitted to spend in terms of capital expenditure.
Your Lordships may well remember that, contrary to the oft expressed desire for economy and cutting down expenditure, immediately before the General Election the then Minister at the Department of the Environment, one Mr. Heseltine, got very funky indeed and sent out a plea to councils saying, "Spend, spend, spend, spend." There was therefore some easement in the economy, and the Conservative Party were returned to office. Immediately they got back the restrictions on local authority spending their own capital funds, which they had realised from the sale of their own houses, were clamped right back on again. The Audit Commission in this particular report—and I commend it to your Lordships—shows the disastrous consequences which are going to flow from this.
We are in some trouble. In this House your Lordships can of course study reports of this kind. I have no doubt that most of your Lordships, being public-spirited Members of your Lordships' House, have studied these reports in detail. The general public has not. One does not get documents such as this featuring in such gems of newspapers as the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, the Sun—the Daily Mirror, I do not mind. One finds mention in the Financial Times, however, which has a somewhat restricted circulation, and also in the Guardian. All I am doing is seeking to establish that there is a competent organisation available for this purpose.
Moreover, it is in accordance with the law. Section 26 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 says:
"The Commission shall undertake or promote comparative and other studies designed to enable it to make recommendations for improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of local authority services and of other services provided by bodies whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act, and for improving the financial or other management of such bodies".
Then in Section 27(1) of the Act—I hesitate to remind the Government of their own legislation but it is sometimes necessary because one forgets it—it is stated:
"In addition to the studies referred to in section 26(1) above, the Commission shall undertake or promote studies designed to enable it to prepare reports as to the impact—

(a) of the operation of any particular statutory provision or provisions; or

88

(b) of any directions or guidance given by a Minister of the Crown (whether pursuant to any such provision or otherwise), on economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of local authority services and of other services provided by bodies whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act, or on the financial management of such bodies".

Therefore, quite clearly the purpose is within the authority of this body. Have I the Chief Whip with me?
Lord Denham: If the noble Lord would give way, I would point out that he has been speaking to an amendment, one of many amendments, for 36 minutes; 37 minutes now, I beg the pardon of the Committee. It is an amendment to Clause 1 of this Bill. Other noble Lords may wish to speak to this. If this is not a filibuster and if this is not an Opposition trying to defeat the processes of Parliament, I do not know what is. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not behave in this way on a Government Bill. We never did when we were in Opposition. It is absolutely monstrous that any noble Lord should take 37 minutes, twice as long as should be taken for a Second Reading speech—
Lord Bruce of Donington: May I—
Lord Denham: If the noble Lord will give way, that is twice as long as should be taken. This must never be done. It is a negation of Parliament and I hope that noble Lords opposite will never, throughout the course of this Bill or the other Bills in this Session, behave in quite this way again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I take note of what the Government Chief Whip has to say. On reflection, he may find that he has been overcome a little by the exuberance of his own verbosity.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bruce of Donington: What I have been trying to do—does the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, wish to say something?
The Earl of Gowrie: If something cannot be said in about 10 or 12 minutes, it is not worth saying. This has been absolutely evident.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I shall take the opportunity of reminding him of that on a suitable occasion. All I have been doing is trying to protect the Government from the consequences of their own folly. I get no thanks for this at all. I perform this service entirely for the benefit of the Government, in the hope that they are sufficiently open minded occasionally to admit the possibility that they might be wrong.
There is no better way of establishing whether they are right or wrong than by having this independent inquiry as to who is right. If the Government reject that, as I am quite sure they will, they show that they are afraid of the truth and that the real reason they want to pursue this particular legislation is not for the high minded (if that it may be called) purpose of saving money, but purely for petty, political spite unworthy of any Government.
Lord Mottistone: Does the noble Lord not think that in five minutes he could have put his point succinctly? Then we would all have listened to it and heard just as well what he wanted to say. That would have been better than his rambling on, quoting or not quoting, and wasting the time of the Committee. This House has the immense privilege of being self-disciplined, but it requires us all to be self-disciplined, including the noble Lord who has just spoken. It would have greatly helped us all had he been succinct in his statement, and he might have convinced us the better thereby.
Baroness Birk: Does the noble Lord not agree that it would be better if we proceeded with the amendment instead of having all these recommendations?
Lord Elton: I think your Lordships have indicated that whatever the merits of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, we have consumed a lot of time, and your Lordships would not want to consume much more. I certainly intend to be very brief. I was impressed by the command that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had over his copious sources, though perhaps if he had been less free in his use of them, that would have helped us along.
He started his speech by producing a hypothetical figure of £750 million added to the public sector borrowing requirement and saying that he took no view as to whether or not that was a likely result. He was completely impartial in the matter. He did not think it was for him to judge. He then had recourse to his copious sources and produced a large number, supporting the general hypothesis that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury might burst into a later Cabinet meeting and say "My God, we got this wrong. We have to stop". It was kind of the noble Lord in going through his sources to mention Price Waterhouse. He did not mention that they were assisting the metropolitan district councils in an inquiry.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I did.
Lord Elton: If he did, I merely endorse that that is what they were doing. The results which they had were fairly closely compatible with those of the Government themselves.
I do not want to make a great issue of all this. I want to refer the noble Lord, as he has already been referred, to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, which sets out what we believe broadly will happen as a result of abolition. I would remind him that when Touche Ross applied for figures my department sent the Greater London Council all the information it had which was relevant to the questions which Touche Ross asked. We were not able to answer most of the questions, which related to the details of implementation of the post-abolition arrangements and which could be answered only by the GLC itself or by the successor boroughs. So the noble Lord need not accuse us of keeping the door shut when honest inquiries were made.
90
9.15 p.m.
The noble Lord also mentioned a report of the Audit Commission, which he flourished in our faces from the other side of the Table. It is scarcely relevant to this debate and, in any case, the Comptroller and Auditor General has since produced what in our view is a much more balanced report which will be considered by the Public Accounts Committee of another place. I am glad to see that the noble Lord has it in his hand and he will doubtless find it reassuring.
But what is the machinery into which the noble Lord wants to put the figures which he gleefully expects to come out of this inquiry? The machinery is an Audit Commission report. I am sure he knows that the Audit Commission already has the power to perform an investigation into the operation of statutory provisions. It is of course already open to it to decide whether or not to undertake such a study. The amendment seeks to require it to do so in the period between Royal Assent and the abolition date and to look at the anticipated effects of this legislation.
I am not sure that I can see the point of that, because there is something missing from the noble Lord's machine, as the amendment, unlike the first one that we debated, does not seek at all to bring the report into the process of legislation. The Act will be on the statute book when the commission begins its work. Abolition will have been fixed and become inevitable by law for a date soon after it reports, and nobody will be required to do anything whatsoever about the report that it makes.
The noble Lord made a virtue of that and said that the Government could ignore it completely it- they wanted. One can only interpret that in one of two ways. Either the noble Lord is looking for the Oposition to have a chance to say, "I told you so" if the report is as they expect, or, I presume, to ignore it, if it is not; or they are seeking to supply a sound effect from the wings of abolition. But in any event this is an extraordinarily bad time. May I have the attention of noble Lords opposite? The Committee is not at prayer. If the noble Lord is not at prayers, he is either standing or sitting and I cannot make out which it is.
What I want to say to your Lordships is quite simply this. We accept that abolition will make extraordinary demands upon the abolition authorities and the successor bodies. The less extra work we give them to do at this stage the better. If the work that is proposed, as it is proposed in this amendment, cannot be incorporated in legislation, then it is without point. It is an unnecessary labour imposed upon people who already have their lives made difficult enough by their employers refusing to let them do this work in a timely way now, so that it must be done in great haste later. There is no point to this amendment and I ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his most courteous and detailed reply. I agree entirely with him that on the report becoming available it would be open to the Government either to accept its recommendations in whole or in part, or to reject them. The important point about the report is that it would be a public document and it would be one against which the public would be able to judge

