Lords Sitting of 10 June 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read in the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have been invited to attend a service in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen on 14th June, when she will unveil a memorial in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral in honour of the South Atlantic Task Force and in memory of those who lost their lives in the conflict. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to give me leave of absence for Friday.

Money Stock: Increase
2.37 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what increase in money stock has taken place over the most recent available 5-year period and what percentage of this is accounted for by increased issue of currency.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the increase in the broad money stock, as measured by sterling M3, seasonally adjusted, over the five years to mid-April was 101.9 per cent. The increase in notes and cash in circulation outside the Bank of England accounted for just over 5 per cent. of this increase.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he accept that I am not here trying to get involved in any argument in regard to Milton Friedman or Maynard Keynes? My Question is a comparatively simple one. It is clear there has been an enormous increase in money stock. Will the Minister agree that it has not been caused by the Government printing notes or minting money? My question therefore is: ought we not at this point to have a really serious attempt to find out precisely how the financial institutions do create this extra purchasing power?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the reason for the increase in the broad money stock to which the noble Lord referred is the much larger aggregate, most of which is interesting-bearing. Narrow money contains no interesting-bearing element, being mostly transactions balances. The innovation in the financial markets has had different impacts, tending to reduce demand for transactions balances but perhaps raising the demand for deposits, with an increase in the demand for liquid assets as a form of savings.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the amount of money in the economy—that is, cash in circulation and bank deposits—is now expanding faster than the target rate of 7 to 11 per cent. laid down in 1980, when the Government in fact laid down their medium-term strategy? Does the noble Lord agree that since then all sorts of things have been happening, including mass unemployment and the highest rates of interest in any advanced country? Where in fact is the Government's policy leading us, and when can we expect a reduction in interest rates which would not only help home owners but also help our economy to expand as it should?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, sterling M3, I agree, is above target, but the narrow margin M0 is firmly on track. As the noble Lord says, real interest rates are still high and there is little other indication that monetary conditions are not tight enough. But no risks will be taken with inflation. Interest rates will be held at whatever level is needed to maintain monetary conditions which will continue to bring inflation down.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I am not disposed to query anything that the noble Lord says. I am not saying that the money created is not performing a useful service. What I am saying is that at the present moment almost the whole of the money which the Government borrow is to pay interest on money which they have already borrowed. In these circumstances, is it not absurd to leave the creation of money to some private institutions and then for the Government to pay interest on that money when they borrow it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says and I think the best thing I can do is to draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that it would be of great assistance to the House and to the City community at large if his right honourable friend could make up his mind as to which definition of money stock he proposes to adopt? Is it M3, M2, M1 or PSL2? Surely we are entitled to know which measurement the Chancellor is prepared to stick to through thick and thin, instead of varying it whenever it suits his purpose.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I reject the charge that my right honourable friend varies it according to what suits his particular purpose. The two main factors are M0 and M3, and they are given equal weight. They will continue to be interpreted in the light of other indicators of monetary conditions, including the exchange rate.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches sympathise with his attempts to deal with these "googlies"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I take it that I have the noble Lord's approval for an attempt I shall make in the future to have this matter raised again in debate?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, I will draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend, and that is about as far as I can go at the moment.

Occupational Therapists: Vacancies
2.44 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent established posts for occupational therapists have not been filled, and what action is being taken to increase the number of occupational therapists in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, results of a sample survey by health authorities last year suggest that nationally about 15 per cent. of funded posts for occupational therapists were unfilled after three months. Our officials have had discussions with representatives of the College of Occupational Therapists and we are now considering the possibility of increasing the number of bursaries for occupational therapy students in 1986–87. We hope also to be able to provide capital sums to enable some schools to expand the number of training places available.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I much welcome the latter part of her Answer? Is the noble Baroness also aware that, according to the survey carried out by the College of Occupational Therapists itself, the unfilled vacancies stand at 22 per cent.? Is the noble Baroness further aware that short-staffed occupational therapy departments have to turn away patients who are in great need of occupational therapy, especially amputees, elderly people, stroke victims and victims of long-term disabilities, like multiple sclerosis, arthritis and Parkinson's disease? She recognises this, I hope, as a very important problem.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the survey carried out by the College of Occupational Therapists of the number of vacant posts health authorities were prepared to fund indicated the shortfall of 22 per cent. However, officials have experienced difficulties in validating these data. Results of the sample survey carried out by the NHS suggested the 15 per cent. figure which I have already given. Her Majesty's Government recognise the key role that occupational therapists play, and will increasingly play in the future, particularly in furthering policies for the treatment and care of the mentally ill and other handicapped people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, am I right in thinking that trainees for occupational therapy cannot obtain mandatory grants but only discretionary awards? If this is correct, in view of the shortage is it not time that they were included among those who receive mandatory grants?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are 11 occupational therapy schools and some 650 places. Some 580 bursaries are provided, and some students receive sponsorship from health authorities or local authorities. The remainder are self-financing. I hope that answers the noble Baroness's point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is any difference in the percentages of those occupational therapists employed directly by establishments which come under the social services and those which are direct health service establishments?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the noble Baroness please repeat the question?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is any difference in the percentages of 'vacant posts in hospitals, health authority departments or establishments, and those which exist among those employed by local authorities directly to local authority posts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much. I do not have the answer to that. I shall have to write to the noble Baroness.

Hospital Waiting Lists
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what have been the average numbers on hospital waiting lists from May 1974 to May 1979 and from May 1979 to the most recent dates for which figures are available.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the estimated average size of the in-patient waiting list in England for May 1974 to May 1979 was 588,000. Over the period the actual number waiting on lists rose to 752,400 at 30th March 1979. The estimated average for the period May 1979 to September 1984 was 676,000.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the average shows an increase of almost 1,000, what do Ministers' claims that they are reducing the hospital waiting lists now mean? Is this not the first time it has been revealed that, in fact, during the period of this Government people are having to wait very much longer to go into hospital, and more of them are having to wait to go into hospital than was the case during the period of the previous Administration?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the higher average recent figure arises from two causes: first, the all-time high figure for waiting lists that we inherited from the previous Labour Government; and, secondly, the sharp increase caused by the industrial action in 1982 which the Labour Party supported. Under this Government waiting lists are falling. Under the last Labour Government they rose by almost a quarter of a million.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Minister accept that during the periods of both the Labour Government and the Conservative Government there were industrial disputes which affected the length of waiting lists? I am certain that we deeply regret that. When will the Government bring the level of waiting lists down to that, at least, of the average during the period when I and my predecessor were Secretary of State, and by what actions will it actually be achieved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on 30th September, 1984 there were some 683,000 people on in-patient waiting lists for all specialties, which is almost 70,000 fewer than at March, 1979. This shows that there is a continuing downward trend following, as I said, the disruption caused by the 1982 industrial action, which was backed by the Labour Party. During the period of industrial action between March and December 1982 the total increased by more than 122,000.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister inform the House whether the rural areas have higher waiting lists than the urban areas, and also whether there are bigger waiting lists for conditions such as hernia than for the more acute cases?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's question is that, to some extent, waiting lists, including those in rural areas, represent the problems of success. The wider range of treatments available, greater life expectancy and the increasing proportion of old people have all added to expectations and thus demands on the National Health Service. However, we all want shorter waiting lists and that is why the Government have concentrated the attention of health authorities upon the need to make the best possible use of resources.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether, as there are such very long waiting lists, she will cause her department to reconsider the proposals to close the Forest Hospital in the Chigwell urban district? That hospital is very much used by the local people and its closure would be a calamity.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer about particular hospitals in the framework of this Question. But with regard to available beds, in 1983 there were some 140,000 available beds in the acute sector, and this compared with just under 150,000 in 1978. The fact that the National Health Service has been able to treat 650,000 extra cases in fewer beds is a sign of greater efficiency.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, since average figures are so often misleading, are there any other conclusions
998
that my noble friend thinks the House should draw from her reply to the Question on the Order Paper?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beliese that I have already given the answer that the waiting lists have gone down since we took office, as opposed to the situation when the Labour Party was in office, when the figures went up.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, to some extent, the figures are defective, because there are certain people who are on waiting lists who have perhaps died, or who have moved away or no longer require treatment, and also because consultants operate within their waiting lists a priority system and anyone who requires emergency treatment will be dealt with very rapidly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for what she has said.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that certain establishments which could have taken patients do not now exist, and, as they have been abolished they cannot have waiting lists? Is she prepared to take on board that there might be some items of the Government's policy which were not intended to increase waiting lists by the abolition of hospitals, and in so far as that was not their intention, will they have another hard look at what their policies are which, from their point of view, might inadvertently be creating waiting lists?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that I have already answered the question put by the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are satisfied with the efficiency of the flow of patients from their own districts to specialised services beyond their districts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, it is always open to a general practitioner to seek to refer a patient to a hospital which may be able to treat the patient sooner. The department is funding a pilot scheme in the West Midlands to give general practitioners more information about waiting lists at more distant hospitals. We hope that this will establish the value of this approach in providing more equal access to hospital services across the country.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been most helpful in the information that she has given. I wonder whether she can say what is the present number of people on the waiting list, compared with the 588,000 which was the average during the period of the last Government. I understand that the figure is going down, but perhaps she can tell us what it is.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the numbers are going down. But I have no figures for after September 1984, when the number was 676,000.

Mercenaries in Central America
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether British ex-servicemen are being recruited by international (particularly United States) organisations to fight as mercenaries against the Nicaraguan Government in E1 Salvador and elsewhere in central America; and, if so, whether they will take action to prevent this.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of press reports about the recruitment of British ex-servicemen to fight as mercenaries against the Nicaraguan Government. But we deplore the recruitment and use of mercenaries, and we are playing a full part in the United Nations ad hoc committee on the drafting of an international convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for that reply and for saying that while she cannot confirm that British nationals are being used as mercenaries, the Government do not in any way support the use of mercenaries and, indeed, deplore it. Is she aware that there will be a hopeless situation if the British Foreign Secretary, while condemning the hooliganism in the Brussels football stadium, as he has done, does not take adequate action to prevent cold-blooded murderers going to South America and committing the crimes which responsible newspapers have shown they are committing?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would not wish to draw any analogy with what my right honourable and learned friend has said about football hooliganism in Europe, which not only he but also the Government and I think everyone in this country have condemned. On the particular point which is the subject of this Question, I should make it quite clear that we have been unable to find any trace of the two men who were named in the newspaper article as having served in the British Army. Without further information than that in the press reports it is not possible to make any checks on the others.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I find myself in full agreement with her Answer to this Question? This has not happened hitherto, but may we mutually agree that it is a tendency which we should hope will be followed in future?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that I shall always agree with the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has made, but I fear that there will be many occasions when I shall not.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the noble Baroness define a mercenary for us? Does she define as mercenaries those who go involuntarily to another
1000
country, compelled by their own Government, but paid for by another foreign government, which seems to me to be a very large pattern of the situation at this moment?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that I should be most unwise to attempt in the House a definition of the word "mercenary".
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the replies she has given will be found most encouraging by many people such as journalists, commentators and those generally interested in political affairs, in that the British Government have endeavoured to establish whether the facts reported, particularly those in the Observer, are correct? It is most encouraging that the Government have undertaken a defence of the good name of Britain.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Hill Farming Bill will be taken.
Hastings Pier Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Committee for Privileges
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Keith of Kinkel be appointed chairman of the committee for the consideration of the petition in the Annandale Peerage case.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Bill
2.58 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Macleod of Borve.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think that this moment ought to pass without the whole House paying its tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for piloting a very useful Bill for the protection of youngsters in regard to the very dreadful and dangerous habit of glue sniffing and for seeing that those who intentionally make money out of this kind of thing suffer for it and come within the purview of our criminal law. The noble Baroness is to be congratulated.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may, very briefly, on behalf of the Government echo the words of appreciation spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and express our gratitude and appreciation to my noble friend for the excellent way in which she has piloted this most important Bill through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Local Government Bill
3 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Strategic Planning in Metropolitan Counties.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the authority established by section 28 of this Act ("the authority") for each metropolitan county to exercise the following functions relating to town and country planning in that county to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

(a) the provision of strategic guidance for the preparation by each council of a metropolitan district which is a local planning authority in that county of a unitary development plan, and for the formulation in the county of policies for public transport, highways and traffic management;

(b) the collection, examination, analysis and dissemination of data required for the discharge of that function.

(2) Strategic guidance to be issued by the authority under this section shall include guidance with respect to—

(a) the general level of provision for housing development to be made in the county, indicating the provision to be made in each metropolitan district;

(b) major transport links for which unitary development plans should make provision, particularly routes crossing the boundaries of a metropolitan district in the county;

(c) the general level of provision of and the locations for major new commercial or industrial development in the county;

(d) the further development of major town and city centres in the county;

(e) any need to give priority to particular areas of the county for development; and

(f) overall policies on green belt, agricultural land and mineral extraction in the county.

(3) An order under this section shall contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions amending any enactment (including this Act) or any instrument under any enactment and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, that order shall make provision—

(a) for the production, consultation and examination in public of strategic guidance;

(b) requiring a local planning authority in a metropolitan county not to give publicity to or adopt a unitary development plan or a joint unitary development plan unless they have first obtained a certificate that the plan conforms generally with strategic guidance given to them in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) above;

(c) for the determination whether a plan so conforms, by the authority;

(d) for the determination of that question by the Secretary of State in any case where he so directs or where it appears to the authority that a plan does not so conform.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall be speaking also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 11, 16, 17, 24, 26 and 33.
Amendment No. 2: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Strategic Planning, Highways and Traffic in London.
.—(1) On the appointed day there shall be established for Greater London a body corporate to be known as the London Planning, Highways and Traffic Joint Authority (in this section and in Schedule (Strategic planning, highways and traffic functions in Greater London) of this Act referred to as "the Authority").
(2) The Authority shall consist of members of the consituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
(3) The consituent councils in relation to the Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
(4) The provisions of sections 29 to 36 and Part I of Schedule 9 of this Act shall apply with respect to the members of the Authority as they apply with respect to the members of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority to be established under Part IV of this Act.
(5) Part I of Schedule (Strategic planning, highways and traffic function in Greater London) of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of conferring with effect from the abolition date on the Authority as respects Greater London functions with respect to—

(a) structure plans and other matters under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

(b) highways;

(c) road traffic; and

(d) other matters;

being functions for the most part at present exercisable by the Greater London Council.
(6) Part II of the said Schedule shall have effect for conferring with effect from the abolition date on the London borough councils and the Common Council the functions of the Greater London Council in relation to road traffic regulation and town and country planning not to be transferred to the Authority hereunder and Part III shall have effect for the purpose of making consequential and other amendments to the relevant enactments for the purposes of giving effect to the transfer of functions under this section.
(7) In this section and Schedule (Strategic planning, highways and traffic functions in Greater London) of this Act. "the appointed day" means such day before the abolition date the Secretary of State shall by order appoint.").
Amendment No. 3: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Planning and the environment in metropolitan counties.
. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the authority established by section 10 of this Act for each metropolitan county to exercise the following functions relating to town and country planning and the environment in that county to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

(a) the functions of a county planning authority in their capacity as mineral planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

(b) the functions of a county planning authority under that Act with respect to—

(i) in the use of land or the carrying out of operations in or on land for the deposit of refuse or waste materials;

(ii) the erection of any building, plant or machinery designed for purposes of treating, storing, processing or disposing of refuse or waste materials;

(c) the functions which, immediately before the passing of this Act were exercisable by a metropolitan county council under section 89 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963, the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 and the Derelict Land Act 1982, relating to the reclamation or improvement of land which is or is likely to become derelict, neglected or unsightly;

(d) the functions which, immediately before the passing of this Act, were exercisable by a metropolitan county council under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 relating to—

(i) the provision or improvement of facilities and opportunities for the enjoyment of the countryside by the public, including the provision of country parks;

1003

(ii) the provision of nature reserves and access to open country;

(iii) the preservation and enhancement of areas of outstanding natural beauty;

(iv) the provision of land for public open space; and

(e) the appointment of wardens under section 49 or 62 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.").

Amendment No. 4: Clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) For section 1(1) of the Town and County Planning Act 1971 (local planning authorities) there shall be substituted—
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) in a non-metropolitan county, the council of the county is the county planning authority for the county and the council of a district is the district planning authority for the district;

(b) the council of the metropolitan district is the local planning authority for the district; and

(c) the council of a London borough is the local planning authority for the borough.

(1A) In a metropolitan county, the authority established by section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985 is the county planning authority for the county and the council of a metroplitan district is the district planning authority for the district for the functions referred to in section (Planning and the Environment in metropolitan counties) of the said Act of 1985.".").
Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) For section 1(2A) of that Act (meaning of "local planning authority") there shall be substituted—
"(2A) References in this Act to a local planning authority shall, except as respects Greater London and the National Parks and subject to subsection (2AA) below, be construed as references to a county planning authority and a district planning authority, and the foregoing provision shall have effect subject to section 183 of and Part I of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972.
(2AA) In its application to a metropolitan county, subsection (2A) above shall not have effect except in relation to the functions referred to in subsection (1A) of this section.".).
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert:—
("(5) For section 182(2) of the principal Act (which, with Schedule 16 to that Act, deals with the allocation of local planning authority functions in England) there shall he substituted—
"(2) In England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly) and in Wales all functions conferred on local planning authorities by or under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 shall, subject to subsections (2A) and (4) and section 183 below and to Part I of Schedule 16 to this Act, be exercisable by both county planning authorities and by district planning authorities.
(2A) In its application to a metropolitan county, sub-section (2) above shall not have effect except in relation to the functions referred to in section 1(1A) of the said Act of 1971." ").
Amendment No. 8: Leave out Clause 3.
Amendment No. 9: Leave out Clause 4.
Amendment No. 10: Before Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule
("Schedule
STRATEGIC PLANNING, HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC FUNCTIONS IN GREATER LONDON
PART I
FUNCTIONS OF THE LONDON PLANNING, HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC JOINT AUTHORITY
Strategic Planning
1. The Secretary of State shall make an order for the purpose of transferring on the abolition date to the Authority the following functions, that is to say—
1004

(a) the functions of a county planning authority under Part II (Development Plans) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act");

(b) the functions of a mineral planning authority within the meaning of the 1971 Act including the power to determine planning applications with respect to the matters mentioned in paragraph 32 of Schedule 16 of the Local Government Act 1972;

(c) the functions of a local planning authority under the 1971 Act with respect to applications for planning permission for and to enforcement of planning control in respect of—

(i) the use of land or the carrying out of operations in or on land for the deposit of waste materials;

(ii) the erection of any building plant or machinery designed for the purposes of treating, storing, processing or disposing of refuse or waste materials;

(iii) the development of land within an area designated by a development plan as green belt; and

(iv) the development of land in a way which would conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Greater London Development Plan;

(d) the functions at present exercisable by the Greater London Council under Part VI (acquisition and appropriation of land and related provisions) of the 1971 Act;

(e) the functions at present exercisable by the Greater London Council under section 89 of the national Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963, the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 and the Derelict Land Act 1982.

2.(1) Without prejudice to its powers and duties under the 1971 Act, the Authority shall from time to time prepare, and cause to be published in such manner as seems to the Authority appropriate for informing persons appearing to the Authority to be concerned, plans relating to highways and traffic in Greater London.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority and of each London borough council and the Common Council to have regard to such plans in discharging their functions in relation to highways and traffic and in preparing and revising development plans under Part II of the 1971 Act.
(3) The Authority shall establish an organisation for the purpose of conducting, or assisting in the conducting of, investigations into, and the collection of information relating to any matters concerning Greater London which appear to the Authority to be relevant to the discharge of its functions including, without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph, matters pertaining to the use and development of land, the ecology and environment of Greater London, highways, road traffic and other transport issues.
Highways
3.—(1) The Authority shall be the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act") for all metropolitan roads and that Act shall he construed accordingly.
(2) The following provisions of the 1980 Act shall apply to the Authority as they now apply to the Greater London Council and references in those provisions to that Council shall be construed as reference to the Authority, that is to say—

(a) section 7 (delegation of functions with respect to metropolitan roads);

(b) section 15 (general provisions as to metropolitan roads);

(c) section 24 (roads communicating with metropolitan roads);

(d) section 62(5) (traffic light signals);

(e) section 64(4) and (5) (dual carriageway and roundabouts);

(f) section 66(7) (safety provisions);

(g) section 67(5) (guard rails);

(h) section 69(2) and (3) (subways);

(i) section 79(3) (prevention of obstruction of view at corners);

(j) section 80(4) (power to fence highways);

(k) section 95(1) (bridges);

(l) section 96 as extended by the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, section 14 (trees and verges);

(m) Part VIIA (provision of amenities on certain highways);

(n) section 160 (unnecessary obstructions);

(o) section 264(2), (3) (vesting of drains);

(p) section 269 (transfer of property in metropolitan roads);

(q) section 285 (improvements not involving widening); and

(r) section 298 (duty to furnish information).

(3) Not later than 1st April 1987 the Authority shall, in consultation with the London borough councils and the

1005
Common Council, review the existing network of metropolitan roads and prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals for the revision of that network.
(4) The Authority shall be a "council" and a "local highway authority" within the meaning of section 329 of the 1980 Act.
Road Traffic
4.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the following purposes—

(a) to transfer to the Authority as respects metropolitan roads the functions of the Greater London Council under Parts Ito VII of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"):

(b) to authorise the Authority, for the purpose of regulating traffic on metropolitan roads, to exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under the said Parts I to VII of the 1984 Act as respects roads communicating with or adjacent to metropolitan roads in accordance with procedures to be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations made under Part III of Schedule 9 of the 1984 Act;

(c) in order to ensure that the exercise by a London borough council or the Common Council of their powers under the 1984 Act does not have an adverse effect on traffic on roads for which they are not the highway authority, to confer on the Authority reserve powers similar to those given to the Secretary of State by Part I of Schedule 9 of the 1984 Act;

(d) to enable the Authority to exercise the powers of a London borough council or the Common Council under sections 6 and 9 of the 1984 Act for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the use of heavy commercial vehicles, in such ways as the Authority may consider expedient for preserving or improving the amenities of Greater London or any part thereof;

(e) to transfer to the Authority—

(i) the functions of the Greater London Council under section 73 of the 1984 Act with respect to traffic signs which are light signals for controlling the movement of vehicular traffic and of pedestrians; and

(ii) all rights, property, liabilities and contracts of the Greater London Council with respect to the system of urban traffic control established and maintained by that Council and;

(f) to require the Authority to manage, maintain and, where appropriate, develop and extend that system.

(2) The Authority shall be a local authority for the purposes of section 38 (as amended by section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (power of local authorities as to giving road safety information and training)) of the Road Traffic Act 1972.
Other functions of the Authority
5.—(1) The Authority shall be a "London authority" within the meaning of section 50 (travel concessions on journeys in or around Greater London) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.
(2) The Authority may assist, by way of grant or loan the work of any local authority or voluntary body rendering public service to the inhabitants of Greater London by means of activities which appear to the Authority to relate to the functions of the Authority or by the provision of transport services for the benefit of the public or any class of persons.
(3) In this paragraph "voluntary organisations" shall have the meaning given to that term by section 48(10) of this Act.
PART II
PLANNING AND TRAFFIC FUNCTIONS OF LONDON
BOROUGH COUNCILS AND THE COMMON COUNCIL
6.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the transfer to London borough councils and the Common Council of the Greater London Council's traffic regulation functions and its functions under the 1971 Act, so far as such functions are not transferred to the Authority by or under Part I of this Schedule.
(2) "Traffic regulation functions" in this paragraph means the functions of the Greater London Council under the Road Traffic Act 1972, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and any local enactment relating to road traffic.
PART III
ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS
7. Without prejudice to sections 99 and 100 of this Act an order made under this Schedule may contain such provisions for the amendment, adaptation or modification of this Act or any
1006
enactment passed before this Act as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for securing the purposes of, or to be incidental to or consequential upon the transfer of functions by or under, section (Strategic Planning, Highways and Traffic in London) or this Schedule.").
Amendment No. 11: Schedule 1, page 79, line 27, Leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("the authority established by section 28 of this Act").
Amendment No. 16: Leave out Schedule 1.
Amendment No. 17: Leave out Clause 7.
Amendment No. 24: Leave out Clause 9.
Amendment No. 26: Leave out Schedule 4.
Amendment No. 33: Leave out Schedule 5.
These amendments are a further attempt to safeguard the planning and environmental services which are currently carried out by the metropolitan counties and the GLC. At the outset, perhaps I may express my appreciation to the noble Lord the Minister for responding to my many questions on these issues in time for this debate. I know that he must have been buried under piles of briefing material in the past two weeks and I am most grateful to him for having taken the time and the trouble to reply to my queries. But while his replies have given somewhat fuller information about the issues I raised, they were not convincing enough to persuade me to alter my attitude this afternoon.
I want to speak in general terms to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and the consequential amendments relating to the metropolitan counties. My noble friend and others will deal with the amendments relating to the position in the London area. As I said at Second Reading and again in Committee, there is widespread concern about the future of town and country planning work in the metropolitan areas and in the GLC, and the consequences which would otherwise be left for the future shape of our large cities and their surrounding countryside. Amendment No. 1 places the strategic policy-making and the research and information services with the passenger transport authorities and Amendment No. 3 places the environmental work, the land reclamation, the waste disposal and the countryside work with the waste disposal authority which has now been set up under Clause 10 of the Bill.
These are quite modest amendments. They do not seek to wreck or overturn the Government proposals for the abolition of the metropolitan counties. They do not attempt to establish another mini authority designed to thwart the Government's commitment to abolition. They merely seek to adapt the powers of the two bodies already established within the Bill; and I believe that the division of functions we propose is in keeping with the work of those bodies. What would the amendments achieve? The first one would make secure arrangements for the research and information role of the metropolitan counties and would put strategic guidance on a sound local footing and at the same time deal with many of the procedural difficulties concerning guidance and unitary plans. They would ensure the continuity of the very valuable work already going on in the field of strategic planning. These were causes for concern on all sides of the Chamber at Committee stage.
At that time the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, was able to be in his place. I am sure that, like me, the

1007
House regrets that he is in hospital and not able to be with us today, and will wish him a speedy recovery. But he has sent me a copy of a letter he has sent to the Minister, in which he says that he made a speech stressing the desirability of what he thought was generally known as strategic planning, and this is on the record. He referred then to submissions of the institutions, the RIBA and the RICS. The noble Lord goes on to say:
"I have now received a further communication on the subject from the RICS, both because of my known interest in these matters and because I am an honourary Associate of the Institution. As I shall not be able to make any comment on the matter on the floor of the House, I am respectfully again bringing the matter to your attention and requesting its sympathetic consideration. I am sure that the interval between Committee and Report Stage has reinforced a sympathetic approach to this matter on the part of Ministers".
We are all hoping so.
The second set of amendments to which I have referred would give the new waste disposal authorities a better set of powers to enable them to do a proper job. They add up to a logical package to enable the waste disposal authorities to tackle environmental work generally. They would go some way towards answering some of the worries about the future of the countryside work and projects expressed in this Chamber in Committee, because they would ensure the best use of scarce skills on environmental work. Many experts in the field over the past two decades have recognised and have accepted that the use of land and transport need to be considered together: for example, the level of bus fares and the amount of space that is available for car parking can have a major impact on the success of shopping centres, just as the construction of new roads can markedly affect the environment by allowing pedestrianisation and the diversion of heavy lorries. If we give broad planning and transport powers to the same joint board, I believe it is more likely that these essential links will be recognised and will be properly exploited in the larger urban areas.
The strategic guidance which we have in mind would secure the same objectives as the Secretary of State set out in his consultation paper. Strategic guidance is not a dry academic subject. It is concerned with the way in which we deal with our countryside: whether green belt should have adequate protection; whether city centres are to be encouraged to flourish; how and where industrial areas are to develop and where new roads should be built; and how best can we foster the run-down areas of our cities and many other vital topics of a similar nature. The difference from the Secretary of State's guidance is that under our proposals this would be drawn up by, and be the responsibility of, local politicians. It would set out the essential background for the production of unitary development plans, and we believe that in most cases it would remove the need for the Secretary of State to use his reserve powers to call in the UDPs to ensure their compatibility.
This would be achieved by a joint board issuing certificates of conformity to the strategic guidance in much the same way as local plans are certified to conform to the structure plans at present. This process would also overcome the technical difficulties which
1008
were foreseen by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to do with the testing and re-testing of strategic guidance as each unitary development plan came up for public examination or inquiry. The system that we are proposing is simpler and is less formal than that used for the production of structure plans, although our intention is that strategic guidance is produced only after widespread consultation and can be challenged at a public hearing before it is finalised.
Any guidance produced must have a firm factual foundation, and this simplified task of producing the guidance would be a natural inheritor of much of the present research and information work carried out for structure plans and for their reviews. It would avoid a major discontinuity in the production of development plans and the Secretary of State would not have to rely on voluntary co-operation from borough or district councils. So not only would our proposals remove a lot of the uncertainty with the arrangements now in the Bill but they would relieve the strain on the staff of the Department of the Environment who might be called upon to do this work.
The metropolitan counties are already the acknowledged experts in this field of research and information. Indeed, many central government departments appreciate their work: their local population projections, statistics on land available for development, local economic data and information about recent building construction. The metropolitan counties have been gathering all this information, which is then used by health authorities, water authorities, district councils, private developers, academics and many others. The metropolitan counties have the staff, the expertise, the computers and the contacts to carry on this effective work. They act as agents for other public bodies in collecting and analysing data. They act also as co-ordinators and research leaders. All this expertise has taken a long time and considerable effort to establish. If arrangements are not made to continue that service, then it could so easily be broken up or destroyed.
Some hope is held out for a voluntary scheme for information collection with a nominated lead district. But is not the solution we propose more effective and certainly no more expensive? If the House accepts the amendment, this will avoid costly upheaval and break-up of work, by keeping that expertise together. It is generally recognised that information is only as good as the experts available to interpret it and then to make use of it. That is why the giving of strategic guidance and the analysis of information hang so well together.
Amendment No. 3—the other major amendment—seeks to place the environmental work in the metropolitan counties with the waste disposal authorities, which themselves will need to have experts to make the best arrangements for the difficult problems of waste. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said that waste disposal was a problem for the neighbouring shire counties rather than for the metropolitan counties themselves. In fact, much domestic waste is still deposited or treated within metropolitan county boundaries. Even where it is finally placed outside, it is often processed or transshipped within the metropolitan counties. Not only will the waste disposal authorities have to operate to

