Local Government Bill

HL Deb 20 June 1985 vol 465 cc437-76

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 56 [Establishment of residuary bodies]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81BH:

Page 40, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("(4) As soon as may be after the establishment of a joint committee under section 94 below for Greater London or a metropolitan county the Secretary of State shall after consultation with that committee, appoint one of its members to be a member of the appropriate residuary body.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 81BH is a technical amendment which alters the effect but not the intention of Clause 56(4). Subsection (4) was introduced to provide for a close relationship between the residuary body for each area and the appropriate co-ordinating committee, should the borough and district council set one up under Clause 94. I am afraid that we have provided for too close a relationship; indeed, for one which is rather uncomfortable, in that the existing subsection would delay establishment of a residiary body in every case until after the related co-ordinating committee has been set up.

It is necessary to set up the residuary bodies quickly after Royal Assent. It is neither desirable nor necessary that my right honourable friend should have to wait for action on the part of others before he can discharge his duty. Amendment No. 81BH removes that unnecessary link but places a clear duty upon my right honourable friend to appoint on each residuary body one member from its co-ordinating committee as soon as may be after the borough and district county councils have set it up. That is the correct order of events and I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 81BJ, 81BK and 81B1. not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 81C, 81 CA and 81 CB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Schedule 12 [Residuary bodies]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81CBA: Page 150, line 8, at end insert—

("Provision of services.

7A.—(1) A residuary body may by agreement with any relevant successor authority, and on such terms as to payment or otherwise as the parties consider appropriate, provide that authority with professional or technical services.

(2) Each residuary body shall as soon as practicable after it is established—

1. (a) review the professional and technical services provided by the Greater London Council or the relevant metropolitan county council, as the case may be, and the staff employed and property used by them in the provision of those services; and
2. (b) in the light of that review ascertain from each relevant successor authority whether it is likely to wish to enter into an agreement with the residuary body under this paragraph, being an agreement the performance of which by that body would make it desirable for any such staff or property to be transferred to that body.

(3) If any relevant successor authority indicates to a residuary body that it is likely to wish to enter into such an agreement as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above that body shall make a report to that effect to the Secretary of State who shall take it into consideration and, if in the light of the report he considers it expedient to do so, make such orders under sections 51 and 99 of this Act as appear to him to be appropriate.

(4) In this paragraph "relevant successor authority", in relation to a residuary body, means a successor authority exercising functions in the area for which that body is established and "successor authority" means a London borough council, the Common Council, a metropolitan district council, a new authority and any other body to which functions or property of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council are transferred by or under this Act or any other enactment.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 81CBA, I think it will be for your Lordships' convenience if, by leave, I speak also to Amendment No. 82A which is consequential upon it. Amendment No. 82A: Page 152, line 8, after ("17") insert ("Without prejudice to paragraph 7A above.").

I hope that all the participants in our later debates are at least within earshot. Your Lordships will have seen on the Marshalled List a number of other amendments addressed to the same issue. Two of them, Nos. 81CBB and 81CBC, are in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. They are not amendments to the Bill; they are amendments to the amendment which I am now moving, which is Amendment No. 81CBA. Our eventual business is to decide between the various forms of legislation bearing on this subject and we will have to choose between the solution prepared by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—although I think that she may say that it is not an alternative; and of course it is entirely for her to decide how we should do it—and the alternative provided by my noble friend Lord Plummer in his amendment (which I believe is to be spoken to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull), and in a further amendment by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, on the one hand, and, on the other, the amendment which I offer you as the present preference of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, until your Lordships have decided that what I now offer you should be considered in its present form as it is printed on Amendment No. 81CBA, or would be better considered in the form which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook suggests, by his two following amendments, we do not know who the contenders are for the space in the Bill that we all want to fill. I suggest to your Lordships that the easiest thing to do is first to decide on the merits of my amendment, as I wish it, or as my noble friend wishes it to be, and then to resume our discussions knowing the form of the amendment, and comparing it to the others.

I shall willingly give way if the noble Baroness wishes to suggest an alternative or to seek clarification because I accept that it is extremely confusing. That is why I am spending this time sorting out how we proceed. It seems that the noble Baroness is content.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, may I make sure that I am quite clear about it? I appreciate the difficulty. I also appreciate that the Minister is going to a lot of trouble to try to get it as clear as possible. It is very difficult. Is the Minister suggesting that, when he has moved his amendment, Amendment No. 81CBA, the noble Earl then moves his amendments, and after that will there be a general debate? Will the noble Baroness move the amendment in her name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer? It seems to me they have to be discussed as alternatives.

Lord Elton

My Lords, may I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that she has chosen to look at my amendment with the amendments of my noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lady Faithfull? Suppose there were only two of those amendments on the Marshalled List. It would be an easier problem to describe, but it would be no easier to manage. In that case we should want to finish up by choosing whether we preferred the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull or the other thing. The "other thing" might be my amendment as it is on the Marshalled List or it might be my amendment as the amendment of my noble friend on the Marshalled List would change it. I therefore think that we ought first to get clear whether my amendment will be my amendment, or will it be my amendment as changed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. If we can decide that first, then we can look at the other contenders on an equal basis.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, yes.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it may be that if we have a substantive amendment at the end of this first process the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, might need to be slightly differently worded in the opening half sentence, to replace what has gone before it and to insert. It is a pure technicality but I think we would have to proceed along those lines in order to take out what had been agreed and to replace it with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, as moved by Lady Faithfull.

Lord Elton

My Lords, subject to correction, I think the noble Lord is absolutely right. If I am right in thinking that that is a technical and consequential drafting matter, there would be no obstacle to doing that because we have Third Reading in which to put it right. I shall not, however, be commending the amendment to your Lordships, as you will understand. I suggest we have that debate and, having decided that debate, we shall come back to the others.

There is a long history behind these amendments and I will seek to condense it. In order to assess the value of the proposals, it is essential to see it in its proper context which is the general purpose of the Bill—which is fresh in your Lordships' minds—of transferring as many as possible of the functions of the abolition authorities to the London boroughs and district councils and to secure in the process an increase in the efficiency and a reduction in the cost of local government. That is the central aim and the main purpose of the Bill. Our proper concern, now as always, is to see how it can best be achieved.

If it is to be achieved in the best possible way we must avoid two opposite dangers. One is the indiscriminate transfer of every existing service and every existing employee from the disappearing authorities to their successors. If we remove a whole level of authority and retain its entire apparatus after it has gone we shall not have achieved a great deal of worth.

Equally we must not discard what is worth while. That is the opposite danger and the one of which my noble friend is most acutely aware. Nor—and this is a particular worry of several noble Lords—must we discharge individuals or disperse teams of individuals only to have the need for them discovered and to have to recruit their replacements soon after they are gone. That would not only be incompetent but quite often a personal tragedy for the people whose careers had been messed about in that way.

The first danger is avoided by ensuring that the successor authorities which will in future be running the show are able to decide who and what they need to run it with. If there are services for which they see no need, we must not force them to take them on. The councils represent the ratepayers and they cannot be expected to pay ratepayers' money to the providers of a service for which no users are in prospect.

The second danger is avoided by providing in the Bill for a residuary body. In each abolition area that body will be standing ready to do a number of things at abolition: to take on property, for instance, for which no takers have been found by the end of March; to look after the accumulated debt of the abolition authorities; and to carry out their duties in regard to the pensions of their employees. Another function of the residuary bodies is to act as the employers of those who now supply services to the abolition authorities which may be needed by the successor authorities after abolition but for whom no employer is by 1st April agreed and available.

It became clear to me quite early on that your Lordships would not be happy for the residuary bodies just to wait around to see what services of this sort might be proposed to them by the successor authorities. In the debate that we had at Committee stage on 21st May I therefore undertook to bring forward an amendment that would give effect to what I had described in that debate as the catalytic role of the residuary body. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, took me to task for that term, and I am grateful to him because it was, I accept, insufficient to describe what I meant. Let me say therefore that the residuary body is to have a positive role in ensuring that the necessary arrangements will be made for specialist and common services.

In fulfilment of that undertaking, I tabled an amendment which appeared earlier on the Marshalled List. By "earlier" I mean earlier in time although it was in the place of the present amendment. The purpose of the amendment then on the Marshalled List was to require the residuary body before abolition to ask every one of the successor authorities whether they thought it likely—not certain, but likely—that they would need any professional or technical services then provided to the abolition authorities for the continuance of which they could not make arrangements before abolition. If there were any such, then the residuary body was to offer itself to take on the provision of that service temporarily, pending the making of a permanent arrangement. If the authority accepted the offer, the residuary body was then required to report as much to the Secretary of State with a view to his making orders under Clauses 51 and 99 of the Bill. These orders would transfer both the staff and the property from the abolition authority to the residuary body before abolition. They would then be preserved for future service to the community.

I was able to discuss this amendment with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who has, of course, the enormous advantage of being chairman of the Select Committee principally concerned with these matters. I am most grateful to him for his patient consideration of it. It emerged in that discussion that he was concerned, among other things—and I took that concern to be shared by others—that it was still not clear enough in our drafting that the residuary body would have a duty to get out and discover what was available. He did not feel that it would suffice to assume that either the board or the successor authorities would know what was available from the abolition authorities and he feared that some valuable services might perish as a result of their ignorance. My noble friend Lord Beloff and others were also still anxious about the effect of the amendment on the existing archive services in the metropolitan county councils. Of course, that is just one aspect of the concern that my noble friend has. That is w by I withdrew the amendment that appeared in the fourth Marshalled List and substituted what your Lordships can now see on the fifth Marshalled List.

Subsection (2) makes it an explicit duty on the residuary body to do two things before they go to the Secretary of State from transfer orders. First, under paragraph (a) they must review what is available, not just in general terms but specifically. They must review the professional and technical services provided, together with the staff employed by them to provide those services and the property used by the staff in order to do so. The second specific thing they must do, under paragraph (b), is, in the light of that review, to ask each and every successor authority in their area whether it is likely—again I say not "certain" but "likely"—that it will want them to provide the service to it on a temporary basis. If the answer is "Yes". they must approach the Secretary of State for orders transferring both staff and property to them for that purpose.