91
the adequacy or otherwise of the measures which the Government take to implement their Bill. As I said, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. So grateful am I that, without detaining the Committee any further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15 leave out ("1986") and insert ("1987").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 which deletes the operative date for the abolition and inserts "1987". This amendment takes the Government on from the first amendment of today when, in effect, they ridiculed the arguments that were being put from this side of the Committee that time was needed in order to assess the various aspects of what was required. The Government then said that the inquiry would produce too little time. What we say to the Government is, "Fair enough!" But if in fact in order to be quite clear as to the implications of the Bill we need a little more time, this amendment is saying to the Government, "Get your Bill; get the Royal Assent! But, instead of making it operable from 1986, make it operable from 1987". I know the argument will come from the other side of the Chamber that this is simply and wholly a delaying tactic.
I very much hope that noble Lords opposite will listen carefully to the argument. They are not my arguments or partisan arguments; they are arguments which are based on experience. I happen to have served as a councillor in the London Borough of Enfield during the 1960s. In 1963, we had the London Government Bill and Act, then there were elections in 1964 and then the operative date was 1965. I can tell the Committee that even with a reasonable timescale, not a generous one, the period of 18 months was not too long in order to do a number of very complicated and at times very distressing things in respect of staff disposition.
The London boroughs of Edmonton, Enfield and Southgate formed the London Borough of Enfield. Even on a small scale such as that, there was a range of matters that needed a long time in order to be effected. To my mind, one of the points that the Government fail to take on board seriously is the consequence of their decisions. They simply say, "We take the decision, we set the date; and we are not prepared to take seriously on board what needs to be done in between". May I remind the Committee that from the time that this Bill gets the Royal Assent—and let us guess and say that that will be July—until the time that it needs to become operable is about eight months. I am sure that the Government would not expect anyone else to assume what this House will do, and I am sure the Government will not anticipate what they want the House to do and in effect start to work before that date. That eight months is half the period
92
of time in which any other comparable change in management and arrangements have been made.
Quangos will need to be established and staffed. They will need to create initial budgets and plan their organisation. The staff of the metropolitan counties and the GLC will have to be identified collectively in groups for dismissal and then individually sacked where they are not required. The staffs of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC, where necessary, will have to be transferred to successor bodies.
New office accommodation will have to be found, rented or purchased. The files, computer programs, information systems, legal records, etc. presently held merely with the GLC are enormous in quantity. I think that the House was indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and impressed by the information that he gave at Second Reading about the physical enormity involved in having to do things with the files and computers. Proper joint working arrangements will be established by the joint boards. The Secretary of State will have to make decisions and give guidance on hundreds of issues. There could be legal disputes on the distribution of property and assets. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, enlightened the House as to the size of the GLC property portfolio.
The London boroughs will in some respects be acting as joint strategic authorities for the first time. All these things will be happening at a time when the metropolitan authorities and the GLC will have the enormous job of coping with their current services and with the running down of them. I say to the Government that if they are really serious about getting it right and not getting it quick, this is an opportunity for them to respond.
This amendment does not deny the Government the Bill. What we are saying is, "Please understand that there are lives at stake, professional lives at stake, as well as a range of other matters, and time is needed for the Government to work in collaboration with the staffs of the metropolitan counties and the GLC". I hope that the Minister will look upon this amendment as I do as yet a further attempt to bring some measure of acceptance and understanding once the Bill becomes an Act. Once it does we are saying, "Please take more than eight months because it needs more than eight months to make sure that it gets off to a good start". I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is the last of the delaying power amendments. The rest all fall within the revisory rôle. I hope that the Committee will alow a very brief intervention not to repeat, I assure your Lordships, but merely to apply to this amendment the argument already deployed in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
I have of course listened with great attention and respect to the arguments on the merits deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but whatever else may be said about this amendment, even at this late hour, it is a plain resort to the delaying power of your Lordships' House and Committee under the Parliament Act. Again, in effect, this amendment defeats the Bill. It thwarts the will of the electorate in another place which reflects the manifesto commitment. It is contrary to any convention that I