1009
the highest standards: they will need to ensure that the best sites are available to them.
This is a town planning matter as well as a technical matter. It needs the broadest possible view to secure the correct balance between local environmental problems and the needs of waste disposal. Surely it is better for the local councillors running the waste disposal operation also to have the power to consider, select and approve the sites for their operations? Does it not also make sense for them to consider proposals for waste disposal by private concerns? The giving of site licences for waste disposal and planning permissions for that activity would then be under one organisation.
The minerals industry itself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, reminded us previously, is very concerned about the proposal to transfer mineral planning powers to the districts. We accept that major quarries are noisy and potentially dangerous. They have problems with water courses; they lead to a concentration of heavy traffic on the roads; and they make for an unsightly environment. But they are also a source of important building materials and of raw materials for industry. A proper balance between the problems and the opportunities presented often requires complex operating restrictions, landscaping works, phasing of operations, close liaison with local residents, agreement on lorry routes and access, and agreement on land restoration. Above all, it needs constant vigilance and monitoring by the authorities.
All this takes time and expertise; and while two or three people may be adequate in each of the metropolitan counties, they must be experts to understand the quarrying industry and its needs. Quite clearly, those skills cannot be reproduced in each district or borough council area. The minerals industry needs continuity and a consistent approach to its activities if disruption to its operations is to be avoided. Transferring the present county-wide arrangements to another county-wide body would ensure that.
3.15 p.m.
There must be an overall view of this work. Concern for environmental standards, coupled with the fact that mineral extraction often provides the sites for waste disposal once workings are exhausted, has led us to the conclusion that minerals planning work should be undertaken by the waste disposal authority. That same authority could also complete the work if they had the skills for land reclamation. I am sure we are all agreed that nothing is more unsightly than a waste tip, yet yesterday's eyesore can become something very attactive tomorrow. It can be a golf course, a sports field or parkland. That means reclaiming and landscaping the sites. In a way, the waste disposal authority is the agent for environmental improvement, and so it makes sense to build other land reclamation work onto the waste disposal operation.
The specialist land reclamation teams in the metropolitan counties are already deemed to be candidates for some kind of joint working arrangement with perhaps a lead council, or for being placed with the residuary bodies. This amendment would
1010
guarantee the continued operation of that work by making the definite administrative arrangements now, and not waiting until a later stage when the effectiveness of land reclamation units might irreplaceably waste away as the expert staff leave.
I hope it is obvious now that this amendment seeks to establish a bundle of skills within the waste disposal authority for treating environmental problems and for seizing environmental opportunities. This House is concerned about the future of countryside work. At present, the metropolitan county staff who look after the countryside and its improvement also work on land reclamation sites. By putting the countryside and landscaping work with the waste disposal authority, we could retain this important environmental work in the metropolitan counties under one roof. We could keep the specialists together and they could continue to work as one unit on waste sites, reclamation schemes and the countryside, as they do at present.
It is important to keep a county-wide perspective of that work. Many important countryside areas follow or cross district boundaries, and yet for the greatest benefit to be achieved they need to be seen as single entities, just as the opposite banks of a river need to be improved together, in order to carry out the theme. There is concern both inside and outside this House that there should be adequate arrangements for strategic town planning and for environmental services. This House has also expressed considerable concern and anxiety about the future of the countryside work. I believe that the amendments I have been explaining allow those concerns to be met without undermining the principles of the Bill, and in such a way as to secure the continuation of proven and valuable work and to keep together the services of expert teams. We believe that our proposal suggests the natural and logical places for the services in question to be carried out. There is nothing in this amendment that is out of keeping with the existing shape of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 2, which I understand has been included in this group. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 24, 26, and 33, which have also been referred to.
This is the stage of the Bill at which we must make every endeavour to introduce some rationality. Some amendments were passed at Committee stage, and they are improvements; but the Bill requires further amendment if the functions and services with which it deals are to be performed adequately and sensibly in the interests of the general public.
At first sight this new clause and schedule, and the consequential amendments that flow from them, may appear to constitute an unduly long and complex package. But the principle behind the clause is clear. It proposes to bring together, under one body, strategic planning, highways and traffic in London. The body will be a joint board similar to the one already agreed for fire and civil defence. In fact, the new clause itself is quite short and clear, but the consequences of changing the Bill in this relatively simple and eminently practical way are technically complex: hence the schedule. As regards highways, the functions

1011
in the schedule are in fact identical to those already agreed for residuary bodies, so there is nothing new in that part of the schedule.
I am therefore going to speak this afternoon only about the principles at stake here and the strong case for making this change. There are three basic reasons. First, it makes practical commonsense to put together overall planning, highways and traffic, since in a great city they must be co-ordinated if chaos is to be avoided. Secondly, by proposing a joint board for these three related city-wide functions we are consistent with the Bill which already provides, in Part IV, for similar bodies. Thirdly, we are not in breach of the manifesto on which the Government base their claim to legislate on these matters. Let me read from the Conservative manifesto at the last election. In regard to the GLC and the MCCs it said:
"We shall abolish them and return most of their functions to the boroughs and districts. Services which need to be administered over a wider area—such as police and fire, and education in inner London—will be run by joint boards of borough or district representatives".
That manifesto said nothing about transferring functions to Ministers; nothing about planning permissions and residuary bodies appointed by Ministers; and nothing about trunking 65 miles of London's roads. Indeed, it did not say that the GLC's services were to be broken up at all except where they were to be returned to the boroughs.
But what is proposed in the Bill? Strategic planning in London—currently a GLC responsibility—is to be transferred to the Secretary of State, advised by a planning commission appointed by himself. In other words, London's strategic planning is to be "nationalised"—surely a very odd development for this Government. Highways and traffic, on the other hand, are currently, as a result of the Committee stage amendment, to be transferred to the London residuary body under the present Clause 7. This is an improvement, but it is unsatisfactory as a permanent solution owing to the impermanence of the body concerned. A joint board offers a more satisfactory alternative because it is far more accountable.
Thus our suggestion is to bring together these three intimately linked services under a single board whose 33 members would be chosen by the 32 boroughs and the city corporation. Decisions on how we use land and plan activities on that land have an obvious impact on transport services, and vice versa. Such decisions can only be made sensibly on a city-wide basis. Therefore there must be an overall co-ordinating framework which does not require yet more powers and responsibilities to be vested in Whitehall. The boroughs, not the Secretary of State, should have collective responsibility for the strategic plan for London. The fact that the board will be composed of borough council members offers the best possible guarantee against any over-zealous encroachment by the new body on to the individual responsibilities of its constituent parts.
Professional and expert opinion is rightly appalled at the prospect of 33 separate planning authorities, separate highway authorities and separate traffic authorities for our capital city. For that matter, the unitary development plan has no significant
1012
professional or popular support. It muddles the proper distinction between strategic and local planning and would, if left as it stands, give rise to practical problems on a horrendous scale. There is no logic whatever in imposing on London a different planning system from that which will remain in the surrounding shire counties.
What the boroughs can do individually, they should do. These amendments which I am putting to your Lordships do not interfere in the slightest degree with what the Government plan to devolve to them. But the House has already accepted that what they cannot do is to maintain and improve the main road network with its major bridges and tunnels, or the flow of traffic on those roads, together with such essential services as computerised traffic signals. These tasks require skills, resources and commitment which, as the report of the committee of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to your Lordships' House has emphasised, should not be lost through ill-considered fragmentation.
Executive planning powers are perhaps less complex, but there is a core of powers that must be retained London-wide. Planning control of the green belt, large-scale mineral extraction and land reclamation, and major applications which may conflict with London-wide interests must clearly remain within the competence of a single but representative body. The amendment also provides machinery, which is lacking in the Bill, for London-wide resources to be devoted to the renewal of particular areas. The GLC's success at Covent Garden shows what can be done. I see no reason to deprive the boroughs collectively of this power.
In this way we can retain in London both co-ordinated policy and effective executive action. Highway investment will better serve the economic, social and environmental policies of the overall plan. Conservation policies and programmes will not be cut off artificially from decision-making on strategic roads, housing, industry and open space policies. We shall not see 18 separate planning authorities making their own decisions on the green belt. We shall keep together the research, data, expertise and skills needed for London-wide planning and transport work.
I want to stress that this is not a GLC replica. There will still be substantial devolution to the boroughs—which we support because we are a devolutionist party—and that devolution will take place particularly in the two areas highlighted by the Government in Streamlining the Cities as causing friction and delay. All GLC planning controls, with the exceptions I have outlined, will be scrapped. The new body is likely to see only some few hundred major applications a year rather than the 3,000 or 4,000 at present handled by the GLC. The boroughs will become traffic authorities for all roads outside the strategic network, which means the management of some 7,000 out of the 8,000 miles of London's non-trunk roads.
That is fine. We accept all that. We approve of it. But, my Lords, we are talking about London: your London, my London, our capital city. We are dealing with the management of one of the greatest, most renowned and most complex cities in the world. We all know, surely, that London is greater than the sum of its parts. We must have an overall plan to provide

1013
elementary direction, coherence and co-ordination to a city of 6.5 million people, to say nothing of the increasing throngs of tourists who flood into it. Our residents, our commuters, our visitors and, not least, our investors need to know where they stand, what the general framework is and what the ground rules are; and they need it in the form of a statutory structure plan which has been clearly thought through and subject to proper consultation and inquiry. Nothing less will do—certainly not the hotch-potch the Bill offers us.
Therefore the question before your Lordships this afternoon is whether the vital functions I have been talking about are to go to the Minister and two quangoid bodies—the residuary body and the planning commission—appointed by him, or whether they are to be placed in the hands of the borough councils through a single joint body chosen by them, which in no way contradicts anything envisaged in the Conservative manifesto at the last general election. I put it to your Lordships that there can be no reasonable doubt that the second of these propositions is the more appropriate, the more sensible, the more practical, the more pragmatic and the more democratic. I hope and believe that it will receive support from all sides of the House.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we have an amendment on the metropolitan counties moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—and an amendment on London. The metropolitan counties and the GLC situations are slightly different but the thrust is exactly the same, and these amendments are aiming at largely the same situation. My noble friends on these Benches and I support the amendments and all those which have been grouped together. I shall not spell them out now. What we are discussing is of course strategic planning. It is not a phrase that trips off everyone's tongue every day of the week. Nevertheless the matters which it embraces are of tremendous importance. They are rapidly becoming very well known to everyone and are talked about.
3.30 p.m.
People living in an inner-city area which is run down are concerned about its renewal. Those of us who live in towns and cities are concerned about the preservation of the open countryside on the fringes and would take it amiss if suddenly that started to disappear. The planning of new housing, shopping centres, offices and factories is of tremendous importance to everyone in their daily life. More and more people are anxious to conserve our historic heritage and the natural habitat. All that is part of the phrase "strategic planning", as is the planning of new roads not purely for the benefit of motorists but also to encourage economic growth and to protect the environment. The promotion of new recreational opportunities is another aspect. In short, it includes many of the things that bear directly on the quality of life for millions of people in our capital cities and in our largest and oldest industrial areas.
For example, I am sure that many noble Lords have seen the work going on to "green", as it is called, the river valleys of Greater Manchester and to create attractive new landscapes out of the wastelands of South Yorkshire. In London the revitalised. Covent
1014
Garden will be familiar to most people, and it has just now been mentioned. How many noble Lords know of the other work of the GLC to restore community life in areas around the centre of London which have been neglected for years, or of its 10-year programme to create out of former gravel pits in south London a water park which will in fact be bigger than Hyde Park? These are all set out in the community area policy document.
I do not think that the Government can believe that those achievements and many others that have been mentioned have come about by accident. They have not. They have not even grown like little Topsy, bit by bit. They are the product, first, of an overall plan which sets out priorities for investment and coordinates programmes to achieve the aims; and, secondly, of an ability in specific areas to mobilise the money, skills and commitment to get on with the task of turning proposals on paper into achievements on the ground.
Neither of these important and essential services is preserved in the Bill as it is at the moment. The overall plan is to be abandoned in favour of a few general paragraphs of so-called strategic guidance from the Secretary of State. "Strategic guidance" is not defined anywhere in the Bill. It is mentioned in passing on page 79 in Schedule 1, paragraph 2(4)(a). We do not know what it means or what will be said. It is intended to sort out the inevitable cross-boundary friction and presumably to take the place of the well-known strategic planning. The money and the skills are to be fragmented among 69 boroughs and districts; that is, the GLC and the "mets" taken together. The result will be the worst of all possible systems. Policy decisions will rest remotely in Whitehall, while all implementation of policy will be dispersed among the local authorities, the quangos and the joint boards.
Curiously the very system that is to be scrapped in our major cities, where the greater social, economic and environmental problems are undoubtedly to be found, is to continue in the shires, where the problems, needs and pressures are undeniably less. My colleagues and I are still waiting for the Government to explain to us why a two-tier planning system is considered inappropriate for London and the metropolitan counties but right for Cumbria, Suffolk and, believe it or not, the minute and remote Isles of Scilly. It does not make very much sense, does it?
No wonder the Bill's proposals for planning have brought universal condemnation from every reputable professional body. If I started to read out the list of the bodies and individuals who have written to protest to the Government on the basis of purely functional and professional representation, it would take, I am afraid, a great deal of time. They include the CBI, the London Chamber of Commerce and the House Builders' Federation, and I do not think that anyone could say that any of those has ever shown particularly Leftist tendencies. All those organisations recognise that 69 separate plans for London and the "met" counties is ludicrous. They do not defend the GLC or make a political point. They are not defending the "met" counties as they are at the moment. They are alarmed at the prospect of more delay, which has always been the strongest criticism of our planning system, more uncertainty and more conflicts of interest in

1015
development which the Bill will inflict on the planning system.
I admit that the drafting of the amendments is complicated, but they add up to a simple proposition. They will secure precisely the coherence and the effectiveness in planning that we need. In fact they will be an improvement on the present system. They will maintain through joint boards of borough or district representatives a strategic framework for each built-up area. They will help to co-ordinate the activities of those bodies—Government departments, joint boards, nationalised industries, private firms and individual boroughs and districts—whose decisions will influence the future shape of our cities.
The key relationship between overall land use planning and overall transport planning must, as has already been stressed, be maintained. Over the past 20 years we have learnt painfully the need to ensure that what we invest in our transport services must be compatible with the decisions that we make on land use and development.
Last week Coopers and Lybrand, whose name is certainly well known to every member of your Lordships' House, produced its report on the implications of abolishing the GLC. At paragraph 22 on page 10 it said of planning:
"The need to avoid competitive physical developments and to allocate land use in the most resource-efficient way argues for planning and land use to have a strong element of overall strategy".
That is stated by a highly respected firm of accountants which has given advice and made reports on various propositions and which is certainly independent and of the highest calibre.
In the same paragraph it says of transport:
"Our review identified strong linkages between public transport planning, highways planning, traffic management and enforcement and development planning and control".
There is nothing in the Bill to secure those linkages, but the amendments will do that. Integrated policies will enable us to plan for effective action on the ground in ways which are not circumscribed by artificial administrative boundaries. I am not asking for extensive executive powers for these joint authorities, but in selected areas they can and should have a key role. The green belt, land reclamation, countryside conservation, urban renewal schemes and environmental protection are some of the most important areas.
The joint authorities can effectively deploy resources of money and specialist staff for that work. Expert teams of land surveyors, ecologists, pollution scientists, economists and landscape architects now exist. As the report of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, emphasises, and as the House recognises, their work is impressive and valuable. We have already discussed that in Committee. Fragmenting them would be a retrograde step. Even if each of the 33 boroughs and 36 districts tried—and it is highly unlikely—to provide their own specialist teams, that would be significantly less cost-effective and inevitably a service of a lower calibre.
Much more needs to be done to improve the quality of life in our major cities. New problems will inevitably arise as time goes on. City-wide planning is
1016
essential and really must not be replaced if we are to maintain the progress made over recent years and be capable of responding to fresh challenges in the future.
Finally, I must reiterate that nothing in these amendments can be interpreted as attempting to recreate the GLC as it is, or the metropolitan counties. We want to see effective devolution to individual boroughs and districts of the detailed controls which can sensibly be devolved. At the same time, we want the authorities collectively (not going to Whitehall, not quangos) to continue to plan at a strategic level. This is completely compatible with the principles of the Bill; it avoids wrecking the planning system; and there is every reason why it should be welcomed by the Government.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, the number of amendments that have already been spoken to is rather daunting. It may be helpful if I summarise the three schemes that they set out. Before I start to do so, I should like first of all to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in her condolences and good wishes to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, the copy of whose letter arrived in her hand, and she started reading, about a minute and a half before the original reached me. Thus she will not expect a considered reply at the beginning of this debate. However, with your Lordships' leave I shall of course be replying to this debate.
I think I should make the Government's position clear on a number of matters at the beginning. First, I should acknowledge that each of the schemes links in to amendments already carried against the Government's advice and your Lordships may wish me to comment on our intentions towards those. It is not our intention to seek to get your Lordships to reverse on Report decisions which were come to after full discussion in Committee. I do not think that that would be a proper use of your Lordships' time. In any case, the Government do not intend to reach a final view on the amendments carried against our advice in Committee until we have seen the overall outcome of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. We shall then consider our position against the background of the principle of the Bill, approved both here and in another place, that the functions of the GLC and of the metropolitan county councils should, so far as is possible, be devolved to the boroughs and districts. We shall also be considering the need to provide a framework within which the successor authorities will be able to carry out their functions in an efficient and economical manner.
So far as the highways and traffic management provisions are concerned, the Government proposals are based on local responsibility, on consultation and, where necessary, on co-ordination.
The amendments which imported Clauses 7 and 8 into the Bill have reflected two concerns: concern over how strategic traffic co-ordination would be achieved, and concern over how expert teams would be kept together. These are concerns which the Government fully accept. That is why arrangements to secure necessary co-ordination were built into the Bill from the start. The key and strategic networks proposed for London, the power to give guidance, and the reserve

1017
powers over the UTCs are all specifically addressed to the first concern. They will allow area-wide issues to be sensibly addressed within a system in which the statutory powers rest with the boroughs and the districts.
Your Lordships' concern that expert teams should not be needlessly dispersed is one we have already recognised and debated at some length. We have undertaken to ensure that the residuary bodies will play a positive role in holding valuable expert teams together. I have tabled an amendment, to which I shall refer again later, with that end in view.
The new Clauses 7 and 8 will have to be considered in another place. Whatever view is ultimately taken of those provisions, they do not deal fully with all highways and traffic responsibilities. Each leaves for consideration the extent to which the chosen successor body shall inherit these functions. The detailed provisions of the Bill as introduced in your Lordships' House could therefore still he needed and must therefore remain in the Bill. At the risk of being tedious, I must stress to your Lordships that to the extent that these and other amendments before us are intended to prevent the transfer of functions to the boroughs and districts, they run counter to the philosophy of this Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Before I return to this group of amendments, I should also give notice that the Government do not regard the deletions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 16, 24, 26 and 33—and it is difficult to say that without sounding like the railway announcer at Crewe junction—or those proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff, in Amendments Nos. 25 and 27 "and all stations" to 29, as consequential on the earlier amendments before us today, and we shall therefore wish to oppose them.
I now return to the three schemes embodied in the large group of amendments now before us. The first of them was most persuasively presented by the noble Baroness. I must say that if I had been presenting them, I would not have done as well. I spent Saturday looking for the merits of her amendment and most of Sunday considering what I should say about it in the contrary sense. It came to my mind that the reason why the amendment looks so different to her from what it looks like to me is that she is the parent and I am not. Therefore, perhaps she has a prejudiced view of what she is looking at.
The first of the schemes is presented quite simply in the first and third amendments on the Marshalled List. It is concerned only with the metropolitan counties and has no effect upon the arrangements made in the Bill for London. The arrangements that concern this scheme are those for the functions that relate to planning, to public transport, to highways and to traffic regulation in the metropolitan counties. At present, these functions are all discharged by the metropolitan county councils.
Before I summarise what the noble Baroness proposes for these functions, let me remind your Lordships of how we propose to deal with them. Under the Bill as drafted, the planning role of the
1018
county council, in producing and maintaining the county structure plan, passes to the district councils, which will each produce a unitary development plan. Part I of each of these plans will replace the equivalent part of the old county structure plan. In order to maintain overall strategy and compatibility between them, which is something in which the noble Baroness and her friends are essentially interested, each district will be required to draw up that plan in the light of strategic guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, say that she had no idea, and that none of her friends had any idea, what it would be like or what it would say. That is because quite apart from the, I thought, fairly extensive description I gave in Committee, I placed in the Library two physical examples of the kind of thing we expect, which I invited your Lordships to look at. Maybe the noble Baroness has looked at them. If she has not, I invite her to do so between now and Third Reading, when she will be better informed.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. Yes, I shall do my best to be as well informed as I can. I try to be well informed the whole time, even on this difficult subject. However, it is not in the Bill. The Bill is completely vague on this matter. As far as the Bill is concerned, there is nothing in it which replaces our present system of strategic planning.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the latter comment, I cannot agree. As to the former, I should like now to put on record the very high regard I have for the noble Baroness and, indeed, for her colleagues on her own and other Opposition Front Benches. It too often goes without note that, although I am labouring under piles of paper, it has been very largely generated for me, and I have a great deal of advice. However, noble Lords (who are, after all, members of a voluntary organistion) when in opposition do the work themselves. It is true that they do it with the assistance of certain interested parties, who provide material for your Lordships from time to time, of not all of which I approve. However, your Lordships' labours are mighty. I acknowledge that, and I in no way rebuke the noble Baroness when I suggest that in this matter it may just be possible for her to be fractionally better informed at Third Reading. That should not take much because she is already so well informed.
I have become so enthusiastic in advancing the causes of the Opposition that I am not sure where I am in advancing my own. The provisions to which I have referred, providing for the strategic guidance to link into Part 1 of each unitary plan, are in Clauses 3 and 4 and Schedule 1. The public transport provisions of the Bill are in Clauses 28 to 36, Clause 39 and Schedule 11. I merely repeat those because the number changes between stages are so confusing. These provide that the public transport functions of the old metropolitan county councils shall, in future, be discharged by passenger transport authorities. There will be one PTA for each metropolitan county, made up of members of all the elected district councils. I am not doing very well this afternoon, my Lords. I have twice lost my place and I shall now rescue myself at the last moment.

1019
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in particular, was concerned about the research and intelligence function at present discharged by the upper tier. Others have argued that a London-wide authority is needed for the GLC's research and intelligence functions. I do not want to do more than refer to what was said in Committee. During the Committee stage, I told your Lordships that we had revised and strengthened the then Clause 86. Your Lordships have now approved it as Clause 87 to provide for the boroughs to organise this activity themselves. I also explained how computer facilities and expert staff could be held temporarily by the residuary body while long-term arrangements were being finalised. I have tabled amendments that clarify the positive role to be taken in this, and in other respects, by the residuary body to achieve exactly the continuity and permanence that the noble Baroness and others seek. In Committee, your Lordships seemed to think, as the Government believe, that these provisions are the better way of dealing with research and intelligence and that a new body is not really needed for that purpose.
The last two sets of functions in the first scheme in the name of the noble Baroness are those relating to highways and road traffic. For these functions, the provisions now in the Bill differ from those that were in it when we read it for a second time. The intention then was that all highways and traffic functions should pass to the district councils. In Committee, your Lordships added two new clauses to the Bill. The first transferred the highways and road traffic functions of the GLC to the London residuary body. That does not, for the moment, concern us because we are looking at the "mets" under the noble Baroness's scheme.
The second, now Clause 8 of the Bill, simply adds to the transport functions already given to the metropolitan county PTAs the highways and road traffic functions that were to have passed from the metropolitan county councils to their district councils. It is to these same passenger transport authorities that the noble Baroness now wishes us to transfer not only public transport, highways and traffic management but also, and most noticeably, strategic planning. That is certainly true of the noble Baroness's second group of amendments. This is made up of Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 concerned with those aspects of planning dealing with mineral extraction and the countryside and its enjoyment. Again, she has looked for a body already existing under the structure of the Bill. This time, she has chosen the joint waste disposal authorities which your Lordships decided to put into the Bill in what is now Clause 10 of the new print.
The powers that the noble Baroness would give them under paragraphs (d) and (e) of her amendment would, I note in passing, be concurrent with those of the district councils. One can only assume that the joint authorities are meant to be reinserted into the Bill to supervise the districts as a middle tier planning authority of exactly the sort that the Bill is designed to remove. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that we are very strongly against such an idea.
Some of your Lordships are anxious that country parks of great importance and interest that meander, for instance, along river valleys and therefore straddle the boundaries of a number of borough or district
1020
councils may suffer. Your Lordships fear that non-co-operation and decline will result from this geographical fact. Experience, I believe, suggests otherwise. We already have striking examples of cross-boundary cooperation for just this sort of purpose under the existing scheme and on a larger scale, what is more, between metropolitan districts and counties. Arrangements vary from one project to another, with either a district or a county council taking a lead role and employing staff, and other interested authorites contributing finance. They can and do do this now. They can and, I believe, will do it in the future. There is no reason whatever for this ability to be extinguished by abolition. I am not persuaded, therefore that we must recreate a middle tier authority to do this sort of work.
Nevertheless, I recognise your Lordships' remaining anxieties. And your Lordships will, I believe, recognise that the Countryside Commission may have an important role to play. The chairman of the commission is to discuss with my honourable friend the responsible Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment the question of the cash and manpower necessary to ensure that countryside management is responsibly carried forward by successor authorities, and we will do so very shortly. I am sure that this task would have been made much easier if the non-co-operating authorities had been prepared to give the commission the information for which it asked. Our basic approach is clear. We look to successor authorities to identify suitable arrangements for the continued provision of countryside facilities and to the commission, and not to this amendment, to ensure that, if there are difficulties, satisfactory arrangements are made for the years ahead.
The noble Baroness's two schemes are both directed at metropolitan counties, and her approach is therefore fairly easy to summarise. She believes that the districts, which are directly elected bodies of some substance, are incapable of producing acceptable development plans that are not in conflict with each other but in line with the strategic guidance issued after consultation by the Secretary of State. Nor does she believe them capable of running their highways or their own urban traffic management. She wishes, on the contrary, to place an extra tier—a supervisory tier—into the planning system and to give not all but almost all, that function to the passenger transport authority in each metropolian county area. She would also give them the highways functions of the district councils. These are all functions that we were transferring, in conformity with the agreed and established principles of the Bill earlier endorsed by your Lordships, from the metropolitan county councils to the metropolitan district councils.
Having intercepted them, as it were, on the way from the upper to the lower tier, the noble Baroness wants to replace them at the original level in new hands. I pause there to say I find it surprising that anyone could think that this would save time in planning processes. Inevitably, it would take longer. The hands of the district councils remain outstretched, expectant and more or less empty when she has finished with them. But she is still left with a few crumbs of unallocated authority. These she does not

1021
give to the district councils. She gives them instead to the waste disposal authorities. That is the noble Baroness's solution to the problem. It is not one that we welcome.
I turn now as briefly as I can—these are major matters—to the third group of amendments before us. These begin with Amendment No. 2 and include Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, 16, 17, 24, 26 and 33. The group is brought before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and differs from the others, in that those of the noble Baroness are addressed only to the metropolitan county councils, while his are addressed only to London. Let me summarise briefly what the group sets out to do. Amendment No. 8 would remove Clause 3, which establishes the London boroughs as planning authorities. Amendments Nos. 9 and 16 would remove Clause 4 and Schedule 1, which set up the unitary development planning system. Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 would sweep away Clause 9 and Schedule 4, which transfer the highway functions of the Greater London Council to the boroughs. Amendment No. 33 would strike out Schedule 5, which does the same thing for road traffic.
I do not wish to dwell disproportionately on the last three amendments. But they are worth more than a glance in passing. They have some odd effects. For example, paragraph 7 of Schedule 4, as in the Bill, ensures that the metropolitan district council is empowered to adopt private streets and highways maintainable at public expense and so enjoys powers available to all other highway authorities. Removing Schedule 4 removes that provision. The intention may be healing surgery, but the effect on the Bill, I am sorry to say, is one of amputation.
The removal of Schedule 5 by Amendment No. 33 would have a similar damaging effect. The deletion of paragraph 3 of the schedule would mean that in the metropolitan counties there would be no authority to make traffic orders in respect of roads that are not trunk roads or principal roads at all. The removal of Schedules 4 and 5 would leave completely unclear which local authorities would be responsible, for example, for either highway maintenance or signing on unclassified roads.
4 p.m.
Having thus scraped our picture off the canvas and made, in my view, some holes in the canvas as well, the noble Lords supporting the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, then proceed to set up a new London planning, highways and traffic joint authority. This would be done by the new clause setting up the joint authority in Amendment No. 2 and the new schedule setting out its functions in Amendment No. 10.
We have spent a long time already discussing planning in London. If I may remind your Lordships, it all started with a debate in Committee on an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandford. The issues broadly are these. Planning in London is at present carried out in general conformity with the Greater London Development Plan. The Greater London Council has an important statutory position as the authority responsible for that plan and it exercises also a supervisory role in relation to some development control matters. The importance of
1022
major London planning decisions for the rest of the south-east region is very great and is monitored by SERPLAN. SERPLAN is a non-statutory body of which the borough councils are members.
The Bill before your Lordships will abolish the Greater London Council and remove its supervisory powers. Very many people are convinced that that can do nothing but good for those who have to live under the planning system over which it presides. The removal of an unnecessary layer of bureaucratic decision-making will save months and even years of the time in which development ought actually to be taking place. However, in Committee your Lordships pointed out that it will also remove a level of supervision which some people nonetheless find reassuring. I explained that the boroughs would not be left free and unfettered to do exactly what they like. On the contrary, they will draw up their plans in two parts.
The top part, or part 1, will perform the same function as the bit of the existing Greater London Development Plan that covers their own area. They will be required to do so in the light of the strategic guidance published, after extensive consultation, by the Secretary of State. This will ensure among other things that boroughs do not draw up plans that are at odds with those of their neighbours. The plans will be subject to public objection and discussion and, if necessary, to call-in by the Secretary of State. Call-in can be singly or collectively and could apply to whole plans or only to the general policies in part 1. The continuum of planning across Greater London would therefore be protected. Under the Bill the Secretary of State will also have the advantage of advice by the planning commission for London which will have London-wide issues as its prime concern.
When I described those arrangements in Committee your Lordships remained anxious that the views of Londoners as a whole would still not be available to the Secretary of State, that the London Planning Commission might be very expert but that experts were sometimes out of touch with ordinary people in a way that elected representatives were not, and that there was no formal protection of the way in which the interests of Greater London and of the the south-east region interacted. It was to those issues that my noble friend Lord Sandford had addressed himself and tabled an amendment.
After listening most carefully to the points made in debate, I said that I would not wish to impose a statutory arrangement of the kind he had in mind without proper consultation. I undertook to consult the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities to see if they would want to come to some type of formal arrangement to secure co-operation between the boroughs, and between them and the neigbouring authorities. Those discussions are now under way.
The Association of London Authorities have said—and I think, I regret to say, that we would have predicted this—that an amendment on the lines proposed in Committee by my noble friend does not go anything like far enough for them. They remain of the view that an elected, statutory, London-wide planning authority is needed. As we have explained on numerous occasions, we believe that a body of that kind is not needed. Moreover, it would be an open

1023
breach of the principles of the Bill that both Houses of Parliament have now accepted. I regret, therefore, that discussions with the minority of London boroughs represented on the ALA are not fruitful, as they do not recognise the realities of parliamentary procedure.
In advance of meeting the London Boroughs Association I have had discussions with my noble friend Lord Sandford to make sure that I understood his proposals, and my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and I then met with representatives of the London Boroughs Association to discuss this matter in detail. It would be fair to say that the LBA, which represents a considerable majority of the London boroughs, was initially very wary of the insertion into the Bill tout court of even a body of the kind suggested by my noble friend. However, I have since received a letter from the chairmen of the two relevant LGA committees—that is, the housing and works and the general purposes committees—and it sets out proposals which are not yet a formal LBA view but which the chairmen of those committees tell me they will be commending to their association.
In brief, the proposals suggest that there should be a body representative of each of the London boroughs which could, first, provide concerted borough input and views to the Secretary of State on all matters related to the strategic planning for Greater London; secondly, provide, by means of representatives serving on SERPLAN, a Greater London input to SERPLAN on matters related to strategic planning for the regions; and, thirdly, allow the London authorities to discuss among themselves any London-wide planning issues or other planning matters of common concern.
Lord Diamond: My Lord, the noble Lord has referred to a letter. No doubt he will be good enough to put it in the Library so that anybody who wishes to look at it may do so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the reason I hesitate is that I was expecting to put the concluding letter in the Library. However, if it is helpful to the noble Lord and if there are no objections to my doing so—because it is not my property—I shall do so.
Such a body would have modest administrative and professional support provided on a lead borough basis and funded, the LBA proposes, by all the boroughs following agreement by an appropriate majority of the boroughs. The LBA remains adamant that a planning authority is not needed for London. Moreover, its view is that if there were a duty on the boroughs to establish such a committee, there would be no room for the London Planning Commission because of the risk of confusion and duplication.
The LBA's proposals raise some important questions of principle for the Government. We need in particular to consider whether, if they were to be adopted, a separate statutory London Planning Commission would be desirable or not. However, I can say that we are sympathetic to the general thrust of its proposals and look forward to hearing the views of the House on the issues during the debate this afternoon. In the light of them I would hope to be able to undertake at the end of this debate—when, by your
1024
Lordships' leave, I shall reply—to bring amendments forward at Third Reading. I must stress, however, that the Government do not accept the need for a strategic planning authority in the metropolitan areas, whether for the preparation of the strategic guidance as proposed in the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, or for the development control and other planning functions as proposed in her Amendment No. 3. Still less do we accept—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can assist me. Is what he is saying broadly accepting the spirit of Amendment No. 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that it is a little more complicated than that. Amendment No. 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has other connotations and we shall doubtless be discussing the amendment later. What I am saying is that in the light of your Lordships' views on the fairly clear statement—at least, I hope it is a clear statement—of the desire of the LBA, which represents the majority of the London boroughs, and of my noble friend who is chairman of SERPLAN and one of the Members of your Lordships' House with the most powerful credentials as an authority on planning, I hope to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to answer those concerns. If you Lordships read the record I think you will find that that is precisely what I have said. It is certainly precisely what I mean. However, I wish to hear the debate and obviously your Lordships' reaction before I finally commit myself.
I think that I was in the middle of a sentence when my noble friend rose to his feet, and I shall therefore risk repeating myself. I was saying that we do not accept the need for a strategic planning authority in the metropolitan areas for either of the purposes suggested in Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. Still less do we accept the need for the kind of plenipotentiary planning and transport authority envisaged in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
Let us therefore be quite clear that what all the amendments now before your Lordships—both those of the noble Baroness and those of the noble Lord—would do is to create precisely the type of situation that this Bill is designed to abolish. The Government believe that there are other and better ways of meeting the accepted need for certain issues to be coordinated and considered across local authority boundaries which do not, as these amendments do, multiply the stages of planning applications. I would point in particular to the kind of arrangements proposed for London by my noble friend and discussed with, and I hope commended by, the LBA.
I have no doubt that your Lordships will look most closely at all the alternatives before reaching a conclusion. I am confident that in doing so my noble friends and noble Lords opposite will wish to give due weight to the advantages of the single-tier planning on which this Bill is based. Devolution of functions to the boroughs and districts as we propose—and we, too, are a devolutionary party—will eliminate the duplication and delay inherent in the two-tier approach. The amendments would throw those valuable advantages

