Lords Sitting of 2 July 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR 011 the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester
Cecil Richard, Lord Bishop of Leicester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Derby and the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

European Community Internal Market
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ezra: 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 is their attitude to the proposals put forward by Lord Cockfield for the establishment of an effective internal market within the European Community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the Government broadly welcome the main thrust of the proposals contained in the White Paper.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there have been certain, normally well-informed, press comments to the effect that the Government's response to these proposals was somewhat muted? If these comments are not correct, will the noble Lord say so? If, however, they are correct, will he indicate on which parts of the proposals the Government have reservations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not able to comment on newspaper reports. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement later this afternoon with regard to the Council meeting in Milan over the weekend in which, I would suspect, the noble Lord's Question will probably be answered.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give some indication as to which of the articles of the 222 articles of faith of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, constitute the main thrust? Will he examine Article 99, which sets out the desirability, among other things, of ensuring that there is a possibility of establishing services in Europe; in particular, insurance other than life assurance services? Is he aware that the proposals have been on the Council table now for at least 10 years and that to my certain knowledge they were hampered in the European Parliament in the four years I was there and apparently at the present time have no possibility of being enacted? Will the noble Lord agree that it would be far
1042
better to see that the existing proposals, of which there are hundreds, are brought to fruition before considering any fresh ones?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in particular, the Government are pleased to note the proposals with regard to a common market for services, including financial services and transport. As to the remainder of the noble Lord's many questions, again many of those may very well be answered when, as I suggested, my noble friend the Leader of the House repeats a Statement later this afternoon. The noble Lord would not expect me to pre-empt that Statement.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, does not the evidence suggest that the proposals of the noble Lord. Lord Cockfield, cannot be given effect to unless there is a substantial modification of the famous Luxembourg compromise?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think it would be better if that question were addressed to my noble friend later this afternoon.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone who understands procedure would recognise that the proposals of my noble friend Lord Cockfield are, as stated, just proposals? Until they are examined by everybody likely to be affected by them, would not the Government be well advised to remain, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, muted on the topic?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, with whose comments I agree.

Burglaries: Property Marking
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: 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 their trial property coding scheme is proving successful in reducing domestic burglaries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the results of the property marking demonstration project in South Wales, launched in November 1983 and carried out in conjunction with the South Wales Constabulary, were published on 6th June. They showed a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of domestic burglaries in the project area during the one-year evaluation period. This successful project continues.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging Answer. Can he say whether any further schemes are planned elsewhere; whether such schemes are costly; and, if they are not costly, whether more publicity could not be given to them so that householders may avail themselves of property coding?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is of course a matter for the discretion of individual chief police officers to adopt crime prevention measures. I can tell my noble friend that a number of projects involving the Metropolitan Police and 28 other different police forces are going ahead, and they will operate some 3,500 different schemes in all. My noble friend asked also about costs. I can tell her that the schemes are cheap, and I will certainly note the point she made about advertising.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree, from his own knowledge, that if property marking schemes are allied to good neighbourhood schemes, which are now escalating all over the country, this would be even more of a deterrent to burglars?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the further schemes to which I referred are a part of the neighbourhood watch package.

Social Security Benefits: Credit Transfer
2.49 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements are being made for recipients of social security benefit to take advantage of credit transfer facilities into a bank or building society instead of being paid by the traditional method at a post office.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, retirement pension, widow's pension, child benefit, mobility allowance, attendance allowance and war pension can now be paid by credit transfer. The exercises to invite existing beneficiaries to change their method of payment are not yet complete, but new claimants can choose payment by credit transfer from the outset if they so wish.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Does he have any information about particular banks—I believe that the National Westminister Bank is one of them—which are offering certain facilities free of charge to pensioners and retired persons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wish they would extend free facilities to all of us; I think it would be beneficial! Such concessions are of course a matter for individual banks, but this is a good example of the free market, where pensioners can move to the bank offering the best services available.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that the Co-operative Bank is offering the same facility?
The Earl of Caithness: I am delighted to hear it, my Lords.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether such payments are usually made weekly, in the same way as they normally are made, over the counter, to pensioners, or are only paid monthly or fortnightly? If they are paid at longer intervals than weekly, then this in fact means a loss to pensioners.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount that there is any loss to pensioners. Some are paid weekly and some four-weekly, and some are paid every 13 weeks, regardless of whether that is done by automated credit transfer or by pension book.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is there not a delicate balance to be struck here between, on the one hand, giving the sub-post offices enough work to enable them to remain open and, on the other hand, avoiding the necessity for elderly people having to stand in long queues every Thursday morning, or whichever day it is, in order to collect their pensions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has put his finger on a very good point indeed. The Government are aware of the importance of the post office network.

Gas Industry: Consumer Interest
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in order to protect the consumer interest in the event of a privately-owned monopoly being established by the foreshadowed privatisation of the gas industry, they will refer the question of the establishment and functions of a regulatory body to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament in good time before the formulation of the appropriate privatisation Bill.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, detailed proposals for the regulatory regime are currently under consideration. It is the Government's firm intention that the regulatory arrangements to be established will adequately protect the consumer as regards prices and the terms and conditions of supply. Both Houses of Parliament will have ample opportunity to discuss those proposals when the legislation comes forward.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the difficulties that arose in connection with the establishment of Oftel, and in view of the fact that, very largely, it is not effective, does the noble Lord not agree that it would be far better if, before the Bill itself is formulated, a committee is appointed in order to investigate such vital questions as tariff fixing; the formula for tariff regulation; the extent of the application of the tariff formula itself, when established, to bulk and domestic users; and a whole

1045
series of associated matters which ought to be discussed as it is proposed to establish a private monopoly?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, as my right honourable friend explained in another place, the Government's proposals are under consideration. It is too early to say when we will be in a position to publish them. I can reiterate the assurance which I gave the noble Lord that there will be ample opportunity afforded to both Houses of Parliament to discuss them in due course. It would be a mistake to pre-empt what the legislation might contain.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the noble Lord opposite is proposing a constitutional change in that a Select Committee of both Houses would, apparently, review legislation before it is laid?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. I hope that I have been able adequately to explain to the noble Lord who tabled this Question that it is the intention of the Government to have full opportunity for discussion in both Houses.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is the first time we have heard from the Government side of the House that there will be any chance of discussion on matters affecting consumers, particularly consumer councils and the nationalised industries? Can the noble Lord say whether the discussions to which he refers will apply only to gas or whether they will apply to other industries where the councils are concerned?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the Question which I am answering refers to gas, and I fear that I might be out of order, particularly with my noble friend the Chief Whip, if I included other matters in this Question.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, will the noble Lord use his influence to endeavour to persuade his noble friend the Chief Whip that there are other industries besides the gas industry which should also be considered?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always very charming in the way that she puts her questions. I shall make sure that her views are conveyed to my noble friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the assurances that the noble Lord has been kind enough to give, will he give the House the additional assurance that the Government will grant every facility to the all-party Select Committee that is already proposing to look at this matter and, if the press reports are accurate, will proceed to take evidence in September?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance of that sort. I am sure he would not really expect me to do so. All I can do is assure him that I shall convey his remarks to my right honourable friend.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the European Council on 28th and 29th June, in Milan.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the proceedings after Third Reading will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill and the Third Reading of the Local Government (Access to Information) Bill will be taken.

Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill
2.57 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Development plans]:
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, it will be for your Lordships' convenience if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 21:
Amendment No. 2: After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Joint planning committee for Greater London.
.—(1) The local planning authorities in Greater London shall not later than the abolition date establish a joint committee to discharge the functions mentioned in subsection (2) below.
(2) The joint committee shall—

(a) consider and advise those authorities on matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London;

(b) inform the Secretary of State of the views of those authorities concerning such matters including any such matters as to which he has requested their advice;

(c) inform the local planning authorities in areas adjoining Greater London, or any body on which those authorities and the local planning authorities in Greater London are represented, of the views of the local planning authorities in Greater London concerning any matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London and those adjoining areas;

and the committee may, if it thinks fit, contribute towards the expenses of any such body as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above.
(3) The expenses of the joint committee which have been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the local planning authorities in Greater London shall be defrayed by those authorities in such proportions as they may decide or, in default of a decision by them, as the Secretary of State may determine.
(4) In this section references to the local planning authorities in Greater London are to the authorities which are the local planning authorities in Greater London for the purposes of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or section 4 above.").
Amendment No. 21: Schedule 1, page 90, line 37, leave out paragraph 18.
I should say by way of preface that your Lordships will wish to dispose of Amendment No. 1 before we come to decide about amendments which the noble Baroness has to Amendment No. 2; and that, I suggest, we can do formally at the end of my introduction, and we can then address ourselves to Amendment No. 2.
During the Committee stage of this Bill your Lordships will recall that we had an extensive discussion in response to Amendment No. 19 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandford. This was designed to secure some form of co-operation between the London boroughs themselves, and between them collectively and SERPLAN. This co-operation was needed on those planning and development matters that required a wider than London over-view. I gave an undertaking to consult the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities to see whether they saw the need for some form of statutory provision.
Your Lordships will recall that on Report I said that the ALA had indicated that it did not wish to pursue the idea but that I was continuing discussion with the London Boroughs Association about its proposals for a body representative of all the London boroughs. Such a body could enable the boroughs to discuss common issues and to present their views to the Secretary of State as well as enabling them to liaise with SERPLAN.
The proposal was given a warm reception by your Lordships and I promised to come forward on Third Reading with an amendment to that effect. I also undertook to consider the need for the London Planning Commission if such a proposal were accepted, and, without commitment, to consider whether the idea of a similar representative body should be extended to the metropolitan counties. I shall come back to the London Planning Commission shortly. It will of course be more pertinent to consider the position of the metropolitan counties when we are discussing the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
I now bring before your Lordships Amendment No. 2, in fulfilment of my undertaking to provide suitable machinery for London. I accept that the machinery is required. Greater London has 6.7 million inhabitants, governed by 33 local authorities. It provides 3 million jobs and attracts more than 1 million commuters from outside its borders every day. It is a major tourist centre, attracting about 13 million tourists from other parts of the United Kingdom and between 7 and 8 million from overseas every year. The sheer scale of all this exerts a considerable influence on the surrounding parts of the south-east region, and the anxiety of SERPLAN to incorporate a London view within its own structure is entirely understood; so is the desire for a means of collecting the boroughs' views.
This amendment therefore provides a new clause requiring the London boroughs, before abolition date, to establish a joint committee to discharge certain functions. I emphasise that this does not mean that we are proposing the setting up of a strategic authority. As I have already said on previous occasions, the Government do not see a role for such an authority. Those matters of an overriding strategic nature, such
1048
as the siting of major motorways and airports, fall naturally to be decided by central Government and will continue to do so. On the other hand, matters of a local nature fall most naturally to the boroughs. This does not leave much in the middle, as the GLC have found in their search for a role. Nevertheless, as this amendment acknowledges, it is important for the new all-purpose planning authorities to be able to confer with each other on matters of common interest in planning, and with their neighbours outside Greater London. This could of course be done on a non-statutory basis. But following your Lordships' guidance on the matter, we recognise that in the case of London, because of the large number of boroughs concerned, it would be helpful to establish a statutory arrangement. If there is to be such a committee, the Secretary of State will find it useful to consult it, as well as others, about planning matters and in particular about his strategic guidance.
The functions of the joint committee have been tailored to this end. In designing them we have followed the advice of both the London Boroughs Association and SERPLAN. They are: first, to consider and advise the boroughs on matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London; secondly, to inform the Secretary of State of the views of the boroughs about such matters, including any such matters on which he has requested their advice; and thirdly, to inform the local planning authorities in the vicinity of Greater London, or any body on which those authorities and the boroughs are represented, of the boroughs' views about any matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of Greater London and those adjoining areas.
I use the words "in the vicinity of Greater London" advisedly. In drafting the amendment we have rather ill-advisedly used the word "adjoining". My noble friend Lord Sandford, with great personal acumen, has pointed out that that would exclude some members of SERPLAN from the consultations. That would be entirely contrary to our purpose, and I shall therefore be glad to welcome, when we get to them, Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 of my noble friend to remedy the defect.
The effect of my amendment as improved by my noble friend is very much what I predicted on Report. It will enable the boroughs to come together to discuss matters of general concern, it will provide a vehicle for them to continue the important liaison role with other planning authorities in the south-east through SERPLAN, and it will be very useful as a source of information to the Secretary of State when he comes to prepare his strategic guidance. I understand that a proposal on these lines has the wholehearted support of the London Boroughs Association and I commend it to your Lordships.
However—and here I return to Amendment No. 1—it puts into question the role of the London Planning Commission. Your Lordships will recall that I promised to consider that question in the light of the outcome of our discussions. As your Lordships will be aware, there has been some questioning of the role of this body and of how it would liaise with the boroughs. The main task originally seen for it was to provide advice to the Secretary of State in preparing his

1049
strategic guidance. To do this it was intended that it should work in a close relationship with the boroughs. That position was designed before the new joint committee had been thought of and it seems to us that the joint committee will be a perfectly adequate body to which the Secretary of State can look for information as to the views of the boroughs. That view was put to me in this House at Report stage by my noble friend Lord Sandford, and has since been endorsed by the London Boroughs Association at a recent meeting of its Housing and Works Committee. Accordingly, Amendments Nos. 1 and 21 delete Clause 4(2) and paragraph 18 of Schedule 1, which provided for the establishment of the commission.
My amendments as drafted, but with the two small adjustments proposed in Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 of my noble friend, provide for a statutory joint committee by means of which London boroughs can consult each other and SERPLAN. It will be the means of their keeping in collective contact with their non-London neighbours, and will also provide the source of London-based advice that the Secretary of State needs for drawing up his strategic advice.
These amendments are the result of your Lordships' work in Committee and of consultations which I and my officials have had with both SERPLAN and the London Boroughs Association. Had the Association of London Authorities seen fit to join in the discussions, it, too, could have had a hand in designing them. Although it did not, I am confident that we have here a workmanlike provision for our purposes. I am grateful to your Lordships for putting it in train and to my noble friend, as well as to SERPLAN and the London Boroughs Association for their helpful and constructive assistance.
That is the content of Amendment No. 2 that I have described to you. As your Lordships will have seen from the Marshalled List, there are amendments to that amendment, to which I have already referred, in the name of my noble friend and amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I think we can all agree that, however the principal amendment emerges, whether in its present form or amended in some way, it will dispense with the need for the London Planning Commission. So if the noble Baroness and the usual channels opposite are content, I shall be happy to put that question now and subsequently to listen to the speech on her amendments by the noble Baroness and to follow the Marshalled List in the usual way. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think the noble Lord the Minister asked whether we, on this side, would accept that. Yes, we accept it, and we will accept the first amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed earlier: col. 1046.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, I look forward with interest to the comments of the noble Baroness and others on their amendments which they will wish to move to this amendment.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3:
Subsection (1), at end insert—
("and the local planning authorities which are councils of districts (in this section referred to as "district planning authorities") in each metropolitan county shall not later than that date establish a joint committee to discharge those functions.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have tried at earlier stages of this Bill to persuade the Government to accept the very real need for a continuation of strategic planning in the metropolitan areas, and Amendment No. 3, to which I shall speak now, and Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 20, to which I shall also speak and which are consequential upon it, really try to make that possible.
Amendment No. 4: Subsection (2)(a), at end insert—("or that county").
Amendment No. 5: Subsection (2)(c), at beginning insert—("in the case of Greater London").
Amendment No. 8: Subsection (2)(c), at end insert—
("(d) in the case of a metropolitan county inform the local planning authorities for areas in the vicinity of the county or anybody on which those authorities and the district planning authorities in the county are represented of the views of the district planning authorities in the county concerning any matters of common interest relating to the planning and development of the county and those areas;")
Amendment No. 10: Subsection (2), final line, leave out ("paragraph (c) above.") and insert—
("paragraph (c) or (d) above, as the case may be.")
Amendment No. 11: Subsection (3), after ("Greater London") insert—
("or of the district planning authorities in a metropolitan county")
Amendment No. 12: Subsection (4), at end insert—
("and references to district planning authorities are to the authorities which are local planning authorities for metropolitan districts for the purposes of that Part of that Act of section 4 above.")
Amendment No. 20: Schedule 1, page 79, line 27, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert—
("joint committee established under section (Joint planning committee for Greater London) of this Act")
The Government now seem to accept the need for some statutory provision for Greater London. They have accepted the need to temper the role of the Secretary of State and his officials, and to ensure that the elected representatives of the boroughs and the neighbouring shire counties have a forum through which they can influence the formulation of strategic planning guidelines and try to resolve any cross-boundary issues. The Government have, therefore, accepted the need to facilitate the co-ordination and the synchronisation of the unitary development plan preparations. They have accepted that the institutional complexity and the need to reconcile a diversity of interests make impracticable a voluntary arrangement to represent and co-ordinate those interests. I would contend that those same arguments would apply with equal force in the metropolitan areas as in London.
There is widespread concern among the metropolitan borough councils about the role of the Secretary of State in issuing strategic guidance on topics listed in the revised proposals paper. In Merseyside both the Sefton and Wirral councils have seen that as an unwelcome central involvement in matters which ought to be resolved locally, and the professional organisations in the North-West—the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of

1051
British Architects—have all expressed similar concern to the Ministers involved.
The Minister's amendment would at least establish some kind of advisory arrangement and would keep alive the strategic planning idea to allow professional work to continue for Greater London as a whole. But why is there no equivalent proposal for the metropolitan counties? Is it an oversight on the part of the Government, or do they feel that only London is a special case? Surely it is unfair to overlook the provincial conurbations, and the least that the Government can do is to extend to all the areas affected by the Bill their new arrangements for London, however poor and imperfect some of us may consider them compared with earlier suggestions that we made during the passage of the Bill.
All we are seeking today by our amendments is to make the same arrangements for town planning in the metropolitan counties as the Government are seeking for Greater London. It is not a very radical proposition and it is not aimed at upsetting the Government's purpose in the Bill. All we are seeking is a small change, and in doing so we are motivated by a strong feeling for the need for fairness and equal treatment for all the areas affected by this Bill. We are asking for justice to be seen to be done to the metropolitan counties as well as to Greater London.
We believe that the Government are right to make arrangements to continue discussions about strategic town and country planning. We had hoped that we might get something better than the present proposals, and certainly we had expected that there would be something which at least recognised the needs of the areas such as Merseyside, Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and the other "met" counties just as much as Greater London.
3.15 p.m.
We accept that London deserves a voice because of the many issues which affect the boroughs collectively and because in many respects London ought to be viewed as a single complex area. But we must not overlook the fact that each of the conurbations outside London and the Home Counties also has problems and opportunities that bind them together. The district councils in the metropolitan areas need to agree on the best means of protecting their open countryside; they need to agree how to rebuild their run-down inner city areas; they need to agree to what degree to develop their competing town centres and where to build their major highways. Those are problems which they cannot solve alone as districts, but they are problems which at the very least they ought to investigate and discuss together.
Just as London cannot be viewed as a simple collection of individual boroughs, independent in all that they think and do, neither can the metropolitan districts. That reality is recognised by the way people behave in their everyday lives. Private bodies, Government departments, the churches, voluntary organisations and indeed the public at large all recognise that they have a common interest which extends beyond the individual metropolitan counties.
For example, let us just look at Manchester. That is an areas which will have 10 city and borough councils to look after its interests in the future, the main one being of course Manchester. But the reality of local affairs is such that the Manchester Evening News circulates in every one of those 10 districts; the Manchester Diocese also extends into every one of those 10 districts; and the Manchester postal district extends into Manchester, Trafford, Salford, Wigan, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside. The Manchester travel-to-work area as defined by the Department of Employment extends to Manchester, Trafford, Salford, Tameside, Stockport and Rochdale. The Manchester outer ring road passes through Manchester, Trafford, Salford, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside and Stockport. The current Manchester bid for the 1992 Olympic Games is largely dependent on the facilities in the areas lying within Salford and Trafford. The Manchester Docks are in Trafford and Salford. The Manchester ship canal flows between Salford and Trafford, but it stops short of the Manchester boundary. Indeed, Manchester United Football Club has its ground in Trafford.
Those are the sort of facts that can be repeated over and over again for the other metropolitan counties and they illustrate quite clearly that the areas work as close-knit units. Of course they have their local loyalities in individual towns and areas, as they have in London, but they are also interdependent for social, economic and spiritual purposes. The way that these counties are to be planned and developed in the future is of pressing interest to the whole of the area. There must be some effective arrangment to enable that to happen. That is what we are seeking by our amendments.
Whether by neglect or forgetfulness the Government have not seen fit to allow the metropolitan county areas to enjoy the extremely modest arrangements that they are prepared to make for town planning in Greater London. I ask your Lordships, is it right and is it fair that the metropolitan authorities should be treated in any different way? The larger provincial conurbations deserve to be dealt with no less fairly than London, and that can be achieved if your Lordships will support our amendments this afternoon. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and myself. Later I shall come to another amendment which is quite different, and that stands in my name and is supported by the noble Baroness. In doing that I should like to give a small—
Lord Elton: I am terribly sorry, my Lords. I ought to have asked this before the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, sat down. She said that she was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 20. I think that that was probably a slip. I am quite happy to take it that she was not speaking to those as long as we are clear.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3. 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 20.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think that the confusion is that Amendment No. 20 is really in the group with No. 9, but I do not think that that matters.
In supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness I should also like to give a small cheer to the amendment tabled by the Minister. Unfortunately, good as it is as far as it goes, it does not go far enough to meet the view not only of this side of the House but also of many noble Lords opposite, of some Government supporters in another place, and of all the relevant professional organisations that there must be some mechanism by which boroughs can contribute to a conurbation-wide view of planning and development issues. To do that the joint committee will need to have at its disposal sufficient professional and technical staff. The Government amendment makes no specific mention of that. I am sure that the House would welcome an assurance that those resources will be available.
The Government amendment would also provide the mechanism required by many noble Lords to enable a coherent London input into regional planning to become a reality. The amendment does away, we have just agreed, with the undemocratic, non-elected London Planning Commission, and I think that has received the support of the House. All this is to be welcomed, and in it the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has obviously played a leading role.
All too often there is, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, a regrettable tendency to neglect the rest of England. Sitting in London, as we do, it is perhaps understandable that the capital city is considered first. Yet we should always realise that London is not unique when it comes to urban problems, protection of the countryside, building motorways or safeguarding the country's heritage. These issues are of pressing importance for London but they are just as strongly felt on Tyneside and, as the noble Baroness pointed out, on Merseyside and in some of the other conurbations, in areas which have been laid waste by adverse social and economic change and where concerted action is needed to tackle unemployment and dereliction.
I believe that residents of a large northern city really could be forgiven if they were to take a rather cynical view of Parliament busily making arrangements for London while neglecting the urgent necessity to do anything for their conurbation and neighbouring conurbations. We must do more than make excuses for not taking in the metropolitan counties. What is required is action in a fair and even-handed manner.
This amendment gives us that opportunity. I feel that the Minister should certainly make sure that the opportunity is not missed. If we are prepared to see a joint committee set up for London to discuss how land should be used, how investment should be guided and how the environment is to be protected, then surely we should be prepared to make equivalent arrangements for the metropolitan counties.
I know that in the past the Minister has fallen back on the question of numbers. However, if I may say so, I do not think that that is a strong enough or valid enough argument. All right, there are 33 boroughs in London and no more than 10 districts in any one metropolitan county. But, with great respect, I think
1054
that that argument misses the main point. It is needs and not numbers which influences the arrangements we should seek for the metropolitan counties. The northern towns and cities have many genuine opportunities to exploit their assets and overcome their problems. However, this has to be a co-operative enterprise and boroughs and districts need to talk together to find the answers to their own problems.
Unlike the situation in London, everything in the metropolitan counties is to be left to voluntary cooperation. As I think has been argued through the various stages of the Bill in this House, this is a very uncertain remedy. Of course we cannot ensure that councils will agree on the best way of working together, but what we can ensure is that they talk about it. This amendment would give that assurance. My noble friends and I support it as a reasonable, practical and, above all, fair way forward.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I may add to what the two previous speakers have said. I do so taking into consideration the noble effort that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made on behalf of SERPLAN. I again draw the attention of the Minister to the co-ordinating committee that operates in the West Midlands as a planning organisation. The West Midlands county is sitting round the table constantly with the shire counties of Stafford, Warwickshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, which I should say are all very notable shire counties. The West Midlands county is in constant contact with them to protect the green belt and to see that development is taking place in exactly the right places. I should have said that that is of equal importance to the conurbation of the West Midlands as London is to the SERPLAN authorities.
Taking the points made by the noble Baronesses who have previously spoken, I feel that on some occasions the Minister knows little about the facts of life in the metropolitan county areas. When we talk about the fact that the boroughs in London will confer, let us be quite clear about what the boroughs in London are. They are all Londoners, they are all part and parcel of London. When one is talking about the metropolitan counties, it is easy to speak of them as 10 districts, but what are those 10 districts? In the main they all have a major city and they all have towns. They are not merely districts like the districts of London: they are towns in their own right, with their own mayors and their own councils. They are entirely different. I think that is what the Minister does not recognise: that they are towns in their own right.
Because they form part of the large conurbations, it is important that planning should be taken very seriously. That is not only in relation to economic development, which obviously includes the provision of jobs, but also, as others have said, in relation to the protection of the countryside, the need to organise public transport and the need, especially in the West Midlands, to take note of all the motorway networks that are linking up the north, south, east and west of the country. I think all these matters are somewhat forgotten when one is talking so constantly, as we are, of London.
I give my support to what has already been said. If the Minister does not give way, I think he will be

1055
making a grave mistake and will be showing that he is not being fair to the rest of the metropolitan counties and is showing favouritism to the London area.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, both the noble Baroness who has just sat down and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in moving this amendment, seemed to take the line that the joint planning body, the joint planning committee contemplated by this amendment, is a boon of enormous value to the areas concerned. If they will allow me to say so, with respect, the whole tone of their speeches was that London was being favoured and the other metropolitan counties discriminated against by my noble friend.
I can only wonder, in all seriousness, whether the ordinary people in any of these districts are really very concerned at whether there is to be a joint planning committee operating in their area. I rather suspect that very few of them are either interested in this or know anything about it. Thus the concept that this is some terrible grievance being inflicted on the provincial metropolitan counties by the Government really does not stand up.
The whole argument at earlier stages of the Bill for one of these joint committees was, as I think your Lordships who have been here throughout our discussions will recollect, almost entirely concentrated on London and the emphasis throughout was on the very special problems of the Greater London area. These are obvious: the sheer size, the sheer number of people and their relationship with the planning problems of the whole of the South-East. Hence, indeed, the discussions about SERPLAN in which my noble friend Lord Sandford played so distinguished and helpful a part. That was the whole emphasis.
It is only now, on Third Reading, when the Government, in my view very properly, have sought to meet the special problems of London that we are told that their doing so creates something of a grievance for the other areas in respect of which very little was said at all the earlier stages of the Bill. I am afraid that leaves one somewhat sceptical as to the reality of the case which is being made. I suggest to your Lordships that there is a very clear distinction, and it is the distinction of size and complexity. We are dealing not with a trophy, not with some great object of sentimental affection: we are dealing with the question of a small piece of local government mechanism.
Your Lordships in general thought, and the Government in due course in general thought, that there was a case for this particular mechanism to deal with the specific problems of Greater London. It does not follow, I suggest, that in the totally different circumstances of the metropolitan counties, with their smaller population and their much smaller number of local authorities, there is suddenly a crying need for that particular mechanism. To use the argument for London and turn it into a grievance makes it more difficult for my noble friend on the Front Bench to make concessions designed for the particular needs of any particular area. I hope therefore that your Lordships, on reflection, will reject the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, with respect, I do not know how the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk, and Lady Stedman—the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, is in a rather different category—can support these amendments and keep a straight face. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, put it perfectly when she asked, "Is London a special case?" Through all the hours and days that we have been debating this Bill, the Opposition and the Alliance Benches have been saying that London is a special case. The whole of their argument for getting something done has been based on the fact that London is special and should therefore be dealt with separately. It is hardly fair that they should now suddenly switch the argument round and use it as a weapon to beat the Government for being neglectful. I have not accepted that London is all that much of a special case. But your Lordships' House did so, and voted accordingly. Now, very properly, we must accept the decision of the House.
I believe that even in London the districts and boroughs could get together. They would be more representative of the area. They would carry more authority because they were elected from the area. I am convinced that they could come to conclusions on planning and all the other matters that would be better than those of any committee such as that envisaged in my noble friend's amendment. I cannot, however, accept the suggestion of those who, having got away with all this special pleading for London, now say that it is automatically right for the metropolitan counties. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, speaks with authority in respect of the West Midlands. I would claim, if I may say so, that I perhaps do so, too. I do not accept the noble Baroness's assessment that it is impossible for the areas and districts that cover the West Midlands voluntarily to get together and come to better conclusions than are likely from a joint committee. They have done so in the past. I am convinced that they could do so again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, quoted Manchester. I do not know what connection the noble Baroness has with Manchester that enables her to speak with such authority. I resist what she says. I represented, as a Member of the European Parliament, an area covering eight constituencies. I was not aware of any difficulty among those eight constituencies in getting together and formulating policy. It is perhaps the case that Conservative committees can succeed in that respect while other political parties cannot. However, I am convinced from my experience that all political parties would be able to do the same. I do not believe that we should go further than what is proposed in the amendment by my noble friend. I wonder whether the other place will be prepared to accept the need for it, as your Lordships' House have done, even in London.
I interpret the amendments very clearly as an attempt to take over the authority of the elected districts and also to remove the overriding influence of the Secretary of State. I have much more confidence in a voluntary association of locally elected authorities getting together and coming to a common conclusion. If I am wrong and if, for some reason, they cannot get together, then the Secretary of State has the power and the influence to step in and guide them along the right