93
have been able to discover to resort to the delaying power in such circumstances on the assumption that the resort to the delaying power is to enable the House to invoke its revisory role. Such, indeed, has never been within the spirit of the Salisbury or the Carrington conventions and to carry this amendment would therefore constitute a very substantial departure.
On the merits, this is yet another manifestation of the Labour Party's implacable opposition to the principle of this Bill. Surely it would be preferable that we should proceed to discharge the revisory role in Committee, seek to improve the Bill—a process which would be inhibited only if this amendment were to be passed. My hope is that this amendment will not be pressed in those circumstances to a Division either on the constitutional ground or, indeed, on the merits. I apologise for taking so long.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I rise only to observe that, frankly, I cannot understand the assertion of the noble Lord regarding the Salisbury and the Carrington conventions to which he referred. I tried to rise on this point at an earlier stage during the debate on the first amendment, but obviously the Committee had had enough and so I did not pursue it. Frankly, I do not understand that assertion. I think the noble Lord is wrong about this.
But if he is right that it is inconsistent with the Carrington and the Salisbury conventions to which he has referred, I do not think that that is fatal to the argument in support of the amendment. When the noble Lord first spoke of it I remembered that it was some six or seven years since I last reflected on the implications constitutionally of the Carrington and Salisbury conventions. I had my doubts then about the validity of the noble Lord's argument. At this late hour of the night I do not want to enter into the constitutional implications of this matter, but I took the opportunity to have a quick look in the Library at such works of authority on the British constitution as I could find. I just wanted to put on record my belief that the noble Lord's argument is full of fallacy.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I should like to support this particular amendment because I believe that the Government do not appreciate the situation that we are trying to present from this side of the Committee. We are in Committee and, by convention, this Chamber seeks in Committee to revise and improve Bills which come before us. The argument we have heard this afternoon presumes on the Government's point of view that we are engaged in activities which wholly have to do with wrecking this particular piece of legislation. I hope that the Government will take on board that we on this side of the Committee—or should I say that I, from my point of view—look on this stage of the proceedings and deliberations on this Bill from the point of view of improving the Bill, rather than seeking to wreck it.
I must take issue with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, a few moments ago, when he said that if local authorities subject to abolition under this Bill were not complying with the requirements of the Government, this was because of the arguments
94
and control of the political leadership of those authorities. I have to advise the Government that that is not wholly true. In fact, there is a great deal of resistance to the plans this Bill brings before us from the employees and (dare I say it?) the local populace who are subject to the provisions of the Bill.
If it were just the political leadership that was opposed to this Bill and which was seeking to delay it or inhibit introduction of the changes it proposes, then I would accept that the Minister had a valid argument in saying that opposition does not matter because as soon as the Bill is passed the political issue will be over and the will of Parliament will have been expressed; and thus the local authorities will have to abide by it. It is a deeper problem than that. With this Bill, we are faced with major changes in a vast number of activities of local government. These will involve an enormous amount of work on the part of those bodies which are to be abolished—the employees thereof, etc.—and by those who will have to take on the work currently being done by the bodies subject to abolition. The Government do themselves no service when they say that their original plans—conceived some years ago, they have now said—can be carried through in their entirety, given the situation we are faced with in the communities at large.
The Government would do well to recognise that those of us on this side of the Committee are seeking to improve the Bill. We are not seeking to wreck it. We are genuinely concerned about the provision of services in our local communities and how they will best be transferred from one authority to another. To say that all that we on this side of the Committee are intent on is to wreck and destroy the Government's will in abolishing these authorities is just not true.
I must plead with the Committee to recognise the reality of the practical difficulties of transferring functions from one body to another; the enormous difficulty of setting up new arrangements for the control of, and activities associated with, for example, waste disposal. It will have a major effect on the community at large. Only today we have received representations from local authority associations which are outwith the metropolitan counties. They are concerned about the situation with which they will be faced because of the change in the way that waste disposal will be effected. That is just one factor of a whole range of different factors that will have to be taken on board, accommodated, and planned for and for which transitional provisions will have to be made. To cope with this is asking rather much of our dedicated local authority employees and their communities in the very limited timescale that the Government are proposing.
I beg the Government to acknowledge that we on this side recognise the will of the people as expressed by the other place, and we shall seek, and are seeking, to improve the Bill and to come to the assistance of the Government wherever we can. This is one such area. By delaying the provisions of the Bill for one year we are making that appeal, given the situation within the metropolitan counties and within the GLC. I agree that there has been prevarication in the areas I have mentioned to assisting the Government, but one could argue that that is constitutional and legitimate because the Bill has not yet become an Act. There is always the