1025
out of the window. I am convinced that the principle of devolution which runs through this Bill is indeed the right approach and that my noble friends who have supported this Bill will wish once again to endorse it.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I should like to be clear as to exactly what he is proposing. It is difficult to take it in at short notice. I understood him to say that the London Boroughs Association would put foreward views with the aid of a modest staff. Did he use those words? Who is going to pay for this modest staff? What new bureaucracy is being set up among all the other various bureaucracies to which we seem to be giving birth all around London?
Lord Elton: My Lords, what I have put before your Lordships is this. I have engaged, as in Committee I undertook to do, in discussions with both my noble friend and the representatives of such London boroughs as wished to enter into consultation—and that was most of them—represented by the LBA. The LBA came to a conclusion—no, that is wrong. The two committee chairman from the LBA who came to see me and my right honourable friend have put forward a proposal which matches closely what my noble friend had in mind, and they have said that they will commend it to their association. We shall have their answer on that commendation before Third Reading.
If it appears to me that your Lordships, and particularly my noble friends, are in support of this proposal, and if it is endorsed by the LBA, the way is clear. It seems to me that it embodies what my noble friend put before your Lordships with general approval, I think, not only from this side of the House, as a solution to the difficulties which your Lordships genuinely saw. I do not want to take unnecessary time, but would my noble friend like me to read again the short paragraph which describes the functions?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Elton: The proposals suggest that there should be a body representative of each of the London boroughs which could, first, provide concerted borough input and views to the Secretary of State on all matters related to the strategic planning for Greater London; secondly, provide, by means of representatives serving on SERPLAN, a Greater London input to SERPLAN on matters related to strategic planning for the regions; and, thirdly, allow the London authorities to discuss among themselves any London-wide planning issues or other planning matters of common concern. Such a body would have modest administrative and professional support provided on a lead borough basis and funded, the LBA proposes, by all the boroughs following agreement by an appropriate majority of the boroughs.
I think I have now repeated decorously, clearly and slowly the vital part of the correspondence, and I have also explained its status. I ask your Lordships to bear it in mind when considering the other proposals put forward in the quite substantial number of amendments on the Table before you at the moment. I shall listen closely to what your Lordships have to
1026
say. I look forward to giving an undertaking at the end of this debate to act at Third Reading if that appears appropriate.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has mentioned my amendment and myself in his remarks, it may be helpful to the House if I comment now. First, by way of preliminary, perhaps I may say that I hope that all noble Lords who showed an interest in this subject at the earlier stages have received a copy of the document published by SERPLAN headed Development South-East Regional Strategic Guidance. I sent it with a letter of 22nd May. I do not know whether or not the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has read it. She certainly pretended a moment ago that she had not read it, since it makes clear what is strategic guidance in this area and what is involved.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I am sure that he sent the letter, but I have not received it. Had I received it, I would have read it, and had I read it, I would not have pretended that I had not read it.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I apologise for imputing that to the noble Baroness. I hope that other noble Lords have received it. I want to stress at the outset that what I am talking about is London and the SouthEast—that is to say, the topic addressed by Amendment No. 2—and not at the moment the metropolitan counties.
An elected statutory authority for handling strategic planning was the first choice of all the members of SERPLAN, but that has been rejected by this House and by the other House and is not now a live topic. What we are now considering is their second choice, which was the provision in the Bill for some properly constituted body to discharge strategic planning functions in Greater London and with which the Home Counties, and the districts in the Home Counties, could collaborate. That was the essence of Amendment No. 19 to which I spoke at Committee stage and withdrew on the undertaking of my noble friend to which he has just alluded.
I am glad to confirm that I have persuaded him of the force of this case and of the need for something in the Bill to bring it about. I am glad to hear him say that he has persuaded the London Boroughs Association of that. He has persuaded me that we can get by with something far less elaborate and inconvenient than the full range of devices and arrangements which are set before the House in the cluster of amendments we are now debating.
If the London Boroughs Association can go further and persuade my noble friend, as I have been trying to do for some months, that with some simple arrangement in the Bill on the general lines of my original Amendment 19 we can do without the London Planning Commission, then so much the better.
Perhaps I may comment on the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, about the staff involved. The additional staff in SERPLAN would be quite modest. I think that it would be of the order of six or seven additional staff, some of them professional and some of them administrative. But that would be on the

1027
understanding that the research and data collection hitherto undertaken by the GLC would be carried out under the arrangements provided by Clause 87 of the Bill. As your Lordships will recall, we heard from my noble friend on the Front Bench that that could be arranged on that basis.
I should like briefly to turn to the metropolitan authorities in the metropolitan counties and the situation in the metropolitan areas outside London and the South-East. I have no particular responsibility for them; only a measure of concern as president of the Association of District Councils, which has the operation of the sharp end of strategic planning in its hands. I do not believe that anything as elaborate as the South-East Regional Planning Conference is needed in those areas. All the metropolitan boroughs put together are only just more in number than the London boroughs. Something much simpler will suffice. It will be necessary for the shire counties surrounding those metropolitan areas and the metropolitan boroughs within them to come to arrangements of their own for the discharge of these functions, because if they fail to do so they will find themselves convened together in conferences by the Department of the Environment and sitting under the chairmanship of one of their officials. That would be the worst possible outcome. Apart from making that passing observation, I do not wish to add any more.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I am not ashamed to say that it is quite impossible for anyone listening to so many prepared speeches referring to a number of different clauses and schedules fully to understand exactly the implications of all that has been said. I think I have been able to take in the general atmosphere. The atmosphere at this stage is very different from the atmosphere at the Committee stage. While my noble friend the Minister of State rightly abstained from committing himself in any way at this stage to any definite proposal, I thought that his whole approach was different from what it had been at Committee stage.
To try to summarise the matter in about two sentences: while my noble friend continues to reject any proposal for formal organisations—that would be described as mark 2 of the organisations that are being abolished—he has taken a sympathetic view of the arguments that have been put forward in relation both to the London and SERPLAN areas and also the MCCs to ensure that under the new system there shall be friendly consultation and co-operation between them.
I noticed that noble Lords, in speaking to these amendments, disclaimed any proposal to go back upon the decisions of another place and of this House that we would not have elected bodies taking the place of those it is proposed to abolish. I welcome that and associate myself completely with it. I shall read with the utmost care and attention what has been said. I feel that the general attitude of my noble friend the Minister, and especially what he said in reply to my noble friend Lord Sandford, indicates that he is more sympathetic than I thought at one time he was to consultation and co-operation between the new lower-tier authorities upon whom such great and responsible
1028
duties are being imposed. He has gone a long way in spirit, without in any way committing himself to any particular structure, to meeting the reasonable arguments that obtained support from all parts of the House that when these intermediate authorities are abolished it will be necessary to ensure that there should be friendly co-operation between the smaller authorities that it is intended should take over.
In putting my name to at least one of these amendments, I felt that it was a probing amendment, and as such it has served an extremely useful purpose. I welcome what has been said by my noble friend the Minister, and after listening to his speech I should not for a moment feel disposed to vote against the Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following the line that my noble friend Lord Molson has taken, which I think is a proper interpretation of the atmosphere of the House, I should like to say that in addition to the detail of the amendments there are other aspects which we as a House ought to take into account apart from the interpretation of the amendments and my noble friend's answer to them. We as Back-Bench Members have a role distinct from that of the Executive, the Government. At this stage of the Bill's journey to the statute book, that difference ought to be taken into account. For example, on the amendment as put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and on Amendment No. 2, I found that when they were describing what they wanted to achieve I agreed absolutely. Nobody could dissent from that clear desire to have the best possible alternative when we have a change of government machinery. Of course we want to make use of the expertise that is available and have the right answers on some of the tricky questions that will arise on environmental and other matters of that sort. We want to ensure that we get it right. On the question as to what we want to attain, there should be absolute unanimity. But it makes a difference whether the Opposition's solution as to attainment is the right one. I do not share their solution but I share their aspirations.
Dealing with solutions, my noble friend, on behalf of the Government, speaking as the Government, has a different view to that of the Opposition. I hope it is not considered a presumption, but the suggestion I should like to make to noble Lords in all parts of the House is that perhaps our procedure at this stage should be to continue putting our points and giving our solutions (if we think we have solutions) but to do it in the spirit of having it on the record, not voting on it on this occasion. I say that because while I agree with what is aspired to, I cannot agree with the solutions.
We have to bear in mind that in this House we have already made fundamental changes to the Bill compared with the Bill that emerged from another place. As my noble friend has said, there is no question in this House at this stage of wanting to try to alter those fundamental decisions that have already been made. As I tried to put on the record, they were decisions with which I did not agree for the reasons I tried to explain. But they were made, they are there and the Government, through the mouth of my noble friend, have said that at this stage there is no question

1029
of trying to ask this House to remove them, but they may vary their application.
It may be that the decision as to how we apply the alterations should be made in another place. If that is right, when the Bill goes to another place they can then give consideration to the fundamental changes we have made and at the same time they can take into account our views arising from this debate. That is why the speeches made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Birk and Lady Stedman, and the sponsor of the second amendment are absolutely invaluable. From the Opposition's point of view, not voting now could make the other place more likely to agree to the fundamental changes, though there is no guarantee that they will. Who can say with certainty what the Government or the Back Benches in the other place will be prepared to accept? Some of the fundamental changes that have been made could stick if this House is reasonable now.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt a noble Lord who knows so much more about the other place than I can ever hope to know, but surely when the Bill goes back to another place they can only consider the amendments we have made. They cannot introduce any new developments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, precisely. That is what I was trying to say. But may I make it clear? I am grateful for the intervention. What I was trying to say was that it could well be that, if they see the spirit of how we envisage the next step flowing from the fundamental changes, that may make them more ready to accept our changes rather than removing them, which otherwise would be the case. I am talking now to those who believe in the changes; for myself I do not think we ought to have made the changes; they are not the right ones in the light of what we set out to attain when the Bill first came to us.
We now have these four big amendments. We have on the record the sort of advice that we have had on these various amendments: I am suggesting that by not putting the matter to the vote, we shall avoid giving the impression at this stage that not only are we making the general alterations to the broad structure but are also trying to dictate the small print too. I believe that it can be seen that our small print solutions, which are explained but not pushed to a vote, show a spirit which may make the Government and the other place more likely to accept the fundamental changes we have already had. I believe that the right way to do it is not to vote on these amendments but to place on the record our views as to what the next steps ought to be. I believe that would be in keeping with the function of this House. We are to revise and give advice on these matters but not to pretend that we are the sole Chamber of this Parliament.
I think chat, if we want some of the changes that have been expressed by the majority vote in this House, the advice I am giving, for what it is worth, is more likely to achieve that than by appearing to go whole-heartedly for all the small print and all the detail. I am suggesting this seriously and if the noble Lord—who has great experience, who has sat in Cabinet, and as a Law Officer—will give consideration
1030
to it he may well see the force of the point I am making. If we want to get the general drift along the lines on which we have voted, we are more likely to do it by not pushing the matter to another vote.
It has been made perfectly clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it is not at all in her mind or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to try to wreck the Bill. They have made that perfectly clear. They are saying that these are next steps only which will in no way undermine what was the main purpose of the Bill. Whether or not that is advice that is likely to be accepted, I do not know.
While there is no need to go into much greater detail, because I feel that my noble friend has dealt with the amendment in detail and with a forthrightness which was very helpful to all of us, I would suggest this to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The district councils with their unity plans can initiate or inherit strategic planning just as effectively as any other body. It is right to look at anything as a whole, and to recognise that one is putting little bits into what is a plan as one has conceived it. That is what I imagine strategic planning to be. Why is it suggested that it has to be only one of these other bodies in the amendments that can do it? It has been my belief from the first that a voluntary association of boroughs and district councils is just as capable of taking a very sensible and proper approach as would be the bodies to which the noble Baroness wants to give greater powers. If the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will allow me to say so, she is one of the most experienced politicians in this House. I fought I think it was 12 elections in Peterborough. She was the election agent against me on almost every occasion and she pushed it to a recount almost every time, though I always managed to win. I hope I can persuade her on this occasion.
Where I thought that the noble Baroness showed her expertise was in the way she suddenly gave all sorts of powers and credit to the waste and disposal authority. When the waste disposal authority was set up by the Committee, the great argument that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and supported on all sides, was that, because of the toxic waste, expert laboratory guidance was vital. It was their expertise on that very narrow front which I think won the vote which brought about that change.
But now the noble Baroness is saying in her amendment, "Oh, yes, they may be expert on that, but let them also be responsible for the environment. Let them be the ones that deal with the general environment matters." What is their expertise on planning? I felt she was perhaps using one argument in one debate and contradicting it a little in another. The very expertise which narrowed their strength when we discussed it in Committee showed that they would not be the right people to deal with the wider problems that come under the general heading of environment, and things like that.
The only words I want to add to the detailed explanation given by my noble friend are these. The general aim set out in the explanation of these amendments has to be right. The solution as set out in the amendments is not right. My noble friend has said that he will take into account all that has been said. He also indicated a certain acquiescence with some of the

1031
views which have been expressed. When, through him, the Government make their final decision, I hope they will also take into account the views that certainly I hold and that many of my noble friends hold.
I believe that the voluntary association, in groupings of the district councils and the borough councils, can be just as effective, and in terms of being democratic more effective, than these other groupings—call them quangos or whatever you like. I believe the fundamentals behind this Bill when it came to us were right. It gave us a more democratic answer. We would have had a more realistic answer to the detailed work that goes with local authority decisions.
My general advice to my noble friends and to noble Lords in any part of the House is that I believe we should go on making these contributions—all of us who feel we have a contribution to make—but not to vote on it at the end. I think that would give a general impression that would be damaging. Having said that, I hope my noble friend will give proper thought to what has been said from all parts of the House. I hope he will not rule out those of us who have believed from the first that the Government have not been as wrong as many of their critics would like to suggest.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to refer to me earlier. Does what he is contending amount to this: that all he wants this House to be is a talking shop, without the sending forward to another place of positive amendments? Unless at this stage we put positive amendments for the other place to consider, there is nothing left for it to consider and we are talking at great lengths for no purpose at all.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, no. Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Lord that Parliament is a talking shop. Parliament is not a good Parliament unless it is a talking shop. The general idea of Parliament is for individuals of all types and from all walks to put their general view, and for the Government or the Executive to take the best of it and discard the worst of it. The suggestion that I am making to the noble Lord is that if, having won some battles in the fundamental changes already made, one is then going to go into dictatorial detail, one may not be able to retain that advance which one thinks one has made. That is all I am saying. There is all the difference in the world between saying, "We'll have nothing whatever"—it is no good the noble Baroness trying to wave me down. I have tried to wave her down often, and she has never fallen for that.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I think it may have escaped the noble Lord's notice that we are at Report stage now, and we are not supposed to have comings and goings across the Floor of the Chamber, as is happening now.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there was a question put to me, under the guise of "Before the noble Lord sits down". It is the noble Baroness who is out of order. It is she who has made a comment, after having made one speech—not me. But at the end of the day I hope we can maintain the spirit that was
1032
referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because as a member of her fan club I love the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, very much. I do not agree with her very often, but I am a great admirer of her ability in debate, and there is no reason for either of us to wave the other one down, ever.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, seeking to establish a new principle—namely, that those who are unable to accept every word, every line and every comma of a Bill that is before your Lordships are entitled to frighten the Government but on no account must they seek to wound by entering the Division Lobby? What is remarkable about an effort of this kind is that the Government can defeat the Opposition at almost any time they like. It is only a matter of sending out telegrams to all quarters of the United Kingdom to Members of your Lordships' House, very esteemed colleagues who sometimes, for reason into which we are not entitled to enter, absent themselves. But there are occasions when arms are twisted and they find themselves in the Division Lobby.
First of all, to establish a principle of this kind seems to be unnecessary. I think there is something to be said for congratulating the noble Lord the Minister who has been in charge of the Bill and whose speeches have been excellent. There is no doubting his sincerity and integrity in this matter—of course not. If I may put it this way (because I cannot really find the right language), he is almost of Cabinet rank; and we are very glad to hear him. I do not doubt that in due course—and I hope in my time—he will achieve that to which he is entitled. But let us look at this. A Bill has been promoted and a vast number of people through-out the United Kindgom are in opposition to it. They do not like some people associated with the GLC, and I can understand that—there are some people who are associated with the GLC who create a certain distaste in my mouth also, and in my mind—but that is no reason why we should not argue the case out.
One thing has happened which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, apparently omitted to mention. Why, in that long speech, he forgot to mention it I cannot understand, but I will remind him of what he should have said. On almost every amendment the argument has been in favour of the Opposition—there is no question about it—so much so that the Minister himself has been much more agreeable since he has realised there is some guts (if I may use that somewhat ugly expression) in the Opposition argument. He has said, "Give them something: they are entitled to it"; and he has done so.
4.45 p.m.
I remember that some weeks ago when this matter was first raised I ventured to suggest the Government might be a little more generous than they had seemed to be up to then. It did not seem that they would yield an inch but they have yielded quite a lot, I am bound to say; and they have gone a long way. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, admitted that. Let us leave it at that. Even when we know we have got the better of the arguments and even if we know the Government can vote against us as and when they please, surely this House is entitled to exercise what

1033
limits of authority it possesses. It has been attacked over and over again; it has been said that it should never have existed; it has even been said that it should be immediately abolished. There are still some people who say that it should be abolished and there is even talk of doing it after the next general election. That has often been said but it does not happen; so I think your Lordships can sleep in your beds quite comfortably.
That is the position. Therefore I would say: let us be grateful to the Minister and to his noble colleagues on the Front Bench. They are, if I may say so, a very excellent team—better, I think, than they ought to be! Of course, if you get a strong Government it is very difficult to fight them. I find myself in great difficulties trying to work up an argument against them, not because I dislike them—far from that—but simply because I cannot get the right argument against them. They seem to have got the best of the argument, although many of my colleagues can achieve even better and more substantial arguments against the Government.
That is the position. If I may have the temerity to do so, I would say to the Minister that his esteemed noble colleague, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is very anxious to have people not voting against the Government so that the press and the media will say, "The Government won without a single vote. Even the Lords don't vote against the Government, so there must be something in this legislation that is beneficial and worthwhile". That is what the noble Lord is after. It is a bit sneaky, if I may say so. It is a bit crafty. But he must not play tricks of that kind, when some of us who have experienced of him in another place and in this place realise that he is sometimes up to tricks. This is one of them, and on this occasion it is not going to work.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, if I may, I should like to return for a moment to the amendments. I have been immensely instructed by the debate about political philosophy which has taken place across the Floor of the House, but I should like to get back to the amendments. I should like to begin by saying how greatly I admire and respect the dialectical abilities of the noble Lord the Minister. My respect for them has increased tenfold this afternoon. He made much—as who, in his place, would not—of the drafting effects and the drafting defects of the amendments. He, unlike us, has the deft hands of his department and of parliamentary counsel to set them right quite easily, if he so wishes. But some of the other demons he conjured up with such skill were, I think, a little overdone. I listened with enormous interest though, alas, with less comprehension to what he had to say about the London Boroughs Association's propoals. I am not clear to what extent they deal with my central point, which is the intertwining of planning and transport.
But again I have to state my admiration for the breathtaking skill with which he extracted goodies from thin air a week or so ago—£40 million for the voluntary organisation. Today it is the letter from the LBA and their proposals. But I will be brief; I promise that. I leave to others arguments about the wording of the election manifesto. As a non-political old "pro", if I may so describe myself, I recall with a touch of nostalgia the days—I might almost say the happy
1034
days—when manifestos were written with a broad nib and almost a broad brush, dipped into disappearing ink. Now they are written in a fine italic hand with a pen dipped into indelible ink, and—Heaven save us—they have guardians who tick off each completed item, "fulfilled pledge", with the devotion of an ink monitor ticking off full inkwells. I make no more of that.
Let me say again what I have said before. I am not a friend of the Greater London Council, but my concern here with these amendments, like that of so many other noble Lords, is with the policies that govern land use planning and transport. These policies interact at all levels, and especially in London. They give rise to acute and conflicting requirements, and it is necessary to have organisational machinery which complies with these policies and, so far as it can, resolves rather than sharpens the conflicts between them. In short, land use planning and transport should be brigaded together in organisation terms, because that reflects the policy interaction.
If I may remind the House, it was a Conservative Government who, less than 15 years ago, published and acted on a White Paper, Cmnd. 4506, which said:
"It is increasingly accepted that maintaining a decent environment, improving people's living conditions and providing for adequate transport facilities all come together in the planning of development. These are among the main functions of local authorities and are having an ever-increasing impact on ordinary people, in town and country and especially in and around the larger urban areas. Because these functions interact, and because they give rise to acute and conflicting requirements, a new form of organisation is needed at the centre of the administrative system".
Six years later it was a Labour Government who whimsically—I use the word literally—separated these two essentially complementary functions at central Government level. As a clerk in the Department of the Environment, I helped to plan and carry out both the unification and the dismemberment. It is one of the many reasons why I am a Cross-Bencher. There is room for more than one view on the proper organisation of these matters in Marsham Street, but I think no one will quarrel with the observation that the planning and transport policies interact closely; and few, I hope, will quarrel with the subsequent observation that organisational machinery should comply with the needs of policy.
I note without comment that most local authorities, in their internal organisation, have continued to recognise the truth of these observations, and indeed I think the two departments of state concerned—I speak subject to correction—continue to have joint regional offices. I have little doubt that something like the London authority which is proposed is necessary. To me, I have to say, it is necessary to the point almost of being self-evident. I do not try to convince myself, let alone your Lordships, that this will be a stable solution. Nothing in this Bill will be stable. But it will be a sight more stable, more efficient, more effective, more economical and more responsive than what was envisaged. I have not yet absorbed what is now envisaged. It is for these reasons that I put my name to the amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, referred very justifiably indeed to the dialectical skill of my noble friend the Minister, and I

1035
will refer with equal justification to the dialectical skill of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. As the noble Lord knows, I have been exposed to it in different circumstances over the years, though the technique was different. It is perhaps the technique with which your Lordships are familiar from the television film—I was going to say "Yes, Minister" but it was, I think, more the one called "No Minister". So I always listen to him with respect, but, as he will recall, not always with conviction; and I am afraid that is so on this occasion.
I want to address my short observations to your Lordships solely in respect of London and therefore with reference to Amendment No. 2. I do so because I am a great deal more familiar with the problems of the Greater London Council than I am with those of the rest of the country. For this purpose I will disregard the warning which the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan once gave, that knowledge of a subject is an all but fatal handicap in making a speech about it.
I have really only three points which I will ask your Lordships to consider very seriously. Both the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in moving the first amendment, went out of their way to suggest that acceptance of these amendments would not seriously interfere with the main pattern or purpose of the Bill. With great respect to them both, I disagree with that. It would, in quite substantial degree, frustrate the purpose of transferring all possible powers to the boroughs by interposing another and, in the case of the London body referred to in Amendment No. 2, very powerful body, as a higher-tier authority, over and above the boroughs and exercising authority over them. To that very substantial extent, therefore, I would suggest to your Lordships that these amendments go against what I think my noble friend rightly called the philosophy of the Bill.
I would ask your Lordships to look at Amendment No. 2 and in particular at subsection (5) of it, where the powers to be transferred to this body are referred to:

"(a) structure plans and other matters under the Town and County Planning Act 1971;

(b) highways;

(c) road traffic; and—

most sinisterly of all—
"(d) other matters".
The noble Lord did not in fact tell us what the "other matters" were, but it is a very wide expression, particularly when it is read with the following line:
"being functions for the most part"—
for the most part, I ask your Lordships to note; not exclusively—
"exercisable by the Greater London Council".
Therefore we are faced, as we were at the Committee stage, although I am happy to note in a more agreeable atmosphere than existed for at any rate part of the Committee stage, with very much the same type of effort from the Benches opposite; that is, an attempt in some way to give a life after death to the GLC. For that reason, I would suggest to your Lordships that this amendment is perhaps a little more serious in both its intention and its effect, certainly,
1036
than was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, when he addressed your Lordships a little while ago.
There is one further aspect which I hope your Lordships will consider. This proposal, unlike that outlined by my noble friend the Minister as being likely to be brought forward by him, confines control of planning and transport to the area at present covered by the Greater London Council. If you study the structure of the South-east of England, that is an absurd idea and indeed it is partly, I think, the cause of the failure, now widely admitted, of the GLC, because the GLC area of London is only the centre of the whole of the South-eastern region. Millions of people who are interested earn their living in the GLC area and live outside it. Planning involving green belts and all contact with the outer areas involves land outside the GLC area, and roads in particular of course are an area in which the GLC conspicuously failed.
So many of us have travelled on the motorways across the countryside—modesty forbids me reminding your Lordships of when and by whom they were originally planned—which now end in an area for which the GLC is responsible. Your Lordships, having driven fast across the country, then sit in the jam created by the failure of the GLC to plan the inner London road areas in a way that will connect them up properly with the motorways. Again—I do not wish to speak ill of, if not the dead, the very nearly dead—the idea that the GLC, concerned only with the GLC area, is a wonderful strategic planner is immediately negatived when you consider its utter failure to deal with the steady decay in dockland which has been reversed only by the action of the Government in taking the matter out of its hands and setting up the Docklands Corporation under, to begin with, the dynamic leadership of Sir Nigel Broackes.
5 p.m.
Therefore, the proposal in the amendment for planning and transport powers in this new body seems to me to fall down on two points. First, it frustrates the purpose of the Bill to transfer these powers to the boroughs. Secondly, it fails to grasp the point—which my noble friend's discussion of SERPLAN shows he understands—that you cannot plan the building, the roads or the transport systems of Greater London in isolation from those of the rest of the south-east. We shall get a very much more sensible result from the kind of thing that SERPLAN contemplates; and there I think all your Lordships will want to express our gratitude to my noble friend Lord Sandford for the remarkable work which he has done in that area. I suggest it is on those lines, and on the lines forecast by my noble friend the Minister, that we shall deal with the practical problems about which all of us on all sides of this Committee are concerned. We shall get those problems much more effectively dealt with on those lines than by tying us down by the creation of yet another large and cumbrous authority confined to Greater London.
Viscount Esher: My Lords, I am sure that we would all agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said about the objectives of this Bill. We are all agreed with its aims. It is a question of means and

1037
I think it is on means that we are bound to be sceptical. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Molson, with his long experience, putting so much faith in voluntary co-operation among boroughs and districts. It was because such voluntary co-operation failed over the last 20 or 30 years that the metropolitan authorities had to be set up. Even in attempting to reply to the Minister, and to give him the advice of the London boroughs, the London Boroughs Association was unable to agree upon a reply. These are the difficulties that we have to face. It seems to me that over the course of this long debate, in the process of taking to pieces the roles of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, we have lost sight of the totality. If you like, one could say that the trees of administration and management have really closed our minds to the wood of imagination and comprehensive vision—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not want to use up my right of reply, but I think I ought to draw the attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, to the fact that what we are proposing is putting something in the Bill which is a statutory and not a voluntary arrangement.
Viscount Esher: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. My own feeling about local government is that it is increasingly moving away from its primary role, which must surely be to coincide with the places with which people identify. If you are a Londoner and you live in Golders Green, you can identify with either London or Golders Green but you cannot identify with Brent or Camden. What Liverpudlian ever claimed proudly to be a citizen of Bootle? What Mancunian would feel intense loyalty to the borough of Tameside? In recent, and, I am afraid, misguided, experiments in local government I feel that we have lost sight of this essential characteristic.
First, we have recently relegated ancient historic cities to second-tier roles. The Government now propose to go back to a patchwork of boroughs and districts which we have inherited from history, but which bears no relation to the geographical facts with which people have to contend in their daily lives. This is not just a management issue, though of course it is that and it has to be mainly that that we discuss. It is not only that refuse disposal, structural planning and transportation—and I think we are all agreed about this—can effectively be managed only at conurbation level. It is that the future of our great urban conglomerations can only be understood, can only make sense in the public mind and people can only judge them at that conurbation level. One has the impression that the authors of this Bill believe that this scale of thinking is out of date, something that went out in the 'sixties. But we are soon going to need this scale of thinking again. Let me give your Lordships two examples.
The next big urban crisis, as I am sure we are all agreed, will be the dilapidation and collapse of our housing stock, not just the system-built housing of the 'sixties and 'seventies, but the far greater quantity of semi-detached jerry-built housing of the 'twenties and 'thirties. Secondly, we will surely see before the end of this century, with the growth of electronic information and control, the disappearance of the great armies of
1038
commuters who at the moment pour into our cities and occupy the great office blocks. Is this the time, with this lying ahead of us, to disperse the skilled staffs that we shall need to handle these major urban problems in the very areas where they will be at their worst? Will 69 metropolitan districts and boroughs and 32 London boroughs, which are so ill coordinated and so uneven in quality and experience, be up to the job, each separately?
Would any Government, even with the help of the Countryside Commission, as the Minister has told us today, or with the help of these associations of boroughs and districts, got together as voluntary efforts to agree, want the job of knocking together the heads of all these 101 authorities? It would be like commanding from Whitehall 101 battalions on seven fronts all over England, and anyone who had that job, even with advice from various quarters, would want to set up good generals and let them get on with the job; and, incidentally, by doing so avoid the invidious position, which many noble Lords have criticised, of the Minister having to make the judgment and then listen to objections and act as referee in a game in which he has himself been a player.
In Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, dealt with that argument. He pointed out that in the case of motorways, in the case of the setting up of new town development corporations, Governments did the planning and eventually had to make a judgment, after public inquiry, on their proposals. But those were strongly criticised. The system has been under attack ever since it came into existence—not by me, because I believe that there are some national matters which can be initiated only by Government. But equally there are regional matters, matters on the scale of the conurbations, the great cities, which can be initiated only at regional level, at metropolitan county level, and which without that kind of initiative on the ground by those who know their resources, who know their country and who know their people never get off the ground.
This is why it is impossible for a member of my profession to speak up for the kind of makeshift arrangements which we have had discussed today. I think we have to speak for a necessity to continue to tackle the environmental problems of our great urban regions in a comprehensive and efficient way. This is why we cannot regard ministerial guidance, however much advice has been sought beforehand, as adequate to the scale of the problems that lie ahead. The kind of guidance given by Mr. Heseltine in the south-east can certainly answer what one might call the "what" questions, which in many cases are simple and platitudinous. What it cannot answer is the "where" questions. It is the "where" problems which can be solved only at local level.
I do not see the need for a greedy bureaucracy to do this job. We are accustomed, are we not, to agency arrangements in matters of this kind. The motorways are built by the county councils as agents for the Ministry of Transport. It is obvious that matters such as house building, house management, estate and park management and waste collection will all continue to be done at the proper level of the boroughs and districts. The more we can draw a sensible line between staff and front-line operations, the better, the