1057
road. To have the extra joint committee in the metropolitan areas would merely bring back the two-tier planning system which this Bill was intended to remove. It has been expensive. It has been unnecessary. It has delayed the general development of various parts of this country. I do not think that we should have anything to do with what is likely to flow from these amendments.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I must correct the impression left by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who contends that it is only now at this late stage—the Third Reading stage—of long and protracted discussion of this Bill that the case is being made for the need for county planning arrangements for the metropolitan counties. The noble Lord has attended assiduously discussions at Committee stage and in the full House. He is well aware, if he reads or re-reads Hansard and sees the amendments put down earlier, that the case has consistently been made equally for the metropolitan counties. The case is just as strong in my contention for the metropolitan counties to have county-wide strategic planning machinery, even if it is only advisory machinery, as it is for London.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says that he is pretty sure that, to a great extent, people living in the conurbations of the metropolitan counties due to be abolished have no knowledge of, or interest in, the possibility or otherwise of machinery to cater for the county-wide planning needs of those conurbations. That is strictly irrelevant. They will soon find out, following abolition of the metropolitan counties, what they are going to lose if and when the districts fall out and do not make the provisions provided during all these years.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I believe that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in interpreting the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right in saying that we have spent a good deal of time, although not so much proportionately as I, a Mancunian, would have liked, on the metropolitan counties as compared to London. We have, however, spent a good deal of time on them. What has puzzled my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as it has puzzled me, is that the argument today has been stood on its head, notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal.
When we started debating the Bill, we were told over and over again how important it was that the metropolitan counties, in some form, should survive. When we, from this side of the House, referred to the historic cities and towns with their own personalities that make up these metropolitan counties, our views were dismissed as mere antiquarianism. Today, from the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, we have heard a very eloquent statement of the precise reason why we, on this side, think that the weight in these counties should revert to the historic cities and towns with their very different complexion and history. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might, I believe, be satisfied with that.
I am worried about a quite different point. It relates to London and to my noble friend's amendment. It is the reference that the amendment makes on the need for important decisions concerning expenditure to
1058
have a two-thirds majority combined with the reference that he made to the continued refusal of the Association of London Boroughs to take part in discussing and planning the new arrangements. What assurance has he that boroughs that have boycotted the future in this way will enter into this arrangement once it becomes law? If they refuse to be represented, how is the two-thirds majority to be calculated? I believe that other noble Lords might like to hear what the Minister has to say on that, I admit, somewhat narrow point.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I had hoped that mv, first remarks on this part of the Bill would be to welcome the Government Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 21. But it does not seem to have worked out like that. We are now involved with the amendments concerning the provincial metropolitan county councils, Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12. It was obvious, was it not, long ago when the White Paper Streamlining the Cities was published and long before this Bill that some consideration should be given to strategic planning in the metropolitan areas outside London. However, we must remember that from that moment the Labour Party saw to it that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—and all the members concerned are members of that association—was not allowed to participate in the discussions and negotiations on that point.
Therefore, it is totally inappropriate for Members opposite now to accuse the Government of having neglected the issue. It was perhaps they who specifically refused to take part in any consideration of the matter. I must say that the professionals concerned, the Royal Town Planning Institute, are almost as dilatory. Whether there should or should not be anything in the Bill about this is still perhaps debatable. What is not debatable is about the only thing that became clear during such discussions as we did have; namely, that whatever applied in the rest of the country would be totally different from whatever applied to London and the home counties, for reasons which have been rehearsed over and over again throughout this Bill. Here, at the very last stage, we have something which is a carbon copy of what has been designed for London and the South-East, and for that reason I cannot recommend the House to agree to these amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is of course totally correct that every conceivable case has been argued for the superimposition of an extra tier of local government. However, as other noble Lords have said, London was always argued on the basis that it was a special case, and that case has been met by Amendment No. 2 in the name of my noble friend the Minister. As soon as that was put down, Amendment No. 3 was tabled on the basis that the special case is not a special case but a case of general application. For the reasons given by other noble Lords, surely at this stage of the Bill it would be inappropriate to accept Amendment No. 3. Many issues are raised in the string of amendments, in particular Amendment No. 20, which removes authority from the Secretary of State in favour of a joint planning authority for Greater London. However, I hesitate to weary your Lordships on that.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I have some experience in strategic planning affecting metropolitan areas and districts in that for about 11 years I was a member of one of the economic planning councils set up by the Labour Government in, I think, 1968. We had planning functions and duties very similar to those that are being set up for London by the Government. We had to advise Government on a strategic plan for the region that we covered and we had to advise the local authorities.
When we advised Government, Government always listened very politely but whether in fact they ever acted on our advice we were never quite sure. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, is quite right that the metropolitan districts are huge and they are very proud. In my area I had districts such as Leeds and Bradford and, before local government reorganisation, Hull. They thought that they knew very well how to manage their planning. When we advised them on certain aspects of trying to fall in with the strategic plan that we had devised, they looked on this advice with modified rapture. I must say that I share the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the metropolitan districts—these very large, powerful districts, as the noble Baroness described them—will not miss having a superior strategic planning body to advise them.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, there seems to have been some confusion about the previous debates that we have had in the House. Certainly from this side of the House there has been a consistent demand that there should be central authorities within the metropolitan counties in order to co-ordinate both the strategic planning and other planning services. I think that it is most inappropriate to say that it is only at this stage of the debate that we are now asking for this facility.
Certainly from the point of view of West Yorkshire I have consistently asked for machinery to co-ordinate various services, including planning services. The noble Lord opposite has just mentioned two of the very important districts in West Yorkshire—Leeds and Bradford—which I agree have been very important cities in the past and which remain very important districts and very competent local government authorities. But within West Yorkshire there are other districts which are not so centralised as either Leeds or Bradford and which have different problems. It is those different problems that have been brought together and co-ordinated through the metropolitan county councils. It is because we have not been able to get this message across when other amendments have been moved on previous occasions that we are now coming back asking for the same facilities for the metropolitan counties as are being afforded to the London boroughs. I think that it is very appropriate that we should have the same facilities in the metropolitan areas.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, at the risk of being unfashionable, but I hope not divisive, perhaps I may strike a somewhat more sympathetic note in regard to these amendments than my noble friends have been able to. At an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill I testified to my belief in the importance of what
1060
has come to be known as strategic planning and strategic guidance, though, as your Lordships know, these are not terms of art in our statute law. They are important in that they enable us to continue with that evolution of the philosophy to town planning which at least ever since the Act of 1909 has broadened out into a positive science designed to apply in a wider and more general context than the detailed planning control hitherto.
I think that these amendments are designed to promote that cause of strategic planning and strategic guidance, and of course the concept is supported by the professional bodies. During the course of the Report stage, in which I was not able to take part, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Elton, saying that I had received further representations from one of these professional bodies, cujus minima pars sum, reiterating its support for the approach made by these amendments and inviting my support. I now rise only to ask my noble friend when he replies whether he will specifically address himself to the representations of those professional bodies which, as he will be aware, in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11, testify to their opinion as to the necessity of some such machinery as this for the metropolitan counties and do not differentiate between the case for them and the case for London. If my noble friend is able to deal with this point, I shall be happy to be convinced, but I am bound to say that as long as those arguments remain unanswered and are not dealt with, it seems to me that there is some substance in the purpose at any rate and in the concept of these amendments, even if not in their detailed provisions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has brought forward the first of two groups of amendments designed to achieve two changes to what the Government now propose in Amendment No. 2 to put into the Bill. The Government proposals are in Amendment No. 1, which your Lordships accepted, which strikes out of the Bill the London Planning Commission, and Amendment No. 21, which is consequential upon it, and in Amendment No. 2 we propose a replacement in the form of a joint planning committee for Greater London.
I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their acknowledgment of the extent to which the Government have moved to meet their concerns, which I think went rather wider than those of most of my noble friends. Perhaps I may start by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that on the matter of resources for the joint committee proposed, the question of the scale of resources will be for the joint committee itself to decide. What we have done in the Bill is to provide that the expenses—and that of course will include the expense of employing staff—can be recovered from all the local planning authorities in Greater London if two-thirds of them agree to those expenses.
I think that that was the two-thirds majority to which my noble friend Lord Beloff asked me to address myself. It applies only to the expenses of the joint committee, but not to its policy. In other words, policy decisions are taken on a straight majority, but the financial decisions are taken on a two-thirds

1061
majority. That applies to all the authorities, notwithstanding the silence, which I again regret, of the ALA on the subject.
The noble Baroness's group of amendments, Nos. 3, 5, 8 and 10 to 12, are the ones which strike at the Government's amendments. They have the intention of duplicating in every one of the metropolitan counties the provisions which our Amendment No. 2 proposes for London.
I think I made it clear, when this point was raised on Report, that I was in no way convinced that it would be a good thing. I did, however, I agree, undertake that I would consider the idea, and that undertaking also I have fulfilled. It was an interesting process because it made me compare London with the metropolitan counties more directly than I had done hitherto, to see whether my feeling that they were of entirely different orders was well founded or merely a careless and misguided misapprehension.
I wonder whether I can best explain my position by repeating word for word a short passage from what I said when I moved Amendment No. 2—which this amendment seeks to alter and extend—at the beginning of this afternoon. It was a passage in which I explained why the Government had been persuaded that a joint planning committee was appropriate to London.
I ask your Lordships to listen to the series of statements I then made as I repeat them, and I ask your Lordships which, if any of them, could by any stretch of the imagination be applied even to the biggest of the metropolitan counties. I said: "Greater London has 6.7 million inhabitants". Your Lordships will know, I do not doubt, that the West Midlands has 2.6 million and Tyne and Wear only 1.1 million. I went on: "It provides 3 million jobs". Your Lordships may know that the West Midlands provides 1.1 million and Tyne and Wear only 400,000.
I said: "It provides 3 million jobs and attracts more than I million commuters from outside its borders every day". That is every working day, it is true. "It is a major tourist centre attracting about 13 million tourists from other parts of the United Kingdom and between 7 and 8 million from overseas". None of the metropolitan counties can begin to match that huge gravitational ebb and flow.
When I went on to say that, "The sheer scale of all this exerts a considerable influence on the surrounding parts of the South-East region", I was saying something that I could not say in the same spirit, or with the same truth, about any of the metropolitan counties at all, let alone the smallest.
Those, nevertheless, were the reasons which persuaded the Government that a joint committee was appropriate for London, and not one of them applies even to the biggest metropolitan county, let alone to the smallest. Nor will these districts in the county areas be alone, acting in isolation. They will have every opportunity to consider all common interests and issues by voluntary non-statutory means, and they will do so in the light of the strategic guidance provided by the Secretary of State.
As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter properly stated, London is a special case, which needs special treatment. We recognised this from the start—it is not
1062
some afterthought—by putting the London Planning Commission into the Bill. But your Lordships think that this—and I am sure we are all agreed on this—is something better, which is why we have taken it out again. But to take it out does not invalidate the principle upon which it was there, which was that London is different.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that it was need and not number which should determine our decisions, I think she was beguiled by an attractive alliteration into making a statement which does not accurately reflect reality as it is. In a passage well timed to coincide with the meeting of the General Synod, and therefore an unusually generous proportion of right reverend Prelates are among us this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that the inhabitants of Manchester were all dependent upon one another for economic, social, and, I note, spiritual purposes.
That is certainly true of all of us everywhere. No man, and no urban district either, is an island to himself alone, and it is not my purpose to suggest that they should be. Our concern is in no way to suggest that. On the contrary, it is simply to create statutory bodies only when they are inescapably needed, and here, despite the catalogue of places on the Manchester ring road which the noble Baroness eloquently recited—and presumably she could have gone on round and round forever, but she spared us—we are convinced, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls ably pointed out, that it is not necessary.
My noble friend Lord Broxbourne asked me to consider the representations which were made on particular matters. On the general case for a strategic authority I think I have already—whether to his satisfaction or not I know not, though I doubt it—given sufficient reason why a strategic authority is not necessary on grounds of scale or on grounds of complexity.
There was also an argument for an examination in public, but I do not wish to retrace the considerations we had in Committee and on Report. However, if my noble friend will look at Hansard, he will see references to the way in which public interest is canvassed, public views solicited, and public opinions taken account of in the unitary development planning process.
As to the need for research, which was the third limb of concern which was put before me under cover of his letter, I would point out the provisions of Clause 88 and our earlier associated amendments, and suggest to my noble friend that that is well and truly provided for.
Therefore, we come back to this: I have brought before your Lordships an amendment which we have worked on steadily and hard, under pressure from both your Lordships and outside groups—those who would play—as well as from individual people with knowledge. We have come forward with something which answers all the concerns—I believe my noble friends will agree with me when we come to conclude the debate on the principal amendment—which were brought to us at Committee stage.
During the process between then and now we have adjusted what we proposed so as to fit more closely

1063
with what your Lordships want, and I believe that that is what I now put before you. It was tailor-made to reflect the needs of Greater London. The close interlinking between London and the South-East region, for reasons of sheer scale and number, is far more influential and far more interactive than that between any of the metropolitan counties and its hinterland. The statistics which I recited to your Lordships must make that clear beyond a peradventure of doubt.
Therefore in advancing the case for doing this for London, in answer to what your Lordships have asked me to do, I do not think I one whit weaken my conviction that this should not be extended to the metropolitan areas where I believe that voluntary arrangements suffice and that your Lordships should abide by the well-regarded principle that setting out statutory bodies where they are not needed is a mistake. I ask your Lordships to resist the amendment.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has not convinced me about his argument for not giving similar treatment to the metropolitan counties as to London. Indeed, as noble Lords on the other side have been talking my mind has gone back to my fire service days during the war when I used to lecture recruits on the history of the fire service and tell them about the early days of this century when fire insurance was introduced. Fire appliances attended a call and if the right plaque was not on the wall they went away without putting the fire out. Indeed, after the last war fire appliances did not cross county boundaries until it became compulsory under the 1947 Act for them to work together and to give cross-boundary support. Without a proposal for the metropolitan counties similar to that for London we shall be back to that kind of position on planning issues which cannot be dealt with in an overall fashion.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave us a whole string of numbers. Quite frankly, I think numbers are an irrelevance in this issue. They do not affect the need for consultation and discussion among the metropolitan districts to ensure that they are advising sensible strategic planning decisions. The uniform arrangements in the metropolitan counties and in London may be an unsatisfactory way of carrying out strategic planning, and the members of the planning professions among us would probably agree with that. At least they would provide a link and a means of discussing and solving problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to this discrimination in favour of the metropolitan counties and said that very little had been said earlier of the metropolitan counties. But as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said, many of us have spoken at every stage of this Bill on the need for proper planning procedures within the metropolitan counties. This is not a last-minute conversion: we have been fighting for it since day one of this Bill. The shire counties around the metropolitan areas are concerned about what will happen to planning and to functions when there is no overall policy for the original metropolitan counties for them to discuss cross-boundary issues. It is
1064
important that at least there should be some sort of advisory committee to cover the whole of the existing metropolitan areas. Therefore I must ask the House to express its view.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the original Question was that Amendment No. 2 shall be agreed to; since when Amendment No. 3 has been proposed. The Question I now have to put to the House is that Amendment No. 3 to Amendment No. 2 shall be agreed to.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 161.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Amherst, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jacobson, L.

Attlee, E.

Jacques, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Banks, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Kagan, L.

Bernstein, L.

Kearton, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blyton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boothby, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Listowel, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Caradon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Collison, L.

Mais, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mayhew, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Melchett, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Milford, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Denington, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Diamond, L.

Mulley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Northfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peart, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Ezra, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkender, B.

Plant, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Roberthall, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayter, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stallard, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stamp, L.

Hunt, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Hunter of Newington, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

1065

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stone, L.

Walston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Whaddon, L.

Strauss, L.

Willis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Harvington, L.

Allerton, L.

Henley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Auckland, L.

Hood, V.

Barber, L.

Hooper, B.

Bathurst, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bauer, L.

Ingrow, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Beloff, L.

Kemsley, V.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kilmany, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Brookes, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cairns, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Caithness, E.

Layton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Loch, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Luke, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Chesham, L.

McFadzean, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cowley, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cox, B.

Craigton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mersey, V.

Crathorne, L.

Middleton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Munster, E.

De La Warr, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nairne, Ly.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Porritt, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Radnor, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Reigate, L.

Ferrier, L.

Reilly, L.

Forbes, L.

Renton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rochdale, V.

Freyberg, L.

Rodney, L.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gowrie, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Sandford, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandys, L.

Greenway, L.

Savile, L.

Gridley, L.

Seebohm, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Sherfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Somers, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Stockton, E.

1066

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sudeley, L.

Vinson, L.

Swansea, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Windlesham, L.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Teviot, L.

Wolfson, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wynford, L.

Townshend, M.

Young, B.

Tranmire, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Council: Milan, 28th-29th June
4.14 p.m.
The Lord President of The Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the European Council, 28th-29th June, which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the European Council on 28th-29th June which my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I attended.
"Some time in advance of the European Council the United Kingdom had circulated specific proposals for the development of the Community, covering: completion of the internal market, strengthening political co-operation, and improvements in decision-making. Texts of these have been placed in the Library of the House together with the proposal we made at the European Council on exploitation in the market of advances in technology.
"The meeting offered the opportunity for action over a broad range of these proposals and a number of important decisions were taken. The European Council decided that in making progress towards achieving the single internal market for goods and services in the Community by 1992 priority should be given to: the removal of physical and technical barriers to the movement of goods; a free market in financial services; a free market for transport; liberation of capital movements; and full freedom of establishment for the professions. These are the United Kingdom's own priorities.
"On political co-operation, the European Council decided to set in hand the work necessary to reach agreement on the lines proposed by the United Kingdom, taking account also of a subsequent Franco-German text which was very similar. Such an agreement would allow the Community together to wield more influence in world affairs.
"On technology, the European Council expressed its determination to use the large Community market so as to strengthen technological cooperation in Europe in the face of the American and Japanese challenge. As an incentive to manufacturers we proposed that products resulting from collaboration should have a guarantee of

1067
genuine access to public purchasing throughout the Community.
"By contrast, when it came to procedures for decision-making, however, a majority of the European Council preferred to postpone action and to put the issues to an inter-governmental conference to be convened under Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome. The United Kingdom's view was that some positive improvements in the Community's decision-making could have been decided in Milan and did not require any Treaty amendment. We regret this unnecessary delay but will naturally attend any such conference and shall continue to press for practical steps to improve decision-making which do not impair our ability to safeguard our national interests.
"As the House will recall, any changes to the Treaty would of course require unanimity and would have to be approved by each sovereign Parliament.
"On the economic and social situation, the commission is preparing a detailed report which will compare the Community's economic structure and performance with other major industrialised countries. It will concentrate on strategies to improve growth and employment.
"The commission also reported on the steps being taken to give effect to the British initiative on deregulation at the last European Council.
"The European Council generally endorsed the report of the Committee on People's Europe which itself recommends cutting the burden of Community legislation and proposes easier access to medical care abroad.
"The European Council agreed on the need for Japan to increase significantly its imports of manufactures and processed food products and to liberalise its financial markets. This unanimous view will be emphasised to the Prime Minister of Japan during his forthcoming visit to Europe.
"I raised the need for further measures to combat terrorism and hijacking, with particular emphasis on the security of airports and air travel.
"Finally, the European Council discussed Famine in Africa. Two-thirds of the cereals food aid agreed at Dublin last December has already reached the countries concerned or is en route. We now intend to work out a co-ordinated programme against the effects of drought in the third world and give priority to helping developing countries themselves achieve greater security in their food supplies.
"Mr. Speaker, by agreeing steps to remove barriers to trade and to strengthen high technology, the Milan European Council contributed to the Community's economic strength and to the creation of wealth and new jobs. It is regrettable, however, that the opportunity available to the council to strengthen foreign policy co-operation and to improve decision-making was not taken. These issues will now have to be discussed in a further conference. The United Kingdom will be present and will make a constructive contribution on the
1068
basis of practical proposals rather than vague aspirations."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that Statement. I am sure that it was not an easy Statement to draft or indeed to repeat, because the Milan summit must have been one of the greatest anticlimaxes of recent years. We had been led to expect, and so had the country, that historic decisions would be taken and that practical British proposals outlined by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in Stresa and later circulated by Her Majesty's Government to her partners in the Community would form the basis of new progress. For the time being at least all this came to nothing and, so far as essentials are concerned, the meeting was a setback.
Of course we must not accept this as a defeat or in any sense as being the end of the road in regard to constructive proposals by Her Majesty's Government. But with regard to the essentials, or what people in this country regard as the essentials, I wonder whether the noble Viscount can say, first, whether any really constructive progress was made towards reducing the high unemployment figures in the Community. That is referred to in passing in the Statement, but may I ask what information there is in the Statement that we do not already have? What will be the purpose of yet a further report on high unemployment, when this must be the central worry of all the countries in the Community?
Secondly, can the noble Viscount say whether there was any further discussion of the common agricultural policy? That again is one of the essential matters which requires clarification. Were any further decisions taken on it and was there any discussion, for example, on grain prices? That again is a matter of acute concern to everybody who knows anything about this subject.
We note that the Government intend to be represented, quite properly in my opinion, at the proposed inter-governmental conference. Can the noble Viscount say what the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be, when they get to the conference, towards the proposal to change Articles 57 and 100, which seem to lie at the heart of the disagreement which has taken place? We note also that any change or amendment to these articles will involve parliamentary approval.
The Statement also refers to substantial measures which the Governments hope to achieve by 1992. That seems to be a very considerable task. If one reads and thinks about these measures carefully, they really are immense. Are the Government quite confident that these are achievable within a period of seven years?
Does not the noble Viscount also agree that before any major proposal is made by one of the states of the Community adequate notice should be given beforehand? It seems on this occasion that France and Germany in particular put forward in the conference proposals which were not known to Her Majesty's Government, or indeed to Denmark or any other country, beforehand. In view of the substance of the

1069
proposals involved, that really seems to have made a breakdown of the discussions virtually inevitable. Would it not be sensible, before starting to think about other procedures, for a new regulation to be made which rendered it necessary for each member to give adequate notice prior to bringing matters of this sort before a summit meeting?
On the question of terrorism and hijacking, we welcome the intitiative taken by the Prime Minister. Was anything decided? There is no indication in the Statement that, apart from noting the point, any further measures were proposed.
Finally, may I end on a more cheerful note by welcoming the easier access to medical care abroad, and also the information about famine relief. Can the noble Viscount give more precise details of the additional help the Community has in mind to assist the countries of Africa and elsewhere?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. It is of course a Statement of very great substance and it is not easy to comment on it on a first reading this afternoon. It is surely a matter of such importance and such urgency that it calls for a debate to be held as soon as possible in your Lordships' House, before the Recess. After all, if this inter-governmental conference is to be called in the autumn it will mean that it will be called before your Lordships' House has been able to consider in any detail the outcome of Milan. That would surely be most undesirable. It is highly necessary to get the views of all parties and for employers to be as well informed as possible before that inter-governmental conference takes place. I know it is a great deal to ask at this stage in the parliamentary programme, but this is surely a matter which should be given priority and on which a debate should take place as soon as practicable.
Of course there are matters in the Statement which we greatly welcome. The constructive attitude of the Government towards the further development of Europe is something which we greatly welcome and the emphasis on the internal market, which we understand is being pushed with great energy by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, can only be good. So too is the decision for greater co-operation on the technological front. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to the question of unemployment, and he regretted that the subject was not mentioned here. But of course progress in industry—progress economically and technically—is going to be the key in the longer run to dealing with unemployment. If we can get that collaboration at a European level which will give us some hope of holding our own with Japan and America, that in the longer run must be a major contribution to the unemployment problem.
It is regrettable that the decisions which Her Majesty's Government had hoped would be taken at Milan have, to some extent at any rate, been postponed. But on the political front there are a number of matters which do not depend on the treaty, and it is surely possible for us to push ahead with greater political collaboration so that, as is said in the Statement, we can as a European Community hold our own much more effectively in dealing with the other great powers.
1070
While there are real difficulties over decision making, as the Statement has stressed, we recognise that some changes in the decision-making process would require a degree of agreement by Governments and by their parliaments which it is unrealistic to expect to have been achieved. But the Luxembourg compromise is not part of the treaty and it is perfectly possible, without any revision of the treaty, to move towards a greater acceptance of majority voting. Once that was done, requiring no change to the treaty, it would be possible to make much greater progress towards the development of the European Community as an entity. There is a hint in the Statement that the Government are not very willing to go far in the direction of modifying their attitude towards unanimous voting. Yet it is surely along those lines, within the framework of the treaty, that the greatest progress is going to be made.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their comments on the Statement. First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I think it is clear that it was, from the British point of view, a disappointing conference. He suggested that none of our proposals had been taken up. However, some of the proposals which the French and the Germans have put forward are in fact based very closely on some of the proposals that we in Britain put forward. I think it is important to say that. I agree with the noble Lord that it is neither a setback nor a defeat. Certainly it is not the end of the road of constructive proposals, and I am grateful to him for saying that.
He suggested that there had been no constructive proposals made as regards unemployment. I was therefore grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for recognising and welcoming the attitude to the internal market and to the proposals for technological advance, both of which must be contributions as regards employment and both of which were agreements taken at this conference. I think it is important to stress that particular point.
4.30 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised the question of the reform of the CAP. I think that what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would certainly say—and I have heard her say it many times—is that CAP reform does not depend on an amendment to the treaty. It depends on the political will, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know, of the member states; and the best proof of a real desire for reform would have been for the German Government to lift their veto of cereal price reductions which were accepted by all the other countries. I think it is important to take that point.
As far as the question of any changes in the treaty is concerned, clearly the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is perfectly right in saying that a change in the treaty would have to be agreed unanimously and accepted by the Parliaments concerned, and that is bound to be a difficult process. As far as the British position is concerned, we do not regard the treaty, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, as in any way a sacred document, but we still believe that what

1071
is far more important is the political will, which must be seen to be apparent.
I understand that, as far as Articles 57 and 100 are concerned, these are examples of articles which some consider good candidates for amendment of the treaty. Neither were discussed in detail in Milan, I understand. We are not persuaded of the need for amendment of the treaty, as I have just been saying; but, of course, much of this will be discussed—I can give the noble Lord this assurance—at the proposed conference.
The noble Lord welcomed the points on hijacking and on medical care. He asked about the additional help which had been promised to Ethiopia. I am afraid I can give him no information on that. If I can get some information for him I shall certainly let him know of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, again mentioned modifying decision-making, and indeed gave a general welcome to the determination to continue the work of improvement of the Community. I am sure that is right. I think that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness united on one point, in which I agree with them: that it is a pity that more was not achieved in these fields, as it probably could have been, at this conference in Milan. To that extent it is a setback. On the other hand, the conference will come, the United Kingdom Government will attend it, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary will seek to make progress there which they believe, on the basis of what we put forward before the conference, could have been achieved at Milan.
As far as concerns the point made by the noble Baroness about preparation in advance, I think it is fair to say that the British had put forward their proposals, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, recognised, and had made them very clear. It is perhaps that which we particularly regret; that our proposals which were put forward and which could have led to progress did not lead to progress on this occasion.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask whether there is any hope of a debate before the inter-governmental meeting?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. That was the first note which I wrote down, and I failed to answer it. It is one of the factors which I can answer on my own account and not on behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. On my own account I can say that most certainly we shall be prepared to look at that through the usual channels. As the noble Baroness has said, it is a particularly difficult time of the year, but if we can fit it in we shall certainly consider that, and we shall certainly agree to discussion through the usual channels.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, may I remind the noble Viscount that there is a committee of this House which is approaching the end of its work on this very subject of union? The report is now in draft. It may be
1072
possible, perhaps, before the end of the month, for the House to debate that particular report. There is the ad hoc committee which is sitting at this very moment.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I gladly pay tribute to the work of your Lordships' European Committees, which have in fact achieved a very considerable amount and are greatly valued both throughout Parliament and, indeed, elsewhere. If such a report could be published—and that, again, could be considered through the usual channels—in time for a debate, that might be a very satisfactory development.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, as one who was a member of the Council of Europe for many years, may I thank the noble Viscount most sincerely for making it abundantly clear that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it is the lack of political unity and purpose that is causing a hold-up right across the European front? Will he repeat that on every possible occasion and make it perfectly plain to the European countries that unless and until the political relationship between the various nations concerned is more clearly defined, and means are found to make it much easier to carry out political decisions reached by the Community as a whole, we shall make no progress in other fields?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who very properly reminds us of his considerable contribution to European affairs in the past. Certainly what I have said about political will is abundantly true. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will repeat that over and over again. That will be far more important than anything I might ever say.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, would my noble friend keep in mind the very wise suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as to the necessity for any proposals to be put on the table beforehand so that proper consideration can be given to them by all members? Will my noble friend keep it in mind that many people will think that the Prime Minister's instinct in not wanting the conference that was suggested, and which now has to take place, was very sound? Is there no way of reverting to the old traditional practice of the diplomatic sources sorting out the points of difference before the heads get together, instead of giving the impression of a total breakdown at the top by attending without having made the necessary preparation to achieve progress?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am sure the House will generally agree with what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said. I would not wish to comment any further. If I did it might appear to be a criticism of other countries and of their attitude at this conference. I do not think that would be in any way helpful. I think it is far more important to seek to proceed to the next conference now and to make the most constructive contribution we can to it. Perhaps the best hope is that if other countries were not ready to consider some of the proposals we put forward on this occasion, there will certainly not be that excuse next time. I agree with my noble friend that for that

1073
conference adequate and proper preparation at diplomatic level is crucially important.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, could the noble Viscount the Leader of the House help us to understand why the Government take so tragically what might seem to be only a passing setback? Is it not the case that the British plan about increasing majority voting and reducing unanimity was a very sensible plan for minor advance without fundamental revision; and that the proposal of Germany and France and others for a major conference which would be able to compare the relative merits of minor advance without treaty revision with those of major advance involving treaty revision was an equally sensible plan for a more leisurely approach to a more thoroughgoing solution? Lastly, will the noble Viscount do whatever he can to ensure that his colleagues do not go to this conference in October in the belief that they are going to be met by vague aspirations?—because they may find a very formidable and quite cut-and-dried plan.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I do not think the Government treat the whole result of this conference in any way tragically, My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was, I think, justifiably disappointed, particularly in view of the proposals that the British Government had put forward and she hoped would be discussed on that occasion. But it is certainly not a tragic situation. And, of course, my right honourable friend will go to the next conference with the proposals, and will be prepared to discuss them. I think her feeling was one of disappointment that some decisions which could have been taken at Milan were postponed, and that it would have been better if they had not been postponed. But beyond that, certainly it is not "tragic".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the course of his reply the noble Viscount expressed regret at the veto of the German Government over the proposed reduction in cereal prices. Can the noble Viscount confirm that the Commission have decided, in their administration of the CAP, to ignore the German veto on the reduction in price? If that be the case, will he inform the House where the commission derives its powers so to do and whether he agrees with the exercise of such a power by the commission?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am afraid that, though I have heard that said, I cannot at this moment confirm it. Perhaps it is as well, because the noble Lord seeks to lead me on to make comments on that particular action. I am singularly ill-equipped to do so. I shall therefore find out what is the correct position as far as the commission and the cereal prices are concerned, and I shall let the noble Lord know.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that political co-operation, to which attention is rightly drawn in the Statement and on which we hope progress will be made, does not depend in any way on the Treaty of Rome? If therefore progress is to be made in this direction, it could be made by acceptance of some kind of majority voting, or perhaps by some process whereby those states which did not agree to the proposal made could simply contract out.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the point that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made was indeed that many of the proposals that the United Kingdom had put forward depended for their implementation and for progress to be made on them on political will, rather than amendment of the treaty. That is where we come back to the need for the political will.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, those who support Britain playing a more positive role within the Community will have been reassured by the answers that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has given in connection with the next conference. It is satisfactory that we shall be adequately represented there and that we shall continue to press for those points previously made.
In connection with the proposals to complete the internal market, on which I asked a Question earlier today, may I ask the noble Viscount whether I am right in interpreting his remarks that we fully support the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in the White Paper presented in mid-June as to the progressive removal of physical, technical and fiscal barriers, and that we will do everything possible to achieve the elimination of these impediments to a truly free internal market within the time span laid down.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand that certainly the United Kingdom Government would wish to press forward with proposals on the internal market on the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and no doubt will do so at the next conference. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about the conference. Naturally my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be determined to go there and press forward with the proposals, one of which the noble Lord mentioned, at that time. My right honourable friend's only disappointment is that more progress could have been made now and did not have to wait for another conference; but she now knows that it will have to be done at another conference and therefore she will seek to get the proposals through at that next conference.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Viscount agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield?
Viscount Whitelaw: Yes, my Lords, as far as I am aware. I am always careful of all these blanket assurances because there may be some part of the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, with which, unbeknown to me, the Government do not agree. If that is the case, I shall let the noble Lord know, but basically I believe the answer to be right.