The amendment is in part designed to reflect an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in relation to an amendment moved in Committee on purchasing organisations. I said then that I wanted to look further at the text of what he had proposed because I saw a link with what we are doing here. Your Lordships will see that the co-ordinating committees, as I think they are better called—and, if your Lordships think it is a good idea, I will arrange for them to be so described in the margin of the Bill when it is reprinted, which I understand is not something which is done by amendment but by persuasion—will have a specific duty to consider the arrangements for the joint provision of services in consultation with others, including the successor authorities.

That completes the pattern and ensures that everyone participates in the process of looking both at the long-term and the short-term arrangements. We shall be discussing Amendment No. 84B later, which is where this strikes, but it is an important part of this mosaic, made up of various powers and duties in different parts of the Bill, and I would not want your Lordships to overlook it. Amendment No. 84B: Clause 94, page 70, line 19, at end insert— ("( ) consider, in consultation with the authorities and bodies mentioned in paragraph (c) above, whether they could with advantage make joint arrangements for the provision of any services or goods required in connection with the discharge of the functions of those councils, authorities and bodies and, if of that opinion, promote the making of such arrangements; and"). Arriving at these amendments has been a long process, but it has produced an amendment which, in response to your Lordships' concern, very clearly spells out what is to happen on abolition. I commend it to your Lordships as the product of a long and strenuous effort to meet the wishes of your Lordships' House and of your Lordships' Select Committee.

In conclusion, I would say that my noble friend has two concerns remaining—I say this because of what is on the Marshalled List—and his two amendments to my amendment are intended to meet them. The first is that these processes shall be completed in good time; and the second, if I have understood him aright, is that no worthwhile service shall be left out of it. I sympathise with both ideas and I shall listen with the greatest interest when he explains them. I ask him only that when he does so he will take care to answer one question which I think must be answered if we are fully to understand what he proposes. It is simply this. Given the chain of mandatory duties which he establishes from the point at which the board carries out its review in subsection (2) of the services available to the point in subsection (3) where the Secretary of State transfers the staff and property to it—and in his amendment he has removed the discretion my right honourable friend would have at that point—where does any discretion exist to refuse a request—perhaps an ill-informed or misguided request—from a single authority, a single London borough or a single metropolitan district, to provide an entire service which not one of its fellow boroughs or districts wishes to use?

We have come a long way towards agreement on this issue, and I hope that we can complete the journey tonight. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 81CBA, Amendment No. 81CBB: Line 21, after ("shall") insert ("not later than 1st March 1986").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak specifically to this single amendment for the time being because it is an issue which is entirely separate from Amendment No. 81CBC. I thank my noble friend very much for his historical resumé of the events which led up to his Amendment 81CBA and for his appreciation of the concerns of your Lordships' Select Committee which is looking into the scientific and technical capacity of local government. I will pick out one point that he did not mention. He has altered the wording being used by your Lordships' Select Committee, which was "scientific and technical services", and has substituted the word "professional".

The Select Committee very much welcome this. They themselves did not feel sufficiently emboldened to step outside their terms of reference, but clearly the use of the word "professional" in these circumstances without any doubt embraces such things as archives, conservation concern, electrical engineers and others who had possibly felt—not in our opinion but in their opinion—that they had been left out by our terminology of "scientific and technical"; so I am very glad to see that word there.

The other points have been dealt with very adquately by my noble friend. It was a serious concern of your Lordships' Select Committee that the successor authorities—that is to say, the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs—because they had not been handling these new functions which had been put upon them would not realise their significance and importance in regard to maintaining the fabric of metropolitan life. These new services will be outside the experience of the successor authorities. The services about which we are concerned are not those which are duplicated at the two tiers and therefore are not services which in the main are appropriate for any form of economy of scale or condensation under the present legislation. These are the services about which your Lordships' Select Committee were highly concerned. They were anxious that every possible step should be taken to ensure their perpetuation, along with the staff who run them, as my noble friend has emphasised.

Unfortunately, I do not have precise figures of overlap in membership between elected councillors of metropolitan districts and metropolitan county councils. I have had some anecdotal discussions with the metropolitan counties and it appears that after the 1972 Act came into force there was enthusiasm among citizens of the metropolitan counties to be on both councils. But the pattern has now changed and there is now only a very small overlap. There are now on the councils of the lower tier very few people who have simultaneous experience of organising affairs as an elected member of the metropolitan counties. That is another reason why I think your Lordships' Select Committee are justifiably concerned about this issue.

I turn now to the point of Amendment No. 81CBB. My noble friend has emphasised that there is a clear timescale built in, but the only timescale your Lordships' Select Committee saw when they looked at this was in Clause 2 of his amendment, concerning the words "as soon as practicable". Quite clearly, that means "pretty quickly", but it does not have a date to it.

The second point of concern is that in subsection (3) the Secretary of State is required to make orders under Sections 51 and 99. The point concerning action under those two sections is that it is no longer possible after abolition date; so if by any chance the timescale were to get so stretched that no report reached the Secretary of State in time for him, with his officials' advice, to reach a decision on this matter, the whole matter could then lapse and this very desirable investigation into the worth of these important services would be lost. Therefore, we have proposed a terminal date before which this report must be submitted to the Secretary of State. We chose one month before abolition date, and that is why we proposed not later than 1st March 1986. We feel that one month is the very least, the minimum amount of time that would allow a reasonable decision to be made. We are anxious that this report should not be presented too late, and of course it will be quite disastrous if this report were not ready by abolition day, because the powers of the Secretary of State would then be gone.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook speaks to Amendment No. 81CCB only. May I seek guidance? Are not Amendments Nos. 81CCB and 81CBC the obverse of the very same coin?

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I consider them to be totally separate issues.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Very well.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I am on a very narrow point. I hope that my noble friend will be able to come to an arrangement with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on this. I must say, with my experience in Parliament and business, that I am a little loth to put in a fixed date if it can be avoided. If it cannot be avoided for good reason, I understand that. But I find that, if you write a fixed date into a statute—in this case, 1st March—for all sorts of reasons that one cannot envisage one may not be in a position to come to a right conclusion in time. If you have written in 1st March, you are really hidebound and may be giving yourself unnecessary problems. If it can be sorted out—it is not a point on which we are far enough away from each other to quarrel—I would myself try to avoid putting in a date which might be an embarrassment for reasons which at this moment we cannot envisage.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, there are already dates in the Bill, like 1st April 1986. It is because of that, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has explained, that the Select Committee wished to have a date in, and whether it is three weeks, four weeks, or a calendar month is unimportant. Since there are already dates in the Bill when certain things like the abolition have to happen, it was felt necessary to put in a date which was a month before that terminal date.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, it is absolutely essential if this amendment is either to be carried or accepted by the Minister that that should be a date. This is a date only a month before abolition and the amendment of the noble Earl says "not later than", so I imagine he would hope that some of these things would have got under way before that. When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, saying that things may slip, it makes me even more worried about what will happen by the time we get to abolition date.

Lord Elton

My Lords, on this amendment, which deals with the matter of the date, I should like to be as helpful as I can because my noble friend and I are at one in wanting things to happen as swiftly as possible. I am at one with the noble Baroness and with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. What makes me anxious—and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls put his finger on it, and in fact I thought that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook almost accidentally put the point to your Lordships, because he said what would happen after 1st March and then corrected himself and then said this must be done before 1st March—is that the paragraph requires the residuary body to make a report if any of the successor authorities says that it is likely to wish to enter into an agreement. I am not worrying about the residuary body being dilatory, but suppose for the sake of argument that circumstances are such that the authority which is requesting the service, either through incompetence or simply because it did not realise the need in time, does not put in its request and make known to the residuary, body the answer to the residuary body's question, "Do you want this service?" until, say, 3rd March. The danger is that the amendment that my noble friend intends to be helpful would mean that the residuary body could do nothing, and although he would make it likely that more requests would be made before 1st March, it would mean that after 1st March no request could be granted. I do not think that that is his intention.

I should like to be helpful to my noble friend in this way because we have started a good tradition of good conversation he and I, and as the Select Committee Chairman, I think it proper that he should be able to do that. I should like to consider with him what further steps we can take to ensure expedition, but I would ask him not to insist on putting a date in because, although I hope that all these things will be cleared up before 1st March, I do not want the boat to sail with anyone left helpless on the pier.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he agrees that the successor authorities include not only the metropolitan districts and the London boroughs but also any authority in the terms of this amendment such as the Arts Council, shire counties in some cases, and the Secretary of State himself. All of these, as I understand it, are bodies which will have to be consulted under the terms of his amendment because all of them will receive some form of successor authority from the present authorities. Therefore there is a long list. I should have thought it was at any rate within the power of the Secretary of State himself, being one of the people whom the residuary body is obliged to consult, at least to ensure that he himself responds before the terminal date.

Lord Elton

My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, my noble friend is quite right. Anyone who receives powers or duties from an abolition authority is the successor authority if he is the authority receiving them. I am not trying to belittle the size of the task; all I am saying is that, if you use the means which my noble friend has chosen to expedite matters and say that if you are not there by 1st March the door will be shut and there is no point in knocking on it, I am sure that will not achieve what he wants to happen. Therefore we must find some form of words which achieves the early application but which does not disbar the involuntarily late applicant. In other words, I want to do what my noble friend wants to do but I do not think this is the way to do it and I am asking him to assist me between now and Third Reading in devising a way to do it.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I wonder if the crucial word is not the second word in paragraph 3: "If any relevant successor body"—or am I reading the thing back to front? It seems to me that it is not so much a question of people getting shut out, at the end of the day. It is a question of ensuring that somebody triggers the process.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, we seem to be very close to agreement on this troubled matter and I will try to pour some oil on troubled waters, if I may. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has really gone to a lot of trouble to try to get his amendment into a form that would be acceptable to the professions involved in this. I also recognise that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has a duty to his Select Committee as it were to fight his corner as best he can. I believe both parties are so near to agreement that if the noble Earl could see his way to responding to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and deferring final resolution of this matter to the Third Reading of the Bill, it would be very helpful at this stage.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, not for a moment would I want to claim that your Lordships' Select Committee is the repository of all wisdom. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said and for discussions in the past. I look forward to further discussions on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 81CBA, Amendment No. 81CBC: Line 23, leave out (", if in the light of the report he considers it expedient to do so,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a separate issue on which I can be very brief. This amendment would delete the words in Clause 3 which appear to allow the Secretary of State not to do what he is asked to do. It is just as simple as that. The Select Committee feels that, if the need for the continuation of these important services is recognised, albeit only by a small minority of one or two of the successor authorities, the need is likely to be best met by the mechanism proposed by this amendment.