1039
more economical and the less overgrown will be the metropolitan offices. But if we consider what, for example, the Greater Manchester Council, to which I referred earlier on in Committee, has done on the ground, is it really possible to imagine that Manchester and Salford, notoriously at odds through history, let alone the boroughs of Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside, Trafford, Stockport and Wigan, would have got together to achieve the same results? It seems to be quite inconceivable.
Reserve powers, the power to precept, the power to go out and do jobs on the ground seem to me to be essential and are the reason I put my name to this amendment. I know that joint boards, for which we are prepared to settle, are far from ideal. Members of joint boards are inclined either to be excessively defensive of the expenditure of their own authorities or sometimes to wash their hands of the whole thing and hand over to an excessive degree to officials, though I must say that in some planning committees one wishes they would do it more. But since the Government and this House as a whole are plainly set on reverting to joint boards for 70 per cent. of the work now done by the metropolitan counties, since the principle of joint boards is now apparently acceptable on all sides, though without any show of enthusiasm anywhere, there seems to be no point in pursuing any arguments against it. The only question therefore is whether we prefer that the specialist teams, which at present manage the environmental work of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council, disappear, disperse, or survive.
When I think of the physical problems, of which I mentioned only two, which unquestionably lie ahead before the end of this century and the social problems that we see in sometimes horrible form in our conurbations, I am in no doubt at all that these authorities with the imagination to handle them on the proper scale must survive. This is why it is the view of all the planning professions and the conservation societies that this amendment should be supported, and that with it the Bill might just be made to work, might just avoid what we all want to avoid, which is a replay of this whole business under another Government with another round of contentious and expensive local government reform. I urge noble Lords on all sides of the House to support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it seems to me that today we have become very confused with these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, moved her Amendment No. 1, and then the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, hopped up and spoke to Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 is totally related to the metropolitan counties and Amendment No. 2 is totally related to London. Jumbling the two amendments together in this way has made it quite confusing for Members to follow the arguments. When I listened to the noble Baroness—she spoke about waste disposal authorities taking over mineral rights and reclamation of land—I thought that that was very interesting and might be relevant to the metropolitan counties, but it certainly did not seem at all appropriate to London as I knew it. Then when the noble Lord,
1040
Lord Kilmarnock spoke, he pleaded for exactly the same thing in London. That I must oppose most strongly.
I sat for many years on the minerals committee of the Greater London Council and members came on to that committee who had the mineral workings, usually gravel workings, within their boroughs. Every time the complaint was made that that large central authority did not take enough interest in, or have enough knowledge of, what was going on locally; that the trucks that were taking the gravel out were pounding down the roads of local residents; and that the land was not being reinstated because no one was enforcing the reinstatement. I remember one particular case in which a very nice walking path through which gravel was allowed to be removed was lost. When the Greater London Council said that it must be reinstated it was replaced in an entirely different position which was not as satisfactory to local residents; and yet a long historic right existed for that walking path to be there. So consequently on mineral rights and planning there was the demand for more local power. This is why I support the Bill. I believe that it will give more decision making and more local power back to those people who are right on the spot and who know exactly what is happening in their areas and what they need.
It is, of course, a different matter that there must be a stategic overview. I was very interested in what my noble friend the Minister said in that regard, though I am still not entirely clear on the detail and I shall later read what he said. I know he repeated it, but a lot more information is required to know how that would work with the voluntary system in the London boroughs. Unfortunately, I was not here for the traffic management debate when your Lordships voted to return those powers to a central body. Again, I think it is a shame because, although some parts of it might well have been returned to a central body, all the small local schemes such as those involving the siting of pedestrian crossings, have all gone and have been swallowed up again into one large authority. Local people had so looked forward to being able to decide on where to have parking lines and on where disabled people could go shopping. They wanted to have the pedestrian crossings where old people crossed. I know from my personal experience that so often when you wanted a crossing in position A, the Greater London Council said, "No, you must have it 100 yards down the road". Even when you placed it there, at a good deal of expense, people still crossed where they had always crossed, because it happened to be the most convenient place.
There should be local decisions on local matters. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock: "What the boroughs can do individually, they should do". I support that point. The amendments tend to take more power away from local people. I want to see the strategic role kept in some form and I believe that the planning commission for London which has been built into this Bill will, with the support of the arrangements which the Minister has announced, achieve that. I hope that it will be effective. I certainly believe that the strength of this Bill is in the power it will give local councils. For that reason I oppose the amendment and support the Bill as drafted.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if nobody else has anything to say, then I have. By your Lordships' leave, therefore, I should like to say first that I recognise, as do the Government, the concerns which have resulted in amendments to replace the Secretary of State, with his strategic guidance, with a mechanism which appears to be further from the national centre of administrative and political power.
Those concerns are, first, that the people who have to live under the planning system we devise shall not be ignored by the authorities in the way in which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes so clearly described. Secondly, that local interests shall be properly considered by those responsible for regional and national interests. Those are very serious and proper concerns. They are, moreover, concerns which chime in very closely with those of the party of which I am a member and which forms the present Government.
My argument, therefore, is not that the man in Whitehall knows best. I have been both too long outside Whitehall and long enough inside it to have discovered that that dictum is usually open to doubt and sometimes is patently untrue. My argument, on the contrary, is that under our proposals the voice of the man in Whitehall will be heard no more frequently and no more obtrusively under this Bill than it is now; that the voice of the truly local authority—the borough or district council—will be stronger than it is now and therefore better able to protect the individual; and that the voice of the public will be raised at least as frequently and as effectively as it is now—and probably more so.
The difference between what we propose and what happens now is simply that an intrusive and unnecessary administrative layer will be removed from the planning system. I ask your Lordships to clear your minds as to what that layer consists of. It is not the bottom tier of local government. It is not as close to the people as are the boroughs. It is, therefore, not as well qualified as they are to assess the truly local impact of their decisions, of the kind to which my noble friend referred. Its role, if it has one, is to assist the wider impact of their decisions. I believe we would all agree with that. It must work to a wider scale and refer to the interests of a wider area.
What is that scale? What is that area? What is the background to the big decisions, the decisions which fall naturally to a London-wide or county-wide authority? We have only to look at recent history to see that the proper background is neither the area which we call Greater London or anything of the even smaller size of, say, Greater Manchester or Tyne and Wear. If one wants to build, an airport or construct an urban ring road, those upper-tier councils are no more competent to weigh the wider issues than are the boroughs or districts. The issues are regional and supra-regional. That is why they are already decided by the Secretary of State under the system we currently have. That is why they will continue to be so decided under this Bill.
The plain fact is that the planning remit of the GLC and the MCCs is too dam big to make them proper custodians of local interest and too dam small—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Elton: There is no "n" at the end of it, my Lords. Their planning remit is too dam big and too dam small to make them proper custodians of either regional or national interests. That is why we have set our hand to doing away with them as the planning authorities—not replacing them, but doing away with them.
If one replaced them by hanging their functions onto some other successor body at the same level, as the noble Baroness would do with her amendments, one would certainly produce some rather incongruous mixtures of functions. The waste disposal authorities dreamed up in Amendment No. 3 would have an extraordinary hotch-potch of duties, would they not? They would have all of waste disposal, bits of development controls and minerals, but no other planning functions. I ask your Lordships to note, therefore, that they would have no significant planning expertise. They would have bits of countryside policy, but not others. This would produce a lopsided kind of creation.
Besides doing that, one would do two other things. I dare say that noble Lords will think these even less desirable. First, one would fly in the face of a principle which I believe to be very dear to the friends of the noble Baroness and to the other Members of the alliance parties. It is that decisions on planning applications should at all stages rest in the hands of directly-elected bodies. The boroughs are directly elected, the districts are directly elected, and the Secretary of State is directly elected.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Elton: Indeed, my Lords, the Secretary of State is directly elected. When one is dealing with a national planning issue—as my right honourable friend has shown recently, with conspicuous skill and sense, on a number of occasions—it is very important that one should be an elected member. This is about protecting the interests of people. That is best done at local level by the truly local people and at national level by the truly national people, both of them elected.
Neither the passenger transport authority that we have put into the Bill, nor the waste disposal authority which the Opposition has put into the Bill, will be directly elected. Nor will the body proposed in Amendment No. 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, be elected. That seems to me to be a fatal flaw in all the proposals now before us.
I repeat what I said before: it is not open to noble Lords to remedy that law by making any of these bodies directly elected at a later stage. That, as we have established time and time again, and as your Lordships have accepted upon a vote, would be contrary to the principles of the Bill established by both Houses of Parliament.
The second defect of these proposals is that without providing any real additional protection for the public interest, at either local or regional level, and still less at national level, they re-establish a wholly superfluous level of investigation, inquiry, correspondence and delay, the whole of which will cost time and money, which this country simply cannot afford if it is to keep up to date with the rapidly developing world.

1043
I used the word "inquiry" and I am well aware that some of your Lordships will immediately think of the examinations in public and wonder whether, after all, the Secretary of State's strategic advice will not, without it, be authoritarian, centrist and antidemocratic. Amendment No. 2 would remove the Secretary of State entirely and leave no expression of regional or national interest and no restraint on their behalf whatsoever. How very trusting is the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in his pet creation.
Those of your Lordships who have taken the opportunity to examine the examples which I placed in the Library and what the strategic guidance is likely to look like will, I think, have been reassured. To the rest of your Lordships I say not merely that it is too brief and general to provide any useful basis for such an examination. I say not merely that it will be based on wide consultation. I say not merely that after it has been drafted in the light of that consultation it will be published in draft for comment. I say not merely that that comment will be considered and taken into account before the guidance is given its final form. I say also that the Part I unitary plans of every borough and district will be the proof of the guidance and that all of them will be subject to the closest public scrutiny and discussion under the Bill as already drafted.
Nor will that lead to discontinuity between neighbouring authorities, since it will be open to the Secretary of State both to give neighbouring authorities simultaneous commencement dates and, where necessary, to review them together. These provisions are all in Schedule 1, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, rashly in my view, seeks to remove from the Bill.
All those considerations apply equally to London and to the metropolitan county councils. They seem to me to be a full and sufficient reason to prefer our proposals to anything and everything proposed by the other parties today.
I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, was worried that by giving positive guidance in the way that I have described the Secretary of State would in some way be prejudicing his other role as a decision maker on those planning applications which come to him on appeal. As my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross explained when we last discussed this matter, there is nothing new in what we propose with regard to this duality of role for the Secretary of State. Ministers are often in the position of being both the proposing and the concerning authority, but much happens in between.
In fact, the Secretary of State has been much more closely involved in the approval and modification of structure plans than he will be in the preparation of unitary development plans. Yet this role of the Secretary of State has not given rise to any conflict with his task of making decisions on planning appeals under the present system. The Secretary of State's role in relation to strategic guidance will be of an essentially general nature.
5.30 p.m.
I accept that in London things are different from the way they are in the metropolitan counties. Before I
1044
dealt with the concern of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, about duality and the Secretary of State, I concluded my last passage by saying that all the considerations I had put to your Lordships referred both to the metropolitan county councils and to London. I accept that in London things are different. London has more than three times as many local councils as the biggest metropolitan council, and no less than eight times as many as the smallest. Therefore, there is a different balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the boroughs and London as a whole, and, on the other hand, between London as a whole and the south-east region. I am not wholly persuaded, therefore, that we need to make the same arrangements for the metropolitan counties as those I am about to propose for London, or that those arrangements are not made voluntarily in any case. However, I undertake to consider between now and Third Reading, without commitment, whether we should not meet your Lordships' remaining concerns about this with an amendment to the Bill for that purpose.
I accept what my noble friend Lord Sandford told me. I accept the generality of what the London Boroughs Association has discussed with me over the table and what was expressed in the letter to which I referred earlier. I am very much aware of the tenor of the remarks of my noble friends, and others, who discussed what I propose in the earlier stages of this debate; and I believe I am right in saying that the sense of this House will prove to be that we should proceed on that basis. I have twice read out the general terms to your Lordships, and I do not think I should repeat them.
Whether or not the amendment replaces the London Planning Commission—and I accept that there is a case for saying that it should—your Lordships have persuaded me that we need a consultative planning committee for London. I can therefore undertake to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to establish a committee of London boroughs, and in finalising the details I shall wish to work closely with the London Boroughs Association. That will accord with the advice of my noble friend, who is the chairman of SERPLAN, which will doubtless look to play an important part in its own work. That is to answer the views of those who represent the substantial majority of elected London boroughs.
What I offer is something which I would expect to appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who may now wish to stay her hand, although from the frequent goings and comings from her Bench it is not yet clear to me whether or not she will. I believe that it represents an honourable compromise between the unattainable ambitions of those who want to perpetuate the GLC and the minimum requirements of a Bill to abolish but not to replace it. I think that your Lordships will be well advised to accept what I shall propose at Third Reading and bring a chapter of strenuous argument to a constructive and beneficial close.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very full reply to our amendments. I am also grateful to the

1045
noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, for giving me his assurance that planning and transport naturally go together.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was concerned that we are trying to frustrate the purpose of transferring all possible powers to the boroughs; but on the front of the Bill it is stated that the purpose is to transfer functions to local authorities within their areas and, sometimes, to other bodies. Since two other bodies have already been put into the Bill, and those are the two bodies on which we are trying to hang the different parts of planning and transportation, I should have thought that they logically fitted within those powers.
These are not probing amendments and were not intended to be probing amendments. We withdrew amendments at Committee stage which would have led to a similar solution, and we indicated that we would probably come back on Report. We are still concerned about the nature of the strategic planning because policies are constantly being monitored and reviewed to reflect the changing conditions. They are not static, and nor do they have any end date. I still doubt whether genuine agreement will be reached between the districts. I can see an inner district rating a city regeneration as very high, and probably as the most important issue which they face and need to overcome, but those on the edge of the conurbation would see it as rather less directly relevant to their problems at the time.
I am also concerned about the staffs of the specialist teams, and what is to happen to them. I do not know what sort of holding out there will be to place these staffs with the residuary bodies. The staffs will still be worried about the future, and will want to know where they are going.
I have a very high regard for the work of district councillors. I also know that the smaller an authority the more inward-looking councillors tend to become and the more parochial they become in their attitude. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, who, in Committee, said that London boroughs will give a view about their own cabbage patch but have regard to no other part of London. Even the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked what Tower Hamlets had in common with Kingston-upon-Thames. That is what will go on all the time.
As regards waste disposal, I think they are the authorities who ought to be concerned about environmental matters. They could be, and I think should be, the licensing authorities, the people responsible for land reclamation and countryside work, because they naturally follow from the other duties they have.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was concerned about mineral planning. We must be particularly careful about that. I doubt whether there are enough qualified people in the employ of the metropolitan counties or, for that matter, the GLC for all the districts and the boroughs to find themselves with the right sort of skilled advice which they need to have on a major issue of this sort. It is important that we keep the existing teams together as being more cost-effective than having smaller teams which are not so good in each of the districts. Indeed, the Stevens Committee, the Verney Committee and the Flowers Commission all stressed the importance of providing
1046
adequate specialist staff for mineral extraction. The trade associations were also worried about the break-up of that side.
We have heard about the increased centralisation that the Bill is providing. I accept that the Secretary of State has had a hand, and does have a hand now, in important planning decisions over the whole of the country, and not just in the metropolitan areas and the GLC. However, the Bill is extending the power for the Secretary of State to become involved in the day-to-day plan-making process. It was the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 that severely reduced the development control powers in the metropolitan counties, and the increased involvement in plan-making by strategic guidance I see as a continuation along that path of more central Government involvement in local issues.
The noble Lord the Minister has referred many times in the course of the passage of the Bill to the patchwork quilt that we are to get from all the structure plans and the unitary development plans; but it will be a rather odd patchwork quilt, as I see it, because patches will be missing owing to the different rates of progress. Some may need changing as later UDPs are tested and perhaps found to be not quite right; or even the strategic guidance might hake to be altered.
The noble Lord has been very conciliatory this afternoon. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that today there has been a much more conciliatory attitude from the Government Front Bench than at earlier stages. However, I still do not see where a SERPLAN scheme will leave the metropolitan counties. I still do not see how the Minister can positively assure the House that there will be co-operation between the metropolitan districts and their neighbouring shire counties. There is just as much need for co-ordination in the metropolitan areas as there is in London.
I do not think that we can wait for Third Reading to see what the Minister is bringing forward. I think that that would be leaving it too late, and the information given to us by the Minister this afternoon has been too imprecise, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, used to say, too "iffy". Therefore I feel that we must press the amendment. I hope that the House will support it today. If at Third Reading the Minister produces something that really is better, so be it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should, I think, on a matter of order explain to the noble Baroness that my undertaking to look at a possible amendment at Third Reading to look after the metropolitan counties would be overtaken if she were, as I hope she will not be, successful in the next few minutes.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Avebury, L.

Kissin, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bancroft, L.

Listowel, E.

Banks, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bernstein, L.

Longford, E.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Birkett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brockway, L.

Meston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milford, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mishcon, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monson, L.

Caradon, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carver, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Chandos, V.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peart, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Denington, B.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Reilly, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Esher, V.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Foot, L.

Shinwell, L.

Fulton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Soper, L.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stamp, L.

Glenconner, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Strauss, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tanlaw, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wade, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ingleby, V.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacobson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Arran, E.

Aldington, L.

Atholl, D.

Allerton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bauer, L.

1048

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Birdwood, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Boardman, L.

McFadzean, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Margadale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Marley, L.

Caccia, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Caithness, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moran, L.

Cawley, L.

Morris, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chelmer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chelwood, L.

Newall, L.

Coleraine, L.

Norfolk, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Onslow, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Croft, L.

Peel, E.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Perth, E.

De La Warr, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Polwarth, L.

Digby, L.

Portland, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Redesdale, L.

Elibank, L.

Reigate, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rugby, L.

Forester, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selsdon, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Soames, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathspey, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Teynham, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thurlow, L.

Inglewood, L.

Tranmire, L.

Ingrow, L.

Trenchard, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kilmany, L.

Vickers, B.

Kimball, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kimberley, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Kitchener, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed earlier: col. 1002.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, which I now move. One or

1049
two points were made in the debate. Picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the sinister wording, "other matters", I should like to reassure him that they simply cover services such as dial-a-ride and concessionary travel, which I think even he would not consider to be particularly sinister.
In relation to the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to the London Boroughs Association and SERPLAN, I am afraid we felt that the offers that he made to us were too shadowy. He talked about honourable compromise. When he spoke of (I think I quote his words) a statutory advisory committee, that did not seem to me to be much of an advance on the planning commission which is already in the Bill. If we have to wait to see what comes at Third Reading and we do not like it, we shall then have no remedy left. Therefore, I think I should test the opinion of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not propose to make another speech. I merely wish to remind your Lordships that the substantial material that I deployed in the last debate related to this amendment, and not to the one before. I should hope your Lordships would rather widen the majority that your Lordships granted us last time.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 140; Not-Contents, 150.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Amherst, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Attlee, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Aylestone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bancroft, L.

Fitt, L.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Barnett, L.

Fulton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Bernstein, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beswick, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Birkett, L.

Glenconner, L.

Boothby, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Grey, E.

Bottomley, L.

Grimond, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hampton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hayter, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Caradon, L.

Hooson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Chandos, V.

Hunt, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ingleby, V.

Collison, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jacobson, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Jacques, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kearton, L.

Denington, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

1050

Kirkwood, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Leatherland, L.

Rochester, L.

Listowel, E.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Seebohm, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shackleton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shinwell, L.

McNair, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Mayhew, L.

Simon, V.

Meston, L.

Stallard, L.

Milford, L.

Stamp, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stedman, B.

Molloy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Monson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon. L.

Mountevans, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mulley, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Northfield, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wade, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peart, L.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

White, B.

Wigoder, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rea, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Reilly, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Aldington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allerton, L.

Elton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Arran, E.

Foley, L.

Atholl, D.

Forester, L.

Bauer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Beloff, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Belstead, L.

Glanusk, L.

Bessborough, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gowrie, E.

Boardman, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hanson, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henley, L.

Caccia, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cameron of Lockbroom, L.

Hood, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Inglewood, L.

Cawley, L.

Ingrow, L.

Cayzer, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Chelmer, L.

Killearn, L.

Chelwood, L.

Kilmany, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kimball, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kimberley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Cox, B.

Kitchener, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Layton, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Croft, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lyell, L.

De La Warr, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Digby, L.

McFadzean, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Elibank, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

1051

Marley, L.

Romney, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Rugby, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon- Avon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

St. Davids, V.

Merrivale, L.

Sandford, L.

Mersey, V.

Selsdon, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Moran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Morris, L.

Soames, L.

Mottistone, L.

Somers, L.

Munster, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Newall, L.

Strathspey, L.

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swansea, L.

Onslow, E.

Terrington, L.

Orkney, E.

Teviot, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teynham, L.

Peel, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Pender, L.

Thurlow, L.

Perth, E.

Tranmire, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trenchard, V.

Polwarth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Portland, D.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vickers, B.

Redesdale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Reigate, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

Renwick, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Rodney, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed earlier: col. 1002.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment a long time ago. If I may refresh the memory of the House, it was to put things like land reclamation, looking after the countryside and the giving of site licences with the waste disposal authority as being the environmental body as well. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, again, I think that your Lordships have heard enough of me for one afternoon. I have certainly. The noble Baroness is not going to remind you of her arguments. I shall not remind you of my arguments except to tell your Lordships that I think they are rather better.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 153.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Birkett, L.

Amherst, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Attlee, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Avebury, L.

Brockway, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Bancroft, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Banks, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Barnett, L.

Caradon, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bernstein, L.

Carver, L.

Beswick, L.

Chandos, V.

Birk, B.

Chichester, Bp.

1052

Chitnis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Collison, L.

Mar, C.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mayhew, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Meston, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Milford, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Denington, B.

Mountevans, L.

Diamond, L.

Mulley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Fitt, L.

Peart, L.

Foot, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fulton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Reilly, L.

Glenconner, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Rochester, Bp.

Grimond, L.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hayter, L.

Shackleton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hooson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hunt, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Simon, V.

Ingleby, V.

Stallard, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stamp, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Kearton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wade, L.

Kissin, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Walston, L.

Listowel, E.

Whaddon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

London, Bp.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Longford, E.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Allerton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Cawley, L.

Atholl, D.

Cayzer, L.

Auckland, L.

Chelmer, L.

Bauer, L.

Chelwood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Bellwin, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Craigavon, V.

Birdwood, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Croft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caccia, L.

Digby, L.

Caithness, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

1053

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Norfolk, D.

Foley, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Forester, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Peel, E.

Glanusk, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Perth, E.

Gowrie, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Grimston of Wesbury, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Polwarth, L.

Portland, D.

Hanson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Redesdale, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Hives, L.

Renton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renwick, L.

Hood, V.

Rodney, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rugby, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ingrow, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sandford, L.

Killearn, L.

Selsdon, L.

Kilmany, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kimball, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimberley, E.

Soames, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Somers, L.

Kitchener, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Layton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lindsey of Abingdon, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chiiworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Teynham, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

McFadzean, L.

Tranmire, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trenchard, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Marley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Young, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.13 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 11 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Development plans]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 90, line 39, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State shall by an order at any time before the abolition date establish a body to be known as the London Planning Commission which shall—

(a) assist him in preparing guidance for local planning authorities in Greater London in relation to their functions in respect of unitary development plans; and

(b) endeavour to achieve co-ordination and coherence in the planning and development of Greater London and to participate in regional planning for the South East of England as a whole.

(2) An order under this paragraph shall make provision—

(a) for the appointment by each of the London borough councils of one of their elected members to be a member of
1054
the Commission and for the terms of office of members of the Commission;

(b) for the payment to members of the Commission of such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State shall determine;

(c) for defraying the other expenses of the Commission;

(d) for enabling the Secretary of State to give directions to the Commission as to the discharge of its functions; and

(e) for such incidental and supplementary matters as he thinks requisite.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to the amendment which has often been referred to as the "fallback". It is absolutely clear from the votes which have taken place on recent amendments that, in spite of the Minister's promise to come back to the matter on Third Reading, there is considerable feeling for some change to be made in the Bill. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is not in his place. However, the noble Lord referred to this amendment when he intervened during the Minister's speech and asked whether what the Minister had said about the London Boroughs Association's plans was very similar to the proposals put forward in this amendment.
The London Planning Commission as proposed in the Bill is undemocratic and it is a non-elected quango. Anybody who is assisting in the preparation of London's overall planning framework should be democratically accountable to Londoners. Without the minimum requirement for borough council representation proposed by the amendment, the commission will become yet another step in the removal of planning issues from local democratic control. We have seen examples of that in the London Docklands Development Corporation, the Isle of Dogs enterprise and several others. The Conservative-controlled Enfield Borough Council wrote in their response to the original White Paper that they,
"would not support the creation of such a body since it would not be democratically accountable to Londoners"—
and they were, of course, referring to the London Planning Commission as in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when he replies how many boroughs do in fact support the planning commission as it is at present.
The enhanced powers which the Bill seeks to give to the Secretary of State and therefore Whitehall are both unnecessary and undesirable. Strong feelings were expressed on that matter during the previous debate. National Government should not in principle be even more involved in the running of London's planning system that they are already. That is what the Bill seeks to do by making the Secretary of State responsible for preparing, following advice from the planning commission, strategic guidance to which individual borough councils must have regard in drawing up their unitary plans. The preparation of the strategic guidance upon which the Minister puts such reliance is therefore, according to the Government, a vitally important stage in the new planning system. Therefore at a minimum borough councils must have an early part to play in the preparation of the strategic guidance.
The Government have consistently assured us—most recently in the Committee debates in this Chamber—that they are prepared to consider suggestions for maintaining a London-wide dimension within the new planning regime and a London voice

1055
on the South-east Regional Planning Conference. In Committee we debated Lord Molson's amendments on these issues and the Government gave a limited undertaking on the points and recognised that some more formal arrangement may be required.
The Minister spoke earlier about his consultation on this issue with the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is now in his place, and therefore I ought to repeat what I said earlier. The noble Lord made an intervention on this particular point and compared what the Minister had said with what is proposed in this amendment, which naturally I hope will therefore have the noble Lord's support.
The mechanism proposed in the amendment, within the existing structure of the Bill, will enable the borough councils to make a joint input to the preparation of the advice to be given by the London Planning Commission to the Secretary of State on strategic guidance. The amendment would also require the borough councils to formulate a joint voice for London in respect of regional planning issues.
I commend the amendment to the House for your Lordships' consideration. In view of all that the Minister said when commenting on the amendments upon which we have just recently divided, I feel that this amendment is very much along the lines of everything he said about the boroughs and about strategic guidance. Therefore, I hope that he will accept it and save us the necessity of having another Divison.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I should like briefly to support what the noble Baroness has said regarding London and to give notice, in effect, that if the House accepts this amendment for London, then we anticipate coming back at Third Reading with something similar for the metropolitan counties, because it is just as important for there to be co-ordination in the metropolitan counties as it is for there to be co-ordination in London.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I of course support the spirit of this amendment, because on planning, and in particular strategic planning, there is need for the co-ordination of advice, and on this a strong case, which commended itself to my noble friend the Minister, was made out on old Amendment No. 19 at Committee stage. But this of course involved no executive functions. As I read Amendment No. 12 it is advisory only and involves no executive functions.
One cannot discuss this amendment without going back to the old amendments which, so to speak, are in limbo at the moment. The vice of old Amendment No. 26 at Committee stage lay in the mismatch of the marriage of convenience between the planning functions which involve no executive action and the other functions, the transport functions, which inevitably involve executive action.
I think that my noble friend the Minister has explained already what he has in mind—a body with triplicate functions—but I also share the difficulty of assimilating totally what has been said without having
1056
the opportunity to consider it. However, there is some amalgam of Amendments Nos. 19 and 26 which is going to be reflected in this body to which my noble friend the Minister referred, with triplicate functions that he explained.
It would appear that something along the lines of the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 12 is in the pipeline. I therefore would find it difficult, if forced to a Division, formally to support the amendment. On this occasion—though I do not think he is in his place—may I dissociate myself from certain views expressed by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls on this amendment, which involves no constitutional issue. However, I certainly would prefer not to be forced to divide.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should like to support the intention behind this amendment, but to suggest to the House that it is not necessary or desirable to have it in the Bill at this stage. What it seeks to do is what my noble friend on the Front Bench is seeking to do after discussion with me and following consultation with the London boroughs.
I can share with the House, if it is any help, my confidence that those discussions will lead to a result at least as good as this and, if anything, slightly better. It will make it clearer than does this amendment that the new arrangements, made along the lines of my original Amendment No. 19, will be properly related to SERPLAN, and therefore will not only take care of planning within London but, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was stressing, make sure that it covers regional planning in the south-east as well.
This is covered in subsection (1)(b) of this amendment, but it is important to look at the mechanism more closely, and so far as I am aware no consultations with SERPLAN have taken place in the course of drafting this amendment. I would need to be convinced that the arrangements set out here fit.
I think the intention here is sound. It is to be preferred to the London Planning Commission, which would be appointed as envisaged in the White Paper, and which all along I have sought to persuade my noble friends on the Front Bench to reconsider. As I mentioned when we were discussing the earlier amendments, my view is that if we get something right as a result of the discussions going on already, all reference to the appointed London Planning Commission can be dropped. I would not recommend the House to pursue this amendment at this stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, one would not expect the noble Baroness to come forward with an amendment which I could commend to the House without the consultations to which my noble friend referred with the London Boroughs Association. I recognise that she is pursuing something which is less disagreeable than what she was pursuing earlier this evening. The London Planning Commission provisions of Schedule 1 of the Bill are contained in three paragraphs, of which the noble Baroness's amendment leaves only one intact. That is the one which says:
"A statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".