Local Government Bill
4.45 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved, as amendments to Amendment No. 2, Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Subsection (2)(c), line 1, leave out ("in areas adjoining") and insert ("for areas in the vicinity of").
Subsection (2)(c), final line, leave out ("adjoining").
The noble Lord said: Before explaining these two amendments to your Lordships—which should not be very difficult because my noble friend on the Front Bench has already done so—I should like to use this opportunity to do what I had intended to do at the outset of this stage; namely, to thank the Government for Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 21 which they have introduced in fulfilment of pledges given to me and to the Committee at an earlier stage.
The amendments strike a practical balance between the aspirations of the Government, which are to abolish the GLC and not allow anything like it in its place, and the wishes of the planning authorities in the home counties to have a single body with which to relate in order to conduct strategic planning for the whole of the London and home counties area, without too much of a hiccough on the passage of the legislation. This the amendment does by establishing the Committee of Planning Authorities for London, by relating it in a satisfactory way to the body referred to rather coyly in subsection (2)(c) but which is in fact the South East Regional Planning Conference, and at the same time by eliminating from their proposals the London Planning Commission, correctly recognising that with this structure that body, which would not be democratically elected, is no longer needed. For all those reasons I welcome this amendment and assure the Government that the South East Regional Planning Conference will be able to work effectively with this structure.
The amendments themselves are minor and technical and are required only because the South East Regional Planning Conference contains a number of major counties such as East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire, Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire, which are inextricably involved with the capital in a whole number of matters concerning regional planning but which do not actually adjoin Greater London. That is the reason for the amendments, and I am gratified to know in advance that they are acceptable to the Government. I commend them to the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his courteous welcome. There is no coyness in my reply to him when I say that I am very happy to accept the amendments which he now proposes. I believe that they will be an improvement to the Bill and I am most grateful to him for spotting a possible defect in the drafting which had escaped our notice.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall put Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 9:
Subsection (2)(c), at end insert—
("( ) give the strategic guidance mentioned in paragraph 2(4)(c) of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the question of strategic guidance, but the House will no doubt be pleased to hear that I shall not raise again the question as to what exactly the guidance will say or what form it will take. Frankly, on this side of the House, we do not feel that the Government are going to be able to tell us any more than the sparse comments they have offered up to date. As I said earlier, I am prepared to give the Government amendment a small cheer, but as it now stands it is deficient because it fails to give the joint committee a positive role in the new planning system. Its responsibilities as set out in the Government amendment are singularly rather vague. If such a committee is to bring together the collective knowledge of London which the borough councils undoubtedly have, it surely makes sense to use this resource to prepare the strategic planning guidance instead of leaving it to be done by rather more remote civil servants in Whitehall.
Moreover, such a role for the Secretary of State is quite unnecessary. Perhaps I may briefly explain. SERPLAN has recently published its consultative regional statement. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that my copy has finally arrived. I have it with me. Representatives of more than 140 local authorities in South-East England have co-operated in this work. The foreward of the document states:
"It is the first stage in a process intended to provide a fresh and effective context for planning in the region in the 1990s. The Secretary of State for his part has agreed to consider any proposals conference may put to him concerning the updating and extension of the Government's current regional strategic guidance for land use planning".
So, therefore, out of this will come a new Government statement of strategic guidance for London and its regions.
That seems to be a perfectly proper exercise of Whitehall responsibility, giving its views on the broad direction of regional development. But why, I wonder, do the Government see a further role for themselves in issuing guidance at a much more detailed level within London for the borough unitary plans? They are not going to do this anywhere else in the region, just within London. The Government may have been reluctant to relinquish their role when the Bill contained no planning body representative of the boroughs; but as of this afternoon, when the amendment moved by the Minister was accepted, it now does. Therefore, we have a rather different scenario at the moment, and this makes an added case for the amendment I am moving.
The authorities, acting through the joint committee, are surely capable of preparing strategic guidance relevant to their individual needs and compatible with the Government's overall regional framework. We are being told all the time that it is not accepted that the boroughs are capable of meeting the responsibilities which the Government are giving them. It therefore seems rather odd that the Government should feel that in this instance they have to behave quite differently, and differently from the rest of the South-East region, by expecting the guidance to be given in London by the Secretary of State.
In addition, this amendment would not interfere with the unitary plan proposals in the Bill. In short, here is an opportunity for the Government to offer

1077
more devolution of planning responsibilities to the boroughs and remove at least one of Whitehall's many fingers in the post-abolition pie. I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, Amendment No. 9 is designed to give the joint planning committee a real job of work to do. At the moment, as I see it, the committee is to perform a useful role as a kind of forum within which views about the area can be expressed and analysed. However, there is no requirement for that body to commit its views in writing or for the local planning authority to have any proper regard for those views. In short, the boroughs can agree to disagree and very little will have been gained in the process.
If, on the other hand, the boroughs, sitting on their joint planning committee, are required to issue guidance for the planning over the wider area, then they will have been given a task. This would have the effect of bringing them together in a common piece of work. Such guidance would be similar to that which the Government will issue if the amendment is not carried.
If the amendment is carried, that guidance to be given will remain in local hands, such as the structure planning in the counties is in local control at the moment. The amendment would leave the same powers in the hands of the Secretary of State as those which he currently enjoys and which, even under this Bill, he will continue to enjoy in the shire counties. It would not prejudice his right to give any national or regional guidance. Neither would it affect the Secretary of State's power to call in, if he felt it was appropriate, or to intervene in the making of, land use plans.
In other words, it is the distribution of power between national and local level which will be left as it is at the moment, with no need for the Secretary of State to take closer control of local affairs. I join with the noble Baroness in making a very strong plea for the joint planning committee to be given a real job of work to do, in order to ensure that it remains active and effective.
In the future arrangements under this Bill there will be considerable call on local councillors' time in order to meet the demands of the various joint committees and the other arrangements which have been made. Without a definite function in mind for the joint planning committee, there is every chance that it will decline in its importance, in terms of the time which local councillors are willing to devote to it. It will therefore decline in influence also. That would be a very great pity, given the very important job that has still to be tackled, to bring about much needed economic and environmental change within the area.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am very glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that she has received a copy of the SERPLAN document, which I sent as long ago as 22nd May to noble Lords who were participating in our debates on this issue, with the rather different purpose of helping those taking part to see the need for the kind of body that we now have in the Bill. But I believe that both noble Baronesses are going too far with their Amendment No. 9.
1078
The SERPLAN document also shows regional strategic guidance in course of preparation. What is contained in its pages at the moment is the fruits of the efforts of a number of working parties set up between local planning authorities and industries such as those concerned with sand and gravel, cement and building. The document is now out for consultation with all the local planning authorities in London and the South-East. That is to say, it is strategic guidance being prepared. That is the word which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, used and it is an entirely appropriate function for the new committee we have just incorporated into the Bill.
That in itself is more than enough work for those authorities to be engaged in, but when it comes to the final stage—namely, the issuing of the strategic guidance which has been prepared for the Secretary of State—that is a job for the Secretary of State and not for the joint committee or the separate local planning authorities. The reason it is so important for the Secretary of State to issue the guidance is that he is then tied in to the decisions incorporated in the final document and obliged to have regard to them when he calls in matters for his own decision and receives reports from his inspectors. If he has issued the guidance which has been prepared for him by the local planning authorities, he is much more closely bound to have regard to them in the planning decisions he finally makes. That is why it is not appropriate for the newly-constituted planning body for London to give the strategic guidance. That is going too far.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow a brief intervention if I apologise for not being in my place when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, moved this amendment. I shall be very brief.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, put it, the joint committee should be given "a real job of work to do". That involves granting mandatory, statutory executive functions in this sphere; the issue of what my noble friend has called, quite rightly, strategic guidance. That is a matter for the Secretary of State and I suggest that the amendment is therefore inappropriate.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend Lord Sandford for really sufficient exposition of why I myself am opposed to this amendment, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his support of this. Perhaps I ought nonetheless to parade my credentials in resisting the amendment—or both Amendments Nos. 9 and 20, which embody the proposals of the noble Baronesses concerning strategic guidance.
We propose in the Bill that strategic guidance should come from the Secretary of State. The model for that strategic guidance will be the letters issued in the South-East by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to which I referred before and which are available for your Lordships to see in the Library. So neither the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, nor I need go on about what is going to be in them.
The noble Baroness will see that they are not very detailed matters, as she seemed to think we would be producing if this amendment is not carried. We expect the guidance to cover population, housing, industry

1079
and so on, but in general terms. The joint committee will have a positive role, as my noble friend has said, in pulling together the views of the boroughs and putting them into the guidance.
The noble Baroness, on the contrary, has proposed that the guidance should come from the joint committee. In my view, there are at least two sound and conclusive reasons why that should not be so. First, it is always the Secretary of State who must in the end make strategic decisions. I previously cited the M.25 ring road and the third London airport as examples, and I quote them again. Secondly, as decisions of that kind cannot be taken by a joint committee of London boroughs because they affect areas far outside the areas for which alone they are responsible and indeed take place there, so the guidance which infers what strategic decisions may be taken cannot be given by them either.
Strategic guidance cannot be given by a substrategic body because it is in no position to grasp the strategic issues and has no reason whatever to subordinate its own substrategic interests to the truly strategic interests of the region.
I shall not now rehearse again the workings of the unitary planning system, or list again its benefits and safeguards. The issue before us now is a simpler one. It is simply this: should the strategic guidance, which local planning authorities in London bear in mind as they draw up their plans, come from the London authorities themselves, as the noble Baroness proposes, or from the genuinely strategic authority of the Secretary of State? That authority, I should remind your Lordships, will be informed, through the new committee, of the pan-London issues and the views thereon of the London boroughs. The Secretary of State will not operate in ignorance, nor in a policy vacuum and many—indeed, most—pan-London issues will, of course, remain to the boroughs themselves to decide. But it must, I think, be obvious to your Lordships that London cannot be left to develop its own strategy within the South-East region, and I ask your Lordships to reject these amendments as firmly as the others which the noble Baroness has brought forward.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply—I think that is the courteous thing to say—but I cannot say that he has convinced me in the slightest degree; nor has the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I was not under any impression that the guidance was going to be in extreme detail, but even in its broad brush attempt it would still be special guidance for London coming from the Secretary of State rather than regional guidance. There would then be the joint committee giving the guidance as mentioned in the Bill.
I can only go back to what I said. It seems that the proper exercise of the Secretary of State's authority is to give views on the broad direction of regional development, but I am afraid there has not been a very clear or acceptable answer to the question of why the Government see a further role for themselves in issuing guidance at a much more detailed level within London. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, what he said against the amendment is almost contrary to what I may call the philosophy
1080
running through his plan; but that is a point for him, not for me. It seems a great pity, having moved the amendment this afternoon which alters the picture—I am sure the Minister will agree with that—that the Minister does not see that this would be a much clearer, simpler and more economic way of going about things. Therefore, I wish to test the feeling of the House.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 171.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Banks, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blyton, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Boothby, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mais, L.

Brockway, L.

Mayhew, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Melchett, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Meston, L.

Caradon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Chitnis, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mountevans, L.

Collison, L.

Mulley, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Nicol, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Roberthall, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Fletcher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

Jacobson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, I.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kagan, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kaldor, L.

Kearton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

1081

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allerton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Alport, L.

Ingrow, L.

Annaly, L.

Ironside, L.

Annan, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, V.

Barber, L.

Keyes, L.

Bathurst, E.

Killearn, L.

Bauer, L.

Kilmany, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brookes, L.

Loch, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Cairns, E.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Caldecote, V.

McFadzean, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Chesham, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Middleton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Milverton, L.

Cowley, E.

Molson, L.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigton, L.

Munster, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Croft, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Onslow, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Peel, E.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Denning, L.

Digby, L.

Porritt, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Radnor, E.

Dudley, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reigate, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. Davids, V.

Forbes, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Forester, L.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Freyberg, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Slim, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Somers, L.

Greenway, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hannar-Nicholls, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Terrington, L.

Harvington, L.

Teviot, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Townshend, M.

Holderness, L.

Tranmire, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

1082

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Vickers, B.

Wolfson, L.

Vinson, L.

Wynford, L.

Vivian, L.

Yarborough, E.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Young of Graffham, L

Windlesham, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.12 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 not moved]
Clause 6 [National Parks and countryside functions]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 2, after ("countryside") insert ("and areas for urban nature conservation").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would insert in Clause 6, in a part of the clause which was added by your Lordships' House at the Committee stage of the Bill, the words "and areas for urban nature conservation". The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to make a statement about their intentions, in particular in regard to the ecology unit of the Greater London Council and ecologists working for the metropolitan councils. I think this was a subject which some of us expected to come up at Report stage but which did not do so for various reasons.
I hope the Government will be able to give me and any other of your Lordships who are interested in this an assurance that the statement which they will now have to make under Clause 6, subsection (2), will include detailed information about the future of these ecologists—where they will be working and how they will be funded. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a positive assurance today that they intend that these very small teams of expert staff will be kept together and a home will be found for them, first in the residuary body and then in some other place.
I am aware that the Government answered a question about this subject, for Written Answer yesterday, which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that went some way at least to describing the mechanisms which the Government have available to ensure that ecological services continue. I do not think it went quite as far as I hope the Government will be able to go today in giving your Lordships an assurance that those services will actually continue. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, as I moved the main amendments on the subject of urban nature conservation on the 2nd May and the debate was concluded on 7th May, prehaps I may add a few words. I am very grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House who supported those amendments on that occasion. We seemed to be pretty unanimous about them. The reason they had to be put down was there was no provision made in the Bill for the continuation of urban nature conservation by the districts and boroughs after abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The burden of our argument on that occasion, when these amendments were

1083
moved, was that ecological advice is far better provided at Greater London and metropolitan county levels than dispersed to the boroughs and districts. I think all those who spoke argued that it would be more economical and more efficient to do it in that way.
The amendments sought to make it obligatory for the boroughs and districts to carry out what most of us regard as their duties in these respects; but I confess that I was wrong in going beyond the Long Title of the Bill and trying to make it obligatory using the Bill as a vehicle. It was the wrong vehicle. As we have no rules, perhaps I did not actually err from them, but if I did I certainly owe noble Lords an apology. Since the Committee stage I have had several discussions with a number of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Skelmersdale, and indeed I have been in correspondence with Mr. Kenneth Baker. I have had nothing but helpfulness. Unfortunately, during the Report stage this subject somehow was lost. I was away myself, being a little bit under the weather, and that could have been part of the reason. Anyhow it was lost, and I think that this was probably the reason why my noble friend answered a Written Question which I put down, still having anxieties about this, which appeared in today's Hansard. I shall be extremely brief, but if I may I shall quote just one sentence from the Department of the Environment Circular No. 108 of 1977 which was referred to in that Written Question. It comes from paragraph 2:
"The Secretaries of State look to local authorities to take full account of natural conservation factors both in formulating structure and local plans and in the consideration of individual planning applications".
That was as long ago as 1977. Last month we had the White Paper, which is the Government's reply to the first report from the Environment Committee of the House of Commons—I confess that I found most of the White Paper very disappointing, but we are not discussing that now—and in it there is a nugget which says the same thing in even more forthright terms. When I went to see my noble friend—he will not mind my saying this—I had the White Paper with me and I wrote "Aha!", against paragraph 4 in large red letters. He read it upside down and did not seem displeased. Paragraph 4 reads as follows:
"As the Report [the House of Commons Report] points out, there has been something of a revolution in attitudes to countryside issues in the last five years. Conservation is not now an optional extra with which land use and agricultrural policies are decorated, but is built into the structure of policy-making, as it should be".
I think that that quotation says everything that we have been talking about and makes it perfectly clear that the Government wish to achieve what we have been asking them to achieve.
I am not sure that this amendment is entirely necessary. It might very well be wrapped up already in the clause which it seeks to amend. I am not certain about that. But I see absolutely no harm in this amendment. At any rate, it has served the purpose of enabling me to round off a subject about which we have had a lot of debate, and it is clearly a subject to which noble Lords in all parts of the House—and indeed Members in another place—attach great importance. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to accept this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, seeks to add the words, "areas for urban nature conservation", to the matters on which my right honourable friend will be required to lay a report before Parliament under Clause 6(2) of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that that was added to the Bill in Committee.
Before addressing myself to the merits of the case, I should make it clear that, as with other amendments carried in Committee against Government advice, we still have to take a final view on that subsection. Subject to that, we will also wish to look at the drafting to see whether any technical improvements are needed. That said, however, I accept that there is much force in the noble Lord's argument that any report on countryside matters should also cover nature conservation areas within the towns.
Indeed, no one listening to or reading our debates in Committee could have the slightest doubt that when your Lordships agreed to what is now Clause 6(2) urban sites allocated to conservation were uppermost in your minds. Whether temporary or permanent, those facilities clearly play an important part in introducing city dwellers to the countryside. In the light of the great interest shown in the House, I would certainly envisage that they would be covered in any report on facilities for the protection and enjoyment of the countryside.
The noble Lord asked about the future of ecology units. As he well knows, Clause 88 of the Bill, which is based on the powers used by the GLC to collect ecological information and to undertake research into the natural environment, also provides for the borough and district councils to make schemes for London or county-wide research and information activities. The co-ordinating committee to be established in each area will have a specific duty to consider, and where desirable promote, the making of such schemes. That statement was in the Written Answer that my noble friend Lord Elton gave to my noble friend Lord Chelwood.
I readily accept that the noble Lord does not feel that that goes far enough. I suspect what he wants is 100 per cent., and a 100 per cent. assurance from the Government. But as we have made clear from this Dispatch Box all along, it is absolutely impossible to give that assurance in such concrete terms. It will be for the successor bodies—in this case the borough and district councils—to decide what use they wish to make of those powers. In order to concentrate their minds, in the later stages of the Bill we have made provision to give the residuary bodies a catalytic role—so ineptly and inaptly named, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out, I seem to remember, on one occasion.
In spite of that we have provided in the Bill that as long as the successor bodies want those to continue—and I have no reason to suppose that they do not want them to continue—every facility will be given to them to continue. Having said that, I return to the amendment. Subject to the reconsideration of Clause 6(2) which I have already mentioned, I am willing to accept the amendment without of course any commitment on the wider context.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees that in supporting the amendment as a matter of construction "countryside" could not conceivably include an area of urban nature conservation such as the garden of a redundant church, and that it is appropriate to have this amendment in the statute when it becomes law?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would agree that an urban conservation area would not be included in the word "countryside", but I would have expected, and I am so advised, that it would be included in the phrase currently in Clause 6(2)—"wider county areas".
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it is nice to have agreement from the noble Lord. I am very grateful indeed to him. Two things that he said gave me a great deal of encouragement. First, I think he said that he had no reason to believe that the successor authorities would not wish the ecological services provided by the G LC and the other metropolitan counties to continue. That matter has been subject to considerable debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, pointed out, as the Bill has been going through your Lordships' House and indeed another place. I am sure that if there were any reasons for the successor authorities not to wish the services to continue, the Government would have heard about them by now; so what the noble Lord said must be encouraging.
Secondly, I am very encouraged indeed that the noble Lord has agreed to accept the amendment and that we shall therefore have a Government Statement about the future of those services in due course. With many thanks on my behalf, on behalf of the many people who will be affected and on behalf of the many more who believe that nature conservation and the ecological services are important in metropolitan areas, I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Consultation with inner London boroughs and the City]:
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie) moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 17, line 14, leave out ("or as the Secretary of State may direct").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deletes from Clause 21 the power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to direct the new Inner London Education Authority to provide specified information to the inner London boroughs or the City for the purposes of the consultation required by this clause between the new authority and those councils.
As I explained on Report, the power for my right honourable friend to direct the new ILEA to provide specified information is of a different kind to his other powers under this clause. If the new ILEA does not comply with a reasonable request for information, the councils will be able to seek effective remedy through the courts. The power of direction is therefore on reflection unnecessary.
The amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady David, on Report to delete the power of direction. I have pleasure in honouring that commitment. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend perhaps I may say that we are delighted to see that the Government have honoured their word and tabled the amendment; but I still have to say that it does not go far enough. It does not alter the substantive content of the clause which will force ILEA, which will be a directly elected education authority, to consult authorities with no specific educational responsibilities on its budget and policy objectives. No other education authority is subject to such consultation and constraint. As has been said before, we consider that the whole clause is unnecessary. However, half or even quarter of a loaf is better than none, and we welcome the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like briefly to say that although I support the existing amendment, I should have been very unhappy had my noble friend moved any further amendment on the subject. I think that the consultation is absolutely necessary, particularly in view of the vast amount paid by the cities of Westminster and London for the education of the whole of London. Consultation is essential.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Grants to voluntary organizations]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 31, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Each constituent council in Greater London or a metropolitan county shall exercise its functions under this section, and under any scheme made under this section, with due regard to the needs of the whole of Greater London or that county, as the case may be, and each scheme shall provide for those needs to be kept under review.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), tabled an amendment which would have required each of the constituent councils in a scheme under Clause 48 to carry out an annual review of the needs of the inhabitants of the whole of London or the county. I explained the difficulty with that particular formulation. I was especially concerned lest we oblige each of the authorities to prepare its own report on the whole area. The result might have been a host of independent reports, many of them perhaps in conflict with each other. That seemed to us not to be the best way to achieve what we all wanted, which was for grant applications to be considered against the background of an assessment of local need across the whole county or across Greater London, as the case might be.
On the strength of an assurance that I would try to meet the principle of what the noble Baroness was after, she withdrew her amendment. I believe that this amendment meets the concern expressed in particular by the noble Baroness that Clause 48 should not operate in a "policy vacuum".
The amendment will impose two clear requirements on the borough and district councils. First, they set up collective arrangements. They will have to provide for

1087
county-and London-wide needs to be assessed. There will be a continuing requirement for the scheme to provide for an up-to-date assessment of need. I do not propose that this should be an annual requirement. We do not want the review of needs to turn into a yearly bureaucratic exercise by town hall officials, nor do we want it to be intermittent. Instead, we are looking for a continuing and evolving assessment for the problems. This is something to which the voluntary sector may well themselves contribute. The way in which the review is carried out will be for the authorities to decide. But there will be an unavoidable requirement to keep needs under review. It will be written into the legislation itself. At earlier stages I had taken the view that we could assume that it would be good local authority practice to do this, but now there will be no question about it; needs will have to be reviewed.
5.30 p.m.
As well as reviewing needs of the wider area, we must also be sure that those needs are taken into account. The amendment now before us goes further than the one we considered at Report stage. Local authorities will now be required to have regard to these wider needs, both in establishing a collective grant-giving scheme and in making decisions about grants and a grants budget. They will have to act on their assessement of need. That is the second important part of this amendment—it deals with the fear of a policy vacuum.
It would not be appropriate at this stage for me to rehearse the measures we have already announced to protect the voluntary organisation affected by this legislation. That is on the record. This clause and the amendment before us give specific power to local authorites jointly to fund county-wide activities of voluntary organisations, enshrined in law, with the force of law. It should be evidence enough of the Government's intentions, but if intentions are not enough, let me assure the House that it is also our will. I am sure there is no single borough or district which is so ill-disposed towards voluntary organisations that it would not readily join with its neighbours in continuing to support worthwhile voluntary organisations funded by the GLC and metropolitan county councils. I have made it clear that the local government finance arrangements will be adjusted so that boroughs and districts are not disadvantaged by abolition. They will have the resources available to take on this extended responsibility for grant aiding the voluntary sector, and I shall ensure that they understand this point.
The Government nevertheless understand the fears of voluntary organisations, which are largely fears about the unknown. Throughout the progress of the Bill our door has been open to them. We have on many occasions met representatives of voluntary organisations. We shall carefully monitor progress on the implementation of the Bill when enacted, and our doors will continue to be open to the voluntary organisations to discuss any problems which arise.
That is my undertaking for the future. More immediately, I understand that this amendment is very welcome to the voluntary sector. It is a real
1088
strengthening of the Clause 48 arrangements and I hope that it will find support from all sides of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having spoken in favour of this amendment at the last stage, perhaps I may acknowledge with gratitude the form in which the spirit has materialised and also the way in which my noble friend has given a helpful explanation.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to welcome this amendment most warmly and also to thank the Minister for his very full explanation to the effect that it has the force of the law behind it. The amendment does all that the Minister undertook to do at Report stage—to ensure that any scheme set up addresses itself as a whole to the needs of the entire area. I think it is true to say that some of the voluntary organisations would have liked an annual review, but I think equally one can argue that it is preferable to keep matters under continuous review and, as the Minister has said, that it is not intermittent.
I particularly like three points about the Minister's amendment. First, the review of needs is linked specifically to what the constituent councils actually do, so that it cannot become a mere paper exercise. Secondly, I think his modified "needs" are a great improvement on my social "needs". Thirdly, as well as having a collective responsibility to keep the needs of the area under review, each and every constituent council is encouraged to adjust its perspective beyond its own boundaries when carrying out its functions under this clause.
In these respects I agree that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is better than the one that I moved on Report. The voluntary organisations are happy with it. As the noble Lord the Minister said, they had been very worried over a long period of time throughout this Bill and they welcome this amendment. I thank the Minister very much indeed.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, as I supported the noble Baroness in the original amendment she moved, I should like to thank the Minister not only for the amendment, but I think rather more particularly for his speech and for the way in which he made it clear to the House that he understood the fears, the undoubted fears, of the voluntary organisations in certain parts of London. I should like to thank him for the assurance that he has given the House that his door will remain open—I think that was the phrase he used—and that the process will be carefully monitored in the months and years ahead. I am as grateful to him for that assurance, which will be in the written record of the House, as I am for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 31, line 28, at end insert—
("; for the avoidance of doubt a regional tourist board is a voluntary organisation for the purpose of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. Most noble Lords will have their own concept of what is a voluntary

1089
organisation. That probably does not include a regional tourist board. However, the definition given in this clause clearly embraces regional tourist boards. They are non-profit-making and they directly or indirectly benefit the area concerned.
I have tabled this amendment in order to give the Minister the opportunity publicly to confirm the statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in a letter to the chairman of the London Tourist Board, now renamed the London Visitor and Convention Bureau, that that board and therefore other regional boards come within the category of voluntary organisations which may receive funding under this clause.
Perhaps I may add that I was intrigued to learn from the English Tourist Board this afternoon that after waiting for over a month for clarification of this matter from the Department of Trade and Industry, it received a letter at lunchtime today from the department, confirming the eligibility of regional tourist hoards under this clause. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am a little puzzled. The amendment contains the words, "for the avoidance of doubt". Putting in those words has created a doubt that was never previously there. It is perfectly clear to everybody who knows anything about this matter that the regional tourist boards are non-profit-making, non-statutory, and fall very clearly, without any doubt, within the scope of Clause 48 as it stands. I believe that it would be a mistake to indicate, by these words at this stage, that there was a doubt in the matter when there was no doubt at all. It weakens, rather than strengthens, what the noble Lord wants.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may inform him that the English Tourist Board was concerned about this and it wrote for clarification, as it had some doubt.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Well, my Lords, the English Tourist Board was wrong as well.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I welcome this amendment being tabled for clarification. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied, when the matter has been investigated, that notwithstanding delays, there is no doubt at all. Regional tourist boards are established on a voluntary basis and, as I see it, they fall within Clause 48.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am so glad to meet the phrase "for the avoidance of doubt" even peripherally in a statute. I am reminded of a correspondence which I am told took place in The Times, about the turn of the century, when the pond in St. James's Park was drained and the soft mud was exposed below. A letter appeared in The Times from the Chancellor, saying that he had been walking in St. James's and had seen some wagtails there, leaving their imprints on the mud of the pond and that at this time of year it was unusual; for the avoidance of doubt, these were pied wagtails and not grey wagtails. The next day but one there appeared a letter in The Times saying that the individ-
1090
ual who wrote it had been in St. James's innocently pursuing his pastimes in the soft mud of the recently drained pond when he saw a Chancellor go by; for the avoidance of doubt, this was a Chancellor of the Exchequer and not a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That may be thought irrelevant to the debate, but I could not resist the pleasure of sharing it with your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulhrede, asked a short question, and I can give him a short answer. I can assure him that any body whose activities are not carried on for profit and which is not a public or local authority does fall within the definition of voluntary organisations in Clause 48. So long as regional tourist boards are constituted in this way, they will come within the category of voluntary organisations which may receive funding under a Clause 48 scheme as they have, I understand, this afternoon—somewhat belatedly, I confess—learned themselves.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Redundancy and compensation payments]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 41, line 19, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Residuary Body in each of the metropolitan county areas or Greater London as appropriate shall exercise its functions in relation to the payment of redundancy payments and compensation to persons not designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 52 in accordance with the provisions of this section, and the Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under section 53 in accordance with the provisions of this section.
( ) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 53(2) above shall not provide for compensation which is less beneficial in any respect than the compensation payable under the provisions of the Greater London Council Housing (Compensation) Regulations 1980 to persons entitled to compensation thereunder.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak as briefly as possible, although my remarks might have been even shorter had I not been silenced when this subject was last before your Lordships at Report stage by the action of the Deputy Leader of the House at the instigation of the Government Chief Whip. Most of what I intend to say now could have been said then. However, what happened then necessitates my going through the exercise now.
The amendment relates to the functions of the residuary body for the payment of redundancy and other compensation to former staff. Clause 53 limits compensation for loss of employment or diminution of emoluments. Except where a person has an entitlement by virtue of contractual rights acquired before 2nd March 1984, payments shall be made in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Some of these regulations already exist. The Government have indicated that there may be further regulations to deal with abolition, but these will only introduce minor improvements relating to redundancy. They will be inadequate in my opinion to cope with the number of redundancies anticipated.

1091
This amendment will ensure that all staff receive compensation in accordance with terms available in previous statutory reorganisations. These terms, known as the Crombie code, orginated with the setting up of the National Health Service in 1948 and were applied when the GLC was set up in 1965. Every reorganisation of local government since then has made use of the code. Its terms are enshrined in 23 sets of regulations between 1964 and 1980.
The Government broke with these arrangements in 1980 and reorganised the Health Service at that time without the code. They argued that the code's provisions were complex and could be replaced by individual arrangements. Despite these statements, the compensation arrangements proposed in the Bill cannot be expected to do what Crombie did; namely, to provide a reasonable income to retirement age for those who have lost their jobs and compensate those forced to take lower paid posts. The Government have so far given no indication of how they propose to meet the needs of those who are forced into a lower income. The Government argue that abolition is not an exercise in putting people out of work. In fact, the quantification at present is that 7,100 posts in net terms will disappear as a result of abolition.
The last reorganisation of local government, which is still in process, was the transfer of GLC housing to the boroughs. The latest round of redundancies in this area will be announced later this year. The order made in 1980 confers Crombie benefits. In other words, two reorganisations which affect staff in the same authority will be proceeding on different terms of compensation. I find it hard to see how the Government justify this line of thinking or the imposition of such a policy. Crombie is more important, not less, in the current reorganisation, because there will be widescale redundancies as functions are dispersed to successor bodies. The protection of staff is even more important where institutions are to be removed without replacement.
5.45 p.m.
I should like for a moment to cast minds back to the Minister's reply at Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in not moving an amendment, referred to the fact that he understood that negotiations were taking place at the time and that he did not want to pre-empt or intrude on any such negotiations. I believe that I recall the Minister saying in his reply that no negotiations were taking place. However, on the same evening, in reply to another amendment, the Minister said that discussions were taking place between certain people. I think that he referred to certain staff, or the representatives of staff, within the West Mislands metropolitan county. Anyone who has been involved in negotiations of any kind knows that discussions always precede the formal negotiations. I should therefore like to ask the Minister whether there has been any development in these discussions which may go some way to resolve the difficult situation in which many staff who are to be displaced and made redundant as a result of the Government's Bill will find themselves.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Dean. I know that we have already received some assurances from the noble Lord regarding the staff commission. I speak with some experience as one of three people who served on the new towns staff commission. As a staff commission, we visited all the local authorities concerned while the transfer of housing was going on. We met not only the local authorities but also all members of the staff. We regarded that as a necessary function. We recognised that in any reorganisation those who earn their living in local government or public service have normally given many years to that service and are therefore worried not only about the loss of their job but often also about the loss of pension rights. This reorganisation takes place in identical circumstances. Many of the staff know full well that there will be no job at the end of the road when the Bill is finally passed. They know it full well because the Government have stated clearly that the idea of the Bill is to save money. My Lords, you only save money, in the long run, by having fewer staff.
It is therefore important that the Government should inform us now if they can say anything about the speed at which the staff commission is moving. While we know that the Bill will go through, it has to be remembered that abolition means that many staff become innocent victims. They have no alternative. They work for the metropolitan counties. If the metropolitan counties are abolished and the district councils do not want to take on the staff of those councils—many of them will not need to do so—this will affect many people who have given years of service. Many of them, who joined the service over 10 years ago, have worked hard to make workable a stratum of local government which the Government feel is unnecessary. They have worked in good faith for a public body believing their jobs to be secure so long as they performed their task well and efficiently and to the best of their ability. We now find that there are differences even between the metropolitan counties because some metropolitan counties were able to put in their bids earlier than others. So there is a difference between the compensation at present paid by different metropolitan authorities.
I say very sincerely to the Minister that he must recognise that these are men and women who have jobs now. They must be adequately safeguarded by adequate compensation for loss of jobs or else jobs must be found for them. Alternatively, redundancy payments and an assurance of the continuation of pension schemes must be made apparent. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the staff commission is proceeding on those particular points.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the question of negotiations or discussions which arose on the day of the Gold Cup amendments in which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—who I do not see in his place—played a somewhat enigmatic role as a sort of éminence grise. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is right, because it is relevant to bring those matters which were discussed on Gold Cup day into play on this amendment; it is strictly relevant.