In addition to the worry which I expressed just now—that is, the worry about an important service being left out—there is also concern about future duplication. It is a possibility that some of the successor authorities may feel that they themselves have the scope, the capacity and the power to carry on these services and to set up their own organisations for these important services within their own district or borough area, and thereby not to join in a common county-wide or London-wide scheme. This will lead to duplication and will be wasteful, and it is very much what I understand my noble friend on the Front Bench to be opposed to. That is the second half of the worries of your Lordships' Select Committee. That is why your Lordships' Select Committee envisage that there are circumstances where the Secretary of State must respond and not vacillate. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am afraid that again I do not understand because I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook would wish the Secretary of State to take into account the report in some form or other. As a matter of rather technical and boring legal drafting, his amendment has the effect of precluding the Secretary of State from taking it into account. I cannot believe that that is the result that my noble friend would want, and if my construction is right is this not yet another matter that ought to be sorted out in amity rather than on the technical construction of this amendment? I do not think that the construction gives my noble friend what he could conceivably want for the reasons that I have stated.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, if I may attempt to get into the discussion and to reinforce one or two of the points that the noble Earl has made—and I speak again as a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee's subcommittee—it seems to me that the noble Lord who has just spoken has perhaps slightly misread what is being said because the important words are that he "shall take it into consideration". I think he is suggesting that they will be removed, but they will not. What is being taken out is the part about him considering it expedient to do so. Underlying all this—

Lord Elton

My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord has left out the one word which matters, which is "if".

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, let me try to rephrase that then. The subsection states that the Secretary of State "shall take it into consideration" and then we delete from there on. But I still maintain that the important part of that phrase is whether he considers it expedient. What the Select Committee is seeking to do is, as it were, to remove from the Secretary of State that discretionary power for the very good reason that what we are deeply worried about is the lack of confidence which is present in these teams of excellent people, whom we have talked about so many times in the course of this debate and who we refer to as a result of our Select Committee's report. We are terrified that a number of these teams are already breaking up, and we are anxious that the Government will do everything in their power to reassure those people who are in a state of some trepidation at the moment.

I am not suggesting that this is an amendment which the noble Earl would wish to push to the limit, and as has already been said I hope that some accommodation can be reached. But I assure your Lordships that this is a matter which is giving grave concern to these teams of professional and technical services who, in many cases, are totally unknown to your Lordships, but who we have had the privilege of meeting and getting to know and understand in the course of our investigations and deliberations.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, I agree with the general view. Again, I hope that this can be sorted out. The difference is so narrow and everybody seems to want the same thing. The only contribution that I want to make is this. I think that by leaving in the words that the amendment seeks to remove, you are likely to make the report itself more responsible than it would be without them. If it is known that what could flow from the report could affect whether or not the Secretary of State will make the order, then, in the making of the report, there is just a chance that the report will be in a more responsible form, marginally, than it would be if it were felt that the report would not have any bearing upon the making of the order by the Secretary of State because without those words the Secretary of State has to make the order.

But, at the end of the day, the Secretary of State is responsible for the orders that he makes, and I doubt whether he would make an order unless he was satisfied that the basis was in the general good and in accordance with what was intended by what would then be a statute. But my main point is that if the words that it is suggested are removed are left, I can well see that that would make the report upon which everything hinged that much more responsible because people would know that it had a special significance in the eventual making of the order.

So, on balance, I would rather like to leave things as my noble friend said in the amendment. But I do not think that the differences are so great that there ought to be any great pushing, and I am certain that while discussions, such as will be going on to deal with the last amendment, are taking place, this could be included, and I am certain that an answer could be found.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, having listened to what has been said, and having read the amendments as carefully as I can, I certainly support the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, because what the amendment is quite rightly doing is cutting down some of the discretion of the Secretary of State, and there is plenty of discretion still left as it is. This is really quite otiose and is not only not necessary, but makes the whole case much weaker. I think that a very good—

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am trying to stay within the Standing Orders for Report stage, and I know that the noble Baroness cannot make another speech; but there is something that I should very much like her to do in this speech. I should like her to point out where the discretion of the Secretary of State is in the rest of the amendment, because it is crucial to what we are now considering.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, the subsection states that the body shall make a report to the Secretary of State "who shall take it into consideration". Therefore, he has this element of discretion in taking it into consideration. It seems to me that this is what I would call a belt and braces job because in addition there are the words: if in the light of the report he considers it expedient to do so". I submit, like the noble Lords who have spoken, that those words are not only necessary but weaken what I trust the Minister was hoping to achieve by that subsection. Therefore, it seems to me that they strengthen the whole provision and make it very much more viable.

Lord Elton

My Lords, we are under the difficulty of not being in Committee, but I hope we have overcome that. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the postscriptorial part of her speech.

I do not think that the amendment is quite so marginal or so susceptible to sailing across the oily waters created so kindly by my noble friend Lord Halsbury as the other. We have put a link into a chain which was left purposely Incomplete. At present the chain starts at paragraph (2) where it says: Each residuary body shall". That is a duty; that is where the chain is anchored. What shall it do? It shall do two things. The first is to carry out at (a) a review; and the second is, in the light of that review, at (b) to, ascertain from each … successor authority whether it is likely to wish to enter into an agreement with the residuary body", for the purposes we are discussing. There is as yet no discretion at all for the residuary body.

It has to ask the question and the residuary body can then answer it. What happens when it gets an answer is described in paragraph (3). If the answer is, no, the chain ends. If the answer is, yes, then paragraph (3) goes on to say: If any relevant successor authority indicates to a residuary body that it is likely … that body shall make a report to that effect". So it must carry out the review; it must ask the question, and it must accept the answer. If the answer is, yes, it must go to the Secretary of State and make its report.

At that point we thought that the Secretary of State at least should be able to weigh up the report and perhaps take a view from the residuary body and perhaps say, "Well, no, this service is not required", or, "No, not all of this service is required". One cannot foresee every eventuality. Therefore we put in not only that the Secretary of State shall take the report into consideration—we are all agreed about that, but that is the next link in the chain—but then we put in the break link which is,

"If"—

that is the vital word— in the light of the report he considers it expedient to do so", then he shall make orders under Section 51.

With respect, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that if we take out those words—I think we are all clear that it is a continuous chain until we get to those words—the chain finishes up like this. The Secretary of State gets the report. It is made to that effect to the Secretary of State in line 22 who, shall take it into consideration and make such orders". Those words do not carry a discretion. That is why I asked the noble Baroness to tell me where she thought the discretion was. He is allowed to consider them but he may not allow the consideration to influence his action. Whatever his consideration he must make such an order.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister to ask him a question. He says that it does not increase the Secretary of State's discretion, but, considers it expedient to do so", is very much a subjective decision; so the Secretary of State does have added discretion.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the noble Baroness has perhaps confused me because those are the words to come out. Those are the words that my noble friend wants to remove from the amendment. I asked the noble Baroness what discretion would then remain.

There is no discretion remaining. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is going to tell me that there is. I am much relieved because I am looking for it.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, we may be in procedural difficulties here but perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord the Minister. What do the words, as appear to him to be appropriate mean?

Lord Elton

My Lords, that, I must say, is a most useful interruption. I thought I had been terribly thorough and clever, and I shall doubtless have a small piece of paper any minute to tell me that I had been; but before that piece of paper arrives I think I have not been because it appears to me that the words, as appear to him to be appropriate", taken after the word "consideration" may in fact contain an element of discretion which I had not supposed was there. But I am advised that it would be possible to read this, I regret to tell your Lordships, to mean "whatever order would be appropriate to give effect to the request".

I am under guidance here and must take the best advice. I can tell your Lordships that my rather lengthy experience of it over the past few weeks is exceedingly good. The advice I have is that the chain would finish up with the Secretary of State taking the report into consideration in order to find out what would be an appropriate order to give effect to the request. That in fact is not a discretion. It is not a discretion to disagree with the report. It is not a discretion to say, "You only need half this service". It is not a discretion to say, "You do not need it at all". It is a discretion only to make the order match the request.

If I am right in this then I am right in my starting point of this argument, which is that that is to leave an unbroken chain of obligation from start, in paragraph (2), to finish, in paragraph (3). That means that every request must be granted by the Secretary of State, by transferring the whole of the function, the whole of the staff, and the whole of the property necessary to deliver that function from the abolition body to the successor authority.

I ask your Lordships to follow that proposal through a little further. It would mean that only one authority in every county, and only one borough in London (and it need not be a borough or a district because, as my noble friend said, it could be one of the joint authorities, and so on) would need to request the service for the Secretary of State to be bound to transfer it to the residuary body.

9.15 p.m.

I suggest that the effect of that would be to invert the intention we have that there shall be careful consideration of what is necessary for the successor bodies, and that it should be that which is transferred. It seems to me that it might be a good thing if I do not hurry towards the inevitable point in time we are rushing towards, when another of my noble friends has to move an amendment.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question at this point because another issue has been raised by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. What is the nature of the report? The Select Committee did not properly analyse this issue because it was not one which had become apparent to them. My noble friend is so good at thinking on his feet that he has sharpened this issue in my mind and I tried to respond.