95
chance, as those people in the local authorities see it, that the Bill may not become an Act at the end of the day, and it is not until it becomes an Act that the people who are involved in the provision of these services, the transfer of these services, and so on, will recognise and obey the will of Parliament.
Until that time comes we must accept that they will endeavour in the best way that they can, subject to the limitations of law, to delay what they see as anti-social, counter-productive, inefficient proposals being carried through. We must recognise that they have legitimate responsibilities in adopting the tactics that they have; and we must recognise that fact, take it on board as a practical reality and reflect the practical situation in the country.
Lord Mottistone: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Is he naturally verbose or is he filibustering?
Lord Monkswell: We have had one occasion this evening which has disturbed us on this side of the Committee very much. I take great personal exception to the suggestion that we are engaged in filibustering.
Lord Mottistone: Will the noble Lord answer my question? Is he naturally verbose or is he filibustering?
Lord Monkswell: I think that noble Lords have had some experience of my contributions. If I can keep my contributions short, I shall do so. If the realities of the situation demand that I take some time to explain them to your Lordships, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that. It ill behoves Members of the Government Benches to suggest that we on this side, when engaged in deliberations which are trying to improve this Bill—and on many sides of the Committee there have been criticisms about it—should—
Lord Mottistone: Filibuster.
Lord Monkswell: No, I am not engaged in a filibuster. I am trying to explain the practical realities and difficulties of this Bill and the reasons why the Bill should not come into effect for one year beyond the period that the Government seek to dictate.
The Earl of Gowrie: I was certainly prepared to extend a metaphorical and ecumenical hand to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, while congratulating him on the speed with which he has become an expert on the constitutional procedures and conventions of this House. I think that the point raised by him and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and others about the Salisbury and Carrington conventions, as they are called, is that this House has every right, indeed a duty, to try to improve Bills by revising them. Our problem in this case is that some latitude has been given to the word "revision" by a series of amendments which are designed to stop the Bill from coming into effect. That would, I think, perhaps be more convincing if the Bill were first revised and then perhaps later there were suggestions that the Bill should be delayed in coming into effect.
I come to the other point in the noble Lord's argument which perhaps prevents me from being as ecumenical as I should like to be to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. It is the really extraordinary suggestion he made that, on the one hand, there are severe practical difficulties facing organisations and authorities, given the removal as proposed of this tier of local government, and that, on the other hand, the severe practical difficulties can in some ways be improved by the staff of these authorities not being allowed by their political masters to co-operate with the preparation of the legislation or with the preparation of conditions leading up to such time as the legislation becomes an Act.
I know very well in my own immediate sphere of responsibility in respect of the arts that there has been the bureaucratic equivalent, if one likes, of filibustering, and that hard-pressed officials, who I in no way blame for this, have not been allowed by their political masters to co-operate with us in order to get as smooth a transition as is possible. We can all take different views about the wisdom or otherwise of any given political decisions, but to argue on the one hand that one of the reasons the political decisions are no good is that people are forced not to co-operate with them is extending argument to unreal limits, and I regret that the noble Lord. Lord Monkswell, did that.
I believe that some of the directives being put to the professional staff (who I in no way blame) of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils are deeply disturbing to the staff themselves and can only add to the anxieties which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and others are accusing us of generating. I think that this is—
Lord Monkswell: Will the noble Earl give way?
The Earl of Gowrie: I will give way, but I should like to finish this point, I think that this is a cruel and cynical use of unpolitical and unelected officials. I hope that the noble Lord will use his new and considerable influence as a Member of this House to ask all authorities to desist.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has repeated the fallacy of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which I sought to correct. The activities of the employees of these authorities are not solely
98
determined by the political direction of their masters. They have themselves taken objection to the Bill and are seeking not to involve themselves in helping the Government in the procedure of transferring power.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: I cannot believe that the noble Lord believes that. My only advice to him is to pull the other one.
To turn to the amendment from which we have somewhat strayed, its purpose and effect is to postpone the abolition date by a year. The Government at a very early stage made it clear that we intend abolition of these authorities to take place on 1st April 1986. That has been long known. It was stated in the White Paper and this Bill was introduced, as promised, early in this Session in line with the timetable that we proposed.
It has been argued that more time is needed to put our plans into effect. I cannot see on what basis that argument is adduced. The boroughs and districts—the successor authorities—are already fully functioning local authorities. They are not untried maidens in that respect. That contrasts with the situation in both 1963 and 1965 and 1972 and 1974 when all the successor bodies were new authorities created by the legislation. Thus some of the bodies taking over most of the tasks of the GLC and the MCCs are already in place and they can begin planning for the transfer from an early stage, particularly if this planning is not prevented or obstructed in the ways in which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and I have recently been debating.
Government departments have already issued to all the boroughs and metropolitan districts some guidance on preparing for transferred functions, with more to follow. Section 5 of the paving legislation is being used both by central Government and by successor authorities to obtain the information needed from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. There is no reason why this should be a very complicated or difficult provision because the GLC and the metropolitan counties are so much the minor partner in the provision of services in their areas that the extra activity to be taken on by each borough and district is really comparatively small.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will shortly be bringing forward proposals for initial appointments of residuary body members on an advisory basis to make a start on planning for their important role. One of the priority tasks to which we shall ask them to address themselves is the identification of staff currently employed by the GLC and metropolitan county councils in areas like finance, superannuation and property, and of course I include key computer staff whom they will need to take on to carry out the responsibilities they will inherit.
As to timing, the new joint authorities will formally be in place from September 1985 and they will have absolutely adequate time to prepare their budgets for 1986. There is nothing to prevent, once more, the borough and district members who make up these authorities from meeting at an earlier stage to give preliminary thought to their needs. Of course, the executive parts of the new authorities will not be