1093
As I understand it, the Government's intention is to issue regulations which will set out scales of compensation. It is understood that, by and large—and no doubt my noble friend the Minister may be able to confirm this—these will not be less generous than those afforded under any existing local government severance scheme. In due course when these regulations are laid before Parliament noble Lords can satisfy themselves as to whether, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, they are adequate, reasonable and fair.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the question of compensation is of the utmost importance. Indeed, I believe I said so when I spoke on the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, moved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Lord moved the amendment after that one.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, did not move his first amendment, but he did move his second amendment. I spoke on his second amendment and I have no intention of boring your Lordships by repeating what I said on that occasion. However, it is relevant.
I would suggest that this amendment is premature in two senses: first, because it pre-empts consideration of the regulations which will be laid before your Lordships; and, secondly, because it pre-empts the discussions, which so far, as I understand it, have been inhibited by certain Labour-controlled councils and certain trade unions, to which my noble friend Lord Sandford referred earlier today. Therefore, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is it really on, if I may put it that way without any hint of offence, to complain that no indication is given by Her Majesty's Government when, as I understand it, the Government are trying to have sensible discussions and when certain trade unions and certain Labour-controlled councils, for the reason of political opposition to this Bill, are refusing to play ball?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for giving way. I should like to refer to something that took place on the last occasion we discussed this particular subject. It is on record that, in reply to one of the amendments, the Minister said that the people involved in this exercise could not be afforded the same rates of redundancy as were afforded on previous occasions. He said that no one could expect the residuary authorities to carry such a burden. I may not have got the words quite right, but I think the message that the noble Lord conveyed to us was that they would not receive the same benefits.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, I did not understand my noble friend to say or mean that, but my noble friend the Minister must speak for himself. As I understand it, he was really saying that, first, looking at the matter straight up, factually, there is no doubt that these obstructive activities have damaged the interests of staff. Secondly, as I understood it, my noble friend the Minister was saying that it would be wholly unreasonable to seek to indulge
1094
in a sort of cover-up by an over-generous award based on obstruction. I do not think that my noble friend went further and said that these people would in any way be positively or intentionally penalised. But in any event, for those two reasons the amendment is premature, and because it is premature I oppose it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, unlike my noble friend, I do not use the word "premature"; I think it was long overdue that the Labour Party tabled an amendment concerning the staff which really cared about staff interests. It is very sad that this amendment has been tabled at this stage when it is far too late and far too ill-thought-out for anyone here to support it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, spoke very well and very clearly from her own experience, but that sort of statement should have been made long ago. As we know, some authorities have adopted an ostrich-like attitude, as have the unions in these authorities, and have said that because the Bill will not go through they will not consider any of these issues on behalf of all these people.
Last week the London Boroughs Association met but they could only bring in the lowest possible level of reserve concessionary fare scheme because the Labour boroughs would not attend. It is high time that the other side realises that this Bill will become law and looks at the interests involved.
On other points, such as that concerned with the Crombie formula, I understand that as long ago as 1980 we were told that that formula would not be used any more. The point has been raised in this House again and again about the difficulties caused by housing transfers in London when people on one level are transferred to a borough which pays on a different level. It is an extremely complex issue and the staff commission will have a great deal of work to do. I hope that good terms and certainly rewards for those who have held their jobs for a long time and find themselves redundant will be achieved. But I do not think that this amendment is the way to do it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, by leave of the House, the noble Baroness has questioned the role of the Opposition Labour Party and its concern for staff. I must remind the noble Baroness that during all stages of this Bill amendments have appeared on the Marshalled List in my name, in the names of members of the Liberal Party and in the name of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, who unfortunately cannot be present today.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, perhaps I may point out that the noble Lord is speaking to his own amendment on the Third Reading of an important Bill, and therefore any criticisms and replies that he wishes to make would, within Standing Orders, be pertinently made when he winds up on the amendment rather than by constant intervention.
6 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that on 20th June I personally asked the other side to speak on that amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was not willing to move, and they declined to do so.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, Third Reading is usually a reasonably ecumenical occasion and I do not want to reopen the controversies of a previous stage of the Bill. But I must say that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, taxed our patience a little, at least on this side of the House, and indulged in what I can only call a "whopper", which I would define as a statement exaggerated to a comically intense degree.,
No one muzzled the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, so that he could not represent staff interests, except conceivably his own Chief Whip who concluded—rather erratically, as it happened—that other forms of business, other amendments, might better be taken on the day of the Gold Cup at Ascot, thereby displaying a lamentable lack of knowledge of the private lives of the contemporary Conservative Party.
However, that is water under the bridge. It is simply for me to register that the noble Lord was not prevented on any occasion from dealing with staff matters. I only said at the Report stage of this Bill that I could not reply to him within a time span of something like 15 minutes. I am delighted to reply to him now.
I think that my noble friends have pertinently and trenchantly illustrated a new and rather unpleasant technique in contemporay politics. It is not that one objects to a particular piece of Government legislation—obviously it is the right of the Opposition or of any given local authority to object to the legislation—but by not co-operating with its implementation in any way one then seeks to represent one's own party as somehow being concerned with the interests of those who are affected by the legislation.
The Government have made it clear all along, as I shall spell out in a little more detail in a minute—not at length, because this is the inappropriate place—that we are delighted to engage in discussions about matters which affect the staff. But all but a few of them have been pretty well forcibly prevented from engaging in discussions with us.
I really do not think that this is the moment to go over all the ground on this issue, as I spoke at some length in responding to amendments tabled at earlier stages, and I hope that the House will accept this. I do not propose to dwell either on the specific defects of the amendment except to point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make the compensation regulations under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 rather than under this Bill. Moreover, Clause 59 of this Bill does not place any liability on the residuary bodies to make compensation payments to former GLC and MCC staff under those regulations. That too will be specified in the regulations. In explanation, Clause 59 concerns only statutory redundancy payments and compensation payments to which staff may be entitled under their former contracts of employment.
These distinctions are not just legal or academic niceties but serve to demonstrate the significance—the significance for the staff themselves—of the compensation regulations which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is committed to make. As I have emphasised throughout the various debates we
1096
have had on compensation issues, we would prefer to make those regulations in the light of discussions and negotiations with the unions and employers concerned. That is the usual and proper way of doing things.
This amendment would render such discussion irrelevant except perhaps at the margins. It would specify the compensation terms that would be available to staff. Moreover, it would specify that the terms would be those which have been available under the Crombie code, which are the terms for which the 1980 GLC regulations provide. As I explained at Committee stage, and also on Report, the experience of the London housing transfers has been one of the factors which persuaded us not to adopt the staff arrangements which have applied to previous reorganisations.
Those GLC housing staff transfers have taken place on Crombie terms as provided by the 1980 regulations. In the same year (as we said in our original White Paper, Streamlining the Cities), we made clear that the Crombie terms would be withdrawn. This amendment would require us to go back on that commitment.
As I have explained, the Crombie code was drawn up many years ago. We live now in harsher and more straitened times and those terms are no longer relevant or appropriate to reorganisations such as this one. Even the MCCs themselves have recognised this. Not only would Crombie terms be more generous than those we have proposed, but they would also be more generous than those available under the various local severance schemes which the MCCs have introduced in anticipation of their demise.
The proper way to settle compensation terms is through negotiation and constructive discussion. On redundancy terms, our offer is on the table. It has been there since November. We shall shortly issue proposals on compensation for financial detriment. As I made clear to your Lordships on Report, if the unions come to the negotiating table they will not find us inflexible, but equally they too have to be realistic.
The invitation is there. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to the chairman of the TUC Local Government Committee urging him and his colleagues to take up this offer. The decision is of course theirs, but we believe that the time has long since passed when the unions can allow their generalised political opposition to abolition to inhibit their proper role in representing their members' interests. I hope, therefore, that they will respond positively to our invitation. We are ready to meet them quickly if they do.
May I quickly give an answer to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. The activities of the staff commission are a matter for them. The commission are an independent body with the remit laid on them by the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act, but I understand that the commission have issued six circulars setting out the arrangements for looking after the interests of staff affected by abolition. The latest of these sets out ring fencing procedures to give GLC and MCC employees priority in obtaining posts with successor bodies.

1097
The commission have also established their presence in the areas of the GLC and the MCCs. They have appointed assistant commissioners and they have visited all MCC areas to make it easy for staff to contact them. Against the background of the activities of the staff commission and of my right honourable friend's continuing and viable offer to employers and unions, I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has the best interests of staff at heart, as he constantly claims, he will not find it necessary in any way whatsoever to pursue this amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I listened intently to the Minister's reply to the amendment. When I rose earlier I was perhaps out of order, and I have no wish to pursue my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, but I must say that I have not noticed during any of the proceedings on this Bill where she herself has been so compassionate that she has tabled any amendment on behalf of the staff. I do not think that my party or I need any lessons from that direction.
The Minister in his reply has underlined what I said when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, so graciously gave way. What comes through clearly is that there is going to be a diminution of redundancy payments and protections afforded in the past under previous Government reorganisations of this kind, whether by a Conservative or a Labour Government. Irrespective of whether or not the trade unions respond, the present people are not going to enjoy the same benefits which have historically been given in these exercises. Otherwise there would not have been the need for one amendment on the Marshalled List. That was what it was all about.
Having put the case, we shall await the negotiations or discussions—I understand that this is still at the discussion stage, according to the Minister—to see what bears fruit. Having said that, I do not see any point at present in pressing the amendment before the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 [Co-ordinating committees of successor councils]:
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 69, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) for the financial year commencing in April 1986 and for each financial year thereafter consult the joint authorities for Greater London or for the appropriate metropolitan county as the case may be with regard to—

(i) the preparation of annual estimates of income and expenditure by those joint authorities; and

(ii) the preparation and fixing of precepts by those joint authorities;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a modest amendment. but I hope the Government will find it helpful. It provides a forum for discussion and consultation, nothing more than consultation, on the finances of the joint authorities. I shall briefly put the amendment in context. As your Lordships know, the Bill has passed down from upper tiers to lower tiers many functions, but not all of them. It has created joint authorities for those functions which it has not passed down. Those joint authorities are small in number, but the amounts of finances involved are
1098
large in proportion. In the metropolitan counties what the Bill has not passed down to the lower tiers is some 90 per cent. of the expenditure. That is an important amount of expenditure, because for practical purposes the whole of the expenditure which was previously precepted to the lower-tier local authority broadly remains. It is a lower figure for the GLC, I believe. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, quoted the figure and he will correct me if I am wrong. I believe, off-hand, that it is about 70 per cent., but for the metropolitan authorities it is over 90 per cent. Each of these joint bodies is a precepting authority. Each issues its own separate precept, and so we would have a number of precepts added to the local authority rate. That is what the Bill has created.
I should draw your Lordships' attention to what the Bill had destroyed. It has destroyed the mechanism for securing a comparison of these different budgets, each of which now will be separate for the joint authorities. It has destroyed the capacity for comparing one with another in considering their respective merits which was the case with one single overall body which had one budget and one precept. Before that single budget and single precept could arise the constituent elements had to be compared one with another. We are all familiar with the fact that anything approaching sensible financial control of local expenditure at local or national level requires the setting off of one budget against another. Each budget may be perfectly good, wholesome and sensible in itself, but the totality of them may provide a wholly intolerable burden. Therefore, as a result of what the Bill has provided, we have a gap in the sense that there is no forum for this essential and cost-saving comparison of budget with budget and precept with precept before they are finalised.
6.15 p.m.
The need to create that forum is not an original idea of mine. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who said:
"I should like to throw out the suggestion to my noble friend that … something in the nature of consultation between the different precepting authorities might be encouraged by the Government in the wording of this Bill".—[Official Report, 24/6/85; col. 586.]
That is exactly what is provided. A consultation between different precepting authorities might be encouraged by the Government in the wording of the Bill. That is why I suggest that these words be added to this clause.
If the amendment is carried—and I hope it will be—it will mean that an awareness of the totality of expenditure will be provided and it will be possible to consider that totality rather than simply piling precept upon precept. As far as I can see, this amendment provides no problem for any noble Lord sitting on either the Front Bench or Bank-Benches opposite. It creates no new authority. It concerns a function of the existing authority provided by this clause. It creates no difficulty with regard to the period envisaged, because when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, discussed this at a previous stage—again, I quote from col. 587—he said, in talking about the preparatory committees, which is what we are talking about in this clause:
"the role [of the preparatory committees] could well be an important one, which could continue for some considerable time".

1099
That is all that is envisaged in the amendment—that this process could "continue for some considerable time". If it proved useful, it would naturally continue for a long time. If it proved useless, it would wither away.
I am no lawyer, but it is possible that subsection (2)(d) may provide the power to do what I am suggesting. If that is the case—and the noble Lord the Minister suggests that it is, in response to this amendment—I would say only that it is far better that this important function should be spelt out rather than left unreferred to except by implication.
I hope that the Government will find this amendment useful and helpful in their search for economy. It would be blessed by anyone concerned with good financial management. It offends not a single principle of the Bill and I hope that it will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment assuredly presents certain problems. It is a pale shadow of amendment No. 81 ZAC, I believe it was, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but moved on Gold Cup Day by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Amendment No. 18 substitutes the word "consult" for the word "coordinate", which was discussed at considerable length in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made the telling point that "coordinate" involved power and the executive use of power, and that it was unacceptable. At the end of the day on a Division your Lordships rejected the need for co-ordination, the need for some supra-general purposes financial committee, and for this further tier of administration.
But back it comes again in another form; hence the problem from certain of us on this side of the House. If there was no need for co-ordination, then what is the need for the type of consultation proposed in relation to the preparation of estimates and the fixing of precepts? Putting the matter shortly, I hope, the problem arises because, quite apart from the question of form, this amendment, albeit in another form, again seeks to erect a tier of administration which is not within the spirit of the Bill. The reason given by the noble Lord is that it is helpful in the search for economy, if I caught his phrase aright. This is very near to the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on Gold Cup Day—the expression "cost-effective".
The thesis appears to be—and this is the objection that raises the problem—that you can challenge the principle on the basis that what you are proposing is either more cost-effective or more helpful in the search for economy. You can do that; and, if you do not do it, your Lordships' House (in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett) has—and I quote—"No role to play". This creates a problem, and the problem is that under the Parliament Act and under the conventions of your Lordships' House there are certain areas where this House has no role to play. This is not within that area—I concede that straightaway—but it touches on the fringes of it. I would oppose this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, an amendment moved by a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and seconded (on the Marshalled List, at least) by another, which claims to help to restrain public expenditure, would seem to come with rather formidable credentials. But I am not sure that those credentials really stand up to analysis, because this is, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has pointed out, simply a repetition of an amendment brought forward on Report with the compulsory powers involved in that previous amendment eliminated.
It is not only, therefore, somewhat repetitive—and I shall come to the point in a moment as to whether such an amendment is at all appropriate on Third Reading—but it is also obviously an ineffective proposal. If you are to study (let us take the case of Greater London, for example) the budgets of 33 boroughs, and if you are to study the precepting powers of a number of joint authorities, it is plain to any of us with experience of these matters that you have to have a large, efficient and highly-paid staff for the purpose. It is obviously going to be quite a large and elaborate bureaucratic machine.
For what purpose, my Lords? As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and as I understand the reading of the amendment, this body, so briefed, so supported, will be able to discuss these complex financial questions with the boroughs and the joint authorities; but at the end of the day those boroughs and joint authorities will be perfectly free to tell it where it gets off, if I may use a colloquialism. All this effort, all this bureaucracy, all the public expense, will have come to nothing. Therefore, if this is the noble Lord's idea of achieving public economy, it perhaps casts a somewhat revealing light on the expenditure patterns of the previous Labour Government in which he was involved.
I now come to the other point, as to whether this really is an amendment which your Lordships should be taking on Third Reading. Perhaps I may quote your Lordships from page 99 of the Companion to the Standing Orders:
"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill.
"It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading".
On both those points—on the point that it does not come within the principal purposes of Third Reading amendments as defined, and, on the second ground, that it involves virtual repetition of an issue which has already been decided at an earlier stage—it seems to me (and I say this with great respect to the noble Lord) that the tabling and taking of this amendment is in breach of the rules of this House.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether I might have a word immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because he has spoken specifically on the procedures of the House. For myself, I would say that the Table must have passed this; otherwise, it would not be appearing on the Marshalled List. But let that pass, because Peers

1101
must be responsible for their amendments. But also I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, very clearly drew a distinction between the amendment which was moved on Gold Cup Day and the amendment which is before us now. I respect the noble Lord's clarity in drawing a distinction between the two, and for that reason I would say that it is not the same amendment, or approaching the same amendment, and it is therefore perfectly within the rules of order for it to be tabled on the Floor of the House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords—
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I make one other point before the noble Lord interjects? He quoted the principal reasons for the moving of amendments on Third Reading. I would only say that the word is "principal", and not "only".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course, I accept that "principal" is the qualification; but that would not seem, if it is to mean anything at all, to let in a broad amendment on a broad issue of policy which plainly does not come within the qualifications as set out in the Companion. Therefore, I feel that the noble Lord is putting far too much weight on the word "principal" and is not giving it its natural meaning. On the other point—that the issue has already been decided—as I said to your Lordships (and I would have hesitated to do anything else, since it is a fact) the amendment is not the same as that moved at an earlier stage because it lacks the compulsory punch. But it raises the identical issue; that is, the issue of the taking into the hands of one of these controlling bodies the whole allocation of finance and of precepts. If the words of the Companion are to mean anything, then I suggest to the noble Lord that it is the same issue.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not know whether or not that was an interruption of my speech, but may I take it as such? I think that what it boils down to—and, of course, I shall not bandy words about the use of the word "principal" in the Companion to the Standing Orders because I do not think that that is really a significant point—is the interpretation of the House as to what is the same issue. I thought that the noble Lord very clearly distinguished between the amendment before the House today and the amendment before the House on what has come to be known as Gold Cup Day. Obviously, it is for the House to decide whether this is or is not the same issue. I should have thought that the element of compulsion was such as to make it quite different, and for that reason I would not have thought that it was out of order today. However, it is a matter of opinion, and if necessary the House has to decide.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is not on the right beam on this occasion; and in matters of this kind of course we look upon him very much as the expert and the person to whom we ought to listen. There is no doubt that the spirit behind the discussion on Report stage and today is identical. The spirit behind it, then and now,—and
1102
it has run through all the discussions on the Bill—is that the noble Lords who have been moving and supporting these kinds of amendments have no confidence that the new bodies, the voluntary associations of bodies, can do the job. All along they have said they are not capable voluntarily of getting together and that there must be some over-riding guidance from somebody or other. That is what this does now and it is what it did on Report stage. True, the word then used was "co-operate" and now the word is "consult", but the general message is exactly the same.
The reason why I wanted to join in this debate very briefly is because of what flowed from the amendment itself. I hope that noble Lords will take heed of the intervention made the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on whether we were not getting very near to undermining the procedures and the general conventions only upon which this House can function. I believe this particular amendment comes very, very near to the borderline indeed. It was discussed in detail and there was no need for it to be repeated on Third Reading; and when we see the number of amendments on Third Reading, covering the scope that they do, it makes me think that the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the other day have a very real basis. That is one of the points I would adduce as evidence in support of his view that we ought to be very careful as to how we misuse the accepted and traditional procedures of this House.
To turn to the amendment, I do not believe that there is any need for it, and I do not think my noble friend could possibly accept it. If he did so, he would be saying that he believed the new authorities were not capable of carrying out the job that they would have to do. Of course, they will consult with all kinds of people, and I have no doubt that they will use all the available knowledge that is there and they will consult. One always did so when one served on council committees. There is no need for it to be written into the statute that they should do what any normal committee would do in carrying out its functions.
My final word is that I believe that repeating the same arguments on Third Reading as we have had before could be a very dangerous beginning to something which could very well undermine the standing of this House on matters in the future.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I must say that I find the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and in particular, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rather sad. There seems to be a reflex action of "support my Government, right or wrong". One day they may find themselves in a situation when even the Government will recognise that the amendment which is being moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has some validity and should be accepted. I hope this might be the right occasion for that to happen. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—one of my predecessors both as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and as Chief Secretary to the Treasury—for him to lambast the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and myself over the growth and lack of control of public expenditure comes a little ill. When I left office it was £70 billion, which I thought was a lot of money.

1103
Actually, my Lords, it is a lot of money. It is now some £130 billion, and a little higher as a proportion of GDP than it was when I left office.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he say what level it was when he took up office?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it was higher; and I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I managed to reduce it under a Labour Government. I am obliged to him. However, I am particularly unobliged to him and to his noble friends for the way they have disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am a relative newcomer to this noble House, but I must say that to argue that the traditions of this House are that we should not perhaps debate these things on Gold Cup Day or that they come a little late in a Bill—no matter how good—and therefore we should dismiss them, is rather an odd argument for any debating chamber, and particularly so for your Lordships' House.
I would have hoped that they could discuss an amendment on its merits, and that is all the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did. It is all that I have ever done, whether or not it comes on Gold Cup Day. I am sorry if it disobliges some noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber, but that happened to be a day on which we were sitting in your Lordships' House. I accept and understand that the traditions and conventions of this House are normally such as to ensure a Conservative majority. If by any mischance we happen to debate things that are slightly outside the traditions of this House, and on a day which happens to be when certain horses are running, and that therefore it inconveniences some of your Lordships, I can only say that I am sorry. However, the Bill is inconveniencing and costing a great deal of money to many people in this country. Therefore it is not unreasonable that we should debate amendments on their merits, and that is all we ask.
All that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was seeking to do, as I had sought to do on a previous occasion—I hate to put it that way, but I did it on Gold Cup Day—was to ensure that there should be a better way of controlling public expenditure. I would have thought that was something which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, could have supported on its merits.
The difference between this amendment and what we debated before is that the previous new clause sought to set up—in my view rightly—an elected, coordinating authority because if one is to control properly public expenditure the body should be responsible to the public who are responsible for paying the funds. But, very well, your Lordships did not wish to accept that. That does not mean to say that the idea of controlling through a co-ordinated system large levels of public expenditure—as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, some 90 per cent. in the metropolitan counties and over 70 per cent. in the Greater London authority—is wrong. When one is controlling that level of expenditure, it surely is not unreasonable that there should be some kind of coordination and some kind of look at whether the priorities in the expenditure are right.
1104
What is so terrible about that, whether one decides to do it on a particular day or on another day? It must be sensible to look at it. All I am asking noble Lords to do is to look at it—and I hope it might inconvenience them even more if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will accept the amendment because it is a very simple and sensible one. It may come very late in the day and late in the Bill, and it may run contrary to the traditions spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He prefers traditions whereby he always wins—and I understand that—but what we prefer on this side of the House is to have a tradition of sensible legislation. We do not have sensible legislation at the present time and all I am asking is that your Lordships should support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and ensure that there should be a better co-ordination of priorities and control of expenditure than exists at the moment in the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, whether or not this amendment comes fully, exactly and convincingly within the reference in the Companion to the Standing Orders, I intend to treat it as though it did because I wish to examine the merits; but I put it on record that I do so without prejudice to any future decisions on the procedure in your Lordships' House.
I must say that there is one way in which noble Lords opposite pay full respect to the tradition of your Lordships' House. There is about the Palace a flavour of continuity in everything that we do—not perhaps entirely on the lines of, "my Government, right or wrong" but obviously there are times when my position must look more agreeable to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, than it does to me on certain occasions. In every other respect it touches all departments, and I suppose it is just as reassuring to see that there is always an amendment on central precepting and finance on the Marshalled List for this Bill as it is to see that there is always a milk pudding on the menu in your Lordships' Dining Room. Whether rice pudding, tapioca, ground rice or sago, it is always there—not very exciting, not very often chosen, but always there.
So it is with the noble Lord's "ground rice version" of the original grand design to have a county-wide executive precepting authority. I accept that it has been watered down a lot—something of which our catering department would not approve—but I accept that has been done in an attempt to dispense with the objections which I raised, and which your Lordships endorsed, to the earlier formulation.
It was an honest attempt. I do not hesitate to acknowledge that by removing from what was proposed the idea that the Committee should coordinate and hence, in some sense, alter or determine the financial arrangements of the joint authorities, they have removed one specific and important feature to which we took exception. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. However, before I become too grateful I must look a little more closely at what he is now putting before us. That brings me to a preliminary question, which is the question of scale. The noble Lord said that over 90 per cent. of the expenditure of the upper-tier authorities was not to be passed down to the lower-tier authorities. I remember a brisk exchange at an earlier stage on an interjection by the noble Lord when we touched on that matter. At that

1105
stage I pointed out to your Lordships that the proportion of the total local authority spend—not the upper-tier spend only, but the total spend at which we are looking—
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am sorry—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have not finished the sentence. Since I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said, it has left me somewhat surprised. But the point I am making is that the volume at which we are looking as a volume of a percentage—a proportion of the total local authority spend at both levels—is very small. I must remind your Lordships that it is to the upper-tier spend only to which the noble Lord refers and therefore a small proportion of the total local authority spend. That overlooks the fact that over 75 per cent. of spending on local services in the metropolitan counties is in the hands of the districts, and under 4 per cent. of spending on local services in London will fall to joint authorities. That is the magnitude in local authority spending terms of the problem which the noble Lord is examining.
We are considering the co-ordinating committees of successor councils to be set up, mainly to prepare the way for abolition but also to continue to consider whether joint action is needed on certain functions. The new regime will include separate joint authorities for separate functions in each abolition area; for fire and civil defence in all areas, for instance, and for the police as well in the metropolitan authorities. Those authorities will be precepting authorities. The concern of the noble Lord is that these authorities should not determine their level of precept having regard only to the interest of their own service. I trust I have understood him correctly.
Before we look at the merits of what the noble Lords propose as a cure for the defect which they perceive in our arrangements we need to consider very carefully whether the defect itself exists. No medicine is good medicine if you do not need to be cured. I therefore think that I must remind your Lordships yet again of who will be sitting in all the seats around the table of every joint authority that the Bill sets up when it sets its precept. They will be elected councillors, councillors elected to serve the interests of the people who live in each of the boroughs or districts to which the joint authority works. Every constituent council will be represented on every joint authority; and every joint authority will have representatives from every constituent council. The councillors who make the precept of the joint authority will be councillors involved in making the rate for their council; and vice versa. The district councillors on the fire authority will sit at the same table as the district councillors of the police authority when they are examining the level of rate. At Report stage, noble Lords wanted coordination. That is where co-ordination will take place. Those are the people who will do it.
What they now want is consultation. We turn to the amendment and ask ourselves: what does that mean? In the main subsection we find that it means something not transitional but permanent; and that it is to happen annually. It says that for each financial year from April 1986—
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it is permanent. He knows that is not the case There is no limit put on it, just as there is no limit put on the Government's own clause. There is nothing which says that it is permanent. He must not mislead the House.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, our understanding of the English language obviously differs. When a statute says that something shall be done for each financial year starting X, and does not say when it will finish, it seems to me to take some initiative to stop it happening because the requirement will remain in the statute. I think that is fairly plain. It may not be intended. I am of course very happy to give the noble Lord the credit for not intending it, and to modify my hostility to what he proposes by, for the time being, pretending that it is not in the amendment.
Then this is something which is to start in the financial year 1986 and continue until some unspecified point in the future, when, for some unspecified reason, it stops. The committee is to consult each joint authority in its area about two things: the preparation of its annual estimates of income and expenditure, and the preparation and fixing of its precepts. In other words, the committees are to consult the authorities about their budgets while they are making them.
So they consult; they get the information. And what then? If they do not use it they will have achieved nothing. But the amendment gives them no power at all to do anything with it—neither to publish it nor to pass it on; and still less does it propose that they should use it in any way to persuade the authorities to adjust their levels of precept. If that is, as it seems to me to be, a correct interpretation of what is proposed, the amendment would impose upon the committee an exercise which might be interesting but which would be singularly lacking in point.
I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, begin to argue the merits—and I listened to the words with care—of controlling public expenditure by a sensible arrangement of consultation. It may be, therefore, that I am not right in the interpretation of what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, proposes and that there is intended a method of control. Either he intends that the committee should exercise some sort of control over the authorities—and that is something against which your Lordships have set your face in one form or another on a great many occasions—or all that is sought is a free flow of information, which is far more innocuous.
I have already tried to explain to your Lordships why I believe that that free flow of information will be achieved by what is already in the Bill. But if I have failed, or if I am wrong, I then have to ask your Lordships this. If the intention is that each of the joint authorities shall be put in a position by this amendment to act in the full knowledge of the plans and intentions of the others, does this amendment not place the duty to consult in exactly the wrong place? What is the point of this committee consulting when it has no power to set the precept? Surely the duty, if there is to be one, and if it is necessary—and I do not think the answer to either is yes—must properly rest

1107
upon the joint authorities who will fix the precepts to consult each other.
I suppose that that would be an arguable case. But it is not the case that has been argued. I am very clearly of the opinion that the duty which the noble Lord proposes is superfluous. The power, as he rightly says, exists already in subsection 2(d). If the committee wishes to consult, it already may. What the noble Lord proposes is a duty which is a medicine designed for patients who are not ill. I am clearly of the opinion that if the patients were ill and the medicine were needed, then the amendment prescribes it for the wrong people. I therefore ask your Lordships to decline to take it, as you so wisely declined to take similar mixtures in the past.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive my saying that everything I have listened to has confirmed for me the wisdom of this amendment, because everything that the Government have said has been to misunderstand how to control public expenditure—at which they are very bad—and everything which noble Lords behind have said has been based on some misapprehension.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said there was a new tier of government. I cannot find it. It is an amendment attached to an existing committee set up in the Bill. There is nothing new about that at all. Other noble Lords have said that we are repeating something we have already discussed. The Minister was good enough to say that that was not so. What was discussed before—and what I imagine they are referring to—was a question of co-ordination which the other side interpreted as meaning subordination and creating a higher authority which could compel. It was that compulsion upon which the other side and the Minister relied. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has been good enough to acknowledge this. There is no charge whatever against me of repeating something which has been decided before. It is totally different.
I am grateful for all the lectures I have had on how to behave in this House with regard to the procedure. I thought I had established a reputation for being as careful of the procedure of this House as any other noble Lord, including the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I hoped that that was so. I have tried to do that. I have gone further than the Government Chief Whip in interpreting our rules for self-discipline. I had the privilege of being a chairman of Standing Committees in another place for more than 10 years. I had the privilege of being elected by all sides of this House as Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. I think that is the title. I am very conscious of the need to ensure that neither I nor any member of my party goes beyond what is thoroughly acceptable according to the precedents in your Lordships' House. Of course I consulted, as I should naturally do, to make quite sure that what I was doing was perfectly proper.
What has been alleged, in terms not central to the argument, if I may say so, but in terms of why we should not discuss it, is totally misplaced. Let us get down to the amendment itself, which I was entitled to bring forward and which I brought forward honestly as an attempt to do the best I could—not the best, but the best I could—with regard to helping the Government
1108
to achieve one of their objectives of saving money. I could not do the best because your Lordships had ruled it out on the basis of the information gained, partly by listening to the debate and partly by attending the races at another place. But at all events, your Lordships as a whole ruled it out and it was not possible therefore to repeat that process. I had therefore to rely on something much more modest, much less effective, but at all events of some effect, which any sensible Government in my view would welcome.
I now turn to what the Minister said with regard to the reasons he was not prepared to support the amendment. I thank him for the clarity with which he described the difference between this amendment and the previous one. First, we went back to this irrelevant arithmetic. Let me make it clear—because if a person of the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has not appreciated the point, it is quite obvious that I have not made the position clear—that what we are considering is comparing one budget with another budget so that the comparison will take place and people will choose which is the better expenditure rather than pile one upon another and reach intolerable levels of expenditure. So far as local authority expenditure at the moment is concerned, that is already done because within each local authority one has the finance committee and one has the compulsion to set one against the other before arriving at one's rate. Therefore any proportion of the local authority expenditure is irrelevant to our consideration.
What we are considering is what the Government have done under this Bill. Under the Bill they have said that, so far as the metropolitan counties are concerned, 90 per cent. of the expenditure of the metropolitan counties shall be dealt with by joint bodies, each one of which shall have its own precept, each one of which shall be its own master in its own house. Each committee composing the joint body believe that they are doing a good job and need this amount of money to give it effect. Of course they believe that. They are honest men trying to do their best, but incurring expenditure. All I am saying is that we should not have a system under which a series of bodies of honest citizens and councillors set up their respective budgets and each one has to be precepted on the lower tier. Let us have a system under which they are all looked at together in one forum. This is all the amendment does. It looks at it in one forum, the forum of the clause which already exists.
There is nothing new. There is no problem about timing, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I made it quite clear in my speech that there is no time limit put on the clause as it is. It could continue for a short time or a long time. There is no time limit put on the amendment. If the amendment is found to provide useful machinery, people will keep it going; if not, it will wither away. I think it will provide useful machinery. I believe that the Government are mistaken in thinking that the separate bodies will each consider what the others are doing and therefore limit their own expenditure. I think the noble Lord the Minister is thoroughly mistaken there. Each of these bodies will say, "We want this expenditure. We are doing a good job." I hope that the nod I see from another former Chief Secretary is a nod of approval,

1109
but I do not want to make too much of that. I believe in the amendment and I appeal to the Government to give it fair consideration.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 161.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Kissin, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Birkett, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Collison, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Mulley, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Scanlon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gifford, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacobson, L.