The Select Committee had envisaged that the report would be simply comparable to, if one were to take a military analogy, a company sergeant major reporting, "All present and correct, sir". The report might merely say that there is one successor authority that wishes the service to continue. If my noble friend envisages that the report would be of, let us say, at least 15 pages and carefully argued, then that is a different matter. Perhaps it would be advisable to have further discussion and think about this issue on another occasion.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I believe there is a limit to the number of times I can sit down and stand up without making more than one speech and I am not sure that I have not reached it. I want to leave it clear that if what my noble friend wants is to leave no discretion—and that is, I regret, the effect of what he now proposes—then I do not think that is right. I would say that and I would stand on it.

If my noble friend wants there to be a discretion and wishes to consider how it should be evolved, then I am content to consider that matter with him between now and Third Reading, to see whether there is common ground between us. It is really a question of whether or not he believes in any sort of discretion. If he does not, then it would probably shorten the proceedings if we were to decide the issue now. It would also have the advantage that we would have an amendment of some sort to consider with the others.

If my noble friend does wish there to be an element of discretion so that it is not a foregone conclusion that one single request from the smallest authority in a large conurbation must result in the transfer of all the staff, regardless of the length of the report, then I would have to say no, and I would have to say it loud and clear. If my noble friend wants a discretion, then I shall be happy to consider it.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which could be of help to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and which might meet to some extent the point made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. If the words in question are left in, it would mean that the Minister's discretion will be limited to having good reasons for disagreeing with something in the report. This means that he would have to justify not agreeing with what he was being asked to do by saying, "It is this in the report which I do not think would allow me to do it".

If it is that the words in question are not there, then there will be no restriction on the Secretary of State being able to flout the report. To some extent I am saying that leaving the words as they are is limiting the power of the Minister because he must then refer to what is in the report to justify his not agreeing with what he is being asked to do.

Lord Elton

My Lords, with the final leave of your Lordships, I believe that my noble friend is right when he says that there is a limit on what the Secretary of State could decide because the decision would be justiciable and he would have to decide on grounds that were reasonable. The grounds he is permitted to consider in the statute would be the report.

I think, however, that we are treading on tricky and detailed ground. I just want to ask my noble friend this question: does he believe in a discretion or does he not? If he does, I shall be very happy to discuss it with him between now and Third Reading without committing myself to agreeing with him. If, on the other hand, he does not agree with a discretion, then I have to say that there would be no point in doing so.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, having heard the words of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)

My Lords, the Question which I now have to put is that Amendment No. 81CBA be agreed to.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I am in some procedural difficulty. I am informed from the Table that I must speak at this stage to my Amendment No. 81CC because it goes, so to speak, alongside Amendment No. 81CBA of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Amendment No. 81CC: Page 150, line 8, at end insert— (".—(1) A residuary body shall provide any relevant successor authority, on such terms as to payment or otherwise as the parties consider appropriate, with administrative, professional or technical services as provided in this paragraph. (2) The administrative, professional and technical services referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above shall include the following:—

1. (a) administrative, financial, legal and personnel services;
2. (b) acquisition, disposal and management and maintenance of property;
3. (c) scientific, computing and central purchasing services;
4. (d) research, intelligence, information, library and archive services; and
5. (e) such other services as may be necessary for the proper exercise of the functions of the authorities specified in subparagraph (3) below and for the proper transfer of those functions from the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils to those authorities.

(3) The relevant successor authorities referred to in sub-paragraph (1) shall be—

1. (a) any new authority established by or under this Act (other than the Inner London Education Authority established by section 18 of this Act) and any joint board or joint committee of London borough councils and the Common Council and metropolitan district councils formed for the purposes of the performance of any function transferred by or under this Act;
2. (b) any London borough council or the Common Council or metropolitan district council or the Inner London Education Authority;
3. (c) any other body to which functions or property of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county councils are transferred by or under this Act or any other enactment;
4. (d) the Secretary of State in respect of any functions or powers exercisable by him by virtue of this Act.

(4) it shall be the function of the residuary body alone to provide the services referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above to the authorities specified in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (3) above and the Secretary of State may by order require the relevant residuary body to provide such services to any of the authorities specified in (b), (c) and (d) of sub-paragraph (3) above. (5) Each residuary body shall take all practicable measures to maintain and preserve such of the services of the Greater London Council and of each metropolitan county council relative to the matters referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above as may be necessary for the purposes of this paragraph and to that end the Secretary of State shall take appropriate steps under section 51 of this Act to secure the transfer to the employment of the appropriate residuary body of the necessary staff of the Greater London Council and of each of the metropolitan county councils."). I should first say that I shall not be moving this amendment, but I am told that I must speak to it at this stage.

I am two-in-one tonight because my noble friend Lord Plummer is not here, and as I am speaking on his behalf, as well as for myself I therefore ask the indulgence of the House. I know that my noble friend Lord Plummer would wish me to thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his great generosity and kindness in the amount of time that he has given to us both on this matter.

During the speeches which my noble friend Lord Elton made today he at one stage referred to the key role of residuary bodies. He spoke of strengthening the role of the residuary bodies and also about the effect of cost. This Bill sets up a demand for services, and the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Plummer and myself deals with the mechanism by which those duties can be supplied through the residuary bode to the joint boards and constituent authorities.

The reason why my noble friend Lord Plummer and I have moved the amendment is, first, on the question of costs. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Elton states that: A residuary body may by agreement with any relevant successor authority, and on such terms as to payment or otherwise as the parties consider appropriate, provide that authority with professional or technical services. Our amendment is close to that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, except for two quite ridiculous words which we have often discussed in this debate; that is, "may" and "shall". The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Plummer and myself states that: A residuary body shall provide any relevant successor authority, on such terms as to payment or otherwise", and so on. The reason we have used the word "shall" rather than "may" is that there should be a clear understanding on the part of the staff as to exactly what is the position. We think that that is very important.

Secondly, we believe that we ought to be absolutely sure that there will not be duplication and proliferation of staff. I ask my noble friend this question. If the word "may" rather than "shall" is used, will this not mean that the various constituent bodies will decide to appoint their own staff instead of asking the residuary body for staff? This will mean, therefore, that if the various different bodies do not use the residuary body, they might duplicate staff and take on staff which they could well have done without and which could have been used by the residuary body.

I shall not go into the figures of Coopers and Lybrand, and so on, but that would put up the cost of the new authorities, whereas if the residuary body has—what shall I say?—two grave diggers, it may decide that they need not go to the various authorities but could be used by all of them. But if each body appoints all its own staff because it may do so, there may be duplication, waste of money and waste of personnel. That is the core matter about which we are worried.

It will not necessarily apply to all the staff. A number of them will have found jobs and posts with the constituent bodies. But it will mean that there can be consultation with the residuary body over which staff are appointed so that there is no duplication in the various constituent bodies, and it would therefore be cost-effective.

I think that I want to be guided by the Minister. What I have been saying I was saying for myself. The noble Lord, Lord Plummer, has given me his speech and it is a long one. I knew that this might happen and so I gave my noble friend the speech and he has read it. I am sure that if I am guided by him he will say that I need not read the speech, and so it is with the rest of your Lordships' House whether you wish me to read the speech. I think that I have given the core of what is in it.

Lord Elton

My Lords, my noble friend asks for guidance. I think that it is the position in your Lordships' House that one makes one's own speech and not that of somebody else. I rather get that vibration from the Table, and I am fairly confident of it.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, we are so close and yet so far apart. The real difference is between my noble friend the Minister and myself, and so I shall speak for myself and not for the noble Lord, Lord Plummer. It is simply a question of "shall" or "may". Suppose for argument's sake the various bodies do not ask the residuary body because the word is only "may". What happens? Is my noble friend happy that each body should appoint—

Lord Elton

My Lords, this is not the Committee stage but I must put my noble friend right. The residuary body has no option about asking the questions. It has to, under paragraph 2. The "may" or "shall" about which she is talking, I think, is in paragraph 1. That says that the bodies must have the option of not setting up an agreement if the authority of which they have asked the question does not want an agreement, so it is more than moving that word.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, my noble friend, as I said before, has a very high IQ and I have a pretty low one.

Lord Elton

Neither statement is true, my Lords.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I want to be quite clear over the question of "may" and "shall". Is it absolutely laid down and clear that the constituent bodies will ask the residuary body for staff; or will the constituent authorities appoint their own staff regardless of the residuary body because they do not necessarily have to apply to it? I think that that is the important point.

As I said before, the staff—those who are not necessarily going to a job or who have not been appointed to one—will know that there is the residuary body with whom they can consult. Also, the residuary body will see that there is no duplication among the various bodies. I think that that will save cost, duplication and proliferation. Suppose, for instance, the constituent body decides not to use the residuary body and orders its own computer when the residuary body has computer services and computer staff. That could apply to many other services as well. So we are really looking at the cost and also a definite structure for the staff. I understand from the Table that I do not move this, and that I sit down and listen to the Minister's reply.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, my noble friend is not quite right. This is Report stage. She has made the second speech in the debate on the amendment that we have now decided will not be amended, which is in my name on the Marshalled List. A series of your Lordships will no doubt want to address the same subject. I shall reply at the end. At that stage, your Lordships will vote, I hope, if there is a Division, to put my amendment in. You may accept it on the nod. I do not know. If your Lordships do not like it, you will vote against it and try to take someone else's amendment.

The noble Baroness can now forget all that has gone before in discussion on my amendment as to whether it should be changed or not, because my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, behind her, has decided that it should not be changed. So that is No. 1 on the counter before your Lordships when you decide what you want to put in the Bill. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Plummer, in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, would be there but she says that she is not actually going to put it there. Any other noble Lord who would like to have an amendment in place of the amendment that I propose should now say so. I think that I have got that right? I have got it right.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, this is extremely complicated and makes things more difficult. We are left a little in the air over what is to happen between the Minister and the noble Earl when they presumably get together over his amendment.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

The noble Earl, my Lords?