1057
Therefore, this is a complete replacement of what we have in the Bill for the London Planning Commission. It would first turn the London Planning Commission into a borough-based body, and extend its functions to the co-ordination of planning and development in Greater London and to participation in regional planning for the south-east. As envisaged by the noble Baroness, the commission would however no longer have the role of advising the Secretary of State on other matters relating to Greater London's planning and development.
In the first debate today I undertook to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to provide for a borough-based body. Such a body would not necessarily rule out an appointed and expert London Planning Commission as provided for in Schedule 1, but I am impressed by the arguments which have been brought forward this afternoon against it and we shall consider them closely in deciding the format of the amendment I have undertaken to bring forward at Third Reading.
If there is to be a planning committee made up of borough representatives, there is certainly no case for a London Planning Commission also made up of borough representatives, which would appear to be what the noble Baroness would leave us with. I think your Lordships should note that odd form of duplication. I ought also to point out that it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to bear the costs of the commission if its constitution is drawn up in the way proposed in the amendment. It should be paid for as we propose.
I have to conclude that the amendment would add nothing to the provisions we shall be making for planning in London, which will achieve what the noble Baroness is after. If she wishes to divide, I must advise the House most strongly to vote against her, not only because I think that what she has proposed is wrong, but also because it is premature. I think that she would be wise to wait and see what we propose to put down at Third Reading. It is possible even that she would agree with us when she saw it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister puts me in an almost impossible position. The discussion on planning started at Second Reading when several noble Lords raised the whole question of planning and strategic planning. At Committee stage we had two further big bites at that cherry. There were amendments moved on an earlier clause and on a later clause of the Bill. They were probing amendments, but they were strongly put at the same time.
We have now reached Report stage and we are still discussing this question. On the earlier amendment the Minister said that he would probably, or possibly, come back with something on Third Reading. I do not think that this is good enough. It is extremely vague. We do not know exactly what is coming forward. Third Reading is late in the day to have to make a decision. The Minister said that I might prefer it, but on the other hand I might not. It is extremely unsatisfactory.
If the Minister could give me an assurance that he is to do something along these lines, I would not quibble about the particular words. It has been difficult
1058
because he made two speeches on the other amendment. I am not complaining about that, but I cannot remember all the details of what he said. However, he has referred to the London Boroughs Association, and I certainly gained the impression from that—and I think I am right in saying also from the letter from which he quoted—that the London Boroughs Association was discussing this point, or that the noble Lord had had discussions with it. I should have thought he had gone far enough along that road to be able to give a very strong indication of what he would do on Third Reading, without having to produce an amendment at the moment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, if nobody else wishes to speak, I thought that I had given a firm undertaking and that your Lordships had voted on that basis on at least one of the three occasions on which we have just gone through the Lobby. I shall be as brief as I can and recapitulate what I said. First, I went over the ground of the development of the discussion in Committee to which the noble Baroness referred. I then said that in Committee I gave an undertaking to consult the London boroughs as to their view on the sort of statutory arrangements my noble friend suggested because I would not wish, as the noble Baroness suggested that the House should now do, to commit your Lordships to a statutory arrangement of this sort without discussing it with the London boroughs.
I have had a meeting and my noble friend, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government and I have met representatives of the London Boroughs Association, which has written a letter in the terms which I have read out twice. I can read out the essential paragraph a third time. It is fairly precise. It says, in brief, that the proposal suggests that there should be a body representative of each of the London boroughs which could, first, provide concerted borough input and views to the Secretary of State on all matters related to strategic planning of Greater London; secondly, provide by means of representatives serving on SERPLAN a Greater London input to SERPLAN on matters related to strategic planning for the regions; and, thirdly, to allow the London authorities to discuss among themselves any London-wide planning issues or other planning matters of common concern.
Such a body would have modest administrative and professional support, I remind my noble friend Lord Plummer, provided on a lead borough basis and funded, the LBA proposed, by all the boroughs following agreement by an appropriate majority of the boroughs. I referred also to the hostility of the London Boroughs Association to the idea of the continuance of the London Planning Commission, which is something in which my noble friend, powerfully supported from behind me, and I have added to the matters for consideration between now and Third Reading.
Perhaps I confused the noble Baroness by saying that on that issue we have not come to a conclusion. On the first three issues I have undertaken to bring forward amendments to meet those proposals broadly as I have repeated them. I do not use the word

1059
"broadly" as a get-out. I merely use it because the language I have used so far is not statutory drafting language, but is the language of correspondence.
On the London Planning Commission I must take the advice of my right honourable colleagues. I can tell your Lordships that I am much impressed by what has been said this afternoon, and I believe that they will be, too. They will add the views of my noble friend and others who have spoken from behind me as well as from across the Floor of the House to the effect that the London Planning Commission might well be superfluous. I should not like the noble Baroness to divide the House on my unwillingness immediately to give her the assurance she wants on this. I should have thought that she could devise a later occasion for that assurance if she wants it.
Apart from that, it seems that nothing divides us except the odd and regrettable incompatibility, in my view, of having both a London Planning Commission, which her amendment puts into the Bill, made up of borough representatives, and the other London planning body being also made up of London borough representatives. It seems to me that they would be talking to themselves rather than to each other. I am happy for the noble Baroness to take the opinion of the House if she wishes. I am clear in my mind that your Lordships should firmly reject what she puts before you. I only wish to deter that because I thought that the noble Baroness, who is wise and cautious, as we all know, might discover that if she stayed her hand she might find on Report that we were genuinely coming forward with something that she would like to have and it would be a pity to have obstructed that at this stage.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will he make it clear whether the new body he is proposing will be a statutory body?
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords. For the second time, I am happy to repeat that.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister because he is trying to be as helpful as he can. I still cannot help feeling it is a pity that this whole debate did not take place between Committee and Report. This amendment and amendments similar to it have been on the Marshalled List for a long time. I trust I can now accept that the Minister will go away and consult and that something will appear along the lines of what is evidently wanted, not only by this side of the House but all round the House. I hope also that amendments will be published on the Marshalled List in plenty of time for all of us to be able to consider what we want to do about them. That is most important because we cannot have things sprung on us at the last minute, particularly on Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' gracious leave, I should say that I am always in favour of early tabling of amendments, and I hope that in future the noble Baroness will follow her own advice, particulary on Thursdays and Fridays.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do my very best. It is often difficult, as the Minister knows. As he pointed out earlier, he has a bigger staff than I have. In view of that undertaking, which I accept seriously, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 93, line 20, leave out ("cease to have effect on that date and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton I should like to say that this technical amendment has arisen from our earlier debates. The House will recall that there was some discussion on the context of an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on the fate of proposals for alterations to structure plans which will not have been approved by abolition date. I gave firm reassurances that any valuable material from such proposals could be utilised by local planning authorities in preparing their unitary development plans.
Nevertheless, I also gave an undertaking to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that I would check whether the expression, "cease to have effect", in paragraph 24(1) of Schedule 1, which deals with such proposals, would prevent their contents being used in this way. I am satisfied that that would not be the case. However, it would appear that on closer examination the phrase, "cease to have effect", is redundant in this case. It does not add any force to the purpose of the sub-paragraph, which is to prevent confusion over the status of such proposals in relation to development control decisions following abolition. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell and to the noble Baroness, and in this spirit I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am not happy about this amendment. There seems to have been some confusion about this, and this amendment has not solved the problem for me. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but re-reading what took place when this matter was originally debated I should not have thought that this has become clearer for him either. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will remember what he said when this arose. It was on a question of structure plans that the amendment arose. I was concerned that these plans would disappear and not be used, unless beforehand they had been agreed to and accepted by the Secretary of State. The feeling among many people was that a great deal of work would go into a waste-bin, that it would be a costly exercise and very unfortunate for planning departments.
When I moved my amendment the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, as reported in col. 398 of Hansard of 2nd May:
"The noble Baroness can rest assured that, although I cannot accept her amendment, this work will not be lost. Where appropriate it will make a worthwhile contribution to getting the new system of unitary development plans off the ground".
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, then went on to say:
"In view of the assurance given by my noble friend the Minister, and in view of what he has said—that these are not to be consigned

1061
to the waste-bin—would he be good enough at some time to have a look at the words 'cease to have effect', which in law seem to render the whole thing null and void, contrary to the assurance that he has given to your Lordships' Committee?" [Official Report, 2/5/85; col. 398.]
The trouble is that the "cease to have effect" is a redundant phrase because in the same paragraph further on it makes it quite clear that those words are not necessary because they will not be used anyhow; that it will be disposed of in any case. Therefore taking out those words will not make any difference. It may be that that is a drafting amendment, I agree, but that was not what I was talking about originally; and nor, if I dare venture to say so, as I understood it, was the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do not know if we could have a little further clarification of this?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has written to me about this. I have to be perfectly frank with the House; I have not done my homework on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has brought back total recall of what happened. I agree with the noble Baroness. It is not just a question of a drafting amendment. It is a question as to how that assurance given by my noble friend the Minister stands in the light of the revised drafting which avoids a form of otiose redundancy. I am sure that the assurances given will be repeated, but I should also welcome clarification on this.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reminded us that the worry of the Committee on 2nd May was that all the good work on structure plans should not be consigned to the dustbin. The approved structure plan will remain in force until a unitary development plan becomes operative and it is to that that the local planning authorities should continue to look in making such decisions, rather than proposals which are without statutory status. This amendment therefore, deleting the offending words, proposes that for the avoidance of doubt the phrase should be deleted. I should like again to assure the House that those advising the Secretary of State on his strategic guidance and the local planning authorities in drawing up their unitary development plans will be expected to take on board whatever is of value in those proposals. I hope that this amendment will serve to make it quite clear that there is no barrier in this legislation to prevent them from so doing.
To sum up, the work of these proposals will be preserved and used in the preparation of unitary development plans, and my only intention—and that of my noble friend—in putting down this amendment, and of myself in speaking to it, was to make that absolutely clear. I hope in the circumstances that the amendment can be accepted.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I must ask him something. I have found my place in the schedule. All this does is to take out,
"shall cease to have effect on that date",
but following that there is left in,
"and be treated as having been withdrawn by that council".
It therefore does not make that any more satisfactory at all. It is a belt and braces job; the noble Lord has taken off the braces now but the belt is still there. It will
1062
not therefore make any difference at all. It is as it was before. When the noble Lord said that these considerations will be taken into account, that is research. It is not what the amendment itself asks for, which was to be able to use the structure plans and to be able to make use of them instead of their just going into the waste paper basket.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House very briefly, I do not think, with respect to the noble Baroness, that that is the interpretation. One starts with the assurance of the Minister. We can accept the assurance of the Minister; it has been given on two occasions. One then sees how the clause as it is amended affects it. Now treating it as having been withdrawn by the council—that affects the process of withdrawal—it in no way counters the effect of the assurance given by the Minister which happened at an earlier stage. If there be any doubt about it no doubt it could be taken back, but, as I see it, truly there is no problem here.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what happens to the unapproved structure plan alterations? A lot of work has gone into those and they have not all yet been approved by the Minister. Will the work done on that also be taken into consideration as with the structure plans proper?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, with the deletion which I am proposing in this amendment, paragraph 24 of Schedule 1 reads:
"Any proposals for the alteration, or for the repeal and replacement of a structure plan which have been prepared by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council before the abolition date but have not been approved by the Secretary of State shall be treated as having been withdrawn by that council",
These words, as they currently are in paragraph 24(1) of Schedule 1, follow exactly, so I am advised, the 1971 Act in relation to structure plans to prevent development control decisions using unapproved plans. In other words, what we are doing is bringing the proposed legislation in this Bill into exactly the same format as existing statute. Therefore I do not see that the House can be particularly worried by this.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 93, line 36, at end insert—
("(4) In the case of any such local plan or proposals as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above the grounds on which the Secretary of State may give such a direction as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) above shall include the ground that he considers it desirable that the plan or proposals should, instead of being treated as abandoned, be dealt with by him in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15. The House will be familiar with the purpose of this amendment, which is essentially a technical one. I referred to it on 2nd May during the debate which we had on the proposals for both structure and local plans which have not been approved or adopted by abolition date. This amendment concerns local plan proposals only.
As the House will already know we have been most careful in drafting Schedule 1 to ensure as smooth a

1063
transition as possible from the old to the new system with the minimum loss of existing plan work. In the case of local plans, these are to be incorporated in the unitary development plans. It has been our intention throughout to ensure that any valuable local plan work which should be used in this way is not lost by default. Paragraph 24(2) therefore states that such proposals if prepared by the GLC or an MCC will be lost unless the Secretary of State has called them in prior to abolition date. It became clear to me on 2nd May that this provision is not as clear as it might be particularly in relation to the grounds on which such a proposal might be called in. This amendment therefore provides a new sub-paragraph in paragraph 24 specifying that a call-in can be made for the purpose of saving proposals from being abandoned.
I am sure that it is the wish of the House that this amendment be accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Strategic highway functions in metropolitan counties]:
Lord Kaberry of Adel Lord Kaberry of Adel moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 34, leave out ("Principal") and insert ("classified").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and with it I hope I may be allowed to discuss Amendments Nos. 18B, 19, 19A, 20, 21, 22 and 22A.
Amendment No. 18B: Page 5, line 36, leave out from second ("the") to ("of') in line 37 and insert ("purposes").
Amendment No. 19: Page 5, line 38, leave out ("principal") and insert ("classified").
Amendment No. 19A: Page 5, line 39, at end insert—
("and also in relation to the control management, development and extension of any system of traffic control for roads within the county;").
Amendment No. 20: Page 5, line 41, leave out ("non Principal") and insert ("non classified").
Amendment No. 21: Page 5, line 44, leave out ("non Principal") and insert ("non classified").
Amendment No. 22: Page 6, line 1, leave out ("principal") and insert ("classified").
Amendment No. 22A: Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for transferring the following functions relating to highways and road traffic from the metropolitan county councils to the metropolitan district councils to the extent and in the manner that such order shall provide—

(a) the functions of the highway authority under the Highways Act 1980 in relation to non-classified roads;

(b) subject to subsection (1)(c) above the functions of the county councils and the highways authorities for the purpose of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to non-classified roads within the metropolitan districts.

(3) The authorities established by section 28 of this Act may enter into arrangements with all or any of the metropolitan districts within its area for the discharge of such of the functions contained in subsections (1) and (2) above as may be agreed between the authorities.").
These amendments all relate to similar points, three in number, which I hope will help to clarify definitions used in Clause 8 and to avoid any doubts in the future.
This section was introduced in Committee and gives power to the authority to be established under Clause
1064
28 of the Bill in relation to highway control. The clause as at present printed refers to a definition of the roads coming within the new authority as being "principal roads". I think that term is too limited; it may be strictly inaccurate, and certainly it is insufficient. The Highways Act 1980 contains a definition of roads, and Sections 12 and 13 specifically deal with those definitions. Incidentally, the definitions grew up over a number of years, linked with the variety of Government grants which could be made for differing types of highways. Section 12 of the Highways Act 1980 said, broadly speaking, that all roads are classified by the Minister. They may be classified as "principal" or merely classified in the categories that most of us know as A, B or C roads.
Section 12(3) clearly states that the Minister, for the purposes of classification, can refer to classified roads which are referred to in that Act or in any other enactment or instrument, whether passed before or after that Act. That clearly will refer to this Bill, when it becomes an Act. The Minister can also classify highways or proposed highways—
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine after consultation with the highway authorities concerned".
A later section contains provisions for him to revise his opinion after consultation.
However, a principal road is of a more limited character than "classified". If I may give an example taken from my own West Yorkshire County Council, there are in all some 4,000 miles of roads, and of those 1,100 miles are classified A, B or C by the Minister. Of those 1,100 miles, 500 are currently described as principal roads. What is clear is that a principal road is a classified road but a classified road is not necessarily a principal road. We know from the Highways Act that the Minister has power to alter his classification from time to time as circumstances change. These amendments are intended to clarify the fact that the transport and highway authority to be established under Clause 28 of this Bill will have control of all classified roads. Amendment No. 22A, which I hope to move later, will show that non-classified roads will go to metropolitan district councils.
Amendment No. 18B seeks to put right a limitation on that clause, being related only to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The effect of the amendment is that the clause relates to the whole of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and whatever provisions in that Act may apply or may be necessary for the future will be available to the new authority.
There is one further clarification point which applies to the powers of the authority, and Amendment No. 19A refers to that. I ought to point out that there is a misprint in that amendment as printed in the Marshalled List, because the last word of it should read "county" and not "country". There is a question as to whether or not the authority would have power, as the clause is now drawn, it having been given management of road traffic. It could be argued that that includes the control of the county urban traffic control system. However, I put that amendment down, and I hope to move it, in order to clarify the matter beyond any doubt and to seek to define such a system, with its support services, for the new authority

1065
to have full power of control over that urban traffic control system.
I sought in Committee to define what an urban traffic control system was, but, alas!, that fell when this particular clause was carried. Therefore, I now seek to define such a system with its support services, and to put it beyond any doubt. It would make it clear that the traffic and highway authority under Clause 28 will have power (and here I quote the amendment)
"also in relation to the control management, development and extension of any system of traffic control for roads within the county".
Currently, it is worth placing on record that an urban system of traffic control today covers a wide variety of duties, all collated with a very skilled and expert team. It covers transport, planning, modelling, data collection, accident investigation, analysis of associated traffic management, highway and civil engineering design and construction computing. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage of the Bill to elaborate on the skill and design work put in by those who manage the urban traffic control system. It is sufficient, I hope, for me to remind this noble House that when we talk about urban traffic control we are dealing not only with cars, trucks, lorries and passenger vehicles, but with the lives of the people in those vehicles and, more especially, the people in or near all highways.
These amendments are put forward in a construc-tive sense, and they are intended to improve a clause which your Lordships decided to adopt during the Committee stage. If these amendments are accepted, they will make that clause abundantly clear so that there is no doubt about what is meant. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have very little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry of Adel, has said in his immaculate introduction of these amendments, save only this. This is a natural corollary to the statements that were made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, at Committee stage. Unfortunately, he is still out of the country and unable to add his name to these amendments. However, I feel certain he would have done so had he been here, because at the Committee stage he criticised his own amendment which, if your Lordships remember, was moved on behalf of the Select Committee, and he said then that he did not believe it was sensible to separate major roads from minor roads. He said that the traffic light system of any urban traffic control inevitably involves all roads, and he did not believe that one could separate those two classes under a strategic highway authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, has indicated what is meant by "principal", "classified" and "non-classified" roads. It is interesting to note, perhaps, that while we are extending the mileage of roads covered by the original amendment from some 10 per cent. to some 20 per cent. only—in other words, there will still be 80 per cent. of the roads in these urban areas which are non-classified—nevertheless in so doing we have now subsumed 97 per cent. of all the traffic signals in those areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, referred to the importance of urban traffic control systems. Certainly your Lordships' Select Committee were much
1066
intrigued by them, particularly when we went to Leeds and the whole of your Lordships' Select Committee were moved from Brotherton House to the railway station during the rush-hour in what seemed to be a matter of seconds. One had a feeling that someone was actually watching what was going on. No doubt it was the excellent people in the urban traffic control. Of course, the train broke down at Doncaster and we were delayed for an hour-and-a-half, but that was not the fault of the urban traffic control.
That was a good example to us of what can be done, quite apart from the remarkable demonstrations that we saw on that occasion of the way in which Leeds had been able to save vast amounts of money by using these teams together. What is important is that urban traffic control must be seen as a piece. I believe these amendments improve the original amendment, which your Lordships have agreed to, without in fact taking the principle of the matter away from what your Lordships decided.
It is additionally envisaged in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 22A to provide greater flexibility. I think in that sense the Secretary of State is not deprived of his necessary authority to make modifications as and when they are genuinely necessary. So I hope that the Government will accept that these amendments are, as the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, said, put forward in a spirit of trying positively to improve the situation and I hope, too, that they will be accepted.
7 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kaberry has made several interesting points in support of Amendments Nos. 18, 18B, 19, 19A, 20, 21, 22 and 22A, and has drawn on his considerable experience in West Yorkshire. He expressed similar concern in Committee when he proposed that responsibility for the highways and traffic functions on the most important of the metropolitan county council roads should be given to the police authority. We heard several noble Lords express concern about good management in regard to these main roads, known technically as principal roads, and your Lordships added what is now Clause 8 to the Bill, against the advice of the Government, as a possible way forward.
The present group of amendments which we are discussing go a considerable step further, however, in preserving the metropolitan county council structure. Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 22 would substitute the word "classified" for the word "principal" in Clause 8. In doing so they would strip away from the metropolitan district councils the proposed responsibilities for all but very minor roads and side streets which Amendment No. 22A seeks to transfer by order to the districts. The effect would be that the metropolitan county PTAs would be responsible for not just the main strategic routes in the country, which some have argued are of country-wide interest, but also every A road not in the trunk road network, every B road, and every traffic measure on them—even a few yards of yellow lines—leaving the metropolitan districts, the size of, say, the city of Leeds, in which I know my noble friend is most interested, with a very minor and unrewarding task.

1067
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who, I am sorry to see, is not in her place, referred, on the earlier amendment, to difficulties in London about the siting of, for instance, pedestrian crossings. By contrast, the county-level authority would retain virtually everything of value. My noble friend explained earlier that we wished to take a view on Clause 8 once we had seen the overall outcome of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Lord, but I have to say that these amendments go further than Clause 8 and in a direction which is wholly contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Moreover, whatever the final decision on the destination of the functions, we should prefer to see that set out in detail on the face of the Bill, as Schedules 4 and 5 now do. In any event, I know that many noble Lords wish to discuss the details of those provisions which this order-making power seeks to replace. For these reasons, I urge noble Lords not to accept those amendments.
Turning to Amendment No. 18B, again this seeks to remedy the same technical deficiency in Clause 8(b). The effect of the amendment is to widen the joint transport authority's traffic powers, so that they embrace all the functions of the local authority under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, not just the functions under Section 1 of the Act. Although Amendment No. 18B goes some way to remedying this particular defect, Clause 8(b) would still be defective, because some traffic powers under the 1984 Act are conferred on the highway authority rather than on the local authority; for example, powers in respect of traffic lights and powers to make temporary traffic orders. Amendment No. 18B, I also submit, should therefore be resisted.
Turning to Amendment No. 19A, this also appears designed to remedy a deficiency in Clause 8. It does, however, go further in providing for the joint authorities to assume responsibility for urban traffic control systems on all roads in their areas, not just those parts of the system on principal roads, which would have been the effect otherwise. I have to make it plain that the Government cannot accept any further imposition on the functions of the passenger transport authority. We have already made full provision for urban traffic control to be run by the districts. They will be best placed to determine what they need, and I believe it would be wholly wrong to remove this function from them. To provide for the transfer of all metropolitan county urban traffic control systems to a joint authority is, I submit, a far less flexible approach than the one we envisage, which will allow arrangements to be made by the local authorities in keeping with their local circumstances.
I am fully conscious of the importance of these urban traffic control systems, but we believe that the best means is by voluntary co-operation between the authorities concerned, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to provide for the devolution of the functions to these local authorities. I hope I have given a sufficient explanation to my noble friend.
Lord Kaberry of Adel: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, will he tell the House how he envisages some voluntary joint control of the
1068
metropolitan district councils? In regard to any metropolitan counties now in existence, in terms of a voluntary basis who is to pay, how is it to be controlled and who is to be the presiding authority over the system? Surely that has been thought out.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the metropolitan district councils co-operate with one another on the basis of perhaps a lead district taking control of the urban traffic control system, and those districts concerned with that urban traffic control system would apportion the cost among themselves and the lead district. I think that would be the solution.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, by leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, surely we are approaching this matter in a very curious way. It was my belief that your Lordships had made up your minds at Committee stage that you were not going down the route which the noble Lord is now describing. The Government may wish at a later stage to overturn that decision of your Lordships, but surely we are now in a situation where that is the position in regard to the Bill. The voluntary coming together of districts on this matter is no longer on the cards for this particular function. Therefore we have to look at the Bill as it is.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, to which I have willingly put my name, as has my noble friend Lady Stedman, are an elucidation of the principle which is now enshrined in the Bill following the amendment that your Lordships passed at the Committee stage. I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and others who, each afternoon until the evening shift arrives lecture us on the subject of the constitution, are not in their place, since they would, doubtless, wish to correct me, but—if I dare say so—it is surely constitutionally improper for the Government to behave as though the Bill now is as it was when first brought before your Lordships.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, again, for a third time, all I have said, I think, is that my noble friend Lord Elton earlier explained that we wished to take a view on Clause 8 once we had seen the overall outcome of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. I therefore do not think it is entirely unreasonable for me, on my part, to attempt to resist a suggestion in the form of an amendment which I believe can be better handled by voluntary co-operation, and I do not think that noble Lords should set aside this opportunity for voluntary co-operation.
Lord Kaberry of Adel: My Lords, the Minister has said quite a lot and I should like to read the report of it in the greatest detail tomorrow, because I think he missed the bus on one or two points. But I do not want to lose this opportunity of reserving the chance of bringing the matter forward at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("a") to ("principal") in line 38 and insert ("county council and a highway authority for the purpose of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying that I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that it is quite wrong of us to anticipate what the decision of the other place may be. We must deal with the fact that earlier in the Committee stage Amendments Nos. 58C and 58D were accepted. That is how the Bill stands and I think we are going to be incredibly frankled up, if that is the correct term—certainly "frankled" is a good Scots word—if we do not accept that.
Amendments Nos. 18A and 18B transfer all the traffic powers contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to principal roads to the authorities established under Clause 28 of this Bill. This overcomes the anomaly in the Bill as presently constituted, which was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, during the Committee stage, whereby responsibility for traffic and parking meters on principal roads is split between different authorities. The amendment eliminates any ambiguity or overlap of responsibility in relation to the traffic function and particularly in relation to principal roads.
On the question of co-operation, I wonder how we avoid the difficulty that I have been hearing about that, for instance, Westminster City Council are talking in terms of having a one-way bus lane contrafiow—I do not know how far it has got—in Charing Cross Road against the traffic, the same as there is at Piccadilly, except that there will be no barrier between the other traffic and the buses. This throws an enormous strain on the surrounding streets where people will be using rat-runs to get away from this difficulty, and unless there is some co-ordinating authority it is hard to see how such a scheme can work. Therefore I believe that Amendment No. 18A would be of considerable help as the Bill stands at present and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, something such as Amendment No. 18A is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not in a position this evening to answer the noble Lord about the proposed contraflow system in Westminster. However, I recognise that this amendment appears to make a technical improvement to the provisions of Clause 8 as passed by your Lordships in Committee. Although I am willing to accept without commitment this amendment to Clause 8, I cannot advise your Lordships to extend Clause 8, which this amendment does not do. Amendment No. 18A seeks to remedy the technical deficiency in the description of the traffic powers to be transferred to the joint transport authorities under Clause 8(b). The amendment redefines the functions in terms of those of a "county council and a highway authority" under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. For example, power to install traffic lights or to make temporary traffic orders rests with the highway authority. I am content, therefore, to accept Amendment No. 18A without prejudice to the Government's view on Clause 8 as a whole.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18B, 19, 19A, 20, 21, 22 and 22A not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that this is an appropriate moment to break for the next business. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned. We shall not return to this business before a quarter past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Hill Farming Bill
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to close a loophole in the Hill Farming Act 1946, which gives powers to control by regulation the burning of heather and grass. This Bill will extend those powers to include gorse, bracken and vaccinium. As your Lordships will know, it is necessary for a number of reasons to burn, particularly to encourage new growth. But such burning needs to be done carefully and at the correct time to encourage this new growth and avoid damage to wildlife; hence the need for regulations.
In order to assist the Minister, a working party was set up in 1983 to advise and monitor the effect of these regulations. This working party, which consists of various organisations interested in farming and wildlife—and I believe that my noble friend Lord Peel is a member of it—has recommended the addition of gorse, bracken and vaccinium to the existing heather and grass. I understand that the Government welcome the working party's report—a report that illustrates once again that it is perfectly possible for farmer, conservationist and bird lover to work happily and constructively together. So Clause 1 of this Bill gives the Minister powers to make these regulations and Clause 2 makes the necessary provisions to bring this Bill into line with existing legislation and allows it to come into force two months after being passed, should your Lordships pass it. Perhaps I should add that it also brings any offence under the Bill into line with the Hill Farming Act 1946.
This Bill was taken through another place by my honourable friend Mr. Robert Jackson with cross-party, unanimous support. I therefore commend it to your Lordships with the hope that it will receive similar treatment by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
7.19 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, who has a lot of experience in hill farming, has put this Bill before the House in the hope that we will pass it, and I think that his hope should be granted. Muir burning, as we call it, has always been a bit of a contentious subject in hill farming and I hope that this extension of control by regulation will not increase that contention, because a lot of hill farmers do not feel there is enough muir burning as it is to give them better grazing and better keep; and I know that the grouse people do not like too much. They just like

1071
sufficient nice young heather to keep the grouse going and the two rather get at cross-purposes. I hope and I am sure that this extra power will not inhibit farmers in any way from improving their grazings, because it is absolutely essential that they should carry on doing this.
I cannot think of anybody who would like to burn bracken. That only improves it. It grows better than ever once you burn off the dead bracken. The only cure for bracken is to spray it. I know that conservationists do not like that, but it is the worst of all weeds in hill farming. I was chairman of the Hill Farming Committee of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. A good deal of research has been done in one way or another on bracken control and on how much damage it did, particularly in the days of flyblown sheep which ran into the bracken for shelter and died there because they could not be found. Research has been done, and rumour has it that the blasted stuff is now carcinogenic. That really makes it a bad weed.
On the question of gorse, burning only checks gorse for one year. The best way to deal with gorse is to get a tractor with a chain and pull it out. I cannot imagine who would want to burn blueberries. We call them blaeberries in Scotland. In my opinion there are not a great pest. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord that it was to prevent people burning this as an excuse for burning more heather. The areas most affected are Scotland, the north of England—the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will no doubt mention his area—and Wales. I always remember that the late Tudor Watkins looked after his hill farmers in Wales; and if anything was suggested to harm his hill farmers he was on our tops very quickly indeed—at any rate, at the time when I was Minister. I hope that the new Member—the House will probably know that a by-election is due in that area—will look after the farmers as well as he did.
I talked to some people who suggested that this was a conservation measure only. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has made it clear that it is not that. I hope it is not. Any conservation measure seems to hit hill farmers more than anybody else. Anything that stops them improving their pastures and their grazings cannot be justified because unless they can go on improving their grazings they will simply not make a living at the job. That is the one thing I hope the Bill will not do. We give the Bill our blessing and hope that other noble Lords will do so also.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I must apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for the fact that I was sitting in my room writing and failed to notice the important change of business until this moment, but I should like to welcome the Bill very warmly because I think it is extremely necessary.
Hill burning of any kind is a highly skilled business. One farmer in Scotland was heard to say, "I don't know what these hill improvement schemes are. The best one I know costs a penny ha' penny for a box of matches. If you use it you improve the farm". We all know that this is not true and that hill land improvement involves extremely careful burning. The
1072
Bill does not apply to Scotland. I do not know whether or not we have been more sensible, but obviously it was a great foolishness to regulate only the burning of heather and grass and to fail to regulate the burning of other important pieces of vegetation, particularly the one which I did not understand but have since found out is the blaeberry. That is what we call it in Scotland. It could not be more delectable. To burn it would be a sin and a shame. I give the Bill a warm welcome.
7.24 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my honourable friend Robert Jackson for introducing this Bill into another place and my noble friend Lord Stanley for introducing it into your Lordships' House. It is a short but significant Bill, and quite rightly, as my noble friend says, brings bracken and gorse and vaccinium under controls similar to those for heather and grass. It is perhaps quite pertinent that the wording of the Bill should use "vaccinium" in the Latin form and bracken and grass in the English form. I am surprised that both noble Lords opposite have used the word "blaeberry", which is the word I use in Yorkshire. I am not quite sure what my noble friend Lord Stanley would use in Wales.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, bilberry.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I know that one as well. This is a simple piece of legislation and will, I hope, prevent some of the ill-effects which burning at the wrong time of the year can have on wildlife and the long-term damaging effects on the environment in general.
In addition to the Bill, and equally significant, are the new regulations which have already come into effect—at least, I hope they have come into effect; if they have not, I must admit I have been breaking the law. I am pretty certain that they have. The regulations govern the rules of burning and are incorporated into this extremely useful and well-presented code which the MAFF have helped to produce. I would seriously urge everyone, keepers and farmers alike, involved with the burning of heather or the various other species which are now incorporated in the Bill to take heed of the code as bad burning, even during the permitted periods, can cause both short-term and long-term damage to the environment. Large fires are basically a total waste of time. Anyone who knows anything about the management of heather would accept that. I say with great respect to the noble Lords opposite that on the whole this tends to happen in Scotland, where usually the interest in game shooting has gone and the farmers, rather sadly, I feel, just drop the match and let the fire run without having full control and without realising the long-term effects that this can have on the environment and on wildlife in general.
Very often the general public fail to appreciate the effects that the proper control of burning have on the environment, not only in maintaining the quality of the upland vegetation but also as a means of producing a healthy food supply for both livestock and game, and as a means of conserving the habitat of those species which rely particularly on this type of country. It illustrates very often the very significant difference between the two words "conservation" and "preserva-tion". The aesthetic value of the heather and the

1073
upland vegetation is greatly enhanced by proper regular burning.
Finally, and speaking a a Yorkshireman, I must say how delighted I am that my noble friend the Minister has seen fit to extend the burning periods for Yorkshire and Lancashire, and indeed other parts of the United Kingdom within the less favoured areas, to coincide with those of Scotland, Durham and Northumberland. We are now allowed to burn our heather from 1st October through until 15th April. This is a great bonus. It is a great relief, and means that we shall not have to be filling in endless forms. I am sure that this will cut down enormously on bureaucracy. I welcome the Bill and the new regulations that go with it.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley for presenting this Bill. On behalf of the Government I should like to add my voice to what your Lordships have said about this Bill and give it full support.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made the point that hill farmers need to improve their grazings in pursuing their businesses in the hills. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, added that very great care is needed with burning in the hills and uplands. I like to think that those two expressions of view are reflected in the controls we have at present with respect to the burning of heather and grass, with prohibition between sunset and sunrise and during the spring and summer months when the risks from fire are at their greatest.
The regulations allow burning under licence within the prohibited months in order to take account of prolonged wet weather, which may have delayed the onset of spring, but with licence applications being given very careful scrutiny, with the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council being sought in each case. There are also the amendments to that system which my noble friend Lord Peel has just mentioned.
The Ministry established a working party, of which my noble friend Lord Peel is indeed a member, to advise on moorland burning, on which the interests of agriculture, conservation and the landscape are represented. It was the work of that working party which identified the loophole in the present controls which my noble friend's Bill is designed to close. The working party also produced the Heather and Grass Burning Code, which we had made freely available to farmers.
In essence, those are the measures we have and which we would want to extend, with perhaps minor changes, to gorse, bracken and bilberry should this Bill pass into law. The precise form of new regulations would be a matter for further consultation—with the working party, for example—and we would want advice, too, on the guidance we ought to give to those carrying out burning. We have, however, given some thought to this matter already and I recently asked for the views of my right honourable friend's Hill Farming Advisory Committee, which meets twice a year and which met very recently at the Ministry of Agriculture in London.
1074
Although this Bill deals with a practice that is essentially agricultural, its effects on the landscape and the environment can be considerable. This Bill provides us with an opportunity to close a loophole. I repeat my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Stanley for introducing the Bill and I commend it to the House.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this Bill; I am most grateful. I shall just repeat and endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Belstead in respect of getting the balance right—a point which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised. This is the part played by the working party and I really do believe that they have got it right. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will be satisfied as much as any farmer can ever be on this matter.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, might ask about Scotland. The answer is that the regulations in Scotland and those for England and Wales are broadly similar. Thanks to a little help from my friends, I have here a long description which I shall give to the noble Lord when we leave the Chamber, if he is interested. By and large, the regulations are very similar.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Peel give his support to the Bill. It may be that at some stage in the future I will have to remind him of the essential need to burn at certain times, but perhaps I should leave that point for the moment. Meanwhile, I am very grateful to noble Lords for the support I have received throughout the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.34 until 8.15 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 9 [Highways and road traffic functions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("traffic") to the end of line 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient for the House if we deal also with Amendment No. 23A.
Amendment No. 23A: Page 6, line 17, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 21 and insert ("give effect to the transfer of functions relating to those matters—

(a) from the Greater London Council—

(i) in part to the London residuary body; and

(ii) in part to the London borough councils and the common council; and

(b) from the metropolitan county councils—

(i) in part to the metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities; and

(ii) in part to the metropolitan district councils.").