Walston, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kearton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brookes, L.

Allerton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Annaly, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Barber, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Bathurst, E.

Caccia, L.

Bauer, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Boardman, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

1110

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Chesham, L.

McFadzean, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cowley, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cox, B.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Crathorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Croft, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Digby, L.

Peel, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dudley, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Eccles, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Radnor, E.

EUenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reigate, L.

Ferrier, L.

Renton, L.

Forester, L.

Renwick, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodney, L.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gowrie, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Greenway, L.

Savile, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Sharpies, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Slim, V.

Harvington, L.

Stockton, E.

Hayter, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hemphill, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hood, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Ingrow, L.

Townshend, M.

Ironside, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Trumpington, B.

Keyes, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kilmany, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Kimball, L.

Vickers, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vinson, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Kitchener, E.

Windlesham, L.

Layton, L.

Wise, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wolfson, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wynford, L.

Loch, L.

Varborough, E.

Long, V.

Voung of Graffham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 137(4) of Principal Act.
After the words "rate of 2p" of section 137(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of a local authority in Greater London or a metropolitan county after the 1st April 1986, 4p".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in case the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, want to give another lecture about what is out of order, may I say right away that this amendment arises out of the need to clarify certain matters which were not resolved at an earlier stage of this Bill? This amendment stems directly from the unsatisfactory and incomplete nature of the exchanges at Report stage.
I had pointed out, in what I believe was admitted to be a moderate speech, that in the metropolitan areas and in London, the Bill can result in the curtailment of, and actual cuts in, local authority expenditure on fostering the local economy and sustaining employment. One is speaking in many cases of areas of high unemployment, having problems of urban decay which make the attracting of industry into those areas all the more difficult.
In that debate the Government spokesman, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, did not seem to realise that crucial parts of such expenditure are severely limited under the Local Government Act 1972, in Section 137. The noble Earl seemed to imply that the ending of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils meant that spending could be made up at will by the authorities which will continue to exist afterwards.
After those unsatisfactory exchanges, when the noble Earl failed to deal with the points I had raised, he sent to me a letter of apology. I shall deal with that letter in a moment.
I believe we can start on common ground. The Government agree that local authority activity in the area of sustaining the local economy and helping employment is a legitimate part of an authority's role. The Government are on record in that respect, in paragraph 10 of their 1982 White Paper. Secondly, the Government agree that significant parts of the spending are limited, by Section 137 of the 1972 Act, to the product of a 2p rate, and that at present, because we have a two-tier system in these areas, this becomes a 4p rate. After the abolition of one tier, the areas in question will be limited to only a 2p rate, as only a single tier will remain. One may therefore expect a possible cut in expenditure under this head following abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC.
In parenthesis, I may say—and I did not make this point at Report stage—that such an arrangement will put the areas affected at a great disadvantage compared with even the rural counties which, without the need for such expenditure in their towns, will have the benefit of a 4p rate; 2p by the county and 2p by the district. But areas of great need will be limited to the product of a 2p rate. Secondly, in parenthesis, I may point out that there is a grave disparity between what is happening in the urban areas of England compared with what is happening in Wales and Scotland. There the Welsh and Scottish development agencies have vast sums which can be spent in urban areas. In many cases this results in industry which would otherwise be attracted to the decaying urban areas of England being lured away to Scotland and Wales, where there is often a lower level of unemployment than now exists in urban areas of England.
Given that situation, what did the noble Earl the Minister say when he wrote his letter of apology? I shall take it in three parts, and then I will have completed what I have to say. The noble Earl said that the 1963 Act, concerning local authority land, and the 1978 Act, which deals with the inner urban areas, would leave a lot of room to expend beyond the limit of the 2p rate. That is not true at all, because those two Acts are limited to the provision of buildings and industrial premises, the acquisition of land, and help with the rental payments of factories. But many other things are done under Section 137. I shall give a list of a few of them.
In fact, Section 137 provides the only means of giving the following: special help towards industrial training—for example, in supporting the Government's ITeC initiative; help with export marketing schemes among the firms in the locality; support for the enterprise boards, which in many cases are doing a very fine job for the whole of the metropolitan areas; help to local enterprise trusts; loans to small businesses for start-up or for seed-bed activity; total promotion of the whole area to attract industry, which can be done only under Section 137; help to design and build factories; help to chambers of commerce; sponsorship of apprentices; and grants to students who are released from industry for training. Time limits me, but I could give a list as long as my arm of the things that cannot be done under the two Acts which the noble Lord seemed to think would be of such help. Those must be done under Section 137. So we are left with an area which might be cut following a fall from a 4p to a 2p rate.
The second point made by the noble Earl in his letter was that there might be room for an increase in spending under Section 137 by particular district authorities who at present do not spend up to a 2p rate and, therefore, can make up for the departure of their metropolitan council. But that depends on particular cases. Take, for example, the West Midlands. The total product of a 2p rate in that district is £8·5 million, and it is already spending quite a lot of that on a number of important projects. Expenditure by the metropolitan authority is £8·5 million; so it cannot spend enough to make up for the cancelling of that £8·5 million spending by the metropolitan authority. That is totally beyond the resources of a 2p rate, and it cannot be raised as a means of getting out of the problem.
The third point that the noble Earl made in his letter was that the Government insisted on waiting for the Widdicombe Report. I was to some extent in error in thinking that Widdicombe had not been asked to look at this issue, but I still feel that that was not the main issue the inquiry was being asked to look at but rather the issues of whether Section 137 is being used for much less desirable causes, such as party propaganda.
What can the Government do if they are not prepared to accept this amendment, which would reinstate the 4p rate? The first action the Government could take is to ask Widdicombe for an early report on this issue. Why not say that we do not want a gap between the ending of the metropolitan counties and the beginning of the new regime? While we are waiting for Widdicombe we could actually have a reduction in this very important part of local government

1113
expenditure. Certainly the gap would exist if, after Widdicombe, we had to wait for legislation as well. Therefore, why not ask the Widdicombe inquiry for an early report on this aspect of its study?
The second aspect, and my final point, is that the Government could examine special cases like the West Midlands, where I have given the example of the fact that the district councils cannot possibly make up, under Section 137, for the cancellation of the expenditure of their metropolitan parent. If there is to be a shortfall we can examine it now in the spending of those district authorities on their legitimate activities, and the Government can use their power under existing legislation to increase the 2p rate provision. The Government can, by order, increase this beyond 2p.
I move this amendment in order to try to get some clarification on an issue that was, admittedly, left unresolved at an earlier stage and in the hope that we can make some progress now. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise simply to say from the Labour Front Bench that we are very grateful for the case that has been made by my noble friend, and we certainly support all that has been said.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the amendment began by challenging me to raise the question as to its appropriateness under the Companion to the Standing Orders. I do not propose to bore your Lordships by repeating what I said on an earlier amendment, but for the sake of completeness I shall just say this. If the view which I ventured to put then to your Lordships as to the proper construction on page 99 of the Companion (which seemed to have some support among your Lordships) is right in respect of the earlier amendment, it is plainly even more right in respect of this amendment, which, I say with respect to your Lordships, seems to come nowhere near the terms of the Companion.
Having registered that opinion, I now say a word or two on the merits of the amendment. This is a most unfortunate amendment to move at this time. Many of us, as ratepayers, have been very angry at the use made, particularly by the GLC in London, of the powers under Section 137. As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, parenthetically admitted, the powers under this section are those which have been used for the deluge of propaganda about this Bill to which our fellow countrymen, and your Lordships, have been exposed. Ratepayers, whatever their views on this Bill or the policies of the Government, have had to pay substantial sums to support a political propaganda campaign carried out by the GLC with public money using the powers given to them by this section.
It has been a wholly one-sided operation because, in the curious way our constitution works, the Government of the day have no such funds available to put the other point of view by way of propaganda. We have therefore been exposed, and public opinion may well have been affected—even some of your Lordships may have been affected—by the outpourings of propaganda for the past two years, the main purpose of which has been to suggest that the
1114
GLC is wonderful and that it is terrible to lay hands on it. That this has been done under Section 137 is not a very persuasive point, at any rate to some of your Lordships, in favour of raising the poundage permitted. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will very firmly reject this amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the House whether he believes that the Section 137 provisions should be totally removed from local government or whether there should be some control on the expenditure under Section 137?—because they are two totally different concepts. The second suggestion would bear on what he said, but I wonder whether he believes that the Section 137 provisions should be removed totally from the hands of local government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not suggest in my speech, nor do I think, that the powers under Section 137 should be totally abolished. But I agree with what I think the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has in mind: that the abuse of these powers by certain authorities in recent years, particularly their use for purely party political propaganda, should be controlled and restricted.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I declare an interest in contributing briefly to the discussion on this amendment because from time to time I have given professional advice to the GLC about its powers. I rise only because of the importance of the amendment and not to trespass on that ground, except that I need to say, in reply to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that whatever the merits of the spending by the GLC and the metropolitan authorities on advertising, it has not been done under the section which we are discussing in the amendment. It has been done under Section 142 of the Local Government Act, which gives power to put out information. Therefore, whatever is said for or against that, it does not impinge on the debate on this amendment and should not be allowed to divert us.
In addition to the types of projects which my noble friend Lord Northfield mentioned, Section 137 has enormous value in the funding of projects and organisations which would not be within the normal powers of local authorities. The ones I particularly have in mind, from my own experience, are legal advice centres, law centres and various other kinds of advice agencies for people in our cities who are in desperate need of help of one kind or another. There are hundreds of such organisations funded by the GLC.
When abolition comes the boroughs will have to consider whether they can take on the funding of those organisations. They will now be met not only with the difficulty of their actual spending but with the fact that they will be legally restricted to the product of a 2p rate both to fund the projects which they are already funding—and some are spending up to that limit—and to fund projects which have been hitherto funded by the GLC. That will mean that some projects will go by the board because there will not be the legal powers to fund them; and that is wrong.

1115
I understand that in the original White Paper the Government said that they would consider whether to extend the range of the 2p rate to those councils, which, as my noble friend Lord Northfield said, will now be those areas which will have only one council, and I implore the Government if they cannot accept the amendment, to give a positive answer about what will be done about Section 137 powers in future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is quite correct in that the recent GLC funding has been through Section 142, but my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was correct that at an earlier stage Section 137 was used in a similar way. One of the reasons for the change was the council's advice from the noble Lord who declared the interest—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is a good thing to have a good lawyer, my Lords.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: True. However, my Lords, one thing I learned at County Hall was that if you want to spend money for political purposes, there are many different sections under which you can do it. We also seem to be using the National Health Act quite a lot to give grants to various projects, and so there is a wide choice of items.
I think the Section 137 situation is unsatisfactory as it stands. I do not think this amendment is the right answer because it would give everyone an extra 2p without any restrictions. I have said in this Chamber before that I thought there should be a ceiling on Section 137, because some small authorities which raise only a very small rate with the 1 p really need more money than they have available and others for which a 1p rate raises well over £1 million find that 2p gives them quite a large spending sum. So I think it is a section of the Local Government Act which requires attention, but I do not support this amendment because I do not think that this is the way to deal with it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in broad terms Section 137 allows a local authority to spend a sum of money equal to what it can raise from its ratepayers by a 2p rate for any purpose for which it has no specific authorisation but which is legal and which the authority considers would be for the benefit of its area and the people living in it. The exact calculation for any authority depends on its rateable value and its eligibility for block grant; but I do not need to trouble your Lordships with the precise details. At present both the boroughs and the GLC have this power in London and both the districts and the metropolitan county councils have this power in the metropolitan counties. Under this section the upper tier authority, whether it is the GLC or a metropolitan county council such as Merseyside, can spend on its own behalf an amount of money more or less equal to the total 2p rate product for all its constituent borough or district councils. In 1985–86 that amounts to £39·3 million for the GLC and, for example, £4·2 million for Merseyside and £7·4 million for Greater Manchester. We are speaking, may I remind your Lordships, not of the amount of
1116
money actually spent but of the amount of money for which there is a power to spend. That difference is a material and important one.
Noble Lords opposite have pointed out that removing the upper tier authority in any area halves the amount of money available for spending in that way. At this point we need to stop and remind ourselves of what the word "available" actually means. It does not mean that that money is painlessly and unnoticeably present in some convenient deposit account, which is topped up by a rich uncle. Section 137 does not supply the money; it merely authorises its expenditure. Whether it is spent by a district or borough council or the GLC or a metropolitan county council, it comes from one place and one place only, and that is the pockets of the ratepayers, supplemented by block grant.
Noble Lords are concerned about the reduction in power to spend, and so indeed are we, but we must remember who actually pays it out in the first place. I think your Lordships will agree that that requires us to be at least a little interested not only in how much of it is being spent, but also in what it is being spent on. After all, the process is one that noble Lords opposite wish to continue. Much of this money is spent on the voluntary sector. It goes to organisations of which your Lordships can thoroughly approve and which we clearly wish to continue.
I should like to clear up two points. First, Section 137 is neither the only nor even necessarily the most important power under which boroughs and districts can fund the voluntary sector if they so wish. There are also the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Housing and Homeless Persons Act 1977, the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, and an Act of the same title of 1969, to name only four.
This Bill will take the funding of even more voluntary organisations out of Section 137, because Clause 48 gives its own power to the boroughs to act collectively to fund organisations serving more than one borough. I refer your Lordships to Clause 48(11) on page 31, which reads:
"The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 137 of the principal Act".
Secondly, even for those local authority groups which have to be funded under Section 137 the likely call on the 2p rate will be substantially reduced by the arrangements I have already announced for assistance by central Government over the first four years of the new system. Where any borough or district council takes up funding of a single borough or single district scheme that has previously been supported by one of the abolished authorities, it will be able to claim back 75 per cent. grant funding in the first year, 50 per cent. in the second and third years, and 25 per cent. in the fourth and final year of the scheme. This of course is subject to the acceptability of individual projects for receiving public funds and to the overall limit of Government funds available. Your Lordships will know that we have set aside £40 million for that purpose over the four years. These grants will be paid under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969.
These payments of transitional grant by the Government to the boroughs and districts will have

1117
two important effects. The first effect, and the most obvious one, is that they will sharply reduce the cost to boroughs and districts in the early years of taking on the schemes from the defunct authorities. The other effect, which is no less important to our present consideration, is that the part of the expenditure by a local authority that is supported by our transitional grant is not included in the calculation of total expenditure for the purposes of the 2p limit. The Government grant will therefore sharply reduce the effect of the Section 137 ceiling on any individual council's programme. Taking on a programme worth £100,000 in the first year will thus cost the council only £25,000, or take up only £25,000 of the authorised amount to spend provided by Section 137.
Although we do not have complete information across the whole field, it is becoming clear that most boroughs and districts are at present spending well below their Section 137 ceilings. That is important because it means that there is unused capacity to spend in the authority and because Government transitional grant will minimise the amount of that capacity taken up by the expenditure inherited from the defunct authorities. But the authority to spend is not in itself enough. Quite obviously the councils must have the money as well as the power to spend it, and I have already pointed to where that money has to come from.
Your Lordships may ask how all this will look to the ratepayer. Even with our transitional aid it may well not look attractive. It might if the inherited expenditure had come from pockets otherwise untouched by abolition, but it will not. Rate demands in the abolition areas will be different next year from what they are this year, if only for the striking reason that neither the GLC nor the MCCs will be there to slap on them the substantial precept that they have hitherto had to carry.
Once again I remind your Lordships that the whole of the £40 million currently spent by the GLC under its Section 137 power has its origins in one place and one place only, which is the power of the GLC to precept and the duty of the ratepayer to pay. In terms of resources, therefore, the transfer of the obligations to support the voluntary sector from the GLC to the boroughs and from the MCCs to the districts is entirely neutral. Given the fact that boroughs and districts generally are at present spending less than the full amount that they are entitled to spend, given the availability of £40 million of Government money to help keep them below their Section 137 ceilings until the year 1989–90, and given that the expenditure under Clause 48 will not be covered by the Section 137 ceiling, I believe that both the means and the will exist to take on the funding of voluntary organisations after abolition day.
I am strengthened in that view by a further fact. A good deal of your Lordships' concern has focused not on the voluntary sector as such but on other activities dependent upon this source of cash, and in particular upon the enterprise boards set up by the upper-tier authorities. Your Lordships' interest was focused by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, took up the cause with his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
This is not the proper occasion to argue the merit of these boards. Some of your Lordships will in any case already be aware that they vary in their approach quite remarkably, and a comparison between the operation of the Greater London Enterprise Board, for instance, and that set up in West Yorkshire will point up what I mean. But the merits are not at the moment central to the issue. What is central to the issue is the fact that Section 137 is not, as has been suggested, the only source of funding for economic development. Other sources are available and they are, as it happens, already in use. That closely affects the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
For example, the statistics available to the department show that in the year 1984–85 local authorities spent over £100 million providing serviced industrial land and factory premises. Those are important and valuable contributions to economic development, almost none of which has been done under Section 137 powers. Instead the 1963 Land Act provides local authorities with wide powers to undertake those initiatives, and it is constrained by no such rate product as is set by Section 137.
Similarly, the 1978 Inner Urban Areas Act is available to urban programme designated authorities. All but a handful of those authorities are in the GLC or the metropolitan county areas. That Act provides a useful additional power to provide loans and grants to promote economic development and improve the economic infrastructure of an area: It also is unconstrained by a rate product limit. The valuable work already being carried out and supported by my department through the urban programme will continue, and I am glad to assure your Lordships that the districts and boroughs will be reallocated that part of the programme previously administered by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
With my noble friend Lord Gowrie I therefore think that the argument advanced by the noble Lord. Lord Northfield, that that effect of the Bill would he to reduce spending on economic development in the most decaying urban areas is not substantiated. The problems of unemployment will not be solved merely by the expenditure of vast amounts of public money. Local authorities can also perform just as valuable a role by ensuring that the right conditions are created in which private enterprise can flourish, by adopting a positive attitude towards planning applications for local economic development and by helping small firms.
There is another factor. Your Lordships will know of the committee of inquiry that has been set up under the chairmanship of Mr. David Widdicombe QC. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to that in his opening speech. That inquiry is not only into the possible political abuse of public spending, as he acknowledged and as my right honourable friend made quite clear in making the announcement. Its terms of reference are to seek wide clarification of the limits and conditions that govern those expenditure powers generally. I should certainly expect economic development activities to figure large in the committee's interests, and I do not think that we can properly now adjust the expenditure base of what it has just started to examine.
Political abuse is of course of concern, and we are all well aware of examples of it. Your Lordships will no doubt recall the venture of Islington Borough Council when it funded to the tune of over £200,000 a news co-operative to publish a free local newspaper. That was widely criticised, notably during your Lordships' debate on the Local Government (Expenditure Powers) Bill. After eight months the venture collapsed, leaving ratepayers with a debt reported to be £13,000.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for mentioning that example, because I raised the matter in the House. Will he join with me in expressing surprise that the Government Whips were used to defeat an amendment to precisely that Bill which would have stopped that expenditure in Islington?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am never surprised by anything that the Whips do; I have been in the House too long. As to the merits of that particular decision, I am afraid that I am not possessed of the background. But I am glad that the noble Lord shares my view of the abuse.
How many authorities have now declared themselves to be nuclear-free zones—whatever that means? Sheffield, Lambeth, Manchester and Newcastle, to name but a few, have done so. What it actually means is more ratepayers' money being spent on members and officers going to conferences of questionable merit both in this country and abroad and more propaganda through the letterbox. I think that this may be what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, meant by information. I do not know precisely what he meant.
It has come to my notice that South Yorkshire County Council local government affairs working party, which has a local government affairs officer, I understand, has with pride produced, in what I suppose the noble Lord would call the mode of information, a list of things which includes leaflets, pamphlets, consultants' books, newsheets, posters, placards, carrier bags, hats, videos, local and national press advertisements, displays at sporting events, barrage balloon, information bus, stickers, badges, beer mats, bus advertisements (internal and external), record, naming a locomotive, letters to companies, letters to voluntary groups, meetings with interest groups, cavalcades of public service vehicles, public notices, messages on buildings, the county CAT, draft resolutions for organisations, T-shirts and sweatshirts. That may be information but I am not sure that it is something that ought to be vying with the legitimate targets of voluntary organisations to spend on things which we would support.
We would clearly wish to be presented with a very persuasive case before we could agree to giving those authorities more scope for pursuing their expensive brand of politics. Of course by raising the Section 137 ceiling we give them a licence to do just that. I have therefore to tell the House that despite claims to the contrary the evidence is far from clear that there is an immediate general need to increase the maximum headroom available to the boroughs and districts after abolition. In practice, many are spending well below it.
1120
I have spoken long enough to make your Lordships realise that we would see this as being not only unnecessary but in some cases widening the door to an abuse which ought to be terminated.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I shall not enter into an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I simply disagree with him. If I paraphrase what he read out from the Companion to the Standing Orders, my amendment falls into order under two headings which he read out—the need to clarify something unresolved and the need to explore the effects of the Bill. He read those two out, and the amendment has clearly led to that sort of discussion and falls under both those headings.
Once again the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has answered the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, by going on to explain a great deal that has not been on the record before about the impact of the Bill on the local authorities. It needed to be done today, and I do not apologise for doing it.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, saddened me. It was simply a brief read out without any reference at all to what I said—none at all. I said, first of all, I was dealing with the industrial matters. He then read out most of what I had said again but failed then to comment on the issues that I had raised. I asked, for example, why not ask Widdicombe to report early on this issue so that we could see that there would be no gap between the ending of the metropolitan councils and the assumption of those duties by the district authorities. I secondly asked whether he would examine the case of bodies like the Midlands where the expenditure under Section 137 by the districts cannot possibly on the arithmetic make up for the ending of expenditure by the metropolitan councils. He did not do me the courtesy of answering either of those points. It is rather disgraceful that we raise important issues and all we get is a general brief read out on the whole issue.
The noble Lord went on to say that a lot of this is reprehensible. Let me again give him the figure. In the case of the West Midlands, £7·5 million out of the £8·5 million which it spends under Section 137 is spent on industrial promotion. What room is there for vast extravagance on the reprehensible things about which he was talking?
I feel bound to place on record my protest. We have a very good-tempered debate which is put in moderate terms and we get no answer. It is not right that we should just have briefs read out when we put specific questions and give specific figures which need an answer in this Chamber.
I shall not pursue the matter this evening because I do not think that it is right. Over the years we have had fights about Section 137. We have gradually convinced the Government of its usefulness. They switched horses on this issue in the early 1980s from utter opposition to acceptance. The best way to progress is by continuation of the gentle persuasion which has led to this amount of success so far. In those circumstances and with enormous regret that the issue has not been dealt with adequately this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, earlier in our proceedings Amendments Nos. 3 to 12, which were amendments to Amendment No. 2, were duly considered and disposed of. However, by an oversight, after Amendment No. 12 had not been moved the noble Lord on the Woolsack omitted to put the Question as to Amendment No. 2 as amended. I have therefore to put to your Lordships the Question, That Amendment No. 2, as amended by Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Development plans]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 21:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Residuary bodies]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 152, line 36, after ("shall") insert ("forthwith").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated the insertion of what is now paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 on 20th June. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook sought at that stage to insert into the paragraph a date by which the residuary bodies should report to the Secretary of State on the views of the successor authorities about the need for the residuary body to take over specialist teams. Where the residuary body has an indication that a successor authority is likely to wish to enter into an agreement, it must make a report to the Secretary of State. With the insertion proposed by this amendment, it must do so forthwith. I believe that that is a more effective injunction to act without delay than any particular date would be, and is free of some of the disadvantages, which I earlier outlined, of having a particular date. Your Lordships will not wish me to elaborate. I beg to move.
Lord Tranmire: My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the point of view of archives, but I should like to ask my noble friend three questions. I shall keep them short. First, I do not think this House has realised that some of the archives in Yorkshire are in fact the property of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. At the present time they are looked after by the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, and an amount of £20,000 a year is paid. I should like to ask what will happen to that agreement, which was made in 1976, after abolition date, and how far this particular amendment will affect that.
Secondly, I should like to ask: under this amendment, if one has a metropolitan district council that delays making a decision as to whether it wants to join in a joint authority, can it be included later on? I say that because the Calderdale District Council, which used to be a part of the constituency of the very energetic noble Lord, Lord Houghton, took nine years to reach a decision, from 1974 to 1983, before they
1122
joined our joint archives committee. I am afraid that as the residuary body has a life span of only five years it will be difficult to get them to join unless something is done about it.
Thirdly, there is this very short point. Can my noble friend give us some assurance that the residuary body will have on it members who have some knowledge of archives and archaeology? I think they are the only three points I want to make. If my noble friend can give that assurance, either now or in writing, I should be very grateful. I find at the present time, at this stage of the Bill, there is a great deal of concern among archivists. I think my noble friend has done a great deal to improve it and I think this new amendment will make a great deal of difference.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps, by your Lordships' leave, I may reply. Any formal agreement that exists at abolition will either pass to a successor by order or fall to the residuary body, because under the Bill contracts are treated as property.
As to the length of time it will take to come to a composition between the warring factions of different parts of the country, I hope that by adding a duty on the residuary body to bring those matters to a conclusion within five years we have added to the contentious formula with which local authorities have in the past had to deal the ingredient which will make five years sufficient, where eight years was an insufficient period before. After all, we are talking about a continuation, not a new concept.
As to the composition of the residuary bodies, they will of course have to have wide experience on many matters. I cannot undertake that every residuary body will have an archivist upon it, or an archaeologist. However, I can undertake that they will be the kind of people who will acquire the necessary expertise before they take decisions.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, on the matter of the single word "forthwith" in the amendment, it was of course a concern that there would be such a delay in the presentation of a report by the residuary body to the Secretary of State that the intentions might be nullified. I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendment. I appreciate his reasons for not wishing to insert a firm date in this context into the Bill. I believe that his amendment, which will require great promptitude, quite clearly, will have the desired effect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 152, line 38, leave out (", if in the light of the report he considers it expedient to do so,").
Page 152, line 40, at end insert ("unless he considers it inexpedient to do so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23 I beg leave to move also Amendment No. 24. These amendments follow on from the second part of the discussion we had on this paragraph on 20th June. My noble friend was then seeking, with Amendment No. 81 CBC, as it then was, to make more certain the process by which the Secretary of State carries into effect the report of the residuary body on the specialist teams to be

1123
transferred. The paragraph as redrafted states very clearly that the Secretary of State shall take the report of the residuary body into consideration and make such orders as he considers appropriate, unless he considers it inexpedient so to do. This is a change of emphasis, not of substance. But I believe it will be welcome to noble Lords who have expressed concerns on that matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 152, line 40, at end insert—
("(3A) Subject to sub-paragraph (3B) below, it shall be the function of a residuary body to provide professional or technical services to the joint authorities established by section 10 or Part IV of this Act in its area.
(3B) If a majority of the constituent councils in the area of a residuary body agree a scheme for the provision of professional and technical services to all of the joint authorities in that area, those constituent councils may submit that scheme to the Secretary of State and if he approves the scheme sub-paragraph (3A) above shall not have effect for the duration of the scheme.
(3C) The London Residuary Body shall provide any technical or professional services to the Inner London Education Authority on the application of that authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25 I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
Amendment No. 26: Page 152, line 45, leave out ("new authority").
Amendment No. 27: Page 152, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) In this paragraph "professional or technical services" includes administrative, financial, legal, personnel, scientific, computing, central purchasing, research, intelligence, information, library and archive services and acquisition, disposal, management and maintenance of property.").
Throughout the House of Lords' consideration of the Local Government Bill Peers from all sides of the House have argued for the retention of scientific and technical services at the county-wide level. Much of the case has been based on the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which stated at page 23, paragraph 75:
"There is an obvious case on the grounds of economy for replacing the multiplicity of joint authorities with a single joint authority in each metropolitan county and in London. If this were done, the combined authority would be an excellent employer of scientific services and would develop the scientific and technical links between functions which already exist".
The committee also went on to stress the importance of the effectiveness of the administration of London on preserving the integrity of many of its specialist services. While the committee considers scientific and technical services principally in relation to highways and traffic management, environmental health, waste disposal and information technology, the report also states that equally important subjects such as fire, police, housing, planning, museums and archives are not covered specifically, but the committee are confident that many of their conclusions are as relevant to those as to the cases studied.
The residuary body, which was not of course included in the Government's original proposals, has assumed a new importance at almost each stage of Parliament's consideration of the Bill. Increasingly, it has been seen as adopting a positive role in ensuring the continuation of the county council's principal services, acting as, in the Minister's words, a catalyst in
1124
the promotion of adequate joint arrangements between successor authorities. It has in fact become the longstop which could even take over services if the successor authorities cannot agree suitable arrangements by 31st March, 1986.
Services and groups that have already been mentioned in this context are: superannuation, debt administration, land reclamation, expert teams in highways and traffic management, computer facilities, county analysts, trading standards, archives and archaeology. Such a list, and indeed, the idea of so expanding the role of this quango, is an indictment of the Bill's fundamental assumption that the district councils and boroughs can and will co-operate on the provision of services that require a county-wide perspective or resource. It is also a clear indication of the unseemly haste with which the Bill has been progressed.
The considerable pressure that arose from concern about the future of specialist skills compelled the Government to introduce an amendment at Report which sought to satisfy some of the criticisms, not least those arising directly from the Select Committee. That amendment is now included within paragraph 8 of Schedule 12. It provides that a residuary body shall review the professional and technical services of the metropolitan county councils, ascertain from the successor authorities if they would wish the residuary body to continue to provide any of those services and, if any successor authorities so indicate, report to that effect to the Secretary of State. Having considered that report, if he considers it expedient, the Secretary of State makes an appropriate order.
I must say at this point that when the amendment was introduced on Report it was the kind of amendment with which it was very difficult to deal at that stage. In fact, we almost had a Committee stage in which we were jumping up and down asking questions of the noble Lord the Minister before he resumed his seat. It was extremely difficult, added to which the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, had an alternative amendment. The confusion became very great. I must say, quite frankly, that I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, really managed to get a fair hearing for her amendment because of the fact that it was, so to speak, an alternative. It was quite difficult in that atmosphere to be able to elucidate it completely.
In addition, the Government amendment placed on the Marshalled List on Tuesday had been changed by the Thursday. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I say it was Thursday, 20th June, rather than Gold Cup Day. That made it all extremely difficult. Reading through Hansard, one can see the real concern and worry of noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber in trying to grasp what was going on and at the same time seeing the various alternatives before them. The weakness of the provisions in the Government amendment, now part of the Bill in Schedule 12, is that there is still reliance on voluntary co-operation which all independent analysis suggests will not materialise. In consequence, we maintain that the provisions will lead to major uncertainty, will precipitate the break-up of county-wide specialist services, will lead to duplication of staff and resources, will not provide a common services authority, will