Baroness Birk

My Lords, yes, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I am speaking to the Minister's amendment but, as he has explained carefully, taking in the comments made on it by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I should like to take the Minister's amendment, which deals with an important subject, and get it into perspective. It is rather ironic but also refreshing that following a Committee stage during which the Government attacked the giving of functions to the residuary body, they should now be seeking to do so themselves. One of the reasons for the difficulty (it explains why we have been going backwards and forwards, as though in Committee stage, by way of questions and interventions) is that this appeared at Report stage. Secondly, there has been an alteration to the amendment that was originally tabled by the Government.

It was clear last week, from the comments made at that time on trading standards by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and on archives by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Beloff, that the case had not been met even among the Minister's own noble friends, let alone those of us opposite. So now we have this changed amendment, which is quite difficult to comprehend in one moment, together with notes from the Box that we do not have in front of us on the question of "appropriate". Every concession that the Government have made takes the proposals further from what the noble Lord the Minister has constantly called the philosophy of the Bill; namely, the transfer to boroughs and districts. It is good that this should have happened. We have seen a grant scheme created to make up for the fact that boroughs and districts cannot, on their own, fund organisations across a wide area. Historic buildings in London which were originally to pass to the boroughs will pass now to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commision. That is good. However, it leaves the metropolitan counties in a difficulty.

The balance of arts funding has shifted decisively from localisation to reliance on central Government funding through the Arts Council. I would say in parenthesis that the Arts Council is not very happy about the level of its funding, but I do not expect the Minister to comment on that point. The transfer of waste disposal has gone to a joint board. That was really no more than recognition by the House that the Minister intended to use his reserve power to create county-wide arrangements because this is what would have had to happen in the end. This is a much clearer and cleaner way of doing it.

There are also the issues of archives, trading standards and civil defence in the metropolitan counties. There are many variants of county-wide solutions. Almost every day the Government have been accepting the need to preserve county-wide functions, services and professional and technical expertise. Incidentally, I also much prefer the word "professional" because I hope that it will include archaeology. They have accepted these as long as they go under different names, and as long as one did not use what has become almost a pornographic phrase in this Bill—"county-wide organisation". It is really a rose by any other name. That is what we are gradually setting up.

Perhaps I may look briefly at the options before us. The Minister's amendment seeks to give the residuary body the responsibility for plugging the gap in the Bill in relation to professional and technical services. This was pointed out with great force before the Second Reading by the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

In our view this amendment contains a number of flaws. First, it fails to cover the best option proposed by the Select Committee. Paragraph 75 on page 23 of the Select Committee's report states: … there is an obvious case on the grounds of economy for replacing the multiplicity of joint authorities with a single joint authority in each metropolitan county and in London. If this were done, the combined authority would be an excellent employer of scientific and technical services and would develop the scientific and technical links between functions which already exist. This would be the best outcome". However, the amendment does not establish a single authority. In fact, it establishes arrangements which will precipitate the break-up of county-wide specialist services because it requires agreement by individual successor authorities to seek particular services from the residuary body which would be carried out in a piecemeal and unco-ordinated way. This seems to me to be a great disadvantage.

Secondly, the Government's amendment will lead to the loss of economies of scale compared with the amendment of the noble Baroness. The provision of individual services on a piecemeal basis will result in important economies of scale being lost. At present these economies are achieved through positive management action being taken to avoid the duplication of services and to ensure that services are integrated wherever practicable. The amendment will give neither the residuary body nor any other authority clear and firm management control over the full range of services currently provided.

Thirdly, the amendment proposes no permanent solution. The residuary body remains a temporary body with a life of five years, and the amendment does not change that or say what will happen at the end of that time. Therefore the lack of permanent arrangements will maintain and fuel uncertainties about the future. It is this problem of uncertainties about the Bill that concerns a great many people. This will have several major effects, not least upon the highly specialist staff which this House has shown itself so anxious to retain. On that there seems to have been no difference of opinion across the House. It was these uncertainties which it seemed to me the Select Committee went to great trouble to seek to avoid in its report.

Fourthly, under the Government amendment, the residuary body will have inadequate powers, as the amendment places no statutory duty on the residuary body to provide professional or technical services; it is merely a duty to review their provision. The actual provision of services across the whole county or London area depends upon the agreement of all successor bodies and on decisions of the Secretary of State. Lack of co-operation by some authorities will create major uncertainties about the delivery of services, and some services could be permanently lost. That could be the upshot of this action.

For all these reasons we do not believe that the Government amendment can be considered a satisfactory solution—even on the narrow issue of the future of professional and technical services. Still less is it a feasible answer to the problem of the vacuum left by the lack of a single joint authority which the Select Committee saw as "the best solution".

Now may I turn briefly to the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—an amendment which I hope she will reconsider and decide to move when this has been dealt with because it makes a great difference to the discussion on this amendment as well. Their amendment contains the essential kernel of the case advanced by noble Lords of all parties. This has really been going through the Bill, and I can safely say that this is not a party political matter. This would provide a common services authority for the successor bodies on a statutory basis. This is a great advance on what I call the "wait and see" arrangements proposed in the Minister's amendment.

This would bring together not merely scientific and technical services but legal, personnel, computing, information and purchasing services under one authority. It goes a long way to meet the need for a single authority, recommended by the Select Committee. It would continue the economies of scale—which it must because of the size of it—and standards of professional expertise established by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. It would provide a breathing space during which common services would be preserved, and plans could be laid for their subsequent continuation. The amendment proposes a comprehensive structure—and this is the importance of this amendment—and not a hotch-potch, as does the amendment suggested by the Minister.

It is for these reasons that we should consider carefully before the House jumps into reception of the Minister's amendment. The amendment in the names of the two noble Peers opposite is an amendment which goes much further and is far better in the transitional period. It also holds out more hope for the future, the opportunity to plan, and a chance not to lose the essential services we have at the moment. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider and will move her amendment.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook does not wish to speak on the amendment as it is proposed it should be amended. This is a new debate, so he has a right to speak if he wishes, and particularly if he wishes to refer to his later amendment, which touches the same issue.

I am sorry to stand with my back to your Lordships. Occasionally some of my closest friends are not always recognisable as such, but this evening they are very agreeable and, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, they sit straight behind me.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, if my noble friend is inviting me to speak to Amendment No. 84ZA, I shall do so.

Amendment No. 84ZA: After Clause 86, insert the following new clause—

("Professional and technical services.

—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consulting an authority to which this section applies, by order provide that the functions of that authority shall include the provision of professional and technical services in the area of that authority.

(2) In subsection (1) above, the provision of professional and technical services includes the employment of staff engaged in, and the provision of facilities for, scientific research and development or the application of science and technology in support of any function of an authority to which this section applies or the constituent councils of such authority.

(3) The authorities to which this section applies are any authority established under section 10 or Part IV of the Act.").

Lord Elton

My Lords, it is up to the noble Earl and your Lordships' House. If my noble friend sees it as an alternative to my amendment, then he ought to describe its advantages before I reply to the debate. If he does not, and wishes to discuss it after my amendment is made to the Bill, it might be a little odd if they are not compatible. Perhaps he does not see them as incompatible.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, they are entirely compatible because Amendment No. 84ZA deals with the situation after the residuary body. It looks for a final solution. We have agreed that in the terms of the Bill the residuary body taking on these services is an interim measure for providing continuation over a transitional period. But Amendment No. 84ZA is important because it provides a final repository for these services at a later date during the winding-up period of the residuary body or after it is wound up.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the sense of what my noble friend says is that it is not an alternative but is an improvement which can be put in later. That is something we should discuss later. We are therefore debating my amendment, which has not been amended and therefore appears in its proper form on any Marshalled List that happens to come to hand. It is to that that I speak, and I speak also to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Plummer, which has been put before your Lordships for your interest by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. She has been urged by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to treat it as an alternative which might be put into the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

I already described the effect of my amendment before this great debate started. I do not think your Lordships will wish me to say a great deal more about that, though I should reply to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. She asked me several questions. A specific one was about the use of the word "may" or the word "shall", and in a committee vein I replied to that in the middle of her speech for which I apologise. I explained that the word "may" had to be used otherwise the body would be forced to make an agreement even though there was nobody with whom to make an agreement. In her second question she assumed that the staff might be able to approach the residuary bodies direct. The answer is that they would be able to do so informally, and I draw her attention to Clause 96(1) and Clause 96(4) in the Bill as printed which place a duty on officers as well as authorities to co-operate in facilitating implementation and so forth. Therefore of course they would be required to speak to the residuary bodies.

My noble friend asked the other question in a direct sense. I recall that she asked whether the successor authorities, such as the districts and the joint authorities, would be able to take on their own staff as it were in competition with the residuary body. I think I have her question straight. The answer is, "Yes". I must remind both her and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the residuary bodies are temporary bodies and the solution of putting something in a residuary body is a temporary one. The intention is that the final solution shall be arrived at within five years. A specialist team may be working under the auspices of a residuary body for one, two, three, four or possibly five years, but eventually they would go under the arrangements agreed with the successor bodies to those bodies who would by then have had an opportunity to put together joint schemes or joint authorities or what-have-you.

My noble friend spoke to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Plummer. I do not intend to read his speech, either; but she was kind enough to give me a review of what he intended to say, and very good it was too. But it was not quite good enough to persuade me that he was right and I was wrong. As your Lordships can see from the Marshalled List, we go down the same road for quite a long way. We agree that there must be a clean break at the moment of abolition so that the successor authorities have discretion to choose which staff to take on, whether directly or some time later through the residuary bodies. We agree that services must be devolved to the boroughs and districts. We agree that there are certain expert groups of staff who should find places in the new arrangements, and we agree that we should avoid such groups being dispersed because final arrangements are not settled by 1st April. So far so good. But we then part company for it seems that my noble friend does not think that his amendment would lead to virtually all the administrative technical and professional staff in the GLC and the MCCs being kept on by the residuary body willy-nilly.