These amendments seek only to tidy up the wording of Clause 9 to make it more compatible with Clauses 7 and 8, which transfer strategic highway functions for London to the London residuary body

1075
and, for the metropolitan counties, to the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities. In this respect these amendments pave the way for the amendments to the schedules consequential on Clauses 7 and 8. I trust that all quarters of the House will recognise this and accordingly offer their support.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, but I understood that he would be dealing with Amendments Nos. 23B and 23C at the same time. I merely wish to get the record straight.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sorry, but my list of grouped amendments does not appear to be the same. From my list it would seem that there are two separate groups: Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A and Amendments Nos. 23B and 23C.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to treat the amendments in that way, I am sure that my noble friend will be able to cope with it. I merely wanted to get the record straight so that we know what is being spoken about, and my noble friend can reply accordingly.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as I said, I have been given the amendments in these two groupings and I have prepared accordingly.
The subject of the consequentiality in general and its relevance in particular to amendments which have been tabled in my name, and which follow immediately, is of great concern to this side of the House. The amendments affected relate to transport supplementary grant—Amendments Nos. 23B and 23C (so they are involved, though I had prepared for a slightly different way of presenting them); to trunking—Amendment No. 25; designation of roads in London—Amendment No. 27; traffic guidance—Amendment No. 28; and urban traffic control—Amendment No. 29.
Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage there was considerable confusion about the situation after amendments leading to the addition of Clauses 7 and 8 to the Bill had been carried. At that time, in somewhat inconsistent 'fashion and based on Government advice, amendments relating to trunking, designation, traffic guidance and urban traffic control consequently fell and were not taken. Your Lordships were, therefore, denied a prime opportunity to remove unnecessary powers of the Secretary of State from the Bill.
I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on 22nd May, seeking clarification. I received a response only late last Thursday. I do not blame him for that. It was extremely complicated and the advice of parliamentary experts would be necessary to disentangle the difficulties into which we got ourselves that night. But it was only on Thursday that I received a reply. It was specific that the provisions on trunking, designation and traffic guidance were not technically compatible with Clauses 7 and 8, and it was not accepted that they could simply be deleted.
According to his letter the noble Lord now believes that the best way forward is for the House to consider
1076
those provisions together with any other amendments to Schedules 4 and 5 which your Lordships would wish to debate at this stage. In view of the late response I have not had a further opportunity to discuss the issues with the Government. However, from this side of the House the considered view is that the amendments which we are now debating and which cover the tidying up of Clause 9—Amendments Nos. 23A, 23B and 23C on transport supplementary grants and Amendment No. 29 on urban traffic control—would correct, in the noble Lord's own words, provisions which are technically incompatible with Clauses 7 and 8 and which can be removed from the Bill. I would not therefore expect them to be opposed when they are moved.
Although the specific provisions on trunking, designation and traffic guidance are not, in the strictest sense, technically incompatible with Clauses 7 and 8, a strong case can be made for incompatibility in practice. All these provisions in the Bill were clearly meant to supply the strategic dimension of road traffic planning which the Government have always recognised as being essential. Since the London residuary body and the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities will under Clauses 7 and 8 now provide those strategic functions, I contend—and I think that your Lordships would have difficulty in disagreeing—that in all practical senses the provisions are redundant and can be removed from the Bill.
It is well known that the responsibility for such a tidying up operation normally lies with the Government, who are, after all, in charge of the Bill, especially when they have announced that they will not reverse the decisions that we made in Committee. It is a constitutional duty which, as I tried to explain earlier, the Government have to accept—and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, intervened to make a particular point on that; this is the only Bill with which we are dealing, irrespective of whether it may be changed in another place or even at a later stage in this House. For those reasons I hope that the Government will feel that it is possible to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 23 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 23A.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his explanation of Amendments Nos. 23, 23A, 23B and 23C. I was not quite clear as to their purpose.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has not actually dealt with Nos. 23B and 23C, as I understand it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord talked about Amendments Nos. 23B and 23C.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I referred to the fact that they would be coming up as amendments which were necessary, but they were not chosen in the selection to be grouped with Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A, and I considered it quite out of order that I should go ahead and take them at the same time. As I said, I had planned to

1077
speak specifically to Amendments Nos. 23B and 23C, and I believe that other noble Lords particularly wish to speak to them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in that case I shall confine my remarks to Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A. I was still not quite clear as to their purpose. They leave the substance of Clause 9 and allow Schedules 4 and 5 to remain in the Bill. What they remove is the declaration of the principal purpose of the clause and also the references to the transfers of function intended by the Government. The noble Lord has explained why he feels that the words to be removed are now no longer appropriate and what he now intends should be the position, particularly regarding payment of transport supplementary grant provided for in Clause 9(3).
I should say that I do not particularly feel strongly about these amendments one way or the other. We earlier explained that we would wait a little before coming forward with proposals to resolve the complications now attaching to this part of the Bill. If the noble Lord wants to move Amendment No. 23 or Amendment No. 23A, I shall not advise your Lordships to oppose him. I should, however, draw to your Lordships' attention the slightly curious circumstance that Amendment No. 24, standing in the name, among others, of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would entirely remove Clause 9 from the Bill. In view of your Lordships' rejection of Amendment No. 2 earlier, I think that the noble Lord will wish to help your Lordships in speaking again by indicating whether it is also intended to move Amendments Nos. 24, 26 and 33. If it is, I am not quite clear as to the purpose of Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A. Perhaps he can help us.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that we must take the amendments in series. If it is not the wish of the House that Clause 9 be left out, I should obviously like it to be amended. Even if the amendments that I have brought forward were carried, I cannot see why Amendment No. 24 to leave out Clause 9 cannot still be moved. We are in a belt and braces situation: if we cannot have one, we want the other. The amendments that I am moving are perfectly reasonable, I suggest. If they are accepted, my noble friend Lady Birk can make her own decision as to whether she wishes Clause 9 to be omitted, as can the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock, Lord Bancroft and Lord Seebohm. No matter what amendments are made to Clause 9, that will not prejudice in any way their decision on whether they want Clause 9 to be left out. If the Government decide that they do not want to accept the amendment that Clause 9 is left out, we should rather have it with my amendments than without.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure whether my speaking is in breach of the conventions of your Lordships' House, and your Lordships must ask me to sit down if your wish. I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, noticed that the Chair reminded him that he cannot have both Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A. Amendment No. 23A seeks to remove part of the Bill which Amendment No. 23 will have already removed. It is not for me to make the choice.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is actually Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Lord Kilmarnock normally sits behind me.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are still getting confused. I am so sorry; I should have said, Lord Carmichael. I strayed from every possible convention. I just wanted to help the noble Lord by pointing out that if in his first amendment he leaves out two-and-a-half lines, he cannot also leave out the same half line at the end of that in his next amendment. He has made the choice.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I agree that there is a great difficulty. The choice that I make is that I would want Amendment No. 23A accepted. As I tried to explain earlier, whatever happens to the clause, it is always possible in a subsequent amendment to omit the entire clause, should that be the wish of my noble friends on this side of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am going to call Amendment No. 23. Is that moved?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes, my Lords, I have moved it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps this may assist the noble Lord. I think if the noble Lord has a choice he may prefer Amendment No. 23A, in which case presumably the noble Lord would withdraw Amendment No. 23.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to the noble Lord on the Woolsack. I have had advice on this highly technical point. It appears that in order to have the substance of my two amendments debated it would be wise for me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 23 but to move Amendment No. 23A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23A:
[Printed earlier: col. 1074.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23B:
Page 6, line 27, leave out from second ("the") to ("and") in line 29 and insert ("metropolitan county strategic transportation authorities and London residuary authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if, with this amendment, Amendment No. 23B, we spoke to Amendment No. 23C.
Amendment No. 23C: Page 6, line 33, leave out ("metropolitan") to end of line 37 and insert ("county strategic transportation authorities and London Residuary Body;").
In the preparation for abolition, the latest draft circular on transport supplementary grant issued by the Department of Transport calls for the London boroughs and metropolitan districts to place bids for transport supplementary grants, since they would assume main road responsibility from the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils respectively.
The rules for the receipt of TSG were also changed so that only capital schemes for roads of more than local significance were eligible. The Committee of this House deemed that the strategic highway and traffic functions, and consequently the main road response-bilities of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils, should go to the London residuary body and passenger transport authorities respectively.
Therefore, subsequently, the responsibility for transport supplementary grant should go to these bodies, since the boroughs would be concerned only with roads of local importance. These amendments therefore simply transfer the responsibility for applying for transport supplementary grants from the existing local authorities with main road response-bilities to the new bodies agreed by this House in Committee.
Clause 9, as it stands, is technically incomplete. Therefore, I beg that the amendment be accepted. After that explanation, I hope it will be accepted without question.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, once again, I recognise the noble Lord's point in trying to tidy up Clause 8. He has spoken about the need to permit the residuary body to receive transport supplementary grant in London, since that body would be responsible for a large network of roads. Again, I do not feel strongly about this matter and I shall be content to accept Amendments Nos. 23B and 23C without commitment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23C.
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Highways.]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 109, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we got two-thirds of the way through this debate on Committee stage. Two very powerful speeches were made by the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. Before your Lordships had the pleasure of my intervention, if I may so describe it, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, intervened to point out that the amendment, as it was phrased at that time, was really incompatible with the position we had reached at that stage of the Bill. I think we were all in a state of some confusion at that time and no one will ever know whether or not that was correct.
Nevertheless, I have sought to deal with this point in a slightly different way. I am pleased to see that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, is against the amendment and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, will take the opportunity of supporting it on this occasion, even though it comes at the problem in a slightly different way.
The problem is exactly the same as was suggested by those two noble Lords at Committee stage. It is that the Bill, as it was originally drafted in Schedule 4, seeks to remove the constraints of the 1980 Act from the Secretary of State if he is to go about the trunking of, basically, the South Circular Road. Like the two noble Lords who have spoken before, I spent a considerable amount of time living in the borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. I think that is why I was asked to put my name to this amendment in the first place and I am very happy to have done so.
I do not think I need to rehearse again all the arguments that were put forward at that time. However, there is no doubt that the danger of passing this in a small part of a schedule tucked away at the back of a Bill like this is that it takes away a protection from a very large number of people in the area of South London that could be affected by the South Circular Road. We know that there is supposed to be something called that, but, as somebody said at an earlier stage, it really is a collection of back streets that happen to fit together in no very coherent way.
Apart from representations that I have had on the Bill which will be before your Lordships' House tomorrow for Second Reading, I do not believe that I have had so many representations since I have been in your Lordships' House as I have had on this subject. Clearly, people in South London are worried. They are worried not only about the thought of a south circular road being driven through that area but also about the blight arising from all the planning problems in relation to which people need genuine protection against a bureaucratic intervention to force a road. At some stage, that road may well be necessary to relieve traffic congestion from inner London. However, one needs to have the greatest possible protection for people against, as it were, someone taking a pair of dividers and drawing a semicircle round the south of London. That is what people are afraid of. The protection they have is in the 1980 Act, which provides that proper planning inquiries can be set up.
I know that there is a feeling that planning inquiries can be too costly and can go on for too long and at the end of the day nobody is very satisfied with them. However, in a case like this, any application which is made and objected to is likely to be very small in comparison with the need to relieve traffic in that area. I am really asking your Lordships to think back to the excellent speeches that were made at the Committee stage by the two noble Lords who got their words in in asking your Lordships to support this amendment tonight.
In a sense, it is consequential on having passed the amendment at Committee stage. The schedule which your Lordships see before you really hangs on the basis that the Secretary of State will take powers to do all these things for transport in Greater London. Now that that has been put to a different body, it would surely be wrong for the Secretary of State to take overriding powers. In a sense, I go back to what I said before in terms of the constitutional position: that we have to accept the Bill as it now is, whatever the Government and their supporters may feel about it and whatever may be their intention at a later stage of the Bill. We have to deal with the Bill as it is.
Thus, I ask your Lordships to support the amendment on two counts: first, because I believe it would be improper in a Bill of this kind to remove safeguards which exist in an Act which is already on the statute book, and, secondly, because I think that in a sense this is consequential upon the decisions which your Lordships made at the earlier stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am as surprised as my noble ally that we find ourselves discussing the new arbitrary trunking powers once again. When the Minister told us in Committee that an amendment on trunking was addressed to a provision that was no longer there, I thought that he was absolutely right and that we were pursuing what, in my Marxist youth, we used to call a negation of a negation. However, the amendment with which I was associated was withdrawn, and we are back again. I trust that this time we can certainly get rid of these rather unacceptable powers.
What are trunk roads? I go back to the Trunk Roads Act 1936. This describes them as,
"the principal roads in Great Britain which constitute the national system of routes for through traffic".
The two key words are "national" and "through". Once a road has become a trunk road, those considerations are paramount. It is those words that provide the terms of reference to the managing authority; that is, the Department of Transport. And it is those words, "national" and "through", that provide the context within which the inspector at an inquiry must consider the evidence submitted to him.
The concept of trunk roads was to formalise the links between towns and cities and to provide adequate routes to the extremities of Great Britain. We instinctively think of them as the motorways—the M.1, the M.2, the M.3 and the M.4 radiating outwards; the M.62 crossing the Pennines; or the road that has been built along the west coast of Scotland to Mallaig. We think of them as bypassing cities rather than crossing them.
The Department of Transport is very well equipped to build and maintain this national infrastructure (if I may use that horrid word) allowing vehicles of all kinds to make speedy journeys from one part of the country to another. In London, the principal contribution for many years has been the building of the M.25. When it is complete, it will enable vehicles to bypass built-up London when making journeys from any part of the South to the Midlands and any part of the North. If fully exploited, it will also enable vehicles to choose the proper entry point to London so as to avoid journeys of unnecessary length through London. It will also provide an outer orbital route for distributors within London. The most determined effort, I am sure that all of us hope, must be made to exploit the M.25 to the full. Yet it is precisely this that the new powers could threaten.
The Secretary of State, if I understand him rightly, wants the power to trunk any metropolitan road overnight. Presumably, he wants to use the metropolitan roads to cut through London to form part of a national network, or the national network. It may escape him that fast and unimpeded roads traversing London will inevitably reduce the number
1082
of vehicles that would otherwise use the facilities of the M.25 and go round the outside of London. Indeed, vehicles that thread their way through the outskirts of London now would be attracted into London by the streamlined roads that the Secretary of State may well create in London's inner suburbs.
The nub of the argument around this amendment is that people who live and work and do business near the roads that the Secretary of State wishes to annex should be allowed a voice in all this. The Secretary of State already has the power to trunk roads under the Highways Act 1980. But before he can do so, he is obliged, first, to publish his intentions to the local press and local councils. Then he has to leave at least six weeks for consideration. After that, he has to hold an impartial public inquiry if there are objections. If this amendment is carried, he will still have those powers but the residents and the business people will retain the safeguards that they now enjoy. The Bill seeks to remove those safeguards and gives the Secretary of State untrammelled power to trunk the roads that he chooses.
8.45 p.m.
The roads in which the Department of Transport is interested are different, very different, from one another. Some are the terminations of radial roads that are already trunked. When roads were first trunked, they stopped at the old London County Council boundary. Only when the formation of the GLC widened the area of London did trunk roads gratuitously enter the metropolis. Now the department appears to want to take these radial roads right to the inner hub. Is it not proper that the intention should be properly set out, a broad idea given of traffic levels and an inquiry held if there are people who do not want their end of the road transformed in this way?
There is another London road—the road with which I am principally concerned—which is of quite a different nature, where the intention to trunk without a public inquiry has caused most concern among ordinary people. That is the South Circular Road. This is a string of suburban streets held together by signposts. Householders and traders do not see it as a national road. Each in their area sees it as his own high street or her local road through a residential neighbourhood. It is a road that they cross freely to shop, to worship, to go to the library or to take their children to school. They certainly do not see it primarily as a through road for vehicles of all weights and sizes to cross through their neighbourhood on business that has nothing to do with the place. The Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council, in a letter sent to many noble Lords, emphasises this:
"The South Circular Road",
it insists,
"is a local highway rather than a national or regional one and it would be right that local considerations should be given substan-tially more weight in taking any decision to make it a trunk road. It would be right that these local considerations should be dealt with at a local public inquiry and that until an independent inspector's recommendations based on the findings of an inquiry have been considered, the `trunking' proposals should not proceed. This view is held by other boroughs affected by these proposals".
That is what this amendment is about.
It is worth commenting that this letter and others sent to noble Lords by the Richmond Borough

1083
Council results from a unanimous decision of a council that is normally sharply divided. Indeed, unity on this subject prevails throughout the route of the South Circular Road through Richmond. Not only the borough council but the Conservative Member of Parliament have been actively engaged in seeking to preserve the existing basic rights of the citizen to have a voice before almost irreversible decisions are made to sacrifice the environment to an external purpose. Noble Lords will have noted that we are supported, have been supported and will be supported again tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe of Richmond, who was Conservative MP for Richmond for almost 25 years.
The Department of Transport is the problem. It has its views—right views—of what the national road system should be, but then it has a view of what part London roads should play in it. However much Ministers might seek to camouflage the trunking intentions as inoffensive changes of nomenclature, the department itself is quite frank. It says that the Government:
"is carrying out a programme of improvements to the existing trunk roads in London and is considering priorities for the new roads for which it intends to accept responsibility. These improvements should encourage more of the longer distance traffic to use these roads".
That is what we fear.
Ministers have insisted that if major improvements are planned after a road has been trunked the public would then have a right to a public inquiry. However, such an inquiry would inevitably take place with the function and nature of the road already having been determined. The inquiry would then have to consider how best the road can serve its declared purpose as part of the national network and how it can be engineered to carry the full weight of the longer distance and other traffic that is to thrown at it.
It is because the two inquiries—one, should it be trunked?; and the other, how can it best work as a trunk road?—are so utterly different in purpose that the Highways Act only five years ago provided for two separate inquiries. We want to keep it that way, and that is the object of the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose Amendment No. 25 to remove the power of the Secretary of State to transfer certain GLC roads to himself on abolition. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, to remove the powers of the Secretary of State to designate London roads, to issue guidance on traffic movements and to take over responsibility for urban traffic control schemes, reflect different aspects of the same problem—the traffic problem of London. Can there be any doubt that if M. Hulot were alive today that problem would provide yet another inspiration for a further film?
The opposition to the Bill as it stands is based, as I hope to show, on a series of misconceptions. There are not errors of bureaucracy here. There is no question of the absence of a planning inquiry. There is certainly no impropriety involved. Far from being an unacceptable proposal, this is indeed an entirely reasonable proposal and wholly requisite.
1084
Paragraph 53(2) of Part III of the Schedule enables the Secretary of State at abolition to transfer these roads to himself. I understand that the situation is that the intention of the Government is to take some 65 miles of the 900 miles of GLC roads, which are not called trunk roads but which either serve or ought to serve as trunk roads, to himself and to designate such roads as trunk roads if so advised. The remaining 835 miles will be devolved to the boroughs in which they are located.
The form of the statutory power is enabling—"may"—and it is discretionary. It is requisite as a reform, a reform which is long overdue, to provide the incentive, the initiative and the sense of purpose sorely needed to cope with the traffic problems of London. Indeed, it would be a sad day if this amendment were to be carried because a great opportunity for essential forward planning would be lost. It is wholly right that it should be found among the supplementary provisions of Part III of Schedule 4 dealing with provisions as to bridges which carry highways, and so forth.
One assumes—and here I seek the guidance of the House—that Amendment No. 26, which follows and which leaves out Schedule 4 in which this amendment lies, is the obverse of Amendment No. 10, which hangs on Amendment No. 2 which has been lost on a Division, and that therefore Amendment No. 26 to leave out Schedule 4 will not be moved.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, as I understand it, at the moment we are dealing solely with Amendment No. 25, according to the Marshalled List which has been circulated.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord did not follow me, and I am not surprised. Amendment No. 25 relates to Schedule 4 to the Bill. There is no other amendment affecting Schedule 4 to the Bill apart from Amendment No. 26, which proposes to leave it out. If Amendment No. 26 to leave out Schedule 4 is the obverse of Amendment No. 10—which indeed, by inspection, it is—and if Amendment No. 10 hangs on Amendment No. 2 which has been lost (which it does and which it has) then where, with respect, are we getting to?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are not talking about that at all at the moment. We are talking about Amendment No. 25. Oddly enough, Amendment No. 26 comes next.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance. The oddity does not strike me as so strange. However, perhaps we can leave this to the form in which the Motion is moved at some subsequent stage. I did not raise the matter as a triviality. It seems to me that this could affect the form of voting at a subsequent stage when we come to it.
I have dealt with the question of no other amendment affecting Schedule 4, and we can leave that as it stands. However, it is not understood how it can be suggested that there would be no planning inquiry, or indeed any effective inquiry, if either the ownership or the quality of the road were to be changed. As a matter of law, the transfer of ownership

1085
of these roads will not affect the requirement for consultation and public inquiry if proposals are subsequently put forward for improving or upgrading the roads in any substantial way.
Under the provisions of Part XI of the Highways Act 1980, where land has to be acquired in order to widen a road there are statutory procedures involving a public inquiry. Similar procedural requirements set out in Schedule 1 to the Act apply to changes affecting junctions with other classified roads. Any proposals to widen or significantly to upgrade, for example, the South Circular Road, which I think has been mentioned, would entail works of this nature. These procedural requirements apply to proposals by any highway authority, be it the Secretary of State, the GLC or a London borough council. It is simply not understood how the rights of those concerned to be consulted and publicly to air their views on any proposals would be adversely affected by the proposals under the Bill.
I have dealt with this matter at some length on purpose in order to deal with the case put against me and to argue that it is based, as I have stated, upon a series of misconceptions. The justification for the Bill as it stands in these particulars is not based upon the importance of London: it is no belated harbinger of the cuckoo voice of London as if it were some city state like Venice under the Doges. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, do not see themselves as latter-day Doges, nor indeed do Her Majesty's Government. There is no constitutional problem here, and no conflict of any fundamental principle of the Bill. For this is a derogation from the principle of devolution of executive functions to single tier local administration which was recognised at the inception and recognised as justifiable on pragmatic grounds, as one hopes that any noble Lord who habitually travels the roads in London might be inclined to agree.
If one looks at the map—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick—all trunk roads as such end and become metropolitan roads as they come within the territorial ambit of the GLC. The abolition of the GLC affords an excellent opportunity to bring the present unsatisfactory situation under some form of orderly control and to plan for a better traffic flow system in London for the future.
9 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to support Lord Tordoffs amendment, which was so ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. I want to avoid boring your Lordships by repeating the speech I made at the Committee stage earlier. I was puzzled by the remarks of my noble friend who has just sat down. Perhaps he sees himself as a latter-day Doge. All I should like him to do is to get into a Venetian barge and take himself up the River Thames, get off at Kew Bridge and start to go through the South Circular Road where it winds across South London.
He would find himself sitting in a major traffic jam as he leaves Kew Green. He would then find himself on the Lower Mortlake Road, where he would be lucky to move about two miles in possibly half an hour. He would find on either side of him acres of cemeteries—deaths not due to motor crashes on the
1086
South Circular Road because it is difficult to have an accident on the South Circular Road as the traffic moves so slowly. When he arrives at Chalker's Corner where this large area of gravestones finishes he would probably sit for another 20 minutes waiting to cross in order to get in to Clifford Avenue, and on to the Upper Richmond Road, where he would continue to wind his way through the lanes of South London which are called the South Circular Road.
This road is a nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has expressed it much better than I can. At the Committee stage I expressed my views as to the state of the South Circular Road where it winds through South London. This is not a matter which can be debated by Back-Benchers on either side of the other place or indeed noble Lords in this place as it is accepted entirely by successive Ministers—Ministers in Labour Governments and in Conservative Governments—that the South Circular Road is a nonsense and that something should be done about it.
The great query is, what can one do about it? One method would be to remove the South Circular Road and to make a motorway across South London. Thank goodness this idea has now been dropped, and I hope will never be resuscitated. Another way is to try to encourage traffic to go elsewhere. The GLC for many years signally failed to do this. That is why I, in contrast to the noble Lords, Lord Ardwick and Lord Tordoff, am totally opposed to a regional authority, and voted against it.
I am not in favour of a regional authority. What I should like to see is the local borough councils taking on responsibilities for these roads, because the local borough councils understand the problem, understand how to deal with it, and will reflect the view of local people living there. At the same time they have an understanding of the wider responsibility regarding the movement of traffic through London as a whole.
I hope that this amendment will be agreed to tonight by my noble friend the Minister. What are we asking for? We are asking for a public inquiry. The Minister will still have the power to order roads to be trunked but only after publication, time for consideration, and a public inquiry in case of objections. That is all we are asking for. It is something we put forward at Committee stage, and for reasons which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, we were overtaken by events and because of the confusion due to procedure were unable to discuss the matter in any detail. Tonight we have that chance.
I plead with my noble friend the Minister to look carefully at this proposal that before any of these roads should be trunked by the Minister there should be a public inquiry if it is required by the people living locally and by the local authority. If no public inquiry is demanded, the Minister can trunk the road. If an inquiry is requested, then it will take place and it will be felt by the people living along roads such as the South Circular that their views have been taken into account.
In a democratic society it is important that people should feel at all times that their views are listened to. They may not always be accepted. Maybe it is seldom that the Government act upon them, but it is nice occasionally for those people voting for Government

1087
to feel that their views are taken into account. This is what this short and important amendment does. I should like to support it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too am glad to support this amendment. Had I known before last Friday, by which time it was too late, that this amendment was featuring on the list of amendments, my name would have joined those of the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ardwick, on the Marshalled List.
I have no personal interest to declare, but certain members of my family have the dubious privilege of living on the notorious Earl's Court one-way system, under which roads which not so long ago were still relatively quiet residential streets have been transformed into what can only be described as juggernaut motorways. Along these de facto motorways hurtle container lorries and articulated lorries at the excessive speeds which one-way systems seem invariably to encourage.
When one says that they are a danger to life and limb, that is unfortunately not just empty rhetoric. All too often one reads in the local press of pedestrians, and sometimes cyclists, being killed and injured at some point along this route by heavy goods vehicles, frequently because the height of the cab is such that the driver genuinely cannot see the pedestrian in question, particularly if the pedestrian is of below average height. In other words, it is not just the tranquillity and well-being of those who live adjacent to these routes which is at stake, but the well-being and safety of those who are just visiting friends or simply shopping, in particular elderly or disabled people who are not quite as nimble as the rest of us in jumping out of the way of cars and lorries.
The heavy goods vehicle lobby is a very powerful and extremely well-funded lobby. It always has considerable success in bending the ear of Governments, particularly Conservative Governments. Even as things stand, the Department of Transport has refused to impose a night-time ban on heavy lorries, as the GLC requested, on roads in London which it already controlled. Unless this amendment is agreed to, therefore, I feel that the individual, the ordinary private citizen, the ordinary family, will be metaphorically flattened and in some cases, I fear, literally flattened under the juggernaut.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to oppose this amendment. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, say that it was not really asking very much; it was only asking for an inquiry, I felt I must say that that is not strictly correct. It is asking for deletion from this Bill of the power of the Secretary of State to create a trunk road out of what is now a metropolitan road. So it is a bit more than as outlined by the noble Lord.
I did not hear all the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I am sorry about that, but I was a little late in coming in. I heard all this discussion at the Committee stage. I thought then and I think again now that it is very much a case of special pleading and is directly related to the South Circular Road. I am sorry that it should be so. I have every sympathy with people who live on that road; anyone living on a major road
1088
has a problem. I shall not go into it, but there are ways to help, such as soundproofing, which is paid for if someone lives within a certain distance. But the South Circular should be trunked. For years and years, as the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, said, everyone has realised that something has to be done about the South Circular.
I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, because his speech turned the London traffic situation totally upside down. For example, he told us that if the roads of London became fast and unimpeded they would become quite a hazard because traffic would be rushing at such a speed. That was the message that I received. Also it would prevent people receiving the maximum value from the use of the M.25. Nothing could be further from the truth. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, told us that one could sit there for 20 minutes in a stationary car.
We are far removed from the point where the traffic would be rushing along these roads at the speeds being envisaged. That is a scare that can be discounted. But the special pleading for people living on the South Circular is the same as comes from people everywhere when something new is suggested. Consider, for example, when a new fire station is suggested. Everyone wants a fire station. They all want the engine available within 30 seconds, or whatever it is, to save life. But no one wants it in their street. There is always some reason why it should be in the next street.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the noble Baroness should forget the fire station. That is dealing with a small group of people objecting to an important social amenity. Here we are talking about an enormously long road that affects the whole of South London. We think it is unsuitable for trunking.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I heard the speech of the noble Lord tonight. I heard it on the previous occasion. I am well aware of the South Circular Road. My own constituency is on the North Circular Road, which is trunked and which I thought was a good thing. It has been greatly improved ever since. If the South Circular had been trunked years ago, we might be better off today. I have every sympathy with people who have problems. To speak particularly about those roads, in the case of the North Circular, plans have been brought forward for the improvement of every intersection. Great things can be done in terms of flyovers, underpasses and so on. There are many ways in which roads can be improved to the benefit of the local people, not to their detriment. But the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, is wrong in thinking that my example of the fire station is irrelevant. I could also mention—and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful would agree—that everyone wants a proposed home for mentally handicapped children but not where he or she lives. They all want it in the next street. Whatever is suggested as an improvement for everyone else people are delighted to have but not if it affects their own front doorstep. That is exactly the case with the special pleading about the South Circular Road. A number of people have written to me about how concerned and worried they are about the trunking of the South Circular. I have written back to say that they are