1125
leave open to question the definition of professional and technical services and will not establish a single authority as recommended by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It will also leave once again an enormous amount of discretion with the Secretary of State.
At Report stage, in addition to the amendment put down by the Government and explained as clearly as he possibly could by the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on behalf of the Select Committee, attempted to improve the Government's proposals by tabling amendments that sought to fix a date before which the residuary body should make a report and to remove an element of the discretionary power of the Secretary of State. The Minister has now tabled amendments that the House has accepted for Third Reading consideration that are presumably intended to deal with these issues. Frankly, I did not feel that I wanted to take the time of the House to argue the amendments, which seem to me a huddle of semantics rather than taking things very much forward in the Bill. None of them, in our view, is adequate.
Consequently, I felt it necessary to table this group of amendments which certainly strengthen the purpose which all of us, in odd ways, seem to be trying to achieve—the Minister in one way; the late, lamented amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in another, and now the amendment that I am bringing forward. I felt it necessary to table these amendments because there needs to be much greater certainty in the continuation of vital services that apply to the common servicing of joint authorities. Subparagraphs (3A) and (3B) of Amendment No. 25 provide that the residuary body will provide the professional and technical services to all the joint authorities unless a majority of district councils or boroughs have some alternative scheme which the Secretary of State agrees.
The initiative still lies with the councils and boroughs to come together. This is the Government's aim. It is their apparent belief that it will happen. At least that is what they always say in answer to any amendments such as this. The advantage of these amendments is that should the local authorities not come together, as indeed almost everyone fears they will not, there will still be the certainty of suitable joint servicing arrangements which is the objective that the Select Committee wanted. In view of the lateness of the hour and the amount that we have tried to get through, I shall rest my case there and beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, it is inevitable and logical that I should support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, there was an amendment down at Report stage on 20th June to which I spoke shortly but did not move. The amendment, as your Lordships know, was in the name of my noble friend Lord Plummer and of myself. My noble friend Lord Plummer much regrets that he is unable to be with us tonight. My noble friend the Minister, in many of his speeches, has talked of the key role of residuary bodies. This amendment does not challenge in any way Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of my noble friend. Indeed, we are very grateful for those amendments. We are very grateful to the
1126
Minister. I must confess, however, that we feel that the amendments do not go far enough.
This amendment does not challenge the principle of abolition. It deals only with the mechanics and the mechanism whereby the Government's policy can be delivered in a cost-effective way along with the smooth running and efficiency of the immediate implementation of the Bill.
A repeated claim has been made by Her Majesty's Government that this Bill will make local government more cost-effective. Frankly, the savings now talked about, when translated into rate precept terms, amount to the odd penny here and there. The purpose of the amendment, as I see it, is to achieve, even at this stage, maximum cost-effectiveness. Your Lordships have decided on a way of running London which encompasses a number of pan-London boards, bodies or committees; one for fire services, one for Civil Defence, another for waste disposal, and a residuary body which will be looking after certain technical and professional matters such as computer services or financial services and which will now be looking after a variety of highway matters.
As the Bill now stands, each successor body may, if it so desires, reach an agreement with the residuary body to provide those core technical and professional services. Those noble Lords who have experience of such things—and, one way or another, I suppose that every one of us has experience of the working of local government—will know, as I do, of the almost congenital desire of local government to build its own attendant bureaucracy. I do not believe that merely to say "they may" goes far enough. We do not need a proliferation of independent bureaucracies, each attached to a specific successor body. It must surely be cost-effective and more efficient that the successor bodies shall look to the residuary body for the provision of professional and technical services.
8 p.m.
It was during the debate on Amendment No. 15 that my noble friend the Minister (admittedly when dealing with another sphere altogether) spoke of enshrining in law, with the force of law, certain recommendations. I believe that the word "shall" should be enshrined in the Bill. We do not need each body to have its own computer services, its own financial services, its own scientific services, and so on. Why not have those concentrated in the residuary body, as is the case, and say to the successor bodies that they shall take such services from that body? To do this would in no way cut across the principles contained in the Bill. We shall still have all the successor bodies upon which your Lordships have decided, and we shall not have a series of separate supporting bureaucracies for each.
I shall cut short my speech as time is getting late, but perhaps the difference between my noble friend the Minister and myself is that my noble friend is an idealist. He expects people to co-operate and do things of their own free will. I regret to have to say that, having been a chief officer of a local authority and having worked in local government all these years, I am a realist. I think it would be nice to combine realism and idealism. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept this amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on having put down this amendment at this stage, if only because it has elicited that very remarkable speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, a speech which I believe she would have been able to utter if proceedings had been more favourable or more orderly at the previous stage. I feel very strongly that our procedures need looking at because the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, had a most unsatisfactory deal at that stage and today she has had the full opportunity to express her view, which she has done most eloquently.
I should like to hang my remarks on one function which is mentioned here; namely, the archival services. These have already been touched on in an earlier amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire. I should like to mention the archival services partly because I have been intimately concerned with an archival service and also because my name was attached to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, during an earlier stage in our proceedings. The amendment sought to ensure that the London-wide and county-wide archival services would remain and have a proper chance of remaining after abolition date. Unfortunately I was not able to take part in the proceedings, but of course I read what took place then. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister gave some kind of assurance that the residuary bodies would actively promote the provision of archival services on a London-wide or county-wide basis.
Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, cannot be here this evening, but I know he joins with me in asking the Minister categorically to repeat in more specific terms that assurance. I have to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, said, that the county archivists are most anxious about the future of their services. They are very anxious to be reassured by Her Majesty's Government about the role of the residuary bodies on their behalf. In other words, will the residuary bodies actively promote the establishment or the maintenance of these services?
That is the only technical service about which I am competent to talk. I know how anxious they are. All the other technical services must be equally anxious. Those are the requirements, and no doubt it is about that which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will speak. Frankly, the weakness of the amendment of the noble Lord the Minister, to which this is an amendment and, I think, an improvement, is that the noble Lord's amendment (which is now inserted in the Bill) has no requirement that there be agreement by a successor authority before it is serviced by the residuary body.
Unfortunately this is how it looks to the archivists and no doubt to all those people who have in mind these services which they believe will collapse or disintegrate. As soon as one successor body chooses to go it alone and provide its own specialist services, there are the seeds of decay, there is collapse staring them in the face. All these teams of excellence may find the whole organisation crumbling before there is time for the residuary body to step in and stop the rot. This is what they want to know. I gather that that is the
1128
purpose of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and it is that which has elicited the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. For that reason I very much recommend that this amendment be agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is true that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, Amendment No. 25 incorporates one of the options that was envisaged by your Lordships' Select Committee when its report was prepared. However, perhaps I may speak for myself for once and not for the Select Committee, and give a personal view. I believe that quite a lot of water has passed under bridges since then. My noble friend has made accommodations in Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24, which your Lordships have recently approved, and he has moved a very considerable way towards the wishes of the Select Committee, which I expressed in a previous debate.
I am now inclined to believe that the parliamentary exercise has, to some extent, represented a compromise but nonetheless is in some degree satisfactory. There has been useful constructive revision of the Bill following the suggestions of the Select Committee about which your Lordships have perhaps heard too much. I believe that in a short time the initiative will pass from Parliament to the arena of local government, and this will include teams of archivists and other professional teams who are concerned that their services, the importance of which has been fully recognised, should continue to be available to all ratepayers throughout the present metropolitan areas of England and throughout London.
The onus will lie on the successor authorities. These authorities will have a very clear obligation to apply their resources to constructive interactions with the residuary bodies and to get involved in a common attempt to identify and to preserve all these present professional and technical services that are threatened along with the abolished authorities. I believe that this must be stated very clearly and must now be the message that goes out to the professionals who are concerned about the continuation of their services. I believe that any metropolitan district council or London borough council that fails to participate in these exercises will do a disservice to its ratepayers.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, perhaps I may add a short paragraph to what has been said. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify this for me. I am not clear whether what we have been talking about here includes those bodies which come under the successor body to the metropolitan counties. Some of these may consist of technical services, or may contain technical services. I was a little worried about what my noble friend said on 13th June at col. 1380 of the Official Report when talking about the residuary body knocking on each council door and asking,
"Do you want any of the following services?"
My noble friend said:
"One of those services will be the trading standards services that we have mentioned".
If that is so, it would seem that this has been caught up indirectly in the independent services, and that would be highly undesirable.

1129
I am not clear whether the residuary body will make inquiries as to whether or not those arrangements will ensure co-ordinated and uniform trading standards services, taking account of the interests of all concerned and in particular the interests of consumers, traders and manufacturers, and the efficiency of the trading standards service as a whole. This could be caught up there.
The point is a simple one. I can sum it up by saying that the residuary body puts a question to the district council. The answer they get may be true or it may be false. If it is false, in that case the possibility of including a service will be foregone, it will slip away. The offer of the residuary body will have been declined and then nothing can be done about it. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the position. I am afraid it is rather a fast ball and that it has a sharp break at the end.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it may be a fast ball, but it seems to have been rather a slow over, judging by the expectations borne in on me about the rate of proceedings at the beginning of this debate. Perhaps I may begin by extracting, from what I planned to say, the undertakings I was asked to give and the repetitions I was asked to make. I am glad to repeat, as I have been asked to do by two noble Lords and by the Society of Archivists, the undertaking that if there is not a voluntary scheme at abolition day, the intention is that the archives shall be transferred to the residuary body but that the staff shall, for the time being, also be with the residuary body, and that the residuary body shall have a duty to find a permanent home for the archives and the staff before the expiry of five years. That is what I was asked to do, and I am glad to do it in terms.
I was also asked about trading standards. I was not certain that I got my noble friend right, and that was why I looked worried and why he was kind enough to repeat what he was saying. We accept the need for the districts to co-ordinate enforcement of trading standards, hence the joint committees in Schedule 7, paragraphs 15(4) and (5). These committees will also have a duty to co-ordinate preparations for the districts to take over trading standards functions.
If for some reason the joint committees are not able to sort out the arrangements for staff and property engaged on trading standards by the abolition date, the residuary bodies will be there to step in and take on the staff and the property until permanent arrangements are made. They will do this under Schedule 12(8). It was to that paragraph that most of your Lordships' concern was directed.
I do not want to extend proceedings unduly. I think your Lordships are aware of the provisions we now have in the Bill which are that the residuary body will have a duty to inquire of every successor authority whether they may wish the residuary body to provide for them an agreement under which they will look after the staff and the property necessary to discharge a function which is properly the function of the successor authority.
8.15 p.m.
That was what we were debating when my noble friend Lady Faithfull received what the noble Lord,
1130
Lord Henderson of Brompton, described as a poor deal. I always regret it if this happens to any of your Lordships. I suppose I should confess that I regret it slightly more if it happens to one of my noble friends than if it happens to somebody I cannot describe by that engaging term, but it is a term which I still extend to my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
I have just had a look at Hansard. We were engaged in a complicated but not a labyrinthine procedure, which we have managed with total success this afternoon. We were considering an amendment to which other amendments had been put. In that case there was an alternative to that amendment which took the form of my noble friend Lady Faithfull's amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who could not on that, or on this, occasion be present.
I suggested to your Lordships that we should decide the shape of my amendment before we decided whether it was preferable to the other. That appeared to be understood by everybody. My noble friend spoke for a column and a half, or perhaps a little more, of Hansard. I much regret if she did so under the impression that, having accepted my amendment, it would still be open to her to move her own. That I regret, but I am glad that she has now had the opportunity to speak because I had no wish whatsoever to silence her; or should I say that I would never confess to such a wish, or put it into operation?
We now come to the three amendments on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whose concern again focuses on the professional and technical services for which the Government provided added protection at the Report stage, and which we further strengthened just now with Amendments Nos. 22 to 24. In each of the cases addressed in the amendments the noble Baroness wishes to transfer functions to the residuary body which is, I remind your Lordships, to be a temporary body. I remind your Lordships also that the function of the residuary body is to wind up the affairs of the abolition bodies, and it is not to take on the affairs of the successor bodies.
The danger I see in what the noble Baroness proposes is that she makes it a duty on the residuary body to provide specific services. It is also, I understand, the intention that the residuary body alone shall be permitted to provide those services. We believe with conviction that the services which are to be provided to the successor authorities must be those services which those authorities themselves want. They are the clients.
It is no earthly use producing services when nobody wants them. They must therefore be produced at the behest of the consumer who, in most cases, will be the successor authorities we are speaking of, although they might be able to provide services elsewhere as well. What the noble Baroness proposes in her first two amendments would short-circuit that and pre-empt arrangements which the successor authorities could perfectly well voluntarily arrive at in the five years' interregnum provided by the residuary body.
I must briefly mention Amendment No. 27, because I find that quite extraordinary. It seeks to take the simple phrase "professional or technical services" and

1131
stretch it until, frankly, it breaks. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook welcomed our choice of phrase as usefully encompassing the range of activities that concerned the Select Committee, and was kind enough to suggest that we had reached an acceptable compromise. Like all such phrases, it is not absolutely exact, but I believe that what it would cover is generally understood, as is what it would not cover. What it most certainly would not cover is administrative services. This raises the prospect of the whole bureaucracy of the GLC and the MCCs being tipped into the residuary body and kept there.
The debates that we have had on the future of specialist services and technical expertise I believe have been among the most useful on this Bill. They have had a profound and continuing effect upon the drafting of part of it which we have, I hope, finally put to bed. I ask the House not to intrude on it further in a way which I simply cannot recommend your Lordships to accept.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather negative reply. On this amendment I was, as was the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, very much impressed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It is obviously difficult, and I appreciate her dilemma when one is arguing, even in the gracious and charming way she does, against one's own Government. One has to feel very strongly about something to do that. She also speaks from a vast experience and what she said about realism having to be mixed with idealism is absolutely right.
On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, if he will forgive me, is leaving things very much to faith and hopeful thinking. There is nothing wrong about that, but the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was rather more right than he was. After discussion on one of the reports of the Select Committee at one stage of this Bill, I heard him on radio talking about the substance of an amendment. But he also said that he was not a politician and did not understand that part of it. Therefore, if he will forgive my saying so, he is not really aware of how these things can go wrong, how they will not necessarily work and how the local bodies will not co-operate just because one hopes that they will. So on that side of the argument, I do not entirely go along with him.
The Minister said something that was interesting when he gave the firm undertaking on the archives. I believe I am right in thinking that he said that if there was not a voluntary scheme the archives would be transferred to a residuary body and at the end of the five years—I believe I am correct but perhaps the Minister will intervene if I am not—they would be found a permanent home if nothing else had arisen. I think that was the gist of what he said. Am I not right?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been kind enough to give way. If no scheme is arranged on abolition day and no other step is taken and no order made, then automatically because they are property the archives go to the residuary body. The residuary body then has a duty not only to look after them but also to see if anybody wishes an archive service. They will go to every constituent successor authority and ask
1132
them whether they wish the service. If they can get their act together immediately, which is the phrase we have been using lately, they will continue to look after them, continue to hold the staff and the staff will continue to be able to deliver the service which is a function of the constituent authorities. At the beginning of the five years the residuary body has a duty to see that it can get everything disposed of by the end of the five years. That is the duty about which the noble Baroness is inquiring and I can confirm that it exists.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for underlining and clarifying what I thought he meant. That is what Amendment No. 27 says, but what it does is to spell out the services. It was clear from the questions put to the Minister that people were not satisfied about having a general statement on archives, but picking out the particular services, if there had been anybody here who wanted to talk about libraries or other services, such as financial and personnel services. "Profession" is a much wider word than "technical": I know the Minister said that was stretching it to breaking point. I shall not argue about "administrative", although I should be prepared to say that "administrative" would come within the confines of "professionalism" because administrators are professional people. I do not think that I can accept that point, either.
The curious thing about all this is that what the Minister has said adds up to an acceptance of this amendment. It really does. He looks rather sceptical, but that is the brunt or thrust of what he has said. Because it goes against the grain of the Bill, although he has come so far, he still will not go that slight stage further. As we have said on a previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that is not necessarily the best that we can get but it is much nearer than anything we have had up to now. It meets the Government a great deal of the way and satisfies a great many Members of your Lordships' House and not just people sitting on the Benches behind me. In the circumstances, I intend to test the feeling of the House.
8.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Aylestone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Birk, B.

Falkland, V.

Bottomley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brockway, L.

Gallacher, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gifford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Collison, L.

Hacking, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Denington, B.

Hooson, L.

Diamond, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

1133

Jeger, B.

Rea, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kagan, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kennet, L.

Scanlon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Kissin, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Thurso, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Oram, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Parry, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kilmany, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Barber, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bathurst, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bauer, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brocket, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookes, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Chelwood, L.

Molson, L.

Chesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Naime, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Norwich, Bp.

Cox, B.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Peel, E.

Craigton, L.

Pender, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crathorne, L.

Radnor, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Croft, L.

Redesdale, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Digby, L.

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrier, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gowrie, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Greenway, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vickers, B.

Hooper, B.

Vinson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Ingrow, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Ironside, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wolfson, L.

Keyes, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.35 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in moving that further proceedings after Third Reading on the Local Government Bill be now adjourned, I would say that we will not return for further proceedings on this Bill until 9.30 p.m. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill
8.36 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister and all in your Lordships' House who have supported this Bill and helped it on its way through your Lordships' House. It has been difficult for some people to understand the aspects of the mental health issues. Medically, some individual females may be born physically normal but in comparison with other girls they may seem different by having parts of their anatomy which seem wrong, and, due to this, unless corrected, they may become seriously depressed, thus interfering with their well-being.
In British law this must be made clear. I should like to pay tribute to the groups and individuals involved in trying to tackle the detrimental practice of female circumcision by abolishing it. The BBC documentary film brought this issue to the fore, illustrating the real horror of what goes on when girls and young women are mutilated in such a way. This debases women and brings a serious risk to their health. Such a custom can be compared to the practice of burning widows, as has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger.
Having read a recent issue of Sister Links sent to me by Mrs. Stella Efua Graham, a campaigner for the Foundation of Women's Health, Research and Development, I feel there is no doubt that female circumcision can be a ritual. If any noble Lord disagrees, perhaps he will read the article, "Building bridges across cultures". It is clear that female circumcision violates medical ethics and I agree with other campaigners that medical staff should be forbidden to carry out such operations. This Bill makes it clear that no one should undertake such operations.
I hope that this Bill, when enacted, will totally eradicate the practice in Britain and I also hope that it will help to stimulate other countries who admire British law to take a stronger line in prohibiting the practice. I hope that all who can will help promote a wider health education programme for all who need it, so that this barbaric custom is wiped away and the ignorant are enlightened so that they see the folly and the cruelty which result from female circumcision.
I hope that our discussions throughout the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House will have encouraged the Government to be generous in their

1135
grants for education. This legislation needs an educational programme to speed up the freedom for females who might in future suffer from the indignity, pain and danger of being circumcised. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Masham of Mon.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Baroness who has sponsored this Bill and who has spoken in moving the Third Reading. I am sad that she has, as it were, changed sides since the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was before this House last year. I recognise her sincerity in doing so and I know that her main purpose in sponsoring this Bill in this House has involved really a choice of options, perhaps a choice of evils, and that she considered that it was more important to get any Bill outlawing female circumcision on the statute book rather than to get a Bill which could not be considered to have any overtones of racial discrimination. I think she is wrong and I think she has been deluded by the Government, who have in fact used a form of blackmail in getting the Bill pushed through this House—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, she is being deluded at this moment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Yes, my Lords, by the Government. I believe, as I say, that, although sincere, she has been deluded by the Government by a process of blackmail in which the Government have said, quite insincerely and with a good deal of misleading, that they wanted the Bill on the statute book at all costs. They did not. The Government could have had this Bill on the statute book 12 months ago, outlawing female circumcision. The Government would only accept a Bill which was drafted in the form they desired and they would only accept a Bill which was drafted in the form which this House rejected when the Government put down their amendment and were defeated on it last year. I am referring to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
I believe too that the noble Baroness has been misled in the quotation that she has given this evening, because the same lady she quoted is also, I think, the chairman—if not, certainly an officer—of the London Black Women's Action Project, which declared this Bill to be discriminatory on racial grounds.
I sympathise with the noble Baroness and I again assure her, for what must be the eighth or ninth time, that there is nobody in this House who does not want to outlaw female circumcision for this country. However, it seems to me that because of the pressure of the Government the Bill of the noble Baroness is going to damage the prospects of that transition which we all want to see from the acceptance of female circumcision among certain small ethnic minorities in this country to a condition in which those same ethnic minorities reject female circumcision. I believe that this Bill is going to make the task of those who are trying to lead their own people away from the cruel practice of female circumcision very much more difficult; and they have said so themselves.
1136
While sympathising with the motives of the noble Baroness, I cannot say I have any sympathy whatever for the actions of the Government in this matter. In the first place, if the Government really wanted to outlaw female circumcision from this country, why did they not introduce a Bill themselves? They have had six years to do so and they have not made a single move. All they have done is to kill last year's Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. To say that they are determined to outlaw female circumcision is just hypocritical.
What is more, when the Government heard from their own statutory body—set up in order to make sure that racial discrimination is not practised in any part of the law in this country—that it considered this Bill to be discriminatory, why did the Government take no action either to discuss it with the commission or to amend the Bill so that the discriminatory clause was changed? They have taken no action. All they have done is to obstruct those of us (and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kennet), who have tried to improve the Bill by removing the discriminatory clause.
8.45 p.m.
Let me quote from what the Commission for Racial Equality has said, so that it is on the record. On 6th February 1985 the commission wrote:
"The 1985 version of the Bill unfortunately uses a form of words in clause 2(2) which the Commission has already described as likely to be discriminatory in effect and undesirable in principle. Those words are: 'In determining for the purposes of this section whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a person, no account shall be taken of the effect on that person of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual'".
The commission goes on to say this:
"The reason for concern is as follows: a doctor, when assessing mental health as justifying the performance of an otherwise prohibited operation, will normally base his judgment on the patient's state of mind as he finds it. To suggest that some reasons for that state of mind may be acceptable and others, broadly confined to those which might affect persons of African origin or descent, are not, is in the Commission's view discriminatory and therefore to be avoided".
I have asked and asked whether the Government have discussed this clause of the Bill with their own Commission for Racial Equality. I have yet to receive an answer. And what is more, the commission itself is exposing the whole of the case which we have made, not against the Bill or the intention of the Bill but against what is certain to be the practice of the Bill. And again I return to the issue of those brave men and women—because although they are mainly women there are also some men—among the ethnic communities who are trying to lead their people away from the practice of female circumcision. They have said—and they were quoted at Committee stage and Report stage—that this clause of the Bill will make their task of education so much more difficult.
Therefore I want to ask the noble Baroness, who I assume is going to speak for the Government, two questions. The first is: have the Government yet, even at this late stage, consulted with the Commission for Racial Equality? If so, what is the Government's answer to the expert opinion the commission has given? Secondly, have the Government yet consulted, as they have been asked to do on three occasions during the passage of this Bill, with the London Black

1137
Women's Action Project? We are all depending on the leaders of that body to do the educational work which we all agree is necessary as an accompaniment to this Bill.
Have they, in fact, taken any cognisance of the dangers to which some of us have drawn their attention: that the intentions of this Bill can be obstructed by the inclusion of this clause, which makes that educational process so much more difficult and which will, as we know it already has done, provide a focus of argument on racial discrimination rather than what I know the noble Baroness who has moved the Third Reading wishes; namely, a focus of education leading these people away, as she said, from acceptance of the practice of female circumcision? This can be, and I believe is, a fatal flaw in the Bill. The Government have so far during the various stages of this Bill given me no answer to either of these questions. This is the last chance which we have to get the Government's answer, and I hope that we shall get one tonight. So far the Government spokesmen and spokeswomen appear to have been insensitive and supercilious whenever this issue has been raised.
Finally I return to the fact that the Bill could have been improved. As the letter which I have quoted from the Commission for Racial Equality points out, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was in consultation with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. He put foward an accepted alternative phrasing for this clause, accepted by the obstetricians and gynaecologists. The phrase, I believe—and he will correct me if I am wrong—is that no operation should be performed which is likely to be detrimental to the physical health of the patient. If that does not protect the present form of acceptable operations, then what does? This would have done away with the whole of the racial smear of using the phrase "ritual and custom". I believe that I am the only Member of either House to have lived in the middle of a society where female circumcision is practised, and has been practised regularly, as a part of the culture of that society. I therefore know personally something of the mental and emotional tensions which it raises. I do not wish those mental and emotional tensions to be exacerbated by the smear that this Parliament is passing a Bill which discriminates on grounds of race among the citizens of this country.
I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply will give us some kind of satisfaction even at this late stage, on Third Reading. Whether or not she does, I can assure her and the Government that we shall return to this issue after the Bill is passed. We shall want monitoring to take place; and we shall want to know what is happening to those on whom the Bill depends—those women who are trying desperately now to lead their own people away from this ancient practice and who say themselves that Clause 2(2) in the Bill will make their task so much more difficult.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I do not intend to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. We have discussed his speech at all the stages of this Bill. I should like to extend my congratulations to the honourable Lady in another place, Mrs. Roe. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the noble Baroness—and perhaps I may bend the conventions of the House and say the noble and gallant
1138
Baroness—Lady Masham of Eton, who has put a tremendous amount of time and work into this Bill. Without detracting in any way from my admiration of those two ladies, I think we should not forget the credit which is due to my noble friend Lord Kennet. It was he who first alerted Parliament to this problem. It is ironic, and to me very distressing, that he is not wholly happy with the Bill which is now passing into law. I hope that when the dust has settled, and when a little time has passed, he will be able to feel the satisfaction which I think he ought to feel that his initiative has finally borne fruit.
There will be more hope of his coming to that happy condition if the Bill works in practice. This brings me naturally to the second of my three points. We must demand that the department monitor the action of this Bill when it is an Act. One is not allowed to put down Starred Questions more than a certain distance ahead, but it would not be a bad idea for somebody to note in their diary to put one down in, say, two years' time. Along with monitoring, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, says—and here I agree with him—must go counselling; and that must not fail for lack of funds. The people affected by the Bill must be helped both to understand and to implement it.
My third and last point is procedural. I should like fully to support the protest made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, at the Report stage concerning the manner of the voting on what was then Amendment No. 1. Your Lordships may remember that we had had a discussion and a debate, and the maddening thing for me is that I think we had won the argument. By "we" I mean the people on whose side I found myself in that debate. I think we had in fact won the argument. I do not expect the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Kennet, to agree with that.
The matter was then put to the vote and the bells rang, and, just like some Pavlovian experiment there trooped into the Chamber, as it were, a conditioned pack of about 100 undoubtedly noble Lords who, up to that moment, had been innocently consuming their dinner with their minds on other things. A few of my colleagues asked, "How do I vote?" I said, "If you have not listened to the argument the best thing you can do is not to vote at all." But no such advice was given to people who came in by the other door. Although this massive overkill vote came down on the side on which I had been arguing, I really felt rather sick. At this point I have to admit that there was a practical difficulty. I am not sure whether in the Chamber we had a quorum for a Division. I do not know the answer to this dilemma, but, surely, on a totally non-party Private Member's Bill there must be a better way of doing things.
I conclude, therefore, by asking the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whether perhaps she would bring this matter to the attention of her noble friend the Leader of the House, because I think this is a question which the Procedure Committee might find time to consider.
9 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like every noble Lord or noble Baroness who has spoken at any stage of the Bill, I most strongly support the principle of forbidding this practice which is manifestly cruel and leads to long-

1139
lasting psychological and physical damage to the health of millions of women. However, I must add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in regretting most strongly that the Government have stuck so rigidly to their use of the words "custom" and "ritual" which the Commission for Racial Equality has found objectionable and which diminishes this Bill in the eyes of some of the very people that it is designed to help. I still do not think that it would have been impossible to devise a form of words which would have satisfied all parties.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has said, the Commission for Racial Equality is there to advise the Government. If the Government had not been so hidebound and so insistent on having their form of words incorporated in the Bill as they seem to have been, and if they had showed some greater sensitivity, they might, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has suggested, have arranged for their legal advisers and drafting experts to meet and discuss the issue with the Commission for Racial Equality. I still remain puzzled as to why this meeting never took place. It was not due to any objections on the part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. With this proviso, and it is not a small one, I support the main purposes of the Bill and I wish it well.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on having steered the Bill through the House with such care and hard work. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, says that he thinks he is the only one in the House who has lived among people who practise this. He is wrong; I and my husband lived for many years among them. One of my reasons for wanting the Bill to become law is that when we lived there one of my African women friends, a nurse, was very distressed that when she was at work she had to leave her two small children—one a daughter—with her mother. She was terrified that her mother would have her small daughter circumcised. The mother very much did not want that to happen because she had such problems herself. She brought up the subject; I did not. I should also say that the African women speak only to women about these matters unless they have to go to a doctor. The other reason is that when the Bill becomes law, I hope that it will save children a great deal of pain, suffering and infections—infections which can be with them all their lives.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, though I speak from the Front Bench I must make it clear to the House that I speak in a personal capacity. I welcome this Bill and I wish it well. I hope that it will be implemented at the earliest possible moment. I am particularly interested that this Bill is passing through your Lordships' House at the end of the United Nations Decade for Women. I think that it will go out from this House that we have made one tangible contribution to the emancipation of women during this decade which has not produced all the results that we would wish.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has brought this problem to the attention of your Lordships on several occasions. He deserves a great deal of credit for the thought and consideration that has been given to this legislation. We appreciate the
1140
work of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the experience which the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has brought from her own knowledge of this situation.
As I remember it, the interest in this issue began when there was evidence in the Observer and the Sunday Times and a film on television about the growing prevalence of female circumcision in this country. Many people here had thought that it was something that happened in distant lands and in distant cultures. But we were confronted with evidence that this was happening in this country. I must say that none of the evidence which was brought forward in the press and on television was refuted by those who were accused of involving people in this ritual. In trying to make this bill practical, we have faced some difficulty in making clear the difference between the act of wilful mutilation and legitimate medical operations. I do not know how we assess this. I am not sure that we have it totally right; but we have tried to get it right. The most important point that I hope will come out of the Bill is the necessity for health education in this country among our ethnic minorities who come from cultures where this practice is endemic.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I read out a short passage, because I do want to get this correctly on the record, from the proceedings of Standing Committee C of another place for 3rd April. The junior Minister said:
"Under the Section 64 grants procedure we are prepared to accept applications from any organisations for funding to cover such activities. There is a wide range of volunteer organisations which help in this context. To the best of my knowledge—I am not clear about this but I do not see wiser and clearer heads shaking in disagreement—we have not had applications for financial help from women's groups or aid groups of this type. But if we receive such applications and they are well founded and have serious intent and a serious plan behind them, I assure the honourable Member for Barking that my department will consider as sympathetically as possible funding for educational help of that nature".
I quote that because I very much hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this evening that that is still the Government policy as it is very important in trying to put into practice the legislation we are proposing to pass tonight.
I should like to ask the Minister and the noble Baroness who is responsible for the Bill one or two questions. I am worried, as are some of my noble friends, about how this legislation will be policed. How are we going to find out whether it is being respected? I have looked at the Department of Health and Social Security Office of Population Censuses and Surveys where I find there are records of circumcision operations. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether they will follow up these statistics. If there is suddenly an enormous increase in the number of operations—particularly under Clause 2(2)—then we ought to worry about whether we have managed to get this Bill right.
With those reservations, and with the reservation I share with some of my noble friends concerning the semantics of Clause 2(2), I wish this Bill well. I wish that we had been able to find a form of words that everybody could have been happy about. However, at this stage in the Bill the best that we can all achieve is to agree that it shall now pass and wish it well, but with the proviso that the Government will monitor what happens as a result of this Bill and report on that aspect to the House.