My noble friend has explained the importance of the wider list of services in Amendment No. 81CC than in the amendment that I moved, the importance of eliminating the discretion of the successor body, thus the residuary body will take on who it chooses not who their client wants or needs. The difference is an important one. My noble friend and the noble Baroness see this as an advantage because it puts matters under the control of the Secretary of State, who determines what the residuary body shall do, and emphasises the short timescale between Royal Assent and the abolition date, and so on. But that brings us back to the issue which I discussed, and shall continue to discuss, with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook; that is, the scope of the Secretary of State's discretion. Whether the route is through the residuary body or not, it is essential that we do not by a procedural device ensure that every single employee and the whole of every service is transferred to the residuary body even though it is a temporary body.

I understand and share my noble friend's concern that the new arrangement should be more economical and efficient. I believe that this will be achieved by the successor authorities having discretion to consider freely the choice between employing staff directly and sharing expertise where appropriate. There are transitional controls, as I say, to guard against the creation of large new bureaucracies; otherwise, they are free to do so.

Finally, may I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that we are not giving functions to the residuary bodies in the way that she suggests, although the amendment of my noble friend Lord Plummer would do so? On the contrary, we are responding to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and his committee in an attempt to find a temporary home, if necessary, for specialist teams of staff in case the successor bodies, and in particular the borough and district successor bodies, who will actually exercise the functions, have not got their act together in time. They will be the home, but it will be for the successor authorities that the service is provided and, therefore, that they work.

I fear that I have trespassed too long on your Lordships' patience and ingenuity. I believe that at the beginning of this debate I made clear why I think that this is a considerable improvement on what we offered before. It is a response which has moved, as the noble Baroness rightly said, ever since we first put it on the Marshalled List, towards the position of my noble friend. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I think that this is the sort of thing that we should have discussed in Committee. It is so complicated that I do not think that we can just let it go like this. In view of the great concern over the whole subject and the fact that it is quite late and there is a very thin House, will the Minister consider taking this back to look at it, together with the amendment which has been spoken to but not moved by the noble Baroness, since it comes after the Minister's amendment? Will he do this to see whether he could bring it more into line with the points (which I shall not go over again, because I outlined them quite fully) where we feel that it is at a disadvantage compared with the other amendment which follows his and which causes part of the trouble? I think that in the circumstances it would be a great help if he would do that, because we are on to a very important subject very late at night and very late in the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, before my noble friend answers perhaps I may apologise for not having been here earlier. Secondly, I thank my noble friend for putting down this amendment because a lot of it has to do with the ecology unit of the GLC and its equivalent in the metropolitan counties. Having seen him with my noble friend Lord Chelwood on this particular issue, I should just like to thank him for going a very long way to meeting the concern that my noble friend Lord Chelwood and I had on the future of that particular unit. It seems to me that they have listened, they have been intelligent and they have taken cognisance of serious objections made by, I hope, intelligent if unpunctual people. I should like to thank my noble friend for so doing.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords—

Lord Elton

My Lords, we are on Report stage and I had invited the Chair to put the Question. I must reply to the two interventions. To my noble friend, I may say that I am grateful for his gratitude. His punctuality was such that he first arrived 24 hours and 10 minutes before the appointment. As to the noble Baroness's proposal, I am afraid that I am not well disposed towards it. I have travelled a great way to try to assist your Lordships. I have agreed that when this amendment is in the Bill I will consider with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook whether I can do more to meet him in that respect. I do not think I can do more to meet my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I believe that if she studies the amendment as it now is she will find it has many advantages that she will welcome and few disadvantages that she will regret. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment No. 81CBA agreed to.

[Amendment No. 81CC not moved.]

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 81D: Page 150, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford and myself. This is a fairly simple amendment. The Bill will make it an offence for any person to obstruct an officer of a residuary body who is authorised to inspect documents in the custody of a metropolitan county council or the GLC. Conviction on such obstruction will lead to a fine plus a daily penalty of £40 if the offence continues. The amendment seeks to remove this provision. The provision is an example of the unprecedented lengths to which the Government will go in an effort to force an unworkable Bill on reluctant councillors and staff. It is sufficient that residuary body employees have power to inspect such documents and to take copies without making it a crime to refuse them. It is an employee's contractual duty to co-operate with his employer. This provision will sour attitudes already hardened by other provisions in the Bill. Co-operation of metropolitan county and GLC employees is not something for which legislation should be needed. Cooperation is a state of mind and is unlikely to be encouraged by draconian exploitation of the criminal law. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I would wish to oppose this amendment because I believe the Bill as it stands is necessary to protect those officers who are willing to allow access to documents but may well be instructed not to co-operate and not to allow access. I think in this way the Bill is helping those people.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend for a very succinct and apposite speech. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford—who is a very reasonable man—has seen some of the threats that have been uttered by the leaders of the campaign against abolition who are themselves in authority in the threatened bodies, as to what they will do to obstruct the Bill even if it becomes law, when it is an Act of Parliament. I do not think your Lordships would wish this House to pass an enactment against which threats had already been uttered to suggest that it would be made impossible to implement it without providing some guard against that happening and some penalty for those who openly sought to break the law.

I accept that it is sad that we have to do this. It is a sad day when the will of Parliament can be so openly flouted. But the day is here and we must have the measure to fit the day. The residuary bodies will therefore have an important and demanding job to do before abolition day in planning for the transition. For that task they will need to have access to information. From time to time they will need to go physically into the seven county halls—through the door and up the stairs, no doubt. This paragraph provides for right of access to the information within those county halls—and indeed anywhere else—and sub-paragraph (2) provides a necessary, if regrettable, underpinning for that right.

It is no light matter to provide for a new offence, but in this case it is necessary to make it clear that Parliament will brook no interference with the implementation of its decisions. It is necessary to ensure that anyone—whether an elected member or an officer—who tries deliberately to hold up a residuary body by denying it the access to information which it is legally entitled to have will run the risk of summary proceedings under this provision. Without it some might hope to get away, and some would hope to get away, with behaviour of this sort in the inevitable rush of activity in the run-up to abolition. I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to use the power, but if it was not there I think we should regret it. I am afraid I must oppose this amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I oppose the opposition to the amendment I am advancing! The Minister invites the House to consider two sets of circumstances. One is the will and authority of Parliament as against the will, authority and power of a local council over its employees. The Minister is inviting the House to agree that the will of Parliament shall prevail over the will of a locally-elected council.

That is a massive debate, and I do not think we would be very far apart if in fact we were to discuss which is the sovereign body. In the British constitution, written or otherwise, the supremacy of central government over local government is not in dispute; but what we have got is what is seen by many local councils—I am not talking about the officers but about the elected councillors, unlike Members of this House, for instance. If one is talking about draconian powers, there are powers in this Bill that we are seeking to remove where the Government are issuing threats to those who refuse to comply with the law. One can use words whichever way one likes, and if there is a law and it is broken, it is the duty of a government and the powers-that-be to say, "If you don't comply with the law, something nasty will happen to you." What has been said by local councillors to their officers is "If you do not comply with our wishes, our instructions, something nasty will happen to you." That is the relationship which this Government has introduced between themselves and local government. They have done it willingly. I certainly do not relish for a moment the dreadful dilemmas which this Bill has posed not merely for councillors but also for council officers. The Government have made it very difficult and have created a situation in which undoubtedly the atmosphere has been soured between local councillors and officers.

The last thing I am going to say, standing here on behalf of my party, is that there is no need, first, for a law, secondly, for the supremacy of central government and, thirdly, for sanctions that need to be applied. I am saying what the Minister has said in his final words: "I doubt very much whether this will ever need to be used." I myself would doubt very much whether this would ever need to be used, because of the relationships that have existed in good councils with their employees.

However, the night is advancing and there are other matters still to be debated. I will consult with my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford and I will read the report of our debate in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 82:

Page 151, line 24, at end insert— (" (ee) section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a minor one. It applies Section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work Act to the residuary bodies. It would permit enforcing authorities to release to the residuary bodies information acquired under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Section 28 restricts the circumstances in which such information can be released; in particular, information would only be released to residuary bodies for the purposes of the Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 82A: Page 152, line 8, after ("17") insert ("Without prejudice to paragraph 7A above,")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 82AA:

Page 152, line 25, at end insert— ("23. A residuary body shall be treated as a joint authority for the purposes of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide that members of the public are entitled to attend meetings of the residuary bodies to be established in each of the affected areas before the abolition date. Although a residuary body is a body whose members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, Schedule 12, particularly paragraphs 11 to 14, provides that it shall be treated as a local authority or principal authority under all enactments which, were it a local authority with the same duties and responsibilities, would govern its affairs.

Each residuary body will have a number of responsibilities, including the management of the existing pension funds, the disposal of property and assets and the re-allocation of debt. Of these functions, the re-allocation of debt is likely to involve decisions which are to some extent arbitrary but which will materially affect the interests of ratepayers in the various district councils.

But residuary bodies are also to be employers of staff and providers of services in their own right. indeed, the Government have tabled an amendment to Schedule 12, in substitution for Amendment No. 81C, which extends the role of residuary bodies by enabling them to enter into agency agreements with the successor authorities to provide technical or professional support services. This is, in fact, what we have been discussing already.

Despite the importance of the role of the residuary bodies, no specific provision is made in the Bill for their affairs to be conducted in public. This amendment, by defining them as joint authorities for the purpose of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, brings them within the provisions of Schedule 13, paragraph 37. It seeks to ensure that if they conduct their business in formal meetings then members of the public—and that would include members of the successor authorities—would be entitled to attend those meetings. I really cannot believe that the Minister has any objection to this extension of public observance of how we go about our affairs. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill we had a number of discussions about the nature of residuary bodies, and it must be clear to your Lordships that they are, in fact, a managerial team with a large number of responsibilities, most of them administrative, and I shall not describe them further. I should say that they are not to have powers to initiate policies and they are not to be permanent parts of the local government scene. We accept that they need to be accountable, and it is accountability that the noble Lord is after, particularly on financial matters. The Bill therefore imposes on them an audit regime which gives public access to their accounts. It requires them to produce an annual report, which my right honourable friend must lay before Parliament, including your Lordships' House, and the conduct of the bodies is within the purview of the Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman. That seems to represent an appropriate regime of accountability for bodies of this kind.