99
radically altered at the moment of transfer. The services will be provided over precisely the same geographic area as at present and there will therefore be no difficulty in ensuring continuity of operation of the services.
But the present amendment would introduce unnecessary delay and thereby increase the personal and human uncertainties for the staff concerned. The GLC and some of the metropolitan counties would no doubt continue using the period of delay for obstruction, including the unreasonable use of public funds for propaganda right until the end. I can therefore see no reason whatsoever to delay the implementation of an improved system of local government for the conurbations. I would ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I really must take issue with the noble Earl on two points he has made. The first one is the reference to the fact, from his point of view, that the successor bodies are already there in order to take over these services. The second is that the boroughs are able to take over the services. The successor bodies are not there. Most of the services will be taken over by new bodies which have to be established, and we hear from the noble Earl that they will be established at the beginning of September. But they will be the bodies who will take over the major services; therefore it is not correct to say that they are already there.
Secondly, the noble Earl said that there would be no difficulty in the boroughs taking over the functions, most of which he said they already carry out in local authorities; and therefore they could take them over quite easily. The report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which has already been referred to this afternoon, indicated quite clearly that there is a whole range of very important and indeed essential technical services, including waste disposal, highways and transportation, which need to be taken over not by the boroughs but by some joint authority. Therefore, there is much work still to be done in determining how and in what administrative ways these services shall be taken over.
Therefore, I should like to support this amendment. I hope the polemics about it have disappeared. I speak as one who is concerned about the quality of these services. If the quality of the services is to be maintained, I suggest that cannot be done within the short period of eight months after the new bodies are set up.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister who replied quite fairly sought to demonstrate that what is now in train is reasonable and is based upon the acceptance, the inevitability, first, that the Bill will finally become an Act, and, secondly, that it will become an Act substantially whole in all those parts that we have yet to debate. I simply say this to the noble Minister and to the supporters of the Government. If they really believe that the atmosphere in terms of relationship between central and local government in 1985 is on a par with the
100
relationship between local and central government in 1972 and 1973 and in 1963 and 1964, then with the greatest respect, they do not know what they are talking about.
I happen to have served in local government at the time. Although it is 22 or 23 years ago, and there were political differences, having fought the political argument there was a general acceptance of what was going to happen: "All right; we have had a good fight and will go forward". That was because there was proper preparation in the form of an inquiry or a commission and the ground had been prepared.
Regardless of the charges the Government make about the Labour Party or individuals, they have decided on this occasion that they will use some short cuts. I say to the Minister that the short cut with which we are now faced—and that is starting cold from July of this year, though the Minister wants us to start now—is a recipe for bureaucratic choas. The consequences of that will not be felt until after 1st April 1986.
The Minister makes play of the fact that there are politically elected councillors who are deliberately instructing their employees not to co-operate. I do not disagree: that probably is the situation. What the Government are inviting the councillors to do is to help the Minister to cut their own local government throats. What those individuals are saying is, "We shall not make it easy for the Government to get their way".
In the other place there were issues of a major character which were carried by the Government (with their huge majority) by only 23. Last year, on the paving Bill, there was an issue on which the Government's main thrust in legislation was negatived by this Chamber exercising its way. There must come a point when it is clear beyond peradventure that the will of the Government will be carried in this and in another place. I simply say that the Government are failing to understand the matter.
I am sorry that they are ignoring the advice of professionals, voluntary bodies and councillors. I ask the Government to forget the politicians but to listen to the voices of the voluntary bodies. They have sought to collaborate with the Government for a long period of time to produce a modus operandi for the voluntary bodies. This has yet to emerge. We are saying that more time is needed, not only in that field but also in the field of housing and in the transfer of the major physical resources.
The Government are perfectly entitled to reply that they in fact said, as early as they did, that 1st April 1986 was to be the day, but the reality is this. Thanks to the change in the Government's ambitions in the paving Bill, there was a change in respect of that particular matter. People outside are saying, quite rightly—not illegally, not criminally; and certainly they are entitled to say it—"We want to make sure that there is no other alternative."
The offer given to the Government in the amendment is not unreasonable. If the Government intend, as I believe they might, to remain the Government of this country after April 1987, the Bill will not only have Royal Assent but will be a fait accompli before they go to the country. There is no