1089
totally misinformed and that the road will be beneficial rather than a disadvantage.
I remember clearly from my time as a vice-chairman of planning for North London that we found that people would prefer their homes to be moved rather than have the house left in the middle of a traffic island. They would rather receive adequate compensation and he moved to somewhere more pleasant if that was the only way the scheme could be carried out. But the London traffic situation is desperate. I think that the description of all these fast roads flowing into the centre was quite alarmist, and I do not think we shall ever see it. But people in this Chamber should realise that London is losing its population, its enterprise, its business, its rate base—all because the M.25 gives good transport, but all out of London. There is no longer any reason for a lot of business to come into London at all. Unless we think in terms of providing at least a reasonable amount of roads in London we shall just fade away as a capital city. Therefore, I think we should have every consideration we can for the people who are personally and particularly affected.
I agree that there should be inquiries and consultations as to how people should have a particular improvement carried out. It may be a long, slow process, but I think it is right that the power for the initial trunking of the road remain in the Bill. I personally believe that it is to the benefit of a far greater number of people that heavy traffic is kept on a smaller number of major roads rather than being allowed to infiltrate through all the small residential streets which are much less suited for heavy traffic. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, that this road is totally unsuitable at the present time, but if that road was upgraded it would be a help to people in adjoining streets. We cannot accept this amendment which is a case of special pleading for the South Circular. I think it would be better trunked. I should like to see the power remain in the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, I also happen to live in Richmond. Therefore, I know a little about the roads around that area, and I must support this amendment. All the reasons as to why it should be supported have already been put by my noble friend Lord Fanshawe and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so I shall not repeat them. I think it is absolutely essential in a democratic society that we should have a proper inquiry. One more thing which is absolutely essential is that nothing should be done to the South Circular Road until the M.25 has been finished for at least two years. Heavy traffic will probably go round there, and there will be no need for a trunk road south of London at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I think there is a little misunderstanding about this. It is undoubtedly the case that there has been great agitation in Richmond. I myself, like my noble friend Lord Fanshawe, have had a good deal of correspondence, but I think that most of my correspondents—like, if I may say so, my noble friend—have misunderstood the effect of the provisions of the Bill. They seem to feel that trunking necessarily involves large-scale
1090
improvements in the road; that is to say, improvements from the point of view of the motorist, and perhaps deterioration from the point of view of local residents. Hence it is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that before a road, the South Circular or any other, is trunked, there should be a public inquiry.
It seems to me that this is quite unfounded. What is involved in the words in the Bill is a transfer of ownership of the road, not necessarily of its character. Indeed, if your Lordships will refer to the 1980 Act your Lordships will see that, after a road has been trunked, if there were to be any of the substantial improvements in that road which are feared by my noble friend Lord Fanshawe then there would have to be a public inquiry. For example, if additional land is to be taken to widen the road—it may well be that that would be a sensible thing to do—then there would have to be a public inquiry. Equally, if improved junctions with other roads are made there would have to be a public inquiry. Therefore, the anxieties of those who want a public inquiry before the general character of the road is changed are quite uncalled for. What is involved in the Bill is simply a transfer of ownership; a perfectly natural and proper transfer following, on the departure of the GLC.
These are mostly roads which, when you pass out of the GLC area, are already trunk roads; and it is the logical, practical thing to make these roads into trunk roads when the GLC goes. I hope that those of your Lordships who have received these disturbing letters from obviously disturbed people will feel able to reassure them in the light of this debate.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I find it most difficult to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to whom I have listened over many years and for whose understanding of parliamentary and Government procedure I have great respect, really believes that what he has just said is true. Perhaps there is a misconception. The whole point made by my noble friend Lord Ardwick, with others, was that the moment the road is changed by diktat by the Secretary of State, no matter which Secretary of State is involved—and Labour Secretaries of State have also been know to be dictatorial—the inspector at the inquiry is then discussing the changes required on a trunk road and not on a principal road. Therefore there is a reduction in his scope for making decisions.
I live 400 miles from the South Circular Road. I have driven along it once or twice and I know a little about it, but I would not consider myself to be in any way an authority. I am aware that one certainly needs better roads around the South and I know there has been a real blockage in this particular part of London. However, I would say to the noble Baroness. Lady Gardner of Parkes, that of course the people concerned with the South Circular Road and Richmond are putting forward special pleading, but it is very special pleading because they are the only ones who are going to be denied their rights to make representations against the trunking of a road at the very beginning.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with whom I have had a very friendly and productive association in connection with other Bills,

1091
perhaps smaller than this one, that I have a great respect for him and for the way he is able to read a Bill so well. However, I really believe that he has missed the point as well. The point is that the people of south London prefer bureaucracy to the diktat of any Minister. They want the bureaucracy of going through all the stages of an inquiry and needing to prove why they should have a trunk road, rather than having a fait accompli through the decision of the Minister. So on this occasion I believe that the noble Lord has got things slightly upside down. Bureaucracy is preferable to a decision that pre-empts the decision of any inspector—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I was dealing with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, when he said that there was this fear of bureaucracy. I was demolishing, or trying to demolish, that fear and I think the noble Lord misunderstood me.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am extremely sorry if I did, but I hope the noble Lord will also take my point that people prefer the right to express themselves against official decisions of what can be to all of us, whatever our position in life, a very powerful and anonymous bureaucracy when we come up against it.
It is important that since the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act was passed there has been no case of a road being trunked without publication, consideration and inquiry into the reasons for the trunking. Public involvement has become more widespread following that Act, quite rightly. Having been a very junior Minister for a period, I know it is a nuisance, but you have to listen to the public even though you may think that you know best—and just occasionally evidence from the public sways the inspector or the department to the extent that they have to accept a certain point of view. The public have become more aware of the right to object, and I think it would be a bad thing if we were now to turn the clock back.
The prime role of trunk roads is to carry large volumes of long-distance traffic, and that is the point from which the inspector starts. He does not start by saying, "This is a small country road; should we expand it?" He says, "This is a major road; is it doing its job?" I believe there is a very big qualitative difference involved. As I have said, I am far removed from the South Circular Road, but as a matter of principle and in view of the fact that it would be the one exception (which is why special pleading is required) I hope the House will accept this amendment. It would only delay the Secretary of State's powers. He would still almost certainly get his trunk road, but I think the people of south London and of Richmond would at least get the satisfaction of being able to express their opinion. I would certainly support this amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this amendment raises an issue which has been widely discussed and personally I welcome this opportunity for a further
1092
debate, since it is also an issue which has been widely misunderstood. I should like to take the House in some detail through the background of this provision so as to set aside doubts and to explain why we believe this power should be retained.
Let me start with the question of why we propose to make a modest extension of the Secretary of State's existing and substantial highway responsibilities in London. In successive consultation papers and statements we have set out exactly which roads we had it in mind to transfer to the Secretary of State. These 65 miles, together with the existing 145 miles of roads in London for which he is already responsible, form a coherent network of the most important routes for distributing traffic within London and for providing connections to the national network of trunk roads and motorways. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this is a one-off power and can be used only on abolition day.
These roads are vital to the commercial and social vitality of the capital and of a much wider area beyond. We have held the view from the beginning that, with the disappearance of the GLC, it was appropriate for these roads to pass to the Secretary of State. This reflects their importance not only to London, but also to the country.
These roads are not intended to serve traffic making journeys right through London. That is why we are building the M.25, a major piece of national infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned, so as to provide a quick and convenient route around London and to keep out of the capital traffic that has no business there. But the M.25 is not a panacea for all London's traffic problems and the capital city needs major distributive routes within it and connecting it to the national network of motorways and trunk roads.
Clause 7 provides that metropolitan roads should be transferred to the residuary body to the extent and in the manner provided by order. It does not require all metropolitan roads to be so transferred. We believe that the importance of these roads still makes it right that these 65 miles should pass to the Secretary of State. We do not accept that the residuary body, with its limited lifespan, is a satisfactory alternative, as it would leave in doubt the long-term future of many roads.
The kernel of the opposition to this power has been the fear fostered by the GLC and groups funded by it that trunking these roads is synonymous with a return to the grandiose plans of the 'sixties for motorway boxes and ringroad systems. That is pure scaremongering and a travesty of the truth. Ministers in another place have repeatedly given categorical assurances that they have no intentions of returning to the discredited solutions of yesteryear. Instead, they are seeking solutions provided by a balance of public transport, sophisticated traffic management and minor road improvements. They believe that is the right way to tackle the undeniable problems along a route such as the south circular. This approach will improve conditions for local people without damaging the environment; in fact, it will make it better.
In certain very exceptional circumstances a new stretch of road might be feasible, such as where railway lines can provide a suitable route and spare land,

1093
without prejudice to the continuation of railway service. A case such as this that is currently being re-examined is the West London relief road. The GLC has refused to bring this scheme forward, despite the widespread benefits it could bring. Not only might the Earls Court area be relieved of heavy traffic flows—and that was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised—but so also might the south circular in Kew, Putney and Richmond.
What we must remember is that these 65 miles, plus the existing 145 miles of trunk roads in London, are the main traffic routes in the capital. That is a fact of life. It will not change just because ownership of the roads changes. But conditions on some of the roads are so bad and have been for so long that something needs to be done to relieve them to make the surrounding areas more attractive places for people to live and work in.
I believe that that is an honourable objective. It is one that Londoners should welcome. It is an objective that the GLC has singularly failed to achieve, as my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Fanshawe of Richmond mentioned. Working out what needs to be done and carrying it out will be a major task extending over many years. It will require continuity of ownership and purpose. It is not one that could reasonably be given to an appointed body with a limited life span. It is, I submit, a task more appropriate to the Secretary of State.
9.30 p.m.
As a first step, the Secretary of State for Transport has initiated four assessment studies, and I should like to be more clear about their status. They are studies; they are not plans or definite proposals. The first stage seeks to identify the problems along four major traffic corridors where the environment is suffering severely from years of GLC neglect. The public are being actively encouraged to make their views and their ideas known. The reports from this stage will be published. This will allow all interested groups and members of the public to contribute to the review of solutions which we see taking place next year. It must be right for us to seek to tackle London's problems in this positive way. The problems will not go away of their own accord. Easing traffic congestion will help to cut pollution and noise and reduce rat-running, while saving time and costs for industry and commerce.
One point that I cannot emphasise too highly is that people's expectations of public consultation and their rights to an inquiry into road improvements will not be altered or affected one whit by this proposed power. "The provision itself only enables ownership of certain roads to be transferred to the Secretary of State, but it will not put him in any different position from the GLC. The normal provisions of the 1980 highways Act would apply in holding public inquiries for any orders that he might propose.
That leads us to the obvious and most-repeated question—and it is one which my noble friend Lord Fanshawe mentioned again tonight—why not use the powers in the 1980 Act to take responsibility for those roads? There are two strands to the answer. The first is that we believe, as I explained earlier, that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State for Transport to be the successor authority to the GLC. He is already
1094
responsible for most of London's key routes and these 65 miles will form a coherent and complete network with them. That will also make the Secretary of State responsible for maintaining the roads. The annual maintenance cost of these heavily used 65 miles runs into several million pounds.
Secondly, if we had to use the Highways Act powers it would mean that the roads were not transferred to the appropriate successor highway authority at abolition. Instead, it would prolong the period of uncertainty about the future responsibility for these roads. Our proposals are designed to ensure that there is certainty in the transfer of functions and property next April. The way in which we are doing it is precedented by previous major transfers of responsibility for major roads. Our main aim in this provision has been to secure a clear and appropriate transfer of GLC functions. I have also explained our intentions towards the 65 miles of roads in question.
Change in ownership makes no difference to the road if the decision is to improve or upgrade it. That requires a public inquiry whether the borough, the GLC or the Secretary of State makes the proposal. If the proposal is very contentious, and if the borough or the GLC bears responsibility for the planning decision, it will then be referred to the Secretary of State. If it is the Secretary of State's responsibility, he must decide in the light of an independent inspector's report. It is in the final event the same man facing the same decision on the same road. Protection of public rights is the same as before. What this Bill gives is certainty of ownership and responsibility. We must face up to the problems of London's major routes and make proper provision for the future of these roads. I believe that we would be failing in our responsibilities otherwise. The Government's proposals are the right way forward and I therefore ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am alarmed at the confidence that the Government show in the face of so much questioning. The Government may be right that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to take control, but it is not for the Government to say so in a clause tucked away in a schedule to the Bill. They may be right that the 65 miles are necessary to make a coherent network with the other roads in London; it may be that the GLC has failed; it may even be that the environment will be improved and it may be that at the end of the day the position will be altered no whit, as the noble Lord the Minister said. But the fact is that this part of the schedule is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, merely a change of ownership; it is a change in the democratic rights, in the statutory rights, of the people of this area. It is a move away from the safeguards which are contained in the 1980 Act. It is the first stage down the road, if I dare say so, to the increase in traffic on that road. If it were not, why would the Government want to do it?
There is this first stage of the requirement under the 1980 Act of a public inquiry into whether or not the road should be trunked in the first place, whatever happens to it thereafter. Once it has been trunked it is perfectly easy to allow a much larger volume of long-distance traffic to run along that road. No; it may very well be that at the end of the day there is a balance of

1095
rights. These conflicts of needs and of rights of people are never easy things to resolve, but that is why in this country we have built up a system of checks and balances.
If this were in Moscow, someone would take a pair of compasses, draw a ring around the middle and put a road there regardless of who was in the way, but that is not the way we work in this country. We have a sophisticated system. It may be an absolute bore to Governments and to local government to have to go through that system, but they should not try to short-circuit that system by slipping into the Bill a provision such as Schedule 4, Part III, paragraph 53(2). That is all we are talking about; the rights of people, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said, to have the same consideration in these matters as everybody else in the rest of the country. On those grounds, I press the amendment.
9.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 98.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L. [Teller.]

Kissin, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Barnett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mar, C.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Mayhew, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molson, L.

Diamond, L.

Monson, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Nicol, B.

Faithfull, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rodney, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

1096

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Walston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Belstead, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McFadzean, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cox, B.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Crathorne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Croft, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Peel, E.

De La Warr, E.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Digby, L.

Reay, L.

Donegall, M.

Redesdale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ridley, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Foley L.

Selkirk, E.

Forester, L.

Sherfield, L.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Vickers, B.

Halsbury, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hanson, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Harvington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
9.46 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Road traffic]:
[Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 125, line 1, leave out from ("(5)") to ("or") in line 6 and insert ("Any expenses reasonably incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising the functions transferred by an order under this paragraph may be recovered by him from the local authorities from which the functions were transferred in such proportions as may be agreed between the local authorities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. The purpose is to clarify my right honourable friend's power to recover from borough and district councils the expenses arising from any use of his reserve power to take over responsibility for urban traffic control systems covering more than one borough or district.
We have already said that the Government do not intend to reach a final view on the new amendments passed against their advice in Committee until we have seen the overall outcome of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. This provision is needed in case the Secretary of State has to exercise his reserve powers under paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to secure and operate any of the UTC systems. It was not altogether clear under the clause as drafted whether all the expenditure incurred by my right honourable friend in these circumstances would have to be apportioned between the councils concerned. The amendment substitutes new wording to put this beyond doubt, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the point I made much earlier in our discussions tonight. The reserve powers given to the Secretary of State for taking over control of traffic control systems are totally unnecessary as a consequence of the acceptance of Clause 7. I believe that the amendment is therefore totally superfluous. It should not be accepted. I believe that the only reason the Minister is moving it is that there is an anticipation of a decision that may be taken in another place. However, I imagine that the Minister may want to look at it again. If not, although I oppose the amendment I shall not divide the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 125, line 30, at end insert—
("Transitional provisions concerning certain orders under the 1984 Act
11A.—(1) After the passing of this Act a metropolitan county council or the Greater London Council shall obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before making any order to which this paragraph applies if an objection to the council's proposal to make the order has been duly made by a successor authority (whether before or after the passing of this Act) and has not been withdrawn; and for the purposes of this provision an objection is not duly made unless it is made in accordance with regulations made or having effect as if made under paragraph 21 or, as the case may be, 23 of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act.
(2) The orders to which this paragraph applies are—

(a) in the case of a metropolitan county council those made under or by virtue of section 1, 9, 19, 32, 35, 37, 38, 45, 46, 49(2) or (4), 53, 83(2) or 84 of the 1984 Act; and

(b) in the case of the Greater London Council, those made under or by virtue of section 6, 9, 35, 38, 46, 49(2) or (4), 50, 83(2) or 84 of that Act.

(3) In this paragraph "successor authority" means—

(a) in relation to the Greater London Council, the council of a London borough to which the order in question relates; and

(b) in relation to a metropolitan county council, the council of a metropolitan district to which the order relates.

(4) In relation to any order to which Part VI of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act (validity of orders) applies the requirements of this paragraph shall be included amongst the requirements which are the relevant requirements for the purposes of that Part.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is no more than a sensible transitional measure to ensure that boroughs and districts do not have traffic or parking schemes that they do not want imposed upon them in the last months of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils' existence.
We have already said that the Government do not intend to reach a final view on the amendments passed against our advice in Committee until we have seen the overall outcome of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. However, this provision is not affected by the new Clauses 7 and 8, which envisage substantial traffic management responsibilities devolving to boroughs and districts. They would make boroughs responsible for such matters on 7,000 out of London's 8,000 miles of road for which at present they are the highways authorities. In the metropolitan counties districts would become, under Clause 8, traffic management authorities for all but the principal roads. This transitional provision is aimed at safeguarding their interests as successor authorities.
This provision will operate from Royal Assent. In other words, it will come into effect only when the position about the transfer of powers is certain and beyond doubt. At that stage it would be nonsense if the GLC and MCCs were to be able to decide to go ahead with traffic or parking schemes to which the successor authorities were opposed. It would simply be a waste of public money to allow one authority to introduce a scheme that another would be likely to reverse a few months later. That would not only inconvenience the borough or district concerned and involve it in unnecessary cost; it would also risk creating confusion and uncertainty for the public—for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. As soon as they had started getting used to one scheme it could be changed. Traffic and parking schemes have an immediate impact on people's lives, and they may quite rightly object if we were to allow the GLC and MCCs in their dying months to proceed with schemes if they were not likely to remain in force for any length of time.
We have only to remember the notorious case of Talgarth Road or the GLC's proposals for bus lanes along Whitehall, Victoria Street and St. Margaret Street to realise that controversy about GLC schemes is not unknown; and those well-known cases are by no means the only examples of the GLC and the boroughs strongly disagreeing about proposals.
We believe that this is a sensible measure to minimise disruption for the public and to avoid waste of public money. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 125, line 44, leave out ("this Part of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to put beyond doubt the validity of consultations to be held with London boroughs between Royal Assent and abolition date prior to the making of new statutory procedure regulations for London. These govern the making of traffic and parking orders. New regulations need to be in force in London at abolition date referring to London boroughs rather than the GLC. If they are not in force, boroughs will not be able to operate the traffic and parking powers being devolved to them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Joint waste disposal authorities]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("and Part II of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to transfer the functions conferred by Part II of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, as amended by Schedule 30 to the Local Government Act 1972, to a single authority for each metropolitan county area. No specific provision has been made in the Bill. The functions relate to disused tips of mine and quarry refuse and are concerned with the prevention of public danger arising from the instability of tips which are not active tips or are closed tips associated with operating mines and quarries.
Circular 40/69 issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in June 1969 states at paragraph 4:
"The Minister of Power's Advisory Committee on Tip Safety has emphasised the need for regular inspection of disused tips which could endanger the public if they moved. It is recommended that local authorities maintain a list of tips and lagoons which would in their view constitute a danger to members of the public if they failed and arrange for them to be inspected from time to time for evidence of instability. The frequency of such checks should be governed by the possible consequences of failure and by the history and condition of the tip".
In the light of certain tragic events we must all realise the imperative necessity constantly to monitor situations which might not appear to merit consideration but which if left unchecked could cause a major disaster.
In West Yorkshire the function was assigned to the mining and mineral engineering section. Inspections were undertaken in two phases. The first phase was concerned with identifying all the tips that came within the scope of the Act. In order to complete this initial phase within a reasonable period of time, a helicopter was used for tip location and identification purposes. Some 2,100 tips had been inspected by
1100
August 1977. Ninety-seven were categorised as suspect, requiring thorough investigation and regular inspection because of possible danger to the public if they failed.
The tips have been classified into three categories. First there are tips where the risk to the public would be immediately serious in the event of the tip moving. Those are tips adjacent to schools, terraces of houses, or roads carrying heavy traffic, tips where groups of people adjacent to the foot of the tip are at risk. Of course we are all well aware of the Aberfan disaster in that context. Secondly, there are tips where the risk to the public would not necessarily be immediately serious if the tip moved; that is, for example, if tip refuse slid onto roads and footpaths where traffic is relatively light and pedestrian movement small. Thirdly, there are tips where the risk to the public is relatively small.
Incidentally, this working relationship between the mining and mineral engineering section and the engineering laboratory in West Yorkshire illustrates once more the important benefits that flow from the close-knit association of centres of scientific and technical expertise that have been built up over the years since the last local government reorganisation in 1974 in relation to the metropolitan county councils. That was a point ably made by the highly expert Select Committee on Science and Technolgy of your Lordships' House and underlined by the fact that in 1974 the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act of 1969 was amended to secure the transfer of these functions from the then county boroughs to the new metropolitan counties rather than to their successor authorities, the metropolitan districts. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has moved would make the joint authorities for waste regulation and disposal, for which the Bill currently provides, responsible under Part II of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 for ensuring that disused mines and quarry tips do not become unstable and constitute a danger to the public. I had expected to say that I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for moving this amendment, since it was tabled in his name. I am sure I detect his expert hand and experience in it because of course the spoils of mining were something with which he was closely concerned at a critical time. I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for drawing to our attention an important oversight in this Bill.
Currently, the responsibility for this function rests with the metropolitan county councils in their areas. Unfortunately, the Bill, as drafted, does not make any provision for this function to be transferred to anybody on abolition. As the noble Lord has clearly explained, his amendment would transfer it to the joint authorities for waste regulation and disposal. If, in the final event, such authorities are established, it would not in our view be appropriate to transfer this function to them. The 1969 Act is concerned not with general refuse but with spoils from a mine or quarry. Responsibility for ensuring the safety of such tips is already a borough function in London.

1101
I am convinced that it is right that it should become a district function of the metropolitan counties. I have therefore already tabled an amendment to the Bill. I must apologise for the fact that it will not be in print until tomorrow. It is an amendment to Schedule 7. If the noble Lords opposite feel that that is an appropriate speed at which to progress, we shall be able to discuss it on Thursday of this week. If they take other courses, of course we may be denied that opportunity until Monday of next week, but I hope that that will not happen.
That amendment will achieve the transfer. As I say, I hope that we shall be able to debate it along with other amendments to the schedule on the next day of the Report stage. I am honestly grateful to the noble Lord and his coadjutors for bringing this important gap to our notice. I hope the noble Lord will wait until then.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful. The noble Minister is quite right. It was because of the complete absence of a provision as to who in future would accept or have placed upon them this very serious responsibility that this way of disposing of the matter was conceived. However, the Minister is quite right. When we see the amendment it may well be that those outside the House will feel that it is satisfactory. In view of that, I shall not spoil matters before Thursday. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Land drainage and flood prevention functions]:
10 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 35, after ("order") insert ("made before and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to put beyond doubt that, notwithstanding the fact that Part II of the Bill, which contains Clause 11, only comes into effect on the abolition date, the order-making power in Clause 11(2) of the Bill to transfer the GLC's land drainage functions will be capable Of being used at any time after Royal Assent. Indeed, that is essential if the arrangements for transferring the GLC's functions under Schedule 5 to the Land Drainage Act 1976 to the Thames Water Authority are to be in place when the council ceases to exist, as it assuredly will. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Petty sessions areas, magistrates' courts committees etc.]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
("to transfer the functions of the Greater London Council under that Act in respect of the commission areas known as outer London areas to the London Residuary Body.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we can also take Amendments Nos. 37 to 42.
Amendment No. 37: Page 8, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 38: Page 8, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert ("London Residuary Body".").
Amendment No. 39: Page 8, line 26, leave out subsections (4) to (9).
Amendment No. 40: Page 9, line 42, leave out ("or metropolitan district,").
Amendment No. 41: Page 9, line 43, leave out (", metropolitan district or outer London borough") and insert ("the London Residuary Body").
Amendment No. 42: Page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (11).
The amendment is very important because it deals with the impact of the Bill on the magistrates' courts. The magistrates' courts in this country deal with over nine-tenths of the criminal cases that come before the courts. The standards achieved by the unpaid lay magistracy, of which we have distinguished representatives in your Lordships' House—I see one not far from me now—are very high. The achievement of those standards is due in part to the effective arrangements that now exist for the courts' efficient running and funding.
If the provisions of Clause 12 are implemented, the consequences will be the fragmentation and break-up of those present arrangements at greater public cost and with no noticeable gain. Our case on these amendments is that the provisions of the Bill, if implemented, could have a profound and seriously adverse affect on the administration of justice in the outer London area. At present, the magistrates' courts in the 24 outer London boroughs are run by a magistrates' court committee in each of the four commission areas of Middlesex, north-east London, south-east London and south-west London.
The GLC, as the present paying authority, has to provide the courthouse accommodation and has to meet the costs of running the service. It has also to be consulted by the four magistrates' courts committees on most expenditure proposals. Those committees, over the years, have come to depend heavily on the various GLC departments for support services: architectural, legal, computing, supplies, superannuation and other matters. All of that is due to be shipwrecked by the provisions of Clause 12.
The GLC, now the single paying authority for all outer London, will be replaced by 20 separate smaller paying authorities, namely, the outer London boroughs. The four area-based magistrates' courts committees of Middlesex, north-east, south-east and south-west London will be replaced by 20 borough-based committees. The disbanding of the four area magistrates' committees would have serious consequences. As the chairman of the Middlesex branch of the Magistrates' Association, Mr. Payne, wrote in a letter to the Lord Chancellor on 3rd December 1984:
"The service provided by these Committees, particularly in so far as training is concerned (which indeed covers the training of court Staff as well as the Magistrates), has developed over the years to a degree well beyond the basic requirements which have been prescribed.
"In Middlesex the area-wide service enables a close liaison between the magistrates allocated to the eight Petty Sessional Divisions in the Commission Area and an opportunity for interchange of ideas leading to greater consistency in sentencing".
He adds:
"Termination of this function must lead to fragmentation of training and be seriously detrimental to the administration of justice".

1103
Those are serious fears which are expressed, and fears which we must face and seek to deal with by the amendments.
So far as the public expenditure aspect of the matter is concerned, 20 committees must clearly cost more to service than four. Twenty paying authorities must in total require more staff than one paying authority. Inevitably there will be a fragmentation of administrations which, because they will be acting independently of each other, must inevitably duplicate each other's efforts. The supporting bureaucracy must increase instead of diminish. Added burdens will in turn be placed upon the Home Office which, heaven knows, has already too much to do.
The Secretary of State, after abolition, will have to consult 20 paying authorities instead of one and 20 borough-based magistrates' courts committees instead of four area committees. Therefore, far from increasing administrative efficiency, what is proposed will diminish it. Far from saving expenditure—an altar upon which so much of value to the community is to be sacrificed by this Bill—these proposals will cost more to the public purse. They will complicate and add to the supporting bureaucracy, not streamline it nor diminish it.
The Government's fragmentary proposals will harm the practical running of the magistrates' courts service in the outer London area which, of course, has to cope with a great deal of crime and a very heavy workload. For example, the GLC is currently implementing a comprehensive, centrally managed computerisation programme for all 25 courthouses in outer London at an overall cost of about £2 million. The GLC has appointed a project manager who has been able to negotiate an advantageous contract with a commercial computing firm and to provide an advisory back-up service to the magistrates' courts committees. Such London-wide projects can be implemented only after 1st April 1986 when it is proposed that the Act should take effect on a piecemeal and more expensive basis.
Again the GLC has always used its position as paying authority to encourage a uniform approach and common standards and practices between the four outer London commission areas, particularly so far as staffing matters are concerned. I ask: how will this be safeguarded after abolition?
As I have indicated, the overall result will be a more costly and less effective method of administration of the judicial system. After abolition there will be eight separate new magistrates' courts committees and eight new paying authorities. The continuing need to pool certain resources—for example, as the letter from the chairman indicated in regard to the training of magistrates and also relief staff, and bulk purchasing—in the absence of one unifying body will create and expand bureaucracy.
We submit that all of the advantages of the present system could be best safeguarded by the retention of the four area-based magistrates' courts committees and the retention of a single paying authority. The transfer of the GLC's functions to the residuary body would permit this to happen. It would ensure that the uniformity of approach and the economies of scale which apply in outer London could be continued. This
1104
is especially important when one considers the close links which currently exist between the magistrates' courts and the probation service. If the Bill is passed, those links will inevitably be loosened.
The clerks to the four area magistrates' courts committees, for instance, are also joint executive secretaries to the corresponding four area-based probation committees, and their secretariat staffs work jointly for both magistrates' courts and the probation service. This is a convenient, economical and administratively effective way of undertaking secretarial support for both services. At present most of the GLC's central office staff also double up on both magistrates' courts and probation service work.
However, in the Bill the Government intend to retain the four area-based probation committees but not the four magistrates' courts committees. They, as I have said, are to be replaced by 20 smaller borough-based committees. It makes no sense either economically or administratively to treat the two services in so different a fashion.
What is perhaps more important is that the close links which have been established between the two services in outer London would be weakened by the passage of this Bill. All of us who have served in or around, or appeared in, magistrates' courts will know how important is the role of the probation service in those proceedings. Amendment No. 36, which I move, would enable these close links to be retained.
There is another important aspect of the Government's proposals to which I draw attention. At present only half of the local judicial boundaries in outer London—namely, the petty sessional divisions—are coterminous with the 20 outer London borough boundaries. The Home Office is on record as saying, however, that for its proposals to be successful it is essential,
"that the boundaries of petty sessional divisions should be aligned with those of the outer London boroughs".
This Bill provides for such an alignment, which is to take place apparently at a stroke on 1st April 1986, but unfortunately in half of the London boroughs there is no alignment whatsoever.
To make judicial boundaries coterminous with borough boundaries would involve a significant reorganisation, and it would be necessary in the Middlesex area to realign about half of the judicial boundaries in outer London, and heaven knows what problems that would give rise to. This is not something, on the most optimistic view, that can be realistically undertaken in the time contemplated.
Another serious difficulty is that existing courthouses for the most part are in the wrong place for what is proposed by the provisions of the Bill. The borough of Enfield, for instance, has no courthouse. Its cases go, as my noble friend says, to Tottenham courthouse, in the borough of Haringey. That is basically why there is not already a petty sessional division of Enfield—there ain't no courthouse for 'em! There is simply no courthouse to justify any such change. It is not that the GLC and the Middlesex Magistrates' Courts Committee do not want the boundaries to align: nothing would be further from the truth, but wishing something does not make it happen.
10.15 p.m.
After 1st April 1986 Enfield will still be without a purpose-built courthouse, and nothing contained in the Bill will change that. What will happen is that in the four years until 1990, when a new courthouse, which is in its early planning stages at the GLC now, is expected to open (perhaps the Minister will tell us), in all likelihood Enfield's cases will continue to go to Tottenham courthouse at Haringey, as they do now. But there will clearly be a need after abolition for Enfield and Haringey to get together to sort out how the costs of running the Tottenham courthouse are to be apportioned between them. Here, again, we have a situation fraught with difficulty.
This is not streamlining; it is the exact opposite. New accounting and administrative procedures will need to be set up; lines of communication increased; extra time, extra effort and extra bureaucracy will be involved. The efficacy of the magistrates' courts service, like so many other matters that we have seen, will be a casualty of the Government's abolition proposals. Extra resources that would be much better allocated to the magistracy will be eaten up by an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy whose sole reason for existence will be to iron out the worst of many anomalies in this Bill. Extra resources will not be used where they are most needed; namely, to reduce delay in bringing cases to court. Delays in the administration of justice in outer London will not be reduced by one day as a result of the Bill. If anything, the delays will increase with the increase in the complexity of court administration. Justice delayed has indeed properly been described as justice denied.
In our submission these proposals for the magistracy are ill-conceived and dangerous in their possible consequences, and it is not surprising that they have been so widely opposed by everyone seriously involved with the magistracy in the relevant areas. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as I sat in another place for 27 years for an outer London borough of which, as it so happens, the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite was for some years Recorder, I naturally followed his argument with very special interest. The noble and learned Lord spent a good deal of time spelling out the difficulties that would result from the change in the general system, although I thought he under-rated the flexibility and the administrative capacity of the boroughs. In the case of the one I know, I think it would probably be able to absorb these responsibilities without the great increase in bureaucracy which I was somewhat amused, coming from that Bench, to hear the noble and learned Lord criticising.
The noble and learned Lord spent very much less time explaining the value of his alternative proposal. It is to transfer the responsibility for these courts to the residuary body. But that is no more than a temporary solution. The residuary body, as your Lordships know, has a prospective life of five years. Therefore, if your Lordships were to accept the amendment that the noble and learned Lord has moved the whole of this problem would again arise five years from now.
I therefore suggest to your Lordships that, even if your Lordships were impressed by the noble and
1106
learned Lord's account of the difficulties which the changes will produce, he has not, to be frank, produced the answer. To transfer these very important, and quite plainly permanent, functions to a body whose own life is as short as that is simply putting off the evil day. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that even if the noble and learned Lord is right in pointing out that there will be difficulties—and all transitions of this kind involve quite a number of difficulties, of course—he has not presented your Lordships with the answer.
I have only one other point which arises from the drafting of the Bill to which I should be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench would refer when he comes to reply. The words immediately preceding those which the noble and learned Lord's amendment proposes to leave out contain this rather unusual phraseology:
"The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 shall have effect with the following amendments the principal effect of which is".
I do not think I have ever seen anything as casual as that in a statute. Either it must be that "the effect is"; or, if it is the principal effect, it means that there are other and unspecified effects. This seems a very odd bit of draftsmanship. No doubt information "till be coming to my noble friend from the usual source but I should be very grateful if he would explain to me why that particular formula is used and whether there are any other effects.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: My Lords, I am so involved, having spent 30 years as a magistrate in one of the areas about which we are talking, that I do not quite know how to begin except to say first of all that I agree with almost all that the noble and learned Lord has said. I do not quite know how it happened, but I should also like to say that I am grateful that these amendments were not taken at Committee stage because I have since then been able to talk to a number of my magistrate colleagues in the Middlesex area in the interim period.
There are 838 magistrates in Middlesex, and the borough's population at the 1981 census was just over 2½million people. It is a vast number of people to try to persuade to keep law and order.
I hope that in my life I am thought to be practical. I like to see things worked out in practical ways: ways which are able to be worked out and implemented. Entirely and only because of the time factor, I think that the noble and learned Lord's idea of the London residuary body is a good one. At first I did not think so, for the reason that the noble Lord on our Benches has given us, that it will as we all know last only for five years. But when one is dealing with a large number of people in a very big area it is important to get it right. Although I agree with some parts of this clause as put forward by the Government, I do not agree with the main parts.
I am very concerned indeed about the payment for the funding of the training of new staff and the administration which is now carried out by the magistrates' courts committee. As the noble and learned Lord has said, there are eight petty sessional divisions in the Middlesex Branch, which will mean eight new committee centres in each borough for