As I have just reminded your Lordships, there is a duty on all the bodies from which it is felt people should come, as opposed to the chap off the street, to co-operate with the body, anyway, so they will be meeting it. But for them to come to the formal sessions of the board as well seems to us to be quite inappropriate and unnecessary, since the public, through its representatives, will have direct access to the board anyway. All its economic and financial affairs will be both monitored and accounted for and open to public inspection by the noble Lord himself, and any misconduct will be appealable to the Ombudsman. I think the noble Lord should not impose upon them the necessity to have a crowded gallery breathing down their necks as well.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, the Minister and I are at one in understanding, first, that there is a function to perform rather than a policy to be determined. I can well understand that the business will be exceedingly dull. They may be very businesslike and efficient, but there may not be a great deal of meat in the matters that they are debating. They may not provide very many exciting discussions; but, as I pointed out, there are a number of matters of interest to groups of people, and certainly to ratepayers.

I have attended many council meetings, both on the floor and in the gallery, and there are not a great many people who are what one might call council gallery buffs—people who just go there for the sake of doing it. But there are some people who do go and it is always a salutary brake on the performance of the councillors for them to realise that, as distinct from a committee meeting, there are members of the public watching in a formal open meeting. After all, it is their locality that is being governed, albeit in strange circumstances, and I take the Minister's point that, as regards knowing what is going on and the relationships that exist between the existing councils and other bodies and the residuary bodies, there will be good liaison.

The Minister feels that this amendment is unnecessary. I certainly do not say that it is necessary, but I believe that it would be a valuable adjunct to our democratic process. But I see that the Minister is not prepared to accept it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 82AB, 82AC, 82AD and 82AE not moved.]

Clause 61 [Custody of residuary property etc.]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 82B: Page 44, line 20, after ("construed") insert ("(a)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82B, and with your Lordships' leave I shall speak to Amendment No. 82C with it. Amendment No. 82C: Page 44, line 22, after ("council") insert—("; or (b) as imposing any liability on a residuary body in respect of the termination of any such contract by the abolition of that council;")

These two related amendments are straightforward technical ones to clarify the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 61. This subsection will have the effect of preserving the GLC's and the MCC's rights and liabilities as employers arising from actions before abolition and of enabling those rights and liabilities to vest in the appropriate residuary body. This will enable any GLC or MCC employee made redundant by his employer before abolition to receive any redundancy payment or compensation to which he is entitled, but which his employer has not paid before abolition. It will also enable former GLC and MCC staff to obtain from the appropriate residuary body any arrears of pay outstanding at abolition.

The subsection preserves such rights and liabilities of the GLC and MCCs, irrespective of whether or not the individual employee remains in post right up to abolition. These amendments are intended to make clear that where staff remain right to the end, the subsection does not place on the residuary bodies any additional rights or liabilities arising from abolition. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 82C:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 82CA not moved.]

Clause 67 [Precepts]:

10.15 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 82CB: Page 49, line 18, leave out subsection (6).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must say that this is the first time that I have had anything to say on this Bill. Indeed, I have tried to avoid saying anything on the Bill. So many people have said so much that I have been loath to enter into the debates. Nevertheless, because my noble friend Lord Barnett is not able to be here tonight, I am taking his place. But let me state straight away that it is my belief that the Bill is certainly an unnecessary one, and it is a Bill which has been conceived not for the administrative good of local government, but rather out of political spite. I very much regret that, especially bearing in mind my own long and happy years of service in local government.

The Government's proposal is that the new joint authorities should not only be eligible for selective limitation of rates and precepts under the provision of the Rates Act 1984, but that they should also be deemed to have been designated for rate-capping, without going through the proper procedure, for the first three years after abolition. The amendment would not exclude the new authorities from rate-capping; it would merely put them in the same position as existing local authorities. What, may I ask, is wrong with that? Why should the new authorities be in any different a position?

Clause 67(6) provides for the new authorities to be automatically rate-capped from 1st April 1986 for a period of three years. This would be contrary to Section 2(2) of that Act which allows rate-capping only if expenditure is likely, to be excessive having regard to general economic conditions".

The current criteria for rate-capping involve comparison of an authority's expenditure with its Department of the Environment defined grant-related expenditure assessment and target. But the Secretary of State is not in a position to make a reasonable estimate of the likely—

Lord Elton

My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive a belated interruption for clarification? I heard him addressing himself to Clause 67. It may be that I have got in a muddle, but I thought his amendment was to leave out Clause 66. I am so sorry—we are on Amendment No. 82CB. I do apologise.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I hope that point is clarified. The noble Lord interrupted me in mid-sentence, but for his sake perhaps I may start again the point I was making.

The current criteria for rate-capping involve comparison of an authority's expenditure with its Department of the Environment defined grant-related expenditure assessment and target. But the Secretary of State is not in a position to make a reasonable estimate of the likely relationship between the expenditure GREA and target for a joint authority before that authority has been set up and has established itself. This is an abuse of the Rates Act powers because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said during the passage of the Act, authorities can only be selected for rate limitation if they are excessive spenders".—[Official Report, 9/4/84; col. 903.] At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Elton, argued that the joint authorities are at risk of developing into over-spenders both because all of them will be new authorities and because some of them will be inheriting a tradition of over-spending from their predecessors. The noble Lord claimed, as he will remember, that they could, result in administrative inflation". It is ironic that we should use such an argument when the whole purpose of abolition is said to be to eliminate waste and inefficiency.

Have the Government no confidence in their own proposed legislation? That is what the legislation is supposed to be about, and yet the noble Lord himself has no confidence in it. So far as "administrative inflation" is concerned, perhaps the noble Lord can explain why it has been necessary for the Home Office to advertise in the accountancy press for an accountant in the Inspectorate of Constabulary to be responsible to advise on police budgets for the new joint board. The Government are increasingly seeking to interfere at huge bureaucratic cost in the affairs of individual authorities of which they have little knowledge. Indeed, confirmation of this is to be found in a Government inter-departmental working party minute: The Home Office said that although they had sufficient knowledge for criticising budgets, they did not have the expertise to formulate them". That comes from the Home Office itself.

The creation and immediate designation of separate joint authorities means that local perceptions of relative priorities will be denied. Decisions of detail made by civil servants in the name of the Secretary of State about these local services would be an intolerable intrusion into local accountability.

I know from my own experience that the present Government have interfered to an intolerable extent in what should be local decision-making. Certainly in my own time in local authorities there was what we called a partnership between local government and central Government. We are increasingly seeing now excessive interference by central Government in decisions which should be made at local level. Indeed, we are reaching the point in local government where we are failing to attract the new recruits that we should be attracting. As far as elected representatives are concerned, this Government might just as well set up gauleiters to do their bidding in the various areas throughout the country.

These provisions will be severely detrimental to the local democratic management of the new authorities. There will be no incentive for able members to devote their energies to their joint board duties, to plan and make policies, because the budget will be set by the Secretary of State. One can only conclude that the reasons for seeking to introduce such draconian centralism is because the Secretary of State has no confidence in the new structure he is introducing to provide local services. Perhaps that is because the new authorities are not to be democratically accountable.

Lord Elton

My Lords, this amendment would exempt the new authorities from the proposed automatic control over their precepts for the first three financial years after abolition. Listening to what was said by the noble Lord in his clear and persuasive speech, I had a certain sense of déjà vu. The merits of the transitional precept controls were, after all, well aired in Committee. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—who, sadly, is not able to be here at this stage this evening—who accused me of getting angry. I hope that that was the only time anybody has felt that I had done that; although I may verge close to it, I hope that it has never showed through the surface. I do not intend to get angry tonight but, since I have referred to that earlier debate, perhaps I may take this opportunity to correct what, on re-reading the noble Lord's speech in Hansard, I realise may have been a misunderstanding about our proposals.

It is not the case, as the noble Lord seemed to be suggesting then, that these controls will be operated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is interested to hear that. The controls will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State already responsible for the relevant services. That is to say, in relation to the police authorities and the fire and civil defence authorities, it will be my right honourable friend the Home Secretary; in relation to the strategic transportation authorities, as they are now called, the Secretary of State for Transport; and in relation to the new ILEA, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

That is an important point and one on which I should want your Lordships to be clear, although it does not of course alter the concern of the noble Lord as to the principle of the controls being operated regardless of whom they are operated by, if that person is a Secretary of State.

I believe that your Lordships agree that the new authorities should be given a chance to prove themselves. I think that was at the back of what the noble Lord was saying. He felt that the aim of rate limitation under the Rates Act 1984 is to curb the extravagance of high-spending authorities; and that, indeed, it is. He would not, I think, have us believe that there is evidence that the new authorities will be extravagant and that therefore they ought not to be subject to these inappropriate controls from the outset. With respect, I think that that is to misconceive the purpose of the transitional controls.

Although the mechanism for the transitional controls is borrowed from the 1984 Act, the aim is quite different. It is, as the White Paper made clear, to ensure that the creation of the new authorities should not be used as an opportunity to set up extravagant and expensive new bureaucracies. It is to stop them developing high-spending characteristics and to ensure habits of good housekeeping from the beginning of their existence. The Government are determined to ensure the economic and efficient running of the new authorities. We believe that the transitional controls are essential for this purpose, and if that purpose is not achieved then abolition has of course failed in much of its purpose.

That anxiety on our part—and it is an anxiety that we have legislated for—is not merely something we have dreamt up on a dark night. It arises from our experience of earlier reorganisations in which there was the freedom of a blank slate to start on when the new bodies were set up. We believe that it is necessary to contain the inevitable pressures—one might say the inevitable momentum—towards a larger bureaucracy than necessary that appears to be built into most bureaucratic planning.