101
question that within this Parliament the intentions of the Government will be given substance.
The Minister says that the GLC and others have frustrated the intention of the Government to make progress. My information is that the GLC has done nothing of the kind in relation to information on the current situation, works and costs. What they have been laggardly in doing is in assisting the Government to set up the successor bodies, authorities and arrangements that the Government have in mind. The Government have to take on board that they have a major responsibility for that being so, due to the climate that they have created. This raises an important point. When are this House and another place going to accept that there is no point in opposing, revising or seeking to amend? At what point are the Government entitled to say that they have a mandate, a Second Reading or whatever it is, and that there should be no form of opposition, reluctance or truculence?
The Earl of Gowrie: I have made clear when debating some previous amendments that the Government consulted on aspects of this legislation, not least in my own area concerning the arts, and very considerable amendments were made. If your Lordships put forward amendments and carry them, the Government will consider them most carefully.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the Minister is inviting us to accept the dictum that should this House carry matters, that is the end of it, that what this House decides will be accepted by the Government, then that is very interesting in the light of developments that are perhaps not too far away. Of course, the noble Earl did not say that. I am entitled to interpret—
The Earl of Gowrie: No.
Lord Graham of Edmonton:—what I believe the Minister said in my own way, as well as is the noble Lord, not from a somnolent position but certainly lying back and perhaps enjoying it. The Minister has failed to convince me of the defence of the Government's attitude in these matters. He has, however, said enough to convince me that because of the lateness of the hour this is not an appropriate time to press the amendment. There will be other opportunities when this can be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
On Question, amendment negatived.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
(" ( ) Before the abolition date the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing the criteria for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties, including powers of guidance, vested in him under this Act, and on the anniversary of the abolition date and annually thereafter he shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing his use of these powers in the year preceding that date.").
The noble Baroness said: It would be nice—I wonder what the Government Chief Whip is trying to
102
say to me? Can he put it into words? I am not used to sign language. I shall sit down.
Lord Denham: I must apologise to the noble Baroness. I was not actually making gestures at her, but at one of her noble friends elsewhere on the Front Bench. I hope that she will continue because I wish so very much to hear what she has to say.
10 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I do not think that the noble Lord is, but perhaps he will wait until I am out of the way to make signs. I hope, quite seriously, that we can rest ore a little better humour in the Committee than has existed for the last couple of hours. It seems quite wrong. We are debating a very important Bill. There are, I agree, strong feelings about it. But it will not get us anywhere at this very early stage of the Bill if one gets upset about it. So, after that ticking off, I hope that everyone will behave better.
The amendment to which I am speaking now is concerned with the powers of the Secretary of State. One of the worst and most worrying features of this Bill is this. The Government have been saying all the time that the intention of the Bill is to restore powers or give extra powers to the smaller local authorities, the boroughs and districts. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, repeated the intention at Second Reading when he stated that the Government proposals
"will give electors a closer interest in local government affairs".—[Official Report, 15/4/85; col. 446.]
In fact, what has been happening in the whole range of Government legislation on housing, on local government, on all the kindred arrangements and other pieces of legislation, has been that there has been a continuous move towards the centre, and rather than give more powers to local electors, there has been far more power taken by the Secretary of State. This has increased even more so in this Bill, so that now we have the political power removed from the directly-elected politicians. It has been placed in the hands of Ministers, civil servants and the appointed members of the various joint boards, joint committees and other quangos.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, this means that over 123 powers, either direct powers or permissive powers—or words to the effect that the Secretary of State can, will, shall—may undertake certain functions. This runs throughout the Bill. As we know very well, this does not mean for one moment that the Secretary of State is going to sit down and look at all these applications. This is passing it straight from the hands of the local authority, where it should be, right to the centre, to Whitehall and to the Ministry, and it will be dealt with there by civil servants. There is nothing wrong and a great deal of good to say about civil servants; but they should not be in the position of making policy, which in fact they will be when they are given these powers which it is quite impossible for the Secretary of State; obviously, or indeed even his junior Ministers, to exercise one by one.
Among these 123 powers, which I shall not go into in detail tonight, over 40 are of considerable size and influence. There will be power, for instance, automatically to rate cap the 18 new joint boards even before they come into existence, and without any of

103
the proposed safeguards against designation written into Part 1 of the Rates Act 1984. That point, if Members of the Committee want to find it, is in Clause 66. He will be able to prescribe schemes for the 18 new joint boards covering a number of employees including policemen and firefighters, the boards' services, their organisation and their arrangements for the management of their affairs. That is to be found in Clause 83.
Therefore, the spending, staffing and management structures of the appointed boards, inheriting 67 per cent. of the metropolitan counties' activities, will be under the direct control of the Secretary of State. He will be able to make arbitrary decisions about block grant in relation to the new and existing authorities, and force his guidance on district councils in respect of their planning. That is under Clause 3 and Schedule 1. Highways and road traffic are covered in Clause 7 and Schedules 4 and 5. He will be able to create six non-elected joint boards for waste disposal without any prior inquiry. Therefore it is no wonder that we have this afternoon been anxious—unfortunately unsuccessfully—to get a committee of inquiry set up, and also why my noble friend has just now moved the amendment to delay the year of implementation, not the passing of the Act but the implementation.
He can transfer airport interests to a joint committee or joint board at his own discretion; he can make orders without any prior inquiry breaking up proposed police, fire and public transport boards. It is interesting that on 28th November Coopers and Lybrand came to the conclusion that any such break-away could be expected to result in cost increases and there was no evidence to suggest any improvement in the effectiveness of the services. As costs and cutting costs have been one of the planks on which the Government originally said that they were basing this Bill, this is a matter of enormous concern.
The Secretary of State can create a series of centrally funded county museum trusts without any consultation, create a salaries review board and—for this there has been no precedent in any previous reorganisations—demand detailed staffing information from existing district councils across the whole range of their services. When it comes to the new residuary bodies, which were not proposed in the White Paper and thus have not been the subject of consultation, these new bodies are to be under the Secretary of State's control through directions as to how they are to exercise their functions. In their report published on 28th November, Coopers and Lybrand estimated additional transitional costs caused by the creation of the six residuary bodies of up to £15 million. These residuary bodies can be in operation for five years anyhow and then the Secretary of State has the opportunity and the power to let them continue if he wishes to do so.
It is for this reason that we ask that:
"the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing the criteria for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties, including powers of guidance, vested in him under this Act",
and afterwards:
"annually thereafter he shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing his use of these powers in the year preceding that date".
104
That is the reason for this amendment. It does not seem to me that there can necessarily be any argument about it because all that the Secretary of State has to do is to give the information which he will have. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If none of your Lordships has any views on this, I shall volunteer my own. The noble Baroness has put it to noble Lords in a charming and friendly manner—and I reciprocate; I consider myself admonished with the rest of your Lordships by her elegant forefinger—that the Bill is imperfect because it contains such a very large number of powers which can be exercised by the Secretary of State. Certainly in the Bill there is a substantial number of such powers. I cannot make them reach quite her total, but I get to around 112, which is a substantial number of powers which are conferred on the Secretary of State or other Ministers.
But these do not represent a takeover by central Government. Many of them are essentially minor. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary may, for example, under Clause 14 prescribe the date by reference to which the population of an area is calculated for the purpose of apportioning the costs of probation committees. Many are transitional. My right honourable friend may, for example, provide by order for the appointed day for establishment of the new authorities. There are also powers to make necessary consequential changes by order. But they are only powers to make consequential changes; they cannot be used to overturn the provisions of the Bill.
At the centre of these powers is Clause 98, which gives the power to make incidental, consequential and transitional provisions. However, if your Lordships look at the equivalent Section 84 of the London Government Act 1963 or Section 254 of the Local Government Act 1972, you will find that the purposes to which they have been put have been extremely modest, such as the dissolution of the Osgoldcross Joint Cremation Board and the revision of the constitution of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy.
In a piece of legislation of this scope it is necessary to leave a number of reserve powers in the hands of the Secretary of State in order that the legislation itself shall not be forced to make determinations too precise and too inflexible to satisfy the needs of the situation when one comes to it.
In 1972 we had an Act of Parliament for purposes of a reorganisation of local government, and I noticed that there were rather more powers given to the Secretary of State in the clauses of that Bill than there are in the clauses of this Bill. Therefore your Lordships should not regard this as an unprecedented step. It is a well proven way of conducting legislation in detail without binding the people who are forced to carry out that legislation within a straitjacket which cannot be altered.
The advantage of this is that the orders can be made in the light of the inquiries made as the date approaches. I think that your Lordships should not be as alarmed by this measure as the noble Baroness has suggested.
Baroness Birk: The Minister has not yet said whether he agrees with the amendment. He has explained that it is not at all alarming. If that is so, I