1141
Tonight, we are making a statement not only for this country and for what is happening in the United Kingdom. As a former representative on the Status of Women Commission to the United Nations, I know that there are brave men and women all over the world who are looking to us to support them in the efforts that they are making to stamp out this terrible practice in their own countries. They want to be absolutely sure that we will not allow such a practice in our country. It is in that spirit that I hope this Bill will now pass.
9.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the way in which she has steered this Bill through your Lordships' House. Is this really "a process of blackmail", to quote the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby? Rubbish! Of course the Government—and I speak as a member of that Government—want this Bill to go through. But we want a Bill that contains effective legislation that will place beyond all doubt that female circumcision is illegal in this country.
In giving this Bill a Third Reading today we are meeting a strongly-expressed public desire from all parts of the community. The Bill has the support of the medical profession and of many national and international women's groups, several of them within the African communities in this country.
Incidentally, to correct the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, Mrs. Graham has no present links with the London Black Women's Health Action Project. Forward, the organisation of which Mrs. Graham is director, is a warm supporter of this Bill. In a letter dated 27th June, Mrs. Graham stated:
"This is to inform you that we have met with officials of the DHSS and have discussed in more detail Forward's proposal on a campaign for the eradication of sexual mutilation in the United Kingdom. I shall be attending"—
and this is interesting on a wider basis—
"the Women's Decade Conference in Nairobi in July, where there will be a major workshop on the sexual mutilation of African girls. I hope to report to the Inter-Africa Committee on Detrimental Traditional Practices, who are organising the workshop, on the development of the campaign in the United Kingdom.
"As you know, at the last workshop, which was held in the Sudan in October 1984, they specifically sent letters of appeal to African Governments as well as to Her Majesty's Government to take effective measures to prevent the mutilation of healthy girls. At the Report stage of the Bill, Lord Kennet said that the London Black Women's Health Action Project requested a delay in legislation, to allow time for education in communities directly affected by the Bill. I should like to suggest that a delay of this kind, coupled with the intense awareness by parents of the Government's intending legislation, would force mothers to get their girls circumcised before the Bill became an Act of Parliament. This happened in Egypt and led to the death of many girls".
The letter is signed, "Stella Efua Graham".
I have no intention of replying to all the various remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch; we have walked that dreary path so many times. If the noble Lord really is in favour of the objects of this Bill, why can he not rejoice that his work, the work of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and indeed the work of us all, is so near to fruition?
1142
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked two questions. He asked, first, whether the Government have consulted the Commission for Racial Equality. We have carefully considered their views—as have, I understand, the sponsors of the Bill. We believe, as we have made clear at length in debate and in correspondence, that the commission's fears are utterly misplaced. We have informed them of that. We have found no other way than the Bill as drafted of securing effective legislation. Nor has the Commission made any positive response.
The noble Lord's second question concerned the London Black Women's Health Action Project. The noble Lord is quite mistaken if he believes that that organisation is the only organisation, or even the major organisation, concerned. Forward, which has been quoted at earlier stages of the Bill, has worked on this matter for several years, and warmly supports the Bill. The criticisms by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, can only be described as sour, carping and unconstructive. I think they will be seen as such on all sides of your Lordships' House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred to education, and I entirely agree with her. That has been a constant thread in all the discussions on the Bill; that legislation of itself is not sufficient to eradicate the practice of female circumcision. It has been a custom in some communities for many hundreds of years. What is necessary is a programme of counselling and education, and that is why I am pleased that officials in the department have been discussing with various voluntary organisations applications for assistance with such a necessary programme.
We hope also that other organisations who have been vocal in their support for legislation will now be able to turn their hands and support towards other aspects of the campaign to eradicate this repugnant practice. Clearly there has already been a considerable amount of good work done in this field. Our hope is to see that intensified and we believe that the passage of this Bill will give that an impetus and a focus.
9.15 p.m.
As regards the vote to which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred, it is not for me to comment. However, I make just two remarks. First, it is the luck of the draw as to how many noble Lords are in the House at any given time. Secondly, I do not believe that it was a fake vote. It is not very difficult to make up one's mind, whether one is in the Chamber or not, as to whether one is in favour of female circumcision or against it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, mentioned policing of circumcision records. The statistics to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred are not for female circumcision as such. They are legitimate medical procedures on the same part of the anatomy. There is no policing of that now and no evidence that any is, or will be, necessary. It would be very difficult to monitor—and I am talking slightly off the top of my head—because in the past, when the legal position has not been clear, no cases have been brought before the courts in order to decide this matter from a legal point of view. That is in one way the reason we have the Bill. I believe that monitoring would be an extremely

1143
difficult exercise. However, I can say that my department will look into it.
Once again, I congratulate the supporters of the Bill. I am sorry that this measure had to have any note of sourness in the debate, but I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have sat down.
Lord Hatch of Lusby:—may I ask two questions? I gathered, by implication, that the answer to the second question is, no, that the Government have not consulted the London Black Women's Action Project. But in the case of the first question, on whether the Government have consulted their own statutory body, the Commission for Racial Equality, the noble Baroness seemed to slide away from it. The noble Baroness said that the Government had observed and considered its findings, but I asked whether the Government had consulted the commission after it had passed its judgment; or are the Government just saying, "We know better than our own statutory body set up to examine racial discrimination"? Have the Government consulted that commission? Can we have a straightforward answer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I gave an answer. If one disagrees with something, one produces something else instead. As I said earlier, the commission has never made any positive response to the position put to it by the Government.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may join my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in congratulating the two sponsors of the present Bill—Mrs. Roe, who is at the Bar of the House now, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in this House—on all the immense amount of work, in very difficult circumstances, which they have put into the Bill. If I may speak on behalf of the "sour" faction, our quarrel is in no way with either of the two sponsors of this Private Member's Bill.
I had hoped not to speak at this stage on the Bill, but what the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said about the recent vote on the last stage of the Bill makes it necessary that I should. I should like to put on record, very briefly and as objectively as I can, that some years ago a handful of Members of both Houses of Parliament thought that it would be a good plan to clarify the law by making it beyond doubt that female circumcision is illegal in this country. When the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists saw the first Bill to do this they thought that the Bill would restrict in certain ways their freedom to carry out normal and medically desirable operations. Whether they were right or not, I do not know. The Government thought they were right and therefore very sensibly drafted an amendment to the Bill to relieve the Royal College of that doubt. They prepared something to put it right. This was the point at which the Commission for Racial Equality said that the
1144
proposed Government amendment was racially discriminatory.
There are no two ways about it. This is the statutory adviser of the Government and Parliament has endowed it with certain executive functions under the law. It is a powerful and respected body which gave that opinion and which has held to it throughout. Despite that, the Government put the matter to a vote in this House and the House rejected the amendment, almost entirely of course because of the opinion of the Commission for Racial Equality. That was the first time the dining room vote was brought in, and it was a very close vote indeed.
The Bill then passed unamended to the House of Commons where the Government killed it under the increasingly criticised Friday morning procedure —commonly known as "The Slaughter of The Innocents"—by which a Government Whip, speaking from a seated position, calls out the one word "Object", which kills the Bill without any discussion.
A new Bill was then introduced, again it was a Private Member's Bill, which contained the text of the rejected amendment. By this time the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, by natural developments, had a new president. A meeting was held at which the new president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the legal adviser of the Commission for Racial Equality, together with representatives of the BMA and the GMC and two or three other royal colleges and the friends of the Bill considered a new form of words proposed by the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which in the opinion of all those present, would have preserved the rightful medical freedom of the obstetricians while at the same time removing the form of words and the legal root which had been attacked by the Commission for Racial Equality as discriminatory.
This new amendment was conveyed to the Government in a spirit of hope by all those bodies concerned. However, at this point the Government evidently took a decision because from that moment they refused to discuss the matter with anybody—not with their own advisers, nor the professional medical organisations and scientific organisations, nor those behind the scenes who were doubtful about the content of the Bill. Above all, they did not meet the representatives of the black communities concerned who will have the trouble of adapting themselves to this Bill.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists at that stage showed that they were open to any new form of words which preserved their freedoms, and when the Government asked them if the existing Bill satisfactorily preserved their freedoms, they said, "yes". Of course they were quite right. The implication is that racial discrimination is not a matter with which obstetricians should concern themselves. It would be a chaotic world if they did. That concerns the Commission for Racial Equality. The Commission for Racial Equality remained unsatisfied and so did the principal organisation of the principal ethnic minority concerned by the Bill.
We then came to the last stage of the Bill in this House, which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, described

1145
with such eloquence—in my view justified eloquence—when the Bill was rammed through on a kind of hearsay Government Whip, despite the fact that the enormous majority of those who voted knew nothing whatever about the matter. Just now the noble Baroness astonished me and the whole House, I think, by making a disgraceful statement. She said that it was not necessary for those in the dining room to have heard the debate, because anybody could make up their mind whether they were for or against female circumcision. That statement implies that those in the House who voted for the amendment as it was at that time were and are in favour of female circumcision. That is what she thinks the vote was about. If I misinterpret her, I shall willingly yield to rectification. She thinks that that vote was between those who were in favour of and those who were against female circumcision. I think that in default of further clarification from the noble Baroness I can only say that if that is what she thought, I am not surprised that this is the way that the Government have gone on throughout.
Baroness Trumpington: I must say, my Lords, that I have had my doubts about the noble Lord's carryings on during the Bill.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness has had her doubts about my carryings on during the Bill. Her assertion rests that in her belief the Division at Report stage was between those in favour of female circumcision who were defeated and those against it who won an amendment. In other words, those of us who took up this matter some years before the Government got round to it and have worked on it for some years with a great deal of professional and charitable skill behind us have been throughout in favour of female circumcision. I think the country, and I hope the press, will note her statement with interest.
The Bill goes forth and we all wish it to become a successful Act and to do good and not harm. It would he wrong to pass over even at this stage the Lord Chancellor's opinion, which he gave this House before the whole matter began, that female circumcision is now and always has been illegal under existing law, but he did not object to the attempt to clarify the position. So that stands, for whatever value it has.
I must say that I think the degree of sensitivity shown by the Government in the history of this Bill cannot fill one with hope about the capacity of the Government or at least of the present ministerial and legal team at the DHSS to handle the much more difficult matter of in vitro fertilisation which will be coming before Parliament quite soon. If that is the kind of thing that they think about female circumcision, God help us when it comes to IVF!
Having said all that, I am at one with the promoters of the Bill, as are all my friends who are doubters on this side of the House, in hoping that it succeeds in ending the practice and does not generate the ill effects which some have feared it may.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about this. I, too, have lived in Africa, though not for as long as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch,
1146
or the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. As I mentioned to the noble Lord when he kindly drew my attention to his film at the beginning, I was interested because of what I had previously seen overseas. I should like also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. On these matters she has always been completely independent. She and I in the other House had struggles over legislation. I am glad to see that she continues to support the female side.
We should not have got anywhere at all had we relied on men to give us any position in the world. We had to fight for the right to vote even. Many of us would not be in the House today had we not fought. What we want to do now is to encourage black women to carry on—I shall not say the fight, but there are very good reasons for wanting to help females in other countries and in this country. I pay tribute to black women. It is never easy to go against the customs of one's country, but they are very plucky. I hope they succeed. They are far better placed to take action than we are. For that reason I am very pleased that we are to have this Bill.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, again. He has been very generous in his remarks, and I know what a bitter disappointment it was for him at the beginning. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for taking over this Bill. Here again we have to have women to fight for women. I wish her every success with the Bill and hope that it will really succeed in the end. I think that it will bring a lot of happiness to many people.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wonder whether I may help the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I think she has done herself far less than justice and has put herself into an impossible position. That vote about which I spoke, which I raised as a procedural matter, was on this amendment:
"Page 2, line 16, leave out from ('any') to the end of line 18 and insert ('non-medical factors')".
It was not for or against female circumcision, and she knows it was not. would she not like to say something else to put this matter straight?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, I really do not think I would. The whole point is that the argument went on and on over every small matter concerned with this Bill, when all we really wanted was a straight Bill to outlaw female circumcision. I stand to be open to correction but it seemed to me that noble Lords from the Alliance Benches had got themselves into such an infernal mess over their ideas of having a time-lag, changing Clause 2, that they were really risking the Bill. It seemed to me that their obsession with changing the wording had overcome their desire for the actual Bill. If I am wrong, I am sorry, but that is my own personal feeling.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I know we were kept waiting an hour by the previous Bill, having been told that we would be on at about half-past seven; and I apologise for this. I do not apologise to certain noble Lords for keeping them waiting for one more minute while I thank all those people who have spent

1147
many hours over this very serious problem of trying to prohibit female circumcision. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who spent many hours inside and outside the House over this matter. I should like to thank all those people who have helped this Bill through your Lordships' House.
I want to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in answer to what he said to me, to try to explain to him what I really feel. What I feel is that female circumcision, which is female mutilation, is discriminating in itself. It discriminates against the freedom of women who know no better, and therefore it is discriminating against women. Therefore the people who have been really direct in this present piece of legislation and have not wavered at all are the women.
It is the midwives who generally perform female circumcision, and they do it for money. I hope very
1148
much that the prison sentence and the fine in this Bill will stop them even thinking of doing it. I hope that the press will give some publicity to the Bill so that everybody knows that it is clearly not allowed and that that message will go down to the people it involves. I should like to say that it has been a very great pleasure being associated with and working with the honourable Member, Mrs. Roe. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government (Access to Information) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government Bill
9.34 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
We are reaching the end of a long and arduous process. Your Lordships have heard from me very frequently already. You will not wish to hear from me twice on this debate. I shall therefore listen with great attention to your Lordships' views and reply to them at the end of the debate. At this stage, I merely beg formally to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Elton.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, what on earth does one say about a Bill such as this? It is more than a Bill. It has become almost a way of life for many of us. We seem to have lived here on this Bill for a great length of time now. It is, however, nice to be able to say something nice about it. That is really about the Minister, not about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has really done a quite remarkable job. He was thrown in at the deep end and came to Environment to deal with something like this, and did so with great confidence and extremely good humour and patience. He has always been very quick to his feet with the right words to say—well, right from his point of view. He always put it over extremely well and was always courteous to everyone.
However, the Bill leaves this House in an atmosphere of concern: concern at the future of services to the community which it is the function of local government to provide; concern at the extent of ministerial interference in local affairs; concern at the heavy price that ratepayers will have to pay; and indeed concern for the future stability of local government, not only in London and the metropolitan areas but in the country as a whole. Your Lordships have exposed the Bill for what it is. It is a spiteful measure, I am afraid, conceived in a fit of political pique with no regard for the consequences to the services provided by the doomed authorities nor for the 18 million people whom it will directly affect.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said in a speech in Newcastle in January last year:
"If this were an arts issue primarily, there would be no question of abolition of this tier of local government".
So clearly, for the noble Earl, the arts are an innocent and unexpected victim of this Bill. There are many more victims, such as voluntary organisations, the efficiency of the police forces, about which the chief constables and Ministers have expressed fears, and the consumer protection service, about which the retail trade is worried.
The Bill, when it came to this House, was a miserable damage-limitation exercise by the Government desperately trying to reduce the disastrous effects of abolition upon essential services. Your Lordships knew it and said so. The Select Committee unequivocally opposed the break-up of highways and waste disposal functions. Your Lordships echoed that concern by amending the Bill to retain those services at county level.
1150
That same Select Committee was concerned to see that centres of excellence, slowly and painstakingly built up by the seven authorities, were not destroyed at a stroke. The Government and your Lordships agreed, with a catalogue of late amendments to the Bill, put in at Report and even at Third Reading today, seeking to give some teeth to the inelegantly named residuary bodies. Those bodies are now, as a result of a Government amendment, agreed only 12 days ago, under a duty to review what professional and technical services it is desirable to maintain after abolition.
Yet despite these welcome changes there remain too many sacrificial lambs on the altar of that crude manifesto commitment. Are we really to believe that the police, fire, civil defence, transport and waste disposal services are to be better served by being taken out of direct democratic control and made subject to direction from Whitehall for three years on the amount that they should spend and the numbers they should employ? Is the planning of London going to be better with 33 strategic planning authorities instead of one? Is this the way to treat a great capital city?
Is the retail trade in Greater Manchester going to be happier with 10 different enforcing authorities for trading standards rather than one? Are the voluntary organisations in London going to feel more secure having to lobby at least 22 different boroughs in order to get a grant? Are they not going to feel that their energies would be better spent giving the help to those in need which they thought they were set up to provide? Why should the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra have to go with a begging bowl to five different authorities on Merseyside in order to recoup the shortfall which the Arts Council has confirmed will arise from this Bill when it said that without significantly more finance it could not run the South Bank?
Why have we had to spend so much time debating the future management of Hampstead Heath? Why are we having to wrestle with the problem of the administration of magistrates' courts in outer London? I am sure that no one realises that one of the many ramifications of this Bill would create chaos in the magistrates' courts of outer London, where I happen to be a JP. Both my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and I have received representations from the four commission areas covering 20 London boroughs. The GLC is now the paying authority. The Bill will replace one paying authority with 20. Changes in the administration of justice should not be a mere fall-out from the Government's political determination to get rid of the GLC.
One remarkable feature of the debates on this Bill has been the amount of criticism from the Bishops' Benches. Although the Government may choose to belittle the objections from this side of the House on the ground: "Well, they would, wouldn't they?", the concern of the right reverend Prelates who have spoken, and indeed put their names to amendments, has been for the people who live in the deprived inner cities and who will surely suffer as a result of this irresponsible measure.
From the Government's own supporters we have heard criticism about the Bill's proposals for housing

1151
in London, the police, archives, trading standards, road traffic, waste disposal, the voluntary organisations, land use planning, and so on. There are many other services. Although the Divisions may not always have gone against the Government, either because of laudable party loyalties or the votes of the silent majority, there has been surprisingly little vocal support from the Benches opposite apart, of course, from the three musketeers and their leading lady!
The Government's propaganda for this Bill, which was the White Paper entitled Streamlining the Cities, talked about removing an unnecessary and wasteful tier of local government in the conurbations. Unnecessary, my Lords? This Bill creates in the metropolitan counties five separate, non-elected county-wide bodies spending between them around 90 per cent. of what the elected county councils currently spend. In London some 60 per cent. of gross revenue expenditure passes from elected to non-elected London-wide bodies. Wasteful, my Lords? Does anyone seriously believe that this hotchpotch of arrangements will save money? At the risk of giving Coopers and Lybrand yet more publicity, we have heard on countless occasions that they found no basis for the Government's claims for savings, and indeed estimate significant extra costs. The Government have been very soft-voiced and have walked on tip-toe regarding the question of costs for some time now.
The progress of the Bill through the House has seen the Government's hopes for savings further reduced by their provision of extra funding for voluntary organisations, by pulling out of the taxpayers' hat £20 million at the last count in the face of pressure from their own Benches. It is a significant sum sufficient to ensure a Government victory when we debated the voluntary organisations. Streamlining, my Lords? That was part of the purpose of the exercise. Not a word have we heard about that from the Government recently. That is hardly surprising. The Bill is splitting services presently managed by seven authorities among 69 boroughs and districts, 26 joint boards, seven residuary bodies, seven co-ordinating committees (or perhaps I should say "subordinating" for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter), six trading standards joint committees, five Government departments, at least 11 Government quangos ranging from the Arts Council to the Thames Water Authority, and any number of shire counties and districts which will pick up a number of the pieces.
9.45 p.m.
Should your Lordships agree tonight that this Bill do now pass, I ask that it is passed to the other place with three clear reminders. First, it is the duty of Parliament to enact legislation which is clear to those who implement it and clear to those who are at the receiving end. Clarity is a property singularly absent from this Bill, and yet clarity is a property of legislation which this House must promote and defend, if the citizen is to know where he stands.
Secondly, any power which this Bill puts into the hands of the present Secretary of State is available to
1152
any future Secretary of State. This Bill enables the Secretary of State to decide how little, or how much, the 26 new joint boards should spend. It enables him to direct how few, or how many, people they should employ. It enables him retrospectively to control the lawful activities of local authorities. It is a law described by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones in Committee as a "monstrous piece of unconstitutional retrospective legislation".
Thirdly, let the other place be in no doubt that the major changes which have been made by your Lordships to the provisions relating to highways, traffic, waste disposal and professional and technical services were the result of the informed views of your Lordships' distinguished Select Committee on the problems for these vital services if the Bill were left unrevised.
The Bill is the least worthy, the least respectable, the most ill-thought-out piece of legislation that I have ever seen—either in Government or in Opposition—presented to this Chamber. I have seen, I must say, in both capacities some pretty bad Bills. Its retrospective element, its unprecedented number of new central Government powers, may be in keeping with the rest of its contents, but they do nothing to promote confidence in the future for local government, and assuredly they do nothing to enhance the reputation of Parliament nor of this House as the warning voice against the abuse of power by covetous Governments. Sadly, my Lords, this Bill contains nothing for anyone to be proud of, despite the valiant and long fought out efforts of many Members of this House.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we are being asked tonight to pass a Bill which has not been supported by any of the independent or professional bodies, and one which gives a major increase in central Government control over local government. It is a Bill which has not set out any coherent framework for a new system of local government in London or the metropolitan counties, or for the transition to it from the existing system.
The 1972 Act required a review of the working of that Act within 10 to 15 years. That option has not been taken up by the Government. The Layfield Committee has reported on local government finance, and that has been ignored, even though finance is linked with the structure functions and the accountability of local government. The Audit Commission was set up specifically to study the issues of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and yet it has not been asked to undertake an examination of either the existing or the proposed structures.
The original White Paper was greeted with hostility by those who were to be affected by it and with concern by those who were unclear as to the nature of the reorganisation or the effects that it would have on services. There were many calls for an inquiry, all of which were ignored by the Government. The Government have been totally unable to indicate any prospect of real savings without cuts in services, and instead of returning services to a single tier of local government, the districts, we now have several layers. We have county-wide joint boards, we have joint

1153
committees, we have the residuary bodies—all of them under increased control by the Secretary of State.
When the Bill came to this House we were told that some 67 per cent. of expenditure would have passed to the joint authorities. The amendments that have been made in this House since then have increased that figure to almost 90 per cent., and those amendments were based on the evidence of the only parliamentary body that has examined the issues of abolition in detail, which was your Lordships' own Select Committee. I fear that if the Government believe that the changes they are proposing are logical, there will be more pressure in regard to changes in the shire counties.
Indeed, in an article only last Friday in the Municipal Journal it is alleged that there is a proposal to abolish 333 non-metropolitan district councils and create an enlarged county tier of local government and that that is under consideration by Ministers in the Department of the Environment. The article goes on to allege that a paper has been prepared by officials considering the likely problems of administering London post-GLC which suggests merging some authorities to create larger administrative units, with a third of the 33 London boroughs being absorbed into neighbouring authorities. Then ILEA could be abolished and education returned to individual boroughs and the Government could then look at the non-metropolitan areas where it is proposed that the district functions should be transferred upwards to the shire counties. If this is so, as stated in the article, why rush into this Bill at this time? Why not consider reorganisation of local government as a whole after implementing the review specifically allowed for in the 1972 Act?
One of the greatest weaknesses of this Bill is the financial aspect of abolition in budget preparation and in precepting. Each of the four joint authorities in the metropolitan areas will issue its own precept to the districts. Each joint authority will establish its own arrangements for the precept. Each rating authority will have to collect and transmit four precepts, and collect its own rate and a separate levy for the residuary body and the probation service. Pity the poor ratepayer who will receive at least five local authority rates or precepts, plus a water rate and often a town or a parish precept. The "met" districts will have to wait for the delivery of four precepts for their funding.
The timescale for the implementation ignores all the practical problems that are involved in reorganisation on this scale. For most of the authorities concerned the first meetings after Royal Assent will be in September and yet by November the joint authorities are supposed to submit their establishment schemes to the Department of the Environment. I do not believe it can be done; 18 months was too short a time at the last reorganisation to do it properly.
It is a cheap Bill and it is a cynical Bill which has rejected the democratic processes. It enshrines the principle that local services should not be controlled by directly-elected authorities. It has fragmented the structure of local government in London and the metropolitan counties.
1154
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has maintained his good humour, his courtesy and his consideration throughout the long days of argument and discussion. I pay tribute to him for the skilful way in which he handled the Bill at very short notice, but I believe he will come to regret the part he has had to play in guiding the Bill through this House. I believe, with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it is ill-conceived and ill-thought out. It has been used to try to find modest economies in public expenditure. It has shown little respect for democratic procedure, and the savings, if there ever were any, will not be achieved, due to the costs of all the quangos. It is all being done against much too tight a timetable, with no proper safeguards for strategic planning across the board. The democratic structure of the British constitution has been very severely weakened by what is proposed in this Bill. Any future Government will be faced with yet another major upheaval in local government. Local government cannot be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion and I believe that the Government may well live to rue the day when they set out on this course of disruption and destruction.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down and by leave of the House, perhaps I may say that she made one assertion which, if I did not reply to it now, I think I would encourage your Lordships to believe it to be true. I have no hesitation in telling the noble Baroness that she can glean no truth whatsoever from the article that she quoted from the Municipal Journal and that the document that she fears is not circulating within the Department of the Environment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we are now near the end of a long series of debates on this Bill which, whatever else they have shown, have shown that your Lordships' House is a lively and sometimes pugnacious place. But I should like to begin by echoing the words of both noble Baronesses who have just spoken in paying tribute to my noble friend the Minister. We recall that he was posted—and I think that one of the noble Baronesses used the inelegant expression, "pitchforked"—into his present position just before the Bill began owing to the regretted and regrettable illness of his predecessor to whom I think at this moment your Lordships would like to extend their sympathy.
My noble friend Lord Elton has really conducted this Bill with quite consummate skill, judgment, tact and charm and has had in mind the fact which commentators outside appear still to be unaware of: that there is no built-in Government majority in this House, and that Ministers conducting a controversial Bill have to work their passage and earn their support by the arguments they adduce. If my noble friend will allow me to say so, I think that not only your Lordships on this side of the House but the whole House have very greatly admired the process.
Perhaps I may also say, speaking from this position, how much I have admired the way the noble Baroness, Baroness Birk, has conducted the opposition. I know

1155
from my own experience the difficulties of opposition when you have very little technical support, very little of the assets by way of briefing and officials that Ministers have. Yet the noble Baroness has never been failing in her attacks on the Bill which retained, even this evening, her usual vigour and willingness to attack. I may also say to her how much when she has really been caught out, as she has been once or twice, she has endeared herself to us by the really delightful smile that she has given by which she has acknowledged that. I should like to say that hers has been also a consummate performance which has reflected great credit on this House.
We are near the end and the last thing that your Lordships would wish is for me to recapitulate the arguments on this Bill. Indeed, I cannot help recalling the remarks of some historian who wrote, "This is all that is known, and more than is known, about the Britain of the 5th century". Probably what has been said here is more than is known on this subject. We have been over it again and again, and whatever else we have done we have not very often succeeded in convincing each other. The Bill has now reached this late stage. It will very soon—I would guess perhaps in the course of the current month—be the law of the land and in those circumstances I should like to make an appeal. I know that many of your Lordships feel that a mistake has been made. The noble Baroness said this. I know equally that many of my noble friends think that a sensible improvement is being made in the structure of local government and that the case for two-tier authorities in the metropolitan areas and in London is a bad one and that the new system will be more efficient and economical.
History, in due course will prove which of us is right; but we have to go through what is always the very difficult period of transition. So far, we have been subjected to an unprecedented publicity campaign, professionally managed, technically efficient, and press advertising with extremely well-drafted advertisements. I must say in parenthesis that I had great sympathy with one recent advertisement in a newspaper by the Merseyside County Council, which began with the moving words, "We are not the GLC". I could not help feeling some sympathy with Merseyside in that they had been moved to put in those emotive words, but my sympathy was perhaps a little diminished when I saw the figures of the amount of their ratepayers' money they had spent on publicity.
10 p.m.
All that has been going on, within the law but perhaps not wholly within the spirit in which local government has been conducted in the past. However, I express the hope that now that Parliament has all but spoken, that will stop, and it will no longer be thought right to use public money to support publicity campaigns against what very soon indeed will be the law of the land.
We have had the utmost freedom of expression and of criticism while the matter has been going through Parliament. But I appeal, not only to noble Lords opposite but also to people outside, to accept now that these changes are going to happen and that those who
1156
are really concerned with the public interest will want to make sure that they happen in the best possible way. Indeed, those of your Lordships who think that what is being done is a mistake, that errors are being made and that damage will be done, have perhaps more reason than those of us who think that this is the right thing to do to try to mitigate what they think are these ill-effects by securing that the transition is as smooth as any transition can be.
Those of us with some experience of administration know well that there are always growing pains and minor crises when one has transfers of power of this sort. We have seen this in recent years, have we not, in what used to be the overseas colonial empire? We have also seen it in the reorganisations of local government. There will be hitches and difficulties and there may even be hardships, but surely it must be the wish of all of us that these shall be as small and as harmless as possible and that we should seek, whatever our views on the merits of what is being done, to make the change take place as painlessly as possible and with the least possible damage to individuals.
That brings me to my second appeal. It has been pointed out—it was even pointed out earlier today—that the outgoing local authorities, or some of them, and some of the trade unions who represent their staffs have been still refusing discussions and cooperation with the Government and with the incoming authorities over the problems of transition and the personal problems of those whose jobs are being changed. Now that we have reached this stage, surely there is no justification whatsoever for continuing that attitude.
If one is concerned, as most of your Lordships are—I certainly am—with the wellbeing of staffs and of people, including indeed one of our own colleagues, whose own position is being drastically changed by these reforms or developments, surely we want to see to it that these things happen with the least ill-effects and the least unfairness or injury to individuals. One cannot wish for that without doing all one can to secure that proper sensible discussions take place in advance. We are now only nine months from D-day. There is none too much time for the discussions which should result in individuals being fitted into their proper vacancies or being properly compensated if they cannot be so fitted in.
I beg noble Lords, particularly noble Lords opposite, to use their influence, which is great, with the local authorities concerned, and perhaps even more with the trade unions concerned, to suggest to them that they have fought and fought hard for their point of view but that they have lost and that now it is their duty to try to make the change and the transition work as well as possible. I do not ask any noble Lords or any of those outside who are concerned to abandon their conviction that what is to be done is a mistake. That in a free country is their entitlement. But I ask them as people with some responsibility for the well-being of their fellow citizens to try to use their influence so that helpful, sensible discussions shall take place and so that what they regard as the evils of this transition shall at least be minimised. I hope that we can send the Bill to another place with that request as the unanimous expression of view in this House.
I hope and trust that the very great changes which we have made—and I do not minimise them in the slightest—will work towards what all of us in your Lordships' House want to see, the well-being and happiness of about a third of the population in our country who are affected. We wish to see them benefit and prosper from these changes, and therefore surely we wish to see these changes take place in the most helpful, practical and sensible way possible.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I join very readily with the most deserved compliments which the previous speakers have paid to the Minister and to my noble friend Baroness Birk for their conduct of the business of this Bill. But when my noble friend Baroness Bi raises the question of whether we can say anything nice about the Bill, I find it more difficult. At the court of King George III there was a particularly spiteful diarist who once committed to paper his opinion of the appearance of one of the ladies of the court. He gave it as his judgment that "the first bloom of her ugliness was wearing off". I am wondering whether one can say that about this Bill.
It is, I think, true that in this House we have made—and we have reason to compliment ourselves—a number of improvements to the Bill. I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. His speech, now that the battle is over, was one of conciliation, such as the victorious are always most likely to preach. But if he wants an attitude of conciliation and of calm, all I can say is that I hope the Government will not, by the automatic use of a docile majority in another place, proceed to undo the improvements we have made here. If they do that, it will not be asking for any conciliatory attitude from anybody else.
While I am referring to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I must say that when he describes to us how the Minister does not have any in-built majority to rely on, but has to do it all by sheer logic and by the conversion of those on his Benches to the merits of the argument, I can only implore him, in the cockney phrase, to "come off it", because it really was not like that at all. We all saw, and we were quite pleased to see, because a new face is always welcome, a number of persons turning up who voted the way the Government wanted. But I am very doubtful indeed that they were all of them so completely convinced by the argument.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I did not note any absentees from the noble Lord's side.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, no speech from anybody on this side would be complete without an interruption from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. As I was saying, I think one could just pay the Bill the compliment paid by the diarist of King George III's time. But it remains a very unsavoury picture at the end.
The Government began by trying to do the impossible. They said that they were going to abolish the upper-tier authorities. They were going to be cut to pieces and their functions distributed to the lower-tier bodies. So they set to work on paper. They cut them up. They then found that a number of the functions cannot be cut up in that fashion; that the police, the
1158
waste disposal, the fire service, the trading standards and a number of others, cannot be cut up in that way. So they then proceeded, having cut something up, to try to stitch it together again by the device of joint boards.
We are now told that we are no longer to have two-tier government in the metropolitan regions. The trouble is that what we now have is a one-and-three-quarter-tier government, which is probably as clumsy an arrangement as one could have. It is not a single-tier arrangement; it is an arrangement in London of borough councils, and elsewhere of district councils. Then on top of those, covering the metropolitan areas, are the joint boards. This is failing to do one thing that was claimed for the Bill. It is not making local government more democratic; it is not bringing it nearer to the people. In ordinary local government elections the man or woman who stands for election knows what the powers and duties of the authority are and what he or she will be responsible for if elected. In the situation we are going to have now, you will know, if you stand as a borough council candidate in London or a district council candidate in the other regions, that you will be a member of that council, but you will not know on to what joint boards you will be put. The public will find it very difficult to say at any moment who is responsible for the way in which a particular function is run in the area in which they live. It may be the district council or the borough council; it may be one of these boards.
The financial situation that will result was brought to the attention of all of us very strikingly indeed by the important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, earlier this evening. What is the situation? Let us take it in London. I use the example of London because it is most familiar to me, but it applies similarly to the others. A London borough has to set to work and fix its rate. It has to do that, knowing that several bodies are going to precept on it and that the persons on those bodies—about one-thirtieth part of them—will be members of its own council. The others will be from other councils. The councillor cannot control what will be the decision of the joint body on which he sits.
It is in that situation that the various London boroughs have to frame their rates. There is no means of knowing that the rate they want for their direct needs and the various precepts piled on them by the joint boards will add up to a burden which they can reasonably present to their ratepayers as a whole. That case has been put and has not been answered by the Minister tonight, nor earlier. That knocks a hole in another of the claims that was made for this Bill—that it was going to be a Bill to bring about savings.
At no time have the Government seriously challenged the conclusions of Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand on this matter. Whenever we have had references to savings, they have been references to cutting away, by the Greater London Council, expenditure of a kind of which the party opposite disapproves. I think that we should grasp this: compelling your political opponents to give up spending money in a way of which you disapprove may be something which you are entitled to do if you win, if you are victorious, but it is not of course a saving. It is not the process of getting a given result in