1107
which of course one has to find premises by April of next year. One also has to find the staff, and I do not think that will be easy because they will all have to be trained; they need to be highly experienced people.
I disagree fundamentally with the basic principle put forward that the borough shall be the paying authority. I do not think that the local authority and the judiciary should seem to be as one. It is stipulated in the Bill that in future 100 per cent. shall be paid by the local authority for the administrative staff of the judiciary within their borough, and that the Government will pay back to them 80 per cent. That leaves 20 per cent. for each borough to find towards the amount that is chargeable for the administrative services.
One does not need to live for very long in the north of London—in Middlesex as it was—to realise that some boroughs will pay their 20 per cent. but for many of the boroughs, I regret to say, payment for the judiciary will come below that for the sewers and, indeed, below practically everything in the local authorities' lists of priorities. I cannot see several of the boroughs concerned paying willingly, and I do not think they will go out of their way to pay anything at all.
The noble and learned Lord referred to my own borough of Enfield. It has no courthouse, and so I surmise that we shall have to continue to go to the Tottenham courthouse. The local authority in Tottenham will be able to charge Enfield a rate for the use of their courthouse, quite rightly; and I can see that the rate they will charge will almost cover the 20 per cent. they will have to pay from the Tottenham borough for the running of the courthouse.
I am sorry to say that I do not like this clause at all. I would not vote against it, because the principle is that the Government want to diversify and bring things nearer to the people. With that I agree, except for the judiciary. The judiciary, to those of us who have been privileged to work with it for a great number of years, is separate; and it must be seen to be separate. I should like the whole of the funding to be state-controlled, with completely straight funding.
The training of all the magistrates would also be a problem, as the noble and learned Lord has said, because it would have to be done (unless some other system were to be thought out) by eight different petty sessional divisions. I understand that the Middlesex area has a very good record indeed for training the magistracy. It certainly has a very good name indeed now.
However, the main sticking point for me is the paying authority, because, as I have said—I will not repeat it—I do not like the idea that local people who, unless they happen to be a magistrate, have no knowledge of the workings and the problems of the Bench, can withhold money. However much the Government tell them that they have to pay their 20 per cent., they can withhold that. Therefore, for that reason the judiciary and the way that we work would, I am sure, suffer greatly. I shall listen with the greatest interest to what my noble friend the Minister says. I hope I have given him some indication of how strongly I feel.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should not rise to speak at all in this debate, because my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones covered the field so extremely well and thoroughly. Also, it was very interesting to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said; but as I am also a magistrate in Middlesex, I felt I had to express the feelings of all my fellow magistrates on my Bench—Highgate, Middlesex—and other magistrates in Middlesex; and this is irrespective of their political party or other views.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I think said that he thought my noble and learned friend had under-rated the flexibility of boroughs. But the system does not work like that, if I may tell him so with great respect. If you take an area like Brent, which at the moment has a tiny courthouse which it shares with Willesden, we can hardly cope with the work at the moment. It has permission to start building a new courthouse in 1986. It should be completed, it is hoped, in three years, but as the noble Lord will know, slippages often occur. So that means that three years after this Bill is passed there will be a new courthouse there.
I think the big problem, as my noble and learned friend said, is that this is one of the casualties of this Bill. I am perfectly sure that when this Bill was envisaged nobody thought at the time, "My goodness, what will happen to the magistrates' courts?" It was just something which came as a by-product of this whole abolition. What has happened is that magistrates will be put in the position of being shuffled around. In my court, we have already had a list of where people would like to go, with first and second choices, but no undertaking that they will get them. It involves very considerable distances in travel and it will be a tremendous uprooting of the whole system.
It has been argued that in the metropolitan areas the boundaries are worked out in the way that the Bill proposes, that it works and that there are not the same problems as are foreseen for outer London. But these are outside London. These are very often self-contained communities, and in a quite different sort of social and economic perspective. You cannot compare them with the sprawling suburbs of outer London, and there is no doubt that fragmentation will eliminate present economies of scale. It will be more costly. This has been worked out independently. It will prevent the maintenance of common standards, cause duplication of administration and much more bureaucracy. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, delay, which is already a tremendous problem in all our courts, again particularly in the outer London area, will be increased. If things are working, as they are, fairly well, why change them?
In 1971 the then Home Secretary, the late Reginald Maudling, acknowledged that major boundary revisions were needed in the area, but they cannot be achieved satisfactorily without the provision of improved and additional courthouse accommodation. In Middlesex, for instance, two new courthouses are needed if the divisional boundaries are to be changed satisfactorily. It seems to me at the end of the day that the magistrates all over Middlesex, and the

1109
magistrates' court committees in the other areas of outer London, are right, in this instance, to appeal. First, they have been to the Lord Chancellor. They have made their protest heard and are now hoping that in this House we will be able to bring about some change. I hope that this may well be the case, because this is one instance where this is not at all a party political matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have advanced a number of reasons why the restructuring of magistrates' courts committees in outer London to make them coterminous with individual outer London boroughs is inappropriate, though under the Bill these boroughs and restructured committees will stand in precisely the same relationship to each other as do the GLC and the four outer London committees now. So I cannot share their enthusiasm for a role in this for the London residuary body, either in practical terms or as a matter of principle.
Each committee will be required to consult its borough before determining its expenditure and the boroughs will have a right of appeal to the Home Secretary. The truth is that the arrangements which we propose in outer London after abolition are identical to those which have been operating successfully in the metropolitan districts since the 1974 local government reorganisation, and there is no reason to believe—and, quite honestly, nothing that I have heard this evening has led me to believe—that those arrangements will not work equally successfully in outer London.
We were told by the noble and learned Lord—and he was supported in this by my noble friend Lady Macleod—that the proposals are not welcomed by the magistrates involved. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord quoted a letter that he has received. Let me read an extract from a letter recently received by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs from the chairman of a bench in Middlesex which says, among other things:
"It is right to say that, initially, the proposal chosen was not welcomed by this Bench. However, once all the options were carefully explained to the Justices it was agreed that the final choice was certainly the best of the options available and that the decision made will make for the better administration of justice in Middlesex, even if it does involve a temporary degree of personal inconvenience and disruption to staff and Justices alike.
"It may also be of interest to you to know that I have spoken with the senior members of staff and I am able to report that they are very strongly supportive of the Home Office decision"—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to say from what Bench that communication emanated and when it was communicated?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can give the name of the person, if that is not out of order. But, certainly, it came from Hanworth Road magistrates' court and it emanated on 29th March, addressed to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I can show the noble and learned Lord the letter, if it is of any help.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am much more concerned to know from what court or area t came. I am told that Hanworth Road is the smallest court in the area, and covers a population of 53,000. It is not exactly a typical borough authority on which to base an important argument.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, at least it is an argument which has been perfectly clearly expressed by those who wrote the letter. The noble and learned Lord quoted from other letters in regard to which I do not have the figures with me at the moment. Nevertheless, if the noble and learned Lord wishes to have the full text of the letter, I can let him have it.
My noble friend Lady Macleod, whose very wide experience I acknowledge, expressed some concern in referring to the existing sharing of costs and the evening out of lumpiness in expenditure between all the outer London boroughs through the GLC's precept. It is true that this will no longer happen when the lower tier authorities assume responsibility for the service in their areas. But it is a quite logical and natural consequence of devolution that the individual boroughs should assume responsibility for their services. Those costs have not proved prohibitive in the metropolitan districts.
The one-to-one relationship between local authority and magistrates' courts committees already exists; 80 per cent. of the costs of new courthouses, as of all other costs, will continue to be met by specific Exchequer grant. The remaining 20 per cent., to which I think my noble friend referred, is unlikely to be significant when spread as it will be, or could he, over a maximum loan period of 40 years. The net cost to the GLC of the magistrates' courts service in 1983–84 was some £2·5 million. Spread across 20 boroughs, that represents an average of £125,000 to each borough. That £125,000 is not quite as significant an amount as perhaps my noble friend feels it might be when we are talking about costs in this way.
The noble and learned Lord suggests that our arrangements will cost more. Our proposals will remove, apart from anything else, a tier of bureaucracy from the administration of the magistrates' courts service. They will enable decisions to be made by those people who have a personal knowledge of a court, its workings and its locality. We have not based our arguments for the new arrangements on the achievement of savings. On the other hand, we certainly do not envisage that costs will rise. If an element of the responsibilities of the magistrates' courts committees such as training would benefit from a broader administration, there is nothing to prevent the committees co-operating and sharing the costs, and we would be as keen as anybody to encourage such arrangements where they were appropriate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggested that we retain the four existing committees and hence provide for borough co-option. While this solution would undeniably keep the immediate short-term disruption to the system to a minimum, co-option of borough councillors, while appropriate in the case of probation committees, which are responsible for a service not directly involved in the administration of justice, would, if extended to the

1111
magistrates' courts committees, give rise to real fears that the judicial process itself might become open to political pressure. I really cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord, with his experience, would want that to happen. I am convinced that the proposed restructuring arrangement represents the best way of minimising overall disturbance to the service.
With regard to the special problems of Middlesex and the general concern of my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the areas of the boroughs and the petty sessions areas are not aligned, the proposal that the boundaries of petty sessions areas and boroughs should be the same is not a new one. It has long been accepted as an aim towards which committees have been working. Indeed, the Middlesex area magistrates' courts committees agreed that it was their long-term aim as long ago as 1969.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the differences between what is proposed for magistrates and what is proposed for probation services. At present the administrative arrangements in outer London for both magistrates' courts and probation services are based on the same geographical area. I have to say that this is coincidental. It is not true in the metropolitan counties. The services are quite dissimilar. The probation service provides a service for the courts, and the magistrates' courts administer. Here we have a fundamental difference.
10.45 p.m.
I understand the concern that has been expressed about computerisation, but there is nothing to prevent co-operation in the use of co-ordinating officers. Each court or group of courts has its own mini computer, and there is no call for a centrally-based system. I cannot see that any particular problem arises if the system is changed in the way that is proposed.
My noble friend and the noble and learned Lord were concerned about Enfield courthouse. I have to say to my noble friend Lady Macleod that, as she correctly surmised, the new courthouse is at the planning stage at the moment. Enfield will need, in the short term, to use facilities elsewhere. My noble friend was right when she suggested Tottenham. We hope that the necessary co-operative arrangements can be made there.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister leaves this particular point, in view of the fact that the original courthouse was closed by the right honourable Roy Jenkins when he was Home Secretary in the Labour Government and we have not had a courthouse since, can my noble friend the Minister say whether it is envisaged that the state will pay for the new courthouse—or will it have to be paid for by the ratepayers?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that point is one to which I shall return in a moment or two, when I have completed my remarks on a slightly simpler point. This was the question raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter initially concerning drafting. As I understand it, the use of the words "principal effect" at
1112
the start of Clause 12(1) takes the opportunity to correct what is referred to as a minor misdraft in the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. It has not yet, I am advised, caused any judicial problems. I can certainly let my noble friend have details if he would like me to do so.
I return to the concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Macleod concerning accommodation for committee secretaries. There is no question of needing to provide new accommodation for the eight new committees because justices' clerks will be clerks to the magistrates' courts committees by virtue of their office and will use existing court accommodation for that purpose. So there is no worry there.
Reverting to my noble friend's earlier point concerning the costs of Enfield courthouse, 80 per cent. of those costs will be found by the Home Office, leaving 20 per cent. to be met elsewhere, as is the standard procedure. The prime point is that 80 per cent. of the cost will be found by the Home Office; 20 per cent. will have to be found locally.
My noble friend was concerned also about bringing local authorities into the funding of the judiciary. There is no change in financing arrangements. At the moment the GLC pays 100 per cent. and gets 80 per cent. back from the Home Office, as I have just described. In future the boroughs will get the 80 per cent.—that is, the 80 per cent. Home Office grant. So the judiciary is local authority funded now and will be in the future. In any case, the GLC collects its precepts from borough ratepayers, and so there is very little change from the existing situation. I hope that puts my noble friend's mind at rest.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he says that the value of the alternative proposals set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has not been fully explained. Certainly there is no role whatever for the London residuary body in financing the outer London magistrates' courts committees. It is right, as I said at the start, that the responsibility should be devolved to the boroughs. That responsibility already rests, and has rested since 1974, with the districts and the metropolitan counties. With that explanation I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if I am disposed to withdraw the amendment—I say this without impertinence—it will not be because of the quality of any of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord. Indeed, I find his response most disappointing and it marks a failure to deal with deep anxieties which have been responsibly aroused in regard to an important part of the administration of justice by the Government's proposals in the Bill
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, has had great magisterial experience and all I can say about the failure to raise this matter in Committee is that we have been under immense pressure regarding time throughout our dealings with the Bill. There was simply no time to raise it at that stage, and it is monstrous that on a matter affecting the administration of justice over a wide area I am now addressing your Lordships at ten minutes to eleven o'clock—and how many noble Lords are present? I shall not let

1113
down the reputation of the House by counting them. It is wholly deplorable, but this is not the fault of the Opposition; it is the fault of the Government.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not think that I was criticising him. In fact, I was thanking him for not bringing forward this matter in Committee because it gave me more time to talk to my colleagues.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the consequence of what has happened may be that yet another opportunity will have to be taken at the final stage, Third Reading, because this is not a matter to be dealt with in almost the watches of the morning, and in a House so ill-attended. I am not complaining, since what can one expect at this time?
I very much respect the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, if only because he was the Lord High Steward of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames when I was its Recorder. Fortunately the effluxion of time and the course of events has moved me to other quarters of judicial activity. In answer to the noble Lord's criticism of the time factor may I say that with regard to the functions of the London residuary body, it is proposed that it should deal only with financing, not with the administration itself. The clue to the efficiency of the administration will rest, above all, in the four area committees which will continue in existence. Five years provides a period of time to enable the Government and all concerned to think again about these very important matters. The concern that has been expressed comes not from one somewhat obscure source, if I may say so, but from responsible quarters and clearly calls out for further serious examination over a lengthy period of what is proposed.
To compare what has happened in the metropolitan counties with what might happen here is not, I submit, the relevant question. What we must compare in the course of our deliberations is what the Government are proposing for outer London with what happens in outer London now. My submission, on the facts which I have given and the problems the Bill will create, will show that what is proposed will do nothing but damage to the administration of justice, which is of great importance to us all.
I shall not recapitulate the arguments about added bureaucracy and administration. Twenty committees will fall to be serviced instead of the present four; there will be 20 paying bodies instead of the present one. The Home Office will have to contend with 20 paying authorities instead of the one. The function of being a paying authority is one which the residuary body is well capable of performing. It is already left with a number of important functions in the financial and administrative field, and it is happily a reasonable solution at any rate if the Bill has to go through.
As I have indicated, time passes. In the circumstances, what my noble friends and I have in mind is that I shall withdraw the amendment this night, but I undertake to return to it again at the next stage of our proceedings in this House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Coroners]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 10, line 6, at beginning insert—
("( ) The provisions of this section shall take effect on the appointed day.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that the proliferation of literature in this matter is something that has overwhelmed us all. Now we turn from the magistrates' courts to the coroners' courts—I shall not say, "a more cheerful subject". Here again the Government have not in anticipation contemplated the damage which the Bill will do to the administration of coroners' courts. Again the proposals will not assist in the administration of the coroners' courts or in their efficiency.
When they set out their intentions for the coroners' service in Greater London and the metropolitan counties after abolition, the Government in their White Paper Streamlining the Cities proposed that the transfer of the GLC and MCC functions to the borough and district councils should be made, pending changes in the longer term in the coroners' system as envisaged by the Brodrick Committee. What was being proposed was seen as a temporary measure only, and that was subsequently confirmed by the Government when the Home Office in a consultation letter stated:
"The arrangements which are proposed for the coroners' service are seen as a purely temporary measure pending much wider reorganisation of the coroners' service which it is hoped to achieve in the not too distant future".
The Brodrick Committee, which was set up to examine the coroners' system, reported in 1971. Some of its recommendations have been implemented, but the major issues have still to be legislated upon, in particular the recommendation for a national coroners' system, with accommodation being provided by the Home Office and appointments being made by the Lord Chancellor rather than a local government run and funded system.
It is clear that what is proposed in the Bill is seen as a purely temporary measure pending further substantial changes as envisaged by Brodrick. To engage in an upheaval of the administration of the coroners' service now for a very short period of change indeed in Greater London and the "met" counties when the Government's proposals are only temporary seems to us to be a foolish and expensive absurdity.
11 p.m.
It is noteworthy that the Brodrick Committee itself said that it did not think it would be in the interests of the coroners' system for it to undergo, as a whole, a series of transitional changes in step with changes in local government; but that is precisely what the Government are foolishly seeking to do. The proposals in the amendments will again disrupt the coroner service as it exists at the present time. At any rate, the amendment that I move will limit the damage and disruption to the coroner service and will enable the residuary body to continue to run the service after the abolition of the GLC in much the same cost efficient way as it is being run at the present time.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not enter into detail on the complex administrative and account-

1115
ing arrangements which will be needed to see that expenditure, as is proposed, is properly shared between boroughs. There will be a two-tier system of charging and recharging costs in many instances. A coroner may have to relate to more than one borough over premises and other matters. Each coroner's jurisdiction in Greater London covers a minimum of four London boroughs and in the western district there are six boroughs within the coroner's jurisdiction.
Therefore, the proposal we make is to create in the residuary body the responsibility for funding the coroner service. In our view, this amendment will enable us to retain all that is efficient and cost effective in the present arrangements until the Government are ready and equipped to advance further proposals relating to the future of the coroner service in a properly thought-out and seriously considered way. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord, in moving this amendment, was speaking also to Amendment No. 46.
Amendment No. 46. Page 11. line 36, at end insert—
("(12) In this section "the appointed day" means such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint for the purposes of this section.
(13) Until the appointed day the enactments referred to in the provisions of this section shall have effect without the amendments set out in this section but as if the references to the Greater London Council were references to the London Residuary Body and references to a metropolitan county council were references to the residuary body for that county.
(14) No order shall be made under subsection (12) above unless a draft has been laid before each House of Parliament together with a report by the Secretary of State on the future arrangements for the coroners service in Greater London or the areas of the metropolitan county councils as appropriate.
(15) An order made under subsection (12) above may amend the provisions of this section and make consequential amendments in any Act passed before the appointed day so as to make such provision for the exercise of the functions which under the provisions of this section will be transferred from the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils as the Secretary of State considers to be necessary to give effect to any determination in the report referred to in subsection (14) above.")
Thus I am a little surprised that the noble and learned Lord should be proposing a further order-making power (for that is what it is) for inclusion in the Bill. One of the main criticisms of the Bill by the party of the noble and learned Lord not only in another place but also certainly here at Second Reading has been the number and extent of the order-making powers that already exist.
I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord's criticism in this respect is valid. I suggest that the order-making power proposed in his amendment would be inappropriate on two grounds. First, it would allow my right honourable friend by order totally to reorganise the coroner service in London and the metropolitan counties. I do not believe that it would be right to grant even my right honourable friend such wide-ranging powers to be exercised by order. That power would certainly go a very great deal wider than any order-making power the Government have proposed anywhere else in the Bill.
Secondly, the proposed order-making power extends only to London and the metropolitan counties. I do not blame the noble and learned Lord
1116
for the fact that his amendment achieves only that, because there are, of course, constraints which are produced by the scope and the long title of the Bill. I imagine that your Lordships would feel that any reorganisation in the light of Brodrick—to which the noble and learned Lord referred—should extend to the entire country and not just to the metropolitan authorities. From what the noble and learned Lord said, that was rather his theme, too. For both these reasons, I think it right that if the Government decide to put forward proposals for the reorganisation of the coroner's service in the light of Brodrick—I can only say at present that we have no immediate plans to do so—it should be on the basis of fresh primary legislation covering the whole country.
But that is not all. The amendment has something of a sting in its tail, albeit a fairly familiar sting: that is, transfer of the GLC and MCCs' responsibilities in the meantime to the appropriate residuary body. We have been here before. It is no more appropriate in our view to give the residuary bodies a role in the appointment and payment of coroners than it was to make the London residuary body the paying authority in relation to the outer London magistrates' courts committees. Our whole abolition policy hinges around maximum devolution of functions to the boroughs and districts. It is right that these functions should be devolved. It would not be appropriate to transfer them to the residuary bodies as it is currently proposed that those bodies should be constituted. To seek to change their proposed constitution would be, in effect, to reopen issues that your Lordships have already debated and to table fresh proposals that have already been rejected.
The noble and learned Lord particularly mentioned Brodrick. I do not think that I can add to what I have said before. There are no immediate plans to make an implementation in the way that I described, which would need to be country-wide. Nevertheless, the fact that such a proposal should be country-wide and not SO restrained as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord makes the case very strongly against the amendment. In the light of that, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I feel sure that there will be considerable public disappointment at the announcement of the Minister that there is no intention in the foreseeable future to give effect to Brodrick, which disclosed a number of grave defects in the present system. I feel sure that this will cause a good deal of alarm and despondency up and down the country among those who have responsibility for coroner's courts. Perhaps the noble Lord had better think again about that, if I may say so without discourtesy.
The indication given by the Government until now was that the arrangements in the Bill were intended to be temporary and are temporary. My submission is that the degree of fragmentation and confusion that they will cause is unjustifiable in view of the situation in which we find ourselves. However, here again, as it is now nearly 11.10 p.m., I do not propose to invite the House to form a view on this matter tonight. But we shall return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 47 not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Probation Service in London.
.—(1) The Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall have effect with the following amendments, the principal effect of which is to transfer for the purposes of that Act the functions of the Greater London Council in respect of probation areas in outer London to the London Residuary Body.
(2) In section 57(1) (interpretation) in the definition of "local authority" after the words "any probation area" there shall be inserted the words "other than any outer London area (within the meaning of the Administration of Justice Act 1964)" and in relation to a probation area in any outer London area (within the meaning of the said Act of 1964) the London Residuary Body".
(3) In paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 3 (expenses of probation committees to be borne by local authorities) for the words "the Greater London Council" there shall be substituted the words "the London Residuary Body".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, here again I feel a little difficulty in embarking upon this discussion on the probation service at this hour. I wonder whether this is a wise course to follow. If it is felt by the Government that they wish to do so, so be it. However, perhaps we can have a moment's thought to consider the position. Is that possible?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the invitation of the noble and learned Lord. As I understand the position there has been an agreement through the usual channels to finish at the end of Amendment No. 59—that is, Clause 15. I have received no comment through the usual channels that the position is to be changed, and therefore the matter is entirely up to the noble and learned Lord himself.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, so be it. We shall continue, unsatisfactory though I am bound to say it is, but that is the position.
We now come to the important matters relating to the probation service which arise under Clause 15. I have already ventured to address the House about the problems that will arise in the magistrates' courts service in outer London as a result of abolition. I submit that many of the same problems can be expected to arise in the probation service, which in many ways is now administered and funded in similar fashion to the magistrates' courts.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which I am now moving or discussing, seek to transfer the Greater London Council's and the metropolitan county councils'—
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord is moving only Amendment No. 48. He did not move Amendment No. 47.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am so sorry. I have not quite caught up with the situation, but I shall get there quickly enough.
As I was saying when I was so helpfully interrupted, Amendment No. 48 seeks to transfer the Greater London Council's and the metropolitan county councils' paying authority functions for the probation service to the relevant residuary bodies. As with the magistrates' courts service, the probation service in the
1118
outer London boroughs is run by a probation committee in each of the four areas of Middlesex, North-East, South-East and South-West London. The GLC, as the paying authority, has to meet the cost of running the service, and, as with the magistrates, there is an 80 per cent. grant by the Home Office. The GLC, as paying authority, has to be consulted by the four probation committees on most expenditure proposals.
Over the years the probation committees have come to depend very heavily upon the various GLC departments for their support services—architectural, legal, computing, valuation, supplies, superannuation and similar matters. There is therefore a similar relationship in outer London between the magistrates' courts service and the GLC as paying authority, on the one hand, and the probation service and the GLC as paying authority, on the other. In the functioning of the arrangement this has enabled extremely close links to be developed and encouraged between the two services and has made for an efficient and administratively cost-effective way of providing both secretarial support for the four probation committees and local government support through the paying authority. The value of a close working relationship between the two services is clearly important.
11.15 p.m.
That close link is to be broken, since the Government's proposals for the probation service differ substantially from what is proposed for the magistrates' courts services. The four area-based probation committees are to be retained, unlike the four area-based magistrates' courts committees, and that will have serious effects in damaging the close working relationship between the two services, as I have said.
In place of the sole paying authority, the GLC, there will be payment by the 20 outer London boroughs. There will] be a great increase in administration, staff and everything else. The change will again increase bureaucracy and expenditure; it will save neither. The area probation committees will need to set up links with each and all of the authorities in their area. The Middlesex probation committee, for instance, will have eight boroughs to deal with. There can be only an increase in bureaucracy and many more lines of communication.
The probation committees in outer London do not welcome the Government's proposals; nevertheless they have to consider how they can best take over and carry out the work currently dealt with by the paying authority. The changes that are proposed involve additional administrative and financial staff of about 20 in the outer London probation service—all the result of abolition. Extra resources, badly needed to increase the number of professional probation officers, will be diverted to increase the bureaucracy. Similarly the burdens on the Home Office will once again increase in that it will have to make contact with 20 paying authorities instead of one. We propose one instead.
We fail to understand how what is proposed will produce a more efficient and streamlined probation service. It will have the opposite effect. Here again we are in the presence of an important service which is to

1119
be damaged as a casualty in a hurriedly prepared abolition scheme. Therefore, we resist what is proposed. The concerns that I have expressed as briefly as I can are shared by all of the professional organisations associated with the probation service. The National Association of Probation Officers supports my amendment. The Association of Chief Probation Officers, contrary to what was said in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, remains deeply unhappy about the effect of the proposals in the service. It can see no positive benefit in them. The association's acceptance of the need to discuss with Government the arrangements which will be necessary after abolition must not be taken to imply satisfaction with the proposals. That is, indeed, not the case. Therefore we face once again, in these proposals, what is of vital importance to the community: namely, fair, efficient and informed administration of justice. For these reasons and the need to avoid dislocation of the probation service, which would follow the Government's proposals, we oppose them strongly and in their place propose the amendment which I now beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has repeated in essence many of the arguments that he advocated earlier in connection with magistrates' courts and coroners. I do not think I need detain your Lordships with a long explanation of why we cannot follow his proposals, so I am afraid I shall have to disappoint the noble and learned Lord yet again.
The amendments would make the appropriate residuary body responsible for paying the expenses of the probation committees in outer London and in the metropolitan counties. The share of the costs of the Northumbria probation committee, currently met by Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council, would after abolition be met by the Tyne and Wear residuary body. This proposal is no more appropriate than were those to make the London residuary body the paying authority, as I said before in relation to magistrates' courts, nor those to make the residuary bodies in London and the metropolitan counties responsible for appointing and paying coroners.
I can only repeat that it would not be appropriate to transfer this function to the local residuary body, as it is currently constituted. To seek to change its proposed constitution would be in effect to reopen the issues which are fundamental principles of the Bill which have already been decided, debated and discussed even a few minutes ago. The noble and learned Lord talks about costs. He alluded to transitional costs and asked: who will pay? The Government recognise that probation committees will incur transitional costs during the current financial year. We are currently consulting local authorities and the probation services about our proposals that these should be met by the successor authorities, but there is no question of Government meeting these costs by a 100 per cent. probation service grant.
One of the most telling things is the fact that the chief probation officers themselves say that what is proposed by the noble and learned Lord's amendment would not meet their needs. The noble and learned
1120
Lord has other amendments down on the subject and one can explore the details further, but I hope that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, again for reasons of the timing of this operation, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause
("Probation Service in metropolitan counties
.—(1) The Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall have effect with the following amendment, which gives effect to the transfer for the purposes of that Act of the functions of metropolitan county councils in respect of probation areas in 4 metropolitan counties to the appropriate residuary bodies.
(2) In paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 3 (Interpretation) for the words "county council" there shall be substituted the words "residuary body for the area of the metropolitan county".")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 covers the same ground except that it relates to the metropolitan counties, not the GLC. I have made the relevant submissions with regard to the substance of the matter and I do not think I need trouble the House further by elaborating them. I propose to take the same course of not moving the amendment.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 15 [The probation service]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 12, line 28, leave out ("populations") and insert ("rateable value").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 deals with a short point: namely, what the method of apportioning costs should be. The method suggested by the Government is that expenditure in the relevant authorities should be apportioned in proportion to the population. But we submit that this proposal to relate funding to population rather than to rateable value has neither logic to it nor justice in it. Many boroughs and districts have large populations but, alas! very low incomes. In those circumstances, it is the poorest boroughs that will be penalised the most heavily for the carrying out of this important service which is part of the administration of justice. For reasons of equity, justice and indeed efficiency, we reject the proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has described how these amendments would provide for the cost of probation committees to be shared between the authorities and their areas on the basis of rateable value instead of, as the Bill currently provides, population. The noble and learned Lord has made clear his concern to ensure that there is fair distribution of costs between ratepayers. We certainly share that aim. But I must say that the proper way to achieve it is as we proposed.
The charges we are talking about are levied on the boroughs, not directly on ratepayers. In deciding to share out these costs we have to take the boroughs' block grant entitlements into account. It is a little late at night to go into block grant in any detail, but what

1121
I can say very quickly is that block grant is paid to each borough and district to compensate for the differences in their rateable resources. It is a very technical matter and I can certainly let the noble Lord have some information which even the GLC accepts, in that the methodology is correct within the terms of the block grant system. I hope with that assurance—the GLC seem to think it is all right in this instance—that the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lord, I repeat the same conclusion as I have done on the other amendments in this part of the Bill, and do not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 41, leave out from ("State") to end of line 44.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think this group of amendments goes together. They all deal with co-option, if my memory serves me aright. Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56, come under the same rubric; and so do Nos. 57 and 58. I do not propose to move these amendments, nor Amendment No. 59.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 59 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eleven o'clock.