105
take it that he would have no objection to the Secretary of State laying before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing the necessary criteria.
Lord Elton: l should. The noble Baroness is right to tell me that I should have told your Lordships' Committee that the Government do not propose to accept the amendment because we do not think it is necessary.
Baroness Birk: I find that a strange answer. If the Government do not think it is necessary, I again come back to the point I was making. We are in a parliamentary democracy, not an authoritarian state, and people are concerned about this matter, as are other political parties. We are all, I hope, moving towards, or we feel that we should like to move towards, more open Government. In those circumstances what on earth is wrong in the Secretary of State giving an account of what he is doing?
The Minister has said that this is not unprecedented. It is unprecedented to the extent of the height which the pyramid has now reached. That the Secretary of State, or Ministers, take on powers is something that we are used to, but it is the cumulative effect of these powers which is becoming highly dangerous and worrying.
If the Minister says that it is all right and can all be explained clearly, and that there are some small powers or some small functions, what on earth is wrong with giving a report on them? Surely they will have to be noted, anyhow. The information will not be difficult to elicit.
I find the reply unsatisfactory. I suggest that in that case and in view of the lateness of the hour the Minister considers taking this back and looking at it, and perhaps we can return to it at the next stage. I think he is fair, and he will probably agree that by his negative response he has not really given me a sufficient answer.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness is entitled to her sufficient answer. If she wishes me to dilate, I would say this about the idea that a Secretary of State who is given a range of subordinate powers such as this should be required to specify for every single one of them the criteria by which he should use them. That would mean describing the parameters on either side of the discretion that he will not transgress and examining in detail each case. That idea and the proposal that he should report to Parliament on this is an entire departure from parliamentary procedure. It would generate an enormous amount of Civil Service work and it would not amount to open Government. It would amount to the proliferation of publications which your Lordships do not wish to see. I should like to dispose of this now, not at Report.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: In that case, I find it totally unsatisfactory, because nobody has asked the Minister or the Secretary of State to take those powers unto himself. When Secretaries of State do this they must find some method of making it clear and explaining what they are doing to the people. I think we are all entitled to know. It is our money they are using, not their own. Again, because of the lateness of the hour I
106
shall not press this at the moment, but I shall return to it at Report stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
(" ( ) Before the abolition date the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing the proportion of the budgeted net revenue expenditure of the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county in the financial year 1984–85 which, had this Act been in force, would have been in that year expenditure of the councils of London boroughs or metropolitan districts; joint authorities established under this Act; other non-elected bodies; and Government departments ").
The noble Lord said: Once again I am trying to be helpful to Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships will recall from reading a document that was published as Cmnd. 9058 and called Financial Management in Government Departments that it was there revealed that the Government are spending some £965,000 per annum on improving their management services. The relevant paragraphs are on pages 52 and 53 of the report in question. I mention this because on 21st December last, despite all the effort that had been made in tightening up Government management, a £700 million error was made in drafting an order for the rate support grant; that is, £700 million was the size of the mistake made in the Department of the Environment. This was when £965,000 per annum was being spent on internal financial control.
I mention this because all this amendment requires is an internal exercise by the Department of the Environment which any prudent business of a large size would carry out in the event of reorganisation. It would endeavour to do a series of sums internally by the use of a suitable number of spread sheets, if done manually, or by computer—I have no doubt the DOE has done that—to determine the effect of any steps to be taken had they been taken now. In other words, they could envisage the situation and could have their own internal checks. There is nothing more in the amendment than that. It is purely to ensure that the DOE has its sums right. It made an error of £700 million on 21st December last: who knows it may not have made other errors in the advice it has given to Ministers? This is a double entry check, in effect, to make sure that the Ministry is doing its own sums properly, as Ministers are entitled to expect.
If the Government accept this amendment they are helping themselves, and the next time they come to your Lordships' House after abolition they will be able to say: "True enough; we did all our sums. There were one or two corrections here and there, but by and large we have done the job properly". If they do not do the proper checks they will be in the same position as they are now—they will not have the remotest clue what will happen. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has come to the conclusion that the boroughs and districts will not be