I believe the noble Lord was concerned about my various right honourable friends' freedom to set expenditure levels for individual new authorities other than on the basis of general principles applying to all the authorities with responsibility for the same services. If he is not, I will omit this as it is late at night, but if he wishes me to address that point I shall continue by saying that I believe that that concern is based on the same misconception about the purpose of the transitional controls.

In the case of selective limitation under the 1984 Act, there tends to be a similarity in the selected councils' financial circumstances which enables general principles to be applied and ensures both fairness and consistency of treatment. There will not be any such similarity in the case of the new authorities. Not all the MCCs are currently excessive overspenders. Nor is the pattern even between the services for which the new authorities will become responsible. Some MCCs spend very highly on some but not necessarily the same services as others, and not on others. Nor, as I explained in Committee, will all the joint authorities have the same range of functions. The strategic transportation authorities as, I repeat, we still have to call them—my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes pointed to one aspect of the infelicity of that name and I sympathise with her—in Merseyside and Tyne and Wear will, for instance, assume responsibility for the Mersey and Tyne tunnels, but the others do not have tunnels.

Some but not all of these transportation authorities may assume the MCCs' interests in an airport. The transitional controls must take account of those different responsibilities because some of them do not have an airport. No general principles could properly take account of these important differences. A requirement to base expenditure levels on common principles, while it ensures fairness and consistency in the context of selective limitation, would lead to unfairness and inconsistency if applied to the transitional controls. I know of course that that is the opposite of what your Lordships and the Government want.

I understand the concern that the noble Lord has expressed. I think that it is natural on comparing what is in this Bill and what is in that Act. But I hope that I have been able to reassure him as to the purposes and the circumstances which make the differences in the legislation necessary. I believe that the proposed transitional controls are essential to achieve the clear aims set out in the White Paper which I have again explained tonight. I am confident that in operating them my right honourable friends in all departments will act reasonably; nor need your Lordships rely solely on my confidence. There are adequate safeguards, including the involvement of Parliament, to ensure reasonableness, and I ask the noble Lord therefore not to press his amendment and your Lordships not to accept it if he does so.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply to the amendment and for clarifying the position in relation to the Secretary of State. I understood that it would not be simply the Secretary of State for the Environment who would be imposing his will but that it would be a bunch of people. But nevertheless they would be under the same instruction from the Cabinet that they must in their various departments rigorously impose rate capping on the new authorities. I think that we understood that, but I am not at all sure whether it helps. I do not know whether I should prefer to have one to deal with or a bunch of them. I think the new authorities may well find that their difficulties will be very much compounded by having to deal with a succession of Secretaries of State rather than with one.

The noble Lord said that the successor bodies were being set up to avoid extravagance by the local authorities. That is an assertion with which we would quarrel. I do not believe that the local authorities which are being abolished can in any way be accused of excessive extravagance. It is quite true that rates have gone up in those and many other authorities, but they have gone up for the main reason that the Government have slashed their rate support grant from 61 per cent. in 1979 to 48 per cent. in 1985. That is the real reason why the rates have gone up. The Government have been successful in blaming the local authorities for their own sins of withdrawing about £11,000 million of grant from local authorities.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. If he thinks that local authorities have not been extravagant and that they are so heavily rate capped, how does he account for the current statement being made at County Hall about the vast surpluses that the GLC has this year which it is quite unable to spend?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, since the noble Baroness is one of the guardians of the purse in the GLC she ought to be able to answer that question far better than I can. But rates generally have gone up in this country—and in the GLC—because the Government have, as I said, reduced their grant from 61 per cent. to 48 per cent. If the withdrawal to the tune of 13 per cent.—about £12,000 million in total—has not affected the level of local rates, what on earth has? Local government has been far more successful in containing its expenditure than central Government, as the noble Lord knows to his cost.

The noble Lord says that he does not want, and indeed that it is not intended, that the creation of the new authorities should lead to new and expensive bureaucracies. We entirely agree. That is what the Bill has been about. We agree that it may very well happen that new and more expensive bureaucracies could be created. It would have been very much better if the Government had not interfered with the existing system. It is late at night. We shall of course want to read what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 82CC, 82CD and 82CE not moved.]

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, we had hoped by this stage to have progressed slightly further down the Marshalled List. Unfortunately, that has proved to be totally impractical.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, may I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, might like to move Amendment No. 83 formally?

Schedule 13 [New authorities: application of local authority provisions]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 83: Page 155, line 6, after ("135") insert (", 136")

The noble Lord said: I am most grateful for that charming, courteous and unexpected kindness of the Opposition Chief Whip. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 83A:

Page 157, line 44, at end insert— ("(ac) schemes made under section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985;")

The noble Lord said: I am neither of the reverend or right reverend gentlemen, noble Lords, or Prelates—call them what you will—who have their names to this amendment. I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for whom I can substitute, although I am rather cleaner shaven—I certainly could not substitute for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—to propose what is essentially a probing amendment. It comes within the terms of amendments that occur from time to time attempting to open up local government in one form or another to the public. This amendment, I understand, deals with voluntary bodies. It is essentially a probing amendment. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could respond in those terms. Clearly we on these Benches like to keep local government as open as it can be. It seems to me that it should be extended to the bodies contained in Clause 48 of the Bill.

Lord Elton

My Lords, as your Lordships will, I believe, know (I had noticed that the noble Lord was neither reverend nor a right reverend gentleman, although charming and elegant, nonetheless) my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour is at present taking through the House the Local Government (Access to Information) Bill, as it were, on a parallel track.

This Bill makes provision for greater public access to local government meetings and papers. It is, I believe, generally supported in your Lordships' House. The provisions of the Bill would apply to principal councils, to committees and to sub-committees of such councils, and to joint committees and subcommittees appointed by more than one such council. It provides that meetings of such bodies shall be open to the public. It substitutes for the general discretion in the 1960 Act to exclude the public where publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest a discretion to do so only in one of a number of expressly defined circumstances. One of these is where there would be disclosure of information relating to any particular applicant for, or recipient or former recipient of, financial assistance provided by the local authority.

Under the Local Government (Access to Information) Bill, if, as we expect, it becomes law, and if it becomes law as it stands in this respect, council or committee meetings at which grants are being discussed would have to be open to the public unless the meeting resolved that the public should be excluded where there was discussion of information relating to particular applications. It is right, I believe, that the collective grant-giving scheme should be covered by the same principles. It seems to me t hat this gives everything for which the noble Lord asks. I hope that in the light of the explanation he will withdraw the amendment and indeed lend his support to my noble friend's Bill.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I am sure that both my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate will also be obliged to him. Certainly we shall be lending our support to the Bill on its passage through this House. As I say, it is a matter on which we feel very strongly and it has our support. I find it difficult to continue any longer in the knowledge that all my questions have been answered and that tomorrow is the longest day. I only hope it does not turn out to be a longer day than it has been today. I thank the noble Lord for that answer, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 84:

Page 160, line 10, at end insert— ("51A. For subsection (6) of section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 there shall be substituted— (6) References in subsections (3) and (5) above to a local authority include the Inner London Education Authority and a joint authority established by Part IV of the Local Government Act 1985.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move Amendment No. 84. Your Lordships may recall that in the last half hour we have passed Amendment No. 82, which applied Section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to the residuary bodies. This amendment does exactly the same thing in respect of the new ILEA, which is set up under this Bill. Therefore, I have no doubt that your Lordships will also agree to it. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, it seems an eminently sensible extension of provisions which quite clearly were designed by Parliament and by Government to protect workers and public servants. When the Minister says that this is extended to the new ILEA, can he tell us precisely what we are talking about? Does it involve all the ramifications of the ILEA structure, the teachers who are employed by them, or the administrators? Can the Minister tell us a little more about what it is, and about the powers and the responsibilities that have been extended? Is this a gift from the Government, or does it place any responsibilities upon the ILEA? As the Minister is aware, the future of the ILEA has been a sensitive topic in this place and outside, and I should not want to find later that something which appears to me on the surface to be welcome but about which I have no knowledge places some onerous duty upon the ILEA that it may not welcome. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter a little.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was in the Chamber when I spoke to Amendment No. 82, applying exactly the same point to the residuary bodies. This amendment does for the ILEA what that amendment did for the residuary bodies. So it would permit enforcing authorities to release information acquired under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Section 28 restricts the circumstances under which information can be released. In particular, information would only be released for the purposes of the Act.

It has been asked outside this Chamber how the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act generally will apply to the ILEA. I think perhaps this was the point behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act places duties on all employers, employees and those in charge of buildings to take measures to ensure health and safety. These duties will therefore apply to the ILEA and its employees without the need to say anything in this particular Bill.

This is not to say that this amendment gives ILEA local authority powers per se. The amendment does not confer any powers or functions. However, it allows other bodies to let the ILEA have information they need for operational reasons—information which the GLC can be given at the moment. In other words, I should explain that this amendment makes no change to the existing law but applies the existing law into the future, which I think is what the whole House would want it to do.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, in the last few words of the noble Lord's remarks it all became clear to me, but the noble Lord had to go through the first part to get to the better second part. This will give power to people who have information to pass that information to ILEA. ILEA then becomes embraced in the information receiving body and an authority which, on receipt of information, is then able to carry out what ought to be the responsibility of every responsible employer, which is to make sure that the premises, the equipment and the operation of the equipment, etc., are covered by an important Act.

The Minister is aware that in many other quite remarkable areas—and I heard someone behind me mention the Palace of Westminster—one finds by default that there are injuries and damage done to the health, safety and welfare of those who work in, and use, the place innocently. To the extent that the Government have made sure that the premises of ILEA and the offices of ILEA, and the officers of ILEA, are covered by this important Act, we on this side of the House are very pleased indeed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Denham

My Lords, we have now reached the point in the Bill to which we agreed to go tonight. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

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