1159
a more economical manner. At no point have the Government been able to show any real economies or any real saving of money, as distinct from cutting services or from preventing their opponents from doing what they want to do. So on the claim that it is more democratic and on the claim that it is more economical, this Bill falls down.
10.15 p.m.
We find also that when one tries to reform local government one usually studies the matter very carefully in advance. That was done 20 years ago, when we had the Herbert Report which preceded the London Government Act 1963. One usually has a proper, detailed, scholarly study. On tries to secure as much support as one can from the general public and expert bodies.
What has been done in this case? The only serious study has been, as was pointed out by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, not at all comparable with that of the Herbert Committee. There has been no serious study of the problems of local government in London or elsewhere as a prelude to this Bill.
We have, it is true, a document entitled Streamlining the Cities. I may say in passing that this was a propagandist document, paid for by the taxpayer, and it ought to have caused great horror among some noble Lords opposite. There is no doubt that that is what it was. That document was paid for by the taxpayer and it was a propagandist document. I do not complain, because one must have that kind of thing in government from time to time. However, I do not see why, when the metropolitan authorities reply out of their funds with propaganda, noble Lords opposite get so worked up about it.
So we had the document Streamlining the Cities, but there was precious little study of local government in it. There was merely an explanation of the fact that the Tory Party had given a pledge to abolish the metropolitan tier and was going to go ahead with doing that, no matter what happened. So there was no proper study in advance and expert support at all. This was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
None of the expert bodies which might have been interested in this matter—whether the subject was town planning, medicine, agriculture, or trade and industry—came down definitely in support of the Bill. Nearly all of them came down against it. A few were persuaded to modify their hostility after the Government had been as placatory as possible, often at quite considerable cost to the taxpayer on the way. Not that I complain about that, either. But there was no positive wave of support from expert opinion in favour of the Bill.
Nor was there any volume of popular support. Here I fear that the party opposite must have been greatly disappointed. Nobody doubts, of course, that Mr. Kenneth Livingstone conducted his propaganda in a highly flamboyant manner. He gave noble Lords opposite the impression that his methods would be extremely unpopular and that they would have a jolly easy job of showing how little Londoners wanted him. Noble Lords opposite have learned over the past few
1160
months that few people have done more than they have to increase Mr. Livingstone's popularity with the electorate of London. It serves them right.
The Bill, then, had no proper study in advance. It had no technical, expert support. It had no popular support. How has a Bill of that kind managed to get as far as it has? What was the driving force behind it? We all know perfectly well. We all know why the metropolitan authorities are being got rid of. It is not because they are wasteful, even if that charge could be proved—which it has not been. It is not because their structure is particularly untidy, because it is a good deal tidier than the structure which this Bill provides for the local government of the metropolitan areas. The metropolitan counties and the GLC are being abolished because they have Labour majorities. We all know that perfectly well. I hope that no one will question it.
If I may use another historical quotation, it is reported of Disraeli—and whether it is history or legend I do not know—that he once said about Mr. Gladstone:
"I do not mind him having the ace of trumps up his sleeve. What I resent is his supposition that God put it there".
In the same way I shall not particularly mind noble Lords opposite carrying through a Bill which is a straight piece of partisan stuff abolishing local authorities which have had the bad taste to have Labour majorities more often than not. What I do object to is seeing that disguised as a very thin pretence of being a magnificent structure of efficient and orderly local government, when nothing in the Bill justifies that claim.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I suppose that I am one of the very few on these Benches who have been cheered by the Labour Party because of my views on the Greater London Council and the establishment of the metropolitan boroughs. When my party brought in the Greater London Council and the metropolitan boroughs I thought it was a mistake. I thought it was a move in the wrong direction, and so did the Labour Party. The Labour Party voted against it and argued against it with the same vehemence that it is now using in order to preserve it. It was right then and it is wrong now. However, I remember the cheers I received when that party thought I was right when I happened to agree with it.
In response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, I always remember having the view that one of the main reasons that the Labour Party was against the establishment of this extra tier of government was that it thought that they would not have Labour majorities. The history of county councils showed that they always seemed to bring Conservative majorities against the smaller local authorities. The Labour Party's enthusiasm in those days to prevent the metropolitan counties being set up was as narrow and as partisan as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in an aside, seemed to suggest is the case now in a different respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was the agent against me in 11 elections in Peterborough. She was a good agent and it took a bit of winning against the noble Baroness. There was a recount in 1950; a

1161
recount in 1951; seven recounts in 1966; and four recounts in February of 1974. All that was because the noble Baroness was so able. When the question of setting up the Greater London Council and the metropolitan boroughs came forward the noble Baroness was against that happening then with the same degree of enthusiasm that she shows today for their retention. I am impressed by the way that, when it suits the party outlook, views can seem to change. However, I welcomed the cheers when I received them then and I hope that it will not be long before I shall again earn cheers from the Benches opposite on other matters.
On the question of whether or not we are doing the right thing, it is quite clear that the local government situation as it existed before we brought about that great change—my party did that—needed some improvement and change. But the direction in which we moved was wrong, and I applaud my noble friend and I applaud the Government for having the courage to face up to the fact that their own idea has not worked out in the interests of the nation as they thought it would. I believe that for anyone not to face up to that when they truly believe it is to show the kind of weakness which if it were in a party would mean that I would not want to be a member of it. It is because the Government have changed their minds and recognised that, that I applaud them, and I hope they will see this measure through to the end.
I did not like one phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, for whom I have a great respect. He said that in view of the amendments which we have made in your Lordships' House he hoped that a docile majority would not alter the Bill back again, or do anything about it, when it goes back to the other place. Of course, we know that a majority is always docile when it is the other party's majority. When it is their own party it is not docile; it is well-thought out, it is patriotic and it is everything that is good. I happen to hope that when this Bill goes back to another place some of my honourable friends there will recognise some of the weaknesses that we have introduced into it. I hope they will have the courage to look into it, face up to it and perhaps make one or two amendments. We shall bring it back again so that it has the sort of value that I hope it will have eventually.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will allow me—I am one of her fans and she knows that; she has been very good and I admire her very much—I must say that when she continually quotes Coopers and Lybrand it shows that, while she is a superb politician and indeed a past master at the Dispatch Box, she has not really faced up to the real cost of these things. It is not confined to the actual money you can save in the cost of running the machine, running the local authorities. It must be remembered that there are businesses, industries and houses of commerce outside that are affected. I should like to tell the noble Baroness that whatever Coopers and Lybrand say the actual saving may or may not be on the alteration of this machinery of government, removing this unnecessary tier of government will save industry, commerce and the shops of this country a lot of money.
I am still actively in business, small businesses in the metropolitan area of the West Midlands that the noble
1162
Baroness, Lady Fisher, talks about with a great deal of knowledge similar to my own. I want to tell her that when we have wanted to undertake developments and have asked for projects to be considered, because of the edicts which came from the metropolitan boroughs, the cost and the delay involved in what we should have liked to do in developing our businesses—which would have increased the wealth of this country and may well have made a little contribution to the unemployment problem which is uppermost in all our minds—we have been frustrated. It is this unnecessary tier which has held us up and which has had a view different from that of the real local authority which knows the area. In working out the cost of this change, not only the cost of the machine itself must be considered but also the cost that it puts on top of the people who are held up, delayed, and have to go to extra trouble in order to accomplish planning and developments which at the end of the day are in the best interests of the nation.
The final thing I want to say on democracy is that I cannot understand the argument of whether or not what will be left in this Bill will be more democratic. It has to be. Democracy is nearer to the voters under this Bill. The big county boroughs and the metropolitan councils—and for all I know the Greater London Council, because I do not pretend to know anything about the machinery in London—almost are too far removed from the actual voters for their members to be known. They are merely party names on a list. But when you get to the level of the boroughs and the smaller authorities, the people who are being elected are known and do understand their areas. If it is democracy you want, I believe you are there getting nearer to the sort of democracy that I think fulfils the real aim of that word than exists on these bigger authorities.
I can say that with some authority. As I mentioned on a previous occasion, I was the elected Member of the European Parliament for an area which covered eight constituencies. Whether I was good, bad or indifferent, I was never known in that huge area at anything like the level of when I was a Member for the constituency that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, knew. There was a chance that any qualities or weaknesses that you had might be known at that level; but over an area of 500,000 voters, as I found, you were just a name or a cipher. You hoped that you did a reasonable job, but you were not a real, democratic representative of people who really knew you. I am convinced that this bringing of democracy nearer to the voters themselves is more likely to fulfil all its attributes than anything that existed before. So I want to congratulate my noble friend on having organised an answer to many of the unfair arguments that have been put on the other side and making them sound acceptable to a majority sufficient to get his business through the House.
Many will not enjoy my final words. I feel that the way that the opposition to the Bill has been organised in this House has not been at the highest level, bearing in mind the real function of this Chamber. I know that this will not be acceptable. It is only my view. I hope that my instinct is wrong, but it tells me that we have gone very near to stepping over the line and going outside the remit extended to this noble House in

1163
playing our part in bringing legislation to the statute book. I hope that we shall have learnt a lesson about that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Home will continue their investigations to see to it that any lessons that we can learn from the way the oppostion has been conducted will be learnt in the interests of the House and of parliamentary government.
I congratulate my noble friend on having led the Bill to what I think is a successful conclusion. I have enjoyed any little part that I have tried to play. I admired very much the skill, assiduity and tenacity of the noble Baroness who has been the leader on the other side.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Kissin: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the way that he has conducted the debate. The fact that we are all smiling and sitting here in a friendly atmosphere is due to him and the way he conducted the great battle with his protagonists who, I think, have maintained an atmosphere in the House which is rare and admirable. It cannot be found in many parliaments of the world.
I do not want to address myself to the practical aspects of the Bill. I am more concerned with the underlying principles which the Bill has attacked and changed and the implications which arise from its introduction. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord said that it fulfils the promise that the Conservative Party Manifesto gave in 1983 to remove an unnecessary tier of government. However, if one examines the Bill it is clear that the metropolitan councils will be removed but many of their activities will be placed in the hands of the residuary bodies and a plethora of joint boards.
In reality only one thing, I fear, has been removed, and that is the democratically elected authorities for the metropolitan areas. I consider that a regrettable step. Democratic accountability is not simply a desirable principle. It also provides direction and purpose to any governmental process. Without that direction, the result is likely to be a bureaucratic structure that is unable to respond to the needs and wishes of society. I believe that the Bill has not done away with the tiers that the Government set out to abolish.
When I voted for certain amendments—and this is another point that I wish to make—my purpose was to express my opposition to an ever-increasing centralisation of power in our political structure. In my lifetime, and in the lifetime of many noble Lords, we have seen the extreme effects and dangers of the tendency to centralise power in the hands of the Government. We saw these examples before the war and we have seen them since the war, and I think noble Lords will agree with me that in many instances they have led to catastrophic results, in many instances they have led to undesirable results, and in only a very few instances have they achieved what they set out to achieve.
Centralisation of power in Government hands is generally increased in order to allow the Government to act forcibly against certain developments which
1164
they anticipate. But the Government of the day have no certainty, and they cannot foresee how subsequent Governments may utilise the power and structure they have created. I do not doubt the motives of the Government in promoting the Bill. But almost inevitably Governments of another day, with another purpose, can use the law introduced by their predecessors to achieve ends contrary to the philosophy and the purpose for which it was introduced, and often contrary to the principles of democracy.
Perhaps I may make a side remark. I am puzzled. We have just survived a miners' strike. It was then that the Government fought hard to persuade the leader of the union to confirm his actions by referring to a democratic process of ballot in the union that he represented. He did not accede to the Government's request, and the Government have (and I am afraid we all have) paid a high price. In Britain, the principles that underpin our unwritten constitution include a diversity of governmental structures. Thus, both the other place and this House share in the process of making the law of the land, and the elected authority has the final say. However, the structure relies on the checks and balances, and it is our joint responsibility to seek the best balanced solution to any legislative problem.
It is my belief that in this context it is wrong to talk about "unnecessary tiers of government". I think it is also wrong to concentrate powers so heavily in the hands of the Secretary of State. It seems to me a matter of principle that where governmental processes are carried out as they will be in London and the other metropolitan areas after the passage of the Bill, it is essential that we retain a system of democratic accountability. Whatever the Government's motives are in abolishing local authorities with which they disagree, they have provided a precedent for a future Government which may be of a very different political complexion.
It is for this reason that I think that certain precedents that have been created by the introduction of this Bill, such as retrospective legislation and the creation of independent bodies, are very dangerous steps to take. Some of the bodies which are being set up will be in existence beyond the life of this Parliament. The precedent to which I refer will allow members of a new and politically differently oriented Government to use this type of law for entirely different aims, often perhaps contrary to the principles of democracy and not thought of when this law was introduced.
I should have preferred it if the Government had tackled this problem by redefining and cutting down the powers and responsibilities of the various metropolitan councils, without using the term "abolition". It is to me fundamental that, in introducing a new law, Government and Parliament must evaluate any such law not only in its current use but also in its potential use in the future. It is my view that any law should be so structured that a system of democratic accountability is always maintained. In many parts of the present Bill this vital element has been eliminated. The abolishing of an elected authority and the transfer of powers to new, unidentifiable bodies and finally to the Secretary of

1165
State creates precedents that could be very far reaching in different conditions.
I believe very deeply that our country possesses a uniquely educated society with very firm traditions. Elements of this Bill, I repeat, make a break with this tradition and could introduce a new concept that could be detrimental to the democratic progression that we have achieved. I do not, for a moment, wish to exaggerate the point. I just wish the House to take note of it. I want to put on record that it is the duty of Parliament to give careful thought to all the implications that can arise from the creation of precedents in a new law that we are now accepting. If such new concepts are not very clearly defined, we may well mortgage our future democratic rights. I believe that we have a duty to protect the democratic progress of our country.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, there are a few comments that I should like to make before the Bill is passed. The first is to express an appreciation, which, I am sure, is shared by all the Back-Benchers on this side of the House, and indeed by many others, of the way in which my noble friend Lady Birk and her team have conducted their opposition to this Bill. It has been done with a thoroughness and a detail, an ability, an ingenuity and a persistence that have been a great parliamentary performance. I extend that appreciation to the constructive proposals which have so often been made by the spokesmen of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. I even extend it, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the good humoured and knowledgeable way in which he has made the best case for what we regard as a very bad case.
I need not say that I am opposed to many measures of the Government. But I feel particularly deeply about this Bill. I understand the opposition of the Government and their supporters to the metropolitan councils and to the Greater London Council. The Minister has argued this case in detail on administrative lines. I think there is no doubt that the intensity of the opposition that exists in the Government party is to the Socialist policies that so many of the metropolitan councils have carried out, and particularly the Greater London Council. I wonder how many of the unknown who came to swell the Government majority in this House understand or are even aware of the adminstrative case for this Bill. It is because of their dislike of Mr. Ken Livingstone and the Socialist policy of the Greater London Council that they feel so intensely upon this matter.
I support what the Greater London Council and some other metropolitan councils have done because I believe that they have sought to express basic human values which are necessary for this nation and the world. I turn to unemployment. The campaign which the Greater London Council has carried out against unemployment and its activities within its limited powers to improve the situation are surely a first necessity of this time. It has appreciated what is happening to the character of our people, with the man in the home regarded as a failure, frustrated because he cannot get a job; the school-leavers, after eight years' education, not wanted in the world
1166
because there is no place for them. No wonder there is violence, and that is particularly true of the black school-leavers who are completing their education.
In a practical way even the Government have had to co-operate with the enterprise board of the Greater London Council to deal with the problem of unemployment. Secondly, there is the Greater London Council's stand against racialism and its appointment of a department with an able head in order to seek to thrust back the racialism which perhaps is even growing in this country today. Thirdly, there is its stand for women's equality in its contracts with all companies providing services to the Greater London Council. It has in the greatest detail insisted that there shall be no discrimination either on the ground of race or on the ground that an applicant is a woman. And there is its stand for disarmament and peace, and the exhibitions which it has staged against the danger of nuclear war in the world. These are all the basic human rights which this nation and the world need today, and the Greater London Council in its policy, in its statements and in its activities, has sought to express them.
The significant point is that with these challenging Socialist policies, according to opinion polls it has nearly three-quarters of the support of the population of London. The Government claim that they stand for democracy. In destroying the Greater London Council, they are repudiating the democratic desires of the people of London.
What a waste all this time and expenditure on this Bill will prove to be. Yes, my Lords, you may seek temporarily to destroy it, but come the next general election and you will have a Government which will restore it. The failure of the Government's policy in these respects must be clear to all those who have taken an objective view of the situation. I regard it as a disgrace to Parliament that we should be passing this Bill tonight.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is not my intention to make a Second Reading speech which either condemns or commends this Bill, or seeks to anticipate what may happen in another place or thereafter in your Lordships' House, or to champion the cause of conciliation, or to make any party political points. All this has been the burden of the speeches of noble Lords who have preceded me. The least said at this hour after those excellent speeches, the better.
My sole purpose, having taken an active part in the debates, is to say a short word of appreciation. It would indeed be churlish to depart from your Lordships' House without such a sincere word of appreciation and gratitude to noble Lords on the Benches opposite, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her tolerance of my interventions on the constitutional issue as I saw it. I am grateful to her and, indeed, to noble Lords opposite for their forbearance.
Before we put this Bill to bed—and perhaps put ourselves to bed with a sense of infinite relief—may I thank my noble friend the Minister for his flexibility of conduct and his sensitive handling of this innovative measure, which enabled certain concessions to be made, even some on which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I found ourselves in agreement.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, may I ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House, the debate having gone on for rather a long time on the Motion that this Bill do now pass, to ask whether it would be possible to make a plea to the Government? Having succeeded, in the main, in getting this Bill eventually on to the statute book, for which they must be congratulated, and bearing in mind the fact that they have probably restored the situation to that which existed before the introduction of the reorganisation of local government in 1976, would they consider restoring to us and to the United Kingdom our orginal county boundaries, which were reorganised then in a rather arbitrary fashion?
A large majority of those affected would welcome this. I trust that the Government will be sensitve to this plea. Restore to Bristol the status of its city and county. Restore the White Horse to Berkshire, from whence it roamed. Give back to his Grace the County of Rutland, of which he is the Duke, or to my Lord, Westmorland, of which he is the Earl. Yorkshire is dear to me, and there was the partitioning off of some area to Lancashire. Dare I say: what would Henry Tudor have thought of that?
Puppet sub-counties have emerged, such as Cleveland, Tyneside and Humberside. But in their hearts the inhabitants of these areas think of themselves as being Yorkshiremen. The Ridings are no longer, and for no reason. I have lived in the West Riding for all my life, but for some reason it now becomes part of the county of North Yorkshire, with no noticeable boundary at all other than a rather lone holly bush between Harrogate and Harewood, whereas before the boundary of the North Riding and the West Riding was the distinctive feature of the River Ure. Wales has lost its identity. Give it back its Glamorgan, its Pembrokeshire and its Caernarvonshire, and so on. Scotland has suffered a similar fate.
I might almost turn to cricket, but at this stage I think I had better not do so. However, what about the counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and so on? There is no such thing. Worcestershire is a first class county; Herefordshire is not. Yet there is a county now of Herefordshire and Worcestershire. I therefore ask that with the passing of this Bill the Government might consider whether it might be possible to restore our traditional boundaries of our country that have been in existence for well over 1,000 years.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two; but I thought that it might be of interest to tell your Lordships of a little research that I embarked on over the weekend. My researches have revealed that if one adds together the proceedings of the Second Reading, the Committee stage and the Report stage of this mammoth Bill one finds altogether that we have taken up 108 hours and 10 minutes. The number of words spoken—I have worked this out carefully, but the figure is not absolutely right I am sure—were some 952,426—and I should say that we have probably reached one million words because the average words spoken every day have been in the region of 52,000 or 53,000. There have been 489 amendments tabled at
1168
the various stages, of which 82 have been approved and the remainder have been not moved, withdrawn or defeated. This Bill may go down as the Bill of a million words.
If my researches have revealed one thing it is the immense debt we owe to the supporting services. I want here to pay a particular tribute to Hansard and the Public Bill Office. All of your Lordships will agree that their support has been quite remarkable. They produce one's speeches in an impeccable condition, never a semi-colon confused with a comma, no matter how late the hour may be. If a little slip occurs it is generally of our own making. I also add a very warm tribute to the Public Bill Office who cope in wholly admirable style with all the amendments thrown upon them at the last minute. I know that I have been guilty of this myself. These amendments are often conflicting and complex and they come out in apple-pie order. We owe them a very great debt of thanks.
Having been connected with about eight or nine amendments, although I have listened to the olympian pronouncements of the noble Lord the Minister with great attention and considerable profit, there is still one area that I am not happy about, and I think this view is probably shared by other noble Lords. That is, what is to happen to the vast collection of expertise that has been accumulated by so many people over so many years in the the GLC and in the metropolitan counties? I am thinking of the expertise built up about the ethnic minorities, economic development, and so on. I may be wrong, but I do not think we have had an assurance on that. I wish this Bill well and once more I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, I rise to make a last minute plea to the Government. Before doing so, I too should like to congratulate the speakers on our Front Benches, including my noble friend Lady Birk. Her remark to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he was pitchforked into this is not an inelegant one, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Pitchforking is a very rhythmic operation if done by an expert, but that may not apply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Elton: It rather depends on which end of the fork one may be, my Lords!
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Birk started her speech after her compliments to everybody by commenting on her concern about various matters. My concern is: what will happen to the farming estate and the three demonstration farms? This is an estate of 12,500 acres and it will be fragmented among a plethora of local authorities which will do no good to it at all. The importance of the farming estate during the goings-on on the Bill was lost because, for some unknown reason, it is under the arts and recreation section of the GLC. I know that farming is an art but I do not consider it a recreation. Any amendments that were put down did not cover the farming estate. One of the remarks made—and I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, here—during the Agricultural Holdings Bill by the

1169
Government and by their supporters was on how important it is to keep the tenanted sector in agriculture and to keep the farming ladder. I cannot understand—nobody can understand—how they can do this to this estate, how they can break it up in the way they are going to do it; because this provides both these things.
11 p.m.
They now have a chance to put their money—to use the expression—where their mouth is or was. I understand that the Secretary of State has regulatory powers and it is not too late to do something about it. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton several times emphasised in the various amendments that were put down that many of them were not wrecking amendments but were amendments to improve the Bill. It would certainly improve the situation if the Government took these powers to keep this estate intact. As I say, it is not going to wreck the Bill. The management is there, as well as everything else. I appeal to them to do this, for it would improve the situation immensely. If they do not do it, then I am afraid that I would have no faith in the Government's real interest in agriculture in that sector.
Lord Elton: My Lords, many of your Lordships have made very kind remarks about my conduct of this Bill and have given me a sympathy which, in part at least, I think I deserve for the way in which I came upon it in the first place. I am most grateful to your Lordships for that but I honestly must say that it would not have been possible to do so had your Lordships not equally been good tempered and patient and enabled me to do it. I am grateful to your Lordships for never setting about me with the sort of provocative political attacks which one is so tempted to make on occasions when one's political sympathies are aroused.
While I am on the subject I should like to repeat the recognition which I gave at an early stage to the conduct of the opposition of all parties, led with great ability by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to repeat on the record what is too often not realised by those who are not in this House. Whereas I have a very considerable body of skilled and expert advisers (to whom I should now like to pay a tribute which is justly due: that they so often give me the right advice, often in writing, which I can read in emergencies), whereas I have the services of a complete department of state and other departments of state where necessary, the noble Baroness and her coadjutors do not. They do this in their spare time and it really is a remarkably polished and professional performance which your Lordships have seen and which outsiders have seen, exceptionally, which this Bill has received. I am grateful to your Lordships for that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to pay a tribute, a very warm tribute, to many outside this House who have served the Oppostion very well indeed by enabling us most effectively to present their case which, of course, was our case, too.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that was a very proper intervention and I am glad to embed it, as it were, in my speech like a currant in a bun.
Let us briefly look at the background to exchanges and make sure that we understand it. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, produced one of a series of misapprehensions, which I shall have to address in a moment, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government were in possession of a majority in your Lordships' House. He made that statement notwithstanding a number of resounding defeats of Her Majestys' Government. I would refer him to the statistical analysis of this myth which was given to your Lordships' House on 17th May 1984 by my noble friend the Chief Whip. I shall not read the whole of his answer, because it went on for so long. But it gave the same result in every possible computation. My noble friend was asked whether he would provide the figures on which the Government based the statement made in the House on 26th April that in almost every case and in almost every way of looking at it the Government do not have an overall majority in this House. My noble friend gave the figures at col. 1506 on 17th May, 1984. He said:
"On the 26th April of this year, the day on which I made the claim quoted by the noble Lord [Lord Beswick] 1,097 Peers were in receipt of a Writ of Summons of whom 462 were Government Peers, or 42.1 per cent … If you exclude those Lords who were on leave of absence the figure becomes 936, of whom 424 were Government Peers or 45.3 per cent. If you exclude again those Lords who had not taken the Oath during the current Session the figure becomes 865, of whom 398 were Government Peers, or 46 per cent".
Then my noble friend proceeded to another series of analyses, breaking down your Lordships' numbers by the number or frequency of attendance, and in every single case the number of Conservative Peers were fewer than 50 per cent. We are not operating with a built-in majority, my Lords. We have to persuade your Lordships, and that is the results which your Lordships see in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a minute. He has not quoted the riposte I made to the Government Chief Whip at that time. The point is of course that those figures are correct, if one works on the assumption that every Cross-Bench Peer is against the Government, but the fact is that one must take the Cross-Bench Peers out of the equation. Noble Lords may protest, but one cannot assume, the noble Lord and the Government Chief Whip cannot assume, that every Cross-Bench Peer is against the Government. In fact, if one—
A noble Lord: There is no built-in majority.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to protract his intervention for long enough for me to get hold of the exchanges he has referred to. He has referred to his interjection—an interjection in the exchanges which I was quoting from—and he said I should go on to quote him. He has now quoted himself, and it is right for me to quote the reply of my noble friend Lord Denham, who said, at col. 1508:
"My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is giving weight to another popular fallacy: that all Peers are deemed to be Conservative until proved innocent".

1171
So I hope your Lordships will accept that while the decisions of your Lordships' House on this Bill may not be agreeable to noble Lords opposite, who have been patient and courteous but who still do not agree with us, the fact is that they have been decisions of your Lordships' House not secured by a built-in permanent Conservative majority. If one asks the right reverend Prelates—I have chosen the wrong Prelate, my Lords, to illustrate this—
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister give some sort of personal explanation for choosing the wrong bishop? I thought I was a right reverend.
Lord Elton: All bishops, my Lords, are right reverend, but on some occasions one chooses the wrong reverend to illustrate one's point. That, then is the background.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has done some arithmetic. With the advantages of departmental assistance and some micro-electronics, no doubt, I think I can update his figures. I think we have spent almost exactly—or a little over—130 hours on this Bill. We have voted, I believe, 30 times and we are sending to another place over 90 amendments. So if your Lordships are in doubt as to whether or not this is a revising Chamber, that doubt may be set at rest. I cannot of course tell your Lordships what will be the fate of all those amendments, but there is no doubt whatsoever that in many respects this Bill will be a great deal better when it leaves this House than when it arrived here, and that is thanks to the hard work of your Lordships all round the House.
I do not know that I should fall for the temptation of answering every point that was made during this debate. To some of the points I shall reply on paper. Your Lordships are anxious to go home; or, if your Lordships are not, I am.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that what he proposes about boundaries and names of local authorities is far outside the scope of this Bill. The Bill does not provide an opportunity to pursue the (to him) attractive objectives which he sets out. It is true that the local government Boundary Commission is able to examine the questions of change of boundary, but it is not up to my right honourable friend to initiate those matters.
Your Lordships were asked at the beginning of this debate to regard the introduction of this Bill as a matter of pique. I shall not answer that point at length because I answered it at Second Reading, and my noble friend the Leader of the House assisted me in putting the record straight on it. Nor was it done at the last minute, or to abolish one set of Labour-dominated authorities simply to hand over a great deal of that power to other Labour-dominated authorities.
A good deal has been made about the cost of what we are doing. Doubts have been thrown on the savings that will result. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, asked me why I had not seriously contested the finding of the Coopers and Lybrand analysis of the cost of abolition in London. I had not thought it necessary because it showed that there would be
1172
annual savings of about £40 million. It is true that we think that annual savings will be about £50 million. But I thought that the fact that a firm which had been commissioned by the GLC to examine this question came up with an answer saying that abolition would save a lot of money spoke for itself.
Attempts have been made once more to alarm the voluntary sector. I remind your Lordships of the considerable efforts we have made to assist and protect that sector; not simply to buy votes but to protect the voluntary sector, which we all believe is integral to the British way of life. Indeed, we have also taken the opportunity to introduce what I believe is an exciting new departure in the form of the trust for London, which I believe is beginning the steady removal of voluntary funding away from the political field. That is what I should like to think it will become.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, suggested that the Secretary of State would have a terrible power to direct the manpower and financial levels of the joint authorities. Indeed, I think she rather alarmed the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, in the process because he warned us with considerable experience of the dangers of centrist government sapping away at the roots of local democracy. It was a pity that the noble Baroness did not say that every one of those powers relating to the Secretary of State and the joint authorities is limited to three years and cannot be renewed. It is simply to stop the cost getting out of hand in the transitional period.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who astounds me by becoming ever more coherent, fluent and persuasive in his advancing years, whereas I seem to be moving in the opposite direction all the time, catalogued areas of concern to which the GLC had addressed itself. He approved of the political slant of the address which they had given. It does not appeal to me, but that is not the fact that matters. The fact that matters is that it will be open to the successor bodies to follow the example of the GLC in every single particular that he mentioned if they wish to do so. We are not destroying a political philosophy: we are removing a very large bureaucracy which is too big to justify itself by the functions which it performs.
I had not intended to refer to the recent release to the press and the fact that the GLC is now proposing to leave a blueprint for a far bigger, far more powerful authority than that which we are now abolishing. But the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said that this would be the object of the next Labour Government. I would therefore mention that it appears that this proposal involves setting up an elected authority for London with powers over the police which they will take from the Home Secretary—powers extending far beyond their territory into the commuter land which supplies the working population of London in large numbers.
I want to bring my remarks to a close. I shall not therefore reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on the matter of the Boundary Commission or the Audit Commission, except on paper. I shall come to what is the remaining important point that ought to be put on the record by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It was ably made for me by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose frequent cogent and useful interventions in our debates I am glad to acknowledge.

1173
The will of Parliament is in the process of being declared. It can no longer be in doubt that it will prevail. It is essentially an elected body, though this is not an elected House. No Government can govern without a majority in another place. It has decided that the powers of seven large bureaucratic but elected bodies shall be devolved for the most part to their subordinate equally elected democratic bodies in cooperation, where necessary, to conduct those functions together.
That does not set a dangerous precedent. It does not bring power closer to the centre of government. It does not threaten democracy. It does not cast a blight on the future of the voluntary organisations. It is not an act of political pique. What we have set our hands to do, and what we determined to set our hands to do long before noble Lords opposite recognised that we did, was to remove a layer of government that was unnecessary and which costs money. It costs we think 50 million unnecessary pounds a year in London alone; the Coopers and Lybrand often quoted report suggests that it is only £40 million. But only £40 million, my Lords! This is money worth having. The money that is spent ought to be in the hands of the truly local authorities; that is, the boroughs in London and the districts elsewhere.
This has been a long row to hoe. I believe that we have hoed it thoroughly. I am grateful to your Lordships for your tenacity and patience. We send this Bill with many amendments to another place. It remains simply for me to say once more, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Further Education Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
Royal Holloway and Bedford New College Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
Plymouth Marine Events Base Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee, with amendments.

Scarborough Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee, with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.