107
the main bodies taking over the roles of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I can readily see how he has been persuaded to this view.
The GLC have put considerable effort into confusing this issue with a barrage of misleading statistics. They claim that their current spending is £1,874 million a year. It is not. They spend around half of that. How then, the noble Lord will ask me, did they arrive at that figure? The answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will well know, is by astute accounting. They have added to their base spending figure of £712 million the money that will be spent by the Inner London Education Authority. This is quite unreasonable. The GLC do not control the budget of the ILEA or its policies now, nor will the boroughs after implementation.
Another way in which the GLC's figures have been inflated is over the subject of transport. Since the London Regional Transport Act, which was the subject of long debates in your Lordships' House last year, LRT has had no involvement with the GLC, except as a precepting body. It has nothing to do with this Bill. It is therefore unreasonable to include the GLC's spending on supporting LRT in this comparison. We have done our figures. I could go on at greater length, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will allow me to turn to the amendment itself, which reads:
"Before the abolition date …"
there shall be
"a report detailing the proportion of the budgeted net revenue expenditure of the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county in the financial year 1984–85 which, had this Act been in force, would have been in that year expenditure of the councils of London boroughs or metropolitan districts",
and so on—meaning all the successor bodies. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that reading. This amendment should never be implemented, for one single, simple reason. We do not know, we shall never know, how the bodies in question would have done anything, because they were not there. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am very relieved that eventually, after reading something which had no relevance at all to the amendment, the noble Lord got down to the amendment itself. I completely understand that the Government are not intellectually capable of putting themselves into the position which this amendment seeks to put them in, of thinking what the state of affairs would have been. I can assure the noble Lord that this is quite elementary in business. If he will consult with his business colleagues, who are well familiar with the process of preparing cash flows on certain assumptions, he will understand. However, the noble Lord is apparently determined not to understand the amendment. I deeply sympathise, but I am merely trying to be helpful to him, as many of his noble friends will be able to tell him afterwards. What I said was perfectly reasonable and what I am asking for is even more reasonable. I am only trying to help the noble Lord. He should not be so injured by it. I really cannot understand it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether my noble friend is seeking to withdraw the amendment, but another word or two is in order. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is incapable by his nature of being abusive, but he has delivered a most abusive speech and he has delivered a speech to an abusive brief. It was quite irrelevant for him to speak about the views of the GLC and the way in which the GLC have presented their statistics, in the face of an amendment moved by my noble friend which puts a demand which cannot be seen as anything other than perfectly reasonable. The demand is that there should be some estimate made by the Government of that proportion of the expenditure of the directly elected authorities—in other words, the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and the London borough councils and the metropolitan district councils, respectively—which would continue to be the responsibility of directly elected bodies, and that proportion which would become the responsibility of quangos and of Government departments.
There is nothing unreasonable in that. It is a proper consideration. It does not deserve the dismissive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, or the tone in which this debate is being conducted. It is not just a matter of what the GLC have been saying or, indeed, what the metropolitan counties have been saying. For example, the Society of Chief Executives in the London boroughs has expressed at some length its very detailed concern about the situation of the capital debt of the Greater London Council. It has expressed very detailed concern about staffing matters and about the conflict of evidence—and there is a conflict of evidence—on expected savings. There has been very much concern, not just about the future of individual services but about the whole financial structure of local government in London and in the other metropolitan areas. I really think that we deserve a more serious and considered reply than we had from the Minister on this occasion.
Baroness Lockwood: I, too, should like to support this amendment. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask the Government to give us a breakdown of the financial estimates which are contained in the Bill. The Ministers opposite have indicated, both at Second Reading and today, what advantages, financial and otherwise, they think are going to be achieved by the passing of this Bill. Surely therefore we are entitled to know how those sums are made up. I would suggest to the noble Lord that it is not an impossibility. I hope the Committee will forgive me if again I refer to the work of the Select Committee. When the Select Committee visited West Yorkshire in order to look at the engineering and the transport services, we were so impressed by the services which we saw that we asked for a breakdown. They were able to provide a break-down of the financial costs.
They gave four possible alternatives for those services. The alternatives were estimates on the services if they were broken down on a borough basis or on a joint basis between one or two districts or taken over in their entirety. The four estimates which the department were able to produce for the Select Committee—and it is all part of the evidence of the Select Committee, which is public property—indicated quite clearly that there was a difference in the

109
cost of the services according to the kind of successor body that was to operate. Surely, if that could be done by one department, it could be done by the Government on behalf of all the services which are involved.
Lord Bruce of Donington: In order to allow the Government time to study the amendment, I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Denham: My noble friend may wish to reply to the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has made a speech this evening on one amendment, a different amendment, which was the most enormous filibuster that I have ever heard in this House. All right. We want to get this amendment out. My noble friend will reply to that.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have detailed figures which I shall be perfectly happy to make available to noble Lords, perhaps by putting them in Hansard. I did not use them for a very good reason. I thought that they would be unintelligible, certainly to me, at this time of night. And if I cannot understand them when delivering them, then of course it makes it rather difficult for noble Lords opposite to understand them.
However, perhaps I could say that the situation in London is quite clear. The GLC proper had current spending of about £350 million last year, excluding the ILEA and the payments made to LRT. That is a reasonable measure of the level of service activity. A small amount of that—around 5 per cent.—will become the responsibility of bodies outside local government. The rest becomes the responsibility of the boroughs jointly or individually. About one-quarter is spent on the fire services and three-quarters on the other activities being taken over by the boroughs.
As I have said, I had no intention of being—I cannot remember the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but whatever it was—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was "abusive".
Lord Skelmersdale: I had no intention of being abusive to the Committee. I delivered my speech for exactly the reasons which I have just given.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
(" ( ) Before the abolition date the Secretary of State shall publish, subject to the consent of the authors—

(a) all responses to the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" (Cmnd. 9063);

(b) all responses to consultation documents associated with that White Paper; and

(c) all other representations not otherwise covered by this section which express support for all or part of the provisions of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: In order that the Committee may recover its normal good temper and courtesy